A number of comments from Berlin
Submitted by justcallmeOHIO on July 27, 2008 - 10:37am.
Current Events
Germany cheers Obama's Berlin visit from The Local Germany's News in English
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm said on Friday that the German leader considered the speech a "positive signal for and to Europe" and Obama had made clear "tackling the challenges of the 21st century can only be achieved together and through international cooperation."
The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung
“He’s become the personification of yearning in Germany for the antithesis of George W. Bush’s aggressive provincialism,”
The centre-left Süddeutsche Zeitung said Obama had the right stuff to become the next US leader.
"He will improve America's standing in the world," it said, but warned "there is no doubt that he will demand more of Europe to be successful in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama will be costly for Germany."
The conservative daily Die Welt said Obama's lofty goals had endeared him to the German public, but it also said he was setting up great expectations: "Obama did not acknowledge that many attempts to change the world have ended in tragedy."
The foreign policy spokesman for the ruling conservative Christian Democrats, Eckhart von Klaeden, said the clear message was that Europe and the United States could only confront the world's problems together.
But his counterpart with the conservatives' coalition partners, the Social Democrats, Gert Weisskirchen, said Obama had much broader appeal.
“That was the speech of world citizen aimed not only at Germans and Europeans, but also Americans,” Weisskirchen said.
Obama Unplugged
By Gabor Steingart in Washington, D.C.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,495460,00.html
"For some, presidential candidate Barack Obama looks like the savior of American politics. But a visit to a campaign speech provides a sobering wake-up call: The senator from Illinois does not live up to the myth his campaigners are trying to create.
Let's start with the ending: Barack Obama has just finished giving a stump speech to around 200 residents of Washington, D.C.'s impoverished Anacostia neighborhood. Wednesday's speech covered basic principles and dealt with poverty and wealth. Obama has said just about everything a candidate who wants to win the poor vote needs to say, delivering each speech with a healthy serving of what campaign managers call "soul food."
But the applause at the end is miserable. It begins in the first row, where the local dignitaries are sitting. It drags itself over to rows four and five, where a huddle of apathetic young people are lolling around. It struggles to reach row 14 at the back of the room. The man at the podium, who was earlier hailed as the "next president of the United States of America," is surrounded by silence as he departs. The applause doesn't even carry as far as backstage. His shoes make a clicking sound on the wooden floor.
The crowd gathered in the small lecture hall of the Town Hall Education Art and Recreation Center, less than 10 miles from the White House, was not merciless in its reaction, justhonest. The senator from Illinois is recognizably not the product which he is being sold as. At the beginning he was described as a rising African-American star. That was back when people were still being modest. Then the political marketing people reached up onto the top shelf, and started referring to him as the new Kennedy, the new Martin Luther King Jr., the first black president.
A Well-Greased Political Machine
In the big halls, his campaign staff have been doing a lot since then in order to justify the labels. They write snappy speeches for their protégé. They bring along placards. They try to seed waves of applause from within the crowd. Anyone who buys an Obama t-shirt, baseball cap or sticker on the Internet is registered as a donor. A "grassroots revolution" is under way, or so it is whispered.
On television, the "Obama for President" show works seamlessly. His long arms are made for hugging people and shaking hands, and his face can produce radiance at the push of a button. Both together make him look so charismatic in a short news report that the Kennedy comparison appears at least permissible.
But the image doesn't travel very far. The Anacostia audience knows better -- they've experienced "Obama unplugged."
Overburdened with expectations, Obama stands there and talks woodenly. His arms hang lifelessly by his sides for minutes on end. In the strict sense of the word, he isn’t actually giving a speech but just reading out a text word for word, giving his intended pathos an artificial sheen. He frequently starts sentences by saying, "When I become president."
The young senator would prefer not to answer questions. That's what his Web site is for. He spells out the Web address.
Obama's voice is manly and firm, and often too loud. He obviously wants to exude an aura of leadership, which is why he raises the decibel level so high.
The substance of what he is saying is not particularly provocative for the audience in the community center, but it is very appealing. On this early morning in the US election campaign, Obama is the candidate of comfort. He says a lot of things which are correct. It's difficult to stop nodding in approval.
A child's future should not be decided before the child has even taken its first steps. Certainly. No one can learn properly if schools don't offer "the right books or the best teachers." Bravo. It is no wonder unemployed youths join gangs if there are no jobs for them and "the most successful businessman in your neighborhood is a drug dealer." Someone in the hall yells "Yeah!"
