Obama's bankrupt words make the inaugral address meaningless.

Here's my response to this article in Salon from a Democratic Party apologist, John Paul Rollert.

What Obama should say in his second inaugural

Wonderwheel

Monday, Jan 21, 2013 11:37 AM PST

My laughing started with this subtitle:

"Now is the time to articulate a vision of capitalism that explicitly rejects the notion of 'job creators'."

The very idea of such a species of "capitalism" is a fairytale for children. Capital-ism means making money from capital. What is capital? It is money and tangible assets. Making money from capital means having other people do work with “your” capital and then giving you the lion’s share of the profits and they get the leftovers. There is no variety of so-called compassionate capitalism in which the owners of capital don’t assert their possession of the capital as god-given or hard-earned, even though it is only by sleight of hand and the force of arms that they are able acquire and maintain that capital.

For example, the raw materials of the land should belong to everyone and not to someone who has a paper title drawn on a map. Individual title to a home is one thing, and its not capitalism because the home is not used by laborers to get a profit for the home owner. But title to oil deep in the earth being held by an individual is ridiculous and only reasonable under the chicanery of capitalism’s style of three card monte. As for Wall Street’s stock “exchanges,” they are nothing more or less than the exchanges occurring every day in gambling casinos.

When private property is properly restricted to the amount that a person can physically pick up and hold and manage on their own, without additional servants or hired hands to care for it, then we will have an economic system that has to look at the remaining capital as the capital of the commons to be used in a system of economic democracy for the good of the nation, and not for the good of the corporate lords of the American Brand of Fascism.

*****

I would just add that Mr. Rollert's notion of a ideal "common capitalism" is just as much an oxymoron as Schumpeter’s "Creative Destruction." 

Rollert ends with the hopeful fairy story of "a vision of economic development that doesn’t see us waiting on the deliverance of an enlightened few, but one in which there is dignity and place for everyone to lend a hand."  But what does that really mean? He hasn't described a single instance of practical difference to the current system of economic injustice.  Stripped of the finery, Rollert's vision of "everyone lending a hand" means exactly what we have now under capitalism, everyone lending a hand and the capitalists determining how much trickles down to the hands.

It really is silly to imagine "what Obama should say" in his inaugral, because whatever he says will have absolutely no currency in the market place of real politics, anymore than the many campaign promises of his first term that have been broken.

Heroes Don't Vote for Criminals.

Rebecca Solnit has written a diatribe in the form of a letter that is being passed around under the title of "We could be heroes."

Yes, we could be heroes, if we were to challenge the two-party dictatorship of the American Brand of Fascism that controls our semi-democratic institutions.

Here is my response.

 

LOL! Poor Rebecca, having to whine about whiners whining about whiners. Where does all the whining begin? Must be the big bang that whines through the ages.

Poor Rebecca says, “I have a grand goal, and that is to counter the Republican right with its deep desire to annihilate everything I love and to move toward far more radical goals than the Democrats ever truly support.”  Now, I’m all for ambiguity as the natural state of reality, for complexity in goals, for aiming at goals that are actually in different directions, for conundrum and paradox in political positions, but the idea that the road to achieving these two goals of Rebecca’s leads through the town of supporting the Democratic Party is just plain wrong.  It is a misreading of the map so fundamentally upside down that it is like driving to Seattle to see the manatees and gators.

Rebecca can call me “rancid” and I could come up with a few choice adjectives for her, but I will just stick with “poor Rachel” as her letter presents both a poor grasp of politics and of human nature.  Poor Rachel can’t see the cosmology of the radical left because she closes her eyes and ears to it, not because it is not presented.

So, Poor Rebecca admits that she does not deplore with a lot of fuss the “bad things” that Obama does because she expects him to do those bad things.  In other words, she expects him to assassinate people as the stated foreign policy and to kill US citizens and to torture and to pay off his Wall Street buddies while foreclosures burn, and the list goes on and on.  She just doesn’t deplore the leader who fiddles while America burns because she expects the fiddling.  That is the attitude of poverty of thought.

