Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq, he argued for the need "to end the mindset that took us into" that war. So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan. (This holds true not just for the two men on the Democratic ticket but for too many Democrats in Washington who argue, mantra-like, that we need to leave Iraq in order to free additional troops to serve in "the right war.")

A few weeks ago, a friend sent me an e-mail. "Here is a future dictionary entry for Afghanistan," he wrote.

"Afghanistan. The place where the dreams and hopes of the Obama Presidency are buried."

I flinched when I read the note. But it rang true. Obama risks creating a bipartisan consensus that will entrap the US in another costly occupation---draining resources needed to fulfill his (already limited) promises for economic growth, health care and social justice at home. Such escalation will also crowd out other international initiatives and alienate those allies we need to reengage the world on terms other than the so-called "war on terror."

At other times, though not tonight, Obama has spoken forcefully as the first 21st century candidate---addressing the limits of military force in a world whose central challenges are pandemics, nuclear proliferation, global inequality, and climate change. These are issues which McCain has no clue how to address. He is a man who craves the reassuring reflexes of the early Cold War era, when military power was the appropriate response to any provocation. Tonight, though, at too many key moments, Obama played on McCain's turf. Instead of playing to the future, forcefully, with toughness and passion, Obama was the young hawk trying to out-hawk the old uber-hawk. Obama can do better. We can do better. I know Obama wasn't courting me --but those elusive ---and infuriating --swing, undecided voters. (And the post-debate polls show Obama beating McCain among this group!)

Still, we confront grave, new security issues : a metastasizing financial crisis that threatens to evict millions from their homes, kill their kids' hopes for college and ravage their pensions . And in the long haul, we're going to face a ferocious fight to preserve the progressive agenda. Already tonight, debate moderator Jim Lehrer pushed the candidates to tell us what they would give up considering the bailout's costs. But as economist Jamie Galbraith argues, these are times not to balance budgets but to invest in the infrastructure which has made this country strong. Obama will need to speak more effectively, more boldly, more passionately about the new challenges ahead.

If elected, Senator Obama has the chance to be a transformational president. His election, if followed through with smart and just policies, could turn a page on the reckless and destructive ones of the extremist Bush Administration. But tonight he showed himself to be a raging minimalist.

Comments (83)

1. "So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan."

   ~Katrina

   Precisely on target.

   And I reiterate my post from Nichol's "Beat":

   Point number one:

   McCain's ship is listing badly under the strain of Sarah Palin's baggage. If he needed a virtual miracle to win the presidency at an earlier juncture, he needs a miracle times ten now.

   Point number two:

   If Obama is a temperamentally cautious politician who exists under the shadow of innate American racism, condemned to walking the tenuous tightrope between appearing dignified versus the now scathing demand for vigorous action against a Washington culture gone essentially psychopathic, he at least won this "debate" in a smooth walkaway --the contrast in the body/facial language of McCain versus Obama was the ultimate tail of the tape.

   What is needed now is a populist agenda to attack the fundamental corruption that is dragging our once proud nation under the waves.

   Crisis is indeed a harbinger of opportunity.

   Will America execute the necessary 180 degree turn?

   History will be the judge, but the indications are not positive.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:43am

2. The "mindset that took US into that war" seems to us, outside the US, to include an emotional attachment to Normandy then Paris 1944. Fine; fine for last century. Be it Rumsfeld, Cheney or McCain, the rabid patriots for an always good US military presence neglect to consider that was then. Now there might be a muted, hallucinogenic form of fascism on the militarised path (religious extremism), but WW2 involved a second late entry by the USA. What would have happened if the New Deal of Roosevelt was not so ground-breaking and successful? Those same anti-commies may have entered the war from a different angle, with mainstream support.

   McCain rings us back to Eisenhower and shades of Reagan. Obama gets you back to Paris and setting up the UN.

   Would you rather US flags on bombs, in flames and removed from backpacks when overseas; or US flags and the President's face on badges, patches and such from Caracas to the Caucasus? That shiny nickel prospect: winning back global street with a liberal US. One hopes that vision gets closer through more careful deliberations on how to deal with Pakistan's military and intelligence elites (on Obama's part).

   Posted by bazdicoot at 09/27/2008 @ 12:48am

3. McCain got the white bud lite vote, gruff, some good anecdotals. On the offense. Scored points with 'spending is out of control' echo.

   Wierd, sour, refusing to look, talk to Obama. Wish Obama had a moment related to this, like a laugh and comment to Jim Leher.

   Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 01:19am

4. Personally, I think there is no way Obama can't be anything but specifically pro-military, or languish at 10%, and his Afghanistan perspective reflects this.

   Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2008 @ 01:31am

5. I was sort of expecting a more visceral reaction from the events not just of tonight, but from the overall jaundice that has apparently captured this nation --and the rest of the planet?-- like a slightly too lengthy, surreal and swerving roller-coaster ride through a negative bit of critical time.

   In any case, my favorite website, "Astronomy Picture of the Day", just posted an image that has seized my own imagination with something worthy of contemplation from a world stuck on stale:

   tinyurl.com/bwk

   I believe it's worth the eye lifting effort.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 03:13am

6. I was listening to the debate on my XM radio as I drove my 18 wheeler back to Des Moines from a run to Chicago. I was so upset with Obama that I had to turn the radio off about 3/4 of the way through the debate.

   I sat there dumfounded as I realized that there was no way I could vote for Obama. I had planned on voting for him, even though I am a socialist. Believing that it was of the utmost importance that McCain/Palin not be elected. But then I understood. The only two presently sitting politicians that I have any respect for are Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Senator Bernie Sanders.

   There is no way I can remain in and vote with the Democratic Party and live with myself. Obama is really not that much different than McCain. It's like the difference between Bud-Light and 20 year old single malt scotch. Those beverages are both alcoholic and if you drink enough of either one, you still wake up with the runs and a hangover.

   So the only recourse I have is to vote with the only party that truly represents my position on the issues. Even though they have no chance of winning. The PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) they are on the ballot in 12 states. I was always uncomfortable with Obama and the Democratic Party, and they really lost me last nite. Not that my vote really matters in the big picture. But it matters to me..

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 03:23am

7. Great post, Capt. Chaos.

   If anything is now obvious, it's the vast window that has now opened for voters of conscience to vote their conscience.

   :D

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 03:27am

8. I will check out the pic b_koo_66. I need a bit of eye lifting.

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 03:32am

9. I had been struggling with the issue of voting my conscience for a long time. It was causing alot of stress for me. I was feeling exhausted. Now I feel like the weight of decision has been lifted from me. Feels Good. At least now I can look at this with a more detached and less emotionally tumultuous attitude.

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 03:40am

10. I'm on your wavelength, chaos.

    And best of all, I suspect there are more of us --perhaps a notable number.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 03:45am

11. I love that website too... b_k

    I enjoyed the debate... and both of the candidates were solid under pressure... both spoke as if they were under a great deal of pressure for most of it.

    Nothing new happened... which, in the context of our national news lately, felt like a holiday of sorts... almost boring, really...

    Got to admit though... I did enjoy McCain's scrappy posturing and his more alert than usual demeanor... dancing around like a boxer and all... trying to make his opponent duck, block, and maybe stumble. He's doing his best to give Obama a run for his money, and he's giving it his all.

    I just don't agree with him on much...

    Obama looked presidential and McCain looked pentagonial.

    Posted by ttr at 09/27/2008 @ 03:51am

12. Maybe there are as many of us as the number of stars in the "Thousand Ruby Galaxy". That sounds a little corny. But im feeling a little more like a spectator than a participant this morning.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 04:06am

13. To add another bit of potentially encouraging news, I happened to view a completely fascinating program on PBS the other night, from National Geographic, that documented the work of a Stanford brain researcher, Robert Sapolsky, who has spent several decades studying baboon populations in east Africa in relation to stress.

    tinyurl.com/4sce4b

    To paraphrase the key results, Sapolsky's original study group of baboons underwent a major transition when they invaded a garbage dump and suffered a high mortality rate from the ingestion of TB infected meat. The mortality was not random, and in fact knocked off a cohort of aggressive males leaving the clan with a more genial group of caring, less aggressive members.

    As is typical in these pack driven primates, young males migrate from their clan of origin and meld into the new clan that they encounter. But the kicker is that the introduced males that assimilated into the more genial clan created by the biased wipeout of the aggressive males was gradually socialized into the calmer behaviors of the TB impacted group.

    Here is, perhaps, a blueprint for a potentially much more cooperative future human society.

    I'm, of course, cautious about the translation of this anecdotal story of primate evolution, but a reasonable degree of hope is certainly to be found in this, and other research.

    We've only scratched the surface.

    I only hope we don't take the wrong lessons.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 04:14am

14. "Got to admit though... I did enjoy McCain's scrappy posturing and his more alert than usual demeanor."

    ~ttr

    I'll concede as much.

    But that doesn't seem to be a compliment of great note.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 04:17am

15. until tomorrow, good night.

    tinyurl.com/4n4jym

    From my all time favorite album --hands down.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 04:39am

16. After watching the "debate" (which really was better than most, I do have to admit, though far below the standard of "debate") I am left voting

    c: None of the Above

    not a final answer, Regis. I would like to use a lifeline, for my country.

    O Lord, we beseech thee, Tell us, who killed the republic?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/27/2008 @ 07:46am

17. Look, THEY could never admit it, but the facts are for every one chaoszen, b_kool, and crabwalk that Obama lost because he didn't come off as Kucinich....

    he picks up TEN mainstream, moderate, and independent voters who don't want some mooney-eyed pacifist as President any more than they want a nutty "bomb da bastards" "war! war! war!" type like McCain or Dubya.

    You guys go vote for Ralph...if 2004 is a good indicator (0.34% of the vote)...it's perfectly fine for you to "keep your principles".

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 07:52am

18. So the only recourse I have is to vote with the only party that truly represents my position on the issues. Even though they have no chance of winning. The PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) they are on the ballot in 12 states.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 03:23am

    I'm on your wavelength, chaos.

    And best of all, I suspect there are more of us --perhaps a notable number.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 03:45am

    FINALLY! It's about time you guys started admitting what we have known for years. Admitting it is the first step...eleven more to go...

    Posted by usc1 at 09/27/2008 @ 09:14am

19. Posted by usc1 at 09/27/2008 @ 09:14am

    Should YOU be voting for Chuck Baldwin then, usc?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 09:17am

20. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 04:14am

    Are you suggesting if we banish the GOP to the city dump they will, over time, become less aggressive? LOL

    BTW: Obama looked Presidential, McCain looked constipated. Maybe in the rushing between DC (saving the economy) and ol' Miss he forgot to take his metamucil.

    ...and where was Palin? Supporting the ticket? Well, kinda ... instead of having Grampa's back she was at a party in Philly.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2008 @ 09:26am

21. Posted by chaoszen at 09/27/2008 @ 03:23am

    Go ahead guys, vote away for all the fringe folk who have positions closer to yours. Who do you suppose Dennis Kucinich will vote for? Of course he is smarter and "righter" than McCain or Obama, so is our beloved Russ Feingold, but they are unelectable at this moment in time.

    If your conscience says McCain/Palin is preferable to Obama/Biden than vote your conscience, but don't kid yourselves about who your conscience is putting in the White House.

    Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 09:27am

22. I too was concerned about Obama's hawkish comment re. Afghanistan. Maybe he (or his staffers) have read this piece in The Atlantic, however... http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/afghan

    and maybe they will hire its authors to help write policy as it concerns Afghanistan.

    Posted by edcheet at 09/27/2008 @ 09:35am

23. Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 09:17am...

    Make usc1 vote for Ron Paul...

    Shills for Nader should be forced to listen to Reruns of GWB's speeches for two straight hours every day... until they snap out of it...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 09/27/2008 @ 09:42am

24. The picture was very clear.

    Anyone wanting a President who is aggressive, combative, consdescing and downright rude, McCain is your guy. Be aware however, that these traits do not forge strong alliances with other nations and within our own government.

    If my 11 year old son someday grow up to be half the class act Obama demonstrated last night, I would be an extremely proud mother.

    Posted by nerakami at 09/27/2008 @ 09:46am

25. Today's 538 polls analysis puts Obama 82 EC votes ahead of McC, 42 EC votes more than Obama needs to win.

    What's the likelihood of a precipitous fall giving McC the EC victory?

    It's over.

    May Sarah not withdraw, may she continue to perform as spectacularly as she has, and perhaps this may lengthen & strengthen Obama's coattails enough to drag in a senator or 2 more than he might have done otherwise.

    Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 09:46am

26. Oh sloper, I sure hope you are right.

    Next year we are opening some of our acreage to town folks who need garden space and we certainly aren't the only ones doing what we can for our neighbors.

    This is one of the upsides to this economic disaster, some people are helping each other.

    Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 09:56am

27. obviously the question is," who do we believe?" when either candidate speaks of each others record, who is telling the truth? for the average citizen to realisticly research the "record" would require time the majority of us do not have. so who is the right man for the job? the process is totally flawed. was this truly a debate? certainly not one on any academic level. if it were there would have been more reason, deduction, analysis. maybe a third person other than a media talking head should "call the game" just like baseball. when the facts are called into question, the statistician is called in to read the record and the candidate must explain his or her rational. we would probably see some interesting things about our candidates that neither want to reveal about themselves. in a feel good society totally devoid of any real substance, a "debate" lacking any substance is certainly the "logical" approach.

    Posted by jbone1976 at 09/27/2008 @ 09:58am

28. Posted by sloper at 09/27/2008 @ 09:46am

    FORTUNATELY, the Right won't listen to Kathleen Parker at "National Review".

    They love Caribou Barbie and McCain knows if he got rid of her (or even if she SEEMED to leave "of her own accord")....McCain would lose 1/2 his base.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 10:19am

29. This is one of the upsides to this economic disaster, some people are helping each other.

    Posted by Pogge at 09/27/2008 @ 09:56am

    I would love to be able to cut Dilbert out of the paper today and send it to FZ. Just to see what kind of reaction it evoked.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 10:29am

30. as for the debate last night, i thought obama looked much more presidential and composed than john mccain, who came off as a a rude and cantankerous old man. mccain never addressed obama directly and was very condescending. though i don't believe there was a clear victor last night, i thought obama came off as much more presidential than john mccain.

    as for this afghanistan talk, i think that we need to send in more troops to quell the taliban uprising, but use small teams of special forces to hunt al-qaeda in and around north waziristan, with or without the consent of pakistan. i just don't believe that another nation's law enforcement agency is going to get the job done.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:51am

31. i think obama did what he had to do last night.

    i still DO want to see the top leadership of al qaeda bput on trial and hanged for what they did. its a matter of justice (delayed as a result of our stupid iraq gambit) and with the right leadership who knows? we may even coax some help from pakistan.

    regardless...we cannot let those who REALLY attacked us get away with it...bad message there...

    sure...eventually it may become too costly in money and diplomatically. the best time to bag 'em and tag 'em was within a year of the 9/11 attack, when a couple or three more brigades might have sealed the cordon at tora bora and ended it then and there...

    ironically with the proper force mix and intelligence operations...a pull out and quiet down may now provide the best opportunity to nab the bad guys (or blow them up real good)...

    but well argued, KATRINA. made me think.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:53am

32. Hopefully Obama reads this article, lest his youthful, hope filled naivete causes him to forget that the so-called swing voter is the one who will at the 11th hour commit to change, but at the ultimate moment of truth go into the voting booth and vote for the devil he knows. In the process he may lose the enthusiastic support his early integrity has so ably inspired in his supporters.

    Posted by WeldonRobeson at 09/27/2008 @ 10:53am

33. we all know the real debate is next thursday. it's gonna be a political bloodbath.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:58am

34. Obama should have diverted the national security, foreign wars posturing to one of homegrown,defense of our own soil commitment, ala neutral Switzerland. The guns & god crowd would relish the idea of prolonged national service & the requirement that each individual be trained in some application of homeland defense. Possession & maintenance of a weapon at home would appeal to many. Armories would suffice for the balance of the population. If he is really for alternative energy, why the push for oil conquest & neo-con orthodoxy.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/27/2008 @ 11:05am

35. we all know the real debate is next thursday. it's gonna be a political bloodbath.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    i'm looking forward to it. i liked obama's performance in the first one.

    i think the criticisms i've read seem trivial, petulant, querelous and kind of...silly...

    jeez, can a serious adult act like and debate like a serious adult these days?

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:07am

36. we all know the real debate is next thursday. it's gonna be a political bloodbath.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    i was referring to joe "the hammer" biden vs sarah "welcome to mooseport" palin. if katie couric made her think, he will dismantle her.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:18am

37. obama won the first debate according to the american people.

    it was not a blow out, but obama established a good running game and that, combined with a solid defensive effort, kept mccain at arms length for most of the game.

    mccain's ground attack seemed to falter most of the game, though a couple of long bombs almost made up for this deficit. up by two scores in the mid fourth quarter, mccain seemed to come alive briefly and it looked like it might be a close call, but once again obama stiffened up, ate up some clock, and shut down mccain.

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:18am

38. Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person

    oh yeah! its going to be luridly gory...better than i thought initially...bloodier.

    moohaha!!!!

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 11:55am

39. hope she's cramming for it, not that i think it'll help. biden is infinitely more experienced than her. she is in way over her head here.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:02pm

40. Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    she crumbled under...katie couric...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:06pm

41. lol...yeah...she's doomed...

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:08pm

42. "....But tonight he showed himself to be a raging minimalist. "

    And, if I may say so, worse.

    There is clear evidence of a deliberate, massive scripted programing unfolding here, in the Sign-use doubles*: S*S*i,ii,iii (illustrating repetition of trauma=> repetition-compulsion, as in 'psychic driving').

    -date$ and durations: 9.11.01 (7 years to) 9.12.08) ($700bln)

    -symbolism: icons of capitalism implode into own footprints

    -results: Patriot Act, Bailout Bill -- seismic shift in public policies (Goldman Sach's socialism + goons)

    -Beneficiaries: Bush backing neocon Repubs (esp. Zionist Jews & Opus Dei Catholics)

    -Thematic: Rebirth by Shotgun wedding => life-begins-at-conception anti-Abortionists => conception of Pregnant With The Future: McCain/Palin

    That's how they did it, Katrina et al. Meanwhile suckering Obama into doubling down on the "good war" - on 'Al Queda' in Afghanistan/Pakistan -- for that smelly jean smack. I'm glad you said he's not wooing you.

    Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 12:12pm

43. I am confounded by the comments being made here to include those in the article. We are supposedly fighting a war on terror...Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda, the Taliban, etc. These are the individuals responsible for 9-11 and the deaths of over 3000 Americans in the World Trade Center. They are hiding in Afganistan and Pakistan while re-grouping. This is where we should have our troops and resources. This is where Barak Obama has, from the beginning, made his position known. Go after the ones responsible and eliminate them even if they are being protected by a so-called ally.Why, we should be asking, has this administration not gone after these individuals responsible? Why is John McCain so set on staying in Iraq? We got rid of the despot who we basically put in power there. So again, my question is "Why are we still there?" Tribal wars have reigned in the region for thousands of years and the people have survived.

    IS IT JUST THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SEE JUSTICE FOR THOSE THAT DIED ON 9/11? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WAR N TERROR?

    I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that the majority of American people can still feel that John McCain has a better handle on foreign policy, the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq.

    Posted by kalkg at 09/27/2008 @ 12:16pm

44. Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 12:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ah the internet...bringing nutjobs to the forefront since 90-whatever....

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 12:20pm

45. obama has been running to the right, outhawking all along. it is disengenous of ms. van den heuvel to claim that she noticed only now. what does she expect from someone who has ziggy b. as his chief foreign policy advisor? he's running the way kennedy did against nixon back in 1960. fortunately, he's not out of that kind of family; however, he is a product of the chicago/ illinois democratic machine that will do anything to get elected. he may be young, but he's been a "good old boy" in every respect for quite some time now.

    VOTE WHITE-VAN AUKEN FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/elec-s13.shtml

    Posted by mikerol at 09/27/2008 @ 12:32pm

46. kalkg

    No. Not anymore, maggot. It probably wasn't even them. 9.12.08 was certainly an inside job, as was 1/2 the 9.11.01 shock (the anthrax poisoning, always mysteriously and conveniently turning up when useful to terrorize further). The entire historical group process is beginning to appear scripted to achieve Goldman Sachs socialism + goon regime.

    Perpetual pursuit of every padlocked warehouse owner around the globe as a potential criminal, in order to finally nail down 'Osama bin Laden', if he exists, who always seems to be in the next one over, to "gain justice for those innocents killed in the World Trade Towers" is a criminal mind-set, in Kant's terms spelled out in articles on Perpetual Peace. It can never get enough blood.

    Posted by jones at 09/27/2008 @ 12:37pm

47. >>>So it was troubling that tonight---in the first of the three presidential debates-- a man of such good judgment called for an end to the war in Iraq in order to escalate US military forces in Afghanistan. <<<

    You are off-base on this one, KVH!

    Obama said clearly in the debate that he would only need ONE TO TWO BRIGADES to finish the job against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Stryker Brigades have approximately 3,900 troops, so we are talking about LESS THAN 8,000 troops in Obama's plan, which is far less than the 160,000 troops we have in Iraq.

    And most of these troops will play a supporting role and nation building role so that the Taliban is not governing the country. Special forces and targeted strikes are all that is needed to finish off Al Qaeda.

    It was VERY IMPORTANT for Obama to highlight McCain's poor judgment in taking his "eye off the ball" in bringing those who attacked us in 9/11 to justice. I am surprised you fail to see the wisdom in Obama pointing out McCain's poor judgment in that decision.

    Posted by Metteyya at 09/27/2008 @ 12:39pm

48. Happy-People who sing bomb bomb bomb Iran have no credibility.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 1:25pm

49. I would love to be able to cut Dilbert out of the paper today and send it to FZ. Just to see what kind of reaction it evoked.

    Posted by Benchrest at 09/27/2008 @ 10:29am

    i'll find it in the tubes.

    crabs, your michigan vote actually means something.

    hold your nose and do the pragmatic thing.

    then work your ass of for the next election.

    let the grass grow roots.......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/27/2008 @ 1:28pm

50. Out of curiosity, I went to the PSL website referred to in chaoszen's post above. It has a very nice portrait of Che on the first page. The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a Marxist party in the United States founded to promote revolutionary change.

    My question is, if chaoszen has his way and the PSL and their like prevail, will we all have to endure the dreadfully dull Marxist language in all of our political discussions? Reading that stuff is beyond dull, its stupefying!

    I personally would exercise my 2nd amendment rights to resist such so called "revolutionary" change.

    Posted by sntauri at 09/27/2008 @ 1:29pm

51. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 12:38pm

    Where did race enter into it?

    Oh, right....it's you.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 1:30pm

52. Crawl back into your septic tank SosHarky. The overwhelming majority of posters here are still voting for Obama.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/27/2008 @ 1:39pm

53. i'd like to ask how obama was being "hawkish". what, by claiming that the actual country that harbors the terrorists that attacked the united states should be held accountable? we are throwing the "hawk" term around here. a chickenhawk is someone who wants a war and has never fought in one. though mccain does seem to advocate military action more than obama (bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran), i would not define him as a hawk because he's personally fought in and seen war. calling obama a hawk is a huge stretch of the imagination; obama didn't want to start this war, but he does have the strength to see it through to the end.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:09pm

54. tinyurl.com/4n4jym

    From my all time favorite album --hands down.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/27/2008 @ 04:39am

    BK,

    Not my absolute favorite album-not sure I have one, but CSNY 4 Way Street, Buffalo Springfield Retrospective, Boby Dylan Highway 61 Revisited, Stones Aftermath, Janis Joplin and Big Brother and the Holding Company, Beatles White album,.so many more

    On Hendrick's Axis, I love If 6 was 9 as a really interesting piece of music and lyrics.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

55. Soapy is doing his racist 'spin thing' again...

    He doesn't realize that every time he uses a racial slur to 'try' to delegitimize Obama... he in effect 'swift boats' himself further into that shadowy corner wherein the dunce cap dwells... da bigot's realm.

    Posted by ttr at 09/27/2008 @ 2:44pm

56. Rather than support the one candidate, Ralph Nader, who stands steadfastly for all that she and other progressives want, Ms vanden Heuvel continues to place her much diminished hopes on Barack Obama. I guess that is stubborn pride at work. The Left refuses to eat its humble-pie and apoligize to Nader by shifting to him. Do it still fear electing the worst candidate by shifting? Is the worst much worse than the second worst? I say only on "cultural" issues.

    Cultural issues are important to me. I have been a supporter, member of NARAL, Planned Parenthood for many years. But they are not so important as forming a third party of the Left. A defeat for the Democrats could bring a schism within the Party. Its left-wing could join with Nader and others to form a new party on all levels of government.

    That takes courage. Courage is what is lacking, Ms vanden Heuvel. Too bad!

    Posted by goedel at 09/27/2008 @ 2:49pm

57. I agree with Katrina that, "the young senator", pulled his punches, threw the fight as it were, but remember that American politics is a zero sum game and we are preaching to the choir on this site. After "He" wins the presidency he needs to heal the country. Not only does he become the leader of the progressives, but also for the inclusion of the moderates of the country. He also becomes the president of senators like Snow Collins etc.

    Posted by lachatte at 09/27/2008 @ 2:52pm

58. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 2:57pm

    what about sarah palin's paper thin experience and radical associations? is that moose magic?

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:02pm

59. Happy-It is hardly coincidental when you refer to a black man as a magic negro and one would have to be quite braindead to believe your response.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 3:23pm

60. From Soain, my take is that Americans vote for whoever they comfortable with in their TV screens. If mthat's right,then they'll never vote for a black candidate. The average voter IS racist.So, progressive citizens back off, don't make waves.. and we have spineless Kerry (with the known result). It's disheartening the way civil society, once the most combative in the world, is tiptoeing about so they won't be regarded as "radicals". We need the real USA back. And Obama should just watch out, I wouldn't put taking him out past THEM.

    Posted by Yorick at 09/27/2008 @ 3:35pm

61. Correction: from Spain. Dare to be progressive,vote Nader. He he's the only one to speak bravely aboutg the issues that count.

    Posted by Yorick at 09/27/2008 @ 3:39pm

62. dare to waste a vote.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:48pm

63. why does nader even run anymore? does he think that one election year everybody is going to up and change their minds about him and he's going to get more than 1% of the vote? the guy's got some good points but this fact alone shows he's somewhat delusional...

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 3:49pm

64. yorik-It's easy to speak bravely on the issues if you aren't a serious candidate,like Nader.We all can talk bravely,too because none of us will become POTUS,either.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 3:50pm

65. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 3:23pm

    On the other thread, HAPP also "explained" that Obama is not a "genetic" "100%" American"!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 4:52pm

66. Posted by palehorse67 at 09/27/2008 @ 2:09pm

    Actually, by that definition, GWB is a chickenhawk as well....ha, ha, ha

    btw: is it just me, or did it look like Gramps forgot to take his Dulcolax before the debate...?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2008 @ 5:35pm

67. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/27/2008 @ 5:19pm

    Sure, HAPP....THAT's what you meant....sure.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 5:41pm

68. But Soapy...

    McCain was born in Panama...

    Obama is the better candidate... so you've got to hit below the belt... ie. make up your own rules... and fight dirty.

    Like a gang banger...

    Just remember... this rasist 'risk taking' is in part a moral decision you will have to deal with on your own at some point...

    Posted by ttr at 09/27/2008 @ 5:41pm

69. jones

    Government by the citizens (the exact basis of Obama's rise in National politics- largest grassroots efforts in current history). Bush and McCain must therefore be despots.

    I do believe the citizenry of the United States and elsewhere would like to see those that have (verbally and in taped recordings) taken responsibility for those attacks on 9.11 in the U.S. and various terroristic attacks around the world brought to justice whether dead or alive.

    Osama Bin Laden is real...rogue member of the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia who were investors and supporters of the Bush's, both 41 and 43. Think oil!

    Posted by kalkg at 09/27/2008 @ 5:53pm

70. Posted by ttr at 09/27/2008 @ 5:41pm

    Just like "Magic _____" or "Half & Half" and now "genetically not 100% American"...

    we ALL know what HAPP REALLY means!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/27/2008 @ 6:06pm

71. Happy-Few Americans would go along with your constitutional amendment and you only have that new view because of Obama.That amendment would have nothing to do with "libs" since few would support such a waste of time and energy.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/27/2008 @ 6:28pm

72. If Barack Obama were not a black man he would have the room to sound progressive a la Bob Kennedy. Get him elected and then demand that he be "transformational".

    Posted by simplexaf at 09/27/2008 @ 6:54pm

73. Posted by simplexaf at 09/27/2008 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    sure. interesting point...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 7:19pm

74. say what you want about attitude but correct is correct, and Obama was correct

    Posted by RHLANGFORD at 09/27/2008 @ 7:32pm

75. dare to waste a vote? I did that once....by voting for Nader in 2000.

    Posted by Jenwa at 09/27/2008 @ 8:01pm

76. obama won the debate...not a blow out, but a solid win...

    Posted by dexter666 at 09/27/2008 @ 10:29pm

77. Chozen, you are on track. Bernie Sanders is a self-identified socialist. I don't know exactly what Kucinich is but he isn't a Democrat or Republican.

    I admire your resolve.

    Posted by jsens at 09/27/2008 @ 10:59pm

78. Get him elected and then demand that he be "transformational".

    Posted by simplexaf at 09/27/2008 @ 6:54pm

    who's gonna write the cheques?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/28/2008 @ 03:24am

79. Barack was the best. He was really in control, as a President should be. McCain was lying and using sound bite speech (the surge was successful) and being so arrogant, I dislike him even more now. I respect Obama more now because he did not lie and was not arrogant but laid out facts that many Americans can't know about because facts are not given to American media consumers. The cause of the financial fiasco at Wall street, Afghanistan being ignored even tho we have troops there, the Iraq occupation, I95 highway terrorists Malvo and teacher, anthrax in the mail, 9/11 building implosion, and on.

    Obama showed that a President is not like many CEO's today who do not have the facts straight about their job and rely on underlings (or Presidential advisors like Rove) to make decisions.

    Posted by treeworld at 09/28/2008 @ 11:30am

80. I'm Panamanian and I probably represent the world's general point of view of this election. The Republican Party of the USA is not acceptable in any way. I don't think John McCain could ever come back here without the same protection he had in Iraq and Colin Powell couldn't come back here under any circumstances!

    Everybody in this country is for Obama. It's something like 92-8 in the polls.

    That said, Barack Obama could not get elected president of Panama on his platform. He could not get any votes as a right-wing candidate here. His expressed views on social policy are too extreme and many are just pure disqualifiers: the death penalty, incarcerating juveniles with adults, life sentences even, no single-payer health care, the political prison at Guantanamo Bay, his mixing of church and state, most of all our personal privacy laws are very tough -- the fiscales need to get a court order to listen to cellphones or land phones and cannot examine financial records except in the most serious of charges. Penalties for most non-violent crime carry non-custodial sentences.

    I don't and didn't care for Manuel Noriega at all but his social policy was much less extreme than Obama's! [Current President Martin Torrijos's views would be like a mixture of Kucinich and Ron Paul's views, I suppose. That's possible here because we have no military]. McCain's views are TERRIFYING IN ALL RESPECTS.

    I understand that Barack Obama has to say certain things that fit with American culture, but he seems like a calm and intelligent man and I think he'll be however he needs to be inside the USA to maintain power but will be respectful of other nations' sovereignty and in time will be a peacemaker.

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/28/2008 @ 4:58pm

81. Let us not confuse lack of intelligence and courage to stand up against a corrupt system with minimalism.

    Obama is trying to leverage his audience with his stage presence and oratory skills. Quite honestly, he does not strike me as a very intelligent person,(neither does McCain for that matter) but rather as a calculating and ambitious politician who has paid his dues in public service and now is hungry for power.

    How else can we interpret his ridiculously "tough" and uninformed stance on Russia at a time when we need help more than ever from the international community.

    A recent interview with Russian foreign minister Sergay Lavrov by Charley Rose demonstrated Russia's willingness to provide assistance to United States - not only energy and monetary assistance but also "intellectual capital" as Lavrov put it, to help us get out of the rut we have dug ourselves in.

    My personal opinion is that we cannot afford to turn this offer down, given the fact that our country is crumbling down like a house of cards. But that's just me thinking.

    Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain seem to have a different take on the problem. They would rather use cowboy tactics to intimidate the world into giving them what they want. If this is not bankrupt thinking, then I don't know what is.

    Wake up guys! You are in no position to threaten anybody when your house is on fire.

    Posted by diogenes2 at 09/29/2008 @ 02:10am

82. @ diogenes2 at 09/29/2008 @ 02:10am

    These are very sophisticated points you are making but no American Democrat or Republican will deal with them.

    Russia is a great example. A more familiar one to me is Venezuela. Your media does not tell you what's really happening there. You have a picture of him as a modern day Fidel Castro. Ideological Republicans think that he's a leader of a "rogue state in the axis of evil." Ideolgical liberals or whatever think he's some kind of Anti-Corporate Liberator. Neither is true. He's just the head of state of a social-democracy and he happens to be a very canny manager of his economy. You will not find too many countries with the fiscal and monetary prudence of Venezuela. They don't like inflation or weak currency at all. So, because of their crude oil wealth they fight inflation hard giving them the most valuable currency on Earth and they are awash in USD from oil, which allows Chavez to be very generous with the poor, working class and middle class in his budgets while keeping them in balance.

    They have stock, bond, commodity and foreign exchange markets. Just recently, Ford Motor Company floated a Bolivar-denominated GDR on the Caracas exchange and were thrilled to do it.

    McCain or Obama can SAY whatever they want about Venezuela but they can't DO anything because the BCV will just void itself of US government debt and loose USD and will cripple the US economy even more. Obama knows all this but has to do a routine for "independents". McCain's just bonkers. He's itching for any fight even one he can't possibly win.

    We have a different view of Bill Clinton than the Nation does. We think of him as a liberator in Panama. But under him, RUS and VEN were US allies!

    Posted by DexterManley at 09/29/2008 @ 04:25am

83. Posted by leftofcenter at 09/27/2008 @ 5:35pm

    george w. (and some in his administration) is the posterboy for chickenhawks, without question.

    grandpa mccain looked more like he saw kids playing on his lawn and didn't have a hose handy. very frumpy indeed.

    Posted by palehorse67 at 09/29/2008 @ 09:49am