Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCommentators are talking, and rightly so, about how young voters are flocking to Barack Obama. Their overwhelming support gave Obama his Iowa margin, kept him just a few points behind in New Hampshire and Nevada, and contributed to his massive South Carolina victory. Young voters haven't always turned out historically, but they're responding to Obama's message, and together with his equally massive support from African Americans and strong appeal to independents, their passionate enthusiasm could help him expand the Democratic base enough not only to win in November, but to win decisively.
Obama also offers the chance to make this new generation part of an enduring Democratic coalition--because once young voters support a particular party a few times in a row, they're likely to gravitate toward that party for the rest of their lives.
That so many young Obama supporters are turning out to rally, volunteer and vote suggests that he might be one of those watershed candidates who really can bring a new generation into politics and help shape their long-term loyalties, permanently enlarging the Democratic share of the electorate. But because of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama, she risks destroying this shift just as it's beginning to emerge.
Look at the historical patterns: Studies from the past fifty years find that party loyalties tend to form early--for Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. It was true for the FDR generation, for those who came of age during the anti-war activism of the late Vietnam era, and with the young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office and whose compatriots have remained more conservative ever since.
Major historical events like wars and economic depressions can shift this. So can political scandals and personal crises and conversions. Systematic organizing efforts can also shift voters' worldview and context, particularly for those politically detached, which is one reason unions matter so much. Still, some major patterns get set early on, and that's likely to keep being true.
Generations need several elections to cement the pattern. The votes of 18- to 29-year-olds started shifting back in the Clinton years. Young voters gave Clinton an initial 9 point margin and increased it the next round, but their turnout dropped from the highest since 18-year-olds got the vote to the lowest in the same period.. In 2000, Gore led Bush among this group buy 3%, with Ralph Nader bleeding off another 5%. Led by increases in young African American and Latino voters, they were the only generation to favor Kerry, and did so by a ten percent margin.
These shifts accelerated in 2006. Fueled by the Bush administration's myriad disasters, young voters played a critical role, supporting Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60% to 38% difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a three to one split in the East to a three point margin in the South. They provided the critical margin for Senators Tester, Webb and McCaskill, and fed the victories of the four other victorious challengers. Had it been up to young Americans alone, the Democrats would have also won Senate campaigns in Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying just four.
The passion of young people for Obama's campaign is fueled by the Iraq war, an uncertain economy, major concerns about the environment and global warming, and the religious right's attacks on sexuality. But more than anything it's also fueled by Obama's eloquent insistence that change is possible and that ordinary citizens can play a key role. It's fueled by the sense that Obama's personal story anticipates the story of an America that moves beyond its divisions and tackles our fundamental problems. This group also seems to resist the idea that a presidency can simply be handed down like a dynastic succession.
Participating in numbers we haven't seen in decades, these new voters fervently want Obama to win. They're reaching out to enlist their peers and volunteering to help reach others. They can be a powerful force to help him prevail.
But if Hillary Clinton is nominated, this momentum will likely crumble. The young women and men who've been flooding the Democratic primaries and caucuses will feel betrayed by a candidate who's just finished doing her best to destroy the person they've invested their hopes in. And as a result, they may simply stay home. It's not just that Hillary is running against Obama. That would be fine. It's that she and Bill and their surrogates have relentlessly assaulted Obama's character, in a scorched-earth style worthy of Karl Rove. I've devoted an entire article to documenting just a fraction of these instances: her lying about his record (and her on) on critical Iraq and Iran votes, and his votes on abortion choice; her unleashing surrogates like civil rights activist turned WalMart pitchman Andy Young to explain how Obama really wasn't black enough or Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (a virulently anti-union corporate head who's backed Bush on issues like the estate tax and privatizing Social Security) to refer to Obama's youthful cocaine use, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. When Hillary says Obama has no right to build up "false hopes," and Bill calls Obama's vision of history "a fairy tale," how can Obama's young supporters not feel attacked in their own hope and dreams? Had Clinton run a less-harsh campaign, like that of John Edwards, she might expect to inherit Obama's passionate young voters--and volunteers. But given the virulence of her attacks, I just can't see them suddenly turning on a dime and enthusiastically supporting her.
Young voters are historically the least likely to participate. The failure of the Democrats to stop Bush's Iraq war has already made many cynical. Obama has reversed this cynicism, but if Clinton crushes the dreams of his supporters, a great many will stay home in disgust. Or, if they do end up voting, they certainly won't work to turn out their peers. As a friend said of his community college students, "the most active ones in my class say they won't even vote for her if she's nominated."
The same is true, of course, of African American voters. The Clinton campaign's attempts to cage Obama in a racial box (for instance by Bill Clinton's dismissing his massive South Carolina victory as just an echo of Jesse Jackson 's 1984 and 1988 campaigns) could have an equally disastrous impact on African American turnout if Hillary Clinton is the nominee come November. Clinton also risks the defection of people who fit neither demographic, but are simply so furious at her support for Bush's Iraq and Iran policies and her massive corporate ties, that they simply cannot let themselves vote for her. I get those responses every time I write on the subject. Taken together, if these groups stay home (and Republicans mobilized by Hillary-hatred turn out), it's easy to see how a candidate like John McCain could transform a prime Democratic opportunity into yet another needless defeat.
If the youth vote affected only the upcoming election, the stakes would be massive. But it's worse yet because Clinton's nomination would likely shift the future votes of a generation. If I thought Barack Obama were simply an empty suit, I'd be skeptical too. Like any political leader, he has his weaknesses. I wish he'd deferred less to the senior Senate leadership on issues like Iraq. But then I look at his record engaging and bringing together once-powerless individuals and communities, speaking out against the war, and linking our health care crisis to his mother dying of cancer while her insurance company tried to throw her off their rolls. I value his stress on empowering ordinary citizens to act. I see enough actions of courage and vision to suggest his presidency might just be able to equal the sum of his powerful words. Then I look at Clinton and wonder why she's fighting so fiercely against her fellow Democrats, after doing so little to fight Bush's destructive policies when he was riding high in the polls. I think this is part of what the young voters sense too and why their hopes have soared with Obama's campaign. If we dash them now, we may be paying for this choice for far longer than the next four years.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email sympa@lists.onenw.org with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles
64 Comments so far
Show AllI agree with Paul B. that there is a downside to getting a lock on power. Rogat speaks about a lasting coalition of democrats based on a political habit that forms when young people and other groups have voted the same over several elections - he uses the language "cement the pattern." A democratic party held in power in a changing world by an ossified voter base, sort of like today's GOP. This is a GOOD thing? Chessmen cast in concrete on a constantly changing chessboard? History has no trouble sweeping away fossilized power structures.