Comparing Apples and Oranges
And Obama does exactly what populists like to do most: He compares apples and oranges. A kids project in Harlem that he would like to see extended across America costs $46 million a year -- the kind of money that is spent in just one morning in the Iraq war, he says. Let's invest this money better, he calls out to the audience. The applause speaks for the effectiveness of these kinds of comparisons. But it also speaks against the candidate.
Buying toys instead of weapons is the surest way for America to lose its status as a superpower. The conflict with an aggressive Islam could not be won in this way. Naturally Obama knows this -- that's why in an article for Foreign Affairs he writes that in his opinion the US military urgently needs to be "revitalized." That means more money, more soldiers and more ground forces -- he suggests an increase of around 100,000 men and women. "A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace," he writes.
But Foreign Affairs is hardly daily reading in America's poorest neighborhoods. The lack of education bemoaned by Obama the social policy specialist renders valuable services to Obama the foreign policy expert.
The candidate proceeds on the basis that no one in the audience is capable of mental arithmetic. After all, if his speech became government policy tomorrow, then the new president would have to head straight to the International Monetary Fund the next day to ask for a loan.
Obama is demanding what the Republicans call "big government," a free-spending state. He promises to bring in socialized medicine without mentioning how he will finance it. He wants to found an American bank for the poor based on the concept of the World Bank, he wants to give money to after-school centers and transform the minimum wage into a real living wage, which would automatically increase with any rise in inflation.
Italy had this "mobile scale" for decades. It proved to be a unique program for devaluing the currency, which is why the Italian politicians were so unsentimental in ditching the lira for the euro.
Barack Obama is a candidate who knows and addresses the comfort zones of any audience. He talks of leadership but it reeks of following. He wants to be modern but a lot of what he says sounds highly antiquated. His selling points in Washington's southeast stem exclusively from the sunken treasure of old school liberals.
His thoughts on the welfare state go back to Martin Luther King Jr., as he freely admits. "If we can find the money to put a man on the moon, then we can find the money to put a man on his own two feet," he says, citing the civil rights leader. That may sound good, but more than anything it sounds naïve.
Expensive and Foolish
Anyone with any sense already knows who will end up paying for these choices -- the middle class. That's why Obama's program is not just expensive but also foolish. The underclass in America is massive -- 40 million people live below the poverty line. But it is not big enough to provide the base for an election victory. And people in Harlem, Brooklyn and even in a New Orleans devastated by Hurricane Katrina are not in a revolutionary mood. The poor are less likely than average to vote, and it cannot automatically be assumed that the poor will vote for the left. Indeed, many live on the left but vote for the right.
It was for this reason that Bill Clinton when he was campaigning was so clever in appealing to the "forgotten middle classes." And the German version, namely Gerhard Schröder's campaign appeal to the "new middle" in 1998 was also a big success. Barack Obama, however, is fishing in a much smaller pond.
But should campaign speeches be taken so seriously? Probably not, say those involved. Former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a great war president and a passionate campaigner, felt it unreasonable to keep him to his loud-mouthed campaign promises: He told critics that campaign speeches were merely placards, not engravings."
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
I would like to see the Obama supports on this board discuss the concerns this writer brings up. (if at all possible without put-downs, but instead answer directly) What do the Obama supporters think they are specifically supporting?
this year, I will be voting for the Democratic agenda. Let's face it -- when you vote for the Republican you vote for a Republican agenda, when you vote for the Democrat you vote for the Democratic agenda.
Might I also suggest that your challenge to "Obama supporters" is itself a putdown -- as though anyone who plans to vote for Obama is so stupid as not to have a thought of their own.
I challenge you to discuss specifically (if at all possible without put-downs and please answer directly), what is it about the Democratic agenda that you don't want to support?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
To answer your last question first, war.
There is too much war talk and not enough peace talk. The General is the only one I hear talking diplomacy. I want to hear that from the Democratic agenda.
And I keep asking Obama supporters for the exact reason I assume they fully know what they are supporting with Obama policies. I don't understand his policies, so I ask questions to those who might have answers. Have we become so tarnished that questions about a candidate is under suspicion? Gotta take every question about Obama under PERSONAL scrutiny? Can't we discuss the issues America faces and it not be about Obama, but rather about his policies?
My feeling about Obama is that he has been very clear on the war in Iraq - he wants to bring home the combat troops. I could have more clarification on what he will do with the non-combat troops, but assume (always a mistake) that they would also come home.
Obama has been clear about the fact that he would send extra troops to Afghanistan and General Clark has been saying the same thing since his run in 2004.
Obama took a lot of heat during the primary season for saying he would meet with the Iranians; that sounds like diplomacy to me and again is something General Clark has been advocating for years.
On the subject of war, the Democrats seem to be united in getting out of Iraq, resolving Afghanistan and using diplomacy to avoid military confrontation with Iran.
Obama's speech in Berlin was pretty clear; he expects the Europeans to be involved - especially in NATO and Afghanistan.
I think all the Democrats are following General Clark's lead on military matters. In the end, someone is going to have to clean up George Bush's little wars and it isn't going to stop overnight. Especially with John McCain in the White House.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
See this is where it gets tricky. How to END the war. Obama plans on leaving a residual force their - what is your take on that? You must realize there will be continued fighting with our being left there, hence my question.
Afghanistan, could you clarify, Gen. Clark points our there needs to be more emphasis on the boarder of Pakistan and Afghanistan, is that part of Obama's agenda there? The Gen. also points out the positives of the Afghanistan people having more control over their agriculture, is this something Obama has mentioned?
I'm sorry to say, I don't agree with the Democrats being united in getting out of Iraq, because there is no getting OUT of Iraq. Getting OUT, to me, means turning that base over to the Iraqi people. So you see where I am coming from, it is not looking like that is ever going to happen. I would prefer to hear Obma's plan of us being there besides a residual force, that is too broad - how does he see success?
questions your asking.
I am satisfied for myself that the Democrats will handle the Iraq War differently from the Republicans.
I have to trust that they will do the best they can -- I don't demand absolute answers. They don't exist and what is required today is probably much different from what will be required in January 2009.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
there are no absolute answers from one hour to the next in a war zone. I recall Wes pointing that out in an interview during his run...
"And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
?
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
Amiel, you wanted to know some specifics about Obama's policies re war and peace.
Firstly, I will agree with other Obama supporters here in saying most basically I prefer the Democratic agenda to the Republican agenda when it comes to matters of military and foreign policy. If Hillary Clinton was the candidate she would have my support as well because I don't think the world can risk another four years of a US government that's in the hands of the military industrial complex. General Clark himself said he became a democrat when he realised the GOP's devotiion to the military is really a devotion to the big money defence contractors and not to the men and women in uniform themselves. Anyway, that's my generic reason for preferring the Dem candidate.
You say that no-one is talking diplomacy other than Gen Clark. Well Obama is talking diplomacy.
here is some of what Obama's policy on Iraq is from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Encouraging Political Accommodation
Barack Obama believes that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.
Obama's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by Obama’s plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.
Surging Diplomacy
Barack Obama will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction and development.
Preventing Humanitarian Crisis
Barack Obama believes that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama would also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.
And this is some of his stated policy on Foreign Policy from
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Renewing American Diplomacy
- The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.
- Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
Now, I can hear echoes of a lot of General Clark's policies in these ideas. "What we need is a surge of diplomacy" is something I remember Gen Clark saying some time ago. Engage with Iraq's neighbours is right from the Clark playbook as well. The call for the US to engage in diplomacy with countries that aren't "friends" seems in line with what Gen Clark has been saying for years too.
Of course I understand there are those who want more detail. But when you're not in power I don't believe you can map out step by step exactly how everything is going to be played out. It comes back to having the overarching strategy right and then consulting, investigating and reacting regarding implementation.
The problem I know that many here have is that they simply don't accept that Obama means anything he says. And there's also a school of thought that what he says doesn't count because he doesn't have the skills to deliver. I can't do anything about those who are in either (or both) of those camps.
I know you're not an Obama fan, but I know you well enough to know that when you ask a question about policy, you really do want an answer about policy, so I've tried to oblige.
I think you'll find the main reason a lot of us have backed off discussing policy is that often it seems questions aren't really genuinely being asked in search of answers. They're just baits laid out to draw Obama supporters into arguments. And I really don't want to play that game. I've tried to engage only in threads where there's something positive being attempted. But it's not easy. There are days when I feel as cranky as Ohio (just joking Pam!) but I try to get up and walk away from the computer on those days.
Look, Gen Clark would be quite within his rights to get off the frontline and not support Obama publicly. He hasn't chosen that option. So if he can support Obama then I don't think it should be a contentious decision for some of us to support Obama here on his Gen Clark's website. I try to do it respectfully. Sometimes perhaps I don't succeed. But I'm going to keep trying.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
Reserve the right to intervene militarily, scary.....yes, I have read the policies posted on the Obama site. Wish I could ask him questions directly, hey, don't we all....
August 1, 2007 - Obama's words...Wilson Center speech:
-It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
-...my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.
-...But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.
those words, fighting the right war, etc., scares me. Terrorists are everywhere, you just can't bomb everywhere and threaten to use force.
-See McClatchy 7-25-08
In an interview with McClatchy Saturday night, Obama said U.S. goals in Afghanistan should be "relatively modest. We shouldn't want to take over the country. We should want to get out of there as quickly as we can and help the Afghans govern themselves and provide for their own security. Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region. And to do that I think we need more troops."
More foreign troops, however, would do little than turn more war-weary Afghans against U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai if they aren't part of a broader and more effective counter-insurgency strategy, some experts and U.S. officials warned.
"There is not one strategy with one person in charge," complained a U.S. defense official who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly. "If we had asked the Taliban to draw an organizational chart for allied forces in Afghanistan, they would have drawn this one."
A more coherent approach, they said, would streamline the U.S. and NATO chains of command, end restrictions that some allies place on their soldiers and use force far more judiciously to reduce civilian casualties.
-See Guardian 7-22-08
Obama himself has reacted angrily to claims of a policy U-turn: "For me to say I'm going to refine my policies is I don't think in any way inconsistent with prior statements and doesn't change my strategic view that this war has to end and that I'm going to end it as president." Earlier this month he resorted to an op-ed article in the New York Times to emphatically state: "On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."
As always in examining the words of politicians, let alone Obama (who now has 300 foreign policy advisers), the devil is in the details. Here, Obama's "ending the war" declarations begin to look far from reassuring, even before he "refines" his line after meeting the US commander, General Petraeus, in Iraq.
Obama sees Iraq as part of a wider theatre of war and potential wars engulfing the entire Middle East, where US strategic goals and interests are at stake. So his obvious shift on the "surge" operations in Iraq (underlined by deleting criticisms of it from his website last week) is strengthening his call for "redeployment" from Iraq to Afghanistan. His current strategy could be summed up as: de-escalate the war in Iraq, escalate it in Afghanistan, and talk to Iran. On Iran, his offer of talks was coupled with an alarming, Bush-style threat. "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything," Obama told a gathering of the pro-Israel lobby group, Aipac, in April. He is echoing the sentiments of his famous anti-Iraq war speech in 2002, in which he repeatedly stressed that he was not opposed to all US wars.
It is worth noting that the term withdrawal, let alone a full unconditional withdrawal that will satisfy most of the Iraqi people, has never been part of Obama's vocabulary. His first carefully considered statement on Iraq was made in January last year, when he introduced the Iraq war de-escalation act to Congress. It was then that he envisaged stationing troops in Iraq on a longer-term basis: "A residual US presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces and pursuit of international terrorists." Using similar phrases, this is what he outlined in the New York Times last week.
To distinguish his policy from that of his rival for the White House, Obama declared: "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea." But it doesn't require rocket science to know that keeping "residual" forces requires heavily fortified areas, installations and a state of readiness to go to war. Unless Obama has discovered something new, such areas are known as military bases. So it is the word "permanent" that separates the two, as McCain may want to stay "100 years" in Iraq. The comparison with South Korea is not heartening, considering massive US bases have been in that country for over half a century.
Obama has even pre-empted a possible line of attack from hawks by chillingly suggesting he would possibly invade Iraq again if necessary. His website states: "He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq." The word potential is worth pausing over; it is salutary to remember Bush and Blair occupied Iraq and caused the death of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent people for "humanitarian" reasons.
Neither is Obama opposed to signing a military treaty with Iraq. He has two conditions to make Bush's current attempts to impose a pact acceptable: the pact should get Congressional approval, and renounce "permanent" military bases. However, leaked drafts of this colonialist-style pact do not mention the word "permanent" at all. And his "benchmarks" for continued support for the corrupt Iraqi politicians protected by US forces in Baghdad's Green Zone are strikingly similar to those of the Bush administration.
