quote:

---

These are the advisers on Obama's senior working group on national security.

* MADELEINE ALBRIGHT - Served a secretary of state in former President Bill Clinton's administration and was a top adviser to the campaign of Obama's former rival, Hillary Clinton.

* DAVID BOREN - The former governor and senator from Oklahoma chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

* WARREN CHRISTOPHER - Was Bill Clinton's first secretary of state and also served as deputy secretary of state in the Carter administration.

* GREG CRAIG - Was a former senior adviser to Albright in the Clinton administration and later led the team defending Bill Clinton against the impeachment charges involving Clinton's affair with a White House intern. Despite long ties to both Bill and Hillary Clinton, Craig was an early supporter of Obama and has been part of his inner circle of advisers.

* RICHARD DANZIG - Served as secretary of the Navy under Bill Clinton and is an expert on counterterrorism.

* LEE HAMILTON - The former Indiana congressman co-chaired the blue-ribbon commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and was a lead author of Iraq Study Group report that offered recommendations on Iraq to President George W. Bush in 2006.

* ERIC HOLDER - Was deputy attorney general in Bill Clinton's administration and is working with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, in helping to guide Obama's search for a vice presidential running mate.

* ANTHONY LAKE - Was national security adviser to Bill Clinton and has been part of the inner circle of Obama's campaign.

* SAM NUNN - A former senator from Georgia who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, Nunn has long been viewed as a leading Democratic voice on foreign policy and some have speculated he might be looked at by Obama as a potential running mate.

* WILLIAM PERRY - Was secretary of defense under Bill Clinton.

* SUSAN RICE - The former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs is Obama's senior foreign policy adviser.

* TIM ROEMER - The former Indiana congressman was a member of the 9/11 commission.

* JAMES STEINBERG - Was deputy national security adviser to Bill Clinton.

---

quote:

---

Barack Is Not and Has Never Been Muslim

Barack Never Attended a Muslim School

Barack Is a Practicing Christian

---

quote:

---

These are the advisers on Obama's senior working group on national security.

* MADELEINE ALBRIGHT - Served a secretary of state in former President Bill Clinton's administration and was a top adviser to the campaign of Obama's former rival, Hillary Clinton.

---

quote:

---

An Obama campaign ban on green clothing during the candidate’s visits to Israel and Jordan has created wide puzzlement among observers of the Middle East.

In a memo to reporters, described as “a few guidelines we sent staff before departure to the Middle East,” Obama advance staffer Peter Newell laid out rules on attire for Jordan and Israel.

First among them: “Do not wear green.”

An Obama aide explained to reporters that green is the color associated with the militant Palestinian group Hamas. But while the color does appear on Hamas banners, there is no particular symbolism to wearing green clothes, experts said.

Moreover, green is more generally seen as a symbol of Islam.

---

2) What are the six or seven people that he should be turning to for advice, rather than these folks?

You might also want to read this speech by the last fellow on the list, Steinberg. It's very good on the pitfalls/dangers of the transition from a campaign for President to the "first 100 days" of being President, with regard to foreign policy advice.

quote:

---

The problem of overload and “settling in” surely contributed to the fact that in the Bush 43 administration there was no serious look by the Principals at the anti-terrorism strategy until the summer of 2001, notwithstanding the urgent pleas of holdover official Dick Clark.

Another problem is the impulse of a new administration to move quickly to set its mark on policy, often by quickly discarding the policies of its predecessor and putting its new theory into practice.

Examples are legion:

- the Bush 43 Administration, the ideological aversion to Clinton’s engagement strategy with North Korea led President Bush, just two months in office, to repudiate the policies of Korean President Kim Dung Jung during his visit to the White House, precipitating a crisis in US-ROK relations and setting in motion a set of actions that led to North Korea’s nuclear test

- Bush 43’s repudiation of Kyoto without an alternative strategy is another example of precipitous repudiation of the past without a well thought out strategy of how to proceed.

This problem of “settling in” also accounts for why no administration has met is Congressionally mandated requirement of publishing a national security strategy during the first year in office, leaving Congress and public and administration officials without the kind of clear guidance they need to develop and execute national security strategy.

It is imperative that the candidate talk to advisors and outsiders about their views of how to organize and run the national security apparatus.

---

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
1) I'm not naive about folks like Albright, but do you object to him having any advisers from the Clinton Administration, or just these ones?

2) What are the six or seven people that he should be turning to for advice, rather than these folks?...