STRAW MAN:  Then Rebecca wheels out the straw man argument that she couldn’t talk to her leftist friends about our ex-Governor Schwarzenegger’s positive respects. That is a straw man argument which has nothing to do with the actual positive and negative aspects of the current president.  Basically, all Rebecca presents in her rant is variations on the logical fallacy of the straw man. 

Next, Rebecca tells us as if we are children in kindergarten that “There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad.”  Yes, Rebecca we know this truism. We also know where the wild things are.

Rebecca wants to know, what purpose does it serve to point out that a person who claims to be anti-death penalty is condoning the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs?  Dear Rebecca, the purpose is to point out the blanket label of “anti-death penalty” is qualified not absolute.  You can celebrate the coolness of Kamala Harris; just don’t claim that her coolness gives her a free pass to escape criticism for where she is not so cool. Rebecca acts as if Obama’s saying he is for peace should not be countered with all the examples of his pro-war mongering including drones killing wedding participants and assassination of US citizens. What Rebecca is blind to is the insanity of a man accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in his acceptance speech talking about how he is a better warrior. 

Rebecca claims she wants to focus on fixing problems or being compassionate, yet her rant is just as uncompassionate as those she rants against.  Her rant is also just as void of focus on fixing problems as she moans about others.  There is not one fix suggested for our democratic system presented.

Poor Rebecca calls unconstitutional and impeachable acts by the president “dimples on the imperial derriere” and says they are not worth discussing.  Yes, Poor Rebecca doesn’t want to discuss such dirty and troubling things; she wants to talk about the things that look good.

If Rebecca votes for Obama with the belief that fewer people will suffer, then that is her choice based on her calculation. If I vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, with the belief that fewer people will suffer then why doesn’t she grant me this choice, but instead says that my belief is wrong and my vote is just “choosing the greater of two evils”?  See? Rebecca is as guilty of left voter suppression as anyone.   The “evils” slogan in this context comes from the Democrats, not from the leftists, but Rebecca adds another straw man argument claiming that it is leftists who coined and push the “evils” meme.

Another straw man argument made by Rebecca is the one that rants against the left for saying “that there’s no difference” between the two parties.  But there is no leftist who makes that argument.  When people say the choice between the Republican and Democratic candidates for president is a choice between Pepsi and Coke, they are not saying “there is no difference.” Everyone knows that Pepsi and Coke taste different.  What is being said is that when it comes to the things of most importance to the voter the differences in taste are not as significant as the similarity in sugar content.  

Yes, Rebecca, we are facing a right wing that has abandoned all interest in truth and fact.  I call them the American Taliban. And yes, to oppose them requires that we be different from them.  They support and reelect their president no matter what crimes he commits, so we must be different and not support and not reelect our president because of the crimes he commits. Calling Obama’s crimes “minor differences” of opinion is just plain disgusting.  Overlooking Obama’s crimes insures that there is no possibility of changing the conditions that allows him to continue committing those crimes. 

Rebecca’s form of defeatism is the fetishism of the politics of hope that blinds her to the actual crimes being committed in her name.  People need hope. But they need hope that is real not just the false promise of hope by a con game played on the voters using the two-party tyranny that keeps the Republicans and Democrats in power switching back and forth.  Rebecca says she want to achieve the goal of countering the Republican right, but that goal can’t be achieved by supporting the very same Democrats who depend on the Republican right for their reason for existence.  Democrats could have countered the Republican right many years ago but have failed to do so becauseit is not in their interests to do so. 

If we want to talk about fixing the problem, about compassion for democracy, let’s talk about fixing the system.  I ask all "big D" Democrats: if you truly believe in "small d" democracy, then why don't you demand that your party (1) turn over the Presidential Debates to a public commission and (2) allow any candidate on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral college votes to participate?  If you are a Democrat, how can you say you support democracy yet don't allow a true competition in the political marketplace? The American Brand of Fascism is based on the two-party tyranny of our democratic institutions. The single most important first step to fixing the institutional system of democracy in the USA is for the people to take the control of the presidential debates out of the hands of the private corporation that runs them and is controlled by the two parties themselves and return thepresidential debates back to the people.

