Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Claims Wellstone's Legacy
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. -- It was a line that could capture almost any Democratic heart.
"When I first got to the US Senate, I opened up the drawer of the desk where I was assigned. And it has the names of some of the great senators who have served. They carve their names in their own hand into the desk drawer, and one of those names was somebody who shared with me this belief that change doesn't happen from the top down. A guy named Paul Wellstone..." Barack Obama told the crowd at the Target Center in Minneapolis yesterday.
Wellstone is a beloved figure of the Democratic party, but in Minnesota the late senator's home state, the line resonated among the crowd, who cheered heartily at the mention.
Speaking to a crowd of 18,000 plus at the Target Center here, where Wellstone's memorial service was held, Obama cast his own movement for change as part of the what Wellstone did to energize a liberal electorate across the country.
"... a guy who helped to create a movement here in Minnesota, because he believed in you the way I believe in you. And this is part of that movement of change all throughout America," Obama said.
Obama also praised John Edwards as part of the Wellstone tradition.
"We have had some outstanding candidates. Just this past week, John Edwards decided to get out of the race, but John ran an outstanding race - he elevated poverty, talked about the working class. He was true to the Paul Wellstone tradition."
A liberal electorate in a progressive state, Minnesota has long been billed as a win by Obama's campaign, and the mention of Paul Wellstone certainly won't hurt Obama's chances in this state. A small peek into the campaign's organizational efforts was seen by Obama pulling out a caucus supporter card, something he hasn't done since leaving the first four early states where his campaign had large operations. He reminded the crowd that they need to caucus on Tuesday, and urged them to sign up and let his campaign know if they were definitely supporting him.
The crowd at the Target center was packed to the rafters, and Obama had brought the entire audience to its feet by the end of his speech. He dwelled on the power of his "movement" a word he has been using more frequently, and lauded the youth participation that put him over the top in Iowa. He told the crowd that despite the pundits' cyncicism, the participation of voters under 30 matched that of voters over 60 years of age, a first in American history.
He touted his fundraising operation, telling the crowd that the campaign had 170,000 new donors in January. He didn't mention how much they had raised however, a whopping $32 million that puts a serious question mark on any "underdog" status that Obama might claim.
But he reminded the crowd in Minneapolis that he does face a formidable opponent and many were taken aback that after winning Iowa, he didn't sweep to a win in New Hampshire.
"You see people thought you win one election and suddenly the status quo gives in. You know, elect Barack, immediately we'll have racial reconiciliation, poverty will be over and you know nobody will argue anymore and teenage children will listen to you," he joked, adding, "And so it was useful to us to recognize that this isn't easy."
© 2007 MSNBC.com



86 Comments so far
Show AllI have been very outspoken and scathing about the media's selection of "major candidates" for the Democratic Presidential Primary, how they appointed Clinton, Obama and Edwards as the three "major candidates" as much as a year ago, gave little (or in the case of Kucinich, virtually no) coverage to the others, and then as much as half a year ago reduced the majors to two and started cutting even Edwards short on commentary, coverage and debate time.
Well, now the race is down to two, my two least favorite, with Gravel just a voice in the wilderness, reduced to nearly complete invisibility. I have spoken against Obama for a variety of reasons including his sources of financial support, his support for foreign intervention and war funding in recent years, his shabby health care reform proposals, pro-business votes on NAFTA and deregulation issues, and the vague and un-specific nature of his admittedly stirring rhetoric. Also, perhaps less commendably, I have spoken against him because I detest seeing a media-created celebrity eclipsing candidates of far more substance.
I am writing however to recommend a vote for Obama in the primary this Tuesday, particularly for my friends in Massachusetts where the race may be close.
I have been led to this by a number of factors.
First, consider the candidates' backgrounds. Clinton, a child of privelige who started as a Republican, has a history including being a member of corporate boards, including Wall-Mart, where she is not reported to have ever spoken out against their vicious anti-union drive. She was wife and partner of a pro-business Democratic President who continued the gravely misguided deregulation started by Reagan, made little progress for programs for the people, supported disastrous pro-business trade policies and failed to take advantage of his historic opportunity to dismantle the cold war budgets, programs and alliances. This contrasts with Obama's history as a community organizer in Chicago and as a progressive state legislator and leader on campaign reform. This contrast gives reason to think that Obama in office would be more open and responsive to pressure from the people.
