Why Barack Obama Got My Vote
I just flew back from Australia, where I was speaking about the erosions of our civil liberties. Believe me, the rest of the world is agog at our inaction as what makes us Americans is being set aflame; and they are more scared of what an unsheathed US could do to the rest of the world than we are.
They also get more news out in the rest of the world about these depredations than we do here in our media bubble.
For instance: As the Australian reported earlier this week, New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib is suing the Australian federal government -- which under the Howard administration had colluded with the US in committing various abuses against detainees and due process -- for having allowed him to be arrested wrongly in Pakistan in 2001, kidnapped and sent illegally to Egypt. There this Justice of the Peace was illegally imprisoned and tortured for six months. After that the United States held him for FOUR YEARS in Guantanamo. His complaint notes that he is a law-abiding citizen who was swept up under false pretexts. "It turns out that Habib has incontrovertible proof of his good standing," the Australian noted. "[H]e is a fully accredited Justice of the Peace in NSW. A search of the NSW Attorney General's Department website reveals that not only Habib, but his wife Maha Habib, is a JP." To become justice of the peace in New South Wales, the Australian added, "you have to be NOMINATED BY A MEMBER OF THE NSW PARLIAMENT and submit to a full character inquiry, including a criminal records check by NSW Police." (ALL CAPS mine)
Get that? A justice of the peace in a developed-world democracy. Had you heard of that?
Me neither.
This gave me chills because, once again, it is so scarily predictable: when I first started trying to alert people about the ramifications of the Military Commissions Act, and how it gives the US power to seize innocent people off the street simply by the President's naming them 'enemy combatants', I pointed out that nothing would prevent the US from rendering an EU minister off the streets of Belgium -- and flying him or her to a `black site' for torture -- if he or she opposed a US pipeline plan, or was prosecuting US war criminals such as Rumsfeld in the Hague. And that the clear lesson of Germany and other closing societies such as Argentina is that once those 'disappearances' begin, that is it; few are then brave enough to object -- and at that point objection is too weak to be effective anyway.
They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news. So how can we be sure there is something so sacred about an American justice of the peace or even a judge? Say, an American judge who ruled against the Military Commissions?
This kind of leap to the next level of threat to us as citizens seems implausible to many people because they assume that there is an orderly and effective democratic response to this kind of eruption of lawlessness --- (oh gosh, actually it isn't lawlessness any more, now is it) -- or, I should say, to this kind of abrupt shift to a heightened level of state sadism; Well -- someone would bring charges!, one assumes. Or: someone would sue! Or: surely the ACLU would do something!
But seriously, I ask you to consider: What would indeed happen as a countermove if a US justice of the peace or a judge was rendered? The Bar Association would protest? Scary. Intimidating.
I raise this as an urgent matter in part because of a recent conference call I participated in with Hamid Khan, the head of the courageous movement of Pakistani lawyers and judges. In the call, which he made in spite of great danger to himself and probably to his family, there was a moment when he described the internecine warfare and factionalism of the opposition to Musharraf. In his voice was the tired, frustrated sound I have heard so often in this country when groups on the left JUST CAN'T GET IT TOGETHER. No matter how urgent the need is. Whereas in Pakistan's case they were having trouble getting the anti-Musharraf forces to act together -- and there was so much at stake.
What became clear from that call is that we are fools to assume that if the government makes a dramatically violent move, which all the laws I have highlighted now make entirely possible, that anyone will know clearly what to do or how to implement what should be done in response. In Pakistan, it was clear, in spite of this powerful grassroots movement, no one had a clear Plan B when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and began rounding up the lawyers and arresting the judges. No one had an unquestioned leadership structure in place for the countermovement; no one had a subcontinent-sized phone tree or a nice big -- oh, nation-sized -- conference room in which to meet.
We need to consider this right now when we think about our own country: In a sudden sharp move on the part of the US government, even a `small' one such as this imagined scenario of the rendition of a handful of US judges, there is nothing a democracy is prepared effectively to do; that is the nature of democracy. There is no War Room for democracy; no one has an organizational chart detailing who would do what; no one would have a master strategy.
When people think about the many laws that invite this kind of overreaching now in the US -- the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD 51), for instance, that would give the President control over all branches of government -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- in the event of an emergency -- they just assume that, gosh darn it, WE WON'T TAKE IT. And it may well be that we wouldn't want to take it and we would be willing in great numbers to run to the ramparts. But here is what I have to report to you, that the conference call made clear, and my Pakistani friend would confirm this: in a crackdown, even in the best-case scenario, NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE.
Many people have expressed faith in the Military. I am sure most of our military are patriots and cherish freedom; but who would direct a resistance to such an edict? What would be the chain of command? What about ordnance? Many people have expressed faith in the courts, but if they went after the judges -- just a handful of judges -- as they did in Pakistan, would the judiciary prevail? How? All closed societies have judiciaries; the judges just know which way to rule.
Many others assume the media will cover such a depredation and rouse people; well, ideally -- but just days ago we saw a curious blackout of a 60 Minutes report on Don Siegelman, the Democrat probably wrongly jailed in Alabama, by a TV affiliate with close ties to the White House.
Resistance? Sure, but how? The trouble with an aggressive move in any one of these directions on the part of the government is that THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren't surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don't.
So surely, better to roll back these terrifying laws. Just in case.
I have noted it is always true that societies that begin by torturing people at the margins end up torturing members of their own citizenry. Consider again: the Oscar-winning documentary for this year, Taxi to the Dark Side, which proves that any of us can become a monster torturer, following orders, and proves also that the edict to torture was systemic and came from the very top, won't be seen by most Americans. This is because the Discovery Channel bought it hoping to air it -- but then backed out. (Its affiliates have close ties to the military-industrial complex.) Will the Oscar win get it on the airwaves? Doubtful. Watch it somehow and drag all your friends to see it. Then consider that what happened to Dilawar, an innocent Afghani taxi driver, could happen to you or me.
When I went to see it in a theatre there were six people present. So America can't know in time what is being done to others to take steps to protect ourselves.
What is leadership? Leadership means getting out in front of where people are and waking them up. Right now, given these violent possible threats to us and our families, we are sleeping.
Which is why I am formally coming out of the closet with my support for Senator Barack Obama. Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law.
"Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama," read a recent headline on the Boston Globe's political blog. In the article, reporter Charlie Savage notes that "More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to 'restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.'"
The lawyers who signed this letter -- prominent names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 -- applauded Obama for having stood up in 2006 against aspects of the Military Commissions Act. Unfortunately, his fight was ultimately unsuccessful -- which is why we are all still in danger. But unlike other candidates he truly fought and he understood the nature of the danger: "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," the lawyers wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."
Senator Clinton also opposed the law. In 2006 she said: "If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse." She gets the danger; many of her colleagues do too. But this issue requires bold language and action. Senator Clinton has not foregrounded the issue of the subversion of the rule of law in her appearances or speeches; and I am very VERY sorry to say that she did not oppose torture until she opposed it.
I say this with regret: She and her husband really know how to run a country; they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity. I know her to be a skilled politician and motivated by sincere love of country. Mrs. Clinton would be a terrific executive -- in a stable democracy. But that is not enough right now. These are times that should try men's souls -- and women's also. In a closing society, a leader has to be willing to face down evil, engage it and call it by its name.
Remember: when activists started to push hard to raise awareness of the dangers of torture and indefinite detention, many on the Hill were scared to join the fight because it was then politically unpopular. But to me, if you are not really against torture -- always and under every political change in climate, and let us note that former torture victim and prisoner of war John McCain shamefully dropped his fight against the torture loopholes in the law as well -- then you are not really, in my view, fit to be an American President.
Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it.
Integrity has something to do with it.
That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.
And if I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else.
Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down.
Naomi Wolf is the author of The End of America (Chelsea Green) and the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Such a powerful article. Thank you so much. Your writing is head and shoulders above much of what goes for political reporting -- which focuses on trifling matters. Here you have discussed real issues with analytical and intellectual skill.
It is true, that Obama is the only candidate that has shown SUBSTANCE in the area of constitutional rights, and has done so boldly and consistently. Thank you for pointing this out.
P.S. I am no longer a fan of Naomi Wolf.
P.S. I am now a fan of Naomi Wolf. I appreciate her thoughtful analysis. Defining feminism w/o reference to gender as a "woman-friendly policy vision" opens the tent.
It would seem like you weren't such a big fan in the first place. Is it your belief that someone has to agree 100% with you to deserve your admiration?
Let's be clear. American citizens have Constitutional rights. Foreigners don't have our Constitutional rights. I believe that if our government is arbitrarily seizing foreign citizens, our leaders should be called to the carpet and investigated by all means - the press, Congress, Federal Courts, etc. The problem is that it's bad foreign policy. Not evidence of the government eroding OUR civil liberties.
The Big-Brother fear-mongering about erosion of civil liberties is no reason to choose the next presidential candidate. There has not been widespread prying by the government into the privacy of Americans and there won't be because all of us, red state and blue state care too much about our privacy rights. Bush and Co. are on their way out, and though I never supported the objectives of the current war, I see no reason why we can't employ a little common sense to allow our government to protect us from terrorism. Monitoring a phone call from an al Qaeda operative to someone I might be riding the train with is fine by me.
Supporting a candidate because you feel we need to make it up to the people in Belgium? What? We have real issues- economy, foreign policy, energy, environment. Choosing one guy over another because of our so-called erosion of rights, in my opinion, is choosing a collateral matter over what's really important.
You are already a slave, you just can't see your chains.
Agreed ...
The point is not about protecting a foreign national and Americans clearly do not concern themselves with that.
However there are examples of how the Govt has gone after Americans that have opposed their policy in one form or another. Gov’t Accuse Lawyer Lynne Stewart Of Role in International Terrorist Conspiracy and then proceeded to go after her. The case was undounded but when a corrupt Dept. of Justice is in place they can pretty much do what they want and have. THe firings of the Justices not sympathetic to the Adminsitration is another example of how retaliation is unchecked and prevalent in this administration. To believe they will not come for you next is naive and is exactly why those outside of America regard americans as clueless and apathetic.
Look, I'm not making the case for Bush's DOJ. They've already made their own case against themselves. It's been mismanaged and anyone can point out all the misfires that have come from the office through the years.
This article is about why Obama should be president and the answer is basically because he would make us look better to foreign countries. You just parrotted that with the "clueless and apathetic" comment.
You show me some proof that "they will come for you next" and I'll start drinking the parnoia kool-aid.
Not only is the person a slave, but they don't understand the the US is based on fighting for the rights of people around the world, and not just the US. Next time read the documents, rather than assuming.
So, which one was it who wanted to include the clause about fighting for "the rights of people around the world"? Was that Hancock or Jefferson?
What document are you reading?
Is there really any greater issue than the loss of "America"? The Constitution is the heart of what "America" is about. POTUS swears an oath to "Protect and Defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America". That is because without that great document we are NOT a nation, we are just a collection of people.
I suggest you read Ms. Wolf's book "End of America" or the CONSTITUTION of the USA.
I have a law degree. I have studied the Constitution. I agree with placing the highest value on the Constitution. The Constitution also gives Congress and the Chief Executive the power to conduct foreign policy and war. Competing conflicts within our rules arise all the time. The sensible thing to do is conduct a respectful debate on the questions instead of lapsing into hysterical partisanship.
The point is that the way the law is written anyone that the President or the Attorney General decides to call an "enemy combatant" can be seized. Just because most of them have been foreigners so far (wasn't there an American from Oregon seized a few years ago?) doesn't mean it couldn't be you tomorrow. Even if you don't think your President would do that, there will be many other Presidents and you just don't know, but there is no protection from that any more.. The fact is that seizing Americans without justification was not legal and now it is. Justification is now defined as the say-so of the President or the Attorney General. That is an erosion of my rights, and yours. I'm sorry, but I find that unconscionable.
