Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama and Progressive Change
I don¹t want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America's bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy‹absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.
That said, those who believe that the Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of a malignant and self-serving corporate and political elite have to explain why "³their" candidate, Hillary Clinton, seems to be sinking.
Meanwhile, it must be acknowledged that the Obama phenomenon is a real thing. That is to say, whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support across the nation among people‹particularly the young, and more recently African Americans-who had for years been ignored by, and consequently disinterested in the political process.
It might be that this is all the result of the magic of charisma, a winning smile and a good turn of phrase. But even so, it would be a mistake for the jaded left, myself included, to dismiss this phenomenon as meaningless, and to ignore it or its potential.
Indeed, I want to suggest here that Obama may at this point have the proverbial tiger by the tail, in that his clarion calls for "hope" and for "change" may be stirring up hopes and expectations for those very things in a way that will not easily be denied should he succeed. (In this he does resemble Jack Kennedy, whose own politics tended to be conservative and Establishment, but whose rhetoric helped stir a generation to political idealism, and may have contributed to the era of '60s activism.)
I would also suggest that while Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment- with a record as a safe backer of the status quo- if he succeeds in winning the nomination, and especially if he goes on and wins the White House, it will be because he has aroused a huge pool of voters in this country who had until now been cynically staying away from politics. It will be because he has transcended the racial divide that has stymied real political change for so long.
And the forces that are propelling him toward the nomination, and toward the White House, are forces that will not easily be denied if they succeed.
That is to say, a President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don't really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like barnacles to a rotting pier.
For this to happen, Obama will first have to reach out beyond his current base of support, to rank-and-rile workers‹both unionized and non-union--to Latinos and other minority groups, and to older Americans. He'll have to reach out, that is, to the groups that have thus far still been backing Hillary Clinton and the party Establishment. He need not win all those groups over to his side- in fact it would be better if he didn't. He needs only to win over the disaffected within those groups- the people who recognize that they have been betrayed by the two parties and by the System.
Should this happen- and it probably will have to happen for this first serious black candidate for the presidency to successfully beat back the Clintonians and the DLC, who will try to kill off his candidacy before the convention- Obama will have been, perhaps in spite of himself, or perhaps because there is in him still some spark of insurgency, transformed into a real agent of progressive change.
None of this means that a President Obama would be a new Franklin Roosevelt. The pressures on any president to "cool it" and play the game of supporting the big moneyed interests that have been undermining and hollowing out America for decades are enormous. But certainly an alternative reality is also possible- namely that an aroused and newly empowered bloc of voters, in bringing a black politician to the pinnacle of power in America, could tip the balance and free that new president from outside of the White Establishment to follow his better instincts. (Franklin Roosevelt himself, remember, was no Franklin Roosevelt when he ran for office; the movement that installed him in office made him into the transformative New Deal figure he became.)
Progressives cannot be naive about this. Even if I'm right, for a Barack Obama administration to become the dawn of a genuine progressive era, it would demand tremendous organizing and continuous political campaigning after Election Day. There will surely be a serious effort by the political Establishment- both on Wall Street and inside the Beltway- to rein in both a new president and the forces that put him there. And Obama himself- clearly no visceral radical--will need to be convinced that the path to a second term lies through heeding his populist base, not through reaching accommodation with the sclerotic old guard.
That is a call-to-arms, though, not a reason to ignore this possibility.
What I'm suggesting here is that Barack Obama's campaign, by its very rhetoric of change, may be creating something bigger than Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama may never have intended: a powerful constituency for real change.
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His most recent book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.



122 Comments so far
Show AllLindorf makes a very peculiar case for Obama:
Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don't really know much about the man)
Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment- with a record as a safe backer of the status quo
whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support
So...
Let's take a shot in the dark with Barack Obama, and maybe everything will be just wonderful!
"What I'm suggesting here is that Barack Obama's campaign, by its very rhetoric of change, may be creating something bigger than Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama may never have intended: a powerful constituency for real change."
This is exactly why I am supporting Obama in the Dem Primary. Change always starts at the bottom and if Obama can bring in more people, then great. Our movement needs more people to gain more power. Whether Obama disappoints them or not makes little difference if we can get them involved and then get them to stay involved- then the progressive movement will gain strength.
And I already hear it coming so I will be clear, I DO NOT BELIEVE OBAMA IS PROGRESSIVE. I do not believe that he will create change. What I believe is that he can be an agent of change by bringing in political idealists, and then they will almost inevidably become disillusioned by the 2 corporate parties and either demand real change through the current system or join me and others in the Green Party.
Obama, unlike some, is clearly not wedded to the DLC or the corporate elite that is paving his way. He was not born of privilege and will not sacrifice himself for the welfare of the privileged, though he has and certainly will continue to entertain their quid pro quo proposals if they offer him the greatest probability for achieving his personal goals. However, if he perceives that the non-elites can take him where he wants to go, and keep him there, there is no reason to believe he would not entertain the possibility of riding their wave and responding to their interests.
As far as Barack Obama and Iraq, look at his policy and then judge. Mr. Lindorff did you even look at it? Here. I'll cut and paste it for you:
Barack Obama's Plan:
As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
Barack Obama's Record
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences." In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.
Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq's leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.
Now decide if this guy is insincere about his intentions for bringing the troops home.
I apologize for playing the role of the skeptic, but I cannot vote for Obama or Billary and certainly not for a Repugnican. I also respect Dave Lindorff, but I have to disagree with him.
As everyone knows, the system needs change. Do you honestly think Obama is going to take on corporations and the military-industrial-media-complex? Sure, Obama is invigorating many people in this country, which in itself is good, but it will again, come up short because people need to take on the system, and they will not do it. People are too comfortable watching "American Idol" rather than giving serious thought and intellectual inquiry to politics, especially understanding how corporations control the political system and figuring out a way how to change that. Visionaries like Ralph Nader have spent much of their lives trying to point this out to people, yet in the end, we see the same conclusion, the system stays intact despite the new face in the Oval Office, and many people fail to take heed of what true leaders like Nader are trying to tell them.
I do not mean to be a pessimist, but I see little or no change in the system. Sure there will be new window dressing, but no change in substance. The second Obama takes on the corporations or military-industrial-complex, he will fold like a cheap suit.
Like a lot of "lefties" who read these pages,I have had my share of scepticism about Obama. However,I voted for him in the California primary for the same reasons stated in this article.We stubbornly hold on to "purity" at our own peril
The first step to change is the first step. If we can dislodge the execrable DLC, we can take the second step. I voted for Obama.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. The role of the Democratic Party leadership is to insure that any popular movement for real change will be safely run into the ditch. We now have the choice of two party hacks. But don't worry, Charlie Brown, THIS time I promise not to pull the ball away.
Jacob Freeze misses the whole point of my article--and misstates it in his summary. I specifically note that Obama himself may not be progressive, but then observe the reality that his backers--mostly young people and African Americans--are. And citing FDR as a example, I point out that the supporters of a candidate can actually drive that candidate to act in a progressive fashion.
It is facile and also foolish to, as Freeze does here, characterize what is happening with the Obama campaign as just another Democratic Party sell-out. Obama, by his being a person of color, represents something unique in American national politics, and it is ridiculous to ignore this reality. He has the power, with the right backing by progessive forces, to use that uniqueness to defy the corporate hacks who run the Democratic Party machine.
I'm not naive enough to believe he would do that on his own. But if he felt that the road to re-election was through winning and keeping his progressive support (which it clearly would be), he might be tempted to push the envelope in a way that a John Kerry or Al Gore would never do or could never do.
Moreover, it bears mentioning that being black, and an admitted recreational cocaine user as a young man, Obama will surely view America differently than white politicians in his same position. He will view millions of black men serving hard time in prison much differently, especially knowing that had he been nailed as a kid for drug use he might well have been in prison himself. He will view America's inner cities differently than a white president, too. And with family in the benighted nation of Kenya right now, he will also view the Third World differently than any white president.
This is all obvious, and anyone who casually dismisses this difference between Barack Obama--whatever his record to date--and white politicians like Clinton or McCain, is simply blinded by ideology.
Again, an honest and open-minded reading of my column will make it clear that I don't see an Obama administration leading the US into a progressive era. I see it as providing an opening for us in the progressive movement, working with the people who have energized his campaign at the grassroots, to accomplish that challenging task.
I frankly find the rigid and predictably dismissive negativism of leftists like Freeze who are so ready to dismiss such thinking, while offering absolutely nothing as an alternative, to be simply tedius and self-congratulatory.
Obama is by far the better choice for people wanting a change. The mere fact that one of her top campaign people is a Blackwater Executive says everything you need to know. Almost the entire democratic establishment backs her which is another good reason not to support her. She is the Queen of outsourcing always arguing for an increase in foreign workers to displace americans and her finances are certainly questionable as she has refused to make her income tax public as Obama has done.
What Obama will need if elected is a Congress just as passionate to bring about a new era and he'll need the people to stand behind him to help free politics from the various special interests!
It's such an exciting and absorbing primary season, we're not seeing much about Senators and Representatives up for re-election and they should be scrutinized as closely as the presidential candidates are.
Obama has said often enough, and he's right, he can't do it all alone.
Amen,Mr. Lindorff! Rigid left wing thinking, is as bad, at times as wrong headed views from the right!
Obama doesn't have a vested interest in keeping secrets from the public regarding Bill Clinton's Presidency. He doesn't have a vested interest in keeping secrets from the public regarding the Bush Presidency. Why would Hillary have a vested interest in keeping Bush's secrets? Because as the wife of a former President, there are things that she and her husband knew were in the works during Bill's Administration that Bush inherited and used that neither she nor her husband disclosed to us Americans. Guilty knowledge and action.
From the Sunlight Foundation regarding the Presidential Records Act: 'The Executive Order (signed by Bush) turns on its head the purpose and principles of the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978 to ensure that presidential records are the property of the federal government. In a nutshell, the PRA says that once the president leaves office, the National Archives has control of his papers. Many papers, including those that contain national security information and information about confidential communications between the president and his advisors, must be kept secret for 12 years after the president's last day in office. After that, the records are supposed to become available under FOIA standards, with an exception for classified information.
President Bush has used his executive order to ensure that the records of his most secretive administration remain hidden indefinitely. Now, all a president has to do is claim a record is privileged and anyone seeking these presidential records has to prove it is not--even if the president's claim is completely unfounded...But, in case those massive obstacles to transparency weren't enough, the president's EO grants control of the documents to the president's heirs. Years from now, Jenna Bush could claim executive privilege!'
Bill Clinton would have control over the release of Hillary's Presidential records, she over his, and Chelsea over both of theirs. Enought already.
Excellent summary by Dave Lindorf of the possibilities in an Obama presidency, and what is necessary to make it happen and to enable the presidency to work.
Caution: when will so many on the Left stop fearing holding public office? When will these people on the Left stop wallowing in "nothing can change," and "all politicians are the same", both of which are simplistic commentaries?
To Claudius: If Ralph Nader was a "visionary," he would have seen what was at stake in 2000 and thrown his support behind Gore. Only a self-absorbed egotist like Nader could maintain that there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
The lives of too many people, the futures of too many children, the very future of the planet are at stake for Americans to engage in the reductio ad absurdum of "a plague on all your houses." We need to play in the real world, especially the real world of American politics. The Green Party is a "children's crusade."
As Lindorf points out, if these people were around in 1932, and listened to FDR, they would have argued that he was no different than Hoover.
The only important task now for Progressives, in 2008, is to prevent the Democratic Party establishment, and their superdelegates, from stealing this nomination. That is a task worthy of time and energy.
jpa
Well said, jarneer!
I think some of the people here are reading too much into Lindorff's "endorsement" of Obama. This doesn't seem to be where he's going. The main thrust of this article is aimed at Obamanism -- the effect that he's had on mobilizing a grassroots/young/idealistic/engaged group. The way he (whatever "he" represents) resonates. There's a mobilization there. The kids here on campus were out on Super Tuesday, urging people to vote. I've not seen that level of political engagement here in 5+ years.
I've not analyzed this carefully, but it's worthwhile separating the politics from the social aspect for a moment. Wellstone was able to maintain this mobilization with high grassroots loyalty throughout his too-brief tenure, because while he was not 100% progressive, he delievered the goods regularly (perhaps 90%+ of the time). Few or no people ever felt that Wellstone was in it for the money, taking kickbacks, etc. like ordinary politicians. He was about an honest/forthright a person who ever stepped foot into D.C. That was probably his undoing.
So whether Obama is going to "cash in" on a November win and abandon his base, or not, remains to be seen. But given the number of missing votes in '07, lack of a real hard-hitting plan for single-payer, his support of nuclear, courting of AIPAC/Liebermann, and a few other indicators -- I'd say that Obama has been groomed not by the Wellstonian ethic of ethical fortitude and dignity, but as a transition promise-maker for the X/Y Gen. The old lies that worked wonders with the Boomers don't resonate as well with the X/Y Gen. Turning people against their own class interests needs to be re-packaged.
Now maybe I'm wrong, but I don't expect much to change under Obama. The real people/corporations ruling the country won't be changing leadership in Nov.
jpa,
Thanks for the comment, however, I was referring to Nader as a fighter for consumers, and not his political aspirations for the Oval Office. Perhaps I should have clarified that point.
To Jameer: If Al Gore was a "visionary," he would have seen what was at stake in 2000 and thrown his support behind Nader. Only a self-absorbed egotist like Gore could maintain that there would be no difference between a Bush presidency and a Nader presidency.
I would vote for Obama over Hillary because his foreign policy advisers are slightly more sane than Hillary's (domestically I don't see much difference between the two which may be why the corporate elite has treated him so kindly and given him so much money) but the lack of understanding about the issues among many of his supporters is very disturbing. I have yet to meet one Obama supporter who has been able to give me a real reason why they support him besides the usual "he's inspiring", "he's charismatic", etc., etc. What most worries me is the effect this could have on young people who are being swept along into a "movement" that has little real content or a real plan to win positive social change beyond touching a voting screen in November. I think Mike Gravel's recent statements in regard to this phenomenon are worth considering:
"Obama of the three is the most dangerous, because he raises greater expectations of the youth and can't deliver. And the worst thing a leader can do is raise expectations, and they don't happen. You create a whole new generation of cynics. And that's what he's doing. And he's used the line [inaudible] reason out what he's saying. You know, the statement I like that I've heard from young people: there's no 'there' there. And listen to the words. Make a speech and use the word change ten times—what specifically are you going to change? You're going to change the health care system? Not really. You're going to change the military-industrial complex? Not really. He wants another hundred thousand more troops. Are you going to change anything about your relationship with Iran? Not really. Nukes are on the table. Are you going to change anything with respect to Israel? Not really. He's supported by AIPAC. Are you going to change anything for education? He's on the education committee. He's supported by the NEA. Where's change? I don't see any change. But he doesn't say any of those things. He lets you figure out what the change is. So it's like an actor. What does an actor do? He gives you a scene, and you read into it what the scene means to you. And that's what he's doing. It's terrible, because what you read into it isn't what's going to happen."
http://www.therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=777&thisview=item
Lindorff is spot on! The real hope is that we can elect someone whose groundswell of support(including African-Americans, youth, independents, and alienated leftists) that constitute a power of energy and aspirations that free him from the shackles of the malignant Republican-lite DLC.
More support needs to be gained among Latinos and working class whites by highlighting the connection between the Clintons and NAFTA, which has devestated the lives of so many in the U.S. and Mexico!
Yes, I agree with Dave L -- it is actually the supporters of Obama -- not Obama himself -- who represent change... This may be too complicated for some, but Obama has ignited something very deep in the heart of many African Americans and young people (and a lot of others as well...) -- that may actually go beyond his own limitations. There is no question that he is inspirational and he has inspired a lot of people in ways that I don't think even he can put a lid on anymore...
In other words, the Obama "movement" has actually transcended Obama himself...
Lindorff is saying the people may have a fishing hook in the suit coat of the establishment puppet and that the fishing line may be strong enough to influence the dance routine planned by the puppetmasters.
Instead of that, Lindorf should be explaining how the people can shut down the economy with individual economic exchange tactics, independent yet synchronized, to finally purge the puppetmasters from the federal government.
I am not particularly optimistic about Obama. That being said, I voted for him in the Virginia primary because I believe he is the better choice. I cannot and will not vote for Clinton, as the last Clinton administration was a disaster for our nation and for our working class. Even having a nutcase repug in office seems better to me because at least we will not have any illusions and can continue to build a movement for real change. I also feel that Obama is a very intelligent man who by saying little is doing his best to deny the repugs a target in what will no doubt be an ugly campaign. I hope he will surprise us if elected. I doubt that he will, but there is that chance and in either case, he can't be any worse than the alternatives. Whoever he chooses as VP will be very telling. McCain should choose Leiberman as they are well matched with similar outlooks.
