"Before his handlers told the press Bill Clinton wouldn't be taking any more questions, the former president gave it as his considered opinion that his wife and John McCain are a lot alike, and that assuming the two become their parties' nominees, the fall campaign would be "the most cordial in history."

Rock on !! More analysis:

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn01302008.html

hehe, Ann Coulter voting for Hillary! I told you so....

Just for the Obama lovers, who think that he is different or someone special:

"Obama voted for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II, Real ID, Iraq War funding.

Obama wants to grow our bloated military by another 100,000 men, and add $50 billion dollars to the $700 billion the Military Industrial Complex already receives on a yearly basis.

The only change Obama will bring is a change in perception. But behind the scenes we'll all be worked over. He and his wife are active members of the CFR, an organization openly dedicated to the goal of seeing the world governed by corporations and a small group of elites."

And on the funny side, an opinion:

"Barack Obama is awesome! He has promised world peace, a great economy, no hardship, free top notch medical care, and a whole host of other things. Probably solid gold street...

Obama for God '08!"

Furthermore:

"The truth behind the Obama phenomenon however is much less attractive than the image. If you actually look at his concrete policy statements, voting record and source of campaign funds, Obama is a trusted servant of the big business elite. He represents the U.S. ruling class’s desperate attempt to put a new face on its domestic and global domination.

Obama’s list of top campaign contributors reads like a Wall Street Who’s Who list, with Goldman Sachs at the top. How does he claim to not be taking money from lobbyists and PACs and still raise over $80 million? (opensecrets.org) The answer is the magic of bundling – elite individuals with a lot of influence get many senior and junior level executives to donate the maximum amounts ($2300 for both the primary and general elections). As of October 29, Obama had received 46% of his campaign money from mega-rich donors who had given $2300 or more.

It’s very convenient for “antiwar” Obama that he wasn’t in the Senate to vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Based on a tepid speech he made in 2003 in which he attacked the war in Iraq as the “wrong war at the wrong time,” Obama claims he has opposed the war from the start. His record in the Senate should speak much louder. He has consistently voted to approve hundreds of billions of dollars for the war and refuses to commit to pulling all the troops out by the end of his first term, in 2013! Further, Obama supports a troop increase in Afghanistan and is fully committed to the so-called “War on Terrorism.” Obama supports an expansion of the military by 100,000 more troops and increasing the bloated Pentagon budget.

Obama’s claim to be the candidate of universal healthcare is no better. His plan, like Clinton’s, is only a reorganization of the current private healthcare system. This is less a guarantee for universal healthcare and more a huge scam to line the pockets of the private healthcare industry by forcing working people to buy insurance from them. As long as private profit isn’t taken out of all aspects of the healthcare industry through a single-payer system, talk of affordable and universal healthcare is no more than a mirage. "

Yeah, Obama is very good at using a lot of words to say essentially nothing.

Syzygys
Thanks for all that info so concisely put forward.

"Before his handlers told the press Bill Clinton wouldn't be taking any more questions, the former president gave it as his considered opinion that his wife and John McCain are a lot alike, and that assuming the two become their parties' nominees, the fall campaign would be "the most cordial in history."

Rock on !! More analysis:

http://counterpunch.org/cockburn01302008.html

:rolleyes:

Cordial because they are friends. His reasons for saying that were to try and make Hillary look like a better candidate to go against McCain. Probably was 100% insincere as well. Unless things are going really well for the Clintons I don't think anyone will expect a cordial campagin, if those are the nominees.

There are ****ing gigantic differences between them. Differences that will have enormous impact all over the world.

Just for the Obama lovers, who think that he is different or someone special:

"Obama voted for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act II, Real ID, Iraq War funding.

Obama wants to grow our bloated military by another 100,000 men, and add $50 billion dollars to the $700 billion the Military Industrial Complex already receives on a yearly basis.

How did he vote for the Patriot Act in 2001? He joined the Senate in 2004.

The Patriot Act II was not as Obama wanted it, it was a compromise that was better than doing nothing.
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/051216-the_patriot_act/index.php

As for Real ID, do you care to explain what the problem is? You list it along with everything else without making any case for it being bad.

Iraq war funding. Yes, he voted for it. It is funny you should try and use this to paint Obama as being the same as other candidates on this. Do you even note the differences between that spending bill and the ones that passed in the Republican house?

How can you consider him the "same" on Iraq when, as you know by now, he wants to begin immediate withdrawal if elected?