Second, on the central issue of the Iraq war, Clinton voted for the war, Obama spoke out against it. Clinton refuses to commit to getting all troops out of Iraq; Obama has come around to saying that is what he will do, in the first year. And on the crucial and very telling issue of branding the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, which may well have set the stage for the next war, Clinton joined the Republicans in voting in favor, while Obama opposed it. Thus we have reason to believe that a Clinton administration will mean more war and intervention than an Obama administration.
Third, the Republicans seem eager to see Clinton nominated - not, as one would assume from her record, because they like her best, but because they already have the minds of a large part of the public poisoned against her and believe they can defeat her more easily. They are probably right.
Finally, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and Move-on.org have both called for a vote for Obama, so this is a chance to show that their call means something.
*****************
Beyond the primary, the most important thing is getting organized and able to act together politically and communicate with the public without relying on the corporate media. Two possibilities in Massachusetts: outside the Democratic Party there is the Green Party, and inside there is the PDA. They represent similar programs but different strategies. Both are bringing our issues and views before the public. Both strategies face daunting obstacles. Both strands could come together in a great political realignment such as happened in 1856 and 1860. We need them both. Neither can be blamed for our current predicament.
In Massachusetts, the PDA is supporting Ed O'Riley in his race as an unapologetic progressive for the Democratic nomination for US Senate, against John Kerry. Tune in to this campaign and consider committing. See http://pdamerica.org/articles/campaigns/2008-01-31-09-15-31-campaigns.php
I am more concern with whether the claim of legacy is legitimate or just a means of securing votes.
Obama wants Edwards's supporter votes, that is for sure. Claiming Paul Wellstone in Minnesota is - well - he was a hero there! Paul Wellstone was the closest Minnesota got to having their own remdition of Martin Luther King.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
"Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can."
----
If Obama gets people activated, like the celebrities who made this video, change might be a train no one can stop? It may be bigger than Obama? That would be my hope.
I can see why Kucinich supported Obama...
While Wellstone spins in his grave...
This article ended too abruptly.
About the article's theme: yes, Obama and Wellstone are similar leaders, and boy do we need such a leader!
Sometimes, when we think we have everything figured out, planned out, the script as to how things should go, along comes something or someone who throws you for a loop, and that is what is happening with Obama and the people. Obama is challenging us, by challenging the status quo like no one has after Wellstone left. We have prayed long and hard for such a leader, as we suffered through Bush, and now as the status quo tries to pass the baton (or is it crown?) to Hillary Clinton, the people say wait a minute, not so fast!
The leadership of Obama is a moral leadership and that is what we need at this juncture. He is competent and able, and with the rousing of the masses to vote him in, there will be the big change that we need. Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill are "OLD SCHOOL."
When the people lead, the leaders follow. Obama is no Paul Wellstone. He is no Jack Kenendy, and Jack Kennedy was a poor president with the bay of Pigs, etc. The presidential election is a staged reality show. It is no more reality than it is an election. It is a "selection" not an election and the media determines who will get selected. It is, I might add, a one-billion dollar selection. As for Obama being the "New School". Really? Is that why the old cold warrior from the Old School, Zbigniew Brzezinski is backing and supporting Obama?
we took a chance with bill clinton back in 1992.......SO LET'S TAKE A CHANCE WITH OBAMA......OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT IN 2009 !!!!
Be wary when Charisma and Ambition are combined in the same man.
Don't be afraid, necessarily.
But be-ware.
-matti.
Good grief - the man is shameless!
Before people judge too quickly, I encourage them to read an interesting NYT article about Obama, written back in July 2007. Link below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
He's pretty exceptional, and there's a world of difference between him and Hillary. Please read what he's done and what he wanted to do, and then get back to CD with your opinions. I for one am more impressed than I was before. Before I was just hopeful, but now I'm impressed and I understand better why Kucinich suggested his delegates support him and why Kennedy has endorsed him. Looking for a progressive? Read the article.
kathyodat
Cool. We are in a constitutional crisis in this country. You see, we have just experienced a coup d'etat but only a few have taken note. bush has taken on the extraordinary power to ignore laws and break them at will. With his use of signing statements he pretty much does whatever he pleases.
Meanwhile the so-called opposition party headed by presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do and say nothing about the crisis, effectively burying their heads in the sand.
They are both part and parcel of the establishment, indeed they would never have come this far if they were not. Any genuine candidate of change like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader are either ridiculed by the MSM or ignored altogether. Candidates Gravel and Ron Paul have also met similar fates.
