He hasn't raised that much for his campaign yet, but he has gotten more than
Huckabee, Thompson, Hunter and Gilmore. After the upcoming debates I'm sure
he'll get much more support, and contributions to the others will slow down.

I think he stands a good chance of getting the nomination because he's the
only Republican who's been against the Iraq war since before it began, and
plenty of Dems will be crossing over to vote for him in the primary, knowing
that Kucinich doesn't stand a chance. And if he gets the Republican
nomination, I believe he'll have the election sewed up.

Out of curiousity, what is it that you like so much about Obama? I'll admit
that I was almost swayed to support him before I learned about Ron Paul, but
was turned off by his flip-flopping. Here's an article I found and copied
around that time:

Among the Democratic Party's liberal antiwar wing, hopes were high that
Barack Obama would become their voice when he made an impressive speech in
which he called attention to the likely consequences of an invasion and
characterized the entire project as a "dumb war." At last! A Democrat with
the guts to call out the Bush administration in no uncertain terms!

Alas, it was not to be.

He was against the war during the campaign for the Senate seat he now
occupies, but once he got into office he came around to the War Party's
position, one that closely mimics warhawk John McCain's "we're in it and we
gotta win it" stance. In a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign
Relations, Obama attacked the Bush administration for exaggerating the
threat from Iraq and attacking war opponents as unpatriotic, yet he came out
with a position not too far from that of the White House:

"Given the enormous stakes in Iraq, I believe that those of us who are
involved in shaping our national security policies should do what we believe
is right, not merely what is politically expedient. I strongly opposed this
war before it began, though many disagreed with me at that time. Today, as
Americans grow increasingly impatient with our presence in Iraq, voices I
respect are calling for a rapid withdrawal of our troops, regardless of
events on the ground."

The buzzwords and catch-phrases come at us a mile a minute - "responsible,"
"a stable foundation for the future," "we owe it to the Iraqi people" -
until he finally comes out with his actual position:

"In sum, we have to focus, methodically and without partisanship, on those
steps that will: one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the
factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement;
two, contain and ultimately extinguish the insurgency in Iraq; and three,
bring our troops safely home."

Extinguish the insurgency - how? With more troops? By carpet-bombing Iraqi
cities?

This is a fantasy scenario, one that only the hoariest neocons still
entertain, yet here is Obama - or is that O-bomb-a? - talking like one of
our laptop bombardiers. What will stabilize Iraq is the withdrawal of the
chief irritant and obstacle to the consolidation of a unitary state
supported by the majority - U.S. and British occupying forces. As for
avoiding civil war, it's already too late for that.

"First and foremost," said Obama,

"After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need
to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq.
Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"

Well, yes, I did notice that, but I'm afraid the Kossacks and the "antiwar"
wing of the Democratic Party are averting their eyes. Obama continues:

"This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective
counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency. . I
believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The
strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops,
coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that
puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to
train Iraqi forces. At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops
should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war,
ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."

So, when are we getting out of Iraq? If you can tease any clear meaning out
of the above, more power to you. Later on in his peroration, he avers that
the Bush administration had best narrow the "timeframe" down to more than
between one and 10 years, though he conspicuously fails to do this himself.

Slipperier than an eel, the rookie senator from Illinois utilizes every
rhetorical device known to man to avoid coming to grips with the essential
issues. We are all supposed to be so dazzled by his manner, his command of
the acting skills that make him more suited for Hollywood than Washington,
D.C., that we go along with his dubious distinction between a "timetable"
for withdrawal and a "timeframe." (He voted against a resolution that would
have pulled the troops out of Iraq by July 2007.) Blinded by the hype
surrounding the Obama boomlet, antiwar Democrats can't or won't see the
utter phoniness of his position, which urges us to seek a "balance" between
getting out and staying in. As far as Obama is concerned, the real balance,
one senses, is among the various factions of the Democratic Party. In his
quest to be all things to all people, Obama is simply a mirror in which each
and every faction is meant to find its own reflection.

Yet his real loyalties are with the Democratic Party Establishment - the
Democratic Leadership Council/Lieberman wing - and this came through in the
party primaries, when his political action committee donated many thousands
of dollars to defeat antiwar candidates. He supported Joe Lieberman over Ned
Lamont, donating $4,200 to the eventual candidate of the "Connecticut for
Lieberman" Party. He also gave $10,000 to defeat antiwar stalwart Christine
Cegelis, who nonetheless came within a few thousand votes of winning against
a decorated war hero.

Obama's position on the Iraq war was pretty much summed up by his comment,
cited at Alex Cockburn's Counterpunch, as follows:

"On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the
Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a
year ago. There's not that much difference between my position and George
Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a
position to execute."

Bush and Obama still hew to the same unattainable goal: a military victory.
The only question is who has a better strategy to bring it about.

Stealing some lines from Hillary Clinton's playbook, Obama holds up Bosnia
and Kosovo as a model:

"If one looks at the Balkans - our most recent attempt to rebuild war-torn
nations - the international community, from the European Union to NATO to
the United Nations, were all deeply involved. These organizations, driven
largely by European countries in the region, provided legitimacy, helped
with burden-sharing, and were an essential part of our exit strategy. Ten
years later, conditions are not perfect, but the bloodshed has been stopped,
and the region is no longer destabilizing the European continent."

To say that "conditions are not perfect" in Bosnia and Kosovo is a bit of an
understatement. A decade later, the occupation force is still there,
policing the country and just barely keeping the Albanian Muslims from
slaughtering the last of the remaining Serbs. Most Serbs were long ago
ethnically "cleansed" from their historic lands, thanks to Bill (and
Hillary) Clinton. In Kosovo, we installed the gangster-led Kosovo Liberation
Army in power, and thus ensured Europe a steady supply of heroin, black
market weapons, and white slavers. Yes, most of the major bloodshed has been
stopped, but that's only because the victory of the KLA was - thanks to us -
decisive. We sided with the Albanian Muslims in what was a civil war in the
former Yugoslavia, precisely the opposite course recommended by Obama in
Iraq, where he faults the Bush administration for appearing to side with the
Shi'ites.

Like most congressional Democrats, he bowed before the Israeli war machine
and praised the IDF's brazen aggression in Lebanon, going so far as to visit
northern Israel during the war in a show of support. He opposed a
cease-fire - "I don't fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with
Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli
citizens, so I think that any cease-fire would have to be premised on the
removal of those missiles" - and absurdly averred:

"I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way
Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response
to take some action in protecting themselves."

According to this logic, the U.S. should have invaded Iran when the Iranians
took hostages at our embassy - and, come to think of it, he does endorse an
attack on Tehran, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States
one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan
to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."

He stresses that military action is a "last resort," and that we ought to
squeeze them with sanctions first:

"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out
military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures,
including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not
cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take
military action?' Obama asked.

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to
invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama
conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S.
and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in
possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to
err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of
Iran. . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I
watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this
point.'"

The United States, in Obama's reckoning , is the ultimate arbiter of who
shall join the nuclear club and who is barred from that exclusive group: he
makes no mention, naturally, of Israel's nukes. There's only the demagogic
assertion that anything is better than Muslims with nukes. Are there any
Muslims who aren't "radical," in his eyes?

Never mind that Iran is pursuing nuclear power while asserting only its
right to nuclear weapons (and, at the same time, disdaining any ambitions to
actually acquire them). And it doesn't matter, one assumes, that our own CIA
has estimated it will be a good 10 years before the Iranians develop such a
capacity. All they have to do, in Obama's view, is maintain their right to
do so - and we slap them with sanctions. Which, of course, means war.

The pretty-boy face and the accomplished actor's polished technique aside,
Barack Obama is just another shill for the War Party. And the sooner antiwar
Democrats realize that, the better.

Even the weather makes a huge difference.

When it gets too hot for too long here in the summer, people really do start
trying to kill each other.

Jo

LOL! How true that is.

Joyce

A very intelligent observation!  People in rural areas are
more likely to hunt, rather than rely upon the corner
grocery for ALL the meat in their diet, so gun ownership
makes sense - it's not just a sort of status symbol.

Bear got TEEF bigger dan my hed. Wy he need arms?

Winnie

--

On Apr 22, 2:50 pm, "Pat" <patricia251.catlit...@centurytel.net>
wrote:

I've heard of him and am somewhat familiar with the issue. However,
every child / young adul