"Obama's Message of Hope"

Post by **stilltrucking** » July 29th, 2007, 10:55 pm

Interesting blog. But she sure has to mention his middle name a lot. I wonder what her point is about that?
Anne Coulter light?

http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of ... 283466.php

Post by **eyelidlessness** » July 29th, 2007, 11:02 pm

I'm curious.

Exactly what is Obama's political platform? I know it's a little trite, but I really don't know.

Post by **stilltrucking** » July 30th, 2007, 6:54 am

He has put out some well thought out position papers on everything from Iraq to health care. I am not up to speed on them. I have only read and heard some good things about them. But this issue I have been following closely. I had to go through a couple of pages on Google to find this bit. The first page of hits was all about his position as of January of 2007.

They say there is more energy in the coal fields of the Illinois basin than all the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. The coal industry in Illinois is a pwerful lobby.

This is his latest position, as of June 2007. I am starting to distrust Google. Do you know a better search engine that keeps more current? I sometimes wonder if the Google searches are not cleverly manipulated to emphasize certain results.

Obama yields to a greener side
Under pressure from environmental groups, the Illinois Democrat hedges on his support of coal as an alternative fuel.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
June 13, 2007

WASHINGTON — With pressure mounting on Democratic presidential candidates to adopt hard-line positions on curbing global warming, Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday backtracked from his long-held support for a controversial plan to promote the use of coal as an alternative fuel to power motor vehicles.

The Illinois Democrat made his announcement with little fanfare — in a dryly worded and technical-sounding e-mail sent late in the day from his Senate office to environmental advocacy groups — and did not mention the issue during an appearance at a Brentwood gas station, described in a new Times blog, designed to shore up his green bona fides with a renewed call to nationalize California's ambitious goals for reducing carbon levels in fuel.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3260.story

Until it started to attract derision in the blogosphere, Obama even prominently featured a supporting statement on the "energy issues" page of his campaign website from the coal industry's top lobbyist, Kraig R. Naasz, applauding Obama's "leadership" in helping "make greater use of our most abundant and affordable domestic source of energy: coal." But Obama recently backed off his support for liquid coal after the environmental movement and the media shined an unwelcome spotlight on his him. After weeks of abuse from environmentalists, he issued a "clarification" that he would support only coal to liquids projects that met the kind of standards laid out in the Tester amendment. That won him praise from the environmental movement, but his vote on the Tester amendment has only revived the criticism that he's too willing to sacrifice the environment for home-state polluters. (Obama also voted for Bush's heavily polluting 2005 energy bill, largely because of the subsidies it included for the ethanol grown in Illinois)
.
Clinton's reasons for supporting liquid coal are harder to divine. Like Obama, she's compiled a generally pro-environment record, but also like him, she's surrendered to polluter lobbyists on some key issues -- for example, supporting the logging company International Paper in burning highly toxic tires at a major facility in upstate New York. But there are no major coal mining interests in New York (outside of the New York-based hedge funds who own a large share of the power and mining industry). Nevertheless, she's consistently supported subsidies for coal, if not with the gusto that Obama has brought to the cause. She usually explains it by touting what she says is coal liquefaction's ability to reduce America's reliance on foreign oil (economists doubt this proposition; liquid coal is so expensive to produce that it's likely to only displace domestic sources of oil, which have significantly higher production costs than Saudi, Venezuelan or African oil). Still, she seems to feel divided on the issue; when the Senate voted on the Tester amendment, she stood on the Senate floor and waited until almost all the other senators had cast their votes before announcing her support.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... iquid_coal

On an unrelated note maybe. THis guy is attacking Obama's earlier position in January
The guy hates coal so much he likes nukes. He thinks they are safe. Jesus H Christ talk about optimists.

I take some flak (though less than in the past) for my support of nuclear energy. As it happens though, all of my writings about nuclear energy derive from, specifically, my anti-coal posistion, and more generally, my anti-fossil fuel position. I think nuclear is the best and safest option for replacing fossil fuels, but I support any other alternatives, including renewable fuel. What I don't support is fossil fuel shell games.
I believe that climate change is the most serious threat to the world that has been encountered since preliterate times.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/13/133724/104

One more unrelated note

In the coming weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to issue a regulation that will extend 1 million years into the future.
The timescale of the regulation, which deals with the disposal of power plant nuclear waste, is unprecedented territory for the EPA.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6525491

I still find myself a hopeless political romantic at the tender age of sixty six. I am still victim of the great man delusion. The great leader who comes along and rescues his people for a generation. I think I got that from reading Gibbons The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire. Just when things seemed at their worse some new emperor would appear and reverse the fortunes of the Romans for a while. But always the spiral was downwards.