 

 

 

 

Kucinich Would Win If People Dared To Vote On The Issues

Kucinich is the only candidate who really has a vision that is from the heart and not from the pocket book.

Kucinich is the candidate who transcends the political cynicism of the plutocracy propaganda. Those words "plutocracy" and "propaganda" probably turn off some people who just can't quite grasp what is going on in politics today. But the propaganda becomes clear when you learn that Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the most people on most of the issues, yet his candidacy is marginalized by the media, the Democratic Party leaders, and by the Democratic Party rank and file who even acknowledge that he presents their views on the issues but they just can't vote for him because he is not seen as "electable".

I think it is plainly evident that when people speak on the issues and are not blinded by the hype of “electability”, “stature,” “charisma”, or “star power,” then Dennis Kucinich would be the next president of the USA.

Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the majority of the American people. See the poll below if you don’t believe it. Yes it is unscientific; yes it is limited and skewed to internet users; but even given all of that, you must ask your self why the poll shows nearly 58% ranking Kucinich first place on the issues when the candidates name is NOT known. The next highest candidate gets less than 8% of first place rankings? Why is that? Don't you find this to be shocking?

We should look at all the issues to evaluate the candidate of our choice. I think everyone agrees with that.

So which issues do you look at most importantly? No candidate can be expected to agree with each of us on all the issues, but how is Kucinich wrong on the issues that you hold to be most important?

When people look at the issues in a “blind taste test” asking where they stand on an issue without a candidate’s face attached, the results are startling only to those who live within the media black-out of Kucinich and the propaganda of “horse race” elections. Kucinich speaks for the people. What is shocking is that the people don't get to know that due to the media filtering and manipulation of the reporting. For example, a recent PBS News Hour report on a Democratic debate made is seem that it was a debate between Obama and Clinton with the other candidates merely looking on.

Go to this website http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php to see how your views line up with the candidates on 25 issues:

I found the results to be quite accurate in my case, correctly scoring and ranking my agreement with the candidates in order of my preference on the issues: Kucinich 103, Gravel 77, Obama 56, Edwards 55, Clinton 55, Dodd 53, Biden 48, Richardson 47.

Here are some basic stats based on the submissions to the questionnaire at the time of calculation: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

At the time of 134,346 people answering:

Measuring how many people had the candidate as their first rank according to how they responded to the issues, NOT KNOWING THE CANDIDATE’S NAME:

Candidate | Number of first | Percentage of
------------ | place ranks -----| people responding
Kucinich - 77,824 -- 57.93%
Gravel - 9,522 -- 7.09%
Paul - 9,182 -- 6.83%
Romney - 5,912 -- 4.40%
Clinton - 4,903 -- 3.65%
Hunter - 4,195 -- 3.12%
Giuliani - 4,069 -- 3.03%
Obama - 3,942 -- 2.93%
Biden - 2,522 -- 1.88%
Richardson - 2,416 -- 1.80%
McCain - 2,256 -- 1.68%
Tancredo - 2,117 -- 1.58%
Edwards - 1,472 -- 1.10%
Dodd - 1,164 -- 0.87%
Huckabee - 986 -- 0.73%
Cox - 941 -- 0.70%
Thompson - 582 -- 0.43%
Brownback - 341 -- 0.25%
Total: 134,346 -- 100.00%


At the time of this response snapshot, nearly 58% of respondents had their positions on the issues rank Kucinich as most agreeing with them. The second highest candidate Gravel has a little over 7%.

When the responses are preference weighted for the top three candidates with a responder’s first rank getting a 3, second rank a 2, and third rank getting a 1, the following order appears:

Candidate | Weighted number ----- | Percentage of all
-------------| of top three ranks ----- | weighted responses.
Kucinich - 266210 -- 33.44%
Gravel - 160516 -- 20.16%
Obama - 61435 -- 7.72%
Clinton - 43352 -- 5.45%
Paul - 38148 -- 4.79%
Romney - 30525 -- 3.83%
Edwards - 27404 -- 3.44%
Hunter - 26314 -- 3.31%
Richardson - 22538 -- 2.83%
Biden - 21518 -- 2.70%
Dodd - 18236 -- 2.29%
Giuliani - 17854 -- 2.24%
Tancredo - 17717 -- 2.23%
McCain - 17286 -- 2.17%
Huckabee - 8031 -- 1.01%
Cox - 7368 -- 0.93%
Thompson - 6358 -- 0.80%
Brownback - 5266 -- 0.66%
Total: - 796076 -- 100.00%


Even with weighting the top three, Kucinich is still by far the number one ranked candidate on the issues by those responding. The difference between these two lists shows the vast number of Democrats who have positions that rank Obama and Clinton as second or third behind Kucinich and Gravel. Remember, these are ranks on the issues WITHOUT the names of the candidates attached, not on a rank of the candidate by name or personality. This shows that the Democratic Party leadership is not following the rank and file of the Party's views.

Iraq was of course the issue ranked most important by the most people, and clearly Kucinich speaks for the most people on this issue, even though the Democratic controlled congress does not follow Kucinich's lead and is still supporting the war.

Here are my important issues:

Kucinich was the first candidate to oppose Iraq and have the good judgement and level thinking to stand against it when 9/11 hysteria was giving in to Bush: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for not-for-profit health care for all: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for a Department of Peace to begin the education process away from war and violence as a way of solving both international and domestic issues: right on that one too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says it is wrong to use war as an instrument of foreign policy (this is probably over the heads of the other candidates): and he is right on that issue.

Kucinich openly opposes nuclear weapons and commits to nuclear disarmament: right again.

Kucinich is the only candidate who is unequivocal about reparations for slavery: right on that one.

Kucinich is the only candidate against land mines, cluster bombs, and uranium munitions: right on that one again.

Kucinich is the candidate who says on his first day in office he will get out of NAFTA and WTO, and join the international criminal court: right again.

Kucinich is against the death penalty: right on that too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has a plan for universal day care for pre-kindergarten for ages 3 to 5 (Clinton announced her program long after Kucinich had already announced his but her’s will start at age 4): right here too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says that every American should have the right and opportunity to go to college and he has a program to make that real: right once more.

Kucinich is the only candidate with a comprehensive public works program focusing on green issues: right there as well.

Kucinich is the only candidate I've heard say that the war on terror is fake and that we should instead hunt down so-called "terrorists" as the criminals that they are using the international police structures and not aggrandizing these criminals by calling them combatants in a "war" which is really a sham: right, right, right.

Kucinich is for equal marriage rights: right on that too.

I also find it interesting that Kucinich is asking for the media to look into what it means that Hillary Clinton stands up in a debate and says she regrets that she was "lied" to and misled by Bush. Well, why couldn't she tell Bush was lying? I mean, his lips were moving, weren't they? So far the media is giving Clinton a free pass on this question and instead touts her so-called “experience.” Actually, Obama is quite right to point out he has been in elected office for more years than Clinton or Edwards have been. Of course Obama doesn't point out that Kucinich has been in elected office at the city, state, and federal levels longer than Obama and so has the widest experience at all levels of government.

Yet the propaganda machine doesn’t discuss his experience or his having the positions on issues that reflects the widest swath of the U.S. citizens. If only people would vote the issues by voting their conscience, rather than running scared and voting for horses in a horse race! Then we would have a leader who actually reflected the people and not just the wealthy.

Obama's Diplomatic Blunder

Now Barack Obama's campaign is sending out messages asking for support for his latest sabre rattling. Here's part of the email I received yesterday:

After September 11th, we had a calling to write a new chapter in American history.

Americans were united. Our friends around the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us. We had the opportunity to devise new strategies, build new alliances, safeguard our values, and serve a just cause.