Tactical differences and issues of style aside, Obama's message on occupied Iraq is deeply troubling - not because it has U-turned but because it has been consistent. His 300 foreign policy advisers are making sure that he will not stray from protecting US imperialist interests, even if it does mean launching new wars and bolstering puppet regimes and corrupt dictatorships throughout the "greater Middle East".
· Sami Ramadani, a political exile from Saddam's regime, is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University
****
I don't want to get into dueling quotes, you would surly win that competition.
So posting quotes like this from you, from me really doesn't get to the heart of the problem on this site.
I suppose as an American I take on great responsibility for what America has voted into office.
The vote for Bush has done great harm to the world. (I did not vote for Bush, btw)
In general, the posters here are intelligent and compassionate and care deeply about our Country and the effects our Country has on the rest of the world. When I read posts or comments from donjo, mad4clark, jen, ms in la, hf jai, etc., (and I am not speaking for them whatsoever) I read their posts as an extension of what they are deeply concerned about. They are not only posting to argue or to put Obama down, or to remain loyal to Clinton, but are deeply concerned about policies Obama plans to use. They have never shown to be unintelligent, yet many reduce their concerns to snark, and are very dismissive toward them. I realize defenses show up things get heated, but if Obama supporters could for one minute take into account that the poster is not trying to only put Obama down, I realize the ARTICLE may not be flattering, but rather the poster is trying to understand and is frustrated how others do not see or hear the concerns a lot of us share in voting for Obama. Obama does not have to convince those who are already going to vote for him, it is us, here stuck in the middle that he is going to have to convince. Things are different nowadays, Bush did that to us. We are more cautious with our votes, it is not so easy to vote because there is a D attached to a candidate, we have been let down too many times by now. Specifics do matter, remember Bush told us too there needed to be change, would we have ever guessed this is what he meant?
So us quoting each other back and forth, does not help to further the conversation, but discussing what is actually IN the article and how one perceives the substance of the article would be useful. To know the likes of Ohio and PAforClark are voting in support of Democratic principles, and yourself, helps to see your perspective, helps to see how you might interpret an article. Policies are hard to pin down, yes, but what I hear when I read Obama's policies and what you hear are very different, obviously, just like Sami Ramadani's article has a very different and valued perspective.
Thanks, Phoebe.
OT, think Iraq will be able to attend the Olympics? What a mess that has become.
but AFAIK General Clark has always reserved the right to intervene militarily as well.
I guess it all depends on how high on your list of alternatives it is and what you think of the person reserving that right.
No, Iraq won't get to the Olympics, I don't think. That situation has been brewing for many months and the government in Iraq has apparently not responded to threats from the IOC. The Iraqi government sacked the Iraqi Olympic Committee and the IOC has been saying for quite a while they won't accept their athletes under those circumstances.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
We are going to have democratic control of congress. You will have an democratic agenda either way. I'm not sure what passes for a democratic agenda these days anyway.
Congress, we still end up with Republican president and then have another 4 years of gridlock like the last two.
The economy couldn't take it and neither could the military.
Again there is that word, trust. I have to trust that the Democrats will do what is best for the common good and not just for the rich and influential.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
...Would that we had gridlock from 2000 to now...
Some of the worst atrocities might have been averted
Unity means not being willing to fight for anything
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
It actually did work quite well. There were a number of deficit hawks in congress that were very instrumental in passing the Balanced Budget amendment and Pay As You Go legislation. This coupled with Clinton's task increase were responsible for turning around roughly 12 years of budget deficits due to Reagan's trickle down policies.
I specifically did not post my positive links on your blog in an effort to NOT start a pie fight and yet to give people who would like to see the other side of the German take on Obama's recent time there a place to post if they so desire.
Please allow me the same courtesy I showed for your blog post.
No one is bothering to comment on either blog. Seems the topic is already old news.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
But that's ok, really.
It takes no effort at all to discover the fact that Gabor Steingart has been a Hillary cheerleader of the highest order. LOL
Maybe I should thank you?
Are you saying the writer has no valid concerns?
Do you know specifically how Obama is going to fund all his plans?
please go to Donjo's blog. It's not getting a lot of action as he mentioned.
Your question is off topic to what this blog is about and I've no intention of trying to disabuse you of any fears you might have about the Democratic nominee.
If you can tell anyone how any politician is going to pay for their plans that would make an excellent blog topic though. You might try that. :)
"Honey"...you disrespect me.
Ohio, this is a free board last I knew.
The article donjo posted brings up many issues for discussion.
You see, Ohio, this is a problem.
No one talks specifically about the policies of Obama.
I have been asking questions since he announced and for the most part get no specific answers. Your article you posted states Obama said he will improve America's standing in the world - how? What will he demand from Europe to be successful in Afghanistan and Iraq? What does Obama mean when he says success in Afghanistan and Iraq? What is his version of success?
What I do see happening over and over is the Obama supporter wants to feel good about their candidate and anything that sniffs of criticism is dismissed and labeled Hillary Supporter. Well, damn it Gen. Clark is a Hillary supporter, I know she is not running and the primaries are over, but Gen. Clark still supports his friend anyways. In the General's recent speech he said it too often goes personal on the net - so here is another chance to have a discussion about policies of Obama and where is everybody? Discuss it, damn it.
It's a habit. So shoot me.
What I see happening is a blog being hijacked. The subject of this blog is "comments from Berlin about Obama's visit," NOT about Obama's speech, not about Obama's plans, not about how Obama is going to pay for his plans.
The point of this blog was to point out that some people in Germany were favorably impressed with him and to get comments on that.
Try asking your questions in a blog of your own if that's the conversation you want to have.
No, Ohio, I will not shoot you.
I don't believe you either.
So, let me get this straight. Your idea is to post a blog and not have anyone ask questions?
How's this question - how's the weather? Is that better?
I give up...
maybe you'll go post your blog with your questions and get the conversation your seeking.
I guess I should be crushed that you don't believe me. Maybe I should have the one (and only one, by the way) person at work that asked me not to call her such, give you a call. LOL
It is obvious YOU have no intention of ever discussing the issues.
Why not? Why the put-downs? Why not take the opportunity to discuss what you support in Obama? I asked you specific questions about what you posted, now you say I should go somewhere else to discuss the blog you posted. Why? I am asking you, the one who posted the blog. What do you think? Do you even question what Obama says or are you confident enough with him and his policies you don't really seek answers? I want to vote, I want to be sure what my vote supports, so I'm asking questions of those who appear to know with confidence why they support Obama. What's wrong with that?
If this is your way, then put a disclaimer on your blogs - no questions allowed this is a praise only blog.
(so as not to offend) was simply some snippets from a German publication about the reaction of some people there to Obama's time in their country.
Wasn't trying to make it a praise Obama OR damn Obama blog. Just posting info.
Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall anything in those snippets about "how's he going to fund...", "why do the people who support him support him,", "here's a reason to vote for him" or anything of the sort.
So what about the blog I actually posted would you like to discuss?
From above comment...again..
..."Your article you posted states Obama said he will improve America's standing in the world - how? What will he demand from Europe to be successful in Afghanistan and Iraq? What does Obama mean when he says success in Afghanistan and Iraq? What is his version of success?"
Respectfully, PAforClark has answered questions, which I thankfully appreciate.
I'm just seeking what your take on things are, Ohio, it's not a crime, yaknow.
I guess the funding thing threw me and my brain keyed on that. Brains are funny that way sometimes.
From what I can see and have heard, part of the way he will improve our world standing is he probably won't "demand" as GW Bush has demanded and demanded and tried to make himself the final say in all things.
I do get the impression he will "press" with an eye to getting things done, by negotiating, by not treating our allies as "old Europe" too doddering to have any sense and too stupid to know what's good for them. I don't see in him a cowboy, tough guy mentality that does more to alienate than bring together.
What does he consider success in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems to be a concentration on actually finishing the job in Afghanistan by ferretting out the Taliban and Al queda as we should have done from the beginning instead of leaving that country dangling while we satisfy an old grudge of GW's in Iraq. Up to, and including a willingness to expect a whole lot more from Pakistan.
Iraq? I think his plans include disengagement as rapidly and safely as possible from the running of a war in a country we should never have invaded. I think what he has says in that regard makes sense, though I would love someone to tell me every American service member will be out of there and soon, I'm also smart enough to know that isn't going to happen. There will be a certain number of troops that will be there a lot longer than I would like.
Again, I apologize for my short sightedness. Maybe I need my glasses updated. Nah...it's the brain that's old and tired and too often cranky.
Hope this gives you some idea of my point of view.
on the basis that he is not George W. Bush:)
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
but it's much more than that I think.
I know it gets sneers a lot in some circles but I think a man with an eye to the future...a hopeful future, not one of gloom and terror and "us versus them" will set an entirely different tone in the world's governments.