If we were smart we'd elect all of the candidates and keep them in a sort of firehouse ready to suit up as needed. We'd let Romney fix the housing bubble meltdown. When big business started to feed on us we'd sic Edwards on them. When the hottentots attacked us we'd unleash McCain. When the world got ugly and contentious we'd bring out Kucinich to pacify everybody. We'd use Paul to get us out of Iraq and Huckabee to handle God-related stuff. And I guess we'd use Hillary and Obama for the departments of experience and change respectively, if they could be a little more specific about those functions. We might even keep Bush, say in a cage in the capital rotunda where tourists could feed him pretzels. Okay, never mind.
There are only a couple more comments I would like to make. It is quite clear that many here are progressives or liberals who hate Hillary. I believe that some are shills for the Repugs who are sowing dissention because they are scared to death of her. This is standard operating procedure. Others simply refuse to acknowledge the political reality in this country. This is not Sweden, Germany or even Britain, the populace here is far more socially conservative and religious. So, save for a calamity, we can not expect to elect the "perfect" candidate. Maybe 15 years from now, but not now.
As attractive a candidate as he is, Obama does not have any experience in leading this nation in opposition to the most pernicious policies of the entrenched and powerful interests that are now in control.
Despite what many people have expressed here I believe that, not surprisingly, the corporate media support Obama (This is what Bill meant by "fairy tale') because they believe he will lose. This is reason enough for me to vote for Hillary.
Jeff Moehring February 4th, 2008 6:46 am
And their sleazy narrow little hearts will say "don't let the Ni%$er win".
I hate to say it but your right. I know people like that. I have to deal with them every now and then but I don't consider them friends. I also know a lot of people of all races including blacks that are worried about what the blacks as a whole are going to act like if Obama gets elected.
There's a good-sized chunk of the population of all races including blacks that that think a lot of black people need an attitude adjustment. I'm sorry but a lot of blacks act like we owe them. I don't owe anybody anything unless I've borrowed from them or they did something for me. I've known people of many races including blacks that I would help without them even asking. In a lot of people's opinion around here, the average black person carries a chip on his shoulder and is by far more racist than others. I don't think it's right, that it is this way, but that is the way it is right now. I try to get along but it's hard to get along with people who are rude.
Tomorrow when I go vote as a democrat it looks like I got three choices Hillary, Obama and somebody by the name of Jim Rodgers. Never even heard of Jim Rodger till today, can't even find a web site for him. I'm not going to vote for Hillary, I don't like any of her policies or her legacy. I'm thinking about voting for Obama tomorrow knowing full well he can't win in November. Hillary will probably take the state I live in but I'm going to try to keep it from being a landslide. If DK is still on the ballot well, I'm going to send a message to the people still in the race. Come November I will consider the issues and vote for them even if it's an independent.
I think it would be cool if we could vote for who we think are the best in each of the parties and then we could sort them out in November.
Obama isn't the candidate I would have happily voted for, but considering the case Loeb DOES make and the fact my son and his friends are (and have been) Obama supporters, I can face reality and vote for the future. We all then must demand that Obama live up to his positive statements and create a better America. Surely he isn't so firmly entrenched in the DLC as Billary.
It is up to us, gang. Vote, get your friends to vote, and follow up with a spirited and hopeful demand for positive change that benefits an America of "We the People" -- not the corporations. We have to go with what choices we have and then make it better. God knows we need campaign finance reform and more parties. Okay, we KNOW we aren't going to get those under McCain and Company. If you are Democrats, get out and vote for Obama -- better than Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and more of the same. Go for better. And make it even MORE better.
Remember, we elect them to represent us. Vote and demand the winner do just that. All of the current crew are right of America's true center but Obama is closer. Closer is better. We gotta go with what choices we have. Obama is closer to what I want than any of the others. Obama it is then. Get it?
I got exactly this far into that propaganda piece:
"But because of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama, she risks destroying this shift just as it's beginning"
Bah how stupid are we to even bother reading such crap. Young voters being energized can be read as inexperienced and naive youths are being misled, taken advantage of and the groundwork laid for yet another generation of disenfranchised and bitter Americans.
Also, Mr. Loeb, those actually paying attention have noted that attacks are coming from BOTH directions, so why are you seemingly so upset at those directed at your candidate but unconcerned about the other? Never mind, we know the answer, that you think us really stupid and gullible....or is that you?
zazmo February 3rd, 2008 10:45 pm
I read the article you directed me to, including the part about Obama's campaign finance reform activities. Nothing in the article qualifies Obama as a progressive.
Here's one from Zmag…
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12551
Excellent link. Obama may be considered to the left but he's still way to the right of center. There's an old saying (people need to remember and pay attention to old saying's) "You need to hope/wish in one hand and crap in the other to see which one fills up first."
Hoping/wishing someone is going to change and do the right thing is not going to get it done. The American people have to quit treating elections like popularity contest and vote on the issues. American Idol is a popularity contest. The election process, should be/ has to be, an issues contest. None of the existing candidates left on the democratic or republican tickets are even remotely supporting the issues the way the American people want them to.
All of this is true.
Problem is IMHO is that Obama is vague and running on a platform of convincing fascists to suddenly decide to become progressives because it is all about Hope, right?
Plus the ugly fact no one seems willing to speak aloud.
The country still has a whole hell of a lot of closet racists that simply will not vote for a black man or woman for President. Forget what they tell pollsters.
These idiots will go into the voting booth, pull the curtain tight and vote with their heart. And their sleazy narrow little hearts will say "don't let the Ni%$er win".
Sorry about using such filthy language. But I know those kinda people and so do you. They may not be even 10% of the populace, but that's more than enough to cost us the election folks.
I wish it weren't so but I firmly believe that we are not being honest about this.
I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
I gotta go to work but I'll look back tonight. I would very much like to hear what others think about this.
Loeb is a shill for the Democrats. His main job is to keep talking people on the Left from leaving the Democratic Party for fresher dreams and schemes.
I think the more likely outcome of Obama's election is that when it turns out he is just like the Clintons (they share the same pool of advisors and policy ideas), and in fact won by out triangulating the Clintons. he is the perfect cypher to entone in one breath abt some peoples struggle or effort in history, and in the next breath announce he is not abt the struggles of the past, only abt uniting us for the future (which will involve some unspecified element of change). He is the perfect reflective surface for people to infuse with their own misery and hope. I think the end result, once it is clear theyw ere grifted, and hard, the bitters and deep deep apathy that will grip the Obamaites will be breath taking.
And Loeb will still be around maundering on, whining when anyone questions his wisdom.
Paul Rogat Loeb: I value his stress on empowering ordinary citizens to act.
Loeb doesn't really want ordinary citizens to act, or he would talk about how ordinary citizens might act. But not even O'Bama talks about that in detail! Instead, both O'Bama and Loeb are trying to ride the progressive wave across America and will steer it right, very far right, into the DLC's pocket, after the election. Ain't that right, Mr. Loeb?
Ordinary citizens have always had the power to act, and act to serve their better interests, same as the society's better interests, by writing in third party candidates in the elections and voting "third party" in everything they do.
Everyone looks at the same picture from their own perspective. Obama getting money in order to compete in this election doesn't mean he will hand us to the corporations on a plate. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not. He got elected to an extremely corrupt state Senate, tried to pass a campaign finance law and got zero support. He did manage to persuade unwilling colleagues to agree to transparency in finance donations which was a step in the right direction and reduced corrupt campaign financing. He wanted to pass a bill ending police profiling, that didn't fly, so he settled for a law that the police have to document the race of people they stop and got an unwilling legislature to agree to that and it did cut down on profiling. He managed to get an ethics bill passed, sponsored a law for increased tax credits for low income workers and worked on a bill for subsidies for child care.
Prior to that, his job history was working to help the disadvantaged before and after he became a lawyer. I don't care if his "resume" looks thin. He's a hard worker, he's smart, his heart is in the right place and he's a fast learner. He also is very good at getting opposing sides to work out compromises. I want to give him a chance. I sure don't want to give any of those other three clowns a chance.
As JFK said, the only training for the Presidency is on-the-job- training. And before you leap to dis Kennedy, go watch "A Presidency Revealed" and see what Kennedy faced and how he handled it. It was Eisenhower who authorized the Bay of Pigs, knew it would be a fiasco, and didn't care, for he assumed Nixon would win - which he would have if Kennedy hadn't stolen the election. Kennedy learned from that experience not to trust the CIA and military brass who had been all hot for it. But he took full responsibility for the disaster and his approval ratings shot up to over 80%. The public forgives mistakes; they don't like people who blame others, especially when the buck stops here.
kathyodat
I wonder if there is anything important going on, while all this distracts people?
Oh, lookee at the BBC. "Snowstorms shut down China"
Wonder if that matters to CD as much as Obama-rama '08?
Naw, looks like it don't.
-matti.
As the spray-paint on the New Orleans walls says, "hope is not a plan", folks. It is just a feel good photo-op for people who would rather not tell us the details of any of THEIR plans.
OK, Obama has our attention - I'm still waiting for specifics that pass the smell test. You won't get universal care from Obama, and that alone shows his inexperience. Paul Krugman endorsed Hillary's plan as the one that is best able to insure everyone.
There are show horses, and there are work horses, guys. Hillary may not be enough of a lady, but she is enough of a leader. Pretty speeches aren't enough to get me excited anymore. I need PLANS that work. She may not be flashy, but she IS actually competent. And she's been through this ringer before. She might actually have learned a few things going through that, but like the good progressives we are, we can't wait to bury our wounded. Saves the other side the trouble, don't ya know. If we are anything, folks, we are helpful when it comes to our own execution.
You know, any time any of you would like to raise the money necessary to run (and when you find the guts), you can complain. But this is America, and the American people are going to pick two candidates for us. Get over your childish tantrums, and realize that one more NeoCon judge on the SC is all that is necessary to overturn a hell of a lot of progress. What will keep you warm then, the satifaction that you voted for Kusinich (or anyone else that you fell in love with), and when he/she doesn't win, you held your breath until you passed out? Have fun telling your grandkids that you voted for a losing candidate (in a GENERAL ELECTION, no less)because your personal principles were more important than their future. You can explain it while you pick plastic out of the garbage dump to melt into fuel.
The reason that the Repubs win, is that they traditionaly get behind their chosen candidate. And they scare enough of the middle to get them to vote against their self-interest. For god's sake, do we need to be doing the work of the Republican party? For once, can't we stop falling in love with our own sanctimonious voice long enough to try to convince people to vote WITH us, and not encourage them to vote against us? I don't care if you HATE HATE HATE Hillary. Slap on a happy face. We're supposed to win this in a walk, remember? But we won't if we keep shooting the front-runners every time they seem to be gaining speed.
For my part, I'm tired of losing the righteous fights. You Nader people were spoilers from the get-go. We told you he could not win, but you stubbornly told us that WE would be the one's who gave the election to Bush. Well, you were wrong. If less than 2000 people had voted for Gore in Florida, he would have won in the recount.As it was, over 50,000 people voted for Nader there, if my memory is any good. YOU DID LOSE IT FOR US. And those who voted for Nader in 2004 lost it for Kerry. Are we still going to debate that Kerry is exactly like Shrub? Bullsh*t.
You win. You are more progressive than us. There. Ya happy? Now, go out there and support the guy your FELLOW Americans are going to hand you. You do still believe in primary elections, right? Well, stop whining that your guy didn't win. Mine may not get the nod either. You don't see me cursing the darkness. Your vote is the light. If there is enough of a margin, there will not be 41-51%. It will be a blowout. But only if we are all pulling in the same direction, instead of insisting that our personal side should go first, or we don't move at all.
I'd just like to add that it seems like the people who support Obama really support him and are excited about him. The people who support Hillary are more the go with the flow types. How things change, the go with the flow types sticking with the female candidate. I like all the candidates actually. I just like the whole playing field, long live democracy! preserve the right to fair and honest elections! Demand public vote tallies, no more machines! No more machines! Paper Ballots!
All I think this proves is that there is no time like the present to get motivated and get out the vote!
The country doesn't need hope. That's the same arrogant top-down economist bullshit lingo misapplied to consumers up to their eyeballs in debt. An accurate analysis totally eludes them.
Fantastically wealthy investors need "confidence", hope, optimism, willingness to take on risk, etc. when playing the market.
Propertyless, debt-riddled, unemployed and under-employed wage slaves don't need "consumer confidence" or vague hope. They need better incomes, cheap housing-to-own, no more usury, health care, better opportunities to start their own businesses, etc. "Hope" is an illusion, a platonic proxy for the real McCoy.
kathyodat...
Despite how laughable it is that you'd direct me to a NY Times article to convince me of whether or not a candidate is progressive (the Times doesn't have a clue what a progressive looks like) I read the article you directed me to, including the part about Obama's campaign finance reform activities. Nothing in the article qualifies Obama as a progressive.
