Friday, January 18, 2008

The more things change, the more they stay the same! (Or Friday's photo "Joke of the Day")

On January 3rd, Amy Goodman hosted independent journalist Allan Nairn on Democracy Now! in which he linked candidates to advisers they are consulting as architects of their 2008 presidential platforms.

It was interesting to see in our next president, many of the same old faces that have dominated American politics for decades, many of whom were presented in the context of being "ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world."

A few of the connections were Hillary Clinton and president Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright; Barack Obama and President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; Mitt Romney and Blackwater Worldwide's vice chairman, Cofer Black; Mike Huckabee who claimed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone he had consulted, which Bolton has denied. (As we're learning, Huckabee, a man of the cloth, plays very loose with the truth.)

For the most part, these are all some pretty scary associations. But perhaps the one that sent me the most shivers was John McCain being advised by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (a man whose policies cost McCain five years of his life in a North Vietnamese prison camp)! That is, until yesterday.

Perhaps you heard yesterday's speculation of McCain's choice for a vice president should he gain his party's nomination? Why, they mentioned none other than senator Joe Lieberman! The hilarity of that greatly helped relieve a lot of my worry over McCain's dangerous association with the international war criminal, the "honorable" Henry Kissinger.

Obviously, history of 2000's presidential election is lost on McCain. (Thankfully.)



Nona said...

I'm having some difficulty figuring out who to vote for. As much as I'd like to see a woman become president, Hillary Clinton is too hawkish for me. I'm also turned off by her campaign's attacks on Barack Obama.

I was enthusiastic about Obama until, in a recent debate, he expressed his approval of nuclear power and soon after he cited Reagan as an agent of change. Give me a break!

I then decided to vote for John Edwards because of his populist message, but then I looked as his voting record when he was in the senate and his words don't match his deeds.

I'm down to Dennis Kucinich now - who has no hope of winning.

Any advice on how I should vote? Or maybe I should just sit it out?

fran said...

Ewww! I am having a hard time getting past the picture of Lieberman with that creepy expression, I can't tell if he's got something up his derriere, he is passing gas, or he is just smug over having pulled off winning as an independent, after being ousted as a dem, then post election- turning totally Reich wing.
His eyes seem to follow you when you move...
Ack! Make it stop!
Lieberman is foul & I don't think McCain has a snowball's chance unless Diebold "fixes" the election. Who wants a pro war president?
I don't mean to be age-ist, but these guys look like they should be headed for a retirement home... McCain is 71, and Lieberschmuck is 66.
(or is that 666) ?
.... Mmmmmiiittttt seems to be emerging on the other side of the fence.

enigma4ever said...

they make such a cute couple...
sitting there...
all chummy planning their 100 year war...

dada said...

Nona: Absolutely no advice to offer from here. Certainly Obama's Reagan praise was revealing although I don't know of what?

1.) He wasn't alive during the Reagan era, or 2.) just another political opportunist cozying up (& that's my nicest way, the "PG rated" way of saying that) to political ideologists I absolutely abhor?

And, talk of Kucinich, he makes way too much sense for this screwed up nation. He probably represents what 90% of Americans want: universal single payer health care (HEALTH); immediate phased withdrawal from Iraq & establishmt of a Sec. of Peace cabinet post (PEACE); withdrawal from WTO and NAFTA (JOBS); saving Soc. Sec. from privatization (SECURITY); etc. etc.

But Americans aren't as concerned about those things as they are about the "real" issues as determined by the media. Besides most Americans have never heard of Dennis Kucinich.

Fran: Talk about opportunists, Lieberman is one of my favorites. Re this election, I'm placing my bets on Diebold (or whatever its new name is).

enigma (and all): my apologies to everyone, I didn't intend to make anyone ill by posting this photo. But in retrospection, what the hell did I expect, huh?

eProf2 said...

Re: Nona's plea for a complete candidate, my sister sent me this little diddy.

New vocabulary phrase -- Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for President put forth by either party in the 2008 election year. It appears to surface every leap year,(but especially in 2008)!

Nona said...

At this moment, I'm leaning toward voting for Edwards in the hope that he means what he's saying and / or to vote for what he says, not what he has done in the past.

It's probably safe to assume that he won't win. I never vote for the winner in the primary anyway.


Fran said...

As for me--our primary is the caboose- Oregon votes May 20th. The rest of the country will have already voted & the decision will most likely have been made by Feb 5, Super Tuesday. So I am not sweating out the primary election in my state-- the rest of you people can decide. I'll just linger here in my Blue State of mind & watch the show.

Not like I have much of a choice. Many will have dropped out by the time we vote. We are counting on both you & the press to eliminate candidates.
Either through the voting process, or by silencing their voices & not allowing them to participate in the debates. Ain't this democracy grand?

Truth be known, I wish they made a uniform date in which all primaries are done (throw out the caucus crap-- dk posted a glimpse into that process on her blog).

PS The Lieberman photo is still creeping me out.

WeezieLou said...

have you noticed that little joe's eyes follow you when you look to the right or left....?