alas, this is sad and pathetic, and now I could never vote for such a person. many of us see powell as a traitor for helping hundreds of thousands of iraqi's and our own people die for no reason but for the warlike among us to profit. he had a chance to prevent this crime against humanity. now obama is trying to use him and profit by it.
this is not a democrat folks. this is someone that has just turned and is now taking the advice of a traitor. he has put forth his views that this war should go on with at least two statements of policy to the public. (meaning well thought out and deliberate to me)
so, our two leading candidates are both pro war. john edwards is not. al is not. it appears that we may have a huge 3 party divide in this country. there are criminals, appeasers and those that are against the war.
where do you find yourself?
Posted by oldtree at April 24, 2007 07:04 PMI would not recommend Taylor Marsh as having any objective analysis of the speech. She has a major bug against Senator Obama and would not say anything but, negative even if it was the most earth shattering speech given.
That said, if this was to be a speech to satisfy the old men and pundits that you are not some crazy radical or immature youngster, then I really don't see the problem.
This is something many bloggers miss. That not only does the Senator have to prove he is not just a flash, has wonky creds, understands the world, but, he also has to deal with the skeptics who fear he may scare away manistream America because of his race.
Though he is a known progressive he is getting his chops busted by the bloggers who cannot understand why he is not pandering to them and that Obama is trying to break a glass ceiling of his own.
He is only positioning himself the same way Pelosi did before the Nov. elections to show he is not some anarchist that the right is salavating over. So, of course he will play it very safe to appeal to mainstream America. You need more than the base of the blogworld to win elections - even democratic ones.
why do Obama and Hillary feel any residual in-country force will be welcome?
They must assure the "wisemen" (corrupt corporate types and dinosaurian energy lobbyists) that they still have a chance at the oil. Somone has to stay behind and die trying to guard pipelines.
Posted by phidipides at April 24, 2007 07:35 PMIt's hard to see biofuels as anything other than just another big business scam.
The ethanol from corn is the closest to commercial viability; but it sets up very dangerous economic forces. Already the price of corn has been driven up enough by impending corn-to-ethanol plans that it is causing dietary problems, and food shortages, and high prices at taquerias in Mexico City. What will it be like if the program gets four or five times as large? To make matters worse, there is some question that corn-to-ethanol is even a net-positive energy source. It certainly is not a primary energy source. Most other biofuel programs are roughly where solar was in 1972. Or 1962.
If America wishes to have a secure energy future, it must invest in wind, solar, and nuclear power sources. Spend as much on these as we did in Iraq, and the most of the work we derive from the oil we now import could be done by electric power.
Posted by steve at April 24, 2007 09:34 PM
"Over the horizon" force? Uh... So our troops could have a birds eye view of the civil war? Or so they could set up refugee camps as those who aren't killed in the ensuing civil war flee?
The global warming solution is at hand. Renowned "climatologist" Sheryl Crow has already laid out the plan to stop global warming. Only use one square of toilet tissue per sitting. Do you think America can get behind that? Will that help wipe out CO2?
And can we get those corporate neocons who manufacture toilet paper to create paper that easily separates at the perforations?
Posted by muckdog at April 24, 2007 10:56 PMI feel I should like Obama. I want to like Obama.
Really.
But every time I try I get frustrated. He's like a cloud. Magnificent to look at, but the closer I get the more trouble I have finding the edges. It's just like being lost in a mist, and I end up feeling like Gertrude Stein when she described Oakland, "There's no there there."
And since I might as well be hung for stealing the whole sheep, I feel sort of the same about Hilary. Slightly different angle. By the time she's gotten her position on an issue clear I've forgotten what problem we were supposed to be fixing.
Sigh.
Posted by clio at April 24, 2007 11:58 PMVery forward-thinking, IF IT WERE STILL 1990! Obama may make a fine president, some day. As for now, he's not ready for prime-time.
Posted by JoeCHI at April 25, 2007 08:33 AM