The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.

A Few Words In Defense of Our Country

I missed being able to vote for JFK by one month. I was a true believer in 1960. Johnny I hardly knew ya.

1968 was the year that broke my political heart.

Somebody said that after 1968 we became a generation of might have beens.

Please pardon long ramble.

Post by **e_dog** » July 31st, 2007, 8:49 am

did you actually read all of Gibbons' masterpiece, or TDAFOTRE as we historiographic hipsters fondly call it.

?

Post by **stilltrucking** » July 31st, 2007, 9:22 am

no I did not finish it
i only got through the first 1500 pages
I think the whole thing runs about 3000 pages in the Modern Library edition.

Post by **stilltrucking** » August 1st, 2007, 5:04 pm

Oh lordy
I just don't know any more
Obama trying to prove he is not soft on communism?
Woops I mean he is not soft on crime
No wait
Soft on terrorism.
I am glad it will all be over before I get to vote in a primary.
It will all be over before Texas holds its primary election.

Then it will be so easy
All I have to do is pick one from column A

Obama's "Right War"
01 Aug 2007 08:50 am

As President, Barack Obama would order attacks on terrorist camps in Pakistan even if its president, Gen. Pervais Musharraf, refused to give permission and would link American aid on Pakistan's progress in rooting out its terrorist havens.

That stance, one part of the multifacted counterrorrism strategy Obama unveils this morning, is tougher than the more considered approach of the Bush Administration, which has generally avoided antagonizing its ally in public.

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will,"Obama will say say, according to excerpts his speech released by the campaign. “As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan. “The speech has goodies for all parts of the political spectrum. In endorsing pre-emptive, non-authorized terror raids in Pakistan, Obama is answering a threshold question about his willingness to risk international criticism in order to defend U.S. security interests. He also does not hesitate to pinpoint the source of the U.S.'s major existential threat: Islamic radicals. Closer to home, Obama promises to end "torture" and extraorindary renditions, to strengthen partnerships between federal agencies and launch a new public diplomacy effort to improve the American image aboard.

Left unstated in the excerpts provided by the campaign is an idea Obama promotes on the campaign trail: that electing Obama would itself be a major blow against anti-American propoganda.

Obama also:

-- Says his anti-terrorism strategy is predicated on a withdrawal from Iraq
-- Calls for two additional combat brigades to be sent to Afghanistan
-- Says the war in Iraq has made the U.S. more susceptible to terrorist attacks
-- Defines the major threat to U.S. security as "violent extemists" who pervert the Muslim faith
-- Proposes a $5B "shared security partnership" to "forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa."

The Republican National Committee pre-sponded to Obama this morning by claiming that he has a "weak" record on national security.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... ht_war.php

Post by **e_dog** » October 25th, 2007, 9:16 pm

i've said it before, Obama can't win cause Americans confuse im for Osama bin laden.

so does Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney: “Just look at what Osama - Barack Obama - said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all the different types, to come together in Iraq. 'That is the battlefield. That's the central place.’”

this Romney can't be president 'cause he'll put his foot in it. startin' a war with words, in diplomacy.

Post by **hester_prynne** » October 26th, 2007, 2:55 am

Obama is the New Guy on the Block!!!!!!
I think that is what most people in favor of him are banking on, bottom line anyways.
I dunno.
I think it's weird....all this money, and "high falutin candydates" acting like they aren't circus folk and sham wizards. It's downright painful to watch at this point. At least Barnum and Bailey weren't trying to run the country....

H

Post by **e_dog** » October 27th, 2007, 4:33 am

Obama's no bettern Hillary.

gone take us deeper into war.

Post by **jimboloco** » November 2nd, 2007, 3:21 pm

Post by **e_dog** » November 23rd, 2007, 7:17 pm

THEY SAYS oBAMA BE BEATIN' HILLY IN i'WA.

well, maybe the Clinton's ain't gonna 'gin.

?!

Post by **jimboloco** » November 25th, 2007, 11:01 am

i don't see any diff between the top three
really

i sent ten bucks to dennis the menace
will send ten more to see him re-appear

Post by **e_dog** » November 25th, 2007, 9:56 pm

dennis kuzinich is the best
but he won't pas the test
gotta get in bed with the corporations
their mighty dollar only salvation
he says he'll stop war in iraq
that just puts republicans on attack
mode. better take hillary's stance.
let the republicans keep their shoes n also dance.

demo-crats don't wanna win.
they just wanna drink champagne and gin.

Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

"Obama's Message of Hope"

"Obama's Message of Hope"

Who is online