Ctrenta lists Obama's foreign policy credentials as proof of his [alleged] anti-war record but instead hoists Obama on his own petard. Obama's proposal to remove those troops over a 16 month period hardly constitutes a plan of immediate withdrawal. Over that time period, anywhere from 500 to a 1000 Americans could wind up very dead and many more would return to this country maimed and crippled, severely burned, blinded and especially brain damaged, paralyzed, and missing a few arms and legs, as well as being psychologically traumatized from what they have witnessed and/or participated in while being in Iraq. Obama's policy is not supporting the troops; on the contrary, it would end up killing them for no justifiable reason.
As ctrenta point sout, Obama wishes to have some troops remain in Iraq as well as keeping some troops, to use Murtha's phrase, "over the horizon", in places like Kuwait and Qatar. Leaving those troops in the nearby region will never win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, since they realize, justifiably, that American troops can be sent sent back into their country where they can wreak more havoc and destruction upon the Iraqi people. Or do their opinions not count because their faces are not white?
Ctrenta does not mention that Obama, the alleged anti-war candidate, wishes to enlarge the military by 100,000, as if the military of the United States, already the world's largest, is not big enough. What ctrenta leaves out is that Obama, the great anti-war candidate, has not ruled out the nuclear option against Iran, which, if acted upon, would mean the killing of many innocent Iranian people.
Barack Obama-agent of hope and change? No, more like the agent of the status quo, designed to carry out the wishes of the military-industrial complex and the corporate interests. Apparently, ctrenta neglected to mention that Obama is in the pocket of the vested interests, as he is second only to Hillary Clinton in accepting money from big corporations and Wall Street. One would be remiss to not mention that this alleged anti-war candidate has never once refused to cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq, thus making him just as culpable as any pro-war candidate or politician in Washington in having this occupation continue, despite Obama's claims to the contrary.
The last thing that the anti-war movement should do is to claim Barack Obama as a friend and ally of their cause.
Change happens at the bottom before the top. I have seen nothing from Obama that suggests he understands that. The vision of self-sustaining behaviors did not begin at the top. The energy and farm bills both reward large Corporate interests, not the small decentralized interests of the people. Leading from Washington is like leading from a sewer, followers will be few. The People will defeat the government, corporate, religious monster in a thousand different creative ways all being born and nurtured at the bottom and locally. Obama may be smart enough to follow the lead of the people but is he strong enough to resist the fist of the elites? Even if he is, one man can be easily removed from the scene but millions of men are more sustainable.
Hope David Lindorf is right about this, because we are reaching a point where we are going to have to gamble on Obama since the system has winnowed our choices to two real fast. Maybe we can get Obama to back off of his "modernizing and expanding the Navy" type rhetoric. Also, no saluting and saying "reporting for duty" at the convention if he is the nominee.
It seems to be that all these folks...who
are panting for ....vision...the uniter...
etc... are forgetting that obama is cut from
the same cloth as his colleagues....remember
the "uniter" who was crowned due to the
first bloodless coup (us supreme court) in my
lifetime.....take off your rose coloured
glasses...and think...stop trying to make
yourself feel good..that you're part of the
crowd that are "now above racisim...etc.etc."
I have never been clinton fans...but my
common sense tells me....that hiliary has
the best chance of beating the republican...
no matter what all the punsters are blathering
about bill.....either way we go with obama...
if he beats mccain...there will be more
division and disruption in the country...and
on the other hand...if mccain would beat him
we gain have more division and disruption...
so don't shoot yourselves in the foot...by
trying to feel good....hiliary is the
smartest vote.
When did "progressive liberalism" become synonymous with "pessimistic pragmatism"?
Lindorff lays out why I'm voting for Obama. Not because I know where he stands, but because I know Billary will continue corporatism and NAFTA and all the other things I am opposed to. Maybe Obama won't be any better but I have HOPE that he will be, and I prefer to vote my hope rather than continue on the path we are now on. I don't know what Obama will do (he was not my first choice by any means) but I think he won't be worse than Hillary and he just MIGHT be better!
Dave, I really like your articles, but on this I can not agree with you. I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He has said change must come from the people putting pressure on the politicians, and the newcomers signing on are doing that. I think he believes politicians should be responsive to the voters and for that, voters need to be engaged. And that is what we are seeing happening. He said in order to pass universal single payer health care, we need public support and a complete change in Congress and the White House. A president who actually informs people of what is in their interest? How long since we've had that? I believe it's called the bully pulpit. Personally I can't wait.
kathyodat
The Obama phenomenon reminds me that we should never forget that the future is quite unpredictable and uncontrollable (remember Chaos Theory?). The fascist elites want you to believe they have everything under control, so that we will roll over and not resist. They do not (the fascist elites have a tiger by the tail, and the non-elites are the tiger). We cannot know how this phenomenon will evolve over the next several months or the next several years (there are too many variables, including developments across the oceans), and often it is self-defeating to pretend we do.
Human populations regularly respond in an irrational and unpredictable manner. The "madness of crowds" should not be ignored. Much of what we think of as history came as a great surprise to those living through it.
Ike also warned the country about the military-industrial complex as he left office almost 50 years ago. Wouldn't it be great if our next president would restate that warning (throwing in the media and congress) as he/she entered office? Just to get the ball rolling. And when Barbara Walters gets her exclusive interview and asks what books are on the nightstand? Think of the possibilities. I don't think much change could actually happen legislatively during this presidency but what a legacy if this person got the population to understand that in this climate they'll have to educate themselves on these important issues.
I can't picture Hillary getting the ball rolling. I can almost picture Obama.
doesn't matter..Diebold will soley decide who gets to be the next CEO of Amerika
rtdrury...
can you elaborate on "individual economic exchange tactics?" I'm intrigued
Kudos to Dave Lindorf for emerging from the tower of authorship to debate down here in the trenches head-to-head with us commenting peons, including the wild leftist "Jacob Freeze."
Since most of my comment that so provoked Mr. Lindorf consisted of quotes from his own article, it's hard to see how he read so much of my politics out of the last sentence: "Let's take a shot in the dark with Barack Obama, and maybe everything will be just wonderful!"
I was actually inspired by Mr. Lindorf's article to rush out and post a diary on Daily Kos, under the title The Real Deal from Barack Obama, and Less.
There I quote a very progressive speech Obama made last year along with some weird blather from his website, where he explains how "we are all in it together" with the CEO class that has been waging a top-down class war against the rest of us for at least the last 7 years.
Is Obama really about progressive politics, or inane happy-think? Will the real Barack Obama please stand up!
I can't understand why Mr. Lindorf believes that progressives could somehow shanghai a center-right Obama administration, and his article doesn't describe much about this hypothetical process.
The "aroused and newly empowered bloc of voters" Lindorf mentions may turn out to be more aroused than empowered, and there's more than enough insulation around the Oval Office to screen out a populist mob on the National Mall.
As I contemplate voting, for the first time, for a candidate more than 10 years younger than me, it occurs to me this may be a good thing. Those of us who experienced the multiple disillusionments of the Kennedy assassination, the King assassination, the RFK assassination, Kent State, etc. etc. find it hard to hope -- just have trouble believing things could actually get better. The last 7 years, and especially the last 15 months since Nov. 2006, haven't helped any. So I am willing to hand leadership over to the under-50s and their under-30 supporters, where there seems to be a lot of genuine enthusiasm and hope. Sure, I can see all the ways things could go rotten, and some things undoubtedly will. But when I look at Obama I see the kind of leader who motivates and brings out the best in others, which is a good place to start. He'll get my vote on March 4.
[Rolls one Vegas-Standard dice (1d6), scores...?]
"Obama/Kucinich 'O8 GO!"
Gamble? Okay, I'll play goddamnit.
I would agree with Lindorff's analysis and have been making similar comments in this forum. Obama and his wife repeat a mantra about change coming from below... for anyone who has bothered to listen to their speeches. This much, I would hope, we can all agree on: social movements and an engaged population are critical to effective progressive change. People have to be a optimistic to become active; cynicism is the root of all arm-chair cyber-activism.
I don't think the Diebold machines can overcome a landslide? Or at least, there is a risk, it seems, if the landslide is utterly obvious.
If people here at Common Dreams are starting to wonder if the movement for "change" is getting bigger than Obama, the elite is also watching, wondering. Some of the ruling elite, along with Bill, believe there's no need to "roll the dice" with Hillary. If the whole system is utterly corrupt, Hillary will surely win the primary.
Of course, Hillary's winning the primary might be good for third parties, so there's the rub.
Hope is best spurred by mobilisation and action.
Hmmm.... Yes, the projected perspectives of Obama as a person-of-color seem correct. And, of course, ABC--Anyone But Clinton.
But Change? The real change coming will be imposed by nature and past polices--Peak Oil, Climate Chaos, local to federal government fiscal crises, stagflation, and financial collapse. The new term is the Great Decline instead of the 2nd Great Depression. The grassroots can agitate about all these, but policy is not made by the masses. Indeed, most of the agitation is about getting BAU to be more inclusive of those it's left behind rather than the more important need to change the paradigm.
I predict Obama and the congress elect will try to continue BAU while attempting to put out the already lit fires I note above. They will fail. But will they realize they are failing and change? We shall see. The bottom line for the USA majority is growing hard times imposed by nature as the result of failed past policies, some already visible with others to raise their heads as November approaches.
Oh dear! Dave tells us that "His candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support" that is somehow meaningfully progressive despite the fact that nobody knows "his personal politics." My, what a wonderful world, Jimmy Stewart. What could be more American than a political movement that has no political philosophy or ideology or even a single meaningful core belief. Smoke and mirrors doesn't do justice to this wonderful phenomenon. Sadly, we have no politics left (or right); the plutocracy is enthroned and we are left to passionately support someone with the political insight and courage of Piglet. Siiiigh!
Thanks David for coming back on, considering how a few readers missed the message.
It has been proven in history that no progressive movement for radical social change can succeed without a powerful spiritual message. David Lindorf recognizes the transformational power of spirituality. Democracy indeed is an excercise of the human spirit. A healthy Democracy is inherently valued and embraced to transcend an unjust status quo.
That being said, hope is the life-blood of democracy. That is why I hate to see hope trashed. However, I can understand the anger and despair.
I sense David Lindorf is right, there is something powerful going on with Obama's youthfull tide of national hope. Maybe this new generation is beginning to think. Maybe this generation is part of an emerging higher global consciousness, choosing to make choices between the need for increasing wealth vs. a more just society, the winning hand of peace, the fulility of war, and the survival of the planet.
Now I truly believe that all radical social change can only come from below. To do so though, I also have to believe that the people have the power to stop the current oppression of corporate rule. I really believe that corporate America is vulnerable and scared to death of a populist movement, that is why the ruling monied elite are building up the security state.
We the people must have faith in the power and wisdom of democracy. We the people must be courageous and united in solidarity through alternate news media, including the Internet. We the people must hold the politicians feet to the fire. With that, our so called "leaders" will follow.
Betsy...Excellent comment. I'm old enough to remember JFK and while I don't remember policies all that well I do remember that there was a feeling of hope at that time. Hope that things could, and would, get better.
It seems like forever since then and for a long time now we have been reduced to merely hoping that things will get worse more slowly.
Lindorff makes good points about FDR and JFK not running as FDR or JFK but being pushed along by ideas whose time had come. Remember also in 1964 when, after his nomination acceptance speech, Everett Dirksen said of Barry Goldwater, "Oh my God...he's going to run as Goldwater."
Maybe, sometimes, it pays not to spell everything out in advance. Anyway, as a jaded leftie, I am having an interesting time sorting this out. I had fully expected to vote Green in Nov but now with Obama...well, I don't know...I just don't know. I'm old enough now that if I get that football pulled away one more time and I fall down I could really get hurt!
Candidate Stew
Huckabee Hillary and McCaianiani stew
what's good for me is good for you
do the beans and the blessings for the few
do the first lady beans with the nuclear count
seven six five four three two one
hurray it's awesome greed & get it on
(for profit Armageddon is number one)
Do the beans
do the first beans want ta bees and end beens too
grab an ist or two to improve the brew
heathenist corporatist or monopolist will do
add some hanging chad and some cluster leaves too
for bombs and bread go hand in hand
just like Apartheid in the Holy land
Do the bean count
Do the mammon bean count
no cooks are needed for this mammoth faire
for markets need marks for the body tally
for what's good for me is good for you
in the Huckabee Hillary & Guilliani stew
Blah, blah, blah. Oh, yes, lots and lots of people "believe" in Barrack Obama, with a religious fervor that approaches American Idol, they believe in Mr. Obama as the savior. He has no actual ideas regarding changing anything, but he has convinced people, the young political newbies, that he will save them all from the horrible world their parents and grandparents have left them. It has to be like that doesn't it? I mean if we have learned anything from years of Survivor and America's Next Top Model, we have learned the what we see on TV and on youtube is what is real.
Mostly I just feel very very deeply sorry for the Obamamanians, when their savior turns out to abe a grifter like any other politician they will be so sad. So very sad. If only their had been a US Left that might have showed folks you have to take power ourselves, and that a media friendly cypher is not going to really do anything for us.
As far as I can tell both Obama and Clinton (why is Obama Obama, but Clinton known as Hillary?) are the same candidate as far as I can tell.
Of course Obama is the Democratic establishment, anything else is just nonsense. It really disgusts me how people get excited when someone is winning and make a case to themselves, based on lies and complete warrantless speculation, that their candidate is a real progressive. Nothing Obama has said has even pointed in this direction as far as I can tell. He raised a record amount of money in the last few weeks, and yes, from corporate donors. I can post a list here, because I just read about it. As far as the war is concerned, I heard a quote by Obama this morning on WBAI, telling a senate committee how he would support military action against Iran, to protect the America we know and love, then adding some drivel about how "it has held out its promise of hope to millions all over the world..."
Yeah the ones left standing after we commit genocide.
These posts with ignornant nonsense about Obama, along with pointless Hillary bashing (-misogyny seems to be in right now, or progressives think they are excused of it) are just that- ignorant.
Herd, control yourselves, please.
Siiigh! RIVERMAN how wonderful that B.O. said no to war as a basically unopposed candidate for a state senate seat. What courage! How about voting as an actual US Senator against funding the war; nope. How about filibustering additional authorizations; nope. Sorry - he said NO when it didn't matter; he said YES when it did. Piglet and Poo demonstrated more political courage when searching for the Woozle where he wasn't than B.O. and that's a sad sad story.
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
One of the truisms of American politics is that when you ask people who voted for a candidate to say what they think the candidate believes, they almost always say that the candidate believes the same things they believe in.
Thus, you see truly weird poll numbers that tend to say something like 60% of the people who voted for Bush in the last election believe he supports the Kyoto protocols against global warming.
The Obama campaign plays this to the hilt. He puts forward an attractive face that speaks attractive words with a familiar rythym similiar to MLK Jr. But he does nothing at all to shatter any illusions his supporters might have that they believe that Obama believes in exactly what they believe in.
That's what I see from the Obama supporters on the net. They say all these wonderful things that they believe that Obama believes in. Of course they do. The problem is that there's little to no evidence that Obama actually believes any of these or will actually do anything to put these beliefs into action.
When I look a little deeper, I see an Obama that's getting campaign money from the usual suspects that fund a pro-war, pro-corporate Democratic Party. And I see the usual sorts of advisors that surround a pro-war, pro-corporate Dem party candidate.
On top of that I get a few little hints from things Obama occaisionally lets slip out. Like his rather routine attacks on those who tried to stand up to oppose corporate rule in the sixties, and who tried to fight against war and racism and sexism, etc. He seems to constantly cite the sixties as a time of divisiveness that's the root of today's problems. I see it as the last time the people of this country actually mounted an effective opposition and had some success. Then there's his little freudian slip where he talks about Reagan being a great uniter. Sorry, I remember the Reagan years first hand .... that comment comes across about like the way anyone today would hear a comment from someone talking about what a great uniter Dubya has been as President. What?
So, what to make of Obama? You can have blind hope that he might be ok. You can't tell because he won't say. And these days that also requires the willful suspension of the knowledge of what that (D) after his name really stands for. That's about it.
So, you can vote for Obama and pray you aren't being taken for a ride.
Or you can go find the Green party and support candidates that are clear and forthright about exactly what sort of change they support and are willing to fight for.
Eyor beat me to it. Nice!
Remember, it took no political bravery at all for Obama to oppose the war in 2002. He was a state senator from an urban district. I'm not from Chicago, but similar districts in Atlanta where I lived at the time were massively against the war. So basically he said what his supporters wanted to hear. Hard to tell if he meant it.
Then you have to look at the votes on top of that where he votes for war funding, refuses to try to filibuster the war, and generally is very supportive of the extremely bloated Pentagon budgets we've had lately.