Is Obama Turning Right? From AIPAC to the Cuban Exiles

[Better Believe It]

Counterpunch
May 27, 2008
From AIPAC to the Cuban Exiles
Is Obama Turning Right?
By GREG KAFOURY

This week, Senator Barak Obama traveled to Florida and spoke to Jewish and Cuban-American audiences. In those speeches, he embraced the right-wing policy positions of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and the hard-line program of the most reactionary elements of the Cuban exile community.

Senator Obama was for many years considered pro-Palestinian, but a year ago when he spoke sympathetically about the suffering of Palestinian people, he quickly backed off his statements under pressure from the Israeli lobby. His surrender to AIPAC this week is particularly troubling because it comes at a time when more and more Americans - including Jewish Americans - are awakening to the fact that the Israeli lobby is a threat to both America and Israel, because its unwavering support for the expansion of colonial settlements and its resistance to serious peace negotiations serve to block the two-state solution which could otherwise be within reach.

In his speech to the Cuban exiles, Senator Obama said he was willing to meet Raul Castro, but declared that members of the exile community would have to have "a seat at the table." This is the sort of precondition which Obama had previously ruled out, and the likelihood of Castro sitting down with exiles is beyond remote. Obama said that the release of political prisoners would have to be on the agenda, yet the exiles' notion of who is a political prisoner consists largely of those who not only resisted the regime, but who took money from the American government, and coordinated their efforts with those who supported the overthrow of the regime. (See " Cuba: U.S. Diplomat is Accused of Delivering Cash to Opposition," N.Y. Times, 5/24/08.)

While Obama spoke in favor of allowing Cuban-Americans to more frequently visit their families in Cuba and to send money to them, these reforms are widely popular in the exile community. Most tellingly, Obama failed to oppose the Bush Administration's ban on ordinary Americans traveling to Cuba on educational tours, tours that until 2004 allowed thousands of Americans to visit Cuba, and to come to their own conclusions about the Cuban Revolution.
Worse yet, the same Senator Obama who only a year ago supported ending the embargo declared that the embargo would continue until Cuba knuckled under to American demands.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/kafoury05272008.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. Oh gawd.

[MH1]

138. It's counterpuke. Anti-democrat, not credible, drivel.

And nope I didn't bother to read the article - like I wouldn't if it was published on FreeRepublic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Now that he has secured the nomination, he can move to the center

[Better Believe It]

5. Center or Right?

30 years ago today's "center" was the "far right".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. That's pretty irrevelant. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. We have always supported Israel, and not even Carter lifted the trade embargo on Cuba

[Egalitariat]

6. If he wants to win the General, that's the way it's done***

[Straight Shooter]

22. This is part of the "change you can believe in" campaign.

I predicted this months ago, that Obama would move further and further to the right. My friend, a political wonk if I've ever seen one, said, "Of course!"

So the "change you can believe in" is actually, "He'll change, believe it."

This of course will be excused by his supporters who will defend it by saying you do what it takes to win an election. I don't argue with that concept, it's the way it's always been done, but it does undermine the notion that he's a candidate of change.

edit to clarify (maybe)

[msallied]

28. That's rich coming from someone who supports HRC

The best Democratic right-wing enabler since Lieberman... or her husband.

[Straight Shooter]

46. What's rich is how Obama has milked the "change" theme for all its worth.

Media packaging, the psychology of demographics, rah-rah stagecrafting.

"Right-wing enabler," pffft. What nonsense. Obama votes almost exactly as Hillary does, except when he's prone to vote for someone like Roberts, which he almost did until he was taken to task by an aid. I wonder who votes first in the Senate .... does he wait to see how she'll vote and then mimic her?

[totodeinhere]

67. What 's rich is that O has run a brilliant campaign to defeat HRC's once inevitable candidacy.

[Straight Shooter]

108. I do not believe in inevitability.

Nor do I accept the codswallop that the media dishes out to entertain and/or manipulate the masses, no matter whom it favors.

As for "brilliant," that has got to be the most overused word of the year, thanks to Oprah. How about "clever" or "effective"? Which, by the way, Axelrod and the dipsh*t Robert Gibbs have run O's campaign. O just happens to be a most malleable character for their directions.

[paulk]

51. prove it.

you post this shit all the time without backing it up.

How did you feel when Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill? Hillary voted no.

How do you feel about Obama's support of school vouchers? Something Hillary has always opposed.

Are you down with Obama's support of Republican tort reform?? Something else Hilary voted against.

How about Obama's right wing pander on Healthhcare reform? No mandates! How fucking liberal of him. Give me a break.

You're just another Obama spammer, aren't you? You don't even know where the candidates stand on the issues - you just spam the same anti-Hillary crap day after day.

The theory is if you say it enough it must be true.

I guess it's worked, seeing how the left wing of the party has embraced the more conservative of the two Democratic candidates....

[Hippo_Tron]

38. ZOMG Obama is just like every other politician in the history of the world

I never would have guessed that...

:eyes:

[Straight Shooter]

52. He is, he's just in a shiny new package.

Just because it's polished doesn't mean it's different.

Hey, look, I can roll my eyes, too -----> :eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

54. I'm just pointing out that most Obama supporters don't think he's a saint

Yes there are fanboys and fangirls who overlook the obvious. But Hillary certainly has them as well.

[Straight Shooter]

56. Could have fooled me.

Not just on DU, all over the blogosphere. Not to mention Mr. "Tingles-Leg" Matthews, and of course Obama's number 1 cheerleader, Keith O.

I would never argue that Hillary is a saint. Far from it. My favorite pol is Jimmy Carter, but Lord knows his flaws are many. I just overlook them because I think he's competent.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. I could say the same thing about Taylor Marsh and Paul Krugman

And the blogosphere isn't reflective of real life as you well know. When I worked on the Obama campaign we had discussions about whether Hillary's health care plan might be better than Obama's.

And I love Jimmy Carter. I think one of the biggest lost opportunities of the last century was not re-electing him in 1980 and getting serious about energy independence. We're just starting to talk about doing the things now that he was proposing almost 30 years ago.

[Straight Shooter]

109. "one of the biggest lost opportunities of the last century"

That was the day the music really died. America will never recover.

[VotesForWomen]

79. don't tell that to O-ists. they think he's "different." nt

[Zomby Woof]

124. Exactly

I have been warning the Obama supporters over and over, one cannot work for change within the system without serving the needs of the system first.

That being said, my overbearing pragmatism wants Obama to do what it takes, because McVain cannot and should not be the next president at any cost.

[Bluebear]

34. How does he move more to the center on LGBT issues, for instance?

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. He already did: He opposes gay marriages

[indimuse]

114. He hasn't SECURED SHIT!

More "Obama Pander Dancing!" man..dosen't he ever get tired?

[Freddie Stubbs]

126. He is much closer to securing the nomination that Hillary is

[lastliberalintexas]

122. Move to the center?

Hell, he started in the center and is moving right. The liberal candidate my ass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

125. When did Senator Obama ever say that he was a liberal?

:shrug:

[Onlooker]

3. He's no different than Hillary

He's simply a better candidate, but you rarely, in fact almost never, hear even his most ardent supporters defend him on substantive policy issues. They simply like him better. He's young; he's a great orator; and he says vague nice-sounding phrases about hope and change. I like him, too, but I have no illusions about him. He's a very good candidate, but not a bold new thinker.

[Better Believe It]

9. There Is Some Difference

I pretty much agree with your observation. But, he is different than Hillary .... I don't think he go as far right as Hillary would if she secured the nomination.

But, I could be wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. My only hope is that when push comes to shove

he will... and mostly no choice.

I like to remind folks that FDR ran a very center-right (for the era) campaign in 1931

Nowhere in his electoral plank was the New Deal

Once he took office, that's a whole different story

Of course there's this little factoid of the Communist Party polling during the '32 election... but you get the picture

In this sense youth may be good...

But he, nor HIllary, were not the most progressive candidates on the stage by a far reach

[MidwestTransplant]

14. I agree with them about the same with the exception of Hillary's occasional bluster.

The reason I like Obama better is I feel he is in it to improve the country. It's become clearer to me as the campaign has worn on that Hillary is in it for herself and would be willing to win over Obama at any cost. That's the main difference to me.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. Obama doesn't take AIPAC money

so any policies he effects will be without owing them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. AIPAC doesn't donate money to political campaigns

[NashVegas]

71. He's a Better Candidate - If You Want the Current Populist Movements Subverted or Smashed

IMO.

[VotesForWomen]

81. right, but Hill is the better candidate; i want somebody who knows what they're doing, not just give

gives pretty speeches. plus, O is going to have a very hard time winning the GE.

[Max_powers94]

4. Hillary has turned so far to the right that she is going in circles

[Solon]

8. Don't tell me none of his supporters thought this wouldn't happen?

I did, and I'm a lukewarm supporter at best. All Democrats run to the right in the General Election season, and most, if not all, move even further to the right after they win the Presidency. We have no liberals in this race, remember that.

[cali]

11. How stupid are the Counterpunch people?

Obama is shifting to general campaign mode and yes, that entails catering to the middle. That's where most independents and lots of dems are.

[Solon]

I think a lot of his supporters are going to be surprised by him...

for many see him as the liberal counterweight to Hillary. The fact that he's as centrist as Hillary doesn't seem to register with some people.

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. People tend to project their own political views onto their heros,

and then are shocked to find that it is not the case.

[Better Believe It]

35. Who Are "The Stupid Counterpunch People?"

Would that be ....

me?

other posters in this string who don't disagree with the article?

the author of the article you disagree with?

everyone who reads Counterpunch articles?

anyone who has ever read a Counterpunch article?

everyone who has ever written an article that has been posted on the Counterpunch website?

aliens?

Rather than a general personal attack on people who read Counterpunch, please indicate what points in the article you disagree with .... IF YOU CAN!

Your non-response was stupid!

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Counterpunch is a website with a history of attacking the Democratic nominee:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08132004.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo06172004.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09192007.html

[Better Believe It]

62. Oh My Goodness!

You mean Counterpunch permits criticism of Democratic Party politicians, just like DU?

Well, they ought to be shutdown and silenced .... along with thousands of DU'ers who have expressed criticism of Hillary, Obama, Leiberman, Gore and Kerry and other past and present presidential candidates.

Do you also wish to condemn The Nation, The Progressive, Alternet, Common Dreams and other progressive/liberal publications and their readers that may not support your political views 100% and all the time?

Sure glad you have NEVER expressed the slightest bit of criticism of any Democratic Party candidate for President or other office.

You haven't, have you?

You agree with everything Hillary and Obama say even if they disagree publicly with each other! Isn't that right?

And you thought that Gore and Kerry run perfectly executed campaigns that adopted your personal political views as their own. You especially liked Gore picking Leiberman as his running mate. Isn't that right?

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. They oppose the Democratic nominee while promoting Nader

Anyone who did that in 2004 after what happened in 2000 is certainly not working toward 'progressive' goals.

[paulk]

75. counterpunch are nothing but a bunch of right wing waterboys

it used to be that threads linked to counterpunch got locked.

that was back when we still had rules on DU.

[stimbox]

102. I think you have counterpunch confused with a right wing site.

counterpunch is as left as it gets.

[paulk]

105. they trash Democrats

that's all they do - they may do it from a left wing perspective - but the end result is no different than from the right wing.

[stimbox]

115. yeah, that's all they do...

i guess any criticism is now trashing.
ok, whatever makes you happy.

[Better Believe It]

121. That's Absolute Nonsense

They have consistently exposed and attack the Bush administration and its supporters such as McCain in numerous articles by many authors (including Democratic members of the Senate and House).

Did you just happen to miss those hundreds of anti-Republican party and anti-Bush articles that have appeared on the Counterpunch website?

Why that's incredible! And unbelievable.

But some just like to engage in "trash talk" nonsense rather than engage in honest debate and discussion.

[scarletwoman]

12. Since he was never "left" to begin with, it does not surprise or disturb me that he,

like any politician running for national office, must take into account the entrenched power blocs that make up the system.

I am under no illusions that anyone can get into the White House without mollifying AIPAC and the Cuban exiles. Clinton is no different on these scores.

sw

[SteppingRazor]

13. Couple of things about this:

First, Jesus, Kafoury, if you're gonna do an article critical of a political figure, at least spell his name right.

Second, this writer makes certain assertions that are unsupported by the facts. For example, "While Obama spoke in favor of allowing Cuban-Americans to more frequently visit their families in Cuba and to send money to them, these reforms are widely popular in the exile community."

While lessening restrictions on travel and remittance are popular issues among many younger Cubans, in the rest of the article, the writer takes "exile community" to mean the politically active Cuban-American right-wing -- and easing these restrictions is actually deeply, deeply unpopular with them. The issue's quite a point of contention in the exile community here in South Florida, as we can see in the upcoming congressional elections, in which the incumbent hardline Republicans in districts 18, 21 and 25 are facing real competition from Democrats for the first time, and travel and remittances are among the primary issues of the campaigns.

