Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSo Much for "Inevitability"
Barack Obama dealt Hillary Clinton a devastating blow in Iowa.It wasn't just his decisive win in the caucuses. Watching the speeches after the vote told you all you needed to know about the candidates. Obama, surrounded by young supporters, gave the speech of his career--embodying optimism and inspiring his supporters with a sense of nobility and mission.
What a different face the United States would project to the world under President Obama. Young people, including young women, are inspired by what his leadership says about our culture--that we are a multi-ethnic nation that can unite around the idea of democracy, equal opportunity, and justice.
Although having a first woman President would be historic, too, you don't get that feeling from Clinton.
Hillary, grappling with her third-place finish, stood surrounded by ghosts of Clinton Administrations past--a sad and puffy-looking Bill over one shoulder, an elderly Madeleine Albright (she of the infamous assessment that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. sanctions were "worth it") over the other. Clinton talked about change, as usual, and she served up her usual pablum: "We are going to reclaim the future for our children."
Hillary spoke in generalities and platitudes. Her speech stood in starkest contrast to Edwards, who also had a disappointing night. He needed a win in Iowa to fuel his come-from-behind campaign and invite the cash he's lacking to pour in from unions. But while Edwards talked in stirring detail about the people whose cause he champions--like the woman who died for lack of a liver transplant, while the CEO of the health insurance company that declined to pay for her operation made an obscene salary--Hillary's message boiled down to "vote for me. I can win."
Since she lost in Iowa, it's hard to see what is left.
Edwards denounced corporate greed, and threw down the gauntlet--the power of money in our country to hijack our democracy must be stopped. It was rousing and passionate and most of all, specific.
You get the feeling Edwards will find a way to continue to fight for what he believes in. Hillary and Bill will go home and spend more time with their massive egos.
But the night belonged to Obama. "They said this day would never come," he told the cheering crowd. "You've done what the cynics said you couldn't do." He spoke to New Hampshire voters, too, about voting for a more unified country, under a President who can overcome the ugliness of the last eight years and appeal to our better nature: "If you give me the same chance Iowa did tonight, I'll be that President."
The details were not so sharp, though. There was no promise to tackle particular special interests, ala Edwards. Obama said he will expand health care "the same way I expanded it in Illinois." It's a striking claim. It reminds you how recently Obama was a mere state legislator. Even small-state governors who run for President have more reason, as executives, to claim credit for progress in their home states. Obama, in the Illinois health care initiative he refers to, actually played the role of conciliator to industry, making the Health Care Justice Act more palatable to lobbyists, according to a revealing piece in the Boston Globe.
Still, the symbolism of his candidacy, and his victory, counts for something. Insider status, establishment support, and machine-like precision lost to pure grassroots passion and a more idealistic vision of what America could be (along with some very skillful organization and some very helpful cash). It's pleasant to indulge for a moment in the feeling Obama stirs up.
Ruth Conniff covers national politics for The Progressive and is a voice of The Progressive on many TV and radio programs.
© 2008 The Progressive
66 Comments so far
Show AllAnd so much for the inevitability of Obama.
It's a wide open race after NH. Maybe, now that it's a horserace, we will actually get to hear some dueling rhetoric between the candidates regarding REAL change, the kind of change that John Edwards is talking about.
We don't need a woman, a black man, a white man, a uniter, a smooth talker or a negotiater as president, what WE NEED is a FIGHTER, and Edwards is a fighter. He has been knocking the chip off the shoulder of corporate America since he got out of law school, and they're afraid to get in the ring with him or even talk about it.
The only way to take power from these bastards is to beat it out of them, and that is what John Edwards is all about!
EDWARDS '08
Barely Human, Hillary has voted for some of the most obnoxious neocon bills, such as the Kyl-Lieberman act freeing Bush to attack Iran and -- inexplicably since it wasn't an issue at the time -- came out for a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I can't imagine that she really cares about flag burning, so I can only surmise that she thought it would somehow get her some right wing votes. That's crazy -- the people who are that far right wouldn't vote for Hillary if she sprouted a halo and had a personal endorsement from the Almighty. Like hubby Bill, she'd be, as Michael Moore has said, the best Republican president we could elect. Still, a good Republican president who calls herself a Democrat is better than the raft of religious crazies and warmongers the GOP has on the menu this year.
Cicero, I hope your scenario comes true -- I'd like Edwards to get the nomination, but it doesn't seem to be in the cards. Obama is pretty close to Edwards in much of his thinking, and an Obama/Edwards ticket might be in the offing. If you saw the ABC debate Saturday, they were doing a tag-team on Hillary -- maybe the fix is in for Edwards to throw his support to Obama if Edwards finishes two or three in NH and SC. Edwards endorsing Obama just before Super Tuesday would sink Hillary for good, so it would be a good move for Obama.
Tailcap wrote: "I'm a dreamer. I have a dream that one day our country can live in peace without endlessly inventing bogey-men we help create like Osama in order to have a reason to feed the military industrial complex over $500,000,000,000 a year to keep us safe."
I share your dream, Tailcap, but it's not going to happen overnight. The election in 2008 is just the first step.
Tailcap wrote: "Call us 'Dreamers' that's okay. MLK had a dream too."
Obama as president would be MLK's dream coming to fruition.
Vern, Obama is a good politician and he's learned from the failures of Kerry -- if you stand up there and recite the details of your health care proposal you're going to bore most people to tears. Look, FDR and JFK both engaged in uplifting talk, and they also did things to back it up. Don't judge Obama by the standards of Bush Junior.