If you examine their very similar voting records you'll see they both voted to fund the war while proclaiming to desire its end. Both have plans to maintain thousands of troops in Iraq in order to help prop up the colonial puppet government we set up there.
They both tilted toward "liberal" positions in 2007 in order to climb up the liberal rating scale and win votes from their left wing, but of course you'll see whichever one prevails run towards center-right and abandon their left wing once they secure the nomination.
If they are leaders then why do they not lead us out of Iraq, bush the war criminal into impeachment and then The Hague. Why? Why? Why? Now that would show spine that hasn't been evident in Bendovercrats since I can remember. It is precisely because they refuse to perform their constitutional obligation to uphold the laws that bush has been able to basically crap all over our country with not so much as a whimper from the "opposition party". They now want our votes. They did nothing to stem bush's evil but now want us to trust them that they will once they get elected. Hah! Oh please.
Now the sky is falling and we must support the bush collaborating Dims in spite of the fact they have betrayed us as evidenced by their "leader" Pelosi who has flat out refused to hold bush accountable for the many laws he has broken. It is immoral and illegal for her to not hold him accountable. How can we call ourselves a country of laws when so clearly we have two sets of laws, one for the rich and powerful and one for everybody else? The O'Billarys refuse to take a lead and are only intent on pandering to whatever block of voters they need at the time.
Now is the time for the people to refuse to buy into this farce called an election cycle. We know we don't really have any choices except two pro-big business, pro-war, and pro-establishment candidate that are the best money can buy. Yup. So we go on endlessly debating Dweedl-Dee-ism.
It is time to begin the protests we are going to need to take our country back and stop smoking Obama's opiate of hope. Forget the O'Billarys both! They are both beyond hope. Dump the Dims. Go third party. Punish the Dims for selling out. Pull out the carrot and take out the stick! So what if it elects a Repug, not really that much difference, just look at who the Dims they let become Attorney General, a guy who can't even get himself to say that water-boading is torture. If a Repug gets in he will run the country into the dirt and that can serve as a wake up call to the sleeping masses. Thank you Bendovercrats. Thank you very much, and don't look for me at the polls on election day!
Well, I've met Wellstone a couple times, and went to his memorial service. I didn't feel compelled to see Obama here yesterday.
Well they will never have to kill Obama in a plane crash, thats for sure. They? It rhymes with They!
The Wellstone memorial service was not held at Target Center.
tailcap, for the third time in my life, I will vote for a Democrat for President, and after reading what Obama accomplished in the Illinois state Senate, and particularly what he aspired to accomplish - and I have no doubt he would have gone far if he wasn't headed for the US presidency, which is fine by me - I feel confident that he can do much as President. And I have a sense of what he wants to do. For one thing, he sees one of the roles of a leader as community organizer, to empower people. And as he pointed out, he knows how to do that. When I read the issues he chose to make his fight, and how he fought, then yes, we do have another Wellstone. But because he gets his way not by being confrontational, hopefully he won't get assassinated. I think with him we could go far. He's very smart about picking his battles and choosing his timing. Give him a chance. He's on the side of the people. If he came roaring out like Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards did, he'd be dead in the water. That's not how he works.
tailcap, Check out the link I posted above and then please I would like to hear your comment.
kathyodat
okay I'll read it, thanks.
The sound you hear is Wellstone turning over in his grave.
The difference is Wellstone had a long track record of actually doing things and fighting fights that needed to be fought. He didn't disappear into the US Senate for his first 4 years. He stood up and started fighting.
And if you listened to a Wellstone speech and an Obama speech back to back, the difference would be striking. And Obama speech is full of pollster-tested, feel-good phrases like 'hope' and 'change'. But no real content to back it up. A Wellstone speech was nothing but 'content'. Wellstone never tried to hide what he would do when elected.
I'm pretty much at the point where the Dems mostly make me want to puke. But this one really takes the cake. Obama trying to claim he's the next Wellstone? What a freakin joke!
This is pathetic.
Obama is corporate America's second favorite Dem (Hillary is no. 1).
Obama called Wellstone a "gadfly" so for him to claim the great Wellstone's mantle is appalling.
Can we please have some honesty, Obama?
Obama is no Paul Wellstone. In fact, in the past Obama described Wellstone first as "magnificent" and then as a "gadfly" in a "tone laced with contempt...."
http://davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/
Here's the quote:
"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."
A perfect description of who Barack Obama really is.
