The Latest

Yes we can? Can we?




6 comments:

Mark D. Snyder said...

Food for thought:

An excerpt from an interesting perspective:

"Q: I THINK you were in Pakistan this summer around the time when Senator Barack Obama made his speech threatening to bomb Pakistan unless Musharraf takes care of the situation in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. What was the response in Pakistan to the fact that the opposition candidate was threatening to bomb a U.S. ally?
A:
THE RESPONSE was total bewilderment and astonishment from virtually every single layer of Pakistan society. I was asked to comment on it and I said this guy is striking a military posture because he’s seeking votes, but all he’s accomplished is flaunting his ignorance. I mean it’s grotesque that the so-called big hope of the Democratic Party is such a pathetic figure. Let’s assume he were to become president and he sent planes to bomb Pakistan—your ally— it’s a method ensured to drive people into the arms of the jihadis. This is too much! OK, they might be fanatical, but let them do what they do.

I remembered when he made that statement when he was campaigning during the last election period, and I happened to be in Urbana-Champaign giving a set of lectures and was switching through the channels when he appeared and the interviewer said, given what the Iranians are up to Bush says we might have to bomb Iran, would you support that? He said, yes, I would definitely support that if the president decided that had to be done. As far as I was concerned, I just switched off the television and I switched off him. So when he came out with that statement threatening to bomb Pakistan it didn’t surprise me. If he had a liberal past he’s trying to cover it up. "


"I don’t know if there’s going to be a third-party candidate, but if ever a situation demanded it, it’s now. I don’t think it should be Ralph Nader—it’s time for him to rest, it’s time for him to write books and that sort of thing. But if a good third-party candidate could be found around whom people could coalesce that would be great. I can’t think of anyone. Whoever wins, the Iraqis will not benefit, nor will the other places where the U.S. has its troops.

Outside of the electoral arena a lot will depend on what happens after the next election. If the Democrats win, this whole argument that if we only had the Democrats in charge will go by the wayside. There will be more space that will open up for independent mobilization with the Democrats in power." - TARIQ ALI

http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-tariqali.shtmlhttp://www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-tariqali.shtml

Johnny Burnham said...

It's interesting. I love this video. I agree with the message but I don't know if Obama is the person to make the message a reality.

I work in the entertainment industry. I've met half the people in this video and there are three in it that I speak to on a weekly basis. I know their wives, their children and their friends.

On super Tuesday, as a registered voter in the state of California, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton and not Obama. I respect his message and believe his heart is in the right place. The use of celebrities as campaign endorsers means nothing to me.

I don't think he is the man to clean up the problems of the Bush administration. I think in 8 years, he COULD make an amazing President. I think now is not his time, though. No matter how much I agree with some of his message, I think now is a time to pave the way for acceptance of the change we want to happen and not actually force the change down the throats of the people who aren't ready for it. That will only come back to bite us in the ass and negate everything we've worked hard to create in terms of opening the door to change.

It's a slow process and no matter how badly we want it now, don't you think it's better to set the changes in motion at a time where we can gain the support of the nation and not alienate those who aren't ready?

Obama is an amazing man and politician but let's not take a step forward only to take two back. Wouldn't it be better to create an environment where the step forward could only lead to more steps forward?

Just a thought. Ghandi was before his time. MLKJ was before his time. JFK was before his time. Let's get Obama in there when the time is RIGHT. Before or after could end up disastrous.

I sound like a conservative. Oh, God.

Mark D. Snyder said...

I hope that havving a democratic presidnet will provide more space to organize real anti-corporate change in this country, but we'll see. There's no doubt having a democrat would provide more funding for important social needs, and there is also no doubt it won't be anywhere near enough and that the corporations will continue to rule the world and start war after war.

If we're going to have one of them as our president, I prefer Obama.

1. slightly better policy on trade with Cuba

2. favored decriminalizing weed

3. voted against the war int the beginning


Clinton:
1. her campaign injected race into the campaign
2. said she wouldn't campaign in florida, then did
3. takes most money from big pharma than any other candidate
4. twisted Obama's words and record on healthcare and his comments in regards to republicans
5. voted for the war, won't admit she was wrong
6. wants to keep cuba policy the same as it is
7. bush clinton clinton bush bush clinton clinton wow.

Ryan Charisma said...

You can,...

I'll stick with Hillary.

Johnny Burnham said...

Super Tuesday. I vote in about 6 hours. Let's see how this turns out. I watched the documentary NO END IN SIGHT yesterday. It made cry. It made me realize that America is like Judas, the apostle who thinks he is doing good but really is betraying his friend, his world, himself.

Sad.

Mark D. Snyder said...

The "super delegates" could end up deciding this thing which would show how undemocratic this system is.