Op/Ed: Why I Can't Vote for Obama Now (and other debate-night revelations).

[Mugsy]

From "Mugsy's Rap Sheet"

Why I Can’t Vote for Obama now
(and other debate-night revelations).

Last Thursday was the first “official” debate among the eight Democrats vying for the Presidency in ‘08 (if you missed it, you can catch most of the 90 minute broadcast here on the MSNBC website). Everyone appears to be in agreement that no one particular candidate stood out from the rest or broke out of the pack. Many praised the top two front-runners, Hillary and Obama, for “looking & sounding presidential”, but as far as praise goes, that’s about it.

I didn’t see it that way.

In what was probably the only contentious moment in what might otherwise be described as a “Love Fest” between candidates heaping praise on each other, bottom-tier candidate Dennis Kucinich took umbrage to Senator Obama’s vow that “all options would be on the table” when it comes to dealing with Iran (watch the exchange here). As former Senator Mike Gravel (pronounced “gra-VELL”) had pointed out earlier in the debate: “that’s code for “using nukes”. Kucinich apparently agreed. They continued to discuss Iran as a potential nuclear threat. Senator Obama then said something that left me cold:

“They are in the process of developing… and I don’t think that is disputed by any expert.”

Actually, that “fact” is indeed very much in dispute. I even discussed growing evidence of more "cooked intelligence" in this earlier column. And hearing Senator Obama state it in such a “matter of fact” way was too reminiscent of the entire Bush White House (most notably Dick Cheney) in the lead up to the war with Iraq. There was “no doubt” they told us that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical & biological weapons; There was “no doubt” that he was “reconstituting his nuclear weapons program”; and there was “full agreement” in the international community on these “facts”.

I’m sorry, but if the Bush Administration has taught us ANYTHING, it is to DOUBT anything they tell us about foreign threats.

(...)

(more)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. I like Kucinich

and the fact that he has consistantly been against the war and for the Constitution. I sincerely hope he is given a chance. It's time we start thinking out of the box the MSM has neatly placed around the candidates.

[chascarrillo]

3. He has not been consistently for the Constitution

Dennis Kucinich has not been consistently for the Constitution. Up until recently, he has been anti-Fourteenth Amendment (i.e., anti-choice) and anti-First Amendment (voted regularly to ban flag burning).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I stand corrected

but he's now for the Constitution. I didn't know choice could be interpreted as being part of the 14th Amendment-I knew he'd changed his mind on it, and apparently not just to get votes. I wasn't aware of the flag burning votes.

[Clark2008]

14. I think one of his daughters (or his daughter, as the case may be)

convinced him to change his mind. I don't think it was for political gain as much as he respected his daughter enough to hear her out and finally agreed with her position.

I could be wrong about that, of course, since I don't know either of them and wasn't there when the conversation took place.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Thanks for this information

I didn't know the particulars, but I'd heard he did it out of conscience.

[rosesaylavee]

2. Thanks for the link to the debate...

I wasn't able to watch and have only caught snippets here and there on the net.

Haven't decided yet on any of them. I like Obama as my senator and have agreed with most of what he has said so far in his campaign. However, I agree with you on that reply - it was not well thought out.

Nuking Iran will not solve anything... the Union of Concerned Scientists has demonstrated that the Nuke being considered for Iran would be catastrophic. Link here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html . 3 million people would be killed and the targets would not be touched.

No more madness. Dennis is looking more like my candidate daily.

[Mugsy]

4. Choices

My personal preference is for Richardson... without argument THE most experienced candidate up there (Hillary, Obama and Edwards have a COMBINED 12 years of Executive experience).

My wish: Gore/Richardson in '08. :)

[chelaque liberal]

8. I really like richardson's credentials but every time I hear him speak

I feel a disconnect. To me, he just doesn't come cross very well, awkward and inarticulate somehow. Could really be an effective diplomat?

Just saying......

[merh]

11. Gore/Richardson

I could tolerate, but not Richardson alone.

