Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Unstoppable Obama
When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called CSPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.
In the dominant campaign narrative, his appeal is mysterious and irrational: he's a "rock star," all flash and no substance, tending dangerously, according to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, to a "cult of personality." At best, he's seen as another vague Reaganesque avatar to Hallmarkian sentiments like optimism and hope. While Clinton, the designated valedictorian, reaches out for the ego and super-ego, he supposedly goes for the id. She might as well be promoting choral singing in the face of Beatlemania.
The Clinton coterie is wringing its hands. Should she transform herself into an economic populist, as Paul Begala pleaded on Tuesday night? This would be a stretch, given her technocratic and elitist approach to health reform in 1993, her embarrassing vote for a 2001 bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies, among numerous other lapses. Besides, Obama already just leaped out in front of her with a resoundingly populist economic program on Wednesday.
Or should she reconfigure herself, untangle her triangulations, and attempt to appeal to the American people in some deep human way, with or without a tear or two? This, too, would take heavy lifting. Someone needs to tell her that there are better ways to signal conviction than by raising one's voice and drawing out the vowels, as in "I KNOW..." and "I BELIEVE..." The frozen smile has to go too, along with the metronymic nodding, which sometimes goes on long enough to suggest a placement within the autism spectrum.
But I don't think any tweakings of the candidate or her message will work, and not because Obama-mania is an occult force or a kind of mass hysteria. Let's take seriously what he offers, which is "change." The promise of "change" is what drives the Obama juggernaut, and "change" means wanting out of wherever you are now. It can even mean wanting out so badly that you don't much care, as in the case of the Ron Paul voters cited above, exactly what that change will be. In reality, there's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: he's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. But no one checks the weather before leaping out of a burning building.
Consider our present situation. Thanks to Iraq and water-boarding, Abu Ghraib and the "rendering" of terror suspects, we've achieved the moral status of a pariah nation. The seas are rising. The dollar is sinking. A growing proportion of Americans have no access to health care; an estimated 18,000 die every year for lack of health insurance. Now, as the economy staggers into recession, the financial analysts are wondering only whether the rest of the world is sufficiently "de-coupled" from the US economy to survive our demise.
Clinton can put forth all the policy proposals she likes--and many of them are admirable ones--but anyone can see that she's of the same generation and even one of the same families that got us into this checkmate situation in the first place. True, some people miss Bill, although the nostalgia was severely undercut by his anti-Obama rhetoric in South Carolina, or maybe they just miss the Internet bubble he happened to preside over. But even more people find dynastic successions distasteful, especially when it's a dynasty that produced so little by way of concrete improvements in our lives. Whatever she does, the semiotics of her campaign boils down to two words--"same old."
Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents "change." A Kenyan-Kansan with roots in Indonesia and multiracial Hawaii, he seems to be the perfect answer to the bumper sticker that says, "I love you America, but isn't it time to start seeing other people?" As conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan has written, Obama's election could mean the re-branding of America. An antiwar black President with an Arab-sounding name: See, we're not so bad after all, world!
So yes, there's a powerful emotional component to Obama-mania, and not just because he's a far more inspiring speaker than his rival. We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!
213 Comments so far
Show AllI thought Kerry was unstoppable against an incumbant like Bush in '04, but those Dems are so good at flushing a sure thing down the toilet. Don't count Mrs. Clinton out yet ...and if she gets it, don't count McCain out. Still a long way to go.
Obama is not anti-war. He will go along with whatever the military-industrial complex says it needs to keep America safe. And make billions in the process. Nothing will change in America until the American people change themselves.
Hoa binh
All indications are that he might be unstoppable. I'd like to see the decision for the Democrats come down to a good fight at the convention - just like the old days. And why not, that's what the convention was for. Let's not crown him just yet!
Excellent analysis by BE and damn right. Let the cynics hold forth in the next 167 posts.
I'll vote for centrist Obama because he's not Hillary or McCain. But most of his "unstoppable"-ness can be attributed to the fact that his campaign has already spent over $100 million in the primaries. That's far more than any U.S. presidential campaign has ever spent in the primaries. When Bush did that, the left said he was trying to buy his way into the office. America needs adequate campaign spending limits, now!
I feel Obama would be better than either Clinton or McCain but, beyond that, I'm not convinced that he will marshal in any real change (though I'd love to see that), especially since 'compromise' seems to be his battle cry.
I'm not so easily swayed by inspiring speakers. Tony Robbins and others come to mind. Being charismatic does speak to character. And most politicians are too ego-centric to care about the people they represent, and their self-image usually takes precedent.
Well Hoa Binh, I'm afraid you're probably right. While Hillary promises to 'increase' the military budget, Obama hasn't dared to disagree with her. His record on health care also shows that he is willing to appease the Medical Industrial Complex rather than eliminate a profit based, non-universal system.
