http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15093

JT
Online Privacy when it Counts

Could start with GHWB’s kid . . .

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2556

.

Despite #47s recommendation, I certainly will not be considering a vote for Bob Barr, since, as a libertarian, his policies should be considered anathema to what progressives believe in. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney present two excellent choices, since they are calling for reconstruction of U.S. policy in the Middle East, a true universal health care system which, unlike Obama’s plan, would mean a single payer plan. Best of all, neither one of them, unlike Obama, is bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Ideally, one of these two should be allowed in the debates this summer in order to offer the American people a true alternative to either Obama or McCain. But it should be remembered how the Democrats and the Republicans conspired with the television executives to make sure that Nader would not be seen and heard in the summer debates of 2000. Apparently the last thing that the Democrats and the Republicans would wish is for Americans to realize that in a true democracy, other alternatives should be available beside the two major parties which are currently in power in the United States.

As Gore Vidal once wisely observed, there are two parties in this country, the extreme right wing and the right wing. I suspect that the last thing that Obama wishes to have happen is for Americans to realize how less than liberal he actually is. What one would not give to hear either Nader or McKinney call Obama out regarding his ties to corporate America. Yet so many Americans continue to believe the fallacy that Obama is a “man of the people.”

Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details.

A two-headed strawman.

How freakish.

Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details.

You’re awfully quick to speak for all “Americans and liberals.” And the last I heard Kucinich (my choice), is no longer running.

It’s also a little ridiculous to refer to Obama as “evil.” I happen to agree with you in general, the Democrats are not going to “save” this country. While there are clear differences between Democrats and Republicans there are troubling simularities. When you say you’ll be voting for a third party candidate who are you talking about, or will any third party candidate do?

http://progressiveworldreview.com

Just wondering……

Will the opinions of those Bush has sworn to serve matter at all to Bush? Would it matter to McCain? The answer to both is no. Neither man gives a rats ass about what real Americans want.

http://progressiveworldreview.com

If it were not so tragic it would be almost hilarious to see how many Americans and worse, liberals, have so much faith in this [alleged] agent of hope and change. As noted film documentarian John Pilger has pointed out, Obama has, like Bush, assured Americans that he will “listen to his commanders on the ground.” Obama plans to add even more troops to Afghanistan, the so-called “good war”, where American bombs and bullets have ripped apart Afghan villages and homes. Obama, the alleged anti-war candidate, has voted each and every time to continue voting to fund the illegal occupation in Iraq. As noted previously, despite your denials, Obama’s adviser, Colin Kahl, says the U.S. should keep up to 80,000 troops in Iraq. What few liberals wish to acknowledge are Obama’s ties to Wall Street, including such firms as Goldman sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan chase, citigroup, Morgan Stanley as well as the huge hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. According to files owned by the Centre for Responsible Politics, the top five contributors to Obama’s campaign are registered corporate lobbyists. It should also be pointed out how Obama is quick to reassure Israel that he will take care of them while grounding his heel into the face of the Palestinian people.

Americans and liberals are very quick to be led down the garden path by Obama’s oratory and charisma while perhaps purposefully ignoring that the devil is in the details. As to your earlier question, I will most definitely be voting for a third party candidate. It is useful to recall Congressman Kucinich’s wise observation that by voting for the lesser of two evils, one still ends up, despite his smooth talk, with an evil.

We got rid of their arch-nemesis Saddam and opened the door for an Iran-friendly Shi’ite regime in Iraq

We’ve gotten ourselves entangled in a protracted, expensive and ill-advised war in the Middle East, which has degraded our capability to respond to other crises and eroded our influence in the world.

Our economic policies have provided the conditions for oil to skyrocket in price on the worldwide market, boosting Iran’s revenues enormously.

We’ve provided the mullahs with a perfect new boogeyman that they find useful in rallying their people to their side, against an outside threat.

We compromised our own credibility in assessing threats from nations we want to bomb, thus lessening the scrutiny we are able to bring to bear on any nuclear program, weapons-related or not, that iran might want to implement.

Bush has already made life so much easier for the power structure in Tehran, we would they want to attack us? What would they have to gain?

The question was about Obama’s position, so let’s be honest.
Your source, Ed Morrisey has zero credibility.

Obama says we need to secure the embassy and it’s employees. That’s not going to take 80,000 troops.

If he goes back on his word, I’ll be really pissed, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The choice is between McIIIrd’s vision of a permanent miltiary occupation and Obama’s graduated withdrawal.
I know who I am voting for, how about you?