If you have been paying attention you will have noticed that Barack Obama is rapidly catching up to Hillary as the preferred candidate for the 2008 Presidential campaign among Democrats.
Democratic Presidential Primary Contenders
Feb. 22 Feb. 8 Feb. 3
Clinton 37% 28% 34%
Obama 26% 23% 18%
The latest polls show Hillary remaining fairly stable and Obama climbing 8% during the month of February.
Apart from all the Rhetoric about him being African American and her being a woman, there is a very solid reason for this trend that I suspect will continue. Very few people know Obama other than through a few sound bites on the news. However, as people hear the message and the clear political differences between the two, they are flocking towards Obama. Hillary appears to be either trying to out-republican the Republicans or she really is a right winger at heart. She refuses to admit that her vote for the authorization of the use of force for Iraq was a mistake and she continues to take positions that are clearly imperialistic in nature.
Obama's campaign kick off in the town where Lincoln gave his famous "House Divided" speech against slavery was no accident. He often speaks of Lincoln and if you listen to his message it is remarkably similar. Obama compared himself to Lincoln stating:
"In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this, he reminded me not just of my own struggles."
Hillary better hope that this campaign is not about issues and the true positions of the candidates on the problems facing working class America. If it is she doesn't stand a chance against Obama. However, if she can count on her financiers and the mainstream Democratic machine then she has a great chance. I perceive that we are seeing the difference between politics as usual and man who would ultimately turn the old school political process on its head.
I believe that Obama's politics are comparable to the views of Lincoln and JFK while Hillary's are probably comparable LBJ. My view is, it's time for America to change directions.
OBAMA '08
Monday, March 05, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Pentagon Revolts
Several recent articles have made it clear that the Pentagon has come to the end of its patience with the Bush Fascists warmongers. A number of high ranking Generals have said that if President Bush gives the order to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran they will resign rather than carry it out. This announcement is as close to a military Coup as we generally get in this country. When a number of retired Generals revolted against Don Rumsfeld last year it was pretty obvious that this message was coming from both the retired and current Generals. The retired generals were simply carrying the message for those who weren't in a position to say it at that time.
It is absolutely amazing to me that as absurd as the Bush Administration's foreign policies are there are still people drinking the kool aid. The military has revolted, worldwide surveys show that the US is seen as a threat to world peace, and now the Russians are threatening World War III if we attack Iran. What does it take to convince some people that there are actually other countries with other interests in the world besides the US.
Russians Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently remarked:
"An escalation of the conflict and its spillover into Iraq will inevitably entail catastrophic consequences, not only for the Middle East," he said. "I think Washington understands this."
I think the Pentagon saw this warning, as would any group of sane people, as an inference that the Russians have had enough and intend to either directly or indirectly enter the fray should we attack Iran. They have already began arming Iran and it would be simple and effective for them to provide satellite assistance for missile targeting of US ships and positions. It is certainly possible that the Russians would see an attack on Iran as an effort by the US to monopolize the oil producing countries and control world oil supplies. This may be enough of a threat that they would consider an outright attack on US military bases and hardware in the Region. This would be disastrous for the US military and the losses would be unfathomable. Since the Russians have an equal nuclear arsenal to the United States, we would have no way other than conventional means to fight back against the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians. For anyone who is not familiar with the Russian's military technology, take my word for it, they have surpassed the US in some areas and are more than up to the challenge. Particularly since we would be in their backyard and did I mention surrounded?
Time to listen to the military leaders and not the Psychopathic fascist in the Oval Office.
I guess the only thing left is to hear the right wing Bush crazies accuse the Generals of being anti American traitors.
It is absolutely amazing to me that as absurd as the Bush Administration's foreign policies are there are still people drinking the kool aid. The military has revolted, worldwide surveys show that the US is seen as a threat to world peace, and now the Russians are threatening World War III if we attack Iran. What does it take to convince some people that there are actually other countries with other interests in the world besides the US.
Russians Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently remarked:
"An escalation of the conflict and its spillover into Iraq will inevitably entail catastrophic consequences, not only for the Middle East," he said. "I think Washington understands this."
I think the Pentagon saw this warning, as would any group of sane people, as an inference that the Russians have had enough and intend to either directly or indirectly enter the fray should we attack Iran. They have already began arming Iran and it would be simple and effective for them to provide satellite assistance for missile targeting of US ships and positions. It is certainly possible that the Russians would see an attack on Iran as an effort by the US to monopolize the oil producing countries and control world oil supplies. This may be enough of a threat that they would consider an outright attack on US military bases and hardware in the Region. This would be disastrous for the US military and the losses would be unfathomable. Since the Russians have an equal nuclear arsenal to the United States, we would have no way other than conventional means to fight back against the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians. For anyone who is not familiar with the Russian's military technology, take my word for it, they have surpassed the US in some areas and are more than up to the challenge. Particularly since we would be in their backyard and did I mention surrounded?