12 years executive experience doesn't make up for his corporate ass kissing, his racist remarks, his interference in the 2004 NM recount, and I could go on and on.

Alone, he is as DLC/corporate whore as is HRC, I don't want a RNC look alike in office and that is how I see him.

[rosesaylavee]

13. Gore yes.

Richardson will have to explain to me why he made them stop counting the votes in New Mexico in 2004 first before I spend time listening to his other platforms for the presidency. Maybe you know why? :shrug:

[dave_p]

6. A good man, with flaws

In fairness, let's recall Obama's other statement: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran". He didn't specify what Iran was "in the process of developing".

That Iran is in the process of developing a nuclear sector is not in dispute: its application is. Obama's comments were sloppy, but not the bellicose talk we hear elsewhere.

I'm more concerned with Obama's depiction of Iran as "The largest state sponsor of terrorism - Hezbollah and Hamas". Now I've no great love of Hamas (itself happily encouraged by Israel in past years to counter the PLO), but to consider Hezbollah as some international Iranian puppet is dangerous, naive and woefully uninformed.

Obama needs to learn, and to learn fast if he's to offer something better than the right's fixation with the power of myth. I believe he's a good man. He needs to study some more.

[Mugsy]

10. Agreed.

That caught my attention too.

[nevergiveup]

7. Yeah,

I suppose that wasn't a terrific response but all in all I like what Obama has been saying about diplomacy in this region. Comparing the vision Obama has for America in the world with Dick Cheney's vision is like comparing a beautiful sunset to a 8.0 earthquake. If Obama's statement convinces you that Obama is a "using nukes" kind of guy then so be it but it might be good for you to study a little more thoroughly his writings and positions on U.S. international relations and also his position on this war back in 2002.

[Dawgs]

9. I'm sorry, but it's about electability.

Either go with the DEMOCRATIC candidate that can win, or go with a someone you agree with on almost everything and get another Bush for four years.

I'm not saying you couldn't find a good candidate, and I'm not saying that Obama is the most electable, I'm just saying that we need to make sure we pick a candidate that can win.

[LWolf]

12. "IT'S" about nominating the best candidate.

The best candidate is electable if the party unites behind him and runs a good campaign.

"IT" is not about labeling the best candidates "unelectable" to push the nomination of those who will give us another 4-8 years of corporate government as usual.

[Boo Boo]

16. “that’s code for “using nukes”

Nope. Sure ain't.

Clark has used this same language. Has anybody fought harder to stop Bush/Cheney from attacking Iran? Does anybody seriously believe that Clark would support a nuclear first strike on Iran?

It's a simple matter to establish Obama's position. It does not require guesswork, diatribes loaded with hyperbole, etc. You just ask the man if he supports the use of a nuclear first strike as a response to Iran's presumed pursuit of nuclear weapons. Simple. All you have to do is care about the truth.

I'm not an Obama supporter. I don't believe that he supports nuclear first strike. It's an outrageous claim, apparently backed up with nothing but one man's bogus assertion.

[illinoisprogressive]

17. Iran is making nuclear, but, it's how the world deals with it that is the question

[Colobo]

18. Obama > Gravel = Kucinich

[UTUSN]

19. Uh, NO, there is NO Dem who is equivalent to Shrub/CHEENEE

That's where this thread goes totally wrong:

"hearing Senator Obama state it in such a “matter of fact” way was too reminiscent of the entire Bush White House (most notably Dick Cheney) in the lead up to the war with Iraq. There was “no doubt” they told us that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical & biological weapons; There was “no doubt” that he was “reconstituting his nuclear weapons program”; and there was “full agreement” in the international community on these “facts”.

I’m sorry, but if the Bush Administration has taught us ANYTHING, it is to DOUBT anything they tell us about foreign threats."


Shrub and CHEENEE are Shrub and CHEENEE. They are NOBODY ELSE. This thread is like Tweety constantly calling Shrub "CHURCHILL' and "TRUMAN" and "a WAR PRESIDENT." Shrub is JUST Shrub.

And NONE of the Dems named are Shrub and CHENEE. Thank you.