I can not join you in making fun of Obama and his supporters.

[Ninga]

Visionaries are often unappreciated. I believe Obama is a visionary, and is chastised by those who do not agree with his vision who in turn, demonise him and his supporters in the process.

Everyone knows the story of Christopher Columbus...sort of.

It took 300 years, and American author Washington Irving, to give credit to Columbus for his vision and belief that the world was not flat.

Columbus had a major competitor, Americas Vespucci, who was another explorer like Columbus. But it was Columbus who forged the way, ignoring the jokes and the criticism by his fellow explorers, and was proved to be right. Columbus was an under appreciated visionary, and did not live to see his accomplishments acknowledged.

In my view, Obama is a visionary, who has a view of the world that is needed right now.

Obama may not be as brilliant as Sen. Clinton, but he has enough experience along with wisdom and understanding to be a bridge and a willow, qualities which I do not see Sen. Clinton display.

In my view, the people who have devoted their time, commitment, name and credentials to be his advisor's, are people who have first hand knowledge of his qualities.

The people who are his top advisor's can not be considered to be stupid, shallow, misguided, or ignorant.

If Obama were a shallow, hollow man, with no substance at all, why would anyone with any self respect and concern for their reputation, agree to support and help in this effort?


Food for thought, for those who are hungry.

[raincity_calling]

1. I agree. I think both Obama and Clinton have

things to offer. There are trade offs with both candidates. I still think Edwards was the best.

I think Obama is weak in areas but the trade off is his vision, a vision that is embraced by a diverse group of supporters. This shared vision is breaking through the apathy that is destroying this country. This is where his potential to bring about change is created.

I refuse to be baited by hate mongers on both sides. I personally feel this election is being manipulated by both seen and unseen forces within the right-wing. Rush Limbaugh is now preying on the anger and division within the ranks, and advocating violence at the Dem's convention. I think this election is being sabatoged in a variety of ways, not unlike black op tactics used in other countries.

I wish the Hillary and Obama supporters, and those that refuse to support either, who continue to spew hate would just stop it, and set a positive example of what liberals and Democrats stand for instead of falling into the trap of divisive politics. If we lose this election, I will blame the hate mongering supporters as much as the hate mongering right-wing press.

[Ninga]

2. We have so much to learn as a people and a country. In world order, the USA is a teenager.

We don't know where to go with this election, because we haven't been here before....a woman....a person with color.


It takes strength to not be baited by hate mongers. I admire that ability. You are correct, the right wing manipulates...because they can....and because voters respond.


I just get sad and depressed reading all of the professed experts in human behavior who assert such hurtful and wrong labels on both candidates.


If we lose, we are to blame, they are to blame.....it is just a mess.

[chimpymustgo]

31. Excuse me. This is the Edwards forum. Take your proselytizing to GDP or the Obama forum.

Thanks.

[saracat]

3. I do not want to engage in this battle in this forum.I will just say

that while neither candidate is as credible as John Edwards , I see many reasons, including the various insults to whites , retired , working people and others that Obama has made that prove heis not some kind of "visionary" ,except for maybe himself.And those people who his top advisors are paid to be so either in money or the prospect of influence.That is the nature of politics.

There is not a single instance where Sen. Obama has shown himself in terms of effort or accomplishement to be anything other than a run of the mill pol. To endow him with other qualities he doesn't possess on the basis of rhetoric is disingenuous.

[raincity_calling]

4. My primary point

is, at this point in time, we have what we have. And unless we want another 4-8 years of right-wing extremism, then we all need to quit the hate speech regardless of which candidate we support and focus on McCain instead of ourselves and Hillary and Obama. Otherwise, the right-wing wins again.

[saracat]

5. Well, if Obama is the nominee, running against McCain, the difference, according to my research

would be marginal.The RW "wins" in either case. We lost effectively when the PTB eliminated Edwards.And it is now clear they did it to benefit Obama.Just my opinion.

[raincity_calling]

9. Yes I agree with you on this point.

I was very angry at the time. I still am, but once again, I have to be pragamatic. I will vote for either Hillary or Obama. I choose not to denounce either one.

[Ninga]

7. I am so sad and so afraid that we are far more divided than I first thought. I was in Selma during

the march, and at a distance saw the dogs held by the law, and then their fire hoses turned on the people.

But that was nothing like the verbal fire hoses people are using on each other now.

[chimpymustgo]

32. You're comparing the fire hoses turned on non-violent marchers for freedom with some verbal spats

in a political campaign? Have you lost all sense of proportion?

[Ninga]

35. It's a metaphor, not a comparison. n/t

[spooky3]

42. you mean like some of threads you have started on GD: P? Give me a break.

[Ninga]

6. Your opinion is a perfect example of how people hear and

see differently from each other. We are very different in our perspectives.


By the way, each candidate has a paid staff, but advisor's are not included. Advisor's typically are notable people with credentials and world wide experience, that runs very deep and wide. Even Richard Clarke, does not need the money or influence or to even be involved, if he thought for one moment, Obama was a run of the mill, pol.

[balantz]

8. What is Brezinski's motive for advising Obama I wonder?

edit for mispell

[raincity_calling]

10. Yes, that has always concerned me. However there are

advisors in both camps that concern me, but they still concern me less than another 4-8 years of control by Republicans. As always, it is the lesser of two evils. There is no way that Hillary or Obama will be worse or equivalent to McCain.

[balantz]

11. I have to hope you are correct in your estimation because I certainly

won't be voting for the GOP puppet. I will vote for whichever one is standing for the Democratic Party when the voting day comes. What other choice do I have? Nader? I don't want to throw my vote away. But then, there are those machines that our Congress and Courts haven't gotten rid of yet...

But the place I have come to is one of dismay that the corporate-elite have long been running the show and the Democratic Party is no longer some noble institution of and for the people, but has become a left wing of a government that even the best representatives are powerless to rescue because the number of "the real ones" is so very small. I think both Clinton and Obama are the last ones standing because they are "allowed" by the powers that be. And this manufactured saintliness of Obama? PLEASE, don't insult me (not you personally). It is a rallying ploy and a cover for the real agenda behind the phenomenon. Perhaps it is not an "evil" agenda, or one with bad intentions (unless it is all completely controlled by the fascists), but it is not a true picture of the man or the Party. It is in part an illusion. The real Democratic Party has for the most part died.

Just my 2 cents

[raincity_calling]

12. I agree. I know I don't consider Obama saintly and I don't think

Ninga presented that view either. I am nervous as hell about Obama and Clinton. I just want to get on with the show and take on McCain. This prolonged primary is benefitting McCain and that sickens me.

What do you think is the real agenda behind the "rallying ploy." And what rallying ploy are you talking about?

The real Democratic Party is not dead, because we are the real Democratic Party. We just need to revive it by taking it back, step by step. It is a slow and tedious process, but it can be done if we unite. I always gain inspiration from the people of some of the Latin American countries who refuse to be apathetic and believe in the power of the people.

[balantz]

13. Obama has the charisma to attract a lot of votes. That would be the rallying ploy.

He is backed by a lot of powerful Democrats who helped get him to where he is. Part of what Obama is is manufactured. He is not some enlightened savior of the people, but that is what is in part being sold, or at least allowed to continue so as to gather a lot of support. Great marketing.

As long as the Democratic Party is manipulated by big money interests, the corporate elite who answer to no-one, then the Party is dead to us. Do you believe that Obama will save us from that reality? Edwards was willing to tackle that, it was one of my main reasons for supporting him enthusiastically. But he was not allowed to get to this point. Clinton and Obama were. They didn't get here on their own merits alone. The corporate media for one has helped put them where they are. The corporate media certainly didn't help Edwards, did they?

P.S. I edited my above post. I didn't think you and Ninga personally said Obama was saintly.

[raincity_calling]

16. I know that Edwards was shut out, but I still

am baffled as to why so many informed Democrats, who watched the "debates" and keep up on the news, did not embrace Edwards. All my more liberal friends agree with the basic premise that corporations have too much control over politics, that the system is corrupt, that Edwards platform was the most progressive, yet they did not embrace him. I still don't understand it.

[balantz]

17. I wish I knew.

The influence of the media runs deeper than we are fully conscious of. The number of times something is said or not said, shown or not shown clicks in our little mammalian brains. You can bet this stuff is researched and employed. They have become adept at selling us products, since the time we are born. And then, the great orator was there to choose from. The new guy with a different, fresh face and a good, uplifting cry (to some) for unity and hope and stuff like that. You certainly know of him? He came in first in Iowa. And then Clinton, and wasn't there another guy in third place? Oh yeah, I got that backwards, silly me!