Your continued attempts to make all candidates appear the same are complete nonsense. The differences between all of the four remaining contenders will make huge differences in many peoples lives. Anyone who says otherwise is completely ignorant.

The only change Obama will bring is a change in perception. But behind the scenes we'll all be worked over. He and his wife are active members of the CFR, an organization openly dedicated to the goal of seeing the world governed by corporations and a small group of elites."


Really? No idea what that is. Do you have a source?


And on the funny side, an opinion:

"Barack Obama is awesome! He has promised world peace, a great economy, no hardship, free top notch medical care, and a whole host of other things. Probably solid gold street...

Obama for God '08!"

Good one? :thumbsup:

Yeah, Obama is very good at using a lot of words to say essentially nothing.

lol..... :shrug:

I get the feeling you just listen to sound bytes from his speeches. If you care to look, you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that he's said plenty regarding policy and leadership style.

Would you please tell what you're looking for him to say?

There are several things Obama can't say, because they would mean political suicide,. For example, he can't seriously criticise Israeli policy, or unconditional US support for Israel; Obama can't seriously attack corporate influence in US government, and he can't attack militarism, without being shot down, figuratively or worse. Our Republic is stuffed full of a lot of constricting "banana" today.

Furthermore:

"The truth behind the Obama phenomenon however is much less attractive than the image. If you actually look at his concrete policy statements, voting record and source of campaign funds, Obama is a trusted servant of the big business elite. He represents the U.S. ruling class’s desperate attempt to put a new face on its domestic and global domination.

Right. :thumbsup:

Nice proof you've accumulated here. I guess you don't need much to come to such wild conclusions.


It’s very convenient for “antiwar” Obama that he wasn’t in the Senate to vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Based on a tepid speech he made in 2003 in which he attacked the war in Iraq as the “wrong war at the wrong time,” Obama claims he has opposed the war from the start.

:scratchin: So speaking out against the war is something done by war supporters?

What was tepid, specifically? You don't think it was the "wrong war at the wrong time"?


His record in the Senate should speak much louder. He has consistently voted to approve hundreds of billions of dollars for the war and refuses to commit to pulling all the troops out by the end of his first term, in 2013!

I'm pretty sure you've been pointed to his position of immediate withdrawal quite a few times already.



Obama’s claim to be the candidate of universal healthcare is no better. His plan, like Clinton’s, is only a reorganization of the current private healthcare system. This is less a guarantee for universal healthcare and more a huge scam to line the pockets of the private healthcare industry by forcing working people to buy insurance from them. As long as private profit isn’t taken out of all aspects of the healthcare industry through a single-payer system, talk of affordable and universal healthcare is no more than a mirage. "

What a load of ____. Completely wild conclusions, and you've made zero attempt to prove them.

There are several things Obsama can't say, because they would mean political suicide, For example, he can't seriously criticise Israeli policy, or unconditional US support for Israel; Obama can't seriously attack corporate influence in US government, and he can't attack militarism, without being shot down, figuratively or worse.

This is true.

But outside of those issues there are plenty of issues with huge consequences, and he differs significantly with the other candidates on them. So even if he weren't going to differ on these issues, it is nonsensical to claim he isn't going to significantly differ in total.

There are ****ing gigantic differences between them. Differences that will have enormous impact all over the world.

Name 3-4....


Really? No idea what that is. Do you have a source?


If you have no idea about the CFR, you have a lot of thing to learn about. You can start at their website....

http://www.cfr.org/

Name 3-4....

Iraq war. The positions differ and each will have life and death consequences, as well as economic consequences, for Iraqis and Americans. There are also different positions and predispositions to diplomacy, and foreign relations as a whole.

The differences in economic styles are fundamental.

Priorities on science funding differ.



If you have no idea about the CFR, you have a lot of thing to learn about. You can start at their website....

http://www.cfr.org/

:rolleyes:

Iraq war. The positions differ

You mean that both candidates will leave troops there until oil runs out?

Look, I understand people's wish to see finally changes, but they are not going to. The American political system is not based on people's votes and desires. It has never been democratic either. No serious candidate can run against the wishes of the elite and corporations. They can argue against them, but ultimately they can not ACT against their interest. This is a quid pro qo for anybody running and accepting big brother's money.

So if you wish to live in a dreamworld, so be it. If you are an Obama fan, it is your choice. Just be aware that your boy is no different than the rest of them, and if he was, he wouldn't be electable.(just like Paul and Kucinich)

You will see.... :shrug:

P.S.:Gravel has a more serious withdrawal policy than Obama, but of course most people haven't heard about it...

