Obama: Walking a Thin Line

I can't remember a time when the political landscape has been as bleak and littered by crackpot ideas than it is now. The two representatives of the duopoly that share power in this nation have consistently changed positions and both have endorsed the use of force (including first-strike nuclear attacks) on nations that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy. These positions would have been anathema to a presidential race just a few years ago, but now statements supporting pre-emptive nuclear strikes are talked about with hardly any eyebrows being raised, or indignation expressed.

This presidential race has become a "gotcha" fest of the lowest moral caliber. Instead of portraying themselves as morally worthy of holding the highest office in the land, the two major party candidates have consistently raised the bar of what is considered acceptable to Americans. Time and time again, ideas and policy statements that would have been unthinkable in the 20th century are now commonplace rhetoric on a planet that has seemingly forgotten the horrors of nuclear warfare, and now has become inured to scenes of death and destruction of civilian populations in the name of bringing "democracy and freedom" to the corpses that litter the streets and back alleys of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American people are asked to accept pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a "winning strategy" that will enable their candidate to win the election. Time and time again I hear the words "political expediency" when supporters of either candidate brings up the question of the use of force. We are consistently told that in order to win the presidency the candidates cannot seem to be soft on terrorism or soft on defense for that would show them as "spineless" and cost them dearly on Election Day. These types of arguments are given to the so-called liberal/progressives that make up a big part of the alternative media that is called "the blogosphere". The reality of the situation is that both Obama and McCain both seem to have veered sharply to the right of their previous positions when they weren't looking to win the White House.

One must wonder why, when some pollsters claim that over 70% of the American people want to withdraw from Iraq, they consistently pander to the 20-30% of Americans that support this war. It would seem that a winning strategy would to embrace the 70% of Americans that want an end to this protracted war that has cost this country almost a trillion dollars and over 4,000 dead American soldiers. That would make better political sense than aligning with the 30% that want to continue the war. Why aren't both major candidates doing that in the name of political expedience?

One can only surmise the intentions of both Obama and McCain. Saber-rattling and posturing towards attacking Iran would seem to be counter-productive to reaching the 70% of the voters that cast their votes in November. If both candidates don't care about alienating this 70% than there must be a good reason, the facts behind their behavior are fairly obvious, that is, if one simply follows the money.

Here is a sampling of donor information pulled from The Center for Responsive Government;

"Wall Street seems to have selected Barack Obama for its own major investment this election cycle. Traditionally an industry that gives to Republicans, securities and investment companies have been pouring money into the coffers of both the Illinois senator and former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, giving nearly $15 million combined to the two, according to Reuters, citing data from CRP."

"Overall, 57 percent of this industry's contributions to the race (including all candidates who have run) have been to Democratic candidates. Since the start of 2007, Obama has received $7.9 million, with Clinton only about $800,000 behind. Should Obama continue to be this industry's financial favorite, it will become the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will have brought in more Wall Street donations than the Republicans. In the 2004 election cycle, President Bush collected nearly twice that of Democrat John Kerry from the securities and investment industry--$9.2 million compared to $4.8 million. This cycle, Republican candidate John McCain, who would likely be less tough on trade and regulation than Obama, still falls short with a mere $4.1 million."

Could the practice of wooing the 30% of the population that supports the war in Iraq have anything to do with campaign financing? If you consider that even though the country is facing recession, the Dow still manages to post gains. When you consider that many trust and pension funds contain oil companies and defense contractors in their portfolios, it's no wonder that the Obama Campaign supports the minority because that's where the money is. In my opinion, to come out of the gate appearing hawkish is good for Obama's bottom line. This can always be rectified later, after contributions by bundlers are collected. Once the money is in he can always shift his focus to the 70% that helped him win the nomination, in other words, practical politics.

While so many Americans cling to the promise that there can be "change" and chant "yes we can!", maybe it's time that the liberal/progressive faction of the Democratic Party stop choking up and also dry the tears of joy that mist their eyes. So far in this campaigning before the conventions we can see that practicality seems to overshadow ideals and conscience. It's back to business as usual in this presidential campaign, another example that illustrates that money does indeed make the world go `round. I'm convinced that the only real change we'll see in the Obama Campaign is that the sainted Democratic Senator from Illinois will not accept public campaign funds. Why should he when you consider that he is being funded from both ideological sides of the fence? Nice strategy...as long as it doesn't backfire.  



Display:


What? (2.00 / 2)

(including first-strike nuclear attacks) on nations that are opposed to U.S. foreign policy.

Care to show me where Obama said anything about a first strike nuclear attack?


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM EST

Re: What? (1.00 / 1)

The American people are asked to accept pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a "winning strategy" that will enable their candidate

Panda bears!... and the hugs they recieve from us. would you be my Panda bear? pulezzze


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (2.00 / 3)

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (none / 0)

Nice quote.  I reached for it awhile back in response to another poster and, in looking for the author and exact wording, traced it back to this version from Proverbs 17:28:
"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."

