Blogroll Me!
Super Tuesday? As Far As We're Concerned You Can Shove It:We Couldn't Care Less ...
Since both Denis Kucinich and John Edwards have given up, and since we've realised that Barack Obama is nothing better than the best of the bad bunch still on offer from either the Democratic or Republican parties ... we've decided we're giving up too.
Why?
Here's a heavy hint as to why.
"If you will stand with me, if you will caucus with me ... you and I together, we will change this country and we will change the world."
If we were any longer interested, here's a couple of questions we'd ask the seemingly 'blessed' Obama.
(1) What makes you think the world belongs to you and/or your conglomerate gaffers?
(2) And even if it did, what makes you think the world would ever want you and/or your conglomerate gaffers to change it - simply to suit such a shower of unashamedly selfish and so self evidently, self serving shysters?
After all, the world's been around for far longer than either you, your particular political party of preference or current corporate masters have.
Jesus H. almighty, mister.
Is it any bloody wonder that so many of us are so sodding sick ... and tired ... of snake-oil salesmen such as yourself serving up the same old, same old (ever so carefully crafted yet so absolutely obviously), serially 'scripted' horse shit?
Read the report we clipped Obama's cringe inducing quote from.
Labels: America, American politicians, Barack Obama, Democrat, presidential candidates, Super Tuesday, United States, US
posted by Richard at Monday, February 04, 2008
10 Comments:
Nicely put, Sir.
As for the link, clicking it I was told 'not found'.
Sorry Brit,
You are a bit off on that one. Fully half of us who had decided for Edwards have already made the switch to Obama, and it was a relatively easy choice. If he loses the primary to Clinton, we will make that switch, too, and for most of us it will be as easy.
What you are familiar with in terms of localized and very short political campaigns is not the way it happens in the US. The President of the US is elected by a nation-wide vote here that covers all 300 million Americans and is taking longer and longer periods of time. That takes both a huge amount of money and a significant amount of political rhetoric, which may or may not be meaningful in the final analysis, since the appeal has to be so broad both to contributors and both to primary and ultimate voters, just to be successful. You local Members of Parliament never have to campaign to such a large and diverse audience. That allows a much more direct approach to the specific needs and outlooks of one's constituency.
From where I sit, which is pretty much far to the left of most American politics, there is very little philosophical distance between any of the Democratic candidates that have participated in this election; they cluster together. But there is a significant distinction between them as a group and any of the Republicans in philosophy. Even with that distinction they do not especially cluster together as tightly as the Democratic hopefuls have.
In short, there is an important distinction to be made in this election between whoever ends up being the major party candidates. We then also have to chose between a pair of Congressional representative, one for the House and one for the Senate (in many places) and for a lot of us that will be the buffering element on the Presidency.
For American progressives that is a practical consideration in the politics of what can be a quite reactionary and diverse American electorate. It is not really a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils this time around; it is far more to continue to dismantle the Republican hardcore rightwing monopoly that we have had in place.
From what I can see your system doesn't always produce a much less reactionary government than does ours, but the mechanisms of getting there have some important differences. Our politicians must approach their elections in a different manner than must yours.
Unfortunately, all American candidates are compelled to use the language of the arrogant. It simply wouldn't be possible to run for president without asserting that the USA is the Greatest Country on Earth, and without aspiring to change the world.
And let's be frank: there's a lot of positive change that the next president can make, simply because the US has been the most aggressive nation on earth.
For example, I think that there would be a lot of people who would benefit greatly if the US withdrew from Iraq and stopped trying to bully other nations. I think that if the US made a real commitment to promoting democracy and eradicating malaria, sleeping sickness, and AIDS from Africa, it would change the world in a very positive way. I think that if the leader of the world's biggest polluter got serious about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, that would also change the world.
So I'm certainly not going to castigate Obama for aspiring to use one of the world's most powerful offices to bring positive change to the world.
Also I did manage to find a report containing that quote. (link)
I understand how you feel, Richard, and realise how it all must look from your perspective. I supported Kucinich and Edwards too.
It matters a lot who wins now though, because if the Democrat who wins nomination can't beat the Republican nominee in November we are in deep doo-doo! Very deep!
In my humble (?) opinion I think Ms Clinton has what it takes, but at the moment I seem to be in the minority according to what I read in blogland. when the chips are down I suspect Obama will prove to be a lightweight.
I don't really care who wins now, as long as a Democrat wins in November.
As a disappointed Edwards supporter, I just cast my primary vote for Obama today. Yes, he has many flaws. Beyond the ones you cite, he yaks about alternative nuclear power & his plans for national health care do not measure up. BUT (Big BUT), I believe he is the most electable in our general election & that to me is the most important factor in my vote. The thought of another right-wing repub civil liberty-tramping, warmongering, bankrupting, treble-deficiting, middle- & lower-class dismantling, rich enriching, country destroyer (ours as well as any others in sight) will ensure that my vote goes to whoever stands the best chance of defeating them.
On a lighter note, I caught "A Hard Day's Night" on TV today. Just happened to flip the channel & there it was. So you know I had to watch it all before I could run out & vote! Gosh, those lads looked good.
That's what politicians do ~ everywhere. They tell the people what they think the people want to hear. After they've got the votes, well it's anyone's guess. It's what they actually do when in office that they need to be measured by ~ and held accountable for.
Having said that, I have to agree that US politicians DO seem to be better actors [especially when vote chasing] than our own.
This is well worth reading.
How the rest of the world sees it.
As for me, Edwards and Kucinich were by far the best men for the 'people'. Not just the American people either. That's why they could NOT be allowed to go any further than they did.
In America these days it's "government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations."
Btw, I hope you're feeling better by the day Richard.
Obama?!
Here's all you ever wanted to know [or didn't] about the man.
As usual, I am late to this thread, but I've got to say something about people's choices for President this time around....
I can't support either Hillary or Obama. I've learned too much about both.
A candidate I can support is running as a Republican. That's Libertarian Ron Paul.
He wants a far less centralized government, giving more power and independence to the separate state governments, more acknowledgment of differences in attitude and interests among the different regions of our country.
There is no sign of American arrogance at all. He will bring the troops home from the ME AND he will proceed to close U.S. military bases around the world and bring those troops home as well. The reality is that our nation cannot afford to support all that stuff.
He will cancel NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO and NATO and concentrate on rebuilding industry and infrastructure and homeland defense within our own country.
He's got widespread support among young people on the internet (they've become a major annoyance to all of us). It's unknown how widespread his support is among the older generations who are not internet users, but I suspect it is pretty high, especially in rural areas and small towns where so many independent family-farmers and independent business-owners have been crowded out by big corporate interests. All the campaign contributions he has accumulated have to be quietly coming from somewhere.
There is more I could say about him, but that's enough for now. Except to remind everyone he is a strict Constitutionalist, so the Bill of Rights are the top of his domestic agenda. That's a biggie for me.
Oh, and his votes in the Congress are almost identical to the votes cast by Kucinich. The differences usually are due to a relatively minor, but important, constitutional conflict.
Post a Comment
<< Home