Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not talking about anything. I am posting links that back up my claim. I know you did not read any of them but I did not think you would. If you would just look at what is being posted by left liberals and progressives and argue the points they are making you might have some credibility. You are not arguing with me but the left wingers and the progressives that feel left out now that Obama has apparently abandoned them and there cause. We shall see if they can put enough pressure on him to cause him to cave in to their call for a more progressive administration as he appeared to them to be heading towards.
You are very accurate but I know what your beliefs throughout all of this has been. The person you are responding to was correct in their statement and you are both correct. If you may remembe I told you and others the very same thing we are seeing unfold about Obama. I like the person you responded to was reacting to the fact of having read his position papers and seeing who he had as advisors. Others were looking at his skin color, name and the fact that he was from Chicago and reflected that political ideology as his base at one time and to a degree as a Senator. Any examination of him as a person and those he truly associated with as intellectuals reveals a man who is:
A social progressive/moderate depending on the issue
A fiscal moderate slightly to the left left of center at times and slightly to the right at other times.
A slightly to the right moderate on international affairs.
It was his stand on social issues that confused some and as a senator formed part of how he was defined.
It is his position on economics and international affairs that is defining him now and frustrating those who never bothered to find out where he was coming from. Obama is not against the use of the military. He was against Iraq as being the wrong war at the wrong time. He fully believes as do many in the military that Afghanistan is the right war at the right time. He also believes strongly that Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are the nexus of the terrorism threat that threatens the world. Hmmmm seems like his announcements this week will be the right man at the right time once again.
There was a story a week ago that he was going to appoint Bill Clinton as a special ambassador to India and this was prior to the attacks. What happened this week has been coming and again an attack of this type had been predicted, The question was when and where. We now know. It was suppose to have been on the scale of 9/11 and you can see that intent and similarity was there. What is so very different this time is how the global markets responded and how the Indian markets responded and that was truly a blow to the bad guys.
PS some of the worse sterotyping racist behavior is done by those on the far left who stereotype every Black person as a liberal Democrat and laugh and make fun of those of us who have ever been Republican or a fiscal conservative etc. That is behavior that can be observed by all and now those of you on the far left can fester in your misguided identification of Black Folk as your stereotyping is now on display as being wrong.
Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground understood the true nature of being a radical and folks like Kucinich are just a cheap imitation and can't carry the shoes of SDS. Maybe thats why Neo Con's gave us Powell and Rice in such high positions and Democrats never did. The Vietnam experience defined us for years and we may now be able to put that experience finally behind us.
Bill Clinton to... Kashmir? - The Stump (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/11/19/bill-clinton-to-kashmir.aspx - broken link)
Bill Clinton to... Kashmir?
As we wait to see whether Hillary Clinton will become Barack Obama's Secretary of State slot, here's a colorful little footnote to get us thinking about the Clintons and the globe. It seems that many media outlets in India and Pakistan believe there's a plan afoot for Obama to designate Bill Clinton as his special envoy to mediate the intractable Kashmir standoff along those countries' disputed border. The notion originates from a seemingly offhand pre-election comment Obama made to Time's Joe Klein:
In case anyone doubts my comment about Bill C possibly becoming a special ambassador to India. Seems like Obama once again had great insight prior to the fact. Read the whole article their are others on the topic.
Bill Clinton to... Kashmir? - The Stump (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/11/19/bill-clinton-to-kashmir.aspx - broken link)
Bill Clinton to... Kashmir?
As we wait to see whether Hillary Clinton will become Barack Obama's Secretary of State slot, here's a colorful little footnote to get us thinking about the Clintons and the globe. It seems that many media outlets in India and Pakistan believe there's a plan afoot for Obama to designate Bill Clinton as his special envoy to mediate the intractable Kashmir standoff along those countries' disputed border. The notion originates from a seemingly offhand pre-election comment Obama made to Time's Joe Klein:
In case anyone doubts my comment about Bill C possibly becoming a special ambassador to India. Seems like Obama once again had great insight prior to the fact. Read the whole article their are others on the topic.
First reaction was to laugh, but then it is a strategically important location isnt it? Nice, well researched article - liked the first comment too
The author says about the Indian press, "[E]ven passing comments by an American leader take on a life of their own--sometimes with absurd, half-informed conspiratorial garnishing--in the foreign media." Knock off the tail end and this sentence defines many of the anti-Obama posts on here.
Consider the electorate as a bell shaped curve in opinion. Those of the extreme left or right are in the narrowest of margins and by definition are maginalized. In addition in a Democracy a leader reflecting the interest of the majority is going to operate in the greatest part of the curve. As the electorate shifts slightly left or right in their beliefs the ideas reflected in that middle will shift but it will still be the middle and reflect the largest majority. Obama is showing that change is just that. The ability of a leader to adapt their beliefs and behavior to reflect what is in the better good of the majority of American's and not their ideological base. You are seeing change as reflected by consensus building and working for a joint agenda embraced by a majority of American's. If that bothers those not in that majority then it is they who are marginalizing themselves from the mainstream. Hope those marginalized enjoy their ideological discussions and self pity.
"Consult with Kucinich"! LOL, Hilarious...he's a former mayor of Cleveland who drove the city to bankruptcy! LOL Yeah, he would definitely be someone to cusult with!
I can't understand what you socialists see in that guy.
Yeah, the one guy who had the courage to stand up to the banks instead of hand them money - something we certainly don't see today.
"Perhaps more important, Clevelanders were starting to believe Kucinich had been right about Muny Light, especially after members of a congressional staff concluded, in 1980, that the default had been politically motivated. History was about to be rewritten by the loser.
In 1993, then-Cleveland Mayor Michael White cited Kucinich's "wisdom" in not selling the utility, and in 1998 the council honored the deposed mayor for having the "courage and foresight" to stand up to the banks. The utility, now known as Cleveland Public Power, provides low-cost electricity that saved the city an estimated $195 million between 1985 and 1995. One of the new buildings in its expanded plant is named for Kucinich."
Consider the electorate as a bell shaped curve in opinion. Those of the extreme left or right are in the narrowest of margins and by definition are maginalized. In addition in a Democracy a leader reflecting the interest of the majority is going to operate in the greatest part of the curve. As the electorate shifts slightly left or right in their beliefs the ideas reflected in that middle will shift but it will still be the middle and reflect the largest majority. Obama is showing that change is just that. The ability of a leader to adapt their beliefs and behavior to reflect what is in the better good of the majority of American's and not their ideological base. You are seeing change as reflected by consensus building and working for a joint agenda embraced by a majority of American's. If that bothers those not in that majority then it is they who are marginalizing themselves from the mainstream. Hope those marginalized enjoy their ideological discussions and self pity.
Words like 'adapt' and 'better good' worry me. I'm sue demogogs of the past used terms like that frequently. Should I go along with the 'majority of people'? No, not when the majority supports elective war.
You seem to equate the 'extreme left' with those who condemned the war from the start - I equate that anti-war stance with having a moral compass, and pragmatism.
Words like 'adapt' and 'better good' worry me. I'm sue demogogs of the past used terms like that frequently. Should I go along with the 'majority of people'? No, not when the majority supports elective war.
You seem to equate the 'extreme left' with those who condemned the war from the start - I equate that anti-war stance with having a moral compass, and pragmatism.
Unless the majority of the population has made a significant shift to one of the poles then any president being elected will have been done so by a majority. The issue is differentiating the left from the kooky left. Other then supporting Obama after personally being rejected by the party in the primary what of tremendous significance has Kuncinich done for Obama. Who else was there for him to support? Did Obama not promise to govern differently? And now that he is making pragmatic choices designed to gain a broad consensus toward policy people on the left are surprised? This war is not an issue as beging against it from the beginning is now not a bad thing. The issue of should we there is no longer relevant as there are so many more factors now involved.
Unless the majority of the population has made a significant shift to one of the poles then any president being elected will have been done so by a majority. The issue is differentiating the left from the kooky left. Other then supporting Obama after personally being rejected by the party in the primary what of tremendous significance has Kuncinich done for Obama. Who else was there for him to support? Did Obama not promise to govern differently? And now that he is making pragmatic choices designed to gain a broad consensus toward policy people on the left are surprised? This war is not an issue as beging against it from the beginning is now not a bad thing. The issue of should we there is no longer relevant as there are so many more factors now involved.
'The issue of should we there is no longer relevant'? I would beg to differ. There are about 4,000 American reasons and over a million Iraqi reasons why it is still a relevant issue. There is also upwards of 3 trillion dollars spent on a war that I was out on the streets protesting before it started. You use the standard Limbaugh-esque jargon to lable Kucinich 'kooky', when the 'crazyiest' antics of Kucinich have been to argue against the war from the beginning, call for the restoration of Habeaus Corpus, and to call for the impeachment of Bush - yeah, real 'kooky'.
So far you have only appeased the Right. Why, I don't know, because they have no more power, and the neo-cons have retreated to their academic holes.
So far you are coming off either as a Clinton-clone or neo-con light.
Those who elected you did not want the status quo continued, they want a major change.
Kucinich and Gravel are widely respected in the Progressive camp. Thier ideas can truly transform America for the better. War-mongers like Gates should be out the door.
Get ideas and input from Kucinich and Gravel - they will give you the guidence you seek.
Just an example of how people on the left, as well as the right, somehow thought that Obama was a leftist. He's not--and he never has been.
Just an example of how people on the left, as well as the right, somehow thought that Obama was a leftist. He's not--and he never has been.
Yeah but I would like to point out for those people who are dropping stories from the likes of FOX and BLOGS that Kucinich supported Obama. Us on the left are not unhappy, at least not yet... unlike these people would have you believe. WE ARE HAPPY McCain didnt win, we are still jumping around saying THANK GOD!! I never for minute thought though that Obama was far left.
What I would like to see Obama do is pick Kucinich for something OR use his healthcare plan but Im not expecting him to
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