Kafoury strikes me as a man having little knowledge of the actual community he is writing about as he knocks out his column from across the country in Portland. I don't know the writer, and so I am being a bit hypocritical here in my judgment of him, but his full article suggests a lack of knowledge of the very subject he is attempting to address. Granted, the man seems to know Cuba and the Cuban revolution, but that's not what he's addressing. He's talking about South Florida's exile community, and in that, he seems to be relying mostly on the stereotype of the old, virulently anti-Castro Cuban American who has been seething in Miami ever since he fled Havana a few steps ahead of Castro's entering the city. Those people certainly exist, and they are very loud and very politically active. But they don't represent the Cuban community as a whole and, more and more, their voices are dying out, replaced by a younger generation that is more interested in being able to visit abuelita on the island than in sticking it to the communistas.

[BlooInBloo]

15. "lessening", buy yah to the rest of what you said. Grandma's getting old. :)

[SteppingRazor]

19. Whoops! Fixed, thanks!

That said, I don't judge the spelling of discussion forum posts as rigorously as I do that of actual news articles. I mean, good God, you've got to know the proper spelling of "Barack" if you're going to write an article about, you know, Barack.

[BlooInBloo]

21. Ok, but in no world does it look good to criticize spelling with a post containing misspellings....

Just figured it'd be better to hear about it from someone who largely agreed with you, rather than some of the other predictable alternatives.

[Better Believe It]

42. Now You Don't Really Believe That

Do you really believe the author doesn't know how to spell Obama's first name or do you think is was simple typo error?

I mean, good God, as opposed to the evil God, according to you the author must be almost illiterate but still managed to write an article for posting on a progressive website!

But if you honestly think that the author can't spell Barack, you probably think he also has great difficulty spelling Bill, Hillary and John!

But you can! You're a smarty pants!

LOL!

[SteppingRazor]

49. Course not.

But I do expect professional writers to get these things right. Typos in news articles, esp. typos in the names of sources or story subjects, are inexcusable.

[Swamp Rat]

24. Good catch.

:thumbsup:

Not only has the author made a Hasty Generalisation, he is factually incorrect.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Kafoury is a Naderite and a Green party activist:

http://wweek.com/html2/Q&A120500.html

[Better Believe It]

44. AAAhhhhh .... A Little "Swiftboating" Of The Author

Just what we need.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. It's not "Swiftboating" if it is true

[DaDooRonRon]

134. Don't let him get to you

The DLC just puts little stick-on footprints on the ground in front of a select few, and they just follow wherever they lead.

It's kind of a comedy show in reverse. :)

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I think Obama's plan is to drive a wedge between the center-right and the far right

That's what we just saw in Miami and that's what we saw when he made those comments about Rush Limbaugh's inspring hate crimes against Latinos. He's handing an olive branch to moderate Republicans while trashing the far right. That's going to be a problem for McGramps because moderate Republicans are his base and the more he loses them, the farther right he will have to go to get voters.

[Better Believe It]

41. Where Are Your Facts?

Please provide some factual documentation to prove your assertions outside of highlighting a mere typo error. I'm sure you're spelling and typo error free unless the rest of us.

And please don't explain to us what the writer means. We can figure that out without your "help" by carefully reading his article. Something you might consider doing.

Perhaps you provide us with some credentials to explain your vast knowledge of the Cuban community in Florida.

[SteppingRazor]

47. My credentials? OK...

I'm a political columnist. In South Florida. And I write a great deal about the current state of the Cuban exile community, esp. in re: the young-old stratification in regard to the travel and remittance issues, and how it points to a possible conservative/liberal generational split in the Cuban community, and, further, what that means for future redistricting of South Florida after future censuses. I've sat down and talked with leaders on both sides in the exile community (unlike, I imagine, the writer in your OP). And I did carefully read all the writer's words. I just don't think the writer necessarily knows what he's talking about.

It's not as though I'm attacking you here (unless you're the writer). No need to be so defensive. :hi:

[Better Believe It]

63. Write To The Author If You're Really Concerned

Have you considered writing to the author to express your views on where you think he is in error?

[SteppingRazor]

77. Naaahhh... I commented here because this happened to come up here ...

on a discussion board on which I'm fairly active. So, you know, I discussed! But I don't think it's worth writing to this guy and excoriating him over his views of either the Obama campaign or the Cuban exile community. He's as entitled to his opinion as the next guy.