[flyarm]

38. did you ever think the steal was in in Iowa for Obama with the caucus?

Dean and Obama knew Obama had to take the first caucus in Iowa..to legitimise Obama..and steal the thunder from Edwards..snd that is exactly what happened!

[balantz]

39. Edwards is too radical for Dean and company.

The ones who are able to operate in government know what they have to do to keep their positions. They have given in to the system and play their politics and make the necessary maneuvers by the rules of the game masters. Edwards had to be stopped because he was in there in his Senate tour and got a taste of the game and its corrupt ways. He was going to clean house and they had to stop him. Even if it meant dirty tricks, like whatever things went down in Iowa.

[Ninga]

14. Visionary stand on it's own merit. Saintliness is not equal to visionary. Some would say

the pope is saintliness like. Was there a real life person that actually said Sen. Obama was a saint? My goodness, that person would be delusional in my opinion.

And as far as Brezinski goes. I will spend some time researching and get back to you with a link.

People change. The name sake of this forum changed, and we stood by him.

There is no real Democratic Party, just as there is no real school or real church.

It is the people who are the institutions, not the other way around. Without the people no church, no school no Party.

[balantz]

15. Those are good thoughts.

Power to the people!

[raincity_calling]

18. I like your frame.

"It is the people who are the institutions, not the other way around. Without the people no church, no school no Party."

[cornermouse]

20. A lot of people consider George Bush to be a visionary.

Under the circumstances, you'll have to pardon me for not getting excited about the prospect of having another visionary running for President. Fact is, given Dubya's record, I'm tempted to run away shrieking in horror.

I want solid policies with (hopefully) a record of success, not visions. I don't think Hillary is wonderful but contrary to what Obama has apparently said, I have rather pleasant memories of financial well-being and wonderful memories of not being at war with the world during Bill's terms. I'm not so naive that I think Hillary is going to restore Bill's policies. She's a strong person and no doubt has her own ideas about how to run things. That said, if Edwards or Gore or Clark was introduced at the convention as an alternative I'd leap at the chance to have any of them rather the choices we're being forced to make.

[Ninga]

34. Z. Brzezinski and more. Please read.

It is from "Foreign Policy in Focus - a Think Tank without wall) www.fpif.org Feb. 4, 2008

Iraq as Key Indicator

Perhaps the most important difference between the two foreign policy teams concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama’s supporters have emphasized that their candidate had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

As a result, it may be significant that Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband’s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush’s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion.

Pre-War Positions

During the lead-up to the war, Obama’s advisors were suspicious of the Bush administration’s claims that Iraq somehow threatened U.S. national security to the extent that it required a U.S. invasion and occupation of that country. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor in the Carter administration, argued that public support for war “should not be generated by fear-mongering or demagogy.”

By contrast, Clinton’s top advisor and her likely pick for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained “a clear and present danger at all times.”

Brzezinski warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the United States as an illegitimate an act of aggression. Noting that it would also threaten America’s leadership, Brzezinski said that “without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in serious jeopardy.” Holbrooke, rejecting the broad international legal consensus against offensive wars, insisted that it was perfectly legitimate for the United States to invade Iraq and that the European governments and anti-war demonstrators who objected “undoubtedly encouraged” Saddam Hussein.

Another key Obama advisor, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment, argued that the goal of containing the potential threat from Iraq had been achieved, noting that “Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression. Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in WMD capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.”

By contrast, Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband’s national security advisor, insisted that “even a contained Saddam” was “harmful to stability and to positive change in the region,” and therefore the United States had to engage in “regime change” in order to “fight terror, avert regional conflict, promote peace, and protect the security of our friends and allies.”

Meanwhile, other future Obama advisors, such as Larry Korb, raised concerns about the human and material costs of invading and occupying a heavily populated country in the Middle East and the risks of chaos and a lengthy counter-insurgency war.

And other top advisors to Senator Clinton – such as her husband’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright – confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq. Such confidence in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush’s troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack, and Michael O’Hanlon. Perhaps that was one reason that, during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposed views in the lead-up to the war.

[saracat]

19. Not to be snark but they ALL need money and influence. Have you ever met

Richard Clarke?I have and know some people who have worked for him. He is, to say the least , narcissistic and difficult to work for. He doesn't so much as sign an autograph unless he is getting something out of it.I respect his intelligence and much of what he has tried to do but this appellation applies to virtually any of the advisers behind both candidates. This is the "real world" and these folks are nor any more idealistic than their candidates.