Zmag and the Black Commentator are two progressive Internet sources on the real Barack Obama
Here's one from Zmag...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12551
Oh my God! We better all run and vote for Obama based on the fact the greenest, least sophisticated, least knowledgeable, least experienced, most gullible and naive of all, the youth like him. Wow! Great reason.
Oh yea, there is one thing that is truly remarkable about Obama. He is living proof that almost anybody with a minimum of at least 30 hours community service is fully qualified to be the president of the world's most powerful country. His resume is extremely slim, and lightweight as it is lackluster.
It is also amazing how someone who has been in government for so short a time and accomplished so little can generate so much support. In that regard I agree he's in a class all by himself.
Here's my challenge to all you hope-smoking Obamist: Make a list of all of his accomplishments and all the wonderful things he has done in order of importance and post it.
Lastly, while I admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the CD toolbox I'm starting to think Common Dreams prefers Obama over Clinton.
Obama's response to Bush's state of the union speech, was much more than just happy talk!
Here is the youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNCALGHOC4
Cheers,
Paul Bramscher February 3rd, 2008 9:32 pm
obama is not the 'progressive' candidate. he is one of the most 'liberal' senators as the national journal noted. psychologically i believe an obama presidency would be uplifting (this ambiguous gift of charisma). but ultimately i see stasis and more movement to the left which is a subtle improvement. remember nader's campaign in '96, in a strange way this nader campaign was tolerated (i was hoping for those matching funds) b/c a dem was president. i think a dem pres gives activists room to not use fear as a motivator to move dems to the new 3rd party. the new 3rd party of the left (lets not forget the fundamentalists and the economic conservatives on the right are also unsatisfied with their center-right party) has to get traction in state senates, legislatures, and progressive cities. i believe america would be healthier if there were 4 or 5 political parties in america. i'm skeptical of the perot/nader bids b/c they didn't have that base/history before their respective contests.
ultimately paul, i believe history shapes people. america will change when the situation is so intolerable that the masses demand change (russia 1917/1991) we're not there, and the elites have developed more brutal means to subvert dissent (death squads, disinformation, censorship). it's important to try to sway the others gently and kindly (here have some food, 'i hear what your saying, but') to generate as much consciousness as possible so that when a crisis (nuke bomb, earthquake, economic depression, military coup) occurs the people will be prepared physically (not just the selfish hoarding food), politically and psychologically to respond. the people in venezuela were ready during the coup, the american public missed the boat dec/jan 2000/2001.
i think americans sense an impending crisis (i recognize the status quo is a crisis) and the youth are saying they trust a person who understands their culture.
what he'll actually do ? we'll have to wait and see......
please donate to the kucinich, sheehan campaigns..............
I know - I said that I was not going to read and participate in you people's discussions anymore.
I haven't for the last month - too depressing and cynical (I know, you all consider it being informed and REAListic).
Whatever.
And I haven't read the comments for a month now (I have also enjoyed CDs much more).
I saw this article - read it - liked it a lot.
I think the man has a point in many respects.
Depending on where you are coming from and what your pre-existing attitudes are, you could look at it many ways.
Me?
I was inspired and it really made a lot of sense - made me think.
I like what he is saying.
It's also the kind of position of a person that sees things through a filter of HOPE.
I too HOPE that his assertions about young people being inspired are true.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THIS COUNTRY.
A-fucking-men to that!I say to myself, "I wonder . . . I think I'll take a look and see what the usual suspects are saying about this. They must see something to inspire them here. Surely no group that calls themselves "progressive" could be cynical and pessimistic towards these words of hope . . ."
well . . . short story even shorter, you all cynical and trodden upon crybabies have remained consistently beaten up and are still whining full-force.
Geez, are you guys depressing.
And so RIGHT-- (that is sarcasm on my part, far from right in my opinion)
I got to about seven or eight comments and had to rant at you guys -
DISGUSTING is what I call you all - There is 'no hope' at all with attitudes like I see on this board.
Paul - "If Obama picks Nader, McKinney, or Kucinich as a running mate, then one (though not both) of my eyebrows will rise."
Not both? Even with all the wiring and plumbing to run the country currently hooked up to the VP's secure undisclosed locations? Hmm...
Obama originally endorsed Liebermann in '06. That's awfully establishment alright -- Republican/neocon establishment.
Wait until you see his selection of a running mate. DLC mainstream, a neo-Liebermann (a neo-neo-con)?
If Obama picks Nader, McKinney, or Kucinich as a running mate, then one (though not both) of my eyebrows will rise.
It saddens me that so many here are determined to be unhappy and cynical no matter what. Obama is not business as usual. The party establishment, CNN, NYtimes, and everyone else is pulling for clinton. In any normal year obama wouldn't have a chance but right now he does. Obama makes so many of us believe that our government can be better. Why not have a little hope for a few months and then you all can go back to your unhappy selves?
dlp67 February 3rd, 2008 8:29 pm
thank you for the lead (about d sirota's 06 interview of obama). it was interesting, i understand why mr sirota does not embrace all of obama's opinions (i don't either), yet the paragraph before the quote you provided was telling.
http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/
"Shifting back to how he sees himself in the Senate, Obama seemed to amend his previous statement about what kind of leadership progressives can expect from him. "I am agnostic in terms of the models that solve these problems," he said. "If the only way to solve a problem is structural, institutional change, then I will be for structural, institutional change. If I think we can achieve those same goals within the existing institutions, then I am going to try to do that, because I think it's going to be easier to do and less disruptive and less costly and less painful…. I think everybody in this country should have basic healthcare. And what I'm trying to figure out is how to get from here to there." He went on to tell me about his support for other structural changes such as public financing of elections, forcing broadcasters to offer free airtime for candidates, adding strong labor protections to trade pacts and major efforts to create a more just tax system."
also i wouldn't read to much in terms of sirota's interpretation of obama's comment 'gadfly' (honestly you could say wellstone was a gadfly to corporate america, in an endearing way.)
take mr sirota's comments/opinions in context to his larger role as a blogger....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota
"Sirota's support of Sherrod Brown over Paul Hackett for the 2006 Ohio Senate race sparked a great deal of anger from Hackett supporters, who felt that Sirota was overly harsh and unfair and in some cases misleading in his criticism of Hackett's statements. He harshly criticized Hackett's decision to drop out of the Senate race, calling the candidate's claims that he was "forced out" by party elders disingenuous. He stated: "My guess is he saw his poor fundraising numbers, saw that he was going to get crushed in the primary, wanted the race handed to him, didn't feel like doing the hard, unglamorous work that candidates have to do in the modern era to be competitive, and got out. Then, to save face, he created this ridiculous martyr story that he got 'forced out' - a concept, remember, that doesn't exist in this country. There are no people with bayonets preventing anyone from running or 'forcing' candidates out of the race. That's Third World stuff. In this country, when someone says they've been "forced out" of a race, it really means they weren't ready for primetime, they knew it, and were desperate to save face." ...
iowablackbird ,
Sure, third parties have been locked out of the White House for 150+ years. But that's primarily due to the nature of the challenge to the most autocratic/imperial/corporate candidate in each election. The challenge is lukewarm at best, weak, or co-opted.
