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.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
122 Comments so far
Show Allalank,
You're right on a lot of things you say. What would you propose? Do you want to just wallow in it?
alank:
thank you for your extraordinary posting. at least someone on the "left" has some passion left, and can still see what populism was meant to accomplish.
i am green again, after having voted for kucinich in the CA primaries. i almost don't want to read any more articles here, having given up on the democratic "centrist" project that common dreams too often enables.
also, after posting quite a bit RE green, ron paul, and alex jones, I was banned from common dreams. i asked for clarification from the editors two times and never got a response. and now they want my money for another fundraiser. censorship imo is anathema to the progressive cause. i am now using a different username.
thank you again for your intelligence and passion. it inspires me to see what a sham all these compromises and lowered expectations we're supposed to swallow here are.
peace
Dave, It happens to the best of us. Hooked by hope and leaving analysis aside, you buy into the potentially rosy picture.
What about the REAL picture, though, of a political grouping (they call it a "party") which could not shield nor warn us of the impending, then actual takeover of our government, the broad daylight destruction of our constitution and laws, the mockery of the voting system AND the vote count,
Why on earth are well meaning and supposedly perceptive progressive folks so willing to reduce their aspirations and expectations? How can they can simply IGNORE the history of the last decade with the destruction of the middle class, our currency, outsourcing, wars, with BOTH parties silencing "their own" piece of the public.
Forget warning the nation: the actual on-going wholesale destruction of our democracy has been met with lots of enabling and little resistance.
And you think Obama's "inspiring" speeches change that?
You think they mobilize people? To do...what, exactly? To hit the streets for impeachment, clamor for single-payer health insurance? ...or to forget all those troubling things going on, and exercise their new-found courage and optimism by...lining up next November at polling stations? Once again telling the masses to smil, hope, and vote -- and hope the vote is counted, even though the candidate and his party has not lifted a finger in eight years to make sure that it is.
Now, so hungry for ANYthing resembling populism, will some progressives not only accept, but get excited by, another corporate candidate that is "different" because of his race and some insider stories of his progressive past?? THIS will change America?? THIS will "ignite" the people to insist upon rolling back the torture, the executive orders, going full-bore after the mercenary crony-armies of the neocons, END once-and-fo-all the "clean" nuclear energy myth?? This will re-gain clean and fair elections??
Give us all a break. And you want to blame elements of the "left"? For what? For not buying into the feel-good happy talk? For not succumbing to the climate of desperation created by decades of lowering our expectations? For not being willing to suspend belief any longer?
You, like so many others WANT so desperately to believe that this one man and his apparent charisma can change the damage created by media concentration and hundreds (if not thousands) of democracy-robbing laws. Like magic.
No one can blame anyone for wanting that, but the more progressives get slapped around and silenced the more they seem willing to accept the seemingly better of the crumbs being offered. Worse, they become willing to collaborate in building a new myth around this failed and deceptive narrative.
First-rate, thoughtful article that is a "glass half full" assessment of Obama's progressivism. For a "glass half empty" assessment see my piece at adslibs.com, and pardon the self promotion.
Wayne Clark
I'm voting for him this year.
As long as he does these things I will vote for him in 2012:
1)Adapt the US to 4th generation warfare.
2) Not impose his voter base's values on regions/communities/people who are
a) Right-Wing Protestant Religious fundamentalists.
b) Anti-union.
c) For strict law enforcement.
d) Against social justice ideologies implemented in their schools and city code.
The reason I say the above is that he is supposed to be a bridge for former divisions, which is the opposite of the political type that takes the Federal government for a ride in the direction of his voter base, angering the rest of the country, and enabling the next cycle of backlash.
I want a sustainable "progressive" movement, which will require subtle executive administration.
http://progressive-positive.blogspot.com/2008/02/voting-for-obama.html
Dave Lindorff has pretty much encapsulated my view of Barack Obama and the reasons I support him over Hillary Clinton, but I would stress one point -- he is a progressive at heart. I have a slight advantage over others posting here in that I know members of his family and have met Obama socially, both before he entered politics and since his election as a US Senator.
Obama was a progressive years ago when he was still contemplating his first run for office; he later moderated his liberal views publicly because he pragmatically believes that to get anything done, you have to first get elected. He is a naturally charismatic and canny politician and has studied the successful campaigns of Reagan and Bush Junior -- not to emulate their politics, but to find out how they got elected. Reagan, of course, ran a happy-face campaign to 'restore America's greatness'; Bush Junior wore the cloak of the 'compassionate conservative' to convince voters that he was not the dangerous petit despot -- the 'Unitary Executive' -- he became.
I think Obama will be a Reagan for the left; like Franklin Roosevelt, he'll operate as a much more liberal chief executive than his campaigning would suggest, inspiring and working for the people while simultaneously retaining good will among the opposition, without compromising his basic principles. As he has shown in his political career, he has succeeded at passing progressive legislation by reaching across the aisle and forming coalitions, just as FDR did. It's the way the political game is played in this country and something liberal firebrands like Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader, for all their many virtues, have never mastered.
If he had come out and demanded impeachment for Bush and Cheney as Kucinich has, or gone anti-corporate early as Edwards did, he would have met their fate -- the Big Corporately-Owned Media would have dismissed and ignored him. No, I don't like it either, but that's the reality in America today. Instead, he played his cards close to the vest, gradually revealing what he'll do in between the applause lines for 'hope' and 'change.' He has inspired a movement to take back America from the fringe right, just as Martin Luther King inspired the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and that's just what we need to turn around the country from the course set by the Bush Neocons -- one that will be continued under McCain and only altered in minor ways by Hillary.
To read some progressives, you'd think we were electing a liberal Pope instead of a secular president. Obama is not perfect; he is a political realist who works methodically, but he's our best chance at reversing Cheney's PNAC corporate conservatism, ending Bush's wars, stopping torture, restoring habeas corpus, renewing our standing in the world, mending our economy, halting the illegal excesses of the Executive Branch, improving the environment, installing liberal judges, sane cabinet members, resurrecting governmental competence, and pushing the weak-kneed Democratic Party in a more progressive direction. Also, his election to the lily white palace on Pennsylvania Avenue as the first American president who isn't caucasian will put a final stake in the heart of Jim Crow racism.
Some people have said we're rolling the dice with Obama; we may be but, for once, they're loaded in our favor.
BTW, Edualopez, forgive me if I don't take advice from Mike Gravel -- if he had run a more serious campaign and hadn't frittered away his credibility in goofy TV spots, he might have been the one challenging Hillary today.
Kivals (2/12; 2:57pm), you make an excellent point. In 1932, the moneyed class thought the aristocratic and wealthy FDR was one of their own and would protect their interests as president -- they believed they could control him, as they had Coolidge and Hoover. He did protect the rich, but not in the way they thought; while he saved capitalism in this country, the elite condemned him for being a 'traitor to his class' just because he helped the poverty-stricken with some 'soft socialism' programs, proving once again that you can't buy common sense and wealth does not automatically confer intelligence.
Jacob Freeze, your comments might have more credibility if you would bother to spell Dave's last name correctly: it's 'Lindorff' with two 'fs' -- no need to Google, it's right at the top of the article.
Deran, if you think he has "no actual ideas regarding changing anything," I suggest you read them at his website: www.barackobama.com/issues
Formernadervoter, get your facts straight: most of Obama's campaign 'funding' came from donations under $100 dollars and he has not taken any PAC or lobbyist money, and you can check the above website for the truth on the other facts you 'shaded' to try and make your point.
Thoughts_Into_Action, Obama has promised to restore habeas corpus and the rule of law, and close Gitmo among other things he hasn't 'hedged on.'
If a corporate hack is what the cards have given us, a Clinton is better than a Obama.
You guys remind me of trying to decide between New Coke (remember that) and Classic Coke, and making the argument that New Coke is somehow a change.
It is not a case of Obama representing the people and Clinton the corporations but both of them representing different aspects of the corporatism.
Obama voted for the Cheney's energy bill because he had a bill due for his senate seat. Likewise, he thought a 30% cap on interest was too oppressive to his Sugar Daddy, banking and financial industries. He attacks Clinton's housing plan in Friedman like that a freeze will bring in higher inflation.
When I think of Obama, Marx's reference to religion being the opiate of the masses comes to mind. What I see now is too many liberals drunk on Obama kool aid. Obama's last ads are hilarious, no pun intended, and reminds me of the 90's Pepsi commercials.
It seems the same folks that got all goo goo eyed for Kerry, or now drunk for Obama. Sadly, he'll have the same fate.
*cocks purple bonnet*
Hey, Huck. You lookin' at me? Nah, I said, are you LOOKIN' at ME?!
Did I say anything positive about Hillary Clinton, or should I schedule another CAT Scan of my head?
Kathyodat - Thanks for the kind words! IMHO, this world could use a little less whining and a lot more inspiration. Can't do a whole lot with whining, except maybe take an aspirin or a long, cold shower. Inspiration, on the other hand, can evolve into motivation, which can then evolve into action. At least inspiration has potential, it's something you can build on, so I'll take it in whatever form.
Outside of Bush, no other person has more negative connotations attached to their candidacy than does Hillary Clinton on Common Dreams. I challenge anyone here to put Clintons name in the Common Dreams search engine and start reading the FACTS indicating Clinton is nothing more than a stooge to corporate interests and high crimes and misdemeanors. Wake Up old ladies or young....
Clinton is rotten to the core!
grumpyoldlady, you're wonderful! I agree with you all the way. Obama inspires people, he tells us we need to create the change we want. I see that as code for saying he will support the change we demand. Before running for president - and that includes before becoming a US Senator, he was a progressive in an unprogressive state and managed to be liked by his peers and even enact some valuable legislation that no one wanted (videotaping homicide investigations and confessions). He saw right away that his goal of single payer health care had no chance without the right president and Congress to make it happen. Maybe now it will.
kathyodat
Sorry if I misunderstood your post, Vern. Another thing about old ladies...sometimes we're slow on the uptake!
Grumps
Vern, OK, I figured out that you disagree with the gentleman from the Jerusalem Post. Good on ya. Cleary Grumpyoldlady didn't figure it out. And she's right-- her comments are right on target. You may have an implied agenda but we don't all know what it is.
Vern,
I know you said, "No comment necessary." But I'm an old lady and, as you know, old ladies wear funny hats and do whatever the hell they want (two sacred provinces of the wrinkled matriarch!). So....
"SHE HAS also shown pragmatism on issues such as the war in Iraq, where she shows an admirable realism. She has bravely refused to disavow her early support for the war."
Well, when something is wrong, it's wrong. I don't find anything courageous about doing something wrong and then stubbornly refusing to admit you were mistaken. I personally find Mrs. Clinton's explanations for her vote disingenuous at best. She has said that she looked at the evidence presented to Congress and agreed with the conclusion that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Many of her colleagues looked at the same evidence and saw it for the convoluted bunch of hooey it really was. She has also claimed that when she voted for the resolution, she assumed that Mr. Bush would follow through with UN inspections before taking any military action. Others could listen to the rhetoric coming from Mr. Bush and his administration and watch the build up of U.S. forces in the Middle East and realize that these were not the words and actions of someone looking for a peaceful resolution.
So, what can we conclude from this?
1) Like George Bush, Mrs. Clinton supported going to war in Iraq regardless of the lack of evidence that they were ever a threat to the United States or anyone else. This makes her motivations (war for domination and/or control of natural resources?) and her political ambitions (looking properly hawkish for the right-leaning electorate?) highly suspect in my eyes. Or,
2) Mrs. Clinton is easily misled, even by weak evidence of a highly questionable nature. This does not instill confidence in her judgement as a commander in chief. Or,
3) Mrs. Clinton had faith in George Bush's veracity and motivations, both of which were clearly questionable to anyone with a functioning cerebellum. Or,
4) Mrs. Clinton cast her vote in light of public opinion and with a view toward her future political ambitions.
In my view, her vote was motivated by a combination of reasons #1 and #4. The Clinton doctrine always held a hostility toward Iraq that seemed disproportionate to any actual threat Saddam Hussein posed to America, lending support to the notion that our interests there might be more economically than politically motivated. Further, I can't recall ever hearing Mrs. Clinton talking seriously about withdrawing American troops from Iraq until her campaign for president began. I can't help but wonder if she would still be talking about troop withdrawl and timelines if public opinion had not shifted so dramatically against this foolish endeavor, if espousing withdrawl meant suffering accusations of weakness and a lack of patriotism akin to treason. In fact, where was she when vocal opponents of this war like Richard Wilson, John Murtha, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd and Max Cleland were being subjected to the most despicable public attacks the right wing spin machine could muster?
"And while she has stated that the troops should be brought home, she rejected cheap demagoguery by saying that such a withdrawal will take time."
Unfortunately, she's right about this. Bringing home some 130,000 troops and all their equipment is not so simple a task as throwing them all on an airplane. It took months to get all the soldiers and their equipment there, so it's not unreasonable to assume that it will take at least that long to get them home. What troubles me about Mrs. Clinton's position on this issue is that it, like on the Iraq War itself, seems to keep changing. Before her campaign began, she was not calling for withdrawl at all. Early in her campaign, she refused to commit to ending the occupation or giving a timeline for withdrawl. This position gradually evolved into her "reality check" approach, wherein she states that while withdrawl sounds good it was not realistic to expect it could be done under any specific timeline. Now, she states that the troops will be withdrawn within 16 months of her election. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps this shift in position reflects an honest evolution of understanding of the villanous nature of this conflict. But it's not unreasonable to question her sincerity when it appears that her position on this issue seems to change based upon the response of the voters to her rhetoric. For me, personally, it's too little, too late.
"Those of us who know firsthand the realities of the tumultuous Middle East understand that this is not the time in history for confusion, inexperience, and on-the-job training."
I find no confusion in Mr. Obama's views of the Middle East. I do, however, find Mrs. Clinton's continually changing views not only confusing, but her motivations suspicous at best. As for experience, Mrs. Clinton is in her second term in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama is in his first. As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton worked on a number of policy issues. From 1997 to 2004, Mr. Obama served as a state senator in Illinois. There's nothing in her resume that leads me to believe that Mrs. Clinton has any more experience as a statesman than Mr. Obama. The fact that her husband is a former president may qualify as experience-by-osmosis for some voters. For me, the implication is that he will be there to help her along, but he is not the one we are electing. I wonder, would Hillary Clinton have ever been elected to public office had Bill been a plumber, instead of a former president? We'll never know, I suppose, but her reliance on him as an advocate and a representative of her political platform does nothing to earn my faith in her as an individual. Instead, it makes me strangely uncomfortable in ways I can't really articulate.
One could also argue that by virtue of her years in Washington as First Lady and as a senator, Mrs. Clinton has become well entrenched in the kind of corporate politics that have disenfranchised so many Americans. Her argument in one debate that lobbyists represent "real Americans" and her stated willingness to work with them, for me, is confirmation that she, too, has become disconnected with the American public.
As for "on the job training," every first term president learns the job that way. It's par for the course.
None of this should imply that I am blind to Mr. Obama's shortcomings. But as this primary season progresses, it is clear that Hillary Clinton cannot inspire the kind of raw enthusiasm and excitment that Barack Obama can. The arguments you make, while I'm sure heartfelt, are the same kind of fear-based rhetoric that we've heard from the Republicans over the last eight years. This turns me off, maybe even more so than any other point.
I would suggest that courage isn't always defined by doing the safe thing. Sometimes a leap of faith can be the ultimate act of bravery.
Check out this hilarious cartoon on Obama! Lindorff is on the money. A remarkable rise, but based on what?
mirf59,
I used to get really irritated that challenges to the ueber-elite were split between Greens, Nader, socialists, libertarians, populists, non-voters (a very large number), etc. Note that I don't include Dems here -- are they really an opposition party?
But I genuinely wonder whether the way to change is easier now if the bottom falls out. We've had good/bad cop for about 150 years of Dems and Republicans in the White House. Dems lately are just called up to patch the excesses, fatten the livestock for another butchering, never really going after perpetrators.
We were handed Clinton and Obama by the DLC/Bilderbergs/Vichy or whoever they are because they were both sellable, credible. If Bush just had another 4 years or so to REALLY f-up this country, the DLC couldn't as easily pawn off Republican Lite on us.
Democrats were saddled with Obama vs. Hillary because of the nature of the Democrats. They're the chief obstacle to genuine progressive populism at this point.
Give me a genuine opposition, or give me nothing.
I think Obama will win the nomination and the general election barring a last minute coup by the Clinton smear machine. If the Clinton's are able to pull it off by disenfranchising voters with the usurping of Super Delegates, not much else can stop Obama.
That said, Obama is just another dyed in wool corporate controlled stooge marching to his handlers.
I guess my vote will go to Nader again.
There is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance that Washington Insiders will override the will of the voters with a secret "backroom deal".
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
Paul B,
Of course it's easier to become President. Consider the current occupant of the White House, a two-term man who cannot even formulate a grammatically-correct sentence.
I agree it is a strange and rapid ascent. No doubt there will be many books written trying to explain it.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest he's just a slick-talking Establishment candidate like Slick Willie. But, there's also an unmistakeable air of decency about him as a human being that is not present with the Clintons.
It's almost like the difference between Bush 41 and Bush 43.
You are very likely to be correct that his departure from the corporatist line will be zero. I might argue just injecting some decency and dignity back into the Executive Branch would already be an amazing accomplishment.
Hell, just a willingness to listen to the public and others that have been shut out of late is a major positive, even if it's just listening at this point. You have to take incremental victories when they are available.
Anyway, what is the alternative in 2008? Move to Norway?
I'm a progressive. I want change. I want America to begin to live up to its potential and its promise. I want to stop spending time on the Internet looking for a new country to which I and my partner and our 57 indoor and feral alley cats can relocate.
Will I find salvation coming from the Democratic, I mean Republican-lite, party? Hardly.
If Americans REALLY wanted a change of direction, we'd see Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, or even (shudder) Ron Paul as a front-runner.
The common complaint regarding Obama IS widespread simply because there's legitimacy to it: where's the substance?
If I have to hear "Change we can all believe in" one more time my head's gonna explode. Whenever you ask an ardent Barack supporter "What changes?" all you get in response is a blank look or a defensive "the details are on his web site." Well, no they're not. His web site is just more of the same vacuous, lofty, blathering: much ado about nothing. For example, whereas Kucinich would've torn up NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT and extricated the U.S. from the WTO on day one, all Barack says about trade is:
Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
Huh? How? What specifically?
No, Democrats are just like most other Americans: they're more concerned with image than substance. Cling to the status quo and just tinker with the edges. Just be sure to look good while going down in flames.
After eight years of Bush (and eight years of an AWFUL Clinton presidency - welfare reform, telecomm de-regulation, Haft-Tartley lives on, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, blah blah blah), it's going to take some radical, progressive moves to get this country back on course. Iraq continues to vacuum lives and treasure, and all we can talk about is David Shuster and American Idol.
I embrace my well-worn despair.
Support Obama for President. But criticize him where he´s wrong...which is on quite a number of things: nuclear power,the Peru Free Trade Agreement, the death penalty, and so on.
Join the Facebook group
Progressives (Critically) for Barack Obama
Obama, next to Hillary, is definitely the progressive choice, but he´s no messiah. An Obama presidency will open up space for the left, but it is our responsibility to take advantage of that space and hold him accountable where he´s wrong.
mirf59,
But it's easier to become president?
Obama was groomed for this role 5-10 years ago, I'm guessing. His rise, despite a lack of a clear track record, is inexplicable.
Also, check out this Freakonomics blog article, "What Does a Presidential Candidate's Economic Adviser Actually Do?" John McCain's EA just sounds like a clown, I thought it was a spoof at first. Hillary's EA never provided his job description; Obama's EA, Dr. Goolsbee, is excited and enthusiatic while explaining his role in the advising process.
(Sorry, it's on the New York Times website, I tried to find it elsewhere but that's where their blog is at.)
lol!
Banish the thought!
Never forgot when I got tossed out of Democratic Underground and accused of being a "freeper" for being critical of the Clintons so long ago...I have to admit a certain satisfaction in seeing the consensus shift. I watch her and see if I can conjure up any sympathy for her losses, but it doesn't come. And now, it is amusing that someone here at CD wonders if I support the Zionist agenda...I still have bookmarked a NYTimes article that quotes Clinton as supporting war crimes in Iraq and agression towards Iran because, "it was located centrally in the oil region and Israel's interests were at stake" or something like that. Tone deaf to shifting consciousness--right there. No thanks.
I'd like to see a "Progressive Liberal" in the White House, and wanted to know who would fit the bill (no pun intended.) I created a side by side list of Hillary's and Obama's stances on numerous issues to help me decide for whom to vote. When I found out about Obama's position on economics, that pretty much clinched it for me. I became fascinated and have been researching it since.
Obama's top economic adviser is Dr. Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago; he is highly credentialed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee. There are references to other articles re: "Obamanomics" on the bottom of that page. Obama's economic philosophy pulls aspects of behavioral economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory into one that addresses inequality in social and economic issues, and provides for more educational opportunities. His plan won't "cripple the economy, enhance the coercive power of the state, or infringe on personal liberty." Obama doesn't want to support the welfare state as we know it, but rather he wants to enable people to help themselves. "The cost - higher marginal tax rates - is real, but eminently justified by the benefits." (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2841) Obama's philosophy runs counter to traditional economic policies, and that's just one reason he's a more attractive candidate.
Obama is a lawyer trained in Constitutional law, and will be more likely to turn the clock back on habeas corpus, illegal spying, etc. Obama has consistently stood for justice and equality, while Hillary wants to push us further into a "Nanny State," which means "Big Government." If you want to be treated like a child with few choices and who can't be expected to make a responsible decision for him/herself, don't vote for Obama. If you believe in a U.S. protectionist policy (see Chomsky), don't vote for Obama. Hillary supports "free trade," not "fair trade." Obama has a larger worldview, IMHO. Her healthcare initiative would be mandatory, and create a huge bureaucracy in order to manage it. Obama's health care program would be voluntary, yet incentivized so that individuals would be more likely to accept it. I suppose his plan would create a larger bureaucracy, but at least we'd be given a choice and not tied down to just one.
I've read that Obama was more liberal while serving at the state level, moving more towards center at the federal level. Supposedly, this was part of his strategy to become an attractive candidate for the presidency, I don't know. Bill Clinton was a centrist, and probably was able to get more done with a Republican congress. You have to play the game if you want to get things, and Obama will be open to opinions of those on the right, bringing both sides together. However, there most likely will be a tidal wave of change in Congress because of the last seven years. A truly egalitarian, democratic president will just make it all that more fun.
Truly Obama is more preferable than Hillary Clinton. However that's like preferring stricnine over arsenic.
Dave,
Excellent article but I have to disagree with your optimism. It is true that it is the people who support him who are progressive and not him. But, in America today, these very same 'progressives' did so little to take on the Democratic Party for their role in giving us this war. (A war that started with George 1, who destroyed the Iraqi military, Bill, who destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure along with half a million of its people, and now W, and all that he's done (like catching up to Bill in the body count).
In fact, these 'progressives' naively believed that giving power back to the Democrat in 06 would have meant an end to the war and everything 'unholy' with this president.
To Jameer above, who thinks Nader should have given his support to Gore.
What planet are you on? Why do you hate participatory democracy so much that only one party has got to have all the answers and the prayers to your dreams? Whether Nader is an egotist or not, and who running for president isn't?, why should his voice not be heard? If Gore couldn't sell his conservative ideas to many, why blame them? In the market place of ideas, Gore was pretty generic. Nader and the Greens actually had substance to their ideas. Incidentally, Gore won that election but it was stolen by the Bush crowd and the Democrats didn't do jack to stop it.
Should we even be praising a leader like Gore who wouldn't even fight for his own stolen election? Or any Democrat, especially in the Senate? The Congressional Black Caucus of the House challenged the election and not a single Democratic Senator stood with them. Sorry, but the Democrats do not deserve to be in the White House and if they do win it this time (unless Hillary's their nominee)they will have a new face but with the same American Empire agenda.
Myles
Riverman, you may have some valid points but you need to go back to school and take remedial English. Learn to communicate in a way folks can understand. I'm serious. Come back in a couple of years. I skip over most of your posts because I don't have the patience to translate your broken sentences and disconnected thoughts.
Paul B,
I don't think you are respecting the realities of the Senate with your criticism of Obama's inability to blaze the trail in the Senate.
Freshman Senators don't ride in, guns ablazing, and set the legislative agenda of the entire Senate. That's just not a realistic expectation.
It's interesting to observe the contrast between the chronically cynical and the optimistic on these blogs. Nicnews, I think your idea "obama plays directly into the hands of Republicans" is nonsense. Losing isn't the Republican strategy. But I agree they may have selected a throwaway candidate because they know they are going to lose. The next four years have the potential to unravel a lot of the elements of the World Demolition Derby put on by the current ringmasters. One can't predict what will happen but we have to take advantage of movements that push things in the right direction.
Vern, do you agree or disagree with the writer? All we know from your post is what the guy from the Jerusalem Post says.
"A Hillary win with Obama as VP assures 8 years of Hillary and another 8 for Obama. 16 years of Democracy in the White House."
I don't believe that for a second.
Why did Obama miss so many votes? He's a closet progressive? Or a closet something else?
Obama has one thing figured out. He knows that change can only come about if citizens are motivated to support that change. Especially if it means taking on the status quo. If you listen to Obama's speeches, you'll see that he uses the word "We" throughout them. So, although he's not the perfect candidate and not another Dennis Kucinich, he's certainly a breath of fresh air compared to what America has had to deal with over the last 16 years. If he gets elected, he'll certainly be indebted to a whole new generation of Americans who are starting to switch on to politics. They can give him the authority he'll need if he's going to take on the corporate elite. Remember, it's their world that is at stake and the more involved they become in seeing political solutions to the problems they face, the better the chances that progressive change can happen. This whole Obama populist movement can only be looked up as a very positive change for both the USA and the rest of the world. Now is the time for the progressive movement to rally around this new political reality and critically support it, always keeping the pressure up to push it to the left.
As Obama continually states - if not now, when? Comeon peeps, get the shit together and take advantage of this new situation in US politics.
Cheers.
Now I am , after Kucinich's demise, an Obama semi-supporter.
Certainly, the guy (talk the Talk,) but will he (walk the Walk,) is remained to be seen. If anything, he is for sure the lesser evil out there among all the remaining candidates.
I hope Obama will not do to the Liberal-progressive movement, (thats if there is real one out there,) what George W Bush did to the conservative movement ...
Obama plays directly into the hands of the Republicans. They know that after GW the Republicans can't win. So, they put up a "any candidate" who will lose, but concentrate on 2012. A Hillary win with Obama as VP assures 8 years of Hillary and another 8 for Obama. 16 years of Democracy in the White House. With an Obama win now, he will not have the "machine" behind him and the Republicans will very likely be back in in 2012. Can Obama really perform miracles in 4 years without the real Democratic machine behind him? Probably not, but stranger things have happened!
"...SHE HAS also shown pragmatism on issues such as the war in Iraq, where she shows an admirable realism. She has bravely refused to disavow her early support for the war. And while she has stated that the troops should be brought home, she rejected cheap demagoguery by saying that such a withdrawal will take time.
On issues of importance to Israel, there are few US politicians that can rival, Hillary Clinton. Both Clintons have understood that Israel is a strategic asset. They have worked with past Israeli governments and been deeply interested in the region.
Obama's connection to Israel is infinitely more tenuous and, like much else about him, unclear. His view of the Middle East is at best naïve, as his statements have shown, and his choice of advisors - which is a real problem despite attempts to cover this up - is potentially troubling to Israel.
Simply ask yourself this question: Who do you trust more to deal with such issues as terrorist threats, Iran's nuclear weapons' drive, Syria, and North Korea?
Those of us who know firsthand the realities of the tumultuous Middle East understand that this is not the time in history for confusion, inexperience, and on-the-job training. Could Barak Obama be a good president? Perhaps. But that's not the kind of odds I want to face during one of the most difficult periods in American history.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202742140008&pagename=JPost%...
No comment necessary.
Thank you, grumpyoldlady! I couldn't have typed it better myself!
Cheers!
CS
Blogs and websites are the new places for the same old promises and platitudes.
I want to see evidence in Obama's track record, particularly in the past couple years. There's an old adage that you can't get a managerial position until you have managerial experience. The President is top CEO. Promises and plans don't really amount to much. He's been sweeping over his own tracks, or afraid to make many it seems:
http://obama.senate.gov/votes/
It's not merely a matter of his record on votes. Ultimately, that's a passive measure. What are the bills he's INTRODUCED or SPONSORED? Any great progressive gems there?
If he's got grandiose plans, why so many missing votes in '07? Where are the visionary/progressive sponsored bills? If he's a great progressive, let alone liberal, why is he afraid to take the driver's seat?
Nobody really knows what President Obama would do. It's wide open for speculation. The fact that he was against the War in Iraq from the beginning puts him in a fairly exclusive club along with other progressive minds.
But then he says things in the debates like "Of course, we will have to keep some security forces in Iraq to protect out vital national interests in the region" -- and you cringe, because it sounds like a line planted by Henry Kissinger.
God only knows what President Obama will do. In any case, it will be a new dawn in America.
We'll again have a President that can complete a sentence in the English language.
We'll again have a listener in the White House, and he'll be listening to us, and he'll be listening to all the leaders of the world estranged by Bush radicalism. He might not say "yes," but he will listen.
In short, we'll have a leader we can be proud of rather than a disgrace and a national embarrassment such as we've suffered for seven plus years. And that certainly counts for something, even if the orders for stealth bombers don't go down one lick.
After reading Mr. Lindorff's article, I felt that someone had finally put into context the sense of excitment and optimism that Mr. Obama's campaign seems to inspire in so many voters. It's true that he is a dynamic and inspirational speaker. In spite of my politically cynical and oft-disappointed heart (to which, by the way, Bill Clinton contributed significantly), when I watch Mr. Obama speak I cannot help but feel that I'm witnessing something rare and wonderful.
Mr. Lindorff's article clarified something for me. I've worked in sales, so I recognize good technique when I see it. There's no doubt that Mr. Obama has found a very effective formula for delivering his message. Other posters here at CD are right to point out that this formula is light on specifics, touching on them only superficially. I would argue that if Mr. Obama were to spend the ten minutes available to him in these speeches laying out, point by point, his plan for the economy, for instance, he would have looked up to find a large collection of drooping eyelids and his campaign would have fizzled a long time ago. Where I think the other posters are in error is in viewing these campaign speeches as the proper format for such a diatribe on specifics, and in concluding from this lack of specifics that Mr. Obama has no plan, only fluffy, generalized promises. Viscerally, I like the sound of those fluffy promises, but I, too, want to see if there's any substance behind the fluff.
A simple web search provided me with Mr. Obama's website, where his positions and plans on a wide array of issues can be found in greater detail. Also found are various sources of information from those who support and those who disagree with Mr. Obama's positions. So, anyone who wants more specifics can easily find them and make up their own mind. I have no reason to believe that other voters are so dazzled by Mr. Obama's delivery that they wouldn't bother to do a little homework on the candidate they're supporting.
Back to the point that Mr. Lindorff was making...perhaps what we're seeing here is not a promise of change, but the potential for riding the current wave of enthusiasm and excitment to steer a more progressive course. Clearly, that potential is there. Many of those who initially supported the Iraq War are now questioning the wisdom of that support. Working class Republicans are being hit just as hard by the sinking economy and are losing their homes to forclosure in shocking numbers, or are finding themselves unable to get the healthcare they need. Even those on the hardcore Right, for whom "values" issues like abortion, stem cell research and prayer in schools are the litmus test of their vote are finding those issues marginalized in light of these bigger issues that impact on almost all of us. And even Republicans are expressing concern over global warming after years of calling it a left-wing fantasy. Mr. Lindorff correctly points out that Mr. Obama is not a progressive (ala Dennis Kuncinich). But he also correctly observes that the time is ripe for the progressive movement to finally be heard by those whose ears and minds have been closed for decades.
I've realized that it is not so much Mr. Obama that inspires optimism in me. It's looking at the crowds and seeing people of all ages and races, from all walks of life, feeling excited and engaged in the political process. After decades of apathy, it's a refreshing sight. Whether those folks will be disappointed by their candidate later on remains to be seen. As Mr. Lindorff seems to warn, maybe that isn't really up to Mr. Obama.
Maybe it's up to us.
One more personal observation: Last night, I watched Mr. Obama's speech in Wisconsin, which was followed by Mr. McCain's speech to his supporters in Virginia. I looked at the huge, smiling, screaming crowd that surrounded Mr. Obama, and then at the group of elderly white folk behind Mr. McCain who looked like they'd been wheeled out of a hospice center. I confess, a giddy little voice inside my head said, "That poor old man is going to get shellacked."
I hear the word "progressive" batted about ever since Newt Gingrich made "liberal" a dirty word. What is that? I sense that it is a term self-applied to liberals who don't want to be labelled by that four letter word. Obama is more of the same folks. You want to be swept up by the emotion of a rock concert like campaign audience? Fine. Or a revival meeting? Fine. Or get an emotional high from being part of a Hollywood and an entertainer inspired movement? Fine. The reality is, however, that Obama, like Hillary, is an embedded member of the only political entity allowed to succeed, and that entity is any candidate that is sanctioned by the corporate power structure. Obama, like Hillary, is ALLOWED to be where they are by virtue of the rules inherent within the electoral process created by the ruling elite who expect returns on their investment. These are the same folk who squashed Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and of course, will once again blame Ralph Nader (yes, he will run). Of course they squashed Ron Paul also. So then, we are to participate in the so-called pragmatic, are we? As in, what choice is there? Yoh. Been there done that! Ad nauseum. Never ever again for this voter. I expect to see Obama supporters next year demonstrating when as president he sends another 100,000 troops to Iraq and institutes hostilities with Iran. The change that Obama really represents is the willing snookering of the US electorate who passionately want to believe that something different is about to happen. It is not.
Obama's no-showing on key votes, by its very lack of clarity, suggests what to expect in his administration. Given this empty space, who's the joke on? The Bilderbergs/etc. or his idealistic young voters? I've got MY bet in.
pdf:
My vote goes to a non-existent Progressive Populist Party. The party part isn't that important, Nader will do. But he's not a spring chicken any more.
"On a wing and a prayer, and between a rock and a hard place. Too bad we have to have a crystal ball to pick a Presidential candidate to vote for. Why can't it just be the issues?"
I saw Kucinich, during one of those TV debates that didn't matter that much, answer his own question when given the opportunity to ask a candidate a question, so maybe I can do the same thing:
Okay, ti, why can't it just be the issues?
Because the majority of Americans aren't progressives, and don't hunt around on the internet looking for candidates who truly represent them. Because the majority of Americans rely on television to give them the "clues" they need to pick a candidate, and television, since it's part of the M$M, either marginalizes progessive candidates or invisible-izes them.
So what's the answer?
There's no silver bullet, but maybe the answer is, at least in part, that progressives need to somehow get together and, without any help from the government or the M$M, convince the majority of American voters to become progressives.
Maybe the answer is that before we can make any real changes in our government we have to make some changes in ourselves.
Obama? Everybody is supporting this person while they know next to nothing about him.
CHANGE!!! Hey we got CHANGE WITH BUSH. Anyone remember what he said he would be before The Election?
And you people that hate the Clintons
If it was not for Bill Clinton we would have had the Special Interest running our lives and spying on our every mmovement 8 years earlier.
And even If Obama is everything you think he is. They will destroy him like they did Bill Clinton.
You must remember all of those so called investigationS And conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts repeating day after day the same false chharges until the public heard them so many times even staunch Democrats believe them true.
Now I saw at least one poster on here call Senator Clinton the same a a Rush Limbaugh.
Hey what can you do that person has convince him or herself of this.
These people that would not vote for Senator Clinton even if she was the only one running>
I mean come on!
You out there yelling about CHANGE.
Senator Clinton could deliever that from day one as President.
The people of New York Know her . She serves them like all Representatives are suppost to do.
Just exactly who is Senator Clinton supposely in cahoots with anyway .
Well give us some names not just inuendos?
Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to attack Iraq. If you look she also stated she wannted those UN Inspectors to have more time. And have you forgotten even the Good General Colin Powell made the case for war. Now if there was one person the people could trust in that entire Bush Administration it was Secretary of State Powell.
Besides many of you if you remember correctly were ready to NUKE Afghanistan? Or you forgot that huh? Bush had a 90 percent favorable rating. Where were you?
But to you it is all Hillary's fault.
and some Illinois's legislator in a safe voting district said he was against the war.
Well Senator Clinton was just a newly elected senator from the state the Terrorest sent their two airplanes to destroy the World Trade center.
What would you think New Yorkers would have said and done if their own Senator voted against the war?
Yes you can still ask many people today and terrorism wise there isn't a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why because those same people that poison you against Senator Clinton use the same repeating tecnique to convince you about IRAQ.
You do remember that Under Bill Clinton the only terrorism problems we had the Clinton Administration caught them tried them in US courts and they are in prison or executed.
Imagine if the Republicans would have stayed off Bill's back . Why he could have sent troops into Afghanistan and gotten Bin Laden.
Yeah you all have very short memories that is for sure.
As for Senator Clinton outsourcing American Jobs overseas. I mean this takes it all.
Here you have a junior Senator from New York who party has only been in the majority for 2 years and even that majority is only one vote . And you put Outsourcing all on Senator Clinton sholders.
The Military Outsorcing if I am not mistaking VP Al Gore overseen that at President Clinton's request as well as sliming down government jobs giving them to private American business.
It is all Hillary's fault that American Businesses outsource their labor overseas
You know this is a waste of time trying to explain anything on here,
If Senator Obama gets the nomination he will lose . President McCain and likely a Republican Senate . And you will all be yelling again It is Hillary's fault Never your own right
What mattered to me Obama F'd up today, yes he was right there with the Dodd amendment to the amended S.2248, I think I have it right. Voted Yea, went on his way, never came back for the real deal. I could care less if it wasn't 68 - 29, it was the 3 NOT VOTING, Clinton and Obama were 2 of them. Clinton didn't vote on Dodd's Amendment but Obama did not vote on the one that mattered even if he was the single NAY, it would have mattered to me. It would have shown WE matter.
A thought ~
Ask any marketing person, and they'll tell you about product differentiation. What is it about our product that makes it different than their product.
Progressives cannot take a Democratic candidate and wrap them in Progressive clothes and be satisfied they they are a Progressive.
Progressives must and should have a candidate that is a Progressive and not somebody trying to hold themselves up as Progressive.
The same could be said about the Democratic party as a whole. It is not a progressive party, it just has some progressive planks.
Why not a Progressive Party?
Sorry, Dave. Wishful thinking is no basis for casting one's vote, especially when such thinking contradicts available evidence. Call that "blinded by ideology" if you like, but evidence is still evidence.
Where arguments are weak or irrational, you should expect "rigid and predictably dismissive negativism." Indignation does not rehabilitate sloppy reasoning.
The endorsement of Obama by Ted and Caroline Kennedy held much weight for me...
I could care what any Ted haters think. I lived my first 40 years in Mass and watched what Ted had done/tried to do against the tide of oppression, for the Middle and Lower classes.
Teds 2 brothers, Carolines dad, were not towing the line and they paid the ultimate price, yet Ted is still stubborn in his commitments and needs someone to take over as his time is coming to a close.
What are the other choices? Hillery and McCain, thats it.
Obama is the only choice this time around.
The Green party needs a new name to steal enough progressives from the Dems and make a win, something they will be comfortable with...
I suggest "the Green Democratic Party" in 2012
We welcome you oh young one of political innocence, welcome to our parlor. As you have now walked through the doors that few have dared, we want you to feel at home here, you are now among the elite. How you arrived here is of no concern to us, nor should it be to you any longer. We invite you to eat of our specially prepared fruits. Only the select few are invited to taste of these savory treats but now you are one of us. Rest here in comfort. Put on this cloak. It protects you from the insults of the poor and sickly, the troublemakers and the dissatisfied, shun them now, for they are of no use to you. They will only distract and hinder your mission. Pay no attention to the weight of the cloak, it is for your own good that it binds your movements. You are protected now, we will take care of you. Please continue to eat of our fruits, they are specially prepared from an ancient lineage, handed down from generation to generation. Welcome.
Harsh truth: Obama is not the ideal candidate, nor does any such critter exist. But he does something we haven't seen in a long time: He inspires hope rather than fear.
Part of the art of effectively exercising power is distancing oneself from outcomes that are negative in the eyes of the electorate. Lindorf rightly suggests that Obama may, at arm's length, let progressives in without himself risking the loss of Democratic seats during mid-term elections.
Besides, suppose that Obama was, deep down, a true progressive or a lefty. Would it really be in his interest to arouse opposition by flaunting his progressivism? Can he not have as great a progressive impact on the country, if not greater, by condoning rather than actively promoting progressive politics? If he came out of the progressive closet now, how would he fund his campaign later?
Instead, Obama knows he must offer a bland "change" and "hope" rhetoric devoid of specifics. But at least it lets voters see that he's personable and intelligent, he speaks well, and he knows how to connect with them. Isn't that the kind of astute campaign strategy you'd expect from someone who actually understands that, to have a chance at having an impact later, he first has to be elected?
Claudius says those who "need to take on the system" are too comfortable watching American Idol, and that's probably true. American Idol reaches them viscerally and holds their attention in ways that intellectuals like Gore, Kerry, and Nader never will. Karl Rove knew how to mimic that appeal to the advantage of Bush and his thugs.
Maybe Obama can do that even better. So far he has waged an intelligent, effective, media-savvy campaign. He may just be the best suited to mobilize the couch potatoes and formerly indifferent voters by appealing to them on a different level.
Don't forget that, with an Obama in the White House, it won't take long for Americans to see respect for the U.S. among world nations start to return to its pre-Bush levels. They'll not want to surrender that again. The contrast with the bullying, waste, misappropriations, and imperious heavy-handedness of the Republickems will deal a serious blow, at home and abroad, to their party. It will at last be undeniable that it has been commandeered by plutocrats and dogmatic religious fundamentalists. With any luck, church and state will re-separate.
Why prolong the polarization and deadlock by continuing the alternating Bush-Clinton Dynasties? We've had them for 20 years already. Isn't that enough?
Isn't it time for those who still believe in the separation of church and state to elect someone who is not intent on invoking a deity in every public statement?
Isn't it time to elect someone from a more culturally, racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse part of the country than Texas or Arkansas, someone who has been exposed to and is comfortable with the full spectrum of ancestries and creeds, including Islam, agnosticism, and atheism?
Here's a test that people I've put it to find telling. Who would you rather listen to for four or eight years: Bill "Depends on what the definition of 'is' is" Clinton as First Gentleman, or the tough, savvy, eloquent, forthright, no-nonsense Michelle Obama as First Lady? (If you haven't heard Michelle Obama, go listen to her interview by Larry King on YouTube. She's the genuine article.)
Are not elections a gage of what we are willing to accept?
We know we want universal single payer health care, an immediate end to the Iraq war, job security, clean air and water, end to global warming, affordable education for our children, homes for everyone, disaster relief etc. If these demands constitute our survival for the long term, why would we vote for someone who would give us less.
I understand that change is a process born out of polarity and contradiction, but being able to see through the cobwebs of deceit could determine our very survival.
We will all have to vote our consciences, but the debate taking place on CD is very healthy.
I see hope in Obama and agree with
ctrenta February 12th, 2008 12:41 pm
an excellent post that proves without a doubt that the Iraq debacle will end with Mr.Obama. Reason enough for me to Vote for him, rather than the 100 year war man. that is going to be the choice (i hope). Personally I think he's our best chance for survival. I love it that there is so much youthful energy behind this man. also I have to admit that I am very excited to have a highly qualified, liberal person of color running for the highest office in the land. to see these rallies with so many ethnicities present is very exciting to me. Its time. Its time to think positively.
As the choices grow uglier, Dave Lindorff sees hope in Obama.
I respect Lindorff's thoughts, but voting for Obama is like throwing more chips in the pot when the odds are stacked against you. We can all see from Obama's stated positions that no change would occur (despite the "hope" sloganeering).
The cards ARE on the table. It's not a good hand for us at all.
Obama's positions, listed above by "formernadervoter," are just too awful, and that's all we've got as a guide. As a consequence, it's rather difficult for progressives to think of Obama's rhetoric as a potential FDR- or JFK-type opening, as Lindorff suggests. (Incidentally, JFK's peace record wasn't so good, but that's another story.)
Progressives are maybe 10 percent of voters anyway. Let's vote for candidates that represent our positions and plan for the long term. You know your bucket of quarters will disappear in that Democratic slot machine, so vote Green or Peace and Freedom instead.
I challenge Lindorff or others to just name one progressive concrete action stated by the Democratic front runners that isn't seriously hedged.
Hey COMarc:
Well done.
Here's a thought. Vote for Obama. But don't wait for him to effect change. Get out there and do it yourself. Because, chances are he will disappoint just as Bill Clinton and Carter did, thereby allowing for increasingly reactionary administrations to succeed their presidencies. And that is the last thing this planet needs right now.
I have to agree with this article. I was all set to vote for Kucinich when I walked into the polls (even though he had already dropped from the race) but I did a complete about face and voted for Obama. But I wasn't voting for Obama --I was voting for the guy who knocked on my door in the rain who hadn't been involved in politics since he worked on the Nader campaign in 2000, and for the ones who called me at home - even on the morning of the campaign to encourage me to vote for change. The enthusiasm, diversity and hope of the movement behind him is what I voted for -- we need people fired up and feeling the impact of their organizing and mobilization if we are going to have a prayer at turning this country around. In the end, voting for these campaigners felt more like voting for Kucinich than actually voting for Kucinich. They worked hard and deserved to win.
Unfortunately, the Obama campaign lost by 10 points to Clinton in Arizona. I am a state party member and precinct committee person so I usually get a lot of hits from the campaigns, but the only thing I got from Clinton was a pre-recorded message on my answering machine from Jack Nicholson. (I half expected him to scream "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!)
It would be my hope that Obama wins and that the people will lead him (and that he can be led -- I know Kucinich felt like he was our best hope in the bunch). But I have a sinking feeling that the people won't be deciding this election and that our next *selected* president will be John McCain.
Our system has so many anti-democratic vestiges in it -- it encourages people to compromise many times: nader -> kucinich -> edwards -> obama -> hillary? Always to the "right" and always "upward" the authoritarian axis.
It's really the sign of an anti-democratic system that anyone should feel compelled to vote other than what his/her heart/mind suggests. I'm against nuclear power, in favor of single-payer, think that most politicians are on the take, the country is run by corrupt plutocrats/autocrats, and feel that we need to immediately halt all habitat loss on old growth and wilderness areas. I don't get good vibes from Obama, and have no interest in voting for lesser of evils. It's a basic summation problem in math. The lesser of evils, over time, still approaches infinity.
Why should I vote for someone who I have to "guess" is "close"? Why can't we call just honestly state our political will, and our politicians operate with transparency to make the aggregate happen? The present system just doesn't allow it. There should be no guesswork or voter compromise required. Politicians should be the people who need to strike balances. If voters aren't voting honestly, no clear mandates emerge.
"So…
Let's take a shot in the dark with Barack Obama, and maybe everything will be just wonderful!"
Obama is not a "shot in the dark", but a preference for possibility over absence of possibility.
Nor is the argument "peculiar": the people who are carrying this campaign ARE NOT LOBBYISTS. This is coming from the ground up, not from the top down: and to miss the significance of that, to believe that it's just media manipulation, is to close one's eyes to what happens when people begin to slip the leash & defy expectations.
In his victory speech tonight, Obama unambiguously declared that winning the White House is only a beginning and not a conclusion.
"The chance that Obama could actually turn things 180 degrees is a pipe dream. As Lord Acton said: "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." To be president of this country at this time of political, moral, social, economic and spiritual rot is tantamount to being an authoritarian ruler. Obama is no different in this respect than anyone else running for the presidency."
The unstated axiom of all the "Obama is empty, Obama won't change a thing" comments is a masked authoritarianism: i.e., the LEADER would need to be the one to make all the changes, and absent a LEADER making changes, significant changes will not come.
We know the Clintons' propensity for secrecy. A great part of the contrast is that people see and sense in Obama a transparent candidate and an open individual, not one who thinks himself qualified to rule by clique or diktat.
Of course there are always people who adduce impossible conditions for change, because they dislike the slippery conditions of history: they dislike absence of control as much as any authoritarian.
Voting for Obama, if you're a progressive, is a gamble. To be honest, voting for anyone if you're a progressive is a gamble. (We've all seen what happened to Kucinich.)
But in the end, it's going to be Hillary or Obama, one way or another. We know Hillary, and she's an out-and-out hawk, so voting for her isn't a gamble --- it's suicide. But we only sort of know Obama. So do we take one gamble and hope that Obama is a really clever man who's playing the Big Corporations like a fish on a line? Or do we take the other gamble and vote for Nader or Cynthia Mckinney, who we know are on our side, but who we also know can't get elected?
Obama could, of course, be playing us, instead of the Big Corporations. We could be walking into a trap, but maybe there's some things about Obama that make him worth the gamble:
1. He's black, and if anyone knows what it's like to be marginalized in America, it's black people.
2. He's been very clear about his opposition to torture, unlike Hillary, and the Bush administration is torturing the American people.
3. He, after graduating from law school, worked for the poor in Chicago.
4. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, a nice guy who has two young children, and maybe a nice guy with two young children will be unwilling to continue on a path that will put the future of his children at risk.
5. Kucinich endorsed him, at least for one state.
I hate all this, personally. It would be so darned nice to have a candidate to vote for that had a chance of winning that we flat-out knew was on our side, but we've seen what happens to people like that.
I guess if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for as many Green Party candidates as I can, and feel good doing it, but if Obama gets the nod, I think I'll vote for him (and for as many Green Party candidates as I can, except for the office of President) and pray he's conning the Big Corporations, and not us.
On a wing and a prayer, and between a rock and a hard place. Too bad we have to have a crystal ball to pick a Presidential candidate to vote for. Why can't it just be the issues?
WATCH OUT FOR THOSE LEFT-WING INTELLECTUALS IN HYDE PARK!
From this Jan. 4, 2008 news story:
"Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: 'Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?' she asked at an appearance in Nashua.
"Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with 'left-wing' intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."
(From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/new-hampshire-will-be-key_n_798... )
I'll be impressed with the Obama "movement" when I see his supporters, first of all, talking the progressive talk - the real, substantive, eyes-wide-open, concrete, specific issues that matter; and more importantly, holding Obama's feet to the fire on them.
Obomba wouldn't last a debate with 10 term ANTI-RACIST UN NWO WAR on Iraq Sovreignity, the ANTI RACIST WAR ON DRUGS,10 term experienced congressman Ron Paul.
Ron Paul rEVOLution is the phenomenom, Obomba is MSM chaoice for sheep and that's about as evolutionary democrats have become in the past 7 years. Abetting the NWO Neoliberal (con) agenda every step of the way. Leave no Iraqi alive policy. OBOMBA - MORE WAR, MORE Patriot Act, More Bechtel, more haliburton, more taxes, more war, or is that the phenomenon: That's what is progressive today.
Ron Paul cired my apathy, I progressed from progressive to rEVOLutionary (it take the ability to be loyal to ones self_ Try it.
Many on this list are apparently unaware of the real Obama.
If Obama were for change:
*He wouldn't have 18 major K Street corporate lobbyist endorsers. One of them is Tom Daschle. Remember that ineffectual man in the Senate; a triangulator on the order of Clinton.
*He wouldn't have generated the bulk of his initial 100 million in funding from corporate and wealthy elite sources.
*He wouldn't have Zbig Brzezinski advising him on foreign policy. Remember our tragic involvement with the crazies we trained to attack the Soviets in Afghanistan? Well we have Zbig to blame for that one. Led to some pretty horrible blowback consequences on 9/11 didn't it. If I was a change candidate, I'd be staying far away from Brzezinski.
*He wouldn't have HMOs running health insurance. The problem with health insurance is insurance companies. Obama cannot see the forest for the trees. Here in Wisconsin he's running ads saying he's for universal coverage but the only true universal plan is single payer. Barack was actually for single payer before he came out against it (think John Kerry's voice as you repeat this sentence).
*He wouldn't support the death penalty. Talk about standing against the wave, being behind the curve.
*He wouldn't favor economic sanctions on Cuba. Now this one is really criminal. Really. U.S. economic sanctions are a violation of international law and when he filled out his survey with the NAACP he de