If only we had seized that opportunity.

Unfortunately, we did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not capture or kill Osama bin Ladin. And this administration drove us into war on the wrong battlefield with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create and no plan for how to get out.

Now, six years later, we are overdue for a major change of course in our foreign policy. America must stop fighting the wrong war and start fighting the war we need to win.

The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.

Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda’s core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won't act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.

Sign on to my plan and spread the word:

http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The time has come to turn the page on a failed approach.

The next President of the United States must commit to getting our troops out of Iraq and taking the fight to the terrorists.

We must reinforce our mission in Afghanistan with additional troops. We must press Pakistan and President Musharraf to close down terrorist training camps and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a safe-haven.

If Musharraf acts, we will stand with him. But if Pakistan will not act against Osama bin Ladin and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we will.

These are achievable goals, and when I am president we will wage the war we need to win with a comprehensive strategy.

Read the plan, declare your support, and spread the word that it's time to change direction:

http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The first step to making America safer is getting our troops out of Iraq and onto the right battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that's not enough.

No Obama, that is not the right war either. First, there is no evidence that al Queda is fighting in Afghanistan. We are currently the invaders and occupiers in Afghanistan just as in Iraq. Once al Queda was driven out of Afghanistan there was no further justification for our continued invasion and occupation. We are now in the middle of the Afghanistan civil war where we have no business being.

Second, I'm sorry to hear that this is your "strategy." After your inspiring words at the Democratic debate about taking a new path in diplomacy to have an open door to meeting with the national leaders of countries with which we are estranged, now you have taken a 180 degree turn and have presented a Bush-Cheney lite diplomatic sabre rattling statement.

NO THANKS! Threatening to invade the sovereignty of Pakistan is NOT THE WAY to do diplomacy.

Please consider a new foreign policy direction. Al Queda is a criminal enterprise. It needs to to be dealt with as such. The President of the USA, whomever it is, needs to deal with al Queda as international criminals. Present the case to the country who is protecting any such criminals, and if the country won't let the criminals be extradited then take it to the UN for extradition sanctions.

Please DO NOT INVADE a sovereign nation such as Pakistan. That is just the Bush-Cheney way of doing our nation's business.

Al Queda should be treated as any ring of international criminals would be treated. Their fake religious motivations should be treated no differently than if their motivation was money through the drug trade. As I stated in my previous blog post, only Dennis Kucinich of all the presidential candidates has the vision of a new era of diplomacy based on international respect and the treatment of international criminals as criminals, rather than glorifying them as enemies in a phony "war on terror." Let's give "strength through peace" a chance!

ADDENDUM 8/8/2007: It seems like I'm not the only one who has a sour taste from Obama's latest war mongering attempt to sell people on the wrong war by calling it the "right battlefield." Here is an excerpt from the review by the Black Agenda Report of Wednesday, 08 August 2007, by BAR executive editor Glen Ford:

The Senator from Illinois masquerades as a "peace
candidate" - and then proposes the Americans invade
Pakistan, the only Muslim nation that has The Bomb.
After the U.S. has propped up the military regime for
generations, and stunted democracy in a country of 165
million, Obama now thinks he can just walk into western
Pakistan - Waziristan - to find and kill Osama bin
Ladin. In the process, he would unite all of the Right
and the Left opposition to the government in Islamabad,
and give the generals no choice but to brandish The
Bomb. Obama wants to add 100,000 new troops to the U.S.
military. Now we know where they will be going:
Waziristan, a place from Hell. Barack Obama Ain't
Nothin' But a War Ho'

I encourage everyone to click on the link and read the whole article. It is important that such Democratic Party myths as the ones about Kennedy are not used as cover for the likes of Clinton and Obama.

Hillary Clinton's Karma

Karma is such an interesting process to observe.

During the recent Democratic presidential debate (the CCN/YouTube Democratic debate) in question 16 Barack Obama was asked if he would meet -- without preconditions -- the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap between our countries?

Obama gave a good answer that was approved by the focus group with reaction meters. He said,

"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.... We may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

That was a presidential answer. Of course meetings like that should not be had with preconditions. As Obama implies, when there is antipathy or miscommunications then it is the initial face to face meeting that creates the conditions for real progress, not the other way around.

Hillary Clinton then said she would not promise to meet with these nations' leaders. She said "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes." That is the adolescent answer which is really just a diplomatic Bush-Cheney lite.

Today the chickens came home to roost on Clinton's answer. I received an email alert from her campaign whining that the Bush administration has played the propaganda card against her and she is crying foul. Here's what Clinton says,

Here's the whole story. Back in May, concerned about the administration's failure to plan in Iraq, I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to provide Congress with briefings of contingency plans for withdrawal -- or an explanation of why no such plans exist.

Two weeks ago, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded in a letter that said discussing plans for withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda." It was an outrageous response -- and a dangerous one. Planning for withdrawal isn't just common sense. It is vital to ensuring our troops return home safe.

Now wait a minute Hillary! You can't tell Obama that he should not meet with a nation's leader because it might be used as propaganda and then complain when the identical propaganda card is used against you. Either you are worried about preventing propaganda or you aren't. This is the kind of lack of political principles that makes Clinton have no credibility or appearance of integrity. And, by the way, the TV focus group seemed to agree with me because they turned their meters toward disapproval when Clinton said she would play politics and not talk to the national leaders.

In this case, of course it was her comment to Obama that was just as outrageous as Edelman's comment to her. A president can't conduct policy discussions based on whether or not others will try to make propaganda out of it. A president has to decide what is the right thing to do and then explain it as carefully and clearly as possible. The truth is what takes away any propaganda value of the other side, not the diplomatic jockeying for propaganda hegemony.

So I give your words back to you Hillary Clinton: Your response to Obama was an outrageous response -- and a dangerous one. Promising to talk with national leaders with whom we have national disagreements isn't just common sense. It is vital to ensuring our nation remains safe.

That said, I don't want this to be taken as an endorsement of Obama. Obama is a better choice than Clinton. For example, in this area of being open to talking with leaders he disagrees with he is willing to change the direction of Clinton's Bush-Cheney lite approach to diplomacy. However, Obama is still rattling the sabres when he thinks it will make him political points. Today's news in the BBC has Obama he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government. Well that's a step in the wrong direction.

Of all the presidential candidates, only Dennis Kucinich makes sense when he says he will not use war as an instrument of foreign policy and will track down terrorists as the criminals they are and use diplomacy to bring them to justice.

The Best With the Least

Isn't it a basic truth in politics that those with the best things to say have the least money to say it with? Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska are clearly the front runners in content and appear to have the least amount of campaign funding to share their views.

After the Democratic presidential candidate debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Gravel made a comment that spoke to a basic fault line in political funding. Meeting the press directly after the debate, Gravel said he regretted that debate moderator Brian Williams had not asked about hedge funds.

“Every one of those people except Kucinich is taking hedge fund money. Hedge fund money is the manipulation of the economy overseas and nobody knows anything about it…. If the world economy tanks, it’s going to be because of the hedge funds.”

The deeply perverting impact of political fund raising is highlighted in Gravel's remarks.

DEBATE RUMINATIONS:

The presidential debate was revealing in many ways. First of all it revealed the bias towards the so-called "front runners" who have the giant campaign war chests. The format was definitely targeted to the candidates with not all candidates being asked the same questions. Therefore certain "presidential" questions, like "What would you do if two American cities were attacked by terrorists on the same day?", were only asked of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, as if they were the only ones capable of answering that question.

Still, even with the biased questioning process, the candidates did reveal themselves.

Our hero Dennis Kucinich ably presented the reality check of the debate. Though former Senator Gravel was energetic and refreshingly feisty and mostly there with the right points, none of the other candidates, even Gravel, would dare to support Kucinich's call for the impeachment of Vice-President Cheney. This showed that only Kucinich is in touch with the American people and the other candidates are still without the moral courage to do the right thing. By refusing to indicate that Cheney should be held accountable Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Richardson all show their contempt for holding elected official responsible for lying to the American public to start an illegal war.

Clinton was asked if she agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the war is lost, and typical of Clinton, she dodged the question and didn't say whether she agreed or not, whether the war is lost or not. Gravel had the courage to say clearly and correctly, "This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis."

Clinton said, again, that if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted differently, and Kucinich said that is no excuse because all the information was available then to everyone, and that is why he voted against the war. He said,

"If you made the wrong choice, we're here auditioning to be President of the United States, people have to see who had the judgement and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place. ... This isn't American Idol here, we're choosing a President and we have to look at the audition that occurred in 2003... and my colleagues here made the wrong decision."

This is the point that makes the most sense in deciding my choice. Edwards is to be congratulated for saying he is sorry for his mistaken vote, but Clinton won't even say her vote was a mistake. Only Kucinich can say he has consistently voted against the war and funding it and had ability to correctly analyze the situation and vote accordingly.

Gravel, of course hasn't been in the Senate in the last 10 years or so, and he should get full credit for pointing to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden for saying that nukes are on the table against Iran. Gravel said that was an immoral position.

Edwards says he does live a "privileged and blessed lifestyle" but we should remember his humble roots because he remembers them. This highlights a problem with Edwards' in that he equates his privilege with being blessed. Being privileged does not mean one is blessed. To see wealth and privilege as signs of being blessed is a core problem with most religious belief systems.

Kucinich said he wants to remove war as an instrument of policy. This is the fundamental problem that the "front runners" won't address as a systemic problem arising from the military-industrial complex because they are beholding to that war-money-making machine.

The "debate" mostly was not an actual debate in the sense of addressing each other's positions except for a few brief exciting moments such as when Gravel pointed to the candidates who immorally threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by using codes phrases like "no option is off the table". But still, there is a lot information provided in the forum provided by MSNBC. No one can be a responisible voter without doing the homework of comparing the candidates.

Kucinich alluded to the biggest problem in elections, which is that too many voters approach them like a vote for American Idol and actually pick a candidate based on how he or she dresses or how attractive the person is, or they vote for the one they think has "the best chance of winning." If people really voted for the candidate that they thought expressed the greatest convergence with their own views, then I think Kucinich would have a real chance.

Letter to Senator Barak Obama on Israel

Israel is the issue.
March 10, 2007

Dear Senator Obama,

I'm am very concerned about the reports of your recent speech before AIPAC of Chicago. According to the Jewish Daily Forward, you stated,

“We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas prime minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to ‘respect’ previous agreements…. We must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.”

Contrary to your statement, there is nothing wrong with the agreement reached in Mecca. The Palestinian people must be given the recognition and sovereignty equal to the people of Israel. If Israel won't allow the Palestinians to be allowed to elect their own government then Israel does not have a right to exist!

There is no basis to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as long as it continues its illegitimate apartheid occupation of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

I understand the very difficult situation you are in having to deal with American Jewish organizations regarding Israel, however, if you choose to placate them as your method of dealing with them then I have no interest in voting for you. I will only vote for a candidate who will stand up to the Israel lobby with the truth and facts as they exist.

Did you tell AIPAC that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal? That it is apartheid? That peace in Israel and Palestine will come when Israel acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to exist as a state?

You see, neither the USA nor Israel have the right to tell the Palestinian people who they can elect to govern them, otherwise the democracy you offer them is just a sham, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT TO BE A SHAM when Hamas is treated with such prejudice!

You were clear enough to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the invasion and occupation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza should be opposed for many of the same reasons, including that the occupation violates international law.

Israel is a state with the unique history of being created by United Nations approval. Every day that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in violation of UN resolutions, to militarily control the territories, to surround them and prevent travel and business to freely pass their boundaries, to terrorize their citizens, then Israel is indeed forfeiting its right to exist under it UN birthright.

Gregory Wonderwheel