jayne

Spot on, as always; thanks. That said, simply yelling out "stop the war, I want to get off" won't do it either nor will voting for Ralph Nader (read: John McCain). The solution is to work with the problem, not abandon it, and hold Obama to task for his pledge to have better judgment.

More importantly, we need leadership that will move us from a wartime to a peacetime economy, and one whose vision is to de-escalate, not look for more parts of the globe to preempt or provoke.

Right you are, Obama represents a movement, and must account to that movement, but any efforts to
sabotage him by pointing out his flip-flops will only result in a president, McCain, who has the opportunity to appoint another neanderthal to the Supreme Court, and provoke greater global hostility in the name of homeland security.

Progressives, and those who want change, must get behind Barack, and not pander to Republican talking points about flip-flopping. Jeez----JFK would be called a flip-flopper, too, given his last press conference in which he declared his desire to rethink his commitment of 15,000 troops. This is a country without Hamlets that is overrun by Macbeths, Macdonalds---please, no McCain! posted 07/05/2008 at 22:12:57

Thanks, Sam :) A sense of humor is often optional with the vehicle, so it's good to see that your vehicle comes fully equipped. posted 07/06/2008 at 18:54:36

Senator Obama, thank you for an eloquent, and thoughtful defense of your position backing the FISA compromise bill. It is heartening to learn that you and Senator Dodd will work together on the carte blanche retroactive immunity issue.

There is one statement you make with which I must strongly disagree. You say that the direction of the country will not change should John McCain become president. Oh, yes, it will. The country will veer further right than we can possibly imagine, with respect to appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as future military action.

You've no doubt read Seymour Hersh's breathtaking piece, on the build-up to the war with Iran, in this week's "New Yorker." Mr. Hersh ends his article by saying that military actions against Iran are "not off the table" for you, as well as McCain. The preemptive militarist mindset of Bush/Cheney White House must stop, and we who crave change look to your leadership to move us from a wartime to a peacetime economy, as well as to preserve and protect the integrity of the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade. I am confident you will not disappoint us. posted 07/04/2008 at 16:52:35

Dare I say it, Max, but amen. Sorry I haven't yet read your piece in "The Nation," but most look forward to it. Thanks for corroborating what was, for me, a gut guess about what may turn out to be among his most turgid challenges---Obama and the evangelical lobby; the Rapture boys. posted 07/03/2008 at 16:08:47

In a word, "bravo!"

Oh, and Happy Fart of July---if we run out of gas, we can always look to Washington, D.C.---they reek with flatulence. posted 07/04/2008 at 13:24:15

For the record, the allusion to McKay, in "The Candidate," was intended as a caveat to Obama. Not only am I a supporter of Barack Obama, but I have been aware of him for years now, indeed before many who have left comments to this post probably have ever heard his name.

This isn't about Obama---this is larger than any one political candidate that's the point. If power corrupts, then the promise of power corrupts even further. It is more important for Barack Obama to distance himself from the Bush regime now than ever before, and not with words, but actions. The phrase "Faith-based Initiatives" reeks of religious discrimination and, in and of itself, threatens the constitutional separation between church and state. Is there no room for those who are agnostic, atheists, or in the ecclesiastical "other" column in this democracy?

The curtain is falling on hypocrisy, and the standard bearers of power are quickly disintegrating. It's time to go home, Dorothy, the yellow brick road is fading!

The framers would be ashamed, and embarrassed, by what's being done to their Republic, one that the fought hard to win over from those who were declared, not implied, monarchs. posted 07/03/2008 at 13:37:26

Quite instructive, especially to those, like myself, who think more moderate elements of the Republican Party will hold dominion, rather than a "rapture party," should Obama prevail in November.

The only thing more assiduous than Puritanism, in America, is political naivete. The Republicans, radical right or moderate, have no more business in our gambling casinos than Jack Abramoff does, and this moral dictatorship that tries to pass itself off as a "war on terror" is the most dangerous opiate on the market now, far surpassing even crack-- indeed, it's cracked.

Thank you for this illuminating post, Barney.. posted 06/29/2008 at 00:02:27

Mike is right --- we need alternative forms of energy, as well as to conserve power, but consider this administration's stance towards Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea who can make the same claims of developing nuclear energy for peaceful means.

More importantly, remember that it was JOHN McCAIN who said, last December, that those who think that nuclear technology can spread without nuclear weapons are operating under what he called "a mistaken assumption." It is John McCain who is confusing developing nuclear power as a means to enhance conservation with nuclear warfare----this is HIS assumption as it is that of President George W. Bush, so let's be clear here, please, on who it is who is confusing positive uses of nuclear energy with destructive uses---it is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is doing that, and his predecessor.

Moreover, what kind of arrogance does it take to say that we get to decide who can use nuclear technology as an alternative to existing power generation, and who doesn't --- the U.S., India, Israel, okay. All the industrialized countries recognize that it is now the U.S. that poses the greatest threat to the survival of the planet.

That nuclear waste will result from these reactors is only a fraction of the damage that will be done. This national narcissism America suffers from is a pathology that doesn't even acknowledge the adverse impact our actions have, and will continue to have, on the entire world. posted 06/20/2008 at 13:47:13

By way of clarification:

It's my understanding that the new law, in Indiana, scheduled to go into effect in July does not explicitly require booksellers to list every single title, but could only require a general description of any material in the store.

Secondly, the USA Patriot Act only enables the FBI to serve booksellers with National Security Letters which does not necessarily mean that any booksellers have been served with NSLs. They are prohibited from divulging if they have been served with an NSL. The article merely intended to suggest that in post 9/11 America, intelligence agencies now have the capacity to strongarm purveyors of literature; this does not mean that they are necessarily doing this. It is the potential for abuse that often poses a graver threat than the legislation itself. The article in no way, shape, or form means to imply that bookstores are turning over your personal information to the government. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:46:06