But yours is the version I was reaching for (apparently by Abraham Lincoln).
by username on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the info username good to know where it came from


by 12 dogs and a blog on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 1)

Your analysis on Iraq is way out. Perhaps you're a complete isolationship, but as someone who thinks the Iraq war was a complete disaster (mainly for Iraqis) I'm glad Obama isn't planning to pull out without heed to the consequences (mainly for Iraqis).

You say 70 per cent of the population wants troops out now. Well, 70 per cent supported the war in 2003.

To predicate US foreign policy on some temporary domestic popularity is what has given US foreign policy such a bad name in recent years.


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:40:48 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

According to Tim Russert during the time of the 2004 Dem Convention 90% of those at the convention Didn't support the war in Iraq.

Ever wonder what would have happened if Howard Dean won the nomination?

I do.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

go away troll


by zerosumgame on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Hey zero sum

For some reason you think that someone who disagrees with you is a troll.

No.

A troll is someone who on purpose tries to stir stuff up. We call them a "pot stirrer" because the try real hard to "stir the pot". The comments of a troll are designed to make trouble. That's different from  someone who asks questions or in this case participates in a chat or conversation and disagrees with your position. The fact is that in COVERSATIONS about politics reasonable people will disagree without any intention to "stir up trouble".  Honestly.  

So I'm not sure how relating Tim Russert's comment at the 2004 National Convention was trying to make trouble? He did say that 90% of the delegates at that convention were against the war in Iraq. As you know alot of the negative information about the war had come out by that time. Even some Republicans were upset.

I could respond to your comment with another snarky one. But we'd take up alot of space looking like my 6 year old nephew. Nope. Even he has better sense.

I'm sorry if I have hurt your feeling. I was just relaying what I heard first hand.


by 12 dogs and a blog on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 2)

Did I miss something? When did Obama ever countenance a preemptive nuclear attack? That's the main premise of your diary.

Campaign contributions from Wall Street are not surprising. They can see an electoral slaughter coming just as easily as everyone else who pays attention to politics. Why wouldn't they try to curry favor with the people they think are going to be in control? Trying to curry favor doesn't guarantee you will get it.

This new meme of "Obama is a centrist" is going to be a bigger failure than the "He's the most liberal Senator" meme. What do the people pushing this new meme hope to accomplish? Do they really think painting Obama as a centrist is going to make progressives and liberals vote for McCain, who is far to Obama's right?

It certainly can't be an effort to turn independents or centrists away from him. This new meme will make him more attractive to those groups. It has to be an effort to demoralize the left. I've got news for you. The left is engaged to a greater extent than ever before. We have G. W. Bush to thank for that.

Very few people are going to stay home in November because they think Obama isn't far enough to the left. On the other hand, a lot of independents and moderate Republicans will turn out to vote for him because of that belief. Keep up the good work.

This diary fails as miserably as the 10 others that have already been posted pushing this meme. There have been plenty of diaries countering this new tactic. You fail.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:46:18 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

This new meme of "Obama is a centrist" is going to be a bigger failure than the "He's the most liberal Senator" meme.

Comically, the same people are probably pushing both of these at the same time (though to different audiences).  

I'd much rather listen to 4 months of this than Larry Johnsonesque shit-flinging.  Sadly, I fear we'll be treated to both.


by username on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Yes you have missed something you moron. OBOMBA has made those comments in front of AIPAC and go to project votesmart.org and look at his foreign policy positions. You folks crack me up. You claim to care about liberal values and OBOMBA cares about none of the. You claim to care about solidiers, but Obama wants to use merchinaries. You are traitors to your country and cowards.


by parisd on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:07:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

I am quite aware of his foreign affairs policy stances. They do not include a preemptive nuclear strike. Bush/Cheney have more "merchinaries" [sic] in Iraq than regular US Armed Forces.

This is a great way to start off in a new blogging community. Come in and start calling people names in your first ever post. Let's review the insults you managed to spew in three sentences - "moron, traitors, cowards". Not very nice for a newcomer.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Newcomer" ? (none / 0)

Say what you wish...but make sure he gets to be "one of the gang" first.


by Timothy Gatto on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 3)

They're all exactly the same so I might as well vote for McCain, I guess. Oh, wait a minute, that won't work because I'm not retarded!


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:53:39 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 3)

No no no... the current meme isn't that both candidates are the same, it's that we don't know enough about Obama because he's a flip flopping closet Republican, so McCain is actually the only candidate we should feel safe voting for.  Didn't you get the memo?


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dat memo? (2.00 / 2)

 ....was that the memo that complained of the fact that the 'drive-by media' are ignoring that very concerning middle initial?


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Small correction (none / 0)

The American people are asking for pandering to the right by both candidates in the name of a "winning strategy" that will enable their candidate to win the election

Flag Pins.

Secret Muslim (as though Muslim is a swear word).

The undeniable effectiveness of stumping from the back of a Chevy pickup and doing a shot. The vote-draining power of enjoying a latte.