Wrong. Seizing Americans without justification is not legal. 4th Amendment and all the attendant rules on probably cause. Second, an "enemy combatant" isn't that vaporous of a term. There are logical restrictions. If you are taking up arms against American troops on a foreign batllefiel
Even foreigners as well as American citizens who have been seized in Afganistan (Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld) have been given Due Process Rights thanks to the Supreme Court. I will grant you that our foreign policy wasn't smart and that indefinite detentions of terrorists was the original aim of this administration until stopped by O'Connor, Rehnquist, Breyer and Kennedy. But unconscionable? We are currently giving terrorists
People posting here either love Barack, or (gasp) find him too conservative. Here's a simple way of putting what Barack will have to address in November- how will you protect Americans, at home and abroad, against terrorism? I have no doubt that Barack has a much more comprehensive understanding, and respect for, the Constitution than the current administration. That's great, but it doesn't stop buildings from collapsing. If he expects to win over the independents that will decide the election, he will need to explain how he will deal with these conflicting needs.
Naomi, we can't afford any of the same old same old, and there is not one candidate in the race now that offers anything that will steer us away from the fascist state you have warned us against. Please listen to these interviews on KPFA today regarding the subprime mortgage meltdown and who was involved. Obama's financial chairperson appears to be one of the worst.
http://www
And on HuffPo today:
http://www
Ms./Mrs. Wolf
A very well written article. Senator Clinton is very capable of being President of the United States. I agree that Senator Obama is the right for America at this time. I to will be voting for Senator Obama.
Thank you.
I learned almost seven years ago that the media in the United States of America doesn't give us the real news. It gives us filtered news. That means simply that our government has a say in what we see, hear and read. Next the filter is the owners of the news channels/s
You are clueless. Islamic terrorists have been killing us for 25 years. Were they mad about are us fighting the Communists in Vietnam? Is that War why they hate us. I will not list all the attacks over the years just the major ones with significant US casualties. April 1983 US Embassy in Beirut bombed, 63 dead. October 1983 suicide truck bomber hit Marine Barracks in Beirut, 241 Americans dead. Sept. 1984 Beirut Embassy Annex bombed, 20 dead. Feb. 1993 truck bombing of World Trade Center, 6 dead. March 1995 two US Consulate employees murdered in Karachi, Pakistan. June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia kills 19 US airmen. August 1998 bombings of two US Embassies in Africa kill 225. Oct. 2000 suicide bombers kill 17 US sailors in Yemen on USS Cole. I have left out unsuccessful attacks and ones with only one fatality (like Petty Officer Stethem in 1985 and Col. Higgins in 1988). All of these attacks as well as 9/11 happened before we kicked the Taliban out or brought down Saddam. Obama is not going to stop them trying to kill us by just asking if we can just get along and retreating from the Middle East.
It's not a retreat when you don't belong there.
So why were the US in .... Vietnam, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc etc? If I walked into your house you might try to eject me, tell me to get the H out.
Don't get me wrong, all those deaths you have detailed are awful, but America needs to look at itself and ask 'why are we the World's policeman? who elected us to that role?'
And the cynical might also wonder why the US is involved in so many regions of the world and determine that it's really about 'US business interests', not 'peace'.
All the terrorists in the world can't even begin to do the damage to us as we do to ourselves, with, apparently, our enthusiastic permission. The Constitution is a contract between the people of the United States and their government, and just that statement alone makes it the most revolutionary document in history. When you diminish it, you are effectively cutting the heart out of what makes America unique. We can salute the flag and pop the magnetic decals on our cars and chant USA USA, but without the Constitution we're just another rogue nation and our government is no longer a government but just a gang of rulers, and we--the citizens--have lost all say in it.
On a more mundane subject, PLEASE BRING BACK THE BLACK AND WHITE and BIGGER FONTS! I'm going blind here!
the constitution is the agreement among the people ABOUT their government. the government is not a party to the agreement. it is created by the constitution. this is an important thing to understand.
"You are cluless"
You need to reach back to the mid-20th century when Iran was a Democracy with yes a PM that they elected and who was progressive. As that sovereign nation's leader he decided to nationalize the oil production which of course did not benefit the foreign oil companies there...ye
THe US supported a political coup, and installed the young Shah of Iran who was sympathetic to US corporations' interests. THe Shah was a ruthless leader and was ousted by an extremist islamic leader and hisfollowing ; this was the Ayatollah Khomeini.
There WAS DEMOCRACY in the middle east until US interventi
Lastly, AMericans always default to this myopic Islamist terrorist label. Islam is responsible for many of the world's scientific and mathematical advances. Their libraries were unprecedented while Europe was still in the Dark Ages . Their extremists are similar to any fascist movement: it is anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-knowledge. Just like Bush and his "there is no such thing as evolution" Christians.
If we listen to your reasoning, we will go back in History. Look, we have made tremendous progress.
When we catch our enemies, we have until recently treated them with respect. That separated us, and made us distinct form brutal countries that treated their captives with no respect, brutally, in fact.
This might be hard for some to understand, or their support of particular candidates blind them to the distinction, but it is called class. We are a country based on dignity. And the world shall follow. If we go back to the dark ages, where captives are treated cruelly, tortured, executed; families raped, houses burned, villages razed, children of enemies tortured, sold into slavery; or innocent people considered guilty until proven innocent, and treated horribly in the process, then our founding fathers fought nor nothing.
I am proud the world has advance into better thoughts and processes. However, I am not surprised that there are many that don't share my pride in our progress.
A powerful endorsement.
It is easy to see that the fear of rendition has already made an impact on many Americans, and others throughout the world. Last year, I wrote an Open Letter to Iran, Iraq, Preident Bush, U.S. Citizens, and the American Military. I sent this letter to the nations top 100 newspapers, dozens of websites (including HuffPost), and many outlets throughout the world. It was only published in The Hindustan Times, to my initial disappointment. I say initial, because afterwards, I received thousands of letters of praise from all over the world, from people who were now terrified for what might be my own rendition. I did indeed start thinking about the safety of my family and started to wonder when they might come for me. Eventually I thought, screw it. The truth must be told no matter the cost. My family agreed. Rendition is real and it is scary, but we must never let our fear of what they might do to us, stop us from standing up for what we believe.
"Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision."
I don't see this at all. He doesn't even have a women's issues segment on his website, which is fairly standard for Dems. I have yet to hear him mention sexism at all as one of the problems facing our country. He speaks against every other "ism" including "regionalism," but never sexism. He not called out the many gendered attacks against HRC by his surrogates and supporters during this campaign.
"Of all the candidates running now, he is the leader on understanding the threat to the Constitution and actually taking action, not just mouthing soundbites, on the need to deny torturers space in our nation and to restore the rule of law."
You say this and yet, you haven't proven why. You do mention one law which both he and Clinton voted against. Let me repeat this: They both voted against it. It was nice of him to loan the lawyers the use of his offices, though.
Obama doesn't have a women's issues section because ALL issues are women's issues - economy, terrorism, child welfare, health care.... All of these are women's issues.
Obama does have a "women" section under people...
He doesn't have a black issue section either. I think there are too many issues to list. Aboriginal, Women's, African Americans, Jewish, Irish, Italian, and yes, middle eastern (these people are US citizens too), etc. I like his approach to equality. And I don't doubt that he considers everyone.
You don't see that Obama is very sympathetic to women's issues? He has two daughters that he dearly wants to see grow up in a world free of sexism and racism. As JAJ says, all issues are women's issues. Barack has been very strong in working with women's groups and consistently gets 100% approval ratings from them. I have utmost faith in him to look after everyone's rights.
Ms. Wolf speaks of a subject of paramount importance. There is no subject greater, NONE.
Only people with their heads deep in the sand do not realize how incredibly dangerous the grab for executive power this adminstration has persued in the name "of national security".
The 2006 Military Commissions Act that my liberal Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio cowardly supported as a candidate for the Senate is the most dangerous law the US Congress EVER passed, bar none. That law "legalized" the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the very foundation of our personal freedom, at the whim of the US president and ANY American can have that most precious right suspended by the president merely saying you are an "enemy combatant".
Only an REALLY naive person would not realize that law enacted a legal dictatorship in this country.