Obama's claim is an insult to the legacy of Paul Wellstone. Further it illustrates most articulately that Obama is all about flowery oratory sans real content.The more this guy speaks the less I care for his style frankly. A real pity that the first legitimate African American candidate for the highest office in the land is a windbag and a poser.
In the interest of equal time I would note that the first legitimate woman to have a shot at the highest office is only a very little bit better.
Get it real. three points: Wellstone, and the Iowa corn votes, and underdog status
1)Wellstone:
"He also gently but dismissively labeled Wellstone as merely a "gadfly,"
in a tone laced with contempt ...."
source: davidsirota.com/index.php/mr-obama-goes-to-washington/ - 49k
2)Corn Politics, Huge Issue in Iowa.
"One of the sharpest substantive divides is over ethanol, an issue of particular potency in Iowa.
The vote in question was an effort to block a proposed amendment to the 2005 energy bill that
would have established an ethanol mandate for refineries."If there were ever an onerous,
anti-competitive, anti-free-market provision, this is it," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.),
"If someone voted or has a position against ethanol, it will be used by their opponents
and it will be another issue they need to overcome" with voters in the Iowa caucuses,
said Steffen Schmidt, a professor of political science at Iowa State University.
Obama voted YEA
Clinton voted, NAY
source: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_pf.html
3)Underdog: Oprah, David Geffen, Soros, Brzezinski.... over $100million campaign...
remember another things, friends. Obama got ANCA to back him Jan, 24 2008.
that easily could have brought in 100,000 new donations overnight.
let me tell you, something.
First Obama went to conservative Reno, Nevada (January 15, 2008) and praised Ronald Reagan.
("Afternoon with Barack Obama" at RGJ.com)
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&SearchID=73307550548504
Then, Obama went to Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta (January 20, 2008), and praised Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris
Two polar opposites in American history: Dr. King, the champion of the Civil Rights movement, and Ronald Reagan, the champion of white backlash to Civil Rights with his theme of "states' rights" and taking power back from the federal government.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16349)
Then, Obama went to liberal Minneapolis, Minnesota (February 2, 2008) and praised anti-war Senator Paul Wellstone.
Who will Obama praise next? War-hawk Senator Joe Lieberman?
Oh that's right, he already did!
(connecticutblog, March 31, 2006)
Here's the real kicker: Obama claims to be the candidate with the most "integrity."
As I read through the comments, I was surprised not to quickly find the now infamous (among well-informed CD'ers) "gadfly" quote that Obama gave to David Sirota. So, of course, just as I went to post it not one but two others did, too.
That's why I read CD postings. So many here are so well-informed.
Chris Horton - "And on the crucial and very telling issue of branding the Iran Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, which may well have set the stage for the next war, Clinton joined the Republicans in voting in favor, while Obama opposed it."
This is not true. He was absent when the vote was cast. It was a strategic absence. He avoided alienating independents and Repugs in being absent. Gravel even called him on it in the Dem debate the next day.
I question Horton's post here regarding a vote for Obama not because I dislike him, but because we're a much more vigilant group here at CD and nobody else had picked up on it yet. Keep the facts straight please because when bloggers catch other bloggers intentionally misleading they tend to disregard future posts by that blogger.
Chris, go to the vote on this and see for yourself: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position (or scroll down to the senators "not voting").
here's the nays
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
where's your vote mr obama.
ascott September 26th, 2007 5:51 pm
I'll post this again:
Naughty Democrats who voted FOR this amendment:
Akaka (HI)
Baucus (MT)
Bayh (IN)
Cardin (MD)
Carper (DE)
Casey (PA)
Clinton (NY)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Durbin (IL)
Feinstein (CA)
Harkin (IA)
Johnson (SD)
Kohl (WI)
Landrieu (LA)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Levin (MI)
Menendez (NJ)
Mikulski (MD)
Murray (WA)
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Reed (RI)
Reid (NV)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Schumer (NY)
Stabenow (MI)
Whitehorse (RI)
_____
_____
Note:
Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, voted NAY.
_____
Republicans who voted NAY:
Hagel (NE)
Lugar (IN)
_____
Not voting:
McCain (R- AZ)
Obama (D - IL)
Also, you mentioned that he's committed to getting the troops out of Iraq:
"Indeed, Obama has promised to enlarge the size of the uniformed armed forces by more than 92,000 troops. Given that the United States - surrounded by two oceans and two weak friendly neighbors - is essentially safe from any potential conventional attack, this position inevitably raises the question of what he intends to do with that expanded military capability."