If it was a genuine challenge, they'd have gotten elected at some point in the past 150-200 years and improved (rather than weakened) our farce of a democracy within a Republic. Where is IRV or Range? Why is the Electoral College still around? ad infinitum. The problem, ultimately, isn't Bush and his precursors. It is the false opposition (the Democrats), our country settling too soon for too little.
I don't think Obama's mission is to do anything, except apply lots of band-aids to Bush's excesses, fatten the livestock, and attempt to bring disaster capitalism back to plain old exploitive capitalism. When the flock is sufficiently fattened again, the butchering will begin anew.
It's cyclic like this, rather than progressive, because -- as I indicated -- the "opposition" is lukewarm at best, co-opted at worst. Where does Obama fall into this mess?
I am as cynical as some of the most jaded here!
But I think the following thought captures why I have paused (momentarily) from my knee-jerk critique of Obama, something I could easily do. WuMing at DailyKos writes:
"...the very campaign that he is running is changing our political reality, right under our feet. I have seen so many people that I know be moved by his words, this campaign. You see it in the tens of thousands of people showing up to his speeches. You can see it in the millions of newly registered voters and the unexpectedly high youth turnouts in the primaries so far. We are at a watershed in American politics, as a younger, more liberal, more diverse generation starts to move into the electorate, and Obama is catching the edge of that wave, and playing to it. As we have seen in South Carolina, where Obama outpolled several Republican candidates put together, the very electoral math in this country could change as a result of the energy he's tapping into and nurturing. Just as how a lot of the laudable changes of the 1960s were spearheaded by people inspired by Kennedy but doing the work at the grassroots (often, ironically enough, with little help or occasional resistance from the not-as-liberal-as-portrayed Kennedy), so too I suspect that if Obama is the Democratic nominee the social movement he's encouraging may well transform this country, quite regardless of what bills he ultimately signs into law."
So it's not necessarily ABOUT Obama, not entirely. Is it? It is about what happens when people get activated and inspired. We know what cynicism breeds. Plenty of angry blog posts.
Lift your head up and look around at what is going on here. There's something happening and it's not so simply dissected as Obama's platform or his voting record.
That said, some skepticism is always healthy. But don't miss what's going on here that is a bit unusual.
"Lets all smile and wave goodbye to our friends who are progressives in the Evilcrat party as they all climb aboard the good-ship Lollypop and sail off into the myst that is Democrat electoral politics."
What a riot!! This is the best laugh I've had, in these dark days since Kucinich and Edwards gave up the ghost.
Many may think that Barack is the best we can do, but here is David Sirota's evaluation, after interviewing him:
"Obama's deference to these boundaries was hammered home to me when our discussion touched on the late Senator Paul Wellstone. Obama said the progressive champion was "magnificent." He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly," in a tone laced with contempt for the senator who, for instance, almost single-handedly prevented passage of the bankruptcy bill for years over the objections of both parties. This clarified Obama's support for the Hamilton Project, an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party. And I understood why Beltway publications and think tanks have heaped praise on Obama and want him to run for President. It's because he has shown a rare ability to mix charisma and deference to the establishment."
Howard Dean inspired a lot of young voters, then once he was out of the running, they didn't vote. So, let's say that young voters inspired to vote for Obama are faced with the choice of voting for the first woman president, or a tired old Republican. I know several young women who are inspired by Hillary and all that she has accomplished in spite of being a woman in politics. Prognostication based on lack of data is rather futile. Sure, if Obama is the nominee, he may continue to inspire voters. But it doesn't necessarily take into account the run-up to the general election, if our choices are Hillary or McCain. There's just as much chance Hillary can inspire young voters, which in my limited experience, she already has.
If you vote for the lesser of two weevils you still end up with a boring insect.
As best as i can see at this time, he looks like another huckster for the Pox Americana. Slicker and more charming, 'tis true, but still just another huckster. E.g.:
http://www.barack-obama.tv/barack-obama-articles-audio-video/category/ba...
COMarc February 3rd, 2008 6:02 pm -
"Or, you can write letters to the White House, to your congressperson, to the editor, and you can dream and pretend that anyone gives a damn."
Better yet you can vote for Obama and hope for change. But don't hold your breath, like COMarc says you'll be getting no change out of the Democratic party.
SetYouFree - Why don't you set yourself free, and get out of the Democratic party!
Paul Loeb, Hillary is beginning to look almost as pathological as Bush to me. What she and Bill did to Obama in South Carolina told me that she doesn't care who she hurts or how much damage she does to get what she wants - in this case, the Presidency. Imagine what she would do as President. Bill is the same way, look what we got when he was President. And the little people are the first they would throw overboard, that's what happened with the first Clinton presidency.
Obama is the first time I would vote for a Democrat in 36 years, and if Hillary manages to collect enough super delegates to get the nomination, I'm headed for Ralph. I suspect he won't even run if Obama gets the nomination. But unfortunately the party hacks decide the nomination. That's why they're there. There wouldn't be over 800 of them if that wasn't the reason. If they're smart, they will realize Hillary's unelectable. Her negatives will defeat her, and she's hard at work raising them. She's demonstrated that she's manipulative, lying and sleazy.
kathyodat
After reviewing the genetic genome of humans and chimpanzees, it was found that the two species were 96% the same. There's probably only about 4% difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party but it is an important difference.
Does anyone believe we would be in Iraq, if Al Gore had been allowed to take office?
I supported Nader 8 years ago. Never again. It matters not if Nader mounts Rocinante again -- no one who votes for him would ever vote for the Democratic Party candidate anyway.
In 11 months, a Republican or a Democrat will be taking the Presidential oath. I'm going to do what I can to see that it is the Democrat.
SetYouFree and zazmo, are you familiar with Obama's record in the Illinois state Senate? I wasn't. I had heard about a couple of things that sounded progressive, but sine reading a July 2007 NYT article, I now know much more than I did. And I am now ready to support and vote for him for President. For all those who disdain Obama or can't tell the difference between him and Hillary, I ask you to go to the following link and then post your opinion of what you've read. It's my opinion that he would serve as President as he served as an Illinois state Senator. If he had spoken out as have Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards, he would have suffered their fate. One nice thing about the MSM, they're lazy. They don't do homework. They're looking at his innocuous US Senate history and labeling him. If you want to read about the real Obama, check out the following link.
COMarc, zazmo and SetYouFree, I really would like to hear your opinion of him after reading the story at that link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&...
kathyodat
Paul Bramscher February 3rd, 2008 5:56 pm
"Obama will not create a progressive majority"
its true, good point. but obama would be a moderator who has leftist tendencies (based on voting record/experiences w/ other activists). i agree it's a mess. i wish the workers would reclaim the factories, that the huge corporate farms would be redistributed in 5 acre parcels to the poor, that the profits from our endeavors be shared with all.n klein and marx are both correct. it's always incumbent upon us to raise the bar by encouraging the others to imagine other alternatives (structural forms of government) to the status quo.
unfortunately i don't see a 3rd party presidential bid as an effective strategy to change federal policy (based on history) the changes required are structural not necessarily tied to this election.
continue reading organizing and protesting.
COMarc February 3rd, 2008 6:02 pm
i agree 3rd parties are built from the ground up and i will vote for green/socialist candidates in local and state elections and will support these candidates financially.
please donate to the sheehan and kucinich campaigns.............
To ComArc, RebelFarmer et al: I don't care for your tone. You sound like Bushits in disguise, trying to foment division amongst Dems. All too transparent. Calling someone deluded and foolish does not advance the discussion one whit nor explain anything.
I don't disagree that building a viable third party is one way to change, but there is little evidence that this effort has accomplished anything at all.
Repeated rants that the Clinton's are neocons or corporate hacks are simply that...rants. All to reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh.
"How Obama Could Create a Long-Term Democratic Majority"
I'd rather have an end to this corrupt, one party pretending to be a, two party system.
Just exactly how do you plan to hold Hillary's feet to the fire? Remember, I've seen this before after 92. When a lot of populist talk went out the window and the Clintons became just another Republican president.
Are you so deluded that you think that writing your congress person actually does anything? They don't give a damn. And letters to the editor are even more worthless.
If you want to hold the Dems feet to the fire, you have to develop political power. Its the only thing the professional pols in the party understand. You have to have and demonstrate political muscle. If you just line up and always vote for whatever pro-corporate face the Dems put on the ticket, you have no political power. You are a joke to them. They know they can con you, that they have conned you, and that they'll be able to con you the next time too.
The only way to develop and demonstrate political power is to take them on. Develop a strong third party that can seriously threaten the Dems ability to hold on to office.
Build, organize, develope and demonstrate political power. And you'll never do it by voting Dem and just praying they won't screw us this time around just like they have the last time, and the time before that. You need political power. You need to take some scalps.
If you want to really start to hold the Dems feet to the fire, start defeating their candidates. You can do this by supporting and voting for candidates whom you really believe in. So its a win-win for us. You want political power after this election, be able to point to the Dem politicians who lost because there was a strong third party in the election.
Or, you can write letters to the White House, to your congressperson, to the editor, and you can dream and pretend that anyone gives a damn. If you watch the ACTIONS of the Dems after being elected, you won't have any doubt that they could care less about your letters.
Loeb is right here, Obama may indeed create a long-term Democratic majority. I agree his analysis on several points. The Clintonian Dynasty is at least half-spent (Bill), carried baggage, and is aging. Edwards is Deadwards. Kucinich was terra incognito to the corporate media.
All this said, Obama will not create a progressive majority. It'll be the same old disaster capitalism, lack of single-payer, one-sided middle eastern policies that crypto-neocons are hoping for, no aggressive stance against corporate crime, no Range or IRV, no meaningful electoral reform, and a holding pattern (at best) in the mideast until the next Rethug gets elected when the bear goes bull again.
Because, as others have indicated here, the Dems exist to squash progressive sentiment, to ensure it doesn't rise far to the top. So Loeb is right, but the implications aren't good. It'll be a long-term disillusioned Democratic electorate, majority or not.
Lets all smile and wave goodbye to our friends who are progressives in the Evilcrat party as they all climb aboard the good-ship Lollypop and sail off into the myst that is Democrat electoral politics.
They haven't figured out yet that its all a lie. They haven't figured out yet that the Dems will say whatever it takes to get elected, then govern hard corporate right. They seem to have amnesia over the last Clinton 8 years, and the way the Clintons protected the rightwing gains of the Reagan\Bush years and then even expanded them a bit with NAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform, Telecom Reform, Banking Reform, anti-terror bills, the federal death penalty and increasing illegal wars.
They don't seem to have noticed that electing a Dem congress did nothing to change the course the country is sailing. That the war still continues fully funded, the Pentagon still gets ever growing budgets, the President still acts illegally, and so much more.
Instead, they sail away on a voyage powered by fantasies and dreams. Despite the fact that neither candidate says a progressive word, they harbor dellusions that somehow elect a Democrat instead of a Republican will change things.
Our friends are sadly deluded. And its sad to see them repeat the same mistakes every four years. But they are still our friends. And we'll welcome them back to the fold when a couple of years from now they are back protesting in the streets alongside us having realized that the new boss is the same as the old boss. Just a different face on the portrait, and a different line of BS to feed to the people. But the key policies never change.
Obama's not a progressive. Without adequate campaign spending limits, the campaigns of progressive candidates can't even get enough funding from the rich and the corporations to get elected dog-catcher.
Zazmo,
Excellent citations and analysis.
Paul is incorrect, again.
Obama won the wealth primary and the Council on Foreign Relations primary last year.
He is considered safe by finance, insurance, real estate, banks, and lobbyists. Finally, Paul Volcker weighed in with an endorsement. And he's taking advice from Zbig Brzezinski. That's the establishment folks, the status quo.
The new boss is the same as the old boss.
No meaningful change here.
Don't be duped by Paul
The American political process is a total sham, we all know that. It has been proven yet again as we see our favorite candidates drop out of the race, or worse, never get a look-in (like DK). The corporate controlled media and the political establishment again brazenly assert their control.
At least we all seem to understand how the system works, which is more than can be said for at 70-80% of the US population. These are the ignorant and fearful majority who supported the Iraq war, and worse, the continuing occupation.
We all know what the radical right (the alliance of Evangelicals and Neocons) and their corrupt fellow travelers have done to this country.