I think a man who can still call for the goodness in America to shine, to remind us in this time of American torture, American wars, American arrogance will seem like a breath of fresh air to world leaders and to citizens of all nations.
I think a man who believes that we must help those less fortunate but there's no totally free ride for anyone will be good for our country and the world.
Anyone (except McCain) would not be George Bush (thank the gods that be) but I think there is more to Obama than meets the eye.
That, and he can actually speak English. heh
Ohio, PAforClark, so what I am gathering, is that it is more like, what PA said, it is the Democratic "agenda" that is important to you - that, agreed there are no clear-cut answers, but that you feel there is a possibility things will get better because Obama is a Democrat and will pursue those democratic principles. And, really, it is the democratic principles you are voting for. I suppose, I am afraid, I am afraid that the words Obama speaks will not match his actions. So I question. My view is more specific, whereas your views are more broad, for the common good kind of view. As PAforClark suggested, there are no answers. I wish Obama were more detailed talking to us. I don't want to vote for more war.
The Democratic agenda is a big part of the equation.
I think that details would be great, but in a world where circumstances change so fast I think getting too detailed can also lead to trouble. Too often any more what might have been spot on yesterday may be way off base tomorrow. I hope to see more detail too. I think we all would like that and maybe after the convention more will come out...but again I think there's only so far that any candidate can go. And no matter what is or isn't detailed, there will be disappointments and saying to ourselves down the road, "I thought he wanted to do x y and z and he hasn't." I've yet to see that fail with any president since I've been old enough to listen to my elders discuss politics.
Maybe the older I get, the broader my perspective gets. The older I get the less pessimistic I want to be (not that I've jumped that hurdle yet) and the more optimistic I need to be? Maybe that's a part of accepting that I don't have to have all the details, but I do need to see a path leading to someplace I want to go.
I think Obama has shown me a glimpse of the path I want to go. I'll take on the trees in the way as I go.
I've grown too cynical, too wary.
It's the paradigm shift kind of thing. I'm so used to the actions of the Bush administration and what we can expect. There has to be more answers than questions this time around. Gee, how did I get like that?
We, as Americans who are responsible for what has taken place, better get it right this time around.
I shutter to think of how it could be worse.
Democrats have failed our "agenda" terribly.
Democratic principles are more difficult to come by these days.
I appreciate your hopefulness and trust with Obama, even the fact that you too question his policies, I'm not even close to where you are. That's why I feel it is important to keep talking about it. Sometimes it comes off as just accept and vote, so hearing others views and motivations are worthwhile.
My guidance comes from Gen. Clark - for some reason - I believe him.
It is too bad Gen. Clark's answers are clearer than Obama's answers.
I don't want to be sorry I voted for a someone who I thought was going to end the war, bring about peace, stop the genocide, feed the poor, educate the masses, and who really ends up making things worse.
Can you see, Ohio, it is not that I am a sore loser, I really worry what my vote is supporting.
I'll end now, please everyone, lets turn the tide and get discussing our views.
Take a break from politics for the night and enjoy the movie "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town" on TCM tonight.
Be well
for saying such a thing. It is toxic and beyond what is acceptable on Wes Clark's blog. An apology is owed to Amiel!
dw...if I were to begin demanding apologies for all of the toxic things that have been said to me personally by Amiel and others over the past 6 months, I would be here for the rest of my life. But I'm afraid for me? time's wastin'
It was intended as a joke. Granted, it was a bad one.
If the climb down from that high horse you're riding isn't too much for you, try to see your way past it and find "forgiveness in your heart"?
or not
But their not important any more Donjo...you've said so yourself.
If you don't want to go the link I provided I'm sure you can ferret them out some how...like maybe GOOGLE?
you bitching about that yesterday? Or was it just your comrade in arms? Same difference. If you think anyone who may or may not have supported Hillary can't write or speak anything that resembles the truth, I really for sorry for you. What would a German know about despots, anyway, huh?
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
I understand the Grammer Snob lessons are over, but I'm wondering if there was ever a lesson on your, you're and their, they're? It's kinda one of my pet peeves, and I see them used incorrectly way too often!! Oh, and there's another one! Too, and to.
If you have addressed those can you link to that particular blog?
Thank you, Grammer Snob. ;)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
(Errr...Jen...it's grammar, not grammer.)
