So New York Times writers support him as much as Time Magazine does. It looks like the fix is in, doesn't it? I think all the editors and opinion writers for Time and the NYTimes on this list should vote for him. The rest of us shouldn't and David Brooks gives many, many excellent reasons not to.
He does not demonize his opponents and tells audiences that he does not think George Bush is a bad man.
Now come on, if he doesn't think Dubya is bad, who does he think is? Ming the Merciless? Lex Luthor? Some other imaginary bad person? Chavez smelled the sulfer, and billions agreed that they smelled it too. I guess everything smells like roses to Obama. Clearly, that powers that be want a guy like him in - no war crimes trials, no lobbying reform... perhaps a continuation of the war in Iraq, and no relief for poor and working people? Has Obama said anything about these issues? I haven't seen the evidence.
He has a compulsive tendency to see both sides of any issue. Joe Klein of Time counted 50 instances of extremely judicious on-the-one-hand-on the-other-hand formulations in the book. He seems like the guy who spends his first 15 minutes at a restaurant debating the relative merits of fish versus meat.
The opinion formers quote each other, isn't that cute? But of more concern... I can hear the chants being reprised already...."flip...flop....flip....flop...." And for good reason. I don't see any evidence that he stands for anything.
During our talk, I reminded Obama that at some level politics is about power, not conversation. He pointed out that he'd risen from nothing to national prominence in a few years so he knew something about acquiring power, but he kept returning to his mode, which is conversation, deliberation and reconciliation.
You know how consensus is really built in politics? With lots and lots of horsetrading. Team Reagan put on a tough front, but behind the scenes they were making deals like crazy. "The pigs were really feeding at the trough," said David Stockman. This is clearly Obama's starting point, without even the tough talk.
The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett.
That's pretty telling, isn't it? There are worse takeover billionaires you could admire, but there are other political, economic and philisophical thinkers out there you could be studying besides takeover billionaires.
He, conceptually, welcomes free trade and thinks the U.S. may have no choice but to improvise and slog it out in Iraq.
Ah, so he does, kinda, sorta, take a stand on a couple of issues, and comes down on the wrong side. I presume that he doesn't mean free trade, but rather the "free" trade that Clinton, Bush, and the billionaires they serve, support.
He is one of those progressives, like Gordon Brown in Britain, who is thinking about the challenges of globalization outside the normal cliches.
I wish that he wouldn't insult us by saying Obama is progressive. Has the word lost all meaning?
Consider Brown for example: "Brown has strongly supported a number of aspects of US foreign policy, notably by voting for the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003." (Wikipedia).
Now we are getting to the gist of it. You are a weighty and significant "progressive if you think outside the normal cliches - that is, if you support the Bush agenda uncritically.
Brooks probably daydreams of a world where Gordon Brown plays poodle to Barach Obama.
this is how Omar Waraich puts it on the Counterpunch webside:
"[Blair's] critics, a vast multitude , are not entirely wrong about the prime minister. After all, it's plain from just glancing at the guy that he now embodies the ruin that he has supervised. Cracks have formed on his skin. That seraphic smile no longer cleaves his face. His hair has diminished in direct proportion to his popularity; what remains has grizzled.
"But there is much to be appreciated, too. Consider the alternative. Under chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown -- the patient successor to be -- it is unlikely that policies will alter course. Brown, we are assured, "will be absolutely New Labour to his fingertips and also, incidentally, a very strong supporter of the transatlantic relationship." As one MP has described the syzygy, "Blair and Brown are two cheeks of the same arse." There is, however, one principal difference: Brown has all the passion and affect of an ashtray. With Blair, you are at least guaranteed the odd moment of mirth."
I find much of this hauntingly familiar, and not at all reassuing. Will Obama prove to be a matching cheek to Bush on the same presidential arse?
Please, let's just not find out.
On 10/19/06, MA PA <drymarc2003@yahoo.ca> wrote:
He has a compulsive tendency to see both sides of any issue. Joe Klein of Time counted 50 instances of extremely judicious on-the-one-hand-on the-other-hand formulations in the book. He seems like the guy who spends his first 15 minutes at a restaurant debating the relative merits of fish versus meat.
The opinion formers quote each other, isn't that cute? But of more concern... I can hear the chants being reprised already...."flip...flop....flip....flop...." And for good reason. I don't see any evidence that he stands for anything.
During our talk, I reminded Obama that at some level politics is about power, not conversation. He pointed out that he'd risen from nothing to national prominence in a few years so he knew something about acquiring power, but he kept returning to his mode, which is conversation, deliberation and reconciliation.