At the same time keep in mind that once he is elected, Obama may break away from the mainstream. Gorbachev is an excellent example. He rose to the top by being a good communist, but once he reached the supreme position of power, he went about dismantling the entire Soviet Union. Are only hope is that whoever is elected is a damn good liar with an egalitarian conscience.
Unstoppable is a strong word, too strong. We don't want the voters staying home after they hear too often that Obama is a done deal. He isn't. He's our hope, and we must continue working very hard to get him, and get him a receptive Dem Congress at the same time.
The "change" he talks about is actually understated to the "change he will try to bring us in office---they don't call him one of the most liberal Senators for 'nothin. But he cannot really talk about this on the stump because it draws too much fire, just as John McCain cannot run on a promise to privatize Social Security. Smart campaigns are done in generalities, and the wise will be patient with this tactic. After all, it IS working, so far.
I think "compromise" is the wrong word here; it's consensus you're looking for. And, by the way, Repub conservatives who want McCain to adopt group-think are just wanting more of the same gridlock. You're never going to get liberals and conservatives to agree on everything, but if there is no common ground, then how can this country go forward? You might as well divide the country in two and ship all the liberals one direction and the conservatives the other. Of course, the moderates would also need their own "nation" I guess, so now we have three sperate countries like we should already have in Iraq. Hmmm...
Anyway, it's obvious that Obama is what's needed to bring this country to some sort of agreement for once over the issues facing this country. Whether he's characterized as the most liberal of all senators or not means nothing when you're president. You really have to make things happen there unlike Congress. I don't take my endorsement of Obama lightly - I've never voted in an election and I'm 53. Why? No one to vote for that wasn't more of the same. If I had been old enough I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy, but that's it. If I had decided to bother since I turned 18, I would have voted Libertarian across the board. I was supporting Ron Paul for quite some time this past year (liked the message; didn't think he was the proper standard bearer).
This will be the most stark difference in an election in recent memory, yet in many ways McCain and Obama represent people of their respective parties tired of the same old goosesteping of their radical fringes. It'll be fun to watch!
I hope and pray Obama Keeps On Going.. as Far as Unstoppable.. Looks Pretty Much that way, BUT stranger Things have Happened!! He Needs to Keep Focused and and staying to His game Plan. Hillary Has Pretty Much self destructed her self!!! We cannot afford to Let her get her Momentum Up! She lost it when Bill went down South!! Here In Wisconsin.. Obama is UP 5 Points in the Poll WISC TV took this past Wednesday.. Hopefully Her and Bill will Get the Message Wisconsin is sending.. HOPE , CHANGE , AND UNITY FOR THIS COUNTRY.. I have been following this Election Very Carefully!! Obama Supporter 08 SI SE PUEDE! Yes we Can !!!
When Americans quit tripping out on their drug of choice -- amnesia -- and start asking this guy some hard questions, I will take this "change" crap seriously. Ask him about the four permanent bases in Iraq. Ask him which troops he's going to bring home: just the combat troops or all of them? Ask him how he plans to dismantle the military-industrial complex. Ask him for a detailed account of how he's going to renegotiate NAFTA -- or dump it -- which is the reason why the US is flooded with "illegal aliens" [this silly American term conjures up images of little green men from Mars. Or Klingons, maybe?] Ask him if he's going to restore the American system of checks and balances, or if he's just lusting after all the new executive powers provided by Bush for his successor. Ask him if he has any progressive plans vis-a-vis the American prison-industrial complex.
Unless these questions get addressed, it'll be more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Unstoppable? Hardly. Unless Obama gets a whole lot more delegates, all the Clintonistas have to do is pull all the 'super delegates' out of their asses at the convention and coronate Hillary. Altho I don't think Obama is seen as any sort of threat to the status quo vis a vis the Military-Industrial complex (or 'medical IC' as noted above).
My money is on Hillary as the candidate (per DLC machinations), and the 'people' be damned, altho she wouldn't get my vote if she were the last person on the planet. But then I won't vote for Obama either, he hasn't convinced me he'll be any different or make the very hard decisions to change the sad course and direction the country has taken.
Daniel David, on this, I agree with you. I've sensed this about him all along.
alexnosal, he came into the Illinois Senate wanting to pass a bill for universal single payer health care but said he realized that it would not happen until we had the right people in Congress and the White House. We could be on our way.
All you naysayers, I know how those Ron Paul Republicans feel. But it's more than just change, it's passionately wanting to vote for someone with honesty and integrity.
kathyodat
kathyodat
I generally like what Ehrehreich says, but this time she is way off base.
Yes, we need the international community to see that Americans have reacted — and REJECTED — the neo-con policies of global resource domination at any cost and of the DE-democratization of every place, including the U.S.
But just changing the "branding" is not enough. In fact it is the modus operandi of America today: CHANGE the SPIN! (not the substance)
Witness Blackwater's new name and logo.
No, Barbara. It's too late to believe a bandwagon alone is enough to cure our ills.
Only by SAYING the GOALS out loud (No to torture! No to executive crimes — impeach! No to endless or preventive wars of aggression! Yes to saving our Constitution! Yes to a SINGLE-PAYER healthcare solution! and so on), can even hope to get there.
No amount of spin will do at this time. Spin is only designed to obfuscate until safely entrenched in office, then back to the same ol' BS. "Whew! We made it through another election cycle!"
Sorry: this crew (Hillary/Barrack) has already corroborated in silencing the more progressive voices in their OWN political race, preventing others from even participating in the debates – unCONscionable! Don't buy into this.
The energy and enthusiasm channeled into a good-feeling and pacifying "surge" for Obama is better spent awakening people to the real and growing fascist threat on our doorstep and building a real institutional resistance with CLEARLY STATED political alternatives and objectives.
"Just vote it away! Don't ask for real solutions. Go for HOPE and 'CHANGE'!" That's the Democratic cop-out for having enabled our enemies for years to take over our nation and lives through vote and legislative fraud. Those who allowed it all to happen with no resistance to the Project for the New American Century, for starters, now want to tell us how to make it all go away with no effort at NAMING, much less PLANNING FOR or BUILDING a new better place. Sorry! That is just continued treason.
Don't buy into a kind of euphoria which is just more of the same: Americans being teased and treated into believing we can get out of this horrible mess with no growth or pain or knowledge or work — just a button push in a voting booth.
Support the Greens, with time and money — they're saying all the right things — even if you don't end up voting for them at the Presidential level (though you probably should). Congress and courts are practically toast, already. Seriously. Invest generously in your future: support Green growth and their ability to reach the public. You are going to want a prepared and growing alternative political party to catch you when the Dem/Repug bubble bursts.
Alexnosal makes an important point. New leaders who rise within the system sometimes do express the tipping point feeling of the population. The US imperial wars are unsustainable -- militarily, economically and politically. People build an intuitive sense of the lack of rationality of the system's unsustainability. They increasingly relate their own real-life problems to the global problems; some intelligent new leaders sense this and make the necessary systemic reset (Gorbachev, De Gaulle). But if a President Obama doesn't do a real reset (like the Demo Congress didn't do), something really heavy will happen in the USA.
I think that after the damage we have done to the world the last 30 years, people outside this country will be quite hopeful and relieved if we elect somebody we can at least look toward as a change from 'business as usual'. True, the reality may well be something different that what we hope for.....but our country ignored Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards.
Does anyone else think that if Obama becomes the candidate, one of the most interesting issues around November 4 will be the African-American vote? There's potential for the greatest Black turnout in history. Which means there's also potential for the most vile efforts to restrict that turnout by Republicans. I hope that we will be prepared to fight the white collar Klan that will appear should Obama run for President.
People vote for someone who they feel comfortable with and, yes, they do make horrible choices (for example, George Bush.) Sadly, we could wind up screwed again.
A bit of history we probably all know: Bush proved more likable than the two stiffs who ran against him. Gore and Kerry, aside from showing very little in the way or charisma or warmth, were muzzled by kingpins who didn't want them to come out against the Iraq war and economic policies favoring the have-nots.
Comes 2008, the Dems might repeat past mistakes: pick another humorless, charisma-less candidate to run against John McCain, an awful conservative, but a solid, warm guy with a grandfatherly demeanor.
Democrats-- it's time to start going with your gut instead of your heads!
With Obama in the White House and a Dem majority in both houses (just as important if not moreso), there is the possibility of some incremental progress on major issues - Iraq, healthcare, recession, etc. Not because we can expect bold leadership on these issues from Obama. We cannot, on the basis of everything he has been saying for two years. On the basis, rather, of large-scale and unrelenting public pressure on Obama to match the vapid, happy talk with real action.
As for the whole "post-partisan" thing, if it means shameless acquiescence to Repub fascistic bullying then it is worse than meaningless. But if it means politics that benefit the vast majority of people in the country, including the Repub rank and file, then it is worth doing. And if you demonstrate by means of measurable improvement in people's lives, that a more humane, progressive political philosophy is more likely to improve people's lives then you have won. It's another New Deal and they can't stop you again until your children or their children grow up and lose faith and sellout and pull the ladder up behind them again.
I have no illusions about Obama. He is up to his hopeful ass in promises to a lot of very powerful, well-connected people. But if his army of youthful and enthusiastic supporters can keep up the heat after he takes the White House, maybe, just maybe, we can finally jump out of the speeding hot rod, now on a high speed "chicky run" towards the cliff, with the tough guy idiot at the wheel.
After all these comments, the first in this set of comments by since1492, who signs off with hoa binh, is the only one that is correct and tells it like it is.