That being said, John Edwards was the closest we had to a candidate who actually gave a rats ass and that was for personal reasons. Even John was not "perfect" or completely above the fray. But those surrounding him were the same as all who surround candidates.It is the way of the world.Some may have somewhat better intentions than others but it is all about who it benefits.

[Catchawave]

21. So we can't offer up constructive criticism of Obama?

Is that not allowed ? I question his vision and I'm not spiritually moved by him, and there are many questions I have unanswered, and certainly GDP is not the "place" to go to question the Messiah. By following his campaign in the real world, I have many concerns, shallow and hollow are only two of them.

Ninga, we've been through this before. I respect and admire why and how you support your candidate, but you managed to take a swipe at Hillary in doing so. Where's the unity spirit ?

If Hillary's the shark and Obama's the bait of this primary season, I'll go with the shark :D

Oh, and do you approve one of his "supporters" wishing Hillary dead? I will not cross post that link here, with hopes it's buried by now.

Back off his supporters you say ? Riiiiight.

[Ninga]

22. i do not condone, nor do I participate in flame bait. I love, love, love, good argument, and

good debate on merits, and as much as possible, verifiable facts. Name calling is not part of my MO.

I enjoy and respect those who are able to rise above their emotions, and argue fair and square.

Here is what you describe as a "swipe" at Hillary. Does this betray the spirit of unity?

Obama may not be as brilliant as Sen. Clinton, but he has enough experience along with wisdom and understanding to be a bridge and a willow, qualities which I do not see Sen. Clinton display.


And when I went back and re-read your last response, I noticed you used the word, "Messiah"... is that what you really mean?

[cornermouse]

23. Well, I was going to be polite and not ask, but

were you trying to invoke racism as the reason people aren't falling in line for Obama when you said the following?

"I am so sad and so afraid that we are far more divided than I first thought. I was in Selma during the march, and at a distance saw the dogs held by the law, and then their fire hoses turned on the people.

But that was nothing like the verbal fire hoses people are using on each other now."

[Ninga]

26. As a people we haven't come that far since the 60's in terms of how we treat people

who are different from us, or that have different opinions or look different.

Fire hoses were used in the 60's to turn people away. And in 2008, fire hoses are still being used to turn people away, only now, they are verbal. Words are the weapons of choice these days, not water. Ugly, mean, vicious, smarmy words that denigrate women, gays, people of color.

I mourn the lack of respect Americans have for tolerating differences, and was speaking of how the simple act of respect, is not honored.

The cover of the internet makes it so easy for people to turn their words on others, and use them like fire hoses.

The answer to your question is no.

[balantz]

27. Today they are turning real "fire hoses" on people who are protesting this evil war.

If people will have to protest because of food and housing shortages in this country in the near future the fire hoses (rubber bullets, pepper spray, stun guns) will be brought out. Nothing has changed there.

In my view there is actually quite a lot of civility and acceptance toward race and gender issues in this election. I don't see marches against those issues happening.

In the sixties it was economic disparity as much as it was race issues. That was King's focus, the economic divide. The issues between the elite and the poor all around the world.

[Catchawave]

24. With all due respect

and unless I'm convinced there's substance behind his "movement", yes.

I see no proof of him being wise and understanding to be a bridge and willow either. I choose the oak.

[Ninga]

25. Fair enough.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Visionary?

Oh give me a fucking break.:rofl:

[JANdad]

29. LOL

:spray:

Glad I'm not the only thinking that...

Methinks a troll is at work here...

[MissDeeds]

37. My thoughts exactly

I don't want a "visionary" as president, I want a leader who has a clue, a plan, and a course of action. Obama has none of these.

Tell me what you are going to do, how you are going to do it, and when you are going to do it, and I'll listen. This Elmer Gantry BS doesn't cut it.

[unc70]

30. Washington Irving!!! Columbus unappreciated?!!!

While we often agree, this is not one of those times.

I find Obama to be a manipulative, smooth talker with strong NPD tendencies (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).

His self-portrait does not hold up under close scrutiny; facts keep getting in the way. I know several people, friends and family, like this and he seems to have the traits. I have described him as the "Liberty Valence" candidate, so Irving is maybe the right analogy: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Irving, Longfellow, et al have a lot to answer for in myth-making.

