Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Saturday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Sunday »

A Bit of Biden




Quicktime Video 13.8 MB | Duration: 09'55
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

So predictable that Obama would choose a pro-war, pro-imperialism, pro-corporatism guy like Biden. He chose Biden not because Biden is the "change" or "hope" veep, but at least partly to ensure the corporate power elite that Obama intends to them serve diligently and that they'll have nothing to fear from his presidency.

Compare Obama's choice of Biden with Nader's choice of Matt Gonzalez, a really impressive guy.

Yeah but compare Nader/Gonzalez chances of winning with Abe Lincoln returning from the dead. We will have a corporate imperialist president, that is a given in 2008, and perhaps for a long time to follow. Not a happy fact. But a fact nonetheless. Do you prefer the psychopathic extreme right wing bigoted hyper violent anti-democracy version? That would be the Republican ticket. Or would you prefer the pro-business, pro-labor, pro-democracy, pro-choice, pro-constitution, pro-environment version that represents sanity and decency above greed and total hate? That would be the Democratic ticket, and I think the choice is quite clear. I have met Gonzalez, and I have great respect both him for Nader. They're not in this race. They do however run the risk of handing it to McApocalypse.

oops typo - "for both him and Nader," i meant :)

Given the varying views and opinions of differening Americans, there will never be any one candidate who pleases the majority of Americans. Overall, however, it is usually the more conservative candidate who wins the election. This year, thanks to Nader and the Clintonistas/PUMAs/No Quarter/By the Fault/etc etc, McCain might well be the next president of the United States of America.

Over the past forty years, Republicans have held office for twenty-eight of those years, and Democrats have held office for only twelve of those years.

Richard Nixon 1969 to 1974 Gerald Ford 1974 to 1977 (Nixon plus Ford = eight years) James Carter 1977 to 1981 (four years) Ronald Reagan 1981 to 1989 (eight years) George Herbert Walker Bush 1989 to 1993 (four years) William Clinton 1993 to 2001 (eight years) George W Bush 2001 to 2009 (eight years)

If the Democratic candidates feel that they have to move to the right to be elected, don't be surprised by that.

Americans are fairly moderate people whose sources of information are overwhelmingly corporate, so its not surprising that Democrats move to the right. Consider American media's presentation of the issues:

(1) Prior to the Iraq war, the McClatchy newspapers were one of the only media sources that made much of any attempt to question the Bush administration's pack of lies - most of the American people were treated to their choice of cheerleaders: CNN, NBC, FOX, etc. Five years into one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in American history, Charlie Rose - on "liberal" PBS network - did a show in which he interviewed war "critics" and supporters. Funny thing though, not one of his "critics" was actually a critic when the war began! He had on neocons and liberal war hawks - that was all - because, as the media told us, we were all for the war before it began.

(2) In every other developed country in the world, universal health care is considered normal - even by conservatives! We're not talking about just "socialist Europe", but places like Japan and Taiwan as well. In the US, the idea that the government might serve as the insurance carrier (i.e., we'd have socialized insurance) is presented by the corporate media as if it were socialized medicine - the media has carried water for the right on this issue forever. Remember when Zaphod was actually surprised to learn that the US has the most expensive per capita health care system in the world - and that's with almost 50 million uninsured! How many Americans know that the bureaucratic slice of their insurance premiums is vastly larger than the bureaucratic slice of their medicare taxes?

How many Americans know that the US spends more on its military than every other nation on the planet - combined? When was the last time you saw any corporate media outlet suggest that we might be spending too much on "defense"? Is it any wonder that every politician deemed to viable by corporate media pundits - Republicans and Democrats - all support spending more still?

By and large, Americans are ignorant of the issues, and American corporate media aims to keep it that way.

So, Joe Biden is gonna run for president in 2016 at the age of 73. I thought 72 year old John McCain was too old to run for president?

I'll you what - I promise vote against Joe Biden if he runs in 2016, if you'll promise to vote against John McCain in 2008.

I could always vote for Cynthia Mckinney.

I can't help but think that Obama would win in a landslide if he'd move to the center instead of further to the right. By center I mean the mainstream opinions of the majority of the population, not the center of the political spectrum (which is far to the right of the population).

If Obama promised single-payer public healthcare, tax-raise for the wealthy, withdrawl from Iraq, no attack on Iran, nuclear arms reduction, promised to force a two-state solution on Israel, to sign environmental agreements with the rest of the world, and so on, he would not only be in line with a majority of the population on all of these issues, but he'd wipe the floor with McCain if he properly defended such positions against attacks from the corporate media.