---

I object to Barack Obama having any chance at all of becoming Chief Executive of the United States Government. That goes for John McCain, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
What about Zbignew? That guy is like pure evil.

---

Funny you should say that.

His views about the Middle East are much more moderate and reasonable (even though still pro-imperialist of course) than those of, say, Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama:

quote:

---

These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East's population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neocon policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well. ...

Neither the United States nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution in the Middle East. There may be people who deceive themselves into believing that. ...

While the Iranian nuclear problem is serious, and while the Iranians are marginally involved in Lebanon, the fact of the matter is that the challenge they pose is not imminent. And because it isn't imminent, there is time to deal with it. ...

In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country; it's not Iraq. It's going to be there. It's going to be a player. And in the longer historical term, it has all of the preconditions for a constructive internal evolution if you measure it by rates of literacy, access to higher education and the role of women in society.

The mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But change in Iran will come through engagement, not through confrontation.

---

quote:

---

I object to Barack Obama having any chance at all of becoming Chief Executive of the United States Government. That goes for John McCain, too.

---

Personally, I don't think it's very adult or productive to keep pretending that neither is going to win the Presidency.

The US is a two-party state. Do I like that? No. Would I be active in the Green Party if I lived in the US? Yes.

But the Greens have never held any city's mayoralty larger than 100 000 people (Gayle McLaughlin in Richmond), nor a seat in Congress, and Nader didn't win a single county in 2000.

The reason Obama has these advisers is that he needs to hit the ground running if he gets elected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
When I said pure evil I was thinking about how he openly bragged about getting the Russians to invade Afghanistan, calling it the 'Afghan' trap. I was under the - perhaps incorrect - assumption that he was amongst the more hawkish elements of the democratic party elite; but I suppose if he served with Carter he can't be all bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
Personally, I don't think it's very adult or productive to keep pretending that neither is going to win the Presidency.

The US is a two-party state. Do I like that? No. Would I be active in the Green Party if I lived in the US? Yes.

But the Greens have never held any city's mayoralty larger than 100 000 people (Gayle McLaughlin in Richmond), nor a seat in Congress, and Nader didn't win a single county in 2000.

The reason Obama has these advisers is that he needs to hit the ground running if he gets elected.

Who else is he going to turn to?

---

quote:

---

I object to Barack Obama and John McCain having any chance at all of becoming Chief Executive of the United States Government

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

I object to Barack Obama having any chance at all of becoming Chief Executive of the United States Government. That goes for John McCain, too.

I guess that doesn't leave much room for discussion.

---

quote:

---

excellent, excellent...if Obama is causing some of the most fanatical people on babble (who represent about one half of one percent of the American electorate) to dump on Obama - he must be doing something right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
Why, oh why, can't I live in a world where Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the nominees?

---

Zak, do you know anything about Kucinich?

quote:

---

Originally posted :
Wouldn't it be nice, on a leftist discussion board, to express concerns about the lack of a credible leftist choice in North America, without having to listen to liberals constantly telling us that we chould accept the illusory options presented by those in power.

---

Depends what you mean by "leftist." Many people who want to move to the left by parliamentary means realize that there are only two viable candidates, and the best for the left and the rest of the world would be Obama.

There are those here who constantly denigrate any politician on the left. At the same time they cannot recomend any political alternative. To use a trite analogy, they are like back seat drivers, constantly criticizing but unable to drive themselves.

quote:

---

Wouldn't it be nice, on a leftist discussion board, to express concerns about the lack of a credible leftist choice in North America, without having to listen to liberals constantly telling us that we chould accept the illusory options presented by those in power.

---

Yeah, but that's all you're doing. As someone who participated for three years here, and is peeking back in for a few weeks (having spent 2 years trying to build up electoral politics), you're focusing on just the concerns. Just the negative, the cynicism, that Obama will be the same as John McBush.

I just keep coming back to the fact that an Obama presidency will create more space for progressive action in the US than a McCain one.

It would create a different dialogue on healthcare, on race, and on corporate donations to politics.

And yeah, back to the start of the thread, foreign policy advisor wise, it wouldn't create an awfully different dialogue on the occupation of Muslim countries. But it might create a different dialogue on failed states, the Millennium Development Goals, and Bush's linking of HIV funding to anti-condom projects.

quote:

---

I just keep coming back to the fact [sic] that an Obama presidency will create more space for progressive action in the US than a McCain one.

---

This isn't a fact, it's mere speculation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
...There are those here who constantly denigrate any politician on the left. At the same time they cannot recomend any political alternative. To use a trite analogy, they are like back seat drivers, constantly criticizing but unable to drive themselves...

---

quote:

---

There are those here who constantly denigrate any politician on the left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
There are those here who constantly denigrate any politician on the left. At the same time they cannot recomend any political alternative.

---

You want recommendations for left political alternatives to the McCain-Obama magic show? Babble's got 'em:

Green Party
Peace and Freedom Party (Nader)
Socialist Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation

Now, let the denigration begin!

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

I guess the poster didn't think "Barack McClinton" sounded bad enough.

---

quote:

---

There are those here who constantly denigrate any politician on the left.

---

quote:

---

At the same time they cannot recomend any political alternative. To use a trite analogy, they are like back seat drivers, constantly criticizing but unable to drive themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
Depends what you mean by "leftist."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:
Many leftists at Babble have provided alternatives to supporting Barack Obama...

---

None of whom have the slightest chance of becoming the President.

quote:

---

The standard reply from the right ... er, Obama supporters, is that McKinney can't win so it is best we support the election of a Democrat to continue failed US imperialist policies of war, aggression, rights suppression, and exploitation.

---

quote:

---

None of whom have the slightest chance of becoming the President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Easy - just take your definition and put "not" in front of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Green Party
Peace and Freedom Party (Nader)
Socialist Party
Party for Socialism and Liberation

Now, let the denigration begin!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
None of whom have the slightest chance of becoming the President.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
None of whom have the slightest chance of becoming the President.

Even if the only two viable candidates were the same in policy, which they are not, it's time the US had a President of part African heritage.

---

Is it? Why's that, Banjo? Is there something "left" in the genes of part-African persons?

You have a very narrow view of this issue. Simply winning the U.S. Presidency is not the issue for me, only a part of it. Obama is a loser for the working class, so why should I care whether he wins or not? It's not as if an Obama win will push U.S. politics to the left; I think you have bought into the illusion that he will, however, and it's blinding you.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[ 04 August 2008: Message edited by: Robespierre ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
Wow, flashbacks to 2000...

"I'll never vote for Gore! He's just as bad as Bush!"
"Yeah, there's no way Bush could be any worse than Gore! Not in a million years!"
"I know! They're like, exactly alike in every way! They're both evil imperialists - boo!"
"Let's all vote for Ralph Nader!"
"Yes, especially because we live in Dade County, where those votes won't make any difference!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
Most of America's Wars in the 20th century were started by Democrats; perhaps the Iraq War would have been no different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
In future, you might want to link to something a bit more persuasive than a letter to the editor/op-ed piece by a member of the Draft Nader Committee.

---

quote:

---

The point is every candidate has to earn his or her votes. Your vote has to be earned and does not belong to any particular candidate, and claiming any particular vote is a wasted one is an insult to our intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Sun-Sentinal article: The point is every candidate has to earn his or her votes. Your vote has to be earned and does not belong to any particular candidate, and claiming any particular vote is a wasted one is an insult to our intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
Reagan did invade Grenada and all but it sort of pales in comparison. Not that I am under the delusion that the GOP is a party of peace, but I'm just pointing out the facts.

---

Reagan is also responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Central America due to his lavish military aid to the Salvadoran military(I.E., the "death squads" at their day jobs)and the Contras in Nicaragua, and also through the aid he funneled through Israel to the reactionary (and, although Israel didn't mind this for some reason, antisemitic)military regime in Guatemala.

This article is right-wing but perceptive.

quote:

---

The steepest drop in home prices in 20 years, the weakest auto sales in 15 years, gas prices that have tripled since the Bush Administration took office, the "lets-stay-in-bed" lack of enthusiasm among McCain's own voters who support him as "the lesser of two evils", and a president whose approval ratings have rocketed to one point above his all-time low, and this election should be slam dunk for the gangly, three-point jump shot artist once known as "Barry O'Bomber."

Yet if Senator Obama is doing so well, why is he doing so poorly? And if John McCain is doing so poorly, why is he doing so well?

The best campaign against Barack Obama is not being run by his opponent, but by Barack Obama.

It is Obama's campaign that presents their candidate as an ever-changing work-in-progress.

It is his own campaign that occludes our ability to know this man, depicting him as authentic as a pair of designer jeans.

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
Sisyphus

---

Sisyphus was condemned to his plight unlike the so-called progressives who volunteer to continue pushing that rock up the hill.

quote:

---

But hasn't anyone realised that Obama has chosen for his advisers two of the most lamentable failures of US Middle East policy-making? There, yet again, is Dennis Ross, a former prominent staff member of Aipac, the most powerful Israeli lobby in America – yup, the very same Aipac to which Obama grovelled last month – and the man who failed to make the Oslo agreement work. And there is Madeleine Albright who, as US ambassador to the UN, said that the price of half a million dead children under sanctions in Iraq was "worth it", and who later announced that Israel was "under siege". This must be the only time – ever – that a US politician thought Palestinian tanks were on the streets of Tel Aviv.

---

quote:

---

The very model of a modern corporate liberal, he moved with ease from the top of Goldman Sachs to become President Bill Clinton's chief economic adviser and then secretary of the Treasury. Clinton had run as a populist on an economic platform created principally by Robert Reich, who became his labor secretary. But Rubin's Wall Street "realism" quickly trumped Reich's academic populism, and Clinton made the North American Free Trade Agreement his top priority over universal health care. He also eliminated the budget deficit left to him by the first Bush rather than rebuilding the nation's already crumbling infrastructure, and went along with the economic deregulation that Phil Gramm was pushing in the Republican-led Congress.

To Rubin's credit, eliminating the deficit helped fuel the prosperity of the Clinton years. To Rubin's shame, the Clinton free trade agreements provided no safety net for American workers whose jobs went abroad, while the newly unregulated financial markets helped create the speculative crap shoot that led directly to our current economic woes.

Dubbed by Clinton the "greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton," Rubin left the administration and joined Citigroup, the nation's largest financial conglomerate, whose very existence was made legal by the deregulation measures he had convinced Clinton to accept. According to The Wall Street Journal, Citigroup has so far paid Rubin more than $100 million to serve as chairman of its executive committee, and leaves him free to serve as a key economic adviser to Barack Obama. Even more telling, Rubin's protégé, Jason Furman, now heads Obama's paid economic staff and is expected to join Obama in the White House should he win in November.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:

None of whom have the slightest chance of becoming the President.

Even if the only two viable candidates were the same in policy, which they are not, it's time the US had a President of part African heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
Even if the only two viable candidates were the same in policy, which they are not, it's time the US had a President of part African heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zak Young:
Yes, it appears Obama's stance is "wait guys, we're killing the wrong Muslims". He's not exactly the peace candidate. Why, oh why, can't I live in a world where Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the nominees?

---

Wouldn't that be lovely?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Wouldn't that [Sisyphus] be an excellent metaphor for so-called progressives who insist on throwing their vote away on a right wing party insisting it is the only way for the left to be heard? Sisyphus was condemned to his plight unlike the so-called progressives who volunteer to continue pushing that rock up the hill...

---

If I were a US citizen, though I would vote for Obama, I would work for some progressive local candidate who had a chance of being elected, just as I work for the NDP in a riding in which they have a chance.

There seems to be a tendancy by many here to spend their time criticising any left wing politician who gets elected as not 'pure' enough for them. No one who is pure enough for them could get elected to anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo:
I support electoral politics. If a poster does not, and shows it by default by denying the progressive validity of any elected person, why don't they have the guts to say so?

---

Since when does criticism of an "elected person" mean the critic ("by default") doesn't support electoral politics?

quote:

---

There seems to be a tendancy by many here to spend their time criticising any left wing politician

---

You can't be left wing and support wars of aggression. You can't be left wing and support imperialism and exploitation. Killing Afgan civilians is no more honourable than killing Iraqi civilians and expanding a war into Pakistan is no more honourable than invading Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
It is dangerously naive to believe so.

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

This cutting off the nose to spite the face would be funny if it weren't so serious. Do you really believe that 4 years of McCain would be better for the US and the world than 4 years of Obama. It is dangerously naive to believe so.

---

Those are the real choices. Nothing else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
You can't be left wing and support wars of aggression. You can't be left wing and support imperialism and exploitation. Killing Afgan civilians is no more honourable than killing Iraqi civilians and expanding a war into Pakistan is no more honourable than invading Iraq.

---

They were imperialists in a different empire.

EYA: You might get some argument about when the Bolsheviks stopped being leftists, but by Afghanistan it had been over for decades.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

Well, yes you can. Unless the Soviets weren't left wing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
[QB]Again explain exactly how the world and the US would be better off with a McCain presidency.

Those are the real choices. Nothing else.

---

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

Must have been a bunch of right wing tools fighting for the left in the Spanish Civil war too, or with the Sandinista's, or in Cuba, or.....

---

Stalin ordered the Communists in Spain to attack the Anarchists. Not what I would call good left wing behaviour.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

I call bullshit. Progressives in Amerika will cast their vote for those who will represent them, and right now that is neither Obama nor McCain.

---

Once again I will ask someone to explain how a McCain presidency will be better for the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

Stalin ordered the Communists in Spain to attack the Anarchists. Not what I would call good left wing behaviour.

The Sandanista's are democrats, Cuba is different (and complex) yet again, just because the USSR found geopolitical reasons to support them doesn't mean they shared the same political view completely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Once again I will ask someone to explain how a McCain presidency will be better for the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
I was challenging the notion of Frustrated Mess that being leftist means never picking up a gun.

---

Not in this thread. In this thread he said:

quote:

---

You can't be left wing and support wars of aggression. You can't be left wing and support imperialism and exploitation. Killing Afgan civilians is no more honourable than killing Iraqi civilians and expanding a war into Pakistan is no more honourable than invading Iraq.

Obama has made it clear he stands with the forces of power and oppression over the powerless and the oppressed. That is not left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
As someone who will actually be casting an absentee ballot....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is that what you disagree with?

---

Violence is by its very nature aggression. Overthrowing, even the most oppressive regime is a war of agression. Innocent lives will be lost. Prentending 'the left' has never done this is whitewash of history. It is also utter bs to be blunt. The left has picked up the gun, often, for what those involved saw as noble reasons. But an innocent bystander doesn't much care if you are singing The Internationale as they become a statistic in your war of liberation.

It is dangerously naive to think that a stray bullet, or bomb or whatever is more or less moral if it comes from the 'right' or 'left' side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Ah, this explains your dogged determination to cling to Obama. For you, this is no academic debate among Canadians who don't get a vote; your own concience is on the line on this one.

Tell me, will there be anybody on that absentee ballot besides Obama and McCain?

---

I haven't seen it yet. It should, as it has in the past, show all the candidates on the ballot in Ohio where we moved from many years ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Please sign up for remedial reading 101 right away.

---

Thanks for the personal insult.

That is always a breath of fresh air. Never ceases to amaze me that those who lecture on the inadequacies of others, are the first to resort to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
You interpret your way, I will interpret my way.

---

The typical armchair progressive I have been running into since my University days. They rebel against Mommy and Daddy's affluence by spouting all kinds of radical rhetoric spending all kinds of money to look poor and tell those of us who actually grew up in working class radicalism we aren't pure enough.

You realize that much the same "argument" as the one you've been making has been used, by Liberals in this country, to silence the NDP voters?

Real, substantial policy differences. Like actually bringing the troops home. Or a health care program. Something substantial and lasting. Edited to add: and, these differences should be something we can expect the candidate to live up to, unlike some Liberal books of promises in this country that, well, never seem to get implemented or that their failure is somehow the fault of their political rivals, like the NDP, in Parliament.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Of those US citizens old enough to vote, 57% of them actually voted in 2004. Canada is slightly better, somewhere in the mid-60's, probably due, in large part, to fewer calculated hurdles such as a confusing or difficult registration procedure. Millions of people express the view that voting is irrelevant, or at least not very important. In fact, their numbers are larger than the numbers for any particular candidate.

Another, related issue is that voter turnout over the last 40 years is steadily declining in the USA. This decline is highest among those who, in the past at least, are the most idealistic segment of the population - young people.

Just a cursory look at voting and it seems that many are "voting" with their feet and seem to be rejecting the "substantial" differences between the candidates.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Canada is slightly better, somewhere in the mid-60's, probably due, in large part, to fewer calculated hurdles such as a confusing or difficult registration procedure.

---

1988 75.3%
1993 69.6
1997 67.0
2000 61.2
2004 60.5
2006 64.7

A steady decline since 1988 with a slight blip in 2006. We also have the problem of extremely low participation of young people. A very good case could be made, on this information alone, that an increasingly large minority - which may become an absolute majority if current trends continue - of Canadians and Americans think elections are cosmetic and not important. These aren't simply a few disgruntled leftists - most of whom probably vote for one candidate or another in any case.

[ 05 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And of course as we all know, whom we vote for in the local riding has absolutely no bearing on who gets to be the next Prime Minister...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:

Once again I will ask someone to explain how a McCain presidency will be better for the world.

It will not be, despite his faults Obama would make a heck of a lot better president than someone like Ralph Nader. In America's screwed up electoral system in this election the real choices are Obama or McCain. I for one would much rather see someone like Obama as president than 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain.

---

Why don't you explain how Barack O-bomb-Iran, Pakistan, and fuck over the Palestinians yet again, will be better for the world?