Forgot the link: Here it is.

http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

Posted at September 4, 2008 9:55 PM in response to America May Be In Danger Now

Billy,

May I suggest this commentary written by Henry Wallace on fascism in 1944. Here's his definition of fascism:

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.

Not perfect but it's interesting to look at how people at the time when fascism was rising defined the term.

Posted at September 4, 2008 9:54 PM in response to America May Be In Danger Now

Why is it necessary for Obama's candidacy to somehow be about someone who's come before?

I would point out that Teddy Roosevelt was like no one that had ever come before him.

That's the great thing about America, we aren't chained to the past. We can go with the new road. We've practically built the country on such new, never been done in the past choices.

And in case you haven't been listening, this is a change election.

We're not looking for the always been done before. We face problems that require out-of-the-box thinking not let's see how well we can follow the outmoded models of the past.

Posted at September 2, 2008 12:37 AM in response to We're Running Against Teddy Roosevelt!

That's pretty weak tea.

Posted at September 2, 2008 12:30 AM in response to We're Running Against Teddy Roosevelt!

You only reveal that you really don't understand the issue here.

The fact is that no politician is going to come right out and say, there's no point in voting for him because he's black and America will not elect a black.

At the time, there was a lot of talk about what a big deal it was that Obama was winning these primaries given that he's black and that maybe it signalled that things in this country had changed. Clinton was throwing cold water on that idea by saying that Obama had done no better than the only other black candidate to have run.

I mean, what do you want to be able to call it playing the race card -- for him to come right out and say, come on, elect my wife because she's white? How far do they have to go for it to qualify for you? Sounds like pretty far.

Can you understand that for African Americans the threshold is a bit lower than that?

Posted at May 29, 2008 3:35 PM in response to Obama's Race Baiting Speaks for Itself, as Josh Marshall Would Say

How many "disgruntled" staffers is this now??

1. Paul O'Neill
2. Richard Clarke
3. Rand Beers
4. The head of faith-based initiative who called Bush admin Mayberry Machiavellians.
5. Jack Goldsmith who questioned the wiretapping program.
6. Matthew Dowd
7. Former surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona

Who am I forgetting?

Posted at May 28, 2008 4:29 PM in response to Today's Must Read

You're ignoring two other likely explanations.

One, Hillary voters are currently pissed because their candidate won't get the nomination and Obama supporters are feeling more generous toward Hillary since she's likely to lose. That dynamic is likely to change some.

Two, Republicans may be saying they'd vote for Clinton in an attempt to continue to extent the conflict between Democrats -- more Operation Chaos stuff. This, it seems to me is really the only explanation for a poll showing Clinton winning Kentucky vs. McCain.

Posted at May 28, 2008 12:15 PM in response to What ABOUT Clinton's Poll Leads?

Last time I checked, the Republicans were successfully hammering him for this. I'm frankly stunned he said it out loud again.

I HOPE the Republicans think they're winning on this because it shows how out of touch they are and means they'll continue to go with a bad strategy throughout the campaign.

Read Joe Biden's defense of Obama on this.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121150000249615875.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Obama will continue to argue for meeting with friend and foe alike, and he's right to do so because public diplomacy isn't about the guy you're talking to, it's theatre for the world, and that leader's people.

You and the GOP wrongly assume that meeting with a foe gives them propoganda points, no matter that 8 years of not meeting has us losing the war for hearts and minds in the world hands down.

How do you think it plays in all those hearts and minds when the leader of a country like Iran, sporting a hip western look and a MySpace page, offers to sit down with America to resolve our differences and we say "no because you're an evil bastard?" Who do you think looks better, more reasonable in that scenario? Who do you think is convinced by that and brought to our side?

The trouble with you guys is you make foreign policy all about the leaders of nations, the elites. But in every nation, those elites -- even in dictatorships -- have to at least somewhat answer to the population they are trying to lead. They are your audience and meeting with a guy like the head of Iran is an opportunity to reach them.

Meeting with these leaders is good propoganda for US if we play it right, especially now when we've fallen so far in the eyes of the world.

As for Obama's plan, here's a link to his plan for Latin America, recently unveiled in Miami.

http://obama.3cdn.net/ef480f743f9286aea9_k0tmvyt7h.pdf

Here is his speech on terrorism:

I'll give you one quote from it on the significance of that threat:

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real.

Posted at May 26, 2008 8:23 PM in response to Obama and Defense/Security

Well, I don't know about Obama supporters in general but clearly you don't know his positions.

He gave a very good speech on the subject of Latin America to CANF in Florida the other day, talking about how Bush's neglect of the region has allowed Chavez to gain clout and nations from outside the hemisphere to make inroads.

Particularly alarming to me was him pointing out that Chavez and Iran have been getting cozy, even creating a joint bank.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38290.html

As for N. Korea, as someone else has pointed out here, he considers N. Korea a significant threat if not contained.

You guys should try to remember that half the people on Obama's foreign policy team are former advisers from the Clinton White House.

Posted at May 26, 2008 5:39 PM in response to Obama and Defense/Security

The lack of subcommittee hearings does bother me, although in 2005 Obama did travel with Richard Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to Russia to view the nuke situation. The two developed a nuclear proliferation bill together called the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation initiative, which passed in 2007.

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070628-obama_lugar_sec/

So, it's not that he's done nothing on the foreign policy questions of our time.

The main thing for me that Obama promises in his foreign policy is a narrower, less grandiose approach.

We're not going to try to remake the Middle East into a democratic utopia or engage in a quest to rid the world of every enemy that's possibly out there.

Instead, we're going to refocus on getting the people who attacked us and that's it.

At the same time, we're going to focus more on protecting the country through increasing controls on nukes, non-proliferation measures, easing of world tensions, and better port security. I'm hopeful that improved intelligence gathering will also be a part of that.

Posted at May 26, 2008 5:27 PM in response to Obama and Defense/Security