This is what is so demoralizing: it has taken 40 years and billions of dollars for them to get where they are now. It is totally impossible to undo what they have done between now and November. I find Loeb's comment concerning the inability of Congress to stop the war particularly offensive. He knows that there is not a veto proof Dem majority in the Senate and this is why their hands are tied. I am afraid that those who did not live through the 60's and 70's do not understand what they are up against. Obama's comments about the "excesses' of that period demonstrate his political naiveté. "Excesses" is Repug code for sexual permissiveness, is Obama a right-wing prude? The only "excess" in that period was an excess of FREEDOM, which Repugs WILL NOT TOLERATE.
As flawed as she is, I think Hillary is the only person who gives us a chance to BEGIN to claw back what we have lost. I believe that Bill and Hillary began that process in 1992, certainly they did not complete it.
Surely, it is hard to fault Bill for what he did domestically. As for foreign policy: at least he didn't threaten Iran and Syria, and invade Iraq.
When looking at Bill's record I think we have to recognize that OUR perceptions of America and it's place in the World are in a very small minority. The Clinton's have to work within the majority paradigm that exists TODAY in this country.
Face it, Hillary would not stand a chance of being elected Prez if she burst the American myth.
Haven't any of you tried to talk sense to these deluded Bush/Reagan supporters, or even moderate Dems? They go berserk! I have been physically assaulted by two of my neighbors when I spoke frankly about the dire state of this country. THEY DO NOT WANT TO KNOW! Chomsky says it best: Intentional Ignorance.
Even though I would have voted for DK in the primary, I had no delusions about his delectability (or Ralph Nader, or any Green Party candidate for that matter, though they best represent my views).
At best we can BEGIN the process of reforming this country. But for a major disaster, it will take 15 years to take back this country for the people. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the process by which we lost it that began in 1965.
Right now I believe that Hillary is our only hope because of her experience in thwarting the worst machinations of the Radical Right and USA Inc.
Even if she is elected we shall have to hold her feet to the fire, praise her when she does good, criticize her otherwise. We will have to write our Congress persons, write our newspapers and be eternally vigilant. Our job will not END in November, it will just BEGIN.
By avocating the invasion of Iraq? By advocationg for a bigger defense budget? Obama is every bit as much a hawk as is Hillary Rodham Bush.
Let's hope Obama wins and saves the democrats from political suicide by setting up an election between Clinton and the repub, thereby giving the American people a choice between a war-hawk and a war-hawk, with the repub having a slightly better record on trying to reign in big business (if it's McCain). In addition, Given Clinton's "experience" of voting and pushing for Bush's current and future wars, Ralph Nader is much more likely to garner the energy he needs to run a campaign. Does the possibility that Nader's name will more likely be on the ballot in November if Clinton's the candidate scare you Nader-blamers? This decline-to-state-er is willing to give Obama a chance but will not vote for Clinton in November. Obama at his most disappointing would be what I already expect of Clinton.
paul loeb - thank for the numbers and the analysis concerning how the youth effects this election at this critical moment.
i was 1 year old when r kennedy was assassinated. so my perspective of this time is skewed by others and their writings. in my mind r kennedy melts into dr king and the civil rights struggle, the intense division in america over war and human dignity. i know if had lived during this time which 'nest' i would have choosen.
i see this election as a parallel of that 1968 election when the youth and the african american community galvanized around a 43 year old leader, as a symbol of new direction. please just read his bio.. i think similarities are real.
if you observed this election (1968) first hand please share...........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kennedy
theres another reason barak is appealing to me, he has marched in the streets with demonstrators against war (2002) and was one of only 2 senators (e kennedy being the other) to march for immigration rights (5/1/06). he's exercised his first amendment right at the right moments. this point hasn't been overlooked by the youth
susan parker February 3rd, 2008 3:36 pm
"The belief that what will "fix" the Democratic party is moving more towards the Republicans is how we got here … I no more believe in this solution today than I did 10 years ago …"
sorry about your cynicism susan, but this senator was just ranked the most liberal senator in the senate by national journal. he's hardly to the right of the dem party, (which is reflected in his endorsements from leahy and kennedY). however he will never be elected without some appeasement and civility.
also please name one person (besides nader or 3rd party) who would be acceptable for you as the dem candidate (close your eyes think of every dem you can).
if the answer is none of them, why comment about the democratic presidential contest at all, take a vallium listen to some music, work in the greenhouse and just ignore the fact millions of young people are learning about government by participating.
also susan, thanks for the lead on the nuke power story, this candidate certainly isn't the perfect candidate.
RichM February 3rd, 2008 1:43 pm
first thank you for the help last night w/ html thread, sorry once more.
about your comment....
"The fact that the MSM loves Obama's pretty happy-talk so much is itself a warning."
i didn't consider the author to be representative of the MSM. others who comment here there everywhere, have opinions.
i'm under no illusion that the struggles in the legislature next year will be intense. but theres hope, b/c repubs are experiencing backlash and war fatigue and because by chance they have more open senate seats.
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIX/Issue_3/Opinions/opin...
"some consider Democratic wins in 2006 to be a two-part cycle that will conclude with Republican retirements in 2008, which could cause Democrats to win nearly as many seats in 2008 as they already did in 2006."
"while Democrats need only defend twelve, giving them a far greater opportunity to go on the offensive. Indeed, the only seats held by Democrats that are considered even marginally competitive are in South Dakota and Louisiana, while Republicans are either already the underdog or at least face credible challenges in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, and others."
it's unlikely they'll pick up 9 seats, its also unlikely they'll vote as a block consistently. but mr loebs reasoning about embracing the youth vote as r kennedy did only enhances the dems chance of actually implementing health care, withdrawing from the war, etc...
Someone needs to quickly invent a laser guillotine and a hybrid tumbrel. Modern solutions for modern problems. For those who hate the French because they have a better democracy than we do, we could call it a liberty head chopper and hybrid liberty tumbrel. Liberty, equality, fraternity
These candidates all need to prove to me I can expect BACKBONE NOT BACKSLIDING. So I replied to Obama campaign request for support as follows below. I suggest everyone begin a policy of putting down a few Holy Grail issues and let your support for national and local candidates depend on them. Local candidates are easier to unelect, but this will now be my modus operandi. (I know I have too many issues listed, but it's hard to stop when you look at how bad things are - I did not even get to NAFTA, Gaza, Bio-Engineered Crops, etc etc etc etc)
Hi Mr. Obama and campaign,
I'm not so ready to make nice unless there is reciprocity. Disappointed too often. I prefer you to Clinton, but do not trust anyone completely. I will contact my friends to vote for you if you will promise in writing to do the following few things immediately upon election:
1. Stop funding the occupation of Iraq right away. Start no attacks against Iran and elsewhere.
2. Reverse all erosion of civil liberties - appoint a law abiding attorney general
3. Reverse all Bush signing statements and promise to reverse vetos if Congress resubmits legislation
4. Extend unemployment insurance and get people back to work via wages for community service until more permanent enterprises can be launched, such as clean energy facilities
5. Suspend all evictions - look into how to save the housing market at the expense of those who profiteered on the sub-prime mortgage scams.