I agree with RSJ. I think Obama could be worked with, unlike any of the Republicans.
Clinton, on the other hand, I believe to be a neoliberal in progressive clothing, and would in fact be as bad as many of the Republicans. (Remember GATT and welfare repeal. The left wouldn't have let a Republican get away with that.)
Ruth Conniff celebrates the destruction of the aura of inevitability around HRC's candidacy, and I share in that sentiment. But the true sense of inevitability being manufactured by the media, and which we should guard against, is that the 'realistic' choice at this juncture is one between Clinton vs Obama. The other candidate that did better than HRC in Iowa, Edwards, has been relegated by the media to a status more comparable to that of Richardson: i.e., somebody who is still in the race but just in theory.
Let me share with you a fantasy I'm having. Edwards manages to do better than Clinton in the next few rounds of primaries. Thus, objectively, he should not be ignored any longer, but the media are quite stubborn when it comes to sticking to their pre-determined ideological frame. But under the circumstances I'm fantasizing about, such persistence would become increasingly awkward and hard to justify. That's what I would like to witness. How would they justify the continued imposition of that false frame on us?
Look, I am getting sick of the blatant ageism employed in these Obama puff pieces. Would it be too much to ask progressive writers at least, to focus on the ISSUES that make the triangulating sell-out Clinton years--and the stranglehold of the Clinton machine on the party as their own vehicle to power--something we would like to CHANGE from, rather than casting it as some generational divide? Some of us progressives have been battling the Clinton machine and inevitablity for years. The argument could be made that the idealistic young are prey to noble-sounding platitudes over substance, like pop culture fads crazes that masquerade the fact that the candidate is simply a continuation of business as usual with a slick format of smiley-face hope as sort of an escape hatch for the present dismal reality. Right out of the Bush playbook:
Bush 1 campaign theme:
"Don't worry, be happy"
Bush 2:
"I'm a uniter, not a divider" compassionate conservatism.
BigJoe31, thanks for the OPINION piece written by a conservative Republican that plucked quotes out of context. Did you happen to read Mr. Kagan's bio at the bottom of the page?
"Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy. He has been advising John McCain's presidential campaign on an informal and unpaid basis."
An adviser to the neocon John McCain, slamming Obama for not being 'left-liberal' enough. Oh, brother.
As for the comments here that Obama is not the perfect progressive -- you're right.
In 2000, I supported Ralph Nader, the closest thing then to a perfect progressive candidate, with my money, time and vote. What did it get me? Nader's been marginalized as a nut by the Dems, and unfairly blamed for Gore losing. (Gore won both the popular vote and the Florida vote, if the recount had not been stopped by the Supreme Court. Rather than make an issue of the illegality of the SC's ruling, Gore caved and let Bush have it. None of this was Nader's fault, but he's made a good whipping boy for disappointed Democrats.) We also got eight years of the worst president in history.
In 2008, I could vote for a third party that I don't entirely agree with, or I could vote for a major party that I don't entirely agree with. The third party is going to lose this year; the major party has a good chance of winning.
I'll likely vote for Kucinich in the primaries, if he's still around, or Edwards but, if it's Obama in the general election, I'd rather have him than any Republican. None of these people are perfect, they've all taken corporate money to some degree, and Obama obviously believes he must tack to the center to be more palatable to white middle-class America. I have met him and know members of his family; he is, at heart, a progressive and, while he may not do everything I want, he'll be a thousand times better than the GOP candidate. Sometimes, you just don't get a puppy for your birthday and it's time to grow up and stop crying. Politics is a dirty business, but we sometimes get an FDR from the process. I don't know if Obama will turn out to be another Roosevelt, but I do know he'll be much better than any Republican.
Common Dreamers, you do know there is a sleazy underhanded Internet campaign by Republican operatives to try and defame the Dem candidates and get progressives to vote third party or not at all, don't you? Read and listen and educate yourselves and don't trust these comment trolls like BigJoe31.
Kucinich...that pathetic little prick.
How important are the issues when he threw his supporters at Obama and then claimed when cornered by his supporters as to why he didn't back the more progressive Edwards, that he was put off by Edwards connection to hedge funds. He might as well complained of his haircuts.
Any of Kucinich's true believers want to hold Kucinich accountable:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0dd41b74-33ff-11dc-9887-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
What nonsense. Obama is an admirer of Karl Rove and all of his methods. His candidacy is specifically designed to put a happy face on "change" and "hope" and anyone who falls for it might as well be a rube at the carny. Obama, like Hillary, has no program but the vaguest promises of a better world. Horseshit. They are both in the pay of the worst corporatists in the world and their "vision" is pure and simple opportunism.
Thank you for your reasoned response RSJ however you still failed to state what it is that distinguishes O-Balm-a from the other Democratic candidates besides having collected the most money and being the smoothest talker that makes you feel the best.
When enough voters get fed up with what Nader called the two-party duopoly then perhaps we can form a viable third party that is based on the needs of real people not coporations.
And you are right when you say no candidate or party is perfect. I'm just not willing to support the ones that like O-Balm-a want to expand the military and actually attack the Republicans from the right for not prosecuting the "war on terror" ruthlessly enough, hence the need for 100,000 more troops.
I'm a dreamer. I have a dream that one day our country can live in peace without endlessly inventing bogey-men we help create like Osama in order to have a reason to feed the military industrial complex over $500,000,000,000 a year to keep us safe.
Call us "Dreamers" that's okay. MLK had a dream too.
..ah, couldn't sleep. And all you so-called liberals that support Obama I guess you have no problem with spending even more money on the military to fight even more useless wars. That's his hope.
Obama is proposing 100k more troops and where are they going to come from? You guessed right- he'll have to reinstigate the draft because it may not be that easy to find 100,000 people willing to volunteer. I'm not sure we have 100,000 people left in the US who are economically distressed enough to risk their lives or brainwashed enough to join the military in order to create even more colonies for the profit benefit of Haliburton, Blackwater etc. unless you draft them.
If you support Obama and he wins and your kid gets drafted you have yourself to blame. Great hope Obama is! And that's the truth.
p.s. And now good night for real.
I agree 100% with tetti_tatti January 6th, 2008 10:48 am
And as for the the skinny kid and getting the youth vote. The younger, the more likely you are to fall for a good snow job. Well, I have teenagers and they are into "skinny jeans". They are "in" now. Perhaps its just a skinny thing plus being naive.
I, like RichM January 5th, 2008 2:05 pm
and seriousprofessor January 5th, 2008 6:17 pm
am still waiting to hear what it is besides hollow, feel-good, wishful and hopeful rhetoric that Obama has to offer.
What's he claiming he's going to do? Increase the military and be even more militarily belligerent than even Republicans? Oh please! I'm going to bed.
"Above all, get the NeoCons out…"
And get them out for good; not 2012 or so .. "Their Baaack".
I agree with those who express the idea that the choice among the Dems is easy at this point:
John Edwards
His anti-corporate, unabashed analysis is refreshing, and I believe it is stinging the ears of the establishment. Is he for real? I don't know. BUT ... it is imperative that the Right be tossed out in a "gutsy" way.
Many of us on the Left -- UNFORTUNATELY -- want to engage the American electorate in "conciliatory" ways, "reaching across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship." The Republicans don't do that and won't do that. The weak, "backing-down" liberal ways are for LOSERS.
Above all, get the NeoCons out.....
Check out this article linked below and then tell me how wonderful life will be under teh NEW neocon named Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027_pf.html
CORRECTION: I meant to write "actually, that's Hillary who is getting the most corporate money, although ROMNEY is a close second." Oops!
fedupwithpolitics
The Obama phenomenon is a form of mass hysteria, and after 8 years of lies and wars, it would be surprising if Americans were not just a little hysterical.
______________________________________________________________
I'm not sure that "the Obama phenomenon" is 100% mass hysteria, but it's certainly true that Amerikan corporate mass media, itself predicated on subliminal hysteria, embraces, absorbs, and amplifies "mania"s.
Pardon the unseemly reference, but during my curious, pre-Internet adolescence, I nervously accompanied a buddy to an adult movie theater. The film involved a man and a woman supposedly judging or rating sex performances. Of course, as the "auditions" progressed, the judges themselves became more and more stimulated until they finally joined the fun.
A depraved memory, perhaps, but useful as a metaphor for how the media responds to the slightest evidence of "mania". So indeed, Obama's Iowa showing was sufficient to launch the Mania Coverage rocket. Obama gets a boost from this self-propelled, self-validating, self-confirming coverage.
There's an Obama thrill in the air, but there's a virtual, manufactured thrill obscuring the actual thrill reported by Obama supporters. He's being touted as a wildly popular phenomenon-- Obamamania!-- just like Elvis and the Beatles. The media is already reporting that Obama is attracting excited kids to politics! It's reminiscent of all of the peculiar praise for J.D. Rowling for writing books that made reading popular again for kids.
If it isn't entirely hysterical, it's at least surrealistic.
Ronald White,
12;07pm post is my basic feeling also. I have said many times on CD and in person to active duty military personnel about deserting rather than taking part in an illegal, immoral, crime for the enrichment of a few. It is more honorable to stand up for truth then to follow by blind belief so many falsehoods this morally bankrupt government saturates the media with.
Keep reading, annis, but also watch him and listen to what he says and notice how he says it.
" but I think this is the time to appeal to America's better nature if it exists."
What do Americans think would be the appropriate expression of "better nature" if it existed ? I have been posting for months that the only mass movement that will end the occupation in Iraq quicker than anything else is mass desrtion by troops in the US or in Iraq encouraged by mass public approval for those desertions.
If a person doesn't have the courage or sense of self-worth
to apologize for personal and national crimes , then a collective better nature doesn't exist to appeal to.
What a rotten game Democrats are pulling on voters with Obama, and the idiots are drooling over this con-artist, as bad as Clinton:
--pro-Iraq War
--aggressive policy on Iran, war as an option
--NAFTA and other policies that have destroyed U.S. jobs, manufacturing and the economy
--grave compromises on environmental policy
--has said little or nothing about torture
--has cozied up to Bush
--cut supports out from under the poor; created a bubble of new millionaires, but underbelly of poverty
--health care that makes pharm corps and other vampires wealthy
--help corporations consolidate control over the media
--favors Big Money/Big Corps over "the little guy" almost always.
Democratic voters are pathetic.
to rich m and others who express doubts about Barak Obama: look at his record in Illinois: Barak Obama has always performed well in his previous "jobs" - there's his record. He has been successful and pro-active in everything he has done and he has been truly revealing about his character and views in his two books - especially the first one. Barak Obama has no baggage like the other candidates.
Barak Obama successfully brought into place in Illinois legislation that requires video taping of all interrogations by police - not just the "confessions." That was a huge accomplishment of hard work, direction, vision, and mediation-powers.
I want a President who will cease the trampling of human rights and basic needs of the American people and all peoples.
Why is is that people question the truth of a person's backrgound and words when it is available to them on the Internet with a little searching?? Why did no one in the MSM bring up Bush's record as Texas governor and his track record in his college days? Actually, many did, but all that DATA was virtually ignored - and look what we got.
Let's not only look to the current campaign statements but to the past record of a life - high grades in school, a solid career, a solid marriage, hard work, writing high quality books, - Barak Obama has not wasted his life in pursuit of a high office but day-to-today hard work in step-by-step goals.
This is what has gotten him where he is. I believe he will grow into a great statesman.
As of this morning, the delegate counts for Democratic Convention votes are as follows:
Clinton 111
Obama 59
Edwards 32
Richardson 11
Kucinich 2
These counts include the provisionally-committed superdelegate votes that are given to each Democratic member of Congress and Democratic party insiders. The superdelegate votes can change at any time because they aren't cast in concrete. At this stage they're called "endorsements".
Apparently the Clinton camp is in an uproar of fear about losing Clinton's current crop of superdelegate endorsements since she came in 3rd in Iowa. If she loses in New Hampshire, we can expect to see some of those 111 delegates shift to other Democratic candidates.
Here's a good site to keep up with how the Democratic delegates add up through the primary season:
2008 Democratic Convention Watch
Ah, so it's "hope" that Obama now offers. A faint echo of the old J. Jackson Rainbow Coalition slogan, "keep hope alive". Hope. Would that come via pandering to AIPAC or through associations with war criminals like Zbigniew Brzinski? A very funny thing, this hope business. It apparently sustains itself through support for agribusiness and by pandering to righties on the "republican" side of the aisle.
To paraphrase David Mamet's version of Jimmy Hoffa, the ruling class feeds "progressives" shit and "progressives" continue to believe they're eating cream of wheat.
The Obama phenomenon is a form of mass hysteria, and after 8 years of lies and wars, it would be surprising if Americans were not just a little hysterical. But unfortunately this hysteria is drowning out the anti-corporatist message of John Edwards. He is the only candidate who nails it on the head--we don't so much need "inspiration" as we need a government and economic policy free of corporate influence. We won't get that with Obama.
Obama has a Skinny, black Reagan-Clinton thing going that's driving the kids wild.
He promises to bring back hope and take this country back to the track that it was...that is back on track to the bringing of all of us holding hands together with the corporations because really we're all jus' regular americans from the filthy rich CEO of insurance company that denied the liver transplant to the girl who died. Can you see any difference? I can't! Can you? No? Good. No let's not talk any more about corporations or their obscene power, wealth and influence in society because really--all you need is hope.
That's what we need and Obama promises. A colorblind, moneyblind, blind blind society. Hope! Happy! And you know Repbulicans. Once a democrat becomes popular, even one that promises to work with them, they'll just be as nice as pie and not even make a whisper about race.
I agree with Obama. We don't need policies. We need hope.
In fact, I'm going to stop buying toilet paper I'm so confident.
I'm still hoping Edwards picks up steam in the following primaries..his rhetoric is so much more to the point (that is the massive elephant in the room that is the corporate dominance of the US political machine)..Obama did give an inspiring speech the other night though...and he could have been playing politics these last several years in hopes of appealing to centrists in his bid for presidency..perhaps he will be true to his roots..and stand up for the working man and the marginalized in society...but then again he "grew up in Hawaii and went to Harvard" hardly a marginalized existence...but I am hopeful that he will come around..after all a black president is a historic milestone that our nation is yearning for...in any event any democratic candidate is better than Mrs. Clinton....I don't know if we can survive another term of a corporate puppet..
He Ping!
geoduck; no, I don't think so. I've been around for along time and I know how people are. Furthermore, I just have a bad feeling about Obama, all the way around. I can't really explain why, but I do. Things just don't add up right. He hasn't been around all that long to have proven himself on any issues. Now, all of a sudden, he's getting all this press and hype. Call me paranoid, if you will, but something is just not right. As I said before, this election coming is too important to make any mistakes. Our future and the future of coming generations is on the line. We've already lost too much. We really have to be careful.
I disagree that America is not ready for a black President. Like most I have little/no faith in American voters but I think this is the time to appeal to America's better nature if it exists.
petsr4ever07, would Obama/Edwards help any, in your opinion?
Why is no one talking about the DLC? The Clinton's are both hard core DLC. In many ways they (and the DLC) are political failures (or devious successes!) yet they still have cult status, especially among those OVER 40. Edwards is DLC. His "progressive" "populist" message seems hard to swallow given his votes, his DLC membership, and his 10,000 sq foot house. (If being poor is so noble he could just give away some of his 10mil+ networth.) Oh, BTW you know who else is DLC? The guy who just endorsed McCain--Liebermann; the man who still holds the Democrats balls in the Senate.
I believe Obama and Richardson are NOT DLC. I am troubled no one seems to mention this when discussing matters. Obama is a largely unknown quantity. But whose policies sound like Clinton's by and large. Richardson is a mixed bag but good on some things. I think a Obama/Richardson ticket is not the worst outcome. But others may disagree. Many here seem upset (as am I) that the "democratic wing of the democratic party" is not being represented. Clearly, Kucinich is a "progressive" democrat and so is Gravel in a significantly different way--but baring a radical shift in consciousness they have had their campaigns effectively ended by the MSM and the democratic party. The vast majority of people do not go out and educate themselves on the net--especially the over 40. This is sad but alas true; I see it on the ground people.