[OzarkDem]

55. Welcome to DU

why don't you find another forum where your "fellow Dems" don't mind being insulted by you.

[RethugAssKicker]

16. Its very diappointing to hear his stance on those issues...

I can't imagine that he sincerely believes it... He thinks he needs to have these policies in order to win.....and probably so.

[billyoc]

17. That's the way we do it in America.

Why all the shock? :shrug:

[Kokonoe]

18. You lost me at "but a year ago". He turned right?

I guess Hillary lost running as a leftist.

[berni_mccoy]

25. OH NOES!!1! WHATEVER WILL WE DO!!1!?!/?

The desperation is becoming louder than the chorus of cynics.

[DerekJ]

27. Look, as an Obama supporter, this is one thing that is bothering me, I hoped he

wouldn't start cozying up to the likes of AIPAC. I know AIPAC doesn't trust him. I'm only hoping this is a GE campaign strategy only.

[Freddie Stubbs]

127. Has he said or done anything to lead you to believe that he is not being sincere on this issue?

Or are you just projecting your beliefs on a candidate you like rather than taking him for his word?

[sellitman]

29. Israel is our ally, like it or not.

Since when does it make sense to not support the only Democracy in the Mid-East?

There are two sides to the Mid-East crisis and enough blame to go around with everyone involved but the USA has never turned its back on it's allies and it wouldn't garner much support from the Centrists if we started doing that now. We loose the Centrists and the Jewish Vote and we loose in November.

[Indenturedebtor]

40. But the Joos are responsible for all our problems!

They got us into Vietnam, and Iraq. They hooked us on foreign oil. They caused 9/11. I hear they have something to do with cavities! And if you kick one in the teeth and he fights back he only does so because he doesn't recognize his lack of a right to exist... THE NERVE!

And if he doesn't fight back it's because he's secretly manipulating you with his Jew-Ju.

:eyes:

[VotesForWomen]

82. that's what a lot of obama's buddies think, no doubt.

[Indenturedebtor]

89. That attittude may well be more prevalent in Liberals than Blue Dog dems

On the other hand that's the only basis I see for suspecting such... and I only base that on what I see on Liberal and hategroup websites.

The argument that more Obama supporters feel that way assumes that Liberals are more likely to be antisemitic than country folk. Tough stretch I dunno. I've encountered more anti-semitism from white people in Tucson than I did in Indianapolis which has a larger Jewish community.

Who knows :shrug: But I don't vote for someone based on who supports them.

And frankly I think many people assume that Israel and Jews don't want peace, when most of the evidence points to the contrary. Personally I think that Obama has the best chance to bring peace of all the candidates. He seems the most likely to tell the war mongers to start ACTUALLY seeking a resolution, and to have the political skills and support to make it happen.

[msallied]

31. Is the naivete feigned or for real here?

I haven't seen a single serious candidate for the Presidency who hasn't moved to the center on issues in order to secure more votes. That's how American elections work by design. Why? Because states are awarded on a winner-take-all basis, and in order to win the most votes, you have to appeal to the middle of the spectrum, where most of the votes are. If we awarded electoral votes proportionally, this wouldn't be occurring.

People get up in a twist on this every damn election. This is how it works and pretty much how it's always worked. Elections in America are generally won on personality and character, NOT on issues.

[barack the house]

32. Wexler said Obama has been pro israel a long time as has all the Democrats...

After talking to Powell he was told for his election prospects to ease up on his position with latin america.

[nxylas]

36. Disappointing, but not surprising

I remember when Tony Blair attracted the same sort of optimism in Britain that Obama does here, and look how he turned out. Let's hope Obama doesn't move that far to the right.

[ruby slippers]

37. maybe "centering" toward the Independent vote?

You need us, remember?

[hendo]

43. Its great how positions change

when politicians realize they need to get votes if they want to win.

[Better Believe It]

45. Obama Needs To Move Left If He Wants To Win

Gore moved to the right/center when he changed positions and put the right-winger Leiberman on his ticket in 2000 and look at what happened.

Kerry moved to the right/center in 2004 and look at what happened. He should have landslided Bush.

Will Obama also commit political suicide by embracing those corporate and political forces that resist meaningful change?

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Did Bill Clinton move to left to win in 1992? Or in 1996?

:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

70. No He Didn't:: Perot Drained Millions Of Votes Away From The Republican Candidates

which enabled Clinton to go to the right and still win the election. Without Perot's help, Bill Clinton would have lost the 1992 and 1996 elections.

Ross Perot clearly drained off millions of Republican votes away from the GOP candidates (Bush/Dole) and far fewer normally Democratic votes from Clinton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. Clinton consistantly lead Bush in polls when Perot was not in the race:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D7133DF93BA25754C0A964958260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DF113FF935A1575BC0A964958260&

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DC1F3EF936A2575AC0A964958260

[Better Believe It]

74. And With Perot In The Race How Did Clinton Do Against Dole & Bush Sr.?

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. He won, just like he would have without Perot in the race

[hendo]

92. exactly

Clinton won because Bush Sr lost the respect of his conservative base which is why Perot took so many votes. It is something very similar to what happened to Gore. Gore went more to the center and Nader came in to steal the liberal votes.

Unfortunately a majority of the people in this country are centrists so politicians have to run to the center for the general election.

[Better Believe It]

94. Bush & The Supreme Court Didn't Steal The Election?

That's news!

Perot "took" votes and Nader "stole" votes?

Isn't "stealing" votes a felony of sorts?

I thought it was Bush and the Supreme Court that stole the election. But thanks for letting them off the hook and blaming Nader for that theft.

Nothing like a scapegoat.

[hendo]

101. sorry

the change in words was unintentional.

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. Clinton consistantly lead Bush in polls when Perot was not in the race:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D7133DF93BA25754C0A964958260

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DF113FF935A1575BC0A964958260&

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DC1F3EF936A2575AC0A964958260

[Hippo_Tron]

104. You mean pro-choice anti-NAFTA Ross Perot?

Nice try... but exit polls showed 1/3rd of his votes would have gone to Clinton 1/3rd to Bush and 1/3rd would have stayed home. Clinton would have won a two way race.

[Zynx]

96. A little remembered fact of 2000 is that Gore started the campaign at the beginning of 2000

down considerably against Bush. He had to pivot to the center in 2000.

[Freddie Stubbs]

58. Or when they become more educated on the issues

[crankychatter]

48. too black, not black enough, not progressive, too liberal

noise

this is nothing but fucking NOISE

ideological purity is the reason greens and libertarians are watching the democratic debates on the couch, drinking beer at home.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

64. Noise is what thety're about

ideological purity is the reason greens and libertarians are watching the democratic debates on the couch, drinking beer at home

No they're not. They're posting on DU, pretending that all "true" Democrats kowtow to misogynistic Arab dictatorships.
Senator Obama is playing all his cards right, and at least in this patch of the non-racist woods, I'm having an easy time
pulling my Republican friends over to him.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[hendo]

93. Noise...

is what fills a 24 hour news cycle.

[WilliamPitt]

57. Probably.

Just like every other Dem nominee.

He was never terribly Left to begin with, really. Most of the candidates weren't.

[cbc5g]

65. This is normal , you go left for the primary and center for the election

But I think we all know where he stands on issues and he stands with us.

[rug]

66. Yes, just as a slinky always returns to its original shape.

[TheWraith]

69. What a stack of lying, dishonest bullshit.

Clearly the writer of this "article" follows the old saw of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story." Since, after all, in their haste to paint Obama as running to the right they glossed over the fact that he told the Cuban exiles that we need to negotiate with the Cuban government, something we haven't done in decades.

It also repeats the nonsense that anybody who's locked up in Cuba is a terrorist or rebel, and that Cuba's a happy fun land filled with all the freedom of speech you could ask for, as long as you're peaceful. And magical unicorns, too.

And to somehow put AIPAC in the same sentence as proposed direct negotiations with Iran is simply ridiculous in the extreme.

[Better Believe It]

72. Tom Hayden's Article On Obama And Latin America: Must Read!

The Nation
May 25, 2008
Mixed Blessing
by Tom Hayden

Tom Hayden: Obama calls for direct dialogue and new trade deals with Latin America, but continued counterinsurgency in Columbia, tensions with Venezuela.


.... the dangerous flaw in Obama's speech was his apparent commitment to supporting the US counterinsurgency war In Columbia, secretive drug wars across the continent, and a veiled threat against Venezuela:

"We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right-wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation and--if need be--strong sanctions. It must not stand."

