Comments on: Senator Obama, Debate This

By: workingclass artist

workingclass artist — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:35:21 +0000

When the head of the NAACP in Philadelphia says that OBAMESSIAH is not a real heir to MLK’s I have a dream speech…..Well you got a problem.
I think she’s goin to surprise the lil’ prince in Philly. I know she’ll win in PA.

By: Uppity

Uppity — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:54:39 +0000

It’s Mussolini au gratin

ROFL.

By: bama_barrron

bama_barrron — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:49:02 +0000

mcpeak is a neighbor of mine … his wife does a so-so job on the city council but the less said about him … is much better.

most of the retired military that i know think mcpeak was and is a joke.

By: Kourian

Kourian — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:13:28 +0000

we’ll get out as carefully as we went in carelessly

Haha. Axelrøve’s entire strategy is to not let the candidate get bogged down by details or any sort of policy promises. Axelrøve says himself campaigns are not about policies anymore. They’re personality cults and the candidates must try to appeal to as wide a demographic as possible. Mostly by saying different things to different groups.

It’s Mussolini au gratin.

By: simon, too

simon, too — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:24:35 +0000

OTOH, I feel Clinton can grasp the enormity of what needs to be done, the complexity, and will be able to rebuild.

She will be tested tremendously, but she has strength of will, and intellect, to prevail.

And as far as I know, she hasn’t made any true powerful enemies, unlike Obama.

By: simon, too

simon, too — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:21:38 +0000

I dont see it as lost, there are many other avenues by which one can maintain a presence, a strong presence, remember it’s economic, and political, too, not just military.

Again, one of the best suggestions I have read involved allowing Richard Holbrooke to set up a shuttle like diplomacy between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, for starters.

But we’ve had so many GOOFS in Washington as of late, Bush, Cheney and now Obama, the ultimate goof.

McCain will try to leverage the image of power, but he may be seen as an empty suit, simply because the rhetoric doesn’t match the available power, or the actions. Republicans, after the neocon fest, are seen as morons, the dumbest things going, internationally. US military power, the way it has been gamed, by Cheney, singularly, can be drained, and beat. Iraq has shown that. The nature of warfare changed about 60 years ago, but someone forgot to tell the neocons. If McCain can’t rebuild the US economically, militarily, and politically, the US loses, and I doubt his abilities, simply from what I have seen of his campaign.

And I’m very concerned about his temper.

By: simon, too

simon, too — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:08:17 +0000

And Clark was successful in Bosnia, really, the first American commander to stabilize terrorist induced chaos, not easy, given what we’re seeing now.

Obama’s military support seems to be made up of morons, the guys we’re glad are out of the Pentagon, those who LOSE wars.

Obama’s posers are those stupid generals who think the army is the same as IBM middle management, no more required than showing up, no proof of competency needed but respect MUST be accorded, because, well, they’re flag officers, soldiers, even if they’re supporting a man with terrorist ties. What’s the military term for that? Traitor? Senile? Kook? Drunk?

Did his guys ever see serious, sustained battle, like the soldiers in Iraq? What about Farrakhan, Qaddafi, and Lockerbie?

Look at McPeak.

A lot of resources are going into sustaining Obama’s campaign, he’s draining everyone, and he’s supposed to be the leader, here.

Usually that’s a clue you’re losing, whether it’s Iraq, or Obama.

Not every flag officer is admirable, or even capable.

Clinton is creating energy, you know?

By: bama_barrron

bama_barrron — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:53:25 +0000

i think it should also be noted that hillary’s foreign service and military advisors are much more experienced and credible then the team obama has gathered. hillary can reach out and immediately task people like general wesley clark … obama, on the other hand, doesnt have the respect of the good general.

By: deke

deke — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:06:33 +0000

To me this shows that Obama is just another sellout to the corporations politician. If anyone with any knowledge of Iraq and the military knows the private contractors are a big reason why our soldiers are getting shot at. They go into villages and shoot people then they get into trouble call the military and our brave soldiers and reservists have to go in and save their asses and then get drawn into a fire fight trying to save them.
In blackwater and other contractors efforts to make money they send unarmed or lightly armed convoys up from Kuwait run into trouble call the military and again get involved in a fire fight. There is a great deal of resentment in the military of these people because of the amount of money they are making.
I think it is irresponsible for Obama to take that position. If the contractors are left behind all hell will brake out when the military leaves and the military will have to come back again to save their ass.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:52:07 +0000

Great Post anna shane.

Once again Obama misses out on an opportunity to highlight his understanding of the US Constitution.

He called Hillary Clinton’s call for the repeal of the AUMF “convoluted”.

The fact BO has zero creds on military affiars and combined with the fact that Aiham Alsammarae was “freed” from a green zone jail by Blackwater and flown to the US by Blackwater, after an appeal to Durbin and Obama by his son and daughter, It is no wonder he won’t address the issue.
Blackwater has a facility in Illinois.

By: TeakWoodKite

TeakWoodKite — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:33:33 +0000

after watching an interview on Democracy Now, makes you wonder why Jeremy Scahill is in the bag for BO.

By: anna shane

anna shane — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:59:04 +0000

I think he looks worse on this than an empty suit. He’s fully capable of answering her plan with his plan and defending why he wants Bush’s contractors and private armies to stay, and why he thinks we’ll need 60 to 80K of our own soldiers for many years. I know the economy is a big problem, huge, and her economic plans look better than his, but I don’t know why he can’t defend his half-hearted exit plan. Makes me wonder if he has any clue about the Iraqi people, not whether they’re sunni or shia, that’s a grade school question, but about their history of honor and the cultural acceptance of revenge killings and acceptance of violence, which will prohibit many men from giving up until they push out the occupiers. Does he really think we can keep spoils of war? I think in legal terms that’s called fruit of the diseased vine? We need to allow their own citizens to harvest their own fruit in whatever way they like, not just because we have no business messing in their internal affairs, but also because it’ll keep bleeding our military and our treasury. You can’t to a half-way exit, it’s an all exit if we want it to work. Can’t have this one two ways.

By: bambi's brother

bambi's brother — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:50:42 +0000

well, that would be truly amazing, if this were covered in the media and our talking heads talked about their Iraq exit differences, instead of parroting the Obama point that they’re ‘virtually’ the same. The devil is in the details, but this hardly seems like a cosmetic difference, it’s more than half of who needs exiting.

By: Janis

Janis — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:36:05 +0000

It’s a deep thirst, and it’s entirely reasonable. It’s a goddamned tragedy that Obama isn’t capable of measuring up to the hopes he’s prompted in the people around him.

By: anna shane

anna shane — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:32:39 +0000

this is her plan. If the Iraqis get their act together, we’re leaving, if Iraq gets more violent, it’s her plan. this is exactly what she’ll do and all the diplomacy is dependent on us not keeping spoils of war or non-military American personnel, and leaving regardless of what happens inside Iraq after we leave. She’s willing to lose the war although of course she says it’s lost already and she’s merely recognizing the reality. That’s way new in an American president and makes her the change candidate, the no-ego candidate, the one who is prepared to be hated by those who think we should stay a hundred years, if that’s what it takes. If you don’t believe it, it’s because you don’t want to think she’s that ethical, that straight with us, and that bold, when no one else is. What a shame.

By: anna shane

anna shane — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:27:13 +0000

that’s not racism, it’s okay to vote for a favorite son, and it would be great to have someone of color in the white house. It’ll also be great to have a woman in the white house. The point however is which one has the human resources to fix the bush mess as much as humanly possible. The has an exit plan far more direct and bold than anything anyone else has. How’s that not the change we all want? Admit defeat, get out without any more loss? And of course the universal health care and the universal pre-school, and free post high school college or job training? And her very detailed and expertly staffed environmental plans? She has a great foreign policy team of advisors who’ll be her future staff, and he says he knows enough about foreign policy and doesn’t need someone who knows more than he knows? And that’s not his fundamental dishonesty in not telling the voters about his controversial pastor, he told us about his cocaine use, why did he keep his pastor secret? But whoever her oppenent turned out to be, she’s the best candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime (I was born in 1946).

By: anna shane

anna shane — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:19:21 +0000

would that he would? this information is hardly new, it’s been diaried at kos, and months ago. By me. I can’t understand why this isn’t talked about more, his supporters never comment on his strange exit plan that excludes most of the exiting part. I’ve thought, maybe he has friends among Bush’s contractors? Or he thinks he’ll keep something in reserve to ‘influence’ the Iraqi government to do more? I really wonder if he thinks his great sense of empathy (that I have yet to see) will turn the disaster into a miraculous win, which would border on delusional? Or if he’s like a lot of guys and doesn’t want to have a real loss on his beat and so he would need to find out for himself if it’s well and truly lost? And cost us more lives and treasurer. Her plan isn’t new at all, it’s been there from the first, what is new is that he hasn’t copied her, and one must wonder, why? What does he think he could accomplish that no other occupier of Iraq before him has accomplished? There is something worse than an empty suit.

By: simon, too

simon, too — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:18:39 +0000

No one in the current field will get the US out of Iraq

We simply are not in a position to call this, now.

But to naysay it out of the box, without understanding ALL the parameters is assumptive.

I would say as messed up as things are, right now, with the astroturf boys, and such, don’t forget how brilliant Bill Clinton’s administration could be, at times.

Meaning there is most likely a way, but the right President has to see it.

By: simon, too

simon, too — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:14:00 +0000

It’s almost a relief to have a President that understands, and can enact, policy.

WTH would anyone want to vote for Obama, the idiot, after eight years of Bush, and Cheney?

By: quarterhorse

quarterhorse — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:10:03 +0000

check this out my friends……jeffhead.com i sent it to foxnews and sean hannity. i tried to send it to abc but they spammed it. i will try to send it the stupid dnc, but they probably wont accept it either….the truth marches on !