Hey, if Powell doesn't endorse, there's still Brzezinski as Obama's foreign policy adviser. So take heart!

No, Powell knows he's been a shill for his white masters for too long, he needs to shake off his "Yassuh, Massuh" image.

This should chip away at Clinton's base. The people who want to vote for someone of vast experience who lies about the need to go to war will now think twice before voting for HRC.

Colin Powell and his UN lies, why, Colin Powell isn,t half the liar as George Bush, yet the captains meet with him everyday for advice and conversatiobn. George Bush can out lie Colin Powell seven ways from Sunday. AND DICH CHENEY could out lie both of them together with one hand behind his back. I'm not just saying that because Bush and Cheney are WHITE and Powell is BLACK, as I'm not that kind of racist.

Wow! Good for you En Ming Hee for saying something so crazily offensive and then signing your name to it. You should start the Progressive Racist Party. PRP has a nice ring to it.

Okay, I can accept that Powell is a liar, a sycophant, etc. but on what basis do you call him a war criminal?

Covering up for My Lai?

Lying to start a war that has resulted in 600,000+ dead and two million displaced?

Still beleives in toxic nationalism at all costs.

The Hague awaits Mr. Powell. Can't say he would be first in line, though.

Oh mercy me! An opportunist politician! A Republican, too! I shall faint.

Seriously, do you really believe Fox headlines so easily? Has Obama acknowledged taking advice from Powell? What was it? If he wins and meets with "dictators" like Hugo Chavez (this smear by Obama sucks, I'll freely admit), I expect they'll have headlines like "Obama takes advice from Hugo Chavez". Get it in perspective. By that article they've met twice.

Powell wants to close Guantanamo. Do you think Obama got this idea from him? He's spoken against the “surge” (1) and said that Iraq's not working (2). These suggest to me he's just guessed early where the power's going to be, and having been excluded from the Bush administration (which came first, I don't know) is trying to get in with Obama's camp.

What do you think the Obama team's strategy should be? Annoy and alienate floating voters who buy in to much of the conservative world-view, and think Powell is a moderate? Refuse to meet with him and pour righteous scorn on his dishonesty? That's not necessarily a bad idea, but don't you think it would weaken his mandate? I think Reagan did the same thing, i.e. met with key Dems, then followed a strongly conservative agenda anyway. Obama has said for some time that he's trying to appeal to those who identify themselves as Republican but don't identify with the Bush administration. Meeting with Powell is consistent with that. I don't expect Obama to follow a strongly liberal agenda (certainly not a socialist one) but I do expect plenty of actions that wouldn't otherwise be taken, provided he has enough control and influence in congress to do it. That's not a given.

Obama, or at least his advisers, believe in "projection of American power", which I interpret to mean unauthorized (by the UN) interference in other countries by the US. But when was there last a president who didn't believe in that? And if there was one, how would he get congress to go along with him or her?

(1) http://www.barackobama.com/iraqact/
(2) http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.php

He's spoken against the “surge” (1)

Here's how Powell speaks against the surge:
[s]o we have tried this surge of troops over the summer. I am not persuaded that another surge of troops in Baghdad for the purpose of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work'.
"I'm not persuaded it'll work". Wow. Violent.

and said that Iraq's not working (2).

Indeed. Again, that's what everyone says. The solution is...?

I have long said that the only solution in Iraq is a political one. To reach such a solution, we must communicate clearly and effectively to the factions in Iraq that the days of asking, urging, and waiting for them to take control of their own country are coming to an end. No more coddling, no more equivocation.Read in (2)

Okay.

So here we are. Some guy telling us it's not so bad that Powell advises Obama. "Who knows if he even advises him anyway." Most important is, Obama will take "plenty of actions that wouldn't otherwise be taken".

Like, flexing muscles and asking really really seriously that Iraqis "take control of their own country."

Way to go, "me".

I suggest you stick to more conventional liberal websites.

Powell would be a significant endorsement because he has the amazing capacity to tell a series of obvious lies and hypnotize everyone with a printing press, microphone or a broadcast license into believing him.

Look, the whole point of this blog is "any reason not to vote Democrat (thus letting McCain win)".

All repugnant Bush administration figures EXCEPT Colin Powell are going to support McCain, of course.

The implied logic here - "You have to vote for a spoiler candidate because a bad person endorsed Obama" - is so illogical as to border on resembling Fox logic. Don't worry about policies, vote on the basis of images and associations.

Again, those who hold this attitude are perfectly okay with a John McCain win.

How could that be? Surely the "there's no difference between Bush and Gore" delusion (this year's version probably being McCain and either Clinton or Obama) has been disproved.

Well, I think I've got it figured out, and now here's something to REALLY get brutally disillusioned about.

It's very simple. Some people are privileged, and perhaps even secretly love things like the lack of inheritance tax*. At a minimum, they're too comfortable to care about losing health insurance or serving in Iraq. They want to pose as "radicals", and they don't really have anything personal at stake, so they go for the best of both worlds. Push some ridiculous third party nut job, so that the Republican wins but you can claim to be pure.

*For the record, I believe that right wing policies hurt people of every social class, even economically, and I will never vote right wing or spoiler no matter how much money I have, but that's just me.

Disillusionment is painful, but illusionment is the source of the whole problem.

Disillusionment is painful, but illusionment is the source of the whole problem.

No, the source of many major problems in the US - constant unnecessary war, budget deficits, government denial of science, widespread lack of access to health care, gutting of environmental regulations, gutting of constitutional rights, increased corruption, right wing ideologue supreme court appointments, etc, etc, etc - is a Republican administration.

Far from being a gesture of purity or moral superiority, your petulant sound bite declarations that you are too "disillusioned" to support the only alternative, could be seen as very cynical and selfish acts.

You gladly facilitate the election of some of the worst governments in the history of the United States, in order that you yourself may conform to a pre-set "pose" of being too "radical" to support either major party. By implication, you are of a privileged background, and feel (quite incorrectly, I must emphasize), that you yourself are not likely to be directly harmed by the negative policies that a Republican president would promote, and a Democrat president would not promote.

harold: Problem is the Democtatic President WILL be promoting the same policys. What has Obama or Clinton stated their policy will be on NOLA, the problems in the VA, Military Budget, Deficit? Basically a THREE YEAR campaign with NO issues discussed, NO solutions delivered, No content, why vote for that?

constant unnecessary war

No, it's certainly not like Democrats have ever started decade-long wars based entirely on lies or anything.

The day you see one of them announce that we could safely cut our bloated military budget by two-thirds and still have more than adequate protection against any conceivable threat* will be the day that we have a genuine alternative, whatever their faults. Why, the money saved could be used to address other things you listed, like health care and deficits! But no, Obama and Hillary and future Democratic candidates are more than happy to continue feeding that bottomless pit and stoking the fears of scheming Persians, devious Arabs and inscrutable Chinese in service of the global version of Manifest Destiny.

So fuck off and go back to parading around with an Obama sign and chanting "Yes We Can!"

*which would also entail telling Americans that almost all the things they spend their time quaking in fear over are no threat to anyone other than the clinically paranoid. Yeah, I see that happening in my lifetime.

Problem is the Democtatic President WILL be promoting the same policys.

Nonsense, and you know it is nonsense. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq, gotten science advice from creationists, etc. McCain will clearly be worse than Obama or Clinton. The logical point is, of course, that Democrats will promote "some of" the same policies, but not exclusively the same policies.

No, it's certainly not like Democrats have ever started decade-long wars based entirely on lies or anything.

This is irrelevant in the current milieu. First of all, Vietnam is over. Second of all, you merely point out that Democrats do some of the same bad things as Republicans, which is clearly true. But my point is that Republicans also do far more worse things.

The day you see one of them announce that we could safely cut our bloated military budget by two-thirds and still have more than adequate protection against any conceivable threat* will be the day that we have a genuine alternative, whatever their faults. Why, the money saved could be used to address other things you listed, like health care and deficits! But no, Obama and Hillary and future Democratic candidates are more than happy to continue feeding that bottomless pit and stoking the fears of scheming Persians, devious Arabs and inscrutable Chinese in service of the global version of Manifest Destiny.

Again this is clearly true, at least for the short term. Does voting for a spoiler candidate and putting McCain in the white house improve this situation? Did it improve things to vote for Nader in 2000? Did it advance a progressive agenda? Did Bill Clinton, such as he was, increase military spending? Has it been increased since then?

So fuck off and go back to parading around with an Obama sign and chanting "Yes We Can!"

Devastating.

*which would also entail telling Americans that almost all the things they spend their time quaking in fear over are no threat to anyone other than the clinically paranoid. Yeah, I see that happening in my lifetime.

I have no idea whether this will ever happen.

Look, in 2000 there were some excuses. The country was economically stable, Bush paraded as a "moderate", progressives were perhaps understandably impatient with Clinton. Even then, the logic of voting for a pure spoiler was highly questionable, and Bush made his far right tendencies clear to anyone who actually paid attention (for example, giving a secret speech at Bob Jones University). (*Note - of course I am strongly in favor of voting for the most genuinely progressive candidate who can win, at every electoral level, which is not necessarily always a third party candidate*.)

At this point it's different. The US is staggering. Seven years of insane right wing policies have devastated the country. The ship is sinking, and if you don't bail, you'll drown. This country can't take "four more years". Those who advocate voting for spoiler candidates on the left have no logical leg to stand on. There is no conceivable benefit than can arise from such a gesture.

This is gonna become a gimmick but... damn what a joke !

Nonsense, and you know it is nonsense. Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq, gotten science advice from creationists, etc.

How do you know he wouldn't have invaded Iraq ? He was the most vivid supporter of airstrikes on the country in the 90s.

But my point is that Republicans also do far more worse things.

No that wasn't your point:
the negative policies that a Republican president would promote, and a Democrat president would not promote.
Your point was, a Democrat president would not promote the negative policies a Republican one would. That is not the same as saying a Democrat would do the same but less badly so.

Democrats have been elected many times, and still wars were declared. Stop thinking Democrats represent change. Of course, if you think a softer imperialism represents change...

You gladly facilitate the election of some of the worst governments in the history of the United States, in order that you yourself may conform to a pre-set "pose" of being too "radical" to support either major party.
A "pre-set pose of radicalism". In other words we're fake and we secretly want the republicans to win.

But you, the guy who votes for someone he doesn't really agree with, with regards to war imperialism and occupation, because he thinks republicans will be worse, you are the "real" guy.

Interesting. Omoshiroï. Intéressant.

Seven years of insane right wing policies have devastated the country. The ship is sinking, and if you don't bail, you'll drown.

The Democrats are complicit in the sinking. How will they stop it ? They won't even start to try.

This country can't take "four more years". Those who advocate voting for spoiler candidates on the left have no logical leg to stand on. There is no conceivable benefit than can arise from such a gesture.

This country will take four more years of imperialism. It is those who vote for softer imperialism who permit it to continue. Thinking that maybe with some luck it will die out. But it won't. It never did, it never will. This country is heading for self-destruction, the only actual mean of putting an end to this empire.

Does voting for a spoiler candidate and putting McCain in the white house improve this situation? Did it improve things to vote for Nader in 2000? Did it advance a progressive agenda?

Did voting for Clinton improve things ? Did it advance a progressive agenda ? Did it even hinder imperialism ?

No. It did none of these things.

But the world will still turn in 2009. It will turn in 2013. It will turn in 2017. Etc.

If you are against imperialism, then you should try building up a movement against it. And stop talking about spoiler candidates.

If you're against war and empire, and you're voting Democrats in, then you're the one spoiling our votes.

You're the one making the empire continue, for you don't look to its real demise, you look to a very slight improvement, on the short-term, for 4 years.

Looking at the history of America in its totality, one can only see that Fascism arrives, step-by-step, slowly. One can only see that the Empire has been with you for a very long time. Some say since the war against Spain. Some say the nature of Spain infected the American Republic and it turned Imperialist since then. Truely, i'm an ignorant and know nothing for certain.

But you're telling us that the centrist Obama will stop this slow development over the decades, a development he's not even aware of. A development he doesn't even care about. A development you don't care about.

In 4 years, he will stop something he's not aware of.

Pardon me, I'd rather build up the anti-imperialist movement. It has a lesser chance of winning today, but it has a definitely greater chance of ending this someday. Maybe I was wrong and self-destruction can be avoided.

Defeat for now, victory tomorrow. Enslaved for now, free tomorrow.

Peoples:

Please strive to reduce your frustration with others, and discuss these subjects as civilly as possible. In particular, try to see where others are coming from and what common ground you might share.

Yrs.,
Blogmom

@harold: the general population is highly against the occupation of iraq. you can't expect people not to question the anti-war convictions of presidential candidates during this campaign. there is a specific job that wants doing — withdrawal — and if it looks like a candidate might be dragging heels, that translates directly to blood — tens of thousands of lives. this isn't about ralph-f'ing-nader.

I'll just address one apparent source of confusion.

No that wasn't your point: the negative policies that a Republican president would promote, and a Democrat president would not promote. Your point was, a Democrat president would not promote the negative policies a Republican one would. That is not the same as saying a Democrat would do the same but less badly so.

My point is very simple to understand.

Although Democrats do many bad things, including some of the same bad things that Republicans do, Republicans are worse. "Worse" is a comparative term. It does not imply a strong compliment to that which is "better". A bad cold is miserable but an advanced case of the bubonic plague is even worse. Republicans are not "the same". Overall, they are worse.

Paraphrase my point all you want, but please don't distort it.

And when there are exactly two choices, don't choose the one that is worse.

Don't choose it directly. Don't choose it indirectly, either, by pretending that there is a third choice, when the "third choice" is just another way of making the worse thing happen. Don't claim that two things are "equal" when one is transparently "worse" than the other.

It's really very simple to understand, and if you're not convinced and want an experiment, it's been done, and it was called "the 2000 US presidential election".

Let me add that I am in favor of any logical efforts to move this country in a more progressive direction. Although I don't subscribe to a named ideology (beyond holding a collection of views that most Americans would label "liberal" or "progressive"), on the vast majority of actual pragmatic issues facing the US, I would almost certainly be in agreement with other posters here. But the key word is "logical".

This will be my final post on this thread.

harold: If I may point out, IMPEACHMENT would give The Democratic Party UNLIMITED ADVANTAGE over the Republicans. I dare say the EVIDENCE alone, brought forth to public scrutney, would CRUSH the Republican Hopes for the Presidency. (1-202-225-0100 give it a call)

yes -- screaming at the top of your lungs for what you want, irrationally, indecently, day after illogical day, supporting only the hardest of hard core among your tight band of political rebels -- no track record.

goldwater and nader -- totally incomparable.

"voting for a pure spoiler"

If you think that voting for the best candidate on the ballot, who happens NOT to be Democratic or Republican, is voting for a spoiler - then you don't believe in democracy at all.

And, as to the idea that those who vote for a third party candidate are well-off and not suffering from the current system -

well, think about this:

there is a shit load of people who don't vote at all because they think it is hopeless...... and they tend to be among the poorest and least educated in our country.

Susan-NC: EXACTLY.

My apologies, Jon. I'm just sick of seeing people who think rooting out heretics amongst potential Democratic voters is a useful thing to do. I've seen one too many anti-Nader tirades recently (apparently, the hatred for that man will never die). These are the same people who are going to put all their efforts into making feeble excuses for the next bombing initiated by a Democratic president.