Friday, October 10, 2008

Monty Python - Witches

The video of this low information voter who was convinced that Obama was an Arab, and how she was scared of him, reminded me of the scene about witches in the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

Is it too much to ask that if people want to vote, that they at least be informed voters? Or am I being too elitist again?

Sphere: Related Content

For West Wing Fans

A creative user put this out on definitely makes it easy to imagine an Obama presidency!

I have no illusion of the challenges we face, and I do not deny the unique individual that Barack Obama is, he is his own person. However, I would also be lying if I didn't feel that BHO represents the best of FDR and JFK.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 9, 2008

A positive moment for a dark day

This day was not our shining moment, with violent rhetoric and hate filled talk coming from the McCain/Palin campaigns. To me it was unbelievable, that they would deliberately stoke the fear and hatred of these right wing fundamentalists, most of whom are not well educated.

During these uncertain times, there is nothing more dangerous to our democracy, than a potential mob who have nothing except fear and hatred of those who are different. To hear words such as "Kill him" or "terrorist" bandied about, so casually in reference to Barack Obama, is definitely a dark day in America. How can we demonstrate to the world the benefits of democracy, when we can't even be respectful to one another.

All of this on the day that we saw massive financial panic on Wall St., with the DOW falling below 9000. McCain and Palin need to stop this divisive tactic or risk destroying America more than Osama Bin Laden ever could.

I contrast this with the optimistic message that Obama and Biden bring to their platform. I will always remember watching the convention, and thinking how fun and positive it looked, and the memorable speeches given by the key speakers.

This video gives a behind the scenes look during the 4 days in Denver at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. There is a particularly touching moment 9 minutes into the film, where you get an insiders look at the Obama family.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Veterans for Obama

Last night's debate, Barack Obama demonstrated again how Barack Obama has the judgement and temperament to be our next Commander-in-Chief.

Obama provides this clear difference in Foreign Policy approach when he emphasizes the need to employ diplomacy, and to sit down and talk with not just our allies, but our enemies. McCain continually tries to pain Obama as naive and showing poor judgement for wanting to speak with problem nations like Iran or North Korea. McCain's position shows just how poor his judgement is, when even Republican Secretary of States Baker and Powell support Obama's policy.

Recently the five former Secretary of States gave the exact same recommendation, that Obama advocates, in a recent CNN Forum "The Next President: A World of Challenges".

AMANPOUR: But the question is, do you want to change the policy? And do you want to actually try to engage for strategic reasons?

BAKER: We ought to engage, yes.

AMANPOUR: To use them for help in...

POWELL: I think we're all saying yes.

BAKER: We're all saying you ought to engage, I think. I don't know. I haven't heard Henry. He may not.
In particular, Obama has demonstrated a much clearer support for our veterans, as opposed to John McCain. I find it hypocritical of John McCain to stand up in a debate and say how much he loves the veterans, and how they know he loves them, when his voting record shows completely the opposite.

In fact, the Iraqi and Afghanistan Veterans of American gave John McCain a D- on his voting record, while Senators Obama and Biden received a B. The Disabled Veterans of America give John McCain a 20% rating, while Senators Obama and Biden received an 80% rating.

It's easy to say you support the troops, but quite frankly talk is cheap.

The key difference was stark in the first debate, as Obama pointed out McCain's sunk-cost fallacy when it came to the fallen troops.
No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided. Our troops have performed brilliantly. The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.
This was in response to McCain's story about why we need to continue to fight and continue to risk more soldier's lives, because otherwise it may invalidate the deaths of previous soldiers.

And I'll tell you, I had a town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and a woman stood up and she said, "Senator McCain, I want you to do me the honor of wearing a bracelet with my son's name on it."

He was 22 years old and he was killed in combat outside of Baghdad, Matthew Stanley, before Christmas last year. This was last August, a year ago. And I said, "I will -- I will wear his bracelet with honor."

And this was August, a year ago. And then she said, "But, Senator McCain, I want you to do everything -- promise me one thing, that you'll do everything in your power to make sure that my son's death was not in vain."

That means that that mission succeeds, just like those young people who re-enlisted in Baghdad, just like the mother I met at the airport the other day whose son was killed. And they all say to me that we don't want defeat.
Chris Matthews of "Hardball" commented on this
I thought John McCain made a terrible point tonight. He said if someone dies in battle, someone serving their country because they were ordered to do something in battle, out on a particular mission, you don‘t pick your missions, you don‘t pick your wars. When someone dies for their country they have done that, it‘s over. They have served their country. They are patriotic. They deserve forever to be remembered and honored. It‘s not a question of what happens later in that war or whether that battle was still going (ph) or not, or whether you should continue to fight.

By the definition John McCain gave us tonight, and it was a heinous definition, we must continue every war we every start. Every time we suffer a casualty, we must support that war indefinitely to achieve the initial objective set by general who may well be wrong. I think that‘s a very hard argument to make morally, to suggest that war must never end. It suggests that every war that‘s begun must continue indefinitely until it achieves the political or the military objectives set in the initial context. Context changed, sometimes wars have to end.

The Korean War ended. It was not dishonorable for General Eisenhower to come to Korea and end the war in 1953 that had begun in 1950, ending a war without final victory. There‘s nothing wrong with that, nothing dishonorable about it.

I leave it with a great video with Virginia Veterans explaining why they support Barack Obama.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 6, 2008

Israelis for Obama

McCain and Palin have signaled their intention to go despicably negative. They are playing the "association" game where they try and instill fear in voters. Their latest attack pathetically attempts to link Obama to William Ayers, a mild mannered professor at the University of Chicago.

They happened to serve on the same education reform board, but because Ayers once belonged to a radical domestic terrorist group in the 60's, a time when Obama was only 8 years old, they are trying to link Obama to a terrorist. All this, despite the fact that the NY Times has reported on this, and have concluded there is no substance to any real relationship between Obama and Ayers.

They slyly try to emphasize that because Obama's middle name is "Hussein" that he is a terrorist in voter's mind. I would hope that voters are not that stupid, and that they can see through the lies and the dishonorable political gimmick that the McCain Campaign is running.

Of course to counter this negative and sleazy atmosphere coming from the McCain Campaign, I have to refer to this amazing video that again spreads the positive message that Obama's campaign has been able to spread. a message of hope and support from the people of Israel.

I can only hope this video is going viral in Florida!

It's clear that the Israelis see Obama as the best candidate and hope for America and the Middle East Peace Process.
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Economists for Obama

America is worried about the ever deepening slide into a recession, and rightly so. So when it comes to the economy, which candidate do the experts feel will be better qualified to handle the crisis?

In "The Economist" magazine mailed 683 economists a questionnaire to get their opinions on the two candidates.
A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

The results regardless of party affiliation paints a startling picture.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

What was also an interesting observation was the opinion around George Bush's performance in handling the economy:

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

Sphere: Related Content