As for Selma, Obama last year in Selma said said that his existence was a result of Selma which caused his father to be brought from Kenya; not possible, since Obama was born in 1961.

I have my problems with Clinton, but I really don't trust Obama or believe much of anything in his life story. Hell, I can't even prove that he gave "that" speech in 2002. When I get a little time, I am going to post an Obama quiz which I have been working on.

[chimpymustgo]

33. You've nailed it. He's a smooth liar who's bamboozled a bunch of people - and the media.

[flyarm]

36. AHH THE OLDEST STATE IN THE USA..has had her voters stripped of their votes

by Obama Dean and Brazile..so i will never ever vote for or cheer on Obama!

The second oldest state PA just kicked Obama's ass too!

I would vote for Mickey Mouse first! at least Mickey Mouse represents more of my state than the dems do now!

fly

[Creideiki]

40. I'll give you that Obama has a vision, but it's myopic

Unfortunately, I have to say that as a gay man, there seems to be no room for me in Obama's vision. His campaign is looking like homophobes on parade between Rev. Meeks as spiritual advisor, Sam "DADT" Nunn as an advisor, and a lack of any softening figure (like Elizabeth served as for John) that indicates that he wouldn't hesitate to veto progressive legislation from the right if it reached past his lack of vision. Now, since I'm fairly certain he will win the nomination, I'm going to be stuck watching who he taps as vice-president. If it's Governor Bill "gay is a choice" Richardson, then, might need to sit this one out--at least at the top of the ticket.

Is it single-issue? Not really. I also really dislike his education policy ("Merit Pay" reeks like garlic breath) and his healthcare policy. I could, again, see him exercising his fantastic ego by vetoing anything that overreaches his grand vision.

By all that's holy, I miss Edwards.

[spooky3]

41. If you have such lofty principles about not "making fun of" a candidate, perhaps you should stop

starting threads in GD: P in which you distort and take out of context the comments of the candidate you don't like as much, so that you can then accuse the candidate of something she did not do.

You wouldn't want people to view your behavior as hypocritical.

[ClericJohnPreston]

43. UH-OH

Another Born Again Obamite is minted.

Forcing the ClericJohnPreston lament, "Ninga, I knew you when you were normal."

Please post in the other forum now.

Thanks. NO PROSYLETIZERS WELCOME!!

[ClericJohnPreston]

44. Ninga sounds like

Old Crusoe. Anyone else note that when the Kool-Aid is imbibed, all sense, reason and proportion go out the fuckin window?

The cadence becomes "born again" crapola, with the usual hypocrisy of the born agan crowd.

Sickening and twisted.

[Ninga]

45. I am hurt by your unwarranted and uncalled for characterizations. My MO is to advance

debate and thought. You know that to be true. In the days of my Edwards zeal, I stood my ground and took from Hillary and Obama supporters, less than what you just gave me.

It serves no earthly purpose to denigrate those who have opinions that differ from yours.

There are no absolutes. There is no black and white. We live in a grey world. People who are blessed to have their ears, eyes, and touch, might be better served if they refrain from quickly searing with their tongue.

When one excludes and admonishes with such vitriol, the question begs to be asked:

Isn't our tent big enough to include everyone? or. What are you afraid of? or How old are you?

Living a long and experienced life, tempers ones self righteousness, because the view of the road is very different in the back seat of life.

It would do you well to take your fine mind and articulate soul, and put them to better use than to show to the world, that you can put me in my place.

[ClericJohnPreston]

46. Oh boy

If only you still had PERSPECTIVE.

I was too gentle when I said the BORN AGAIN CROWD. Who are you to judge me as if this were some fucking Church Pew. I reject your standards and want to remind you, BACK ON EARTH, that we are voting for a Presidential CANDIDATE, not for some packaged FAUX Messiah.

You need help Ninga.

[ClericJohnPreston]

47. We don't drink on this board

[Lilith Velkor]

48. It's hard not to make fun of people who compare Obama to fucking Columbus

I don't want a bridge or a willow - whatever the fuck that means - I want a President. Preferably NOT one who bullshits liberals into thinking he's on their side while consorting with the likes of Austan Goolsbee and Zbigniew Brezinski.

If he were anything but a two bit huckster blowing smoke up your ass, you would be able to communicate exactly what "the vision" entails, besides getting your guy elected. So far, no soap - only demented, hysterical accusations from anyone I ask.

[Two Americas]

49. kick

Kicked and saved.