I do believe Barack Obama will reverse many of these extreme grabs for power, but if it becomes real apparent what threat Obama poses to those who want absolute power in this country, he may never reach the White House. THOSE forces may be the greatest danger to him reaching the White House.
Let us hope Americans will wake up from their stupor and vote overwhelming to return to a true democratic free nation. At the moment I am not optimistic.
BTW, I expects critics of Obama to show he is no different from other politicians and is a stooge for the corporate military power structure in this nation as is Clinton and certainly McCain. Maybe. But of those three, I believe Obama is the most likely to fight those forces.
Naomi, It is interesting that you mention how the rest of the world views us. If you simply go online to foreign news outlets, you will see things that you may never see in print or on TV media here at home in the US, regardless of who may say otherwise.
I picked up a tidbit on Reuters recently that has seen no play that I can find in the USA media. The story is that Hillary Clinton had refused to sign a pledge to restore our constitution like all the other democratic contenders had signed. The link is here, and I wonder why?
http://www
Good question. I heard about it from someone else posting the Reuters link here last week.
Could it possibly be that it is because she, and Obama, and McCain all represent the interests of the corporations who find our little Constitution tiresome and an impediment to their profits? How else do you find the Pritzker family backing them both?
Before the patently illegal wiretapping by the Bush Administration, and the 'snatch & hold incommunicado' of Jose Padilla ground on for years without much of a peep, I'd have thought that Congress would "bring charges ... (or) do something!"
Alas, now that Congress is busy about giving those that violated the law and basic Constitutional protections a "retroactive" bye, and contemplating PROSPECTIVE IMMUNITY for any future law-breaking the Administration and those that conspire with them may do, I've come to the conclusion that neither Congress nor the stacked Judiciary are any real protection for the principles the Founders gave us, and that many died in multiple wars to defend.
Somehow, it's up to us.
Nice, Always enjoy your writing and reading, Naomi. BTW, you went to Australia and glad they let you back into the US. Because I know that there was a time that you were on the "Terror Watch List". Go Figure. I hope that didn't give you extra searches. As far as your assessment that Senator Hillary Clinton would be a terrific executive -- in a stable democracy, I don't believe so, I think she she shows herself unaware to make big decisions, her judgment is off, and here she is the most famous woman politician in the world - and look how she has used her stature, to legitimize in many ways President Bush and the policies that exacerbated the problems we face. Everything highlights how her judgment is not for our times in this post 9/11 world. I'd would think she would be in over her head and be manipulated. I was curious about what you thought of her actions against MSNBC, pertaining to her daughter being perceived as being "pimped out": Here is a government official (Sen. Clinton) telling and individual (Schuster) and MSNBC ( A private corporation) how to conduct business and threatening them. Something very chilling there. Speaking of chilling, many justices of the peace in the US, probably don't think that what happened to New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib, could happen here but with a lack of a leader, like Sen Obama who understand fundamental Constitutional Rights, it could. As far as Mr. Habib, what was he doing in Pakistan? Curious. You did not explain it.
We liked to think, race and gender should not sway our political vote, but it is necessary now, where survival is the questions, and looking at Obama integrity, only highlights the "moral vanity" and "bad judgments" that politicians like that Sen. John McCain and Sen. Clinton exercise and in the people they choose to surround themselves with, these are politicians that will ENABLE a fascist state. Darkness fighting Darkness. Good Post and welcome home.
WHAT A CROCK!!
Surely, we have not seen Obama as the leader of the pack to save the Constitution or even call meetings for the committee he chairs. Hey lady....ge
The committee he chairs has nothing to do with the constitutional issues here.
However, Obama has come out and said that he would restore the constitution, restore habeas corpus, has said he is against illegal eavesdropping, and wants to restore our rights. Yes, he was a constitutional scholar and lawyer.
All of the Democratic candidates signed a pledge to restore the constitution, except for one - Hillary Rodham Clinton.
You will have to ask her why.
Obama has certainly run a far better campaign thus far. If you can't lead that pack, how can you expect to lead the country?
Here are some facts..
this article takes a rare twist..
http://www
Very good article. Thanks for the link.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
