Obama for Change

Yesterday, I heard an extraordinarily creative musical rendition on the radio of many of Obama's most inspiring speeches. The music really inspired hope for positive change. But a platform of unspecified change scares me silly. I become petrified every time I hear Obama talking about change.

I guess no one remembers that George W. Bush ran on a platform of unspecified change, also. It was originally going to be change from executive sexual promiscuity. And change is what we saw plenty of. Change from economic strength to the death of the US economy. Change from brief wars in Bosnia to prolonged wars in the Middle East. Change from progress for a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians to the declaration that the legitimately elected leaders of the Palestinian people are terrorists, and piles of dead bodies in Gaza. We also saw the change from knowledgeable experts leading our government agencies to leadership by crony insiders who sabotaged their own agencies rendering them impotent and useless. Another change was the transformation of the USA as the strongest military power on Earth to Blackwater holding that current position. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

In one speech, Obama said there is nothing wrong with hope. I tend to disagree. Hope feels good but in Buddhist philosophy, hope is categorized as delusion. Hope is nothing more than a feeling of optimism, not necessarily based on the facts. At this point in history, no one can achieve public office without assistance from the mainstream media which is owned by big war-profiteering corporations. Therefore, you can't get to be President without selling out to the big corporations that control the public airwaves. Considering that Obama has to be a corporate sellout by definition, and promoted himself on the same platform of hope for change as George W. Bush, I am very apprehensive as to what changes will befall our already battered nation.

Response to question: Why Isn't Kucinich President?

You ask why we aren't making Dennis Kucinich president?

It is because the corporate owned media prohibited him from participating in the debates. The corporate owned media pre-selected our candidates for us. He would not collaborate with the big corporations. That is why we are not making Dennis Kucinich president.

When the corporate media prohibited Kucinich from the debates, all the other candidates should have refused to get up on to the stage for the debate. If they had any courage, they would have boycotted the debates. Since the remaining candidates didn't boycott the debates, it became obvious that only the corporate collaborators would be allowed to speak on our public airwaves.

Kucinich took it to court saying that the airwaves belong to the public and therefore the corporations that control the media don't have the legal right to exclude him. The neocon judge ruled against him.

Debate is a misnomer because debate implies that there is an opposition with which to debate. Since the corporate media excluded the opposition voices like Kucinich, it was a forum and not a debate.

Kucinich is not president because the neocon propaganda convinces people to vote against their own best interests.

Kucinich is not president because he is not a charismatic leader but a funny looking vegan.

Kucinich is not president because he has a populist platform instead of a vague promise of "change."
I ask, change from what to what?

We just had 7 years of a president that lied every step of the way. Kucinich is not president because the American public prefers liars.

Kucinich is not president because he refuses to play the pretend game that the majority of members of Congress like to play.

Kucinich is not president because the fascists already rule the USA and make billion dollar election campaigns and conventions as a veil of myth to keep the American public drowning in lies. Only liars and neocon collaborators can be president at this stage of American history. Democracy is dead.

Bitter and discouraged but always in Peace

Presidential Candidates for War Profiteering

Now that all the progressive peace candidates have been eliminated from the presidential primaries by the war profiteering big media companies, I was pondering on which corporate sell-out candidate I would choose to support in the upcoming primary, Clinton or Obama. Although I would love to see a woman president, Clinton is a warmonger and neo-con Democrat. Therefore, my heart goes toward Obama.

Obama has charisma but lacks a platform. He is walking a narrow line, self-censuring lest he rub anyone the wrong way with any definitive statements. His track record has voted unanimously for every war resolution and war-funding package that has passed through Congress. His platform of change was the exact same platform that George Bush ran on in 2000. We are all now reeling in shock with all the anti-democratic changes that George Bush has put through which has brought the 232 year-old American experiment to its knees. Can we tolerate more change? Change from what to what?

I looked into the future today and gagged with nausea at what I saw. If Barak Obama wins the Democrat (I hate to call it “Democratic” since it is anything but democratic when it excludes the voices of peace candidates and sabotages its own members) Party nomination, then the neo-con Republicans will play the race card and foment race hatred to frenzy levels to win the White Supremacist votes. And our neo-cons on the Supreme Court will ignore or eliminate penalties for hate crimes. The hate-mongering neo-cons will successfully divide the non-white majority of the population so that the White Supremacist minority will overpower the people of color majority. Although McCain isn’t necessarily a racist, he will collaborate with the neo-con racists to fulfill his need for power. He just can’t wait to be the new neo-con front man. We then may see another neo-con Republican having stolen the White House with a platform of hate and division.

If Clinton wins the Democrat Party nomination, the macho-chauvinist card won’t have as much weight with white voters as the race card. Dirty politics will ensue but Clinton will have a better chance of beating a neo-con Republican. If Clinton wins the presidency, she might consult with Bill to help pull the nation out of the economic pit the neo-cons have left it in. He has already successfully done this the last time the neo-conservatives left our nation deep in debt. Beside the chance of pulling the nation out of an economic slump, the rest of business will be as usual set in the precedent of the Bush presidency. I wonder how many signing statements Hillary might compose? Clinton is a neo-con, corporate sell-out. Under Clinton we still have more wars and more war profiteering at the expense of the people of our nation.

That leaves me and the American public in a real quandary as to which candidate to support in the upcoming primary. I still don't know who to vote for....