It should be obvious to Obama that these are likely to become failed policies on a par with the long US embargo of Cuba. But consistent with his pledge to send more troops to Afghanistan and possibly attack jihadists in Pakistan (in violation of that country's declared opposition), Obama proposes to continue US intervention in Colombia's civil war even to the point of supporting cross-border raids into Venezuela or Ecuador, a policy that will inflame tensions across the region.

Towards Venezuela, Obama is burdened with the contradictions of the liberal national security hawks, admitting that Hugo Chávez was elected democratically but asserting that Chávez doesn't "govern democratically." Obama ignores Venezuela's own successful "bottom up" efforts to alleviate poverty with public investments from its national oil company. He further ignores Venezuela's own voter's recent ballot box rejection of a sweeping Chávez initiative. Like many liberal hawks, Obama differs with the Bush Administration's attacks on Chávez because they are ineffective: "Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chávez have only strengthened his hand." Not a word about US complicity in the attempted coup against Chávez, nor the remarkable Venezuelan mass movement that resisted that coup.

To make matters worse, Obama endorses the drug war paradigm that street gangs are the new enemy:

"As President, I'll make it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we're going to secure the region."


Please read the entire article at:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080609/hayden

[ProSense]

130. Counterpunch writers do this all the time.

While the GOP will be trying to portray Obama as a Communist, Counterpunch will be raising the specter that he's a Repub in disguise.

Counterpunch 2000 (via Common Dreams):

Ralph Nader isn't perfect; he just seems that way when compared to Bush and Gore. Yet, his run finally offers a campaign to vote for enthusiastically. It is a vote that at the same time repudiates the neo-liberal policies of the Clinton/Gore Democrats and empowers a new political movement, a movement with as much energy, promise and feistiness as the old Rainbow Coalition. A vote for Gore is a vote for pessimism, an admission that the Left is helpless and near dead. It means succumbing to a kind of political necrophilia. A vote for Nader is a vote for optimism and political liberation--a jailbreak from the dank oubliette of the Democratic Party.

[VotesForWomen]

78. welcome to the real world, little O kiddies. don't worry, he's never going to be prez, so it won't

matter.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Translation:

"IT'S HER TURN!!!!! NO FAIR!!!!!!!!!!"



"I WAS PROMISED A PRESIDENT WITHOUT A PENIS! NO FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!"

[VotesForWomen]

83. translation: who cares if we lose the GE!!! I just want to beat the Bitch!!!

[VotesForWomen]

84. and adding, calling anybody who doesn't vote for O a racist man-hater probably isn't a good GE strat

strategy. but wait, you guys don't care about the GE anyway, so it's all good.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. I think you've made it perfectly clear that one of your main "arguments" for Hillary is her lack

of a penis.

So why don't you just pretend Barack Obama doesn't have one when you go into the voting booth in November? :shrug:

[VotesForWomen]

90. uh, when exactly did i do that? link, please. i suspect that you are a historically-challenged indi

individual, but go ahead, make a fool of yourself. tell me when i said or implied that lack of a penis was a requirement for me. go ahead, i'm waiting.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. I'll post that as soon as you provide evidence that I've ever used the "B" word about Hillary here.

Then I will be happy to provide evidence that you've stated gender is a SPECIFIC deciding factor for you.

And, uh, by the way... you have.

[cbc5g]

99. YOU are asking for a link? LOL

You cannot even provide evidence for your countless posts claiming that Obama supporters have called Hill supporters "racist man haters". You haven't provided evidence so STFU on asking for any kind of link.

[cbc5g]

98. AGAIN you have never said who has said that even though being called out on it

Because you are making shit up.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Thank you ever so much for your concern, but we're not going to lose the GE.

Certainly not because we're nominating Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Obama is far and away the stronger candidate than Senator Clinton.

Not because of his chromosomes, but because of his CONSISTENCY.

On matters like the Iraq War, to name one.

[Catherina]

106. So you call your own candidate a bitch? Charming n/t

[wvbygod]

87. The CHANGE is normal and will be justified by his supporters

The message of change is sinking in now that he has "won" before it's over.

But all of we will still support him due to the fact that a win for the party is the
change we are looking for you know.

Why do people hate change?

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Ha'aretz: Obama supports Israel. Period.