I see the same thing in my own writing if I'm not careful in proofreading and editing. And my evil twin (you know, that Stan guy), is prone to writing phonetically especially since his 1999 stroke. And no, I haven't done a specific lesson on these problems.
It's common to confuse its and it's, there, their, and they're, your and you're, and maybe a little less frequently to, too, and two.
That Stan guy has even been known to write won instead of one, emphasizing the danger of writing by sound.
I think that either either Stan or I previously pointed out that in English, you can't even write phonetically phonetically.
I assume, however, that about everybody knows the difference between these homonyms, and that using the wrong word is a function of carelessness and speed, not a product of not knowing the grammar. So I tend to give people a pass on these mistakes, and ask that others would do the same thing when I do it (or when Stan does it).
The Grammar Snob
I thought I learned that punctuation always went within quotation marks. But, since I started blogging, I notice everyone always places the punctuation outside the quotation marks. So I really don't know which way it's supposed to be.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Click here for my skimpy lesson on punctuation.
Hey, not to worry about learning some grammar. Never have so many taught me so much about so much in so many ways as the people in this community. (Churchill would be so proud.)
The Grammar Snob
However, all bets are off for other flavors of English. (As well as for U.S. technical writing, where some writers place the punctuation marks outside of the quotation marks in order to prevent confusion. For example, when writing instructions about what to type into a particular field on a website.)
Proud to be an American.
I tend to do the same thing, Nelsons. When the new screen pops up, click on "OK". Or, ...then you add the letter "s". Things like that.
Note that these aren't exactly pure quotations or citations -- things someone has said.
The Grammar Snob
Well, Ohio, I appreciate your attempts to hold a discussion. But unfortunately the snarky one has come to ruin the discussion.
Maybe, at another time we can pick this up again.
Thanks.
at "the snarky one" Amiel. I can be just as snarky believe me.
We're all (well not all, but many of us) rubbed raw because of the discord that's been going on here and she and I have both taken our licks from some posters...and given some right back to be sure. There are a lot of tender feelings that cause a lot of blowback sometimes.
I keep trying to overcome my snarkiness but I fail miserably sometimes.
some people seem to come here these days for the express purpose of taking shots at other posters and contributing nothing of any value. It's kind of a conversation stopper.
But when things of informative value are posted and immediately down rated by a certain few no matter how inoffensive the post may be, it sort of makes it hard. And to be blunt that has happened to Sybil A LOT for way too long.
She uses snark. She's used snark as far back as I can remember and I've been on Wes' blogs since they started.
So maybe if the downraters of posts not worthy of a downrate would lighten up things might lighten up all around?
It's a thought.
"facetious", always - that's nothing new
it was a joke
there was even a little winky icon which I'm not normally given to using, but apparently that went "missing"
I've already explained it to a rider on a high horse down thread
But we'd far rather be offended and pissed off and into marathon troll-rating.
so be it
there's just plain mean-spirited revenge.
People really need to think before posting instead of just compulsively letting it fly to make themselves feel better.
from every which way. And yeah, it would be great if we would all do as you recommend. But, we're all too prone to the human failing mentioned in the Bible I guess.
Maybe we'll get better one day...who knows.
No, not mad. (it's per usual, really)
There is a difference between snark and marking ones territory, however.
And the bottom line is that anyone can snark anyway they want and anyone can fight back, ignore, down-rate etc., but Gen. Clark's recent comment about personal put-downs on the net did not exclude this site, and when snark ruins a discussion he may be interested in reading it hurts his motives, wouldn't ya think?
There is a time to snark and there is a time not to snark, respecting boundaries would be nice.
I voted for the democratic 'agenda' in 2006 - with great vigor.
Don't think I'll be putting all my eggs in that basket again for a good long while.
Oh, wait. That's not snark. That's just brutal honesty.
I think we are lucky that the rest of the world does not equate George W. Bush to the United States. We have a chance at undoing his damage.
"Yet during his eight-day, eight-country tour through the Middle East and Europe that ended yesterday, Senator Barack Obama, whose presidential candidacy has generated not only curiosity abroad but something of a global constituency, has come to represent different things across languages, cultures, and national borders.
The personality-driven politics that won him adoration from many in Europe brought more skepticism in the Middle East, where people look to politics less for idealism than realism. Just about everywhere, the American newcomer was cast as a perfect foil for President Bush."
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/07/27/obama_trip_addressed_global_constituency/