"No serious candidate can run against the wishes of the elite and corporations. They can argue against them, but ultimately they can not ACT against their interest. This is a quid pro qo for anybody running and accepting big brother's money."

That is only true for as long as USAmericans remain politically apathetic. If and when the US majority is motivated (through economic crisis, for example) to demand substantive changes in national policy, our nation will change course. Corporuption may be louder today than democracy, but it still hasn't obliterated the Constitution. There are still powerful (if dormant) means for reform fixed in place, waiting only for popular demand to pluck them up, and to employ them to demolish (with unassailable legitimacy and authority) the power of antidemocratic special interests.

Democratic reform never arrives from the top down. When the majority realizes that no democratic savior is coming, we'll begin to save ourselves.

You mean that both candidates will leave troops there until oil runs out?

Back to this again? Somehow I doubt you've accumulated the evidence you lacked the last time you brought it up.


They can argue against them, but ultimately they can not ACT against their interest. This is a quid pro qo for anybody running and accepting big brother's money.


Running against them can be difficult for campaigning, but it is not impossible to get elected by going against some of them, history can show.

Also, are you telling me that every single interest group to donate money for a successful campaign successfully got something out of it? I have no direct proof one way or the other since I've had no reason to look this up, but I'd be willing to bet that it is not the case. I'm sure that in these gigantic campaigns that raised hundreds of millions there are plenty of groups that have competing interests.

As for acting against them, once in office what is going to stop action against "them"?

Back to this again? Somehow I doubt you've accumulated the evidence you lacked the last time you brought it up.

Since this is a prediction about the FUTURE, what evidence can there be? TIME will tell....
Just for the record, did Obama EVER say that he would withdraw let's say 100K troops, no matter what???


Running against them can be difficult for campaigning, but it is not impossible to get elected by going against some of them, history can show.

OK, I am waiting for the historical example. One way it COULD happen if a millionare running like Perrot, but they are not very likely to run against corporate interest...

As for acting against them, once in office what is going to stop action against "them"?

First, the candidate doesn't get in the office. First line defence. Second, they can always cook up something, assasination, sudden illness,(attack of the killer pretzels) etc. But there is no need for that, because see the first line of defence...

P.S.: What do you think of the NH results? That was Diebold machines at their best, bringing Hillary out as a winner although all the pre-primary polls indicated an Obama win by 10%!!! It was 2004 all over again....

Oh, look what I have just ran into: US politics has no left!

http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/02/us_politics_have_no_left_wing.php

(read the discussion part too, very enlightening, specially for Americans)

"So, believe me, US politics don't have a Left. Looking at the presidential candidates, I am frankly appalled. None of them would be a viable politician in Sweden. They all support the death penalty, none advocates strict gun control and all make frequent mention of their religious beliefs in public. These are extremist stances. Not even the tiny Christian Democrat party mentions God publicly in Sweden, for fear of alienating the pragmatic rationalist majority.

From a European perspective, US politics are an ongoing battle between the extreme Right and the middle Right. The Republican presidential candidates are really, really scary people in my view. So all of us in the world at large who live under the shadow of US political hegemony are holding our breaths, hoping that Clinton or Obama will make it into office. They're pretty bad, but the alternative would be unspeakably dreadful."

Objectively speaking:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

I do have to agree with that. Although i wouldnt have frazed it that way you DONT have candiates to the left of what we would concider the center.

You MAY have canditates who are slightly to the right of the political views of places like Australia but you dont have a comparable left to ours.

Even Howard (who was WELL to the right of center to our views) was VERY tough on gun control for instance. On other issues like medicare his views may have been more to the right but the public would have thrown him out if he even THOUGHT about abolishing it

Liberal in the late 80's became as damaging a label in american politics as socialist tendencies or some such mild version of 'commie bastard' did in the 50's. Pres. Clinton was right of center in just about every way that counted. I find it humorous that conservatives still hate him so much. I can only assume it is jealousy. He was like them, black people and lefties liked him. That's just too much cake and eat it too.

God damn. Do you have any viable candidates on the left ? Or those at least not working for corporations ?

Although, I gotta say, Aussies don't really have Left anymore either, except the greens.

God damn. Do you have any viable candidates on the left ?

Viable? No. Read the last few posts in my thread called A Logical Republican.... :)

I can't believe but somebody pretty much wrote exactly the same what I meantioned in my previous post, when refering to the Logical Republican thread....

A Message From The American Corporate Plutocracy

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16425