Here's the vote from the House, too many YEAS to list, here's the NAYS and NVs.
NAYS--16
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Blumenauer
Conyers
Ellison
Flake
Gilchrest
Hinchey
Lee
McDermott
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Olver
Paul
Stark
NOT VOTING--19
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Carson
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Herger
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
Lampson
Platts
Poe
Ross
Schmidt
Snyder
Tiahrt
Obama claims Wellstone's legacy? Well, I claim the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Charlemagne and Jesus! So there. The universe, by divine right, belongs to ME.
Obama would never have gotten away with invoking Wellstones' name if John Edwards were still in the race.
Paul Wellstone said:
"The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power."
And:
"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak."
These words do not describe Obama, the second highest recipient of Wall Street money, do they?
re. Obama's non-vote on the Lieberman amendment on Iran:
Ouch!
Sorry. I knew that once, brushed it under my memory rug.
So does that still leave a significant difference between Clinton and Obama?
The first thing that came to mind when I saw the headline was 'Senator, now you've crossed the line'. Reading the story confirmed that reaction. There's no comparison between Wellstone and Obama, and I can hardly believe that Minnesotans went for that statement hook, line and sinker. Wellstone spinning in his grave, indeed.
Hillary is still justifying the war on Iraq. First she went along with it, then she changed her mind, now she's back to justifying it. Talk about flip-flopping.
Obama called the brave Paul Wellstone a "gadfly?" What a phoney SOB. Between him and Hillary, I think I'm going to barf. :(
tailcap Do you not undertand the possibility that even bringing impeachment proceedings may, under circumstances someone Ken Lay or William Bennett might stretch around the moon spending more millions of dollars, serve to bar any and all subsequent proceedings? Like all the extended assets of all parties to the profit and have FEMA move them to the 9th ward. That's where they hurt. There is no shame in them. I'd like to bet against Double Jeopardy, and a bird in the hand. Why don't you get an answer to that before the next bray. I'd like to know.
BeForKids February 3rd, 2008 5:43 pm
Dear kathyodat,
I read the article about Mr. Obama and what struck me is how little he has done to be a contender for president. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but his resume is pretty lightweight and lackluster. It amazing how much support he can generate with actually having done much.
What did surprised me was what a little back stabber he is.
I quote the article:
"Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat."
But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer's campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot.
BeForKids February 3rd, 2008 5:43 pm
Dear kathyodat,
I read the article about Mr. Obama and what struck me is how little he has done to be a contender for president. Sorry, I don't mean to be a jerk, but his resume is pretty lightweight and lackluster. It amazing how much support he can generate without actually having done much.
What did surprised me was what a little backstabber he is.
I quote the article:
"Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat."
But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer's campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot.
Check this out folks, guaranteed to not impress you at all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Should anyone be interested in finding out what REALLY happened to Paul, check out this:
http://readersparadise.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=68&osCsid=c43fc6528e781f8f9ed9f...
Obama said a movement is bottom up. Could he be asking for some support so that he can move to the left?
I think Clinton will be much tougher to move to the left. Whoever gets elected we need to push them hard left so that out of the nature of politicians to pander they at least stop going right.
People don't need "support" to move one way or the other. They are or they aren't. And they can't be all things to all people.
I've seen a meme here lately that runs like this: politicians need to be led. The previous poster echoes this also, and suggests that Obama is like a tabula rosa, an automaton, a robot with a blank slate. Just put a disk into him and click "install".
I don't think so, folks.
I have heard some of my supposedly progressive friends, saying that Obama understands that change comes from the bottom up. In addition to P. Bramscher's observations, I would like to add this: in order for a people's movement to gain traction, there has to be an institution capable of responding, in order to start the transformation.
In early 2003, it didn't matter how many millions around the world protested the war--I believe the numbers were record-breaking--the media here basically responded with a collective yawn, if they responded at all. Similarly, the majority of the so-called opposition party, the Dems, certainly didn't seem to care about the movement, when they went ahead and voted to authorize the war. Even today, when record numbers of Americans oppose the war, even the National Journal's most liberal senator of all (yeah, right), Barack Obama, still can't respond to that reality by voting not to fund the war.
I don't know what kind of grassroots movement it would take in this period to affect the insular and insulated, Wall St. and Pentagon-dominated folks of both parties who work in DC. Forgive me, but I am really skeptical of this "please, make me do it" kind of approach to considering liberal policy positions.
Does the man have no limit to audacity!!!!
Wellstone would not have had the duplicity to outright lie about his Nuclear Industry pandering (MSNBC article yesterday), as Obama did in Iowa and so many other questionable ways of operating. The unfair way he characterized Edwards record, calling him hypocritical as a populist, and then after Edwards suspends his race, claiming Edwards always was a voice for the voiceless. I know Edwards to be just that, Mr. Obama, but you always try to have it two ways, as it suits you. I kind of doubt, too, that Senator Wellstone would have operated toward Alice Palmer in Chicago the way you did, too, or given Ronald Reagan such a favorable plug in Arizona. No, Mr. Nice Guy, you have not been a Senator Wellstone. Wellstone had a different standard.
Where's your daddy baby:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/writ-f02.shtml
In the 2008 election cycle so far the television, film and music industry has provided the various candidates with $15,354,208 in contributions, 77 percent of that going to the Democrats (www.opensecrets.org). Individuals or Political Action Committees involved in movie production specifically have handed over $4,175,659—91 percent to the Democratic Party.
On the list of top industries contributing to the Clinton campaign, "television, music and movies" ranks 7th, having given $2.1 million. The same industry ranks 6th on Obama's list, having contributed $2.2 million. Clinton has received $6.3 million from the Los Angeles-Long Beach, California area (with $565,525 coming from Beverly Hills), while Obama has taken in $5.1 million from the same area.
Among the top 20 contributors to the Clinton campaign organized by individual firm, along with banking and investment giants Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, one finds Redstone's National Amusements ($193,850), Time Warner ($124,150) and Murdoch's News Corp ($99,350).
On Obama's list, in addition to Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse, one again comes across the names of National Amusements ($220,950) and Time Warner ($142,718).
We're screwed. Where's the choice??? Hillary / Obama ...
bought and paid for by lobbyists / corporations. People like Wellstone, JFK, RFK, and others were murdered for telling the truth. Neither Hillary nor Obama has the (gall) to really stand up for the people...they are just shills for the elitist financial cabal that runs the world.
I agree with what ChrisHorton begins with saying, but as soon as he's stating his promotion of Barack Obama, then we part ways. Similarly enough, with respect to what vaudree says.
Obama having the gall to refer to Paul Wellstone (as if a similar), and based on what I read of PW anyway, is unacceptable. Obama should not do this, if he is really honest; but he's being another political hypocrite, charlatan, very likely, if not surely, anyway. Hypocrites and untrustworthy people make such "comparitive" references, referring to themselves, explicitly or implicitly, as if being like people who were indeed of good, right character, principles.
And as for Obama having opposed the war on Iraq in 2002, people should STOP stating this reference! Only IDIOTS would do that! I've seen many enough references to this so-called part of his history, but [never] with links to supporting articles. And even if there are any such articles, which remains to be proven by his fan club, this so-called stand of his is of really little good relevance today, while the real or more significant relevance is not good or positive. It's either not true, or it minimally illustrates hypocrisy and spinelessness on his part; if he really did [seem] to significantly oppose war on Iraq in 2002.
His senatorial track record is what needs to be given attention; and it's the complete opposite of anything good or at all sound. This track record is really no different from Billary's, and they're both in bed with the hidden and ruling elites; and Obama's already proven to be of a political nature that he'll fold to them, before he'll oppose. His total and strong siding with the Cheney-Bush administration in threatening Iran, including with nuclear strikes, speaks VERY LOUDLY, for the non-totally deaf and "thick as a brick" (obstinately opaque) among us.
Etc.
SEE what Kucinich states in the following simulated debate, in which it is obvious that this is indeed him speaking as we could and would (if we know of him sufficiently) be saying in the present DP candidate debates. He has withdrawn from the electoral campaigning, as he did in 2004, but one or two of his sharp supporters reminded me here, over the past month or so, that he's not wrong in doing this; and they are right. Like Kucinich says in the answers he gives to us through Dem. Now!, reforming the DP is no overnight-easy matter to work on; it's a very long-term project and one he might not see fruition from during his lifetime.
LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT VERY MUCH IS POLITICS; unless WE, THE PEOPLE, REALLY GET OFF OF OUR LAZY, COMPLACENT, COWARDLY, MUSHY PACIFIST ASSES AND HELP HELP HISTORY PROGRESS FRUITIVELY MORE QUICKLY, WHICH OF COURSE AMERICANS AREN'T GOING TO EVEN ATTEMPT, LET ALONE DO. NO JOAN OF ARCS IN THE USA; just murderers and lazy, cushy, ... pacifists. The few Americans with real heart don't act because they'd give up their lives for nothing but a mass of lazy, complacent, ..., and corrupt citizens, while doing no good for Iraqis, Afghans, Haitians, Africans, and so on. After all, it can be right to want to do otherwise, but only fools wouldn't head for the hills when there's no way of making any good difference in terms of imperialist, etc., hell being reined in upon Humanity.
People mustn't blame Kucinich; there's nothing more that he can really do. The People also have to do their part; he's provided his lead, and The People treat him as insignificant. Oh well, he won't be the first or last of honourable representatives of national and world politics; there've been and will surely be others, some.
"Breaking the Sound Barrier
Democracy Now! Re-Hosts NBC Las Vegas Debate to Include Kucinich After NBC Wins Appeal to Exclude Him", Jan 16 2008,
Carefully read Kucinich's answers; they're wholly pertinent and reality-based.
READ, VIEW OR LISTEN TO THAT SIMULATED DEBATE; it's the best we can have given he was despotically, ... excluded from the live debate.
Don't do that? Then stop your hellbent bitching childishness!
Ooops, forgot the url, which I had initially included, but the Web browsers and/or Internet connection got screwed up and my revisions obliterated.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now
READ THAT if you are sincere about the Nov. elections and haven't yet read or heard or listened to this real enough debate on Kucinich's and DN's parts; it's the best that could be expected after he was despotically and very anti-Constitutionally, ... excluded from the live Las Vegas debate.
A little reality here, folks. There is no 100% liberal progressive electable candidate in 2008 America. So get behind the nearest thing in Obama. If not, then you'll deserve Hill-Bill, or worse, any Republican running.
ChrisHorton,
I'm waiting. I wanted to vote for somebody in the next general election. I was determined to vote Kucinich in the primary, and I did by absentee. Then he dropped out. Now I'm waiting. Ralph Nader might enter the race. I know you probably won't vote for Ralph. I respect that. I'm tired of voting least-best party. Some would say my vote will go for a spoiler, but I see it differently. If I were to vote Obama or Clinton in November, my candidate would stand a great chance of winning, but I would be voting against my best interest. I would lose. I don't own a corporation and I don't invest in them. I try to live a responsible life, so I vote who I think has the most integrity. Nader and Gravel are what I've got to choose from. Nader stands a better chance than Gravel. So now, I'm just waiting.
Paul Wellstone's memorial was not held at the Target Center in Minneapolis or ANY corporate location as this article incorrectly states. It was held at Roy Williams Memorial Auditorium at the University of Minnesota.
Writer didn't do their homework.
The Wellstone Memorial was not at Target Center but at Williams Arena on the University of Minnesota campus.
" Bigfoot February 4th, 2008 12:43 am
A little reality here, folks. There is no 100% liberal progressive electable candidate in 2008 America. So get behind the nearest thing in Obama."
LIKE DISNEYLAND, I.E., FANTASY.
Gee, Bigfoot, thanks! We didn't know that.
I think that Obama, unlike most progressives, is pragmatic. He compromises (dirty word) and forges alliances and plays hardball politics to win his goals. He hit back at Hillary and Bill in South Carolina but he didn't play dirty like they did. His Illinois state Senate primary campaign challenged an opponent's campaign petition signatures and that kept her off the ballot, so then the signatures didn't pass the smell test. It's not making nice, but not unethical either. He's entering an arena where people don't play fair and eat nice guys alive. So what do you want - a winner or a loser?
What I like about him is his goals. Unlike Dennis and Gravel he is a political animal. He knows the rules; you need lots of money to win and don't piss off the corporations. Otherwise all you can do is influence the discussion. Not a bad thing, but not winning either. The big question is what will he do as president? I'm gambling he's on our side. His past indicates I'm right. As he said, "If you want to go to the moon, but don't have enough gas, you go as far as you can". He may not be my ideal candidate but at least he wants to go in the right direction. Let's see how far he gets. No other candidate with a chance of winning, including Hillary, wants to go in our direction. We know in what direction she would be headed. Not one we want to go. And give Obama this credit, he galvanizes new voters.
My favorite Rolling Stones song lyrics are:
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need
kathyodat