LEFT OF DAYTON

OBAMA SLIDES DEEPER INTO GRIP OF ISRAELI LOBBY

June 23, 2008
6 Comments


Reuters,
June 20, 2008

Jacksonville Fla

US presidential candidate Brack Obama said that

Israel is justified in providing for its security amid the “extraordinary
threat” posed to it by Iran.

He spoke after the *New York Times* quoted unnamed U.S. officials as
saying that Israel had carried out a large military exercise this month
that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s
nuclear facilities.

Obama, a Democrat who is running against Republican John McCain in the
November election, was asked at a news conference in Jacksonville, Florida
whether Israel was right to carry out the exercise.

“Without access to the actual detailed intelligence, I want to be careful
about characterizing what was done and whether it was appropriate or not,”
Obama, an Illinois senator, said.

But he added that the Jewish state was right to be concerned about the
anti-Israel comments of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and about
Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas.

“And so there is no doubt that Iran poses an extraordinary threat to
Israel and Israel is always justified in making decisions that will
provide for its security,” Obama said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20400368

What Bullshit.


As his over the top support for the Ethanol lobby [read agribusiness] shows [and McCain opposes], Obama’s spine is a weak as any Dummycrat in Congress when comes to really standing up the most powerful lobbyists he has so “firmly rejected”. By further fanning the flames of fear regarding the potential for a “necessary” surrogate military strike by Israel against Iran, Obama shows his true political position.

Yes, there are other serious differences between him and McCain, but his recent pro militaristic Israeli comments [re:AIPAC speech] show him firmly slipping into the pocket of those who would lead us into a potential World War III. Perhaps his next move is going to joing McCain ina duet on “Bomb bomb Iran” as in the YouTube clip??

What ever happened to the open diplomatic approach so loudly espoused during the primary campaign?? Mr Obama’s swing to the center right was to be expected in the general election. But, parroting the likes of Bush, Cheney and McCain on policy toward Iran is hardly a position that looks even remotely “progressive”.

Oh, and Mr Obama also opposes Impeaching the War Criminals Bush and Cheney…too much of an “unnecessary distraction”…
We need DIPLOMACY, not jingoistic posturing!!

 

Ray McGovern in Detroit Free Press Asks Conyers to Impeach Bush to Avoid Attack on Iran

June 19, 2008
1 Comment

Impeach Bush now?
Congressional proceedings would help prevent another mistaken war
BY RAY McGOVERN • Detroit Free Press

United States Rep. John Conyers, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has a rendezvous with destiny. He is uniquely placed to thrust a rod through the wheels of a White House juggernaut to war with Iran by commencing impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush.

A move to impeach would bolster the resistance to Bush among our senior military leaders who know that attacking Iran at this time would be the strategic equivalent of the marches into Russia by Napoleon and Hitler.

Since Conyers took the helm of Judiciary in January 2007, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Bush administration has gotten even longer. But oddly, Conyers has lost his earlier appetite for impeachment and begun offering all manner of transparent excuses not to proceed. On July 23, 2007, for example, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me that he would need 218 votes in the House, and vociferously claimed the votes were not there.

Well, they are now. Last week, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers’ committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment offered by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Conyers should take them up. (more…)


Dennis Kucinich Says He’s Not Giving Up on Impeachment: Morality and the Law Require It.

June 14, 2008
2 Comments

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
By Meg White

“This isn’t just about impeachment. It’s about reorienting our politics to a position which respects morality. Our moral compass needs to be reset here.”
-Rep. Dennis Kucinich

In an exclusive interview with BuzzFlash Friday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) discussed the 35 articles of impeachment he introduced against President George W. Bush earlier this week. Though the word on the Hill is that the call for impeachment will not go anywhere, the Ohio representative is undeterred.

“This is a very grave matter that cannot be and will not be swept under the rug by some kind of a legislative trap,” he said.

Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have signed on to the resolution, and Kucinich expects more co-sponsors in the coming days and weeks.

“There will be more. I’m quite confident of that, and as members start to read the document it’ll keep growing,” he said.

The proposal is now in the Judiciary Committee, where many expect it to stay at least until after the November elections. (more…)


WHY DO WOMEN GIVE JOHN McCAIN A ZERO???

June 10, 2008
Leave a Comment

“If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement.”  —John McCain

Despite his media generated image as a “maverick”, John McCain is anything but. His historical record as a legislator, while showing some slight deviation from the basic conservative Republican philosophy, has been of a social and economic right winger.

McCain’s political philosophy is fundamentally anti-choice and comes from an anti-self empowered woman perspective. It is unfortunate that some women who supported Hilary Clinton now are saying that they will vote for McCain due to her loss in the democratic primaries to Barack Obama. Ms Clinton put up a strenuous campaign advocating positions that are at the heart of progressive feminist political perspective, and for that she is to be commended. However, for any of her supporters to argue for a pro McCain candidacy is to turn their backs on all the reasons they held so important in her campaign as they related to women issues.

As Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films. creator of numerous progressive video shorts about McCain, points out…”We’re talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn’t require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women’s rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.”

McCain has consistently received a ZERO rating from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League]

Access the Website THE REAL JOHN McCAIN AT THIS URL>>

http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail

John McCain is no friend of feminism….


Whiners, Poor Losers and Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be Barack’s VP/By Dave Lindorff

June 4, 2008
Leave a Comment

Whiners, Poor Losers and Why Hillary Shouldn’t Be Barack’s VP

By Dave Lindorff

It’s kind of bizarre reading about supposed “feminists” who are reportedly claiming they’ll vote for McCain rather than Obama, now that “their” candidate, Hillary Clinton, is out of the running for the presidential nomination.