There are some here that are disgusted with the Democratic party choices of the "frontrunners." (Some say the go Green Party. Well, I would support a viable Green Party but it isnt--and dont blame me.)
So I recommend that they SUPPORT RON PAUL. Yea yea I hear the screams already. But listen carefully: 1) he scares the establishment 2) he has some progressive and populist policies (end empire, end drug war, restore civil liberties, end corporate welfare/subsidies) that the "main" democratic candidates dont even have 3) he would start to take the republican party back to its roots (which look pretty good these days!) 4) pulling the republicans back to the center/in a different direction on at least some issues will have a big effect on what democrats (and republicans) can discuss and make headway on
5) the guy raised 20 million (the most of any republican) in the fourth quarter from over 50,000 people donating less than 100 bucks on average 6) Bill Moyers had him on his show!! 7) if NH independents vote for him (44% of reg voters in NH are ind.) he could beat the other republicans. He is hands down the best protest vote IF you dont want to vote for a democrat (or possibly even a "frontrunning" democrat).
I believe that Obama is the one candidate that the Republicans hope will win. Why? Because they know that at this time, a black man will not win--point blank. I know this may sound racist, but, believe me, I am anthing but. My first husband was black, as are my two grown children, and my grandchildren. And, even though Obama may get the votes of a lot of young people, alot of women and probably most of the blacks, he still doesn't have a chance. Believe me, I know. I live out here in North Dakota, and out here, even most Democrats wouldn't vote for a black man (and this isn't even the South). And when I think about states like Idaho, Utah, Montana and Wyoming---I just know it can't happen. And that's not even counting the southern states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisianna. And then there's Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Do people really think he can win the majority of any of these states? Let's get real. I would love to see a black man as President some day, but right now at this time IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. There was a time when I think Colin Powell could have captured alot of the white votes, but that was way before he sold his soul to the Bush Administration.
Let's face it, this next election is probably the most important Presidential election of all time. The Bush Administration and the so-called fanatical "Religious Right"
in this country have tried taking away all the freedoms we have fought hard for in this country in the past hundred years. They have all but ruined our country. That's why we just can't take any chances. We have to win this one, and we have to win it with the right person. One who will represent the good of all the people of the United States--all races, religions, and all economic groups. Someone who wants to get us out of Iraq right away. Someone who wants to see to it that every American has access to health care, and someone who can't be bought off and controlled by corporate America. That person is Dennis Kucinich. And if the mainstream media doesn't want us to hear him, that is all the more reason we should fight for him to win. Mainstream media has been bought and paid for too, so they aren't going to give anyone like Kucinich a chance to speak up on their watch. I hope and pray that Kucinich will decide to run as an Independent. If not, I hope that every one out there who is a Kucinich supporter will write his name in on the ballot. We can't give up, there is too much at stake.
The so called debate tonite was pretty entertaining. There was one point where they were all trying to make some point, at the same time, and it so hilar-y-ious. You goota give it to "em" though. I liked it when that asshole Charlie Gibson, steps on his own d#$k while asking Eddie a question on tax cuts.Ouch...thats gotta hurt charlie. He also hurt Hilaries feelings. No shit, those were her words.The people in New Hampshire are on the ball.You guys rock. Eddie did sound sincere, but I'm still for DK. This thing s far from over. Thanks Tex
Hillary or Barack O--they are both Bush-Lite so what has been accomplished? If you think the corporations who have given them tens of millions of dollars and other goodies like private jets to fly around in won't come around to collect on their "investment" you are living in the world of delusion.
"His biggest problem is he doesn't seem to take himself seriously as a presidential candidate — and it shows…")
I'm not sure I agree. I think it's everyone else who doesn't take him seriously. I don't want a president with star power, I want one who believes in the Constitution and in the law.
Kucinich all the way. I no longer vote for any candidate I don't believe in, locally or nationally. I have only one vote and it's not for the "lesser of two (or three) evils."
Barack Obama on the defensive as John Edwards commits to the middle class that "This fight is personal." January 5, 2008
(Barack Obama looking like Clinton; Bill Clinton.)
= = =
It was obvious; John Edwards was sincere, Barack Obama wasn't.
Edwards wasn't even talking to him or anyone else, just the audience; it wasn't an attack; Obama reacted like it was; Obama was backpedaling, losing his legs.
= = =
"Making sure we're listening to the American people." (pointing to John Edwards, indicating John Edwards is) Barack Obama, January 5, 2008
----------
Let's see what they (MSM, etc.) say tomorrow.
"This fight is personal." John Edwards, January 5, 2008
RichM,
Your first post seperated myth from reality. As long as he is still running, I will write in Dennis Kucinich on my ballot, in the California primary next month, and this November as well. Out of all the candidates put together, Kucinich has voted against un-Constitutional laws, going back to the Patriot Act and everything since. Why in the world would I abandon the 'People's' candidate in favor of the oligarch's candidates.
Americans have short memories and are easily manipulated. As a progressive person, I'll stick to the progressive candidate who has the best agenda for our country. DK all the way!
Kucinich is still the best guy out there, by a landslide, but at least Hillary didn't win. And Kucinich endorsed Obama, which is interesting and perhaps telling. After all, as someone else noted in a post under a different article, maybe Kucinich knows something about Obama that we don't.
I've read Kucinich's biography, The Courage to Survive, and there's no way a man who grew up under such difficult conditions could possibly endorse someone he felt would be bad for the poor and the middle class.
Like RichM, I am anxious to read an argument for Obama that relies neither on wishful thinking ("if only ...") or dogmatic assertion ("He's for progessives because he's not Republican!").