You'll notice that this article is dated March of 2007. There has been no "change" in Obama's position.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

If you're looking for a Presidential Candidate who doesn't support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, you're not going to find it in the Democratic Nominee this year, whether that's Obama or Clinton. So sorry. :eyes:

[earth mom]

91. Wow-it's refreshing to see some honesty on this thread about the fact that Obama is really a rethug.

I've been saying it for months and months while the Obama kool aid drinkers plug their ears and scream "I can't hear you" like immature little brats!

Looks like some are waking up to see that NOTHING is gonna change in '09 and beyond-no matter who is elected.

The truth of the matter is that WE ALL LOST FOREVER when Gore didn't run and Edwards was pushed out.

Not only that, but is * & Co really gonna let it all go so easily? I don't think so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3344018

[TheWraith]

95. By God, what a sad little world you must live in.

Seriously--get a grip on reality, before you end up hurting yourself. If you can suggest with a straight face that there's no difference between Obama and any Republican, let alone Bush/McCain, then you've lost your grounding.

[earth mom]

110. You're the one living in some delusional fantasy land.

I live in REAL WORLD. I'm not sucked in by "hype" peddled as "hope".

Oh and case you weren't paying attention, Obama thinks the Reagan era was just lovely. But I guess that's not rethuglican enough for you. :puke:

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. Please stop posting lies about Democrats

Obama did not say that the Reagan era was "just lovely."

[Warren DeMontague]

100. So you're saying Edwards endorsed a "rethug"? Why would he do that?

Barack Obama supports Israel's right to exist, and Israel's right to defend itself.

So does Hillary Clinton.

So does John Edwards.

So does Al Gore. (Yes, he does.)

Like I said- if you're looking for a Presidential candidate who does NOT support Israel's right to exist, you've got the wrong party.

[earth mom]

111. Edwards was probably promised a reward/job to endorse Obama.

I think he made a HUGE mistake, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's a good person, because I still do.

And where the fuck did I say anything about Israel one way or another?! :wtf:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. On Israel There Is No Light Between Clinton, Gore, Obama, and McSame

That's an empirical observation and not a normative one...

But the similarities bewteen the Dems and the Reps end there...

[Freddie Stubbs]

135. It is an issue on which Americans have reached a consensus

[Bensthename]

103. It will be refreshing in a couple of weeks when you neocons are gone..

:toast:

[earth mom]

112. Yeah, I can't wait to see you gone!

Buh bye! :hi:

[Bensthename]

117. No

You will be the one gone I bet. Well, you will not be here to make the case so never mind.
Continue with your Obama bashing, you will only have a week or so left to, then off to the McCain forum with you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Obama is a mainstream Democrat

[earth mom]

113. ROFL! You are hilarious!

:rofl:

You are talking about the Obama who said he thought the Reagan era was great, aren't you? :eyes:

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. CAn you provide the actual quote where Obama said the Reagan era was great?

:shrug:

[anonymous171]

116. Oh gawd, first he was too conservative, then he was too liberal, and

now he's back to being too conservative!?

[Solon]

118. That's the biggest problem with being a moderate...

To Liberals, you are a Conservative, to Conservatives, you are a Liberal, and you try to be all things to all people, more or less guaranteeing you'll piss off most of the people all the time. That's a dilemma Democrats have faced for quite a few election cycles, and Obama is no different, as another moderate Democrat running for the Presidency.

[Elspeth]

120. AIPAC again

crap.

[Zomby Woof]

123. A presidential candidate cannot be honest about Israel

It took an ex-president like Carter to tell the truth about Israel's deplorable human rights record concerning Palestinians, and look at the shit he's taken. You think Obama could get away with that level of candor?

Obama has to pander to the Israeli lobby. It's been a fact of life in presidential politics for nearly 60 years. I would let it slide, since he has to win this. I can't fathom a McCain regime. Then the middle east is truly fucked, no matter which side of the Israel/Palestine debate you're on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

129. You are assuming that Obama is not saying what he truly believes

What makes you think that he doesn't believe what he is saying about Israel?

[invictus]

131. You are correct. It's all true. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

132. cant be any further than the Clintons slid

to the right during this campaign.

but then again, they never really were liberals.

[MH1]

137. Counterpuke called for people to vote against John Kerry in 2004.

Do you consider that site to be reputable?

I grant that sometimes credible authors allow their work to be published there. They should pay more attention to what muck they are wading in, imo. But if the author / article is credible, find another site that published it, please.

If it comes from counterpuke it's drivel, and Democrats should not be spreading their lies. (Unless of course you AGREED that Kerry should be defeated in 2004. But then what are you doing here?)