First of all, John McCain is clearly the candidate of the anti-abortion crowd, but that’s not the half of it. He’s also the candidate who says Anthony Scalia, John Roberts and Sam Alito are his kind of judges. We’re talking here about guys (yeah, guys) who think a woman’s place is in the home, and who only recently ruled that if she’s discriminated against on the job, and doesn’t learn about it for a decade or more, a woman can’t do anything about it, because the original offense of underpaying her happened more than 180 days ago. McCain is also the guy who, after his wife suffered a serious car crash and became disabled, dumped her for a younger, richer woman. A feminist’s dream, this guy.

And how about Hillary Clinton? When she was supposedly getting her “White House experience”—you know, the “co-presidency” she was supposedly part of during the eight years her husband was president and she was First Lady—she and Bill oversaw the “end of welfare as we know it.” What that fine piece of legislation did was limit people to five years on the dole. That’s for life. It doesn’t matter what misfortune befalls you later on.

Now many single women left to raise kids by fathers who either ditch them or who never stepped up to the plate as fathers in the first place, have a hard time, between lack of adequate child care facilities and discrimination on the job, keeping the rent paid and food on the table. Many of them need government assistance well beyond that five years—a period of time not long enough to even get one kid into full-time school, much less two or three. That didn’t matter to Hillary, the great champion of women. She and Bill were busy triangulating and figuring out how to keep their White House position, and that meant selling out poor people, and especially poor women with kids. Welfare had to go.

Even on abortion rights, Clinton has been a waffler. In 2000, running for Senate in New York, she said she would be a staunch defender of the right to choose. But by 2004, she was saying abortion was a “tragic” choice, and was supporting parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion—a position she continues to hold. But abortion isn’t a “tragic choice” for everyone. For some women—rape and incest victims, or women who are victims of abuse come readily to mind—abortion may be a blessed relief. For some, it may be no more tragic than an appendectomy—and it should be no harder to get, or to pay for than one either. There is a reason why the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) voted unanimously to endorse Obama, who has said abortion rights are about more than just women’s right to control their own bodies, but are about basic issues of equality.

What the cries of “McCain, McCain!” by disappointed Clinton backers really represent is an example of sour grapes, as well as of a certain perhaps hidden element of racism. It is as if blacks, had Obama been the loser in this nomination battle, were to say, “That’s it, we’re voting for McCain!”

Obviously, African-American candidates have had to endure this problem for years. When their candidate, whether it was Jesse Jackson, or Shirley Chisolm, or Ted Kennedy, was defeated, they have had to look to their broader interests and decide whether to vote Republican, sit out the election, or just shrug and vote for the winning Democrat. Consistently, they have chosen the third option, disappointment after disappointment.

Blacks are supposed to stick with the Democrats, no matter what. Clinton backers, however, don’t feel handcuffed in this way. Some of them, apparently, feel free to abandon all their liberal principles and vote for a right-wing, anti-abortion, fundamentalist Christian-coddling warmonger if they don’t get the candidate they want from the Democrats.

If these grousers and poor losers in the Clinton camp thought honestly about it for even a moment, they’d realize that had Clinton won the most delegates, and if African-American and liberal, educated white backers of Obama, in response, were to adopt their position and bolt to McCain, Clinton would be a historical asterisk, with no chance of being elected.

In the end, I suspect that most of the whining and the threats to switch to McCain represent only a small, if vocal, minority. The truth is, in the course of 54 primaries, Obama won a majority of female voters—a point rarely made in media reports on this contest. The same can be said of those “white—hard working white” voters who supposedly went for Hillary Clinton in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. In fact, numerically speaking, Obama won more of those white, working class voters than did either John Kerry or Al Gore before him. Meanwhile, many of those male voters who voted for Hillary Clinton are probably people who were going to vote Republican in the fall anyhow. There was an organized campaign, after all, by Republican activists, to throw the election to Clinton, who was seen as being easier to defeat in the fall than Obama. That effort almost certainly gave Clinton her narrow win in Indiana, and padded her margins in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

As for Clinton’s fallback position of trying to make herself the vice-presidential candidate on a “dream” Obama-Clinton ticket, Obama would have to be crazy to go for it. Clinton brings nothing but disaster to the Obama campaign. He doesn’t need her to win New York, New Jersey or California, all of which he will win by a landslide without her in November. He doesn’t need her for Illinois (her home state, whatever efforts she made to try to pretend she was a rural Pennsylvanian during that state’s primary). She certainly doesn’t help him in the south, with the possible exception of Florida. She doesn’t bring any “balance” to the ticket, given that both senators have almost identical voting records on domestic issues. And as for the swing states—Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, etc.—she may do more damage than good, given the number of independents and Republicans who have been drawn to Obama, but who have negative feelings about the Clintons. Moreover, with the right vice-presidential candidate—and it’s not Clinton—Obama may even have a shot at not just Virginia, but also North Carolina and even Mississippi—states where the percentage of black voters is high enough that, with an energized black voter turnout, the liberal Democratic vote could be enough to turn the trick.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has all along been about entitlement. She began her race for the White House acting as though it was a coronation—something she deserved after enduring eight years in the White House as second fiddle to husband Bill. Now, having been defeated, she’s acting like she deserves second fiddle. But the truth is, Clinton, by her shabby appeals to racist voters, by her resort to red-baiting of her opponent, and finally by her refusal to denounce and apologize for her shameless and calculating backing for the invasion of Iraq, has rendered her unfit for a spot on the Democratic ticket.

Obama can do much better than that. Yes he can.
____________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net


About author

61 Y/O VIET VET WORKING FROM THE LEFT OF CENTER

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds