Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
BRING IT ON: CLINTON vs. OBAMA vs. McCAIN
by Jack Random
When John Edwards dropped out, I went on record as standing with Obama in the race for the White House 2008. I made that decision on the basis of his early opposition to the war in Iraq, his commitment to the environment, health care, equal opportunity, reasoned diplomacy and equitable economic policy.
I was careful to state that my allegiance was not unconditional. I expected the candidate to strengthen his stands against the war and global trade policies. I chose to pin my hopes on Obama rather than Clinton because Hillary had and has an integrity problem. Like the second coming of John McCain, Hillary’s stand on the issues depends on what time of day it is. More accurately, it seems to depend on poll numbers and the demographics of the next primary.
by Jack Random
When John Edwards dropped out, I went on record as standing with Obama in the race for the White House 2008. I made that decision on the basis of his early opposition to the war in Iraq, his commitment to the environment, health care, equal opportunity, reasoned diplomacy and equitable economic policy.
I was careful to state that my allegiance was not unconditional. I expected the candidate to strengthen his stands against the war and global trade policies. I chose to pin my hopes on Obama rather than Clinton because Hillary had and has an integrity problem. Like the second coming of John McCain, Hillary’s stand on the issues depends on what time of day it is. More accurately, it seems to depend on poll numbers and the demographics of the next primary.
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES - DISSEMINATE FREELY
In the early primaries when Edwards was still in the race, I took
the position that a candidate could evolve and still retain his
integrity. One did not change on matters of conscience or core values
but the means by which our goals are achieved may change over time –
even in response to campaign pressure. At the time, even Edwards was
still evolving on trade and foreign policy.
Now that we have narrowed the field (barring a brokered convention) to only three candidates in a process that has resembled asymmetric war (replete with sniper fire), one would think that all the questions have been answered. Sadly, that is not the case.
The questions that come to mind regarding Obama now are: Has he evolved enough? Why doesn’t he press the war issue? Has he given up on Fair Trade? Why has he allowed Clinton to take the lead on trade? Does it he consider trade talk pandering?
Applied to Hillary: Why has she evolved to a strong Fair Trade position while faltering even further on the war in Iraq and the prospect of war with Iran? Does she consider trade a winning issue while the war is an opportunity to demonstrate her commander stature?
Then there’s John McCain, waiting in the wings. He has walked both sides of every fence – campaign finance, abortion rights, gay rights, tax cuts during war, immigration, torture, the role of religion in politics – yet he continues to be portrayed as the straight talker. The only consistent line in McCain’s portfolio is his support of war, every war, no matter how unjustified or immoral or destructive to American interests. The only act of American military aggression McCain ever opposed was Reagan’s intervention in Lebanon circa 1982. Even then, once we went in, McCain would have flattened the country before “empowering our enemies” by withdrawing as Reagan did.
The lingering problem is: I don’t trust Hillary Clinton; I don’t trust John McCain; and I’m beginning to feel a little queasy about backing Barack Obama.
Hillary is challenging Obama to another debate. McCain has been throwing barbs Obama’s way. Obama has been dodging sniper fire.
I say: Bring it on. Let’s hook them all up to lie detectors and let them talk it out.
Why not? They want to lead the free world at this critical time in history. The stakes are too high to leave it all to chance. We deserve to know who is telling the truth. It is too late for them to change their stories now, isn’t it? The cards are on the table. Let’s find out who’s running a bluff.
Here are five questions for each of the three candidates (with some overlap):
Hillary: Did you oppose your husband’s global trade policy at the time? Do you support the principles of Fair Trade (living wages and labor rights in all trade agreements)? As president, would you protect the profit margins of health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations or the interests of the people? Under your policies, do you anticipate expanding the war to Iran? Do you intend to end the occupation of Iraq during your tenure in office?
Bonus round: Explain your Bosnia and Northern Ireland misspeaks.
Obama: Would you renegotiate NAFTA? Do you support the principles of Fair Trade? Would international labor standards, including living wages, be a high priority in your administration? Do you fully repudiate the incendiary words and pronouncements of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Would you keep your promise not to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?
Bonus: Do you think you are better than the average beer drinking Joe?
McCain: Would you support military action against Iran now or in the near future? If the Bush administration does not expand the war to Iran and/or Syria in the remainder of its term, do you intend to do so in your administration? If military “victory” required inflicting mass civilian casualties and/or the use of nuclear weapons, would you employ such methods? Do you foresee military action in Latin America during your presidency? If commanders required more soldiers than a volunteer military can supply, would you call for a military draft?
Bonus: Would you change your positions on core issues to win an election?
Bonus for all three: Would you support an unprovoked attack by Israel on Syria, Lebanon or Iran?
I know what you’re thinking: A skilled politician would be able to fool a polygraph machine. Maybe so – even if their drinks were spiked with truth serum.
I therefore propose a few contingencies that would raise the stakes: One failure and the candidate would be forced to appear without makeup or theatrical lighting for a week. Two failures and the candidate will be subjected to harsh and/or coercive interrogation techniques, ranging from prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation to simulated drowning. Three failures would result in an immediate rendition to Kandahar or Sadr City.
I know what you’re thinking: The rules favor John McCain, a survivor of harsh and unconventional interrogation techniques. Maybe, but the truth plays no favorites and we would stand a better chance of understanding our choices.
My guess is we would end up electing Ralph Nader in a landslide.
Jazz.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Now that we have narrowed the field (barring a brokered convention) to only three candidates in a process that has resembled asymmetric war (replete with sniper fire), one would think that all the questions have been answered. Sadly, that is not the case.
The questions that come to mind regarding Obama now are: Has he evolved enough? Why doesn’t he press the war issue? Has he given up on Fair Trade? Why has he allowed Clinton to take the lead on trade? Does it he consider trade talk pandering?
Applied to Hillary: Why has she evolved to a strong Fair Trade position while faltering even further on the war in Iraq and the prospect of war with Iran? Does she consider trade a winning issue while the war is an opportunity to demonstrate her commander stature?
Then there’s John McCain, waiting in the wings. He has walked both sides of every fence – campaign finance, abortion rights, gay rights, tax cuts during war, immigration, torture, the role of religion in politics – yet he continues to be portrayed as the straight talker. The only consistent line in McCain’s portfolio is his support of war, every war, no matter how unjustified or immoral or destructive to American interests. The only act of American military aggression McCain ever opposed was Reagan’s intervention in Lebanon circa 1982. Even then, once we went in, McCain would have flattened the country before “empowering our enemies” by withdrawing as Reagan did.
The lingering problem is: I don’t trust Hillary Clinton; I don’t trust John McCain; and I’m beginning to feel a little queasy about backing Barack Obama.
Hillary is challenging Obama to another debate. McCain has been throwing barbs Obama’s way. Obama has been dodging sniper fire.
I say: Bring it on. Let’s hook them all up to lie detectors and let them talk it out.
Why not? They want to lead the free world at this critical time in history. The stakes are too high to leave it all to chance. We deserve to know who is telling the truth. It is too late for them to change their stories now, isn’t it? The cards are on the table. Let’s find out who’s running a bluff.
Here are five questions for each of the three candidates (with some overlap):
Hillary: Did you oppose your husband’s global trade policy at the time? Do you support the principles of Fair Trade (living wages and labor rights in all trade agreements)? As president, would you protect the profit margins of health insurance and pharmaceutical corporations or the interests of the people? Under your policies, do you anticipate expanding the war to Iran? Do you intend to end the occupation of Iraq during your tenure in office?
Bonus round: Explain your Bosnia and Northern Ireland misspeaks.
Obama: Would you renegotiate NAFTA? Do you support the principles of Fair Trade? Would international labor standards, including living wages, be a high priority in your administration? Do you fully repudiate the incendiary words and pronouncements of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Would you keep your promise not to maintain permanent military bases in Iraq?
Bonus: Do you think you are better than the average beer drinking Joe?
McCain: Would you support military action against Iran now or in the near future? If the Bush administration does not expand the war to Iran and/or Syria in the remainder of its term, do you intend to do so in your administration? If military “victory” required inflicting mass civilian casualties and/or the use of nuclear weapons, would you employ such methods? Do you foresee military action in Latin America during your presidency? If commanders required more soldiers than a volunteer military can supply, would you call for a military draft?
Bonus: Would you change your positions on core issues to win an election?
Bonus for all three: Would you support an unprovoked attack by Israel on Syria, Lebanon or Iran?
I know what you’re thinking: A skilled politician would be able to fool a polygraph machine. Maybe so – even if their drinks were spiked with truth serum.
I therefore propose a few contingencies that would raise the stakes: One failure and the candidate would be forced to appear without makeup or theatrical lighting for a week. Two failures and the candidate will be subjected to harsh and/or coercive interrogation techniques, ranging from prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation to simulated drowning. Three failures would result in an immediate rendition to Kandahar or Sadr City.
I know what you’re thinking: The rules favor John McCain, a survivor of harsh and unconventional interrogation techniques. Maybe, but the truth plays no favorites and we would stand a better chance of understanding our choices.
My guess is we would end up electing Ralph Nader in a landslide.
Jazz.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM
Comments (4)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by gnat60, May 06, 2008
It seems to me that the article and the commenter, Doug Modlin are missing something. Everything they are hoping that "Doit O'Same-a" could be is what Ron Paul is all about.
A Paul presidency would see an immediate withdrawl of Iraq, Fair Trade, Abolish the FED, Abolish the IRS and Income Tax, smaller government.
That alone would restore the US economy and it's tarnished reputation abroad.
In case you did not know, Ron Paul is still running for president.
A Paul presidency would see an immediate withdrawl of Iraq, Fair Trade, Abolish the FED, Abolish the IRS and Income Tax, smaller government.
That alone would restore the US economy and it's tarnished reputation abroad.
In case you did not know, Ron Paul is still running for president.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Doug Modlin, May 07, 2008
Yes, I have read extensively about Ron Paul. Some of his statements on the issues sound very appealing; however, when I read between the lines, I see a lot of disturbing beliefs and ideas that he tends to keep on the "low" side, and I just don't trust him for that. For example, he proclaims himself to be all about personal privacy and civil liberties; but only on the federal level. He stood up for the right of Texas to preserve its sodomy laws, for one. That, in itself, is a contradiction of what he claims to believe, and it also makes me suspicious of his overall position on homosexuality and gay rights.
Also, on his own website, he gives a statement of his beliefs, and that his decisions are made based on his faith in Jesus Christ - and proclaims that the founding fathers had the same ideals. Not only that, he lauds the early leaders of this country for their diplomacy and respect for our "neighbors" - I'd love to hear him say that in a speech to a group of Native Americans.
I have nothing against religion or people of faith - but I'd rather hear a politician say that he makes his decisions based on what he hears from the voters, and based on his own intelligence as to what is good and right for this country. Having faith is great; but I don't have faith in every Christian, and I like to hope that some, if not all, of our nation's leaders can be depended on for having their own conscience that is based on intelligence, a sound knowledge of our government and history, a lifetime of experience; and not the Bible.
Also, on his own website, he gives a statement of his beliefs, and that his decisions are made based on his faith in Jesus Christ - and proclaims that the founding fathers had the same ideals. Not only that, he lauds the early leaders of this country for their diplomacy and respect for our "neighbors" - I'd love to hear him say that in a speech to a group of Native Americans.
I have nothing against religion or people of faith - but I'd rather hear a politician say that he makes his decisions based on what he hears from the voters, and based on his own intelligence as to what is good and right for this country. Having faith is great; but I don't have faith in every Christian, and I like to hope that some, if not all, of our nation's leaders can be depended on for having their own conscience that is based on intelligence, a sound knowledge of our government and history, a lifetime of experience; and not the Bible.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Zakaria Abdi, May 08, 2008
you have sincerely volunteered to say and reveal some truth in Somalia. thank you for that. i hope you will continue doing this. but let me tell you this is the tip of ice for what is happening in Somalia.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
1. Do you believe that one of the main goals of the next President should be to reduce the threat of future war and conflict with other nations? If yes, what will you attempt in order to achieve that?
2. Do you believe that in order to improve, stabilize, and protect the future economic health of our country, one of the critical factors in doing so is to win back some of the respect we have lost worldwide? And if so, what are some major issues that have damaged our image globally, and how do we go about making the "repairs"?
All things being considered, I think Barack Obama has the most promise out of the three, and I don't think his real "evolution" as a candidate will start to really show until this whole, idiotic, drawn-out primary process is over. Until then, my main hope is that he maintains himself against the constant, ridiculous tactics that Hillary Clinton's campaign seems to find so valuable.
But I think that Barack Obama's most promising trait - the one that he can use to his greatest advantage in order to win - is one that the other two "expert politicians" don't have. He is DYNAMIC. In other words, he is "different". Bill Clinton won his first term because he, too, was dynamic - but Obama clobbers him in the category.
What do I mean by "dynamic?" It's hard to try to define what I mean, but easy to show through a few examples:
1. Bill Clinton became president, despite the fact that, only two years before, most people wouldn't have recognized his name. Likewise, Barack Obama was virtually unknown until he took the stage four years ago at the Democratic Convention. The next day, he was virtually a household word, and has remained so ever since. Both had experience in politics, but not to the degree of their opponents. What they both DO have, however, is a very high level of intelligence in many areas, combined with a passion in their style of speech that shows through as HONEST, passionate, and non-rehearsed. In comparison, Hillary sounds different every time she gives a speech. McCain comes off as, to be frank, Casey Kasem trying to do an impression of Ronald Reagan. Hillary SOUNDS passionate sometimes, but it's hard to know whether it's real or not. McCain doesn't really ever seem passionate about anything.
2. Both Clinton and Obama come from backgrounds that I basically sum up as "classic American dysfunctional." During their childhoods, oth went through parental change-ups, remarriages, and both lived, at times, with relatives. Both lived in environments of relative poverty: both living with single-then-remarried parents; one in the deep south, the other back and forth, including a certainly enlightening experience of living in a third-world, poverty-stricken country. Clinton went on to excel as a Rhodes scholar; Obama rose through the ranks to graduate, as a non-traditional, 30-year-old black man, from Harvard Law School - magna cum laude.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain both had childhoods that could basically be summed up as "traditional" - both in families of conservative values. While McCain moved around a lot, it was because of his father's successful career in the military. While they both had childhoods that I would consider "interesting", they also were childhoods that could be explained as being "classic American."
3. Both Clinton and Obama have political convictions that started early-on, based on experience, and have held to their basic political philosophy throughout their lifetimes. By contrast, Hillary Clinton was raised and remained a conservative Republican before changing her views during adulthood. McCain, who unarguably went through the real misery of war, torture, and disability, can also be categorized as a lifelong Republican; however, his history of going against the grain as a "nontraditional" republican, and his somewhat unstable flip-flopping on many issues, convinces me that he has a very scategorial system of beliefs, and that, even when he seems to show hope as going against the Republican ideal, he also "plays it safe" when doing so, and always has a "line" attached in order to reel him back to his safe harbor.
To wrap this up - here is what I see happening in November in all three scenarios:
1. Hillary Clinton wins. Being a voter for democrats, I would be happy. But how is this going to look to the world? Well for one, it will represent at least TWENTY FOUR YEARS during which the executive branch of the US government has been held by one of two families! Despite what anyone says, there's going to be a LOT of suspicion worldwide. The United States - supposedly the flagship of democracy - will look like a Hatfield/McCoy circus - a modern-day Tudor-style struggle between the protestants and the Catholics. And, while I think it would be cool - think of the implications for poor Bill. That is a political mix-up that would end up being the ultimate, easiest-ever target for the comedians. I love you BIll - but I hate to see you end up as the "first lady"!
2. McCain wins - the rest of the world will just roll their eyes and prepare for more of the same. And I think we should probably all do the same here, too. Despite wishing that it were NOT true, and until someone can prove me wrong - I believe that no matter WHO you vote for, you're not really voting for an individual; you are voting for a party. And despite McCain's wishy-washy attitude toward the neo-conservative think-tanks, he will have no choice but to let them stay in charge. Four more years of Rove-ism.
3. Obama wins. And what will the world think? Well, I think they will be, for one, ASTONISHED, and secondly, RELIEVED. "Hmmm, perhaps Americans are finally coming to their senses. Perhaps they DO believe in change; perhaps they CAN be progressive."
I mean, think about it. Pretend it's 2002. Who would've thought back then - just six years ago - that in 2009 we would have a BLACK president - with the middle name "Hussein"? Is it possible?
I hope so!
Doug Modlin