6. Support universal health care via extended Medicare.
7. Give everyone who qualifies free university or professional education as they do in Europe.
8. Immediately give major support to science to design clean energy solutions; give major support to the NIH to study health issues rather than leaving this to pharmaceutical industry.
If you can do this for me, I will help you. Ball is in your court.
Thanks
Note one key piece of Dem thought slipped through in here.
Voters are to be conditioned to always vote Democrat. Or Republican, it works on that side too. Vote Dem when young. Then blindly and obediently vote Dem the rest of your life. It doesn't matter if the party takes a radical 180 degree shift from the old FDR coalition to becoming a right-wing corporate party. Just find the candidate with the (D) after the name and always vote for it.
I think Pavlov's dogs were trained about the same way. Ring bell, vote Democrat. No thinking or judgement required.
BS with statistics. The whole piece is just a big load of BS. Of course, that fits an Obama supporter since his speeches are just one long load of BS.
This is just more identity politics. Vote for Obama because he's black. Vote for Hillary because she once was a woman. Now its vote for Obama because all the other kids are and you want to be cool too.
All of which is designed to obscure just what you are voting for. Don't expect a candidate to talk about the issues you care about. Don't expect the candidate to propose real change. Just vote for the candidate because you're in this box or that box created by demographic statisticians and that's what your box is supposed to do.
I guess the idea is that when one of these finally wins, you aren't supposed to feel bad about the basic fact that nothing changes because your identity group won.
The first thing that should raise huge alarm bells is anytime a politician asks you to vote for them for anything other than the fact that they'll support the policies that you want. Whenever you see that, you should know you are being conned.
Loeb's analysis is quite accurate, and not only because of the younger generation. Obama's candidacy is the last hope for the Democrtaic party to retain the votes of many boomer generation folks like me who have despaired in recent years over the timidity of the vision and actions of the party. After the sleazy Rove-style campaign the Clintons have run (confirming my earlier impressions of their utter lack of integrity and decency: remember Mark Rich?), I would not be able to hold my nose tightly enough to vote for Hillary in a general election. For me, it is Obama or nothng at this point. Democrats, wake up!
The belief that what will "fix" the Democratic party is moving more towards the Republicans is how we got here ... I no more believe in this solution today than I did 10 years ago ...
The moderate republican/libertarians want to set up camp in the Democratic party since the Republican party no longer has room for them ... much as some birds will adopt the nest of another species rather than build their own.
When Barack Obama let the Clinton's twist slowly in the wind while Team Obama piled on during the MLK/fairytale faux controversy, I realized that Team Obama was willing to trash the Democratic party to win ...
Read about Obama and the Illinois Nuclear Power industry in today's NYT ...
Increasingly, like Bill Clinton, I think Obama is a trojan horse, more triangulation, more compromise.
This is so true but the real rigid party hacks and old time politicians are resisting this needed change with all their might and this is why Clinton
is going to win despite her garbage campaign. A very sad state of affairs that will ensure more division and hatred for years to come.
jskinner, RichM - While your concerns are legitimate, just the fact that Obama is getting more people to participate is a positive sign. It is impossible for progressive ideas to transform an apathetic populace.
Let him energize the people. It is up to progressives to sieze the opportunity and encourage the spread of progressive ideas at a grassroots level, which is essential for changing MIC control of the country.
Just another reason to capitulate to the Obama "youth surge" and his pretensions.
Yes, I think this is why Ted Kennedy and others have "embraced" Obama despite his positions, vaguely more conservative, more "pragmatic" than the DLC.
Having stagnated and destroyed the Democratic party, the prospect of fresh blood must be exhillarating, unfortunately too many Obama supporters sound more Libertarian than Democratic ...
Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Personally, I think Loeb's analysis is pretty good. It's just that it's so hard to tell what Obama will do if elected. He could be great or he could be terrible. On the other hand, we KNOW Hillary would be terrible.
I second jskinner (1:14).
Neither Obama nor Hillary has opposed a single goddamn thing Bush has done. You'd simply never know, to listen to either of them, that in the last 7 years, the US has become a full-fledged criminal state -- a kleptocracy, a rogue state in terms of international law, a leading violator of human rights, a blatant violator of its own Constitution.
It's positively obscene, on that background, to be making happy chirping noises about Obama as "inspiring the young," or any such fatuous horsesh*t. We're talking here about a guy who hasn't resisted a single one of the disastrous tendencies of the Bush years, and is trying to use vacuous happy-talk as a way of pretending these horrific crimes never even took place.
The fact that the MSM loves Obama's pretty happy-talk so much is itself a warning. He's not a political solution to the crisis of the Bush years, so much as a Valium people can swallow to help them forget it all really happened. The MSM, as the voice of the ruling class, wants the quash the public's consciousness of the crimes that have been committed against them. Rhetorical Valium is just what the doctor ordered, for that purpose.
I agree totally.
Militantliberal is correct, but I wouldn't even call this analysis naive; I'd call it not an analysis. Note the already existing Democratic majority in Congress. The concept is vacuous. Also note that voters don't elect the warmonger-in-chief. It's up to who purges the voter rolls, who programs the voting machines and tabulators, and who sits on the supreme court.
If history repeats itself as in 2000 and 2004, Hillary will get the nomination, win all the debates, win in the exit polls, mysteriously lose, and immediately concede defeat.
Our power consists of the choices we make as consumers in the global market. Don't feed the machine.
So we're back to the "two parties aren't really any different" position? I think that's about 80% accurate, but there are significant differences, differences big enough to affect millions of people's lives. So if there's a candidate who can produce a large enough coalition able to get us towards national health care, and also make the Dems a majority party for the next generation, I'm not going to sneer at that.
This analysis is naive. The Democratic party exists to muffle and divert ferment from below, and Hillary Clinton fits that role just fine. It doesn't matter to the Democrats' corporate sponsors whether they win or not. The main thing is to avoid honest debate about the upper class's war against the rest of us.
Obama has his limitations, but I agree with Loeb's analysis.