Evidence matters to me. Announced positions matter to me. Vague platitudes are weak.
Oh, this is so rich. After months of savaging Nader, Kucinich, and anyone else who challenged "common wisdom," the main-stream Dems are at each other's throats over Obama vs. Edwards vs. Clinton, each so cocksure that their great white (or not so) hope will bring them deliverance.
I hope they keep trading places in the primaries so that you completely tear each other apart.
RSJ (4:56 pm) - Here's an article from the WaPo from April '07 saying that Obama raised more $$ on Wall St than either Hillary or Rudy.
Obama Top Fundraiser on Wall Street
I agree with your comments on Kucinich (esp. "His biggest problem is he doesn't seem to take himself seriously as a presidential candidate — and it shows...")
I'm not voting for a "symbol" I'm voting for a president. Obama fails on every standard by which I've made my choices. The voices here who expose his empty rhetoric of "hope" (not to mention his dangerous pro-war, pro-corporate positions) only make me more determined to do what I can to help John Edwards win the NH primary. I'm off to make phone calls for him. I tell them they can hope for change, or they can vote for someone who will fight for change (and has a successful record to run on). Some people are still undecided here in NH, and one poll showed independents leaning towards Edwards over Obama. I hope it holds true.
The only thing that is inevitable is that the American people will continue to get fucked by their political whores in D.C.
Hoa binh
Best comment I heard on the absurdity of Mrs. Clinton claiming the future was the tableaux of the past surrounding her after she lost in Iowa, and someone remarking, "Really looks like they're building a bridge to the 20th Century."
RichM wrote: "Obama is a 100% status quo candidate. He has more backing from Wall St than any other candidate..."
Actually, that's Hillary, although Obama is a close second.
Speaking of Hillary, a friend of mine just returned from Iowa (he was campaigning for Obama) and provided me some insight on the Clinton operation there: Hillary's ground game in Iowa was staffed by regiments of 'alpha females' -- upper middle-class white women who were described as rude and pushy -- the kind of tone-deaf "you there, do it now!" people accustomed to getting their way. They were nearly as bad as the gloriously bored and spoiled-rotten representatives of the Big Media (BM). None of this went over well with the polite and laid-back Iowans; Hill's obnoxious advance team cost her votes among the pork-fed peasantry. It was also difficult to have a conversation with the Hillary Army, as they only thought in Talking Points: "Want to get some coffee?" "Sen. Clinton has a program to control coffee importation and help the American worker while preserving international free trade!" Worst of all, for reasons known only to themselves, the Clinton campaign was PAYING people to show up at her events. My friend encountered several Iowans who were given money to listen to Hillary speak. None of this looks good if she expects the Hillary the Candidate pilot to one day become The Truman Show.
In the past year, I have only found one person who is enthusiatic about Hillary's candidacy, and even she admitted that she was suffering from Clinton Fatigue to some degree. After twenty years of either a Clinton or Bush in the White House, it is time for a change. I think she'll come in third in New Hampshire, too, and she doesn't have a lock on any of the other primary states except, possibly, New York. I think it's all over but the shouting for Hillary.
As far as Kucinich, he has a great progressive voting record, respect for the Constitution, and a bunch of good ideas, but a tendency to sabotage himself by doing wacky things at public events, like babbling on about being a vegan (no one asked) or breaking into Tennessee Ernie Ford's "Sixteen Tons" during a speech. He also should have handled Russert's 'gotcha' UFO question better by turning it back on Rusty's Boy Timmy and exposing it for what it was -- a trick to make Dennis seem crazy and his policies irrelevant. Some of the Big Media have frozen him out because they were ordered to do so by their employers; others ignore him because they think he's nuts. Either way, he's not getting any free media and can't afford the kind you pay for. His biggest problem is he doesn't seem to take himself seriously as a presidential candidate -- and it shows. I like Dennis, but he doesn't comport himself in a way that would instill trust he can handle the presidency.
Daniel David (3:48 pm) -- Even for you, that's incredibly weak!! I asked why Obama should be trusted to stand up to corporations & the war machine. // I should have included, as well, "... & to defend the Constitution" -- meaning to end torture, shut down US concentration camps, restore habeas corpus, and renounce US government spying on its own citizens -- all issues Obama hasn't made a peep about, with all his feel-good happy talk.
And Daniel replies, "If we'll all just hold the guns through a couple of more primaries, you'll know the answer. He ... will or will not be ... confirmed as having the potential to win. If he can win and will be nominated then he's our man for us progressives."
How could any answer possibly be emptier than that? Our Arch-Democrat here says to just "trust" Obama, stop criticizing him -- and then if it looks like he can win primaries, then "he's our man." Daniel, does it occur to you that someone who can win is not necessarily "our man"? Bill Clinton won. Did that accomplish anything for progressives?
People, it's been noted before and bears repeating, Obama embraced and endorsed the odious Lieberclown over Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race--that says more than almost anything else about his politics. That right there means he'll never get my vote (and I wouldn't vote for Gore when he chose JL as VP either), aside from Obama's record as detailed here:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html
This has also been posted here a few times, but apparently the rah-rah for Obama crowd either hasn't read it or doesn't care. He may be a great orator, but he sure hasn't proposed anything concrete and I believe he's just another smooth talking bought and paid for political shill for corporate control and Empire. And then there's the well-documented religious angle that scares me. Or maybe he's just pandering to the evangelical crowd.
Obama was impressive in his Iowa victory but I have the same concern voiced by a blogger on daily kos- ie, I want someone who will Fight for me not one who will Hope for me. Compromising hasn't done the Dem's any good over the last 8 years unless I am really, really missing something.
I will cheer for Obama when he promises to restore the American Constitution.
OK, dmia (2:57 pm). If you like Obama so much, please explain why you think he should be trusted to stand up against corporate power & the US war machine. His support from Wall St is immense. He's on great terms with AIPAC. He has made threatening noises in the direction of Iran & Pakistan. He supports the concept of the "War on Terror."
How could a feel-good happy-talk "hope and unity" guy like this be expected to confront the forces in US society that need to be confronted?
Says Nathaniel Heidenheimer above:
"Obama strongly resembles Ross Perot in his appeal to the know-nothings who are either 17 or dont pay attention and just want to watch Football."
My response to you Nathaniel is that you can kiss my ass. I'm not 17 - I'm 47 - and I have a graduate degree. I don't watch football. I don't even watch commercial television.
Why don't you figure out WTF you're talking about before you make an idiot out of yourself. Maybe that's just inevitable. Or maybe Obama uses words that are to big for you to understand.
PS: Get spell check, jerk.
I am highly suspicious of any Democrat who talks of "bipartisanship." That has meant for a long time just enabling the Republicans.
I do want someone who WILL reach across the aisle...and slap those greedy bastards up 'side the head.
RichM is correct. The forces of greed will not be subdued by a case of the warm fuzzies over Obama or by joining hands for singing a few verses of Kumbaya.
As for Kucinich: His campaign was, and is, a waste of time and money. He has spent more time in Iowa than some of the people who live there and still was invisible in the caucus results. He polls single digits everywhere.
I think the most viable Democratic ticket at this point would be Edwards/Richardson. I say that with full knowledge of their past sins but I take this as a tactical/practical position. I might well vote for them and I'm not a Democrat.
If Edwards does make it, it then becomes necessary to watch him like a hawk and cause him all kinds of political grief if he strays. Something we did not do with Bill Clinton.
First of all, America does not need to be "changed." Changed into what? Supposedly, we already got the freedom and the Democracy. What's to change?
No, America requires a course correction, and a leader who can steer us out of Cheneybush fascism and back to the original coordinates laid out in the Constitution.
Dr. Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. The rest are on the take, and you so-called progressives know it but can't shake out of your Red v Blue habit.
Hi RichM--Have you seen this, http://www.4president.us/tv/1992/clinton1992hope.htm and connected the dots?
THE CHOICE FOR PROGRESSIVES IS TO STOP WATCHING THE RACES AND DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN COMMENTING ABOUT THE CORPORATE PARTIES' CANDIDATES!
It goes without saying that Hillary is a disgusting & unprincipled POS; hopefully, she'll be destroyed on Tuesday for good.
Edwards, on the other hand, may very well not be the real thing, in terms of opposing corporate power & the US war machine. (In fact, I'm quite sure he isn't the real thing.)
But the point is that ONLY Edwards is making roughly the right noises, & that those noises have value in & of themselves. If Obama becomes the nominee, the entire campaign year will go up in a fog of fatuous happy talk about "hope and unity." This can only deaden the public's consciousness of what the real problems are, & of who the real enemy is.
The enemy is not lack of optimism, or excessive "partisanship", as the empty-headed Obama types would like to believe. The enemy is the corporate oligarchy, & their war machine. A force like that can only be defeated by confronting it, & arousing conscious opposition to it. It's true that talking tough is not the same as confronting it (that's a very real danger with Edwards), but the Obama-ists want to believe that the monster will go away if we just pretend it's not there. That's what all his bullsh*t about "hope and unity" amounts to.
Obama is a 100% status quo candidate. He has more backing from Wall St than any other candidate, loudly embraces the concept of the "War on Terror," & backs Israel to the hilt. He says nothing against corporate power & is thoroughly on-board with the US war machine. It doesn't matter that he's black any more than it mattered that Condi, Colin Powell, & Clarence Thomas are black. In fact, despite Hillary's presence in the race, Obama is more like the 1992 Bill Clinton than any of the others -- he's the fake "change" candidate.
"FOR ALL SO CALLED PRGRESSIVES THE CHOICE IS NOW EDWARDS"
Since we are tossing out corporate created memes, why don't we toss out the phony progressive push for Edwards?
Edwards is a lawyer, he will do and say anything to win his case.
There is no evidence, no action to back up what Edwards says.
Kucinich is the real progressive choice, and anyone you have trusted who is pushing Edwards- It is time to start questions people's intentions(even Michael Moore who Kucinich people begged for an endorsement but he would not)
KUCINICH IS STILL RUNNING AND HE IS THE ONLY CHOICE FOR REAL PROGRESSIVES!
Edwards was so good at selling the war in Iraq- they put his speech on the White House website. Are we just as stupid as the Republicans that we'll believe whatever lies they tell us?
I believe that getting up close and personal helps Obama and Edwards, but does the opposite for Hillary, which contributed to her loss in Iowa. Obama and Edwards can speak easily, and seem comfortable with themselves, while Hillary projects a brittle and iron-fisted stridency. While these are personality traits and not their positions on important issues, I think people get important personality cues from this, and rate how healthy the candidates are in reaction to high levels of stress.
Though people voted for Bush despite the myriad of cues about his mental health, so what am I sayin'!
Would you care to share your knowledge of Edwards' "real agenda" with us non-omniscient folks?
The image of Killery flanked by two war criminals should be enough to destroy her candidacy. That these two infamous war criminals are her close advisors should be trotted-out at every opportunity until she withdrawls her candidacy.
It's time to start playing the type of Hardball Republican campaigns are noted for.
It is too early to start talking about the Clinton campaign as if it is already dead. I never liked Hillary, or her husband, although the Clinton administration wasn't nearly as bad as Bush's. I'm a life-long New Yorker, and I still resent how she used my state as a doormat to try to get back into the WhiteHouse, something she seems to believe she is entitled to since she was the First Lady for 8 years.
The Bush administration has been a disaster for all but the rich in this country. Clinton offers very little that makes her different from Bush. Her rhetoric may sometimes sound "liberal", but her voting record speaks volumes, revealing a conservative, pro-war, pro-corporate candidate who is the favorite of the aristocracy and the corporations.
About the best "proof" Clinton can ever offer that she is a "leftist" is the "persecution" she "suffered" all these years from the right in this country. Sure, she is one of those politicians many conservatives love to hate(mainly for not being conservative enough and for her personality, not because she's a progressive), but REAL, issues-oriented progressives have almost always been opposed to the Clintons. Both Hillary and her husband have been very slick in the way they pay lip service to certain liberal causes(with much assistance from the media), while at the same time pushing a conservative agenda.
The pseudo-liberalism of the Clintons is a media creation and nothing but. It is all hype and little substance. And these times demand substance, no more vague unspecific rheteoric about "change".
I support Edwards and hope he wins the nomination, Obama is a 2nd choice, since in many ways he doesn't seem much different from Clinton. At least Edwards is SPECIFIC, even if he isn't being completely honest about his real agenda.
Why isn't substance (Obama's candidacy) an issue? Could it be because corporate America doesn't wish it to be? Speech writers must be laughing all the way to the bank at the way so many of these bimbos buy into this crap.
Guys...these are the choices we have but seems the press try as hard as they do to call it of shape the story, the people of Iowa wanted a different script.
A lot of us have dreaded a Hillary Clinton candidacy, even though we knew even she was preferable to another Republican. If we're lucky, Iowa predicted something better for us. New Hampshire and South Carolina will soon tell us whether that was or was not a statistical fluke.
FOR ALL SO CALLED PRGRESSIVES THE CHOICE IS NOW EDWARDS OR Corporations.
Obama strongly resembles Ross Perot in his appeal to the know-nothings who are either 17 or dont pay attention and just want to watch Football.
Yes I know of Edwards background.
But for eight years opposition to the Bipartisan Corporate Agenda has been like a french horn without a mouthpiece.
Obamas rhetorica of bringing america together really means more bipartisanship with far rightist Republicans. YOU KNOW THAT THAT WILL NEVER GET US OUT OF IRAQ, EVEN WHEN THE SHOOTING STARTS UP AGAIN BIG TIME AFTER ELECTION SEASON.
Edwards offers-- to some degree-- the mouthpiece that has been so strategically withheld, the mouthpiece to the NATIONAL STAGE. READERS of Federalist 10 will remember just how important this is, and they know that it is the single biggest reason-- the lack of a national mouthpiece-- why the bipartisan coporate agenda has gone unchallenged for so long. I even sent Edwards 100$ yesterday,even though I am not naive about his hhistory.
He had his biggest fundraising day ever yesterday.
DK was toast before he ever got out of bed. This time he performed his swan dive even before the big boys took him into the back room, you know like in '04? Lay down lay down.
And no, Mr. Obama, this is not my first rodeo nor is it my first stump speech. Heh folks, enjoy the champagne and the balloons, but later, after you sober up, are you sure you want to wake up to this one's 'morning breath'? Try these questions:
Do you think you have a candidate who will:
Reject the Imperial Presidency with Action
Repeal the Terror Laws going back to Clinton
Repeal Nafta/Cafta – Exit the WTO/World Bank
Restore Roosevelt Legacy levels of Taxation & Corp Regulation & Support for Unions
Restore Domestic Mfg.
Provide single payer Medicare for all...
Or do anything to end Iraq....
You know, anything specific you can hold them too other than a promise to be wonderful and do their very best every day and to make America a winning team. Right. Sure. Of course. What else can we expect from our "people's" POTUS?
Any of these? NONE of these?
That'd be a good beginning. Maybe approve ERA as the cherry on the Sundae. We'd all be drunk in the streets. The takeaway: NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Judging from the behaviors I have witnessed and read of human history, the Richfilth will murder this country rather than allow a Participatory Democracy.
And that includes imposition of Martial Law and any other damn thing they want to do to us. Haven't forgotten about the 400000 bed gulags for $385mn (no bid) to KBR under the MCA? What's Mr. Obama think about that? I know, they can make a committee, someday, after the election, if they have the time, as the trucks roll to the camps. Dems, gotta love'em. Or not.
Still it was nice to see Ms. Hillary take one in the shorts. If you want to know who you're dealing with, watch them close when they lose. Do they flub-dub, are they a deer in the headlights, do they shake, do they stand there and take it and own it with style. That's where Class comes in, real Class, Dignity, not the money kind.
Haven't seen too much of that of late.
Pieces of 8.
At 3:09pm above, we're asked why Obama can be trusted to stand up to corporations and the war machine.
If we'll all just hold the guns through a couple of more primaries, you'll know the answer. He either will or will not be statistically confirmed as having the potential to win. If he can win and will be nominated then he's our man for us progressives. (That's because the other one is going to be a "proud-to-be" conservative.)