By Manila Ryce
Published Thursday, January 10th, 2008, 4:26 am
Filed under: Videos: Debate, Videos: Political, Videos, US Politics

5 Responses to “Democracy Now! Debate on Barack Obama”

1. 

   This is an important post and I am going to write about it and link to it.

   Just an hour or so ago, I posted something about the utter vitriol of the MSM and of politics in general these days. This is an example of at least some more informed exchange of very different ideas. This kind of thing is essential to democracy even if some of those interviewed might go down your aforementioned “lesser of two evils” road, which is, as you said- anything but!

   I must say that my initial reaction, without thought was- do I have twenty minutes to watch both YouTube segments? Which was a very surface level reaction. Yes there are errands to be done, a resume needs to be written if I am to be employed again, I have some other posts I want to write, etc etc. So what?

   This is huge. We are electing a president at this pivotal point in history and I do not have 20 minutes to use learning more? So I put down my “list” for the day and clicked on the button.

   And I am so glad that I did.

   I too respect Dyson but I think he has gone down a thorny path here. Glen Ford is not as familiar to me, but he made such excellent points and so intelligently.

   Again, regardless of their opinions real things were said here. Unlike so much of the sound-byte spew.

   If we don’t have twenty minutes to watch, read or learn about who will next lead this nation, we are surely screwed indeed.

   FranIam
   01/10/08 at 6:58 am
   

2. We have been accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils so long that we have learned to not demand anything more than it.

   There’s a cynical part of me which believes that politicians by their very nature are liars and manipulators and the things they do accomplish are far less substantial that the things we want to be accomplished and need to be accomplished.

   That being said, Obama rubs me the wrong way a little bit for the same reasons. We have good reason to be skeptical of anyone who uses the rhetoric he spouts.

   Comrade Kevin
   01/10/08 at 7:12 pm
   

3. The very fact that Obama has been able to receive such huge, mostly positive press is reason enough to not trust him. The corporate leaders would never allow us to hear from a truly progressive candidate. As the front runner or near front runner, I automatically assume he can’t be trusted.

   Andy
   01/10/08 at 8:02 pm
   

4. This is a great post, I found it through FranIAM. I’ll just copy and paste my comment that I left on her blog,if that’s ok.

   For once,I’ve seen real debate on Barack Obama and it was so refreshing. I am in the camp with Ford, when Barack Obama speaks of adding 100,000 more military troops and Marines, how does anyone think that’s going to come about. You never hear Barack talk about lifting blacks and whites who are poor,out of their poverty. He has a dream…but will it end up being our nightmare. A draft? Is that how he plans on building our troops?

   Dyson said that Obama’s ideological matix from which he emerges and the grid that he’s attemted to deploy is radically different from Condi Rice and Colin Powell, but is it? Will he keep Condi Rice in his administration?

   The argument by Dyson to the “let’s get him in office first, and THEN we’ll critique him” is a very bad idea. I want to know who he is before he’s nominated.

   The area that Obama lives in Chicago, Hyde Park, has two sections. One is very high class, high income. Many professors and elite live there. Then there is the south side of Hyde Park. You don’t want to be seen there after dark and even in the day, you have to be careful. He sends his kids to the schools that are better, and fails to recognize the struggles of the schools that are not in his immediate area. He claimed during a debate that the Chicago schools were some of the best. Sure…if you have money and live in the better areas! He totally turned his back on those areas, that are primarily black and poor in order to make a dubious point in a debate. No one called him on it,they just took it for truth.

   Ford made a good point, why do you think guys like George Will are fascinated and approve of Barack Obama? It’s easy, he is closer to them than he is to our own party.

   I also like that the entire clip of what Hillary said at that event about MLK and JFK. On the news, I’ve only seen the part about what she said about Johnson, they leave out the part where she points out the work and suffering that MLK did before he made his speech about dreams. They leave out the part about JFK being a war hero and fighting for civil rights. Obama has done NONE of those. The only thing he has done since he earned his degrees is make speeches and run for office. He’s no MLK!

   Those videos were well worth the 20 minutes to watch them. Thank you so much for sharing them.

   mary ellen
   01/12/08 at 8:13 pm
   

5. One would think that it was a good idea to actually read what Obama said as opposed to merely listening to the reaction to his words by a pundit. This is the quote that is cause so much flak:

   “This administration’s first Secretary of Defense proudly acknowledged that he had inherited the greatest fighting force in the nation’s history. Six years later, he handed over a force that has been stretched to the breaking point, understaffed, and struggling to repair its equipment.

   Two-thirds of the Army is now rated ‘not ready’ for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency.

   Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That’s why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

   But adding troops isn’t just about meeting a quota. It’s about recruiting the best and brightest to service, and it’s about keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve. It’s about providing funding to enable the National Guard to achieve an adequate state of readiness again. And it’s about honoring our veterans by giving them the respect and dignity they deserve and the care and benefits they have earned.

   A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women’s ability to succeed in today’s complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. It’s time we recognize these as critical skills for our military, and it’s time we recruit and train for them.

   Former Secretary Rumsfeld said, ‘You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want.’ I say that if the need arises when I’m President, the Army we have will be the Army we need.” barackobama.com

   According to Wikipedia, the number of personnel in all branches of the armed services totals 1,419,212. (It was like 3,500,000 in the 1950s.) adding 92,000 soldiers to the military would be an increase of 6.48%. (65,000 plus 27,000 equals 92,000, not 100,000.)

   According to PBS, there are currently “499,000 active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. That’s a third less than when the U.S. fought its last big war in the Persian Gulf, in 1991.”

   That means that just the US Army was at 748,500 active duty soldiers in 1991, so the current figure of 499,000 active duty soldiers is a reduction of 249,500 troops. Adding 65,000 active duty soldiers to the army would be adding less than a fourth of the difference between present day and 1991 troop strengths. If Obama added 65,000 active duty soldiers tot he army, we would still have 184,500 less soldiers than we did in 1991.

   And if you want to talk about the cost of soldiers and how they relate to military costs, you might want to compare them to military costs in relation to categories like weapons procurement, weapons research and the military share of interest on debt. I have far fewer negative feeling about military costs that involve employing people compared to cost to promote nuclear weapons, ’star wars’ research and overpriced fighter jets.

   Maybe it is a good idea to look at the whole picture in relation to what Obama actually said, rather than focusing one pundit’s knee jerk reaction to a small portion of Obama’s words.

   I cannot begin to understand how questions like “Will he keep Condi Rice in his administration?” are pertainant. Why would Obama keep Condi Rice? Because she is black? I thought that the whole argument was that he was not black enough for those that are making these statements. You can’t have it both ways.

   Zaius Nation
   01/13/08 at 8:50 am
   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>