You know how consensus is really built in politics? With lots and lots of horsetrading. Team Reagan put on a tough front, but behind the scenes they were making deals like crazy. "The pigs were really feeding at the trough," said David Stockman. This is clearly Obama's starting point, without even the tough talk.
The contemporary guru he cites most is Warren Buffett.
That's pretty telling, isn't it? There are worse takeover billionaires you could admire, but there are other political, economic and philisophical thinkers out there you could be studying besides takeover billionaires.
He, conceptually, welcomes free trade and thinks the U.S. may have no choice but to improvise and slog it out in Iraq.
Ah, so he does, kinda, sorta, take a stand on a couple of issues, and comes down on the wrong side. I presume that he doesn't mean free trade, but rather the "free" trade that Clinton, Bush, and the billionaires they serve, support.
He is one of those progressives, like Gordon Brown in Britain, who is thinking about the challenges of globalization outside the normal cliches.
I wish that he wouldn't insult us by saying Obama is progressive. Has the word lost all meaning?
Consider Brown for example: "Brown has strongly supported a number of aspects of US foreign policy, notably by voting for the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003." (Wikipedia).
Now we are getting to the gist of it. You are a weighty and significant "progressive if you think outside the normal cliches - that is, if you support the Bush agenda uncritically.
Brooks probably daydreams of a world where Gordon Brown plays poodle to Barach Obama.
this is how Omar Waraich puts it on the Counterpunch webside:
"[Blair's] critics, a vast multitude , are not entirely wrong about the prime minister. After all, it's plain from just glancing at the guy that he now embodies the ruin that he has supervised. Cracks have formed on his skin. That seraphic smile no longer cleaves his face. His hair has diminished in direct proportion to his popularity; what remains has grizzled.
"But there is much to be appreciated, too. Consider the alternative. Under chancellor of the exchequer Gordon Brown -- the patient successor to be -- it is unlikely that policies will alter course. Brown, we are assured, "will be absolutely New Labour to his fingertips and also, incidentally, a very strong supporter of the transatlantic relationship." As one MP has described the syzygy, "Blair and Brown are two cheeks of the same arse." There is, however, one principal difference: Brown has all the passion and affect of an ashtray. With Blair, you are at least guaranteed the odd moment of mirth."
I find much of this hauntingly familiar, and not at all reassuing. Will Obama prove to be a matching cheek to Bush on the same presidential arse?
Please, let's just not find out.
On 10/19/06, MA PA <drymarc2003@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Young, Cold and for Sale: BOB HERBERT ; Run, Barack, Run: DAVID BROOKS +
By BOB HERBERT, DAVID BROOKS - New York Times - Thursday, Oct. 19, 2006Herbert: On Prostitution - Atlanta has become a hub of child prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children(the complete article). Republican Ad Calls Black Women "Ho's" and MoreOP-ED COLUMNIST
Young, Cold and for Sale
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 19, 2006
The girl approached me on a desolate stretch of Metropolitan Parkway, about halfway between the airport and the clustered lights of the downtown skyline. The night was unusually cold and she was shivering a little. She told me she was 15, but she didn't look more than 12.
It was bad enough that the child was outside at all at midnight. The fact that she was turning tricks was heartbreaking. I explained that I was a reporter for The New York Times and asked if she would wait while I went to get someone to help her. She looked surprised. ''I don't need any help,'' she said.
I had already spent a night traveling with undercover vice cops, and they had pointed out the different neighborhoods in which under-age prostitutes, some as young as 10, roamed the streets.
Continued:
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13646183.html
Disapproval of Republican-led Congress grows: poll
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13645587.html
Republican Ad Calls Black Women "Ho's"
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13641791.html
Report: Priest admits Foley relationship
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13641157.html
The U.S. healthcare model: Delay, deny, deceive
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13640048.html
Olbermann: 'Beginning of the end of America' (with video)
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13638973.html
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Run, Barack, Run
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: October 19, 2006
Whether you're liberal or conservative, you should hope Senator Barack Obama runs for president.
Barack Obama should run for president.
He should run first for the good of his party. It would demoralize the Democrats to go through a long primary season with the most exciting figure in the party looming off in the distance like some unapproachable dream. The next Democratic nominee should either be Barack Obama or should have the stature that would come from defeating Barack Obama.
Continued:
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/13646508.html
And More on Today's Newswire
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/2006/10/18/
MARC PARENT
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/ Homepage
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/14409 Archived
http://www.dailykos.com/user/ccnwon Archived
mparent
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
__._,_.___
SPONSORED LINKS
Holy bible Holy basil Holy spirit Holy water Holy land gifts
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment