Who's For Whom ? Obama, Hillary, McCain

[Dudester]

Just wondering in this fine "Sport" we - USA citizens - have every 4 years called "THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE" who are you rootin' for this time around. Feel free to jump in if you are from another country besides the US - it's all No Problemo to me...... So , please state your case but no simplistic "Hillary cause she's a woman and so am I" or "McCain cause he's 100 something years old and sometimes I feel that old so I can relate". What I'm looking for here is why (with substance) you are for this person (or why - with substance - you are not). Should be interesting if a lot of people jump in so JUMP IN POR FAVOR....Dudester

 

[bigbadwolf]

Catch three cockroaches, line 'em up, and see which one crosses some arbitrary finish line first. And then ask yourself what impact that roach race will have on your life. Or ask yourself, which of the three heads of Cerebrus would you vote for? Each of the three you mention has been Zionist-vetted and corporate-vetted. The evil empire has its own dynamic and which figurehead is placed at the helm makes not a whit of difference. To use the terminology of Guy Debord, it's the "society of the spectacle": breathless commentators and pundits talking excitedly about poll results, and what's happening in what primary, and the "issues." An interesting discussion would be, rather, whether the United States can actually function as any kind of democracy at all, or whether its size and history compel it to be an empire. An interesting new book by Sheldon Wolin, titled "Democracy Incorporated," argues that the founders of the nation themeselves harbored a profound suspicion and dislike of democracy -- and this same argument can be found in Ranciere's "Hatred of Democracy."
Incidentally, and related to some of my initial comments in the paragraph above, here is an interesting piece at dissidentvoice.org:

 

[Matty]

I am wondering if Ralph Nader will be on the ballot again this time? I might even seriously considering him. bigbadwolf do you know,if he is?

 

[HDM]

Nader is on the ballot again, although did not make the cut in some states. Also, a fellow named Barr is running on a Libertarian ticket. They have been known to get as high as 2/10th of one percent on occasion.

I am for Barack Obama.

If anyone here might be interested in a short but intense debate between a HIllary Clinton supporter in France and me in Washington, an Obama supporter, feel free to check out the blog pertaining to it at this site:

http://homepage.mac.com/hdmerritt

When it opens, click on the "personal blog" option and scroll down until you come to a topic titled, "Why I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary."

 

[pescador]

One interesting aspect (and just plain reality) is how democratic voters are siding so completely with their candidate, that they would actually vote republican if 'said' candiditate were not to win the primary race. It is bad enough that our country is divided in half, now into thirds. I have to admit that I am one of these voters as well. If, by some criminal (Florida 2000) fluke incident, Obama is not in the race, then I would have a tough decision as to who to vote AGAINST. Either way, in my opinion, is a sad-sad-sad scenario.
The only true way to bring about positive results for the U.S. is to unify Washington. Sadly, there are enough of the wrong people in the right positions who do not desire a united government, that this goal is hard to imagine. HOWEVER, I have a great deal of respect for Obama for his bold propositions for change. Whether these changes are 'allowed' to be seen through, will remain to be seen. I'm not nieve. I realize the person in the big chair can't make as much of an impact as he/she would like. My strongest opinion of the whole situations is: It's not who is there, but who is not there that truly matters.
I voted AGAINST Bush eight years ago, and I'll have to do it again this year

 

[Stanexpat]

“Each of the three you mention
has been Zionist-vetted and corporate-vetted.”






Bigbadwolf what do you mean by this? Please elaborate.



Thanks

 

[Mike1]

I think I'm going for "none of the above" again (been doing that
since the Bush vs. Al Gore joke), since there hasn't been anyone who is
really qualified or has enough draw to get enough votes to get close and the
debacles of the past candidates. Al Gore "discovered the internet" and
recently, he ACTUALLY won the Nobel Prize for "discovering" global
warming. John Kerry for being Bush's 9th cousin (a family affair
anyone?), which means Bush and company's circle of influence would
still be there win or lose, oh fun, oh joy. Barrack Obama does not have the
charisma or the experience to be running the country or have any
powerful & influential friends in Congress to really make any drastic changes
that he promised. OH. HELL NO!!! NOT Hillary!!! I don't like ANY of
her policies and I don't think I'd want to see another 4 years of the
Clinton Circus. John McCain, looks like a strong candidate, but he will take the country deeper into debt by
prolonging the war for the "petrol mafia" (Bush & company for
another 4 years anyone?). I doubt ANYONE in the right mind will vote ANOTHER Republican in. Ralph Nader is probably the most qualified
but has been running many times and could not muster enough support for
the win. It's starting to become a family affair in the White House
nowadays, if it's not one BIG & powerful family, it's ANOTHER. I wondered which
relative of the ex-presidents will be running next? Maybe Jeb Bush?
or perhaps another comeback for one of the Kennedys? There hasn't
been a really good president since FDR, and ironically, he's also a 5th
cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. Can we please have another Lincoln step up
& get on the ballot???

 

[bigbadwolf]

“Each of the three you mention
has been Zionist-vetted and corporate-vetted.”




Bigbadwolf what do you mean by this? Please elaborate.

The original paper by Walt and Mearsheimer, titled "The Israel Lobby" (since expanded to a book), is still available at the LRB site. Organisations like AIPAC, ADL, and JINSA (as well as others) play a pivotal role in American politics and the crafting of US foreign policy in the Middle East. Attack dogs like Alan Dershowitz are ready to pounce with the charge of "anti-semitism" on anyone who criticises Israel's policy towards the Palestinians, or the disproportionate amount of US aid it receives. This is the "Zionist lobby," and emphatically not to be confused with all American Jews; indeed some of the most trenchant critics of Israel include Jewish academics such as Chomsky and Finkelstein.
Some commentators, such as the conservative Paul Craig Roberts (a Reagan administration official), argue that the Iraq invasion was prompted by Israeli considerations; his essay can be found here. Indeed, one line of argument is that most of the neo-con elite -- regardless of whether they have been Jewish or not -- have been ardent Zionists.
With regard to corporate-vetted, this scarcely deserves elaboration. The tens of millions each candidate raises is mostly from the corporate sector and there is a tacit agreement that these contributions will be paid back in the coin of political favors by the successful candidate. American capitalism across the board is crucially dependent on the largesse and intervention of the US state for its continued expansion and even its very survival. The US state is fought over by various factions of US financial and industrial capital: the fiction that the ordinary slob in the street can decide US foreign and domestic policy by his vote deserves to be treated with contempt and derision. The candidates and their "policies" are virtually indistinguishable. In this system of empire and spoils, a candidate like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader has no chance of every being elected. The process is for show: the society of the spectacle.

 

[bigbadwolf]

It's starting to become a family affair in the White House
nowadays, if it's not one BIG & powerful family, it's ANOTHER. I wondered which
relative of the ex-presidents will be running next? Maybe Jeb Bush?
or perhaps another comeback for one of the Kennedys? There hasn't
been a really good president since FDR, and ironically, he's also a 5th
cousin of Teddy Roosevelt.

This is what happens in empires. Take a look at Kevin Phillips' "American Dynasty" (an examination of the Bush family) for some of the many examples he give of senators, governors, and congressmen who have literally inherited their jobs: in the year 2000, 77 out of the 535 congressmen were related to senators, governors, judges, and other congressmen. According to Phillips, there are ten to twenty "minor" dynasties, and two in the second-tier (Kennedys and Clintons). The one first-tier dynasty is that of the Bush-Walker clan: at the 1992 Republican National Convention, seventy-one members of the clan attended.

 

[rmartinbuenosaires]

I love it when people use the excuse that Obama doesn't have enough experience. Like that is even relevant. Look at the current idiot who is running the show. Can you possibly get any dumber and arrogant than that? I knew he was a problem back in 2000 BEFORE he was handed the election but what gets me is the vast majority of Americans are so dimwitted that he actually won in 2004! C'mon people! There has not been one thing this administration has done correctly. NOT ONE! Every lacklaster decision by him and his cabinet has been a disaster. Senator Clinton, while maybe productive in the Senate doesn't have REAL experience either. What qualifies someone just because she sleeps with the President for eight years? HOWEVER, if by some strange accident she is the nominee, then I would vote for her.
I won't even touch McCain. Respect him personally but he is way off with more of the same. I voted for Obama for the Senate in 2004 and will vote for him now and have contributed to his campaign. I personally think he is the most inspiring politician in my lifetime so far. In the end, even if he screws up, which we all do, at least he can admit a mistake or consult experts on the given topic.