Time to listen to the military leaders and not the Psychopathic fascist in the Oval Office.
I guess the only thing left is to hear the right wing Bush crazies accuse the Generals of being anti American traitors.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Fight 'em over there, So we won't have to fight 'em here.
Setting aside the obvious absurdity of that statement , the argument itself is so completely immoral that no sane person should make it. Let me make an appropriate analogy to demonstrate my point:
You have an enemy with whom you seek to settle a score through violent means. Rather than fight the enemy at your house and risk damage to your property or injury and death to your family and neighbors, you invite the enemy meet you at another neighborhood several miles away. You contact the people in the neighborhood of choice and tell them that you are coming to improve their neighborhood, bring jobs, and improve their lives. You then meet the enemy at the other neighborhood where you engage him in a prolonged violent battle. The battle destroys the neighborhood and many of its inhabitants are killed, maimed, or uprooted in the violence. Unemployment rises to near 70% after you turn it into a war torn wasteland. When the people in your home area begin to feel guilty for the horrors you are creating in the other area you tell them "hey guys, wouldn't you rather destroy their property, uproot them from their homes, and kill and maim their families than ours? I lied to them and told them we were coming to make their lives better, however my plan was to could draw the enemy into their neighborhhood and turn it into a violent battleground. Better them than us right?"
"
Politicians and pundits use this argument, but no one using it ever discusses why we have never used it as an explanation to the Iraqis to explain their dire circumstances. If it is such a reasonable and moral argument, we should share it with the world. We should make the argument with the UN and the European union. But those using it know that it is morally corrupt and that only the ignorant and immoral in America will embrace it.
Meanwhile, Doug Feith, another neocon moron, is being exposed for his part in the international crime that is Iraq.
You have an enemy with whom you seek to settle a score through violent means. Rather than fight the enemy at your house and risk damage to your property or injury and death to your family and neighbors, you invite the enemy meet you at another neighborhood several miles away. You contact the people in the neighborhood of choice and tell them that you are coming to improve their neighborhood, bring jobs, and improve their lives. You then meet the enemy at the other neighborhood where you engage him in a prolonged violent battle. The battle destroys the neighborhood and many of its inhabitants are killed, maimed, or uprooted in the violence. Unemployment rises to near 70% after you turn it into a war torn wasteland. When the people in your home area begin to feel guilty for the horrors you are creating in the other area you tell them "hey guys, wouldn't you rather destroy their property, uproot them from their homes, and kill and maim their families than ours? I lied to them and told them we were coming to make their lives better, however my plan was to could draw the enemy into their neighborhhood and turn it into a violent battleground. Better them than us right?"
"
Politicians and pundits use this argument, but no one using it ever discusses why we have never used it as an explanation to the Iraqis to explain their dire circumstances. If it is such a reasonable and moral argument, we should share it with the world. We should make the argument with the UN and the European union. But those using it know that it is morally corrupt and that only the ignorant and immoral in America will embrace it.
Meanwhile, Doug Feith, another neocon moron, is being exposed for his part in the international crime that is Iraq.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
McCain Has Exactly Zero Chance of Getting to the White House
Let me be the first to say this, John McCain has no chance of being elected President. Not only does he support the President's plan to increase troops, he has supported an even greater increase and has been arguing for it for months. His hawkish views may get him through the Republican primaries, but they will surely get him crushed when he faces the ire of the war weary independents and democrats. The recent mid term defeats for the Republican party should have clearly sent the message that pro-war candidates are skating on thin ice.
It looks to me like the far right's extreme positions are damning their eventual candidate to a painful defeat. In order to appease the far right and win the primaries, the Republican candidates will be forced to embrace the very positions that will alienate them from the mainstream electorate. The Democrats will likely be in the same position they were in during the mid term elections. Simply stand aside and remind the voters that they aren't Republicans. The Republicans will take care of the rest. Furthermore the Iraq war will be much more unpopular by then that it is now. Reminding the public of his hawkish positions will spell doom for McCain. By the time the general election gets here, any one of the Democratic candidates will be able to beat this clown.
It looks to me like the far right's extreme positions are damning their eventual candidate to a painful defeat. In order to appease the far right and win the primaries, the Republican candidates will be forced to embrace the very positions that will alienate them from the mainstream electorate. The Democrats will likely be in the same position they were in during the mid term elections. Simply stand aside and remind the voters that they aren't Republicans. The Republicans will take care of the rest. Furthermore the Iraq war will be much more unpopular by then that it is now. Reminding the public of his hawkish positions will spell doom for McCain. By the time the general election gets here, any one of the Democratic candidates will be able to beat this clown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