American elections are about propaganda and it's effective use. Even a good policy isn't helpful to have, unless you can convince people that it's good. With a bit more persuasiveness, a bad policy will do. Our candidates are a symptom of the problem, our electorate is the root cause.


by Neef on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:12:57 PM EST

Re: Small correction (none / 0)

You got it Toyota.


by Timothy Gatto on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Drive-by diarist (2.00 / 2)

Check out his history.  A member less than a few weeks, and all his diaries are unsourced Obama hit-pieces.

Try again (Republican?  PUMA?) buddy.


by spunkmeyer on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:03:41 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Unsourced Obama hit-pieces? But if I agreed to all of Obama's points of view then I would be pretty stupid. In the words of Fmr Sen. Mike Gravel, "Who do you want to nuke Barack?" Oh, he's a Democrat, I'm supposed to support him no matter what.


by Timothy Gatto on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:14:52 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

But then again, in Senator Gravel's more-immortal non-words: (30 seconds of creepy staring).  So we can't take him too seriously.


by username on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Yes I take Gravel seriously, he had the courage to end the draft. Tell us Mr Democrat, what has a pussy like Obama done to show courage? Obama is a closeted NAZI!


by parisd on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

spunkmeyer bags yet another troll.

And never even broke a sweat. Awesome.


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:28:53 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 0)

The author is trolling, but I don't think he's a repug troll, unless he's a really good one. I think he's a far left troll. He doesn't want anyone to win unless it's someone to the far left of Nader. Then again, maybe he is a repuke troll with a well-established cover.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:24:13 PM EST

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Why should I care how you classify me? I don't believe that I mentioned McCain in a good way. Yes, Obama is the "lesser of two evils". So, by pointing that out, does that automatically make me a McCain supporter? Put my name in a search engine and see how I've "covered my tracks" for the last five years, just so I could put Obama down. Heh,heh.


by Timothy Gatto on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Isn't that what I said in my comment? I said I didn't think you were a republican troll. I left that impossibility out there, because who can ever know for sure? I also didn't say I thought you wanted McCain to win. I never mentioned McCain in my comment. Maybe you meant to reply to a different comment.

As to why you should care, you shouldn't.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (none / 0)

Possibility, not "impossibility". I think that was a spell check correction.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama: Walking a Thin Line (2.00 / 0)

Why haven't you responded to any of the comments asking you for details about Obama's supposed willingness to initiate a first strike? Why haven't you responded to my comments about donations from Wall Street? Those are the two major points of your diary and you have failed to respond to any of the comments relating to them.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's Comments (none / 0)

During the 2nd debate Obama proclaimed that if there was "actionable intelligence" that terrorists were in possession of WMD's he would respond with "all the options on the table". (something to that effect anyway). Donations from Wall Street in the form of "bundled donations" are there for all to see on www.opensecrets.org. I realize that some may disagree with bundled donations by claiming that these are "individual" donations and that because of the way the employer of the donator must be disclosed, its just a coincidence that Goldman-Sachs appears as if they donated 1.2 million dollars when it was really "individuals" and not the corp. that was donating. I find that bundler's and contributions  that measure in the millions from a few select corporations is very telling.

I guess it could be a coincidence that so many of these same corporations supported the GOP in the last general election and they all decided to jump ship and ride on a different boat all at once. I can't say for sure it didn't happen like that. I guess anything can be rationalized.

I hope I answered your questions.


by Timothy Gatto on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Comments (none / 0)

Thank you for answering my questions.

Your answers give rise to some more questions. What makes you think that a preemptive nuclear strike is one of the options on the table? I've never heard Obama put forward that possibility. I have heard him criticize Hillary for her comments about obliterating Iran. That doesn't fit the scenario you  envision. I don't see where you are getting the impression that Obama is willing to use nuclear except in retaliation.

The second point, while on subject, ignored my view of Wall Street donations. I don't deny that WS firms are bundling donations. I also don't deny that bundling is a simple workaround to donation limits. I just don't see it the same way you do. You say WS usually gives to the GOP and this year they are giving to Dems. Well, as I said in my other comment, that's because they realize the Dems are going to control both houses of Congress and the White House. Of course, they are trying to buy some good will. Just because they are contributing doesn't mean it will work. Do you think Dem politicians will think that WS has suddenly come over to their side? Of course not. Their actions are seen for what they are, an attempt to buy favor.

What will you say if the Democratic controlled Congress restructures the tax code in 2008 so that hedge fund operators start paying income tax instead of capital gains tax? Will you apologize for accusing Dems of allowing themselves to be bought? That is what you are implying, isn't it?


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's Comments (none / 0)

Well let us see.


by Timothy Gatto on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 02:27:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Memo to Mr. T. Gatto (none / 0)

re: 'Oh, he's a Democrat, I'm supposed to support him no matter what.'

No one is telling you who to vote for or support.

But we do have a candidate.

(I'm Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!)


by xdem on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:38:14 PM EST

pandering to 30%??????? (none / 0)

um no.  how about being responsible leaders?  

the iraq war is a travesty (my country did not join the allied forces) however once the US went in there, they cannot drop everything TODAY and leave.  this is will lead to bigger problems in the future.    

did you learn nothing from the past follies of afghanistan?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:56:14 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.