BTW, I'm not at all convinced that Nader/Gonzalez couldn't win if they were allowed to participate in television debates and were given proper attention by the MSM. Their positions, in contrast to Obama and McCain's, are those of a majority of the population. That's a good start, at least. (In fact, in a real democracy it would be the starting point of all candidates with a chance of winning.) Nader and Gonzalez are also far more charismatic and impressive rhethorically than even Obama. I really do think that if given a fair chance, they could create the necessary momentum to at least have a well-above-zero chance of winning. This is pure speculation, of course, since Nader will never be allowed to participate on equal terms with the other two candidates. But Ross Perot proved how dangerous a populist independent candidate can be if given a fair chance.

If Obama promised single-payer public healthcare, tax-raise for the wealthy,
His tax policy will increase taxes for anyone making over $605,000, and tax cuts for anyone below that, with the biggest cuts at the bottom, as opposed to McCain, which has a regressive tax cut planned, with the biggest tax cuts going to the wealthy.. There's a Washington Post article about it a few months back.
withdrawl from Iraq, no attack on Iran, nuclear arms reduction,
One of the major things Obama did while in senate is trying to focus on the reduction of nuclear arms.
promised to force a two-state solution on Israel, to sign environmental agreements with the rest of the world, and so on, he would not only be in line with a majority of the population on all of these issues, but he'd wipe the floor with McCain if he properly defended such positions against attacks from the corporate media.

Agreed. I think what obama MUST do between now and November is focus more on these specific policies, how his tax cuts are progressive, how he's going to help the health care system, etc. while continually showing how mccain wants to reduce taxes for the richest 1% and all of his other anti-worker pro-corporate policies. This year, he'd probably sweep with that sort of platform.

Kristian Z:

I like many of Nader's positions and ideas - however, I do not indulge in wishful thinking.

BTW, I'm not at all convinced that Nader/Gonzalez couldn't win if they were allowed to participate in television debates and were given proper attention by the MSM.

I am convinced, but the point is moot because it rests on an assumption without any basis in reality.

... if he properly defended such positions against attacks from the corporate media.

But here is where we part company. I think you are being incredibly naive if you think Obama would be where he is in terms of funding if he had had to go up against corporate media from the beginning - and if you think he'd not be overwhelmed by the corporate media now if he tried to adopt these positions now. (What state/country do you live in?)

I think what obama MUST do between now and November is focus more on these specific policies, how his tax cuts are progressive, how he's going to help the health care system, etc. while continually showing how mccain wants to reduce taxes for the richest 1% and all of his other anti-worker pro-corporate policies.

This is more like it. If the US was anything like the country in which Kristian's strategy would work, do you think that John McCain would be foisting his ridiculous 'drill here, drill there, drill everywhere' energy policy? The policy is absolutely dumbfuck stupid - but has it cost McCain in the polls?

hmm. interesting points. well, as a small donor (20-50 bucks here or there when i could afford it) to the obama campaign, i disagree with any assertion that he is beholden exclusively to his large corporate donors. in fact i am glad corporations are helping finance him. for some of them i expect it is insurance in case he wins, in other cases it is due to real (dare i say it) hope that we can move beyond this bizarre disaster in which our federal government has become a cartoon villain.

quoting Kristian Z:

"BTW, I'm not at all convinced that Nader/Gonzalez couldn't win if they were allowed to participate in television debates and were given proper attention by the MSM."

i believe they would still lose. but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. they should certainly be in the debates, and be covered by the mess (sic) media.

but they wont be. not in 2008. so what do we do to set the stage for that to happen in 2012?

we need to elect the democratic presidential ticket and maintain and increase a dem. majority in both houses of congress for the following reasons:

  1. to clearly and utterly reject and refute the policies of the hate and war and sadism administration, and

  2. to see what will happen when we have a president who speaks complete sentences in english, is not a psychopath, and enjoys at least the tentative support of most reasonable people in america and the world.

even those (like myself) with legitimate criticisms of obama (FISA fiasco for example) and biden (RIAA champion), even we can see that our disagreements with the policies of our candidates are TRIVIAL compared to: defending the constitution, restoring the rule of law, and hiring qualified brilliant people in every federal agency (FEM fo' xample!) that has been rendered utterly useless by the stupidity and fear administration

k?

let's get this done, i believe great things could follow if we remain engaged, and do not succumb to cynicism or indulge ourselves with idealism at this stage.

oops, "FEMA" not "FEM" ;) doi

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives