Is Obama Our Hugo Chavez?

[iman]

Many have said that this a sea change election. The far right seems to be discredited and in retreat, the centrist Democratic candidate will probably be rejected by the party and a candidate nominated who's politics are largely unknown to the electorate and his willfully and woefully ignorant supporters.

So, the question is: Is Barrack far more liberal than anyone else that has ever been a serious candidate? Will his bottom up campaign be populist enough to force major changes in US domestic and foreign policy.

The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama's voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA's ideological opposite, rates Obama's voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave no doubt that Obama's actual votes mark him as a traditionally liberal Democrat, not a moderate.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080106/news_mz1e6caldwel.html

[FONT=times new roman,times][FONT=times new roman,times]Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama's foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Subsequently, Martin Peretz -- an Obama supporter -- wrote at the end of December that he got the "shudders" when thinking about the foreign policy influence of "Zbigniew Brzezinski... Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley". [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times][FONT=times new roman,times]Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about Malley, whom he characterized as "the most horrific name on the list". He was particularly concerned about the impact on America-Israel relations given Brzezinski's and Malley's involvement. Brzezinski's lack of concern for the safety and security of Israel is well known. Opposition to his role in the campaign was voiced across the political spectrum[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. Peretz touched upon some of the reasons to be concerned about the role of Malley, which were further developed in an article on our site [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]that focused on a long series of articles Malley has written that reveal views that should give pause to all those concerned about the future of the America-Israel relationship.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html[/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]I welcome a major progressive change in America, but will Obama supporters accept a more European outlook and what will McCain make of Obama liberalism? [/FONT]

 

[syntax]

To answer your baiting thread question, "No."

You note that Sen. Obama has a rating of 97.5% from Americans for Democratic Action. You fail to note that Sen. Clinton's rating is identical to Sen. Obama. The only exception is their different position on the Iraq War. A reminder: He was against it; she was for it.

http://www.adaction.org/democrats2008.pdf

Their policy positions are markedly similar on most issues, so your attempt to label Sen. Obama as a "liberal" and Sen. Clinton as a "centrist" is unwarranted.

Bring on your next baseless smear. How about this one: "His middle name is Hussein."

 

[iman]

^There was nothing in the post about Hillary Clinton, it is about a different type of campaign and a different type of President than we have seen before. The post presupposes that Obama will be the nominee.

 

[syntax]

Many have said that this a sea change election. The far right seems to be discredited and in retreat, the centrist Democratic candidate will probably be rejected by the party and a candidate nominated who's politics are largely unknown to the electorate and his willfully and woefully ignorant supporters.

So, the question is: Is Barrack far more liberal than anyone else that has ever been a serious candidate? Will his bottom up campaign be populist enough to force major changes in US domestic and foreign policy.

[/QUOTE]^There was nothing in the post about Hillary Clinton, it is about a different type of campaign and a different type of President than we have seen before. The post presupposes that Obama will be the nominee.[/QUOTE]

If you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

 

[syntax]

He wasn't smearing Senator Obama , or baiting anyone..

I think it's a good idea for people to learn as much as they can about Obama...

Right, asking if Sen. Obama is like Hugo Chavez is not baiting or an implied smear. Hugo Chavez is an avowed socialist, has nationalized his country's oil industry, enemy of the US, ally of Saddam Hussein and other anti-American rulers.

Then, he uses a rating system to imply that Sen. Obama is too liberal for the electorate, but does not note that Sen. Clinton would have received the EXACT SAME rating had she not voted for the Iraq War.

 

[josher]

Ridiculously over the top premise.

 

[iman]

It's quite amazing that Obama supporters cannot think about Obama without comparing him to Clinton. That fact is probably because most of the Obama campaign has been anti Clinton.

The point is that Obama says he is a different kind of candidate and that is true. He is a movement candidate that has run a populist campaign as opposed to the top down Clinton campaign.

The Chavez comparison has to be taken relatively, but because of the nature of the Obama campaign and the prospect that an Obama Presidency could radically change the direction of the country, (which I applaud) it is a valid comparison.

Don't you guys know anything about your candidate?

 

[JackFTwist]

iman: the centrist Democratic candidate will probably be rejected

iman: There was nothing in the post about Hillary Clinton

syntax: you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

syntax: you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

syntax: you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

syntax: you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

syntax: you are not referring to Sen. Clinton, who are you referring to?

I suppose you are concerned about centrist Obama being defeated?

You deny your own words and deny your own posts. Incredible.

Deny your words as soon as they are spoken.

You are also incredibly childish for claiming that a man elected by 70% of the voters in Illinois is some far out leftist. Any lie will do, just like the lie of denying what you just posted as you did to syntax? Any lie? Sen. Clinton said last night she and Obama agree on almost everything. You calling her a liar?

You are your own worst enemy, and you do you your candidate a great dishonor. She deserves better than you.

 

[syntax]

Don't you guys know anything about your candidate?

Clearly more than you do.

 

[syntax]

About the rating systems,he used his, and you used yours...

6 in one , half dozen in the other..

It is the same rating system.

 

[iman]

In case none of you have noticed, the primary elections are almost over and Obama is the presumptive nominee. I will support and vote for Obama and will be pleasantly surprised if he wins. I believe Obama is more liberal than Mrs. Clinton and I am more liberal than either one of them.

The point of the thread is not a comparison of Chavez and Obama politics, they are obviously very different, but rather the source of their support and how much it will effect American policy.

I presumed that someone might actually have an idea of why they were supporting Obama and what difference he could make, but sadly you are unable to get past your hatred of Clinton. I presume now, you will go into a hate McCain mode. I suppose it is like asking the Venezuelan peasants about the Chavez policies and all they can do is chant the slogans they have been taught. Sad.

I wonder who you will hate after the election if Obama is elected and "brings us all together"?
But, if Obama is to be President, aren't you curious about how the country might change? You are in favor of change, are you not?

 

[syntax]

The point of the thread is not a comparison of Chavez and Obama politics

You start a thread entitled "Is Obama Our Hugo Chavez?" and now after failing to address every refutation of your assertions contained in it, the best you can do is state the opposite of your initial premise?

 

[iman]

You start a thread entitled "Is Obama Our Hugo Chavez?" and now after failing to address every refutation of your assertions contained in it, the best you can do is state the opposite of your initial premise?

The only assertion that I made is that Obama is a "movement" candidate rather than the standard political candidate. I presume that Obama will use his popularity (assuming that his popularity lasts through the election) to make changes in the direction of the country. Isn't that why you are supporting him?

What is interesting to me is that his supporters are unable to get out of attack mode and apparently have given very little thought to what an Obama Presidency would mean. The shallow thinking of his supporters is really shocking. All one sees is knee jerk reactions and programed responses.

While I never meant to compare the political positions of Obama and Chavez, I was simply comparing the nature of their "movements", the reaction of the devotees of both of them seem to be similar, i.e., RALLY THE PEASANTS AGAINST THE ENEMY!

 

[justgofaster]

Is Obama the Antichrist?


Film at eleven....