Look in the mirror, folks.
YOU have to change - don't count on these sleazebags running for office 'con' you.
Just think how much suffering could be alleviated if all the money spent to get at the trough of public money were actually spent on needed social and physical infrastructure.
Look what happened to the Soviet Union when Gorbachev naively allowed American capitalists in to bribe the commissars with promises of great personal wealth if only they turned the riches of the Soviet Union over to the robber barons.
The US corporate media refers to the devastation of the lives of the people of the USSR as "freedom". Not just the US capitalists made out. The impoverishment of the Russians made it possible for ordinary Americans to buy blonde wives, babies, and sex slaves. Such a deal!
Interesting that the Russian lives lost to famine during the change in the economy in the 20s, coupled with the attacks on the Soviet Union by the capitalist world, is now referred to in the corporate media as "Stalin's murders". Yet the 700,000 excess Russian deaths a year in the 1990s are referred to as "a decrease in life expectancy".
Such spin!
Obama is perhaps the best "orator" we have ever seen. __That's smart politics. __ I wonder if we really want another "smart" politician. Of course Obama is also very intelligent and after George, he looks real good to those who have not carefully studied his record. Obama has to win at least one of the three major states left, which are Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. If Clintion wins all three of those, __ she will be our next president.
Now that is my opinion, which is worth as much as any who may post here. I'm certain it will be more than 120 who do.
Here is a far, far more important opinion.
There is another thread here today about the two huge "dead zones" in the Pacific ocean near Oregon and Washington state. That subject matter is perhaps the most important issue humanity, __(which includes us wise and intelligent, so called progresives)__ will ever face. How many will bother to read that very impportant article and or post a comment?
Less than 20 of us progressives will is my estimate. So rave on about Obama, a subject which we will have little if any control over, __ and ignore the subject which we progressives should be having fits about, and perhaps if enough of us did do somethng productve on the most serious issues, we could influence those who do have the power and the control to address those most important issues.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention. Bush is going to pardon a major league baseball pitcher who used steroids. So the important Congressional hearing on that critical issue this week will be moot.
Dagwood mentions something he calls the "white collar Klan" above. Indeed, we WILL see them, but not really "see" them because many will be hidden in the cover-up robes of Sec. 527 "issue" ads. It won't be the same "swiftboaters", but the intent will be exactly the same. Deny voters if you can. Otherwise trick them. The issue ad assault will be unprecedented.
He may be unstopable, but he'll never get my vote. No to War, no to Nuclear Power, No to military industry, and no to grandoise lies. Yes to Parity, the People, Freedom, Clean Food and Water, Justice in the form of Real Change. Cynthia McKinney '08
For me the main thing is that he isn't Hillary. There is no way that I want to spend the next few months being lectured by right wingers as to why I hate Hillary so much. Why would we dive into that trap? Why would we want to revisit all that deception and betrayal?
Nope ~Riverdude~ you are as mixed up as ~Dougwagner~ is and that is saying something! He's on the wrong type of steroids. You obviously are not quite in outer space yet. But you're close, __ keep truckin.
Hillary only has to take those three states by 55% and could lose the rest by over 65% and she will have more delegates than Obama does at the Demo Convention. If he takes all of the other states by more than 65%, then it will be very close. That is not very likely right now. Hillary has the money needed to run TV ads now. She didn't run any in the last eight states that voted.
But for Obama to have the necessary super delgates, he will have to lead by 60 or more when the convention opens. I don't know if Hillary can win all three states, I thought so yesterday, but today Obama has recieved some very helpful endorsments. ___ We'll see.
Just remember these words when ya find it hard to believe BO is nothing more than a pretty-talkin friend of the neonuts, elite and Big Corp:
Mayor C. Ray Nagin.
You've been warned.
(Today, BO kissed NRA ass with lips fattened by dirty Wall Street cash. Just sayin, for example.)
The people who think nothing will change if Obama is elected are extremely cynical in some and skeptical with others is with good reason. Yes Barbara, he is presently running with many party hacks, and will be in the future controlled by some measure with party influence, as a result of an agenda that has existed in the USA since the robber baron era. Having said that knowing that I, as well as many of you writing here want change and the only offer of that is with Obama. Anyone out there have a better plan?
Barbara's article which has prompted the response, are hoping that something will shake this country into a new direction that includes, ending the war, which is robbing every single person in the USA of wealth, health care and a reasonable life is paramount. As well as other comforts promised by the industrial revolution but have yet to be forthcoming, without a price many cannot pay, was health, a life of ease, education and so many others used by the political machinery to get the public to do what the leaders want done.
If the average US citizen has some comforts it has come at a price that is questionable. The prices are generations of young people killed to support an ideology that was flawed from the outset. A work ethic that has the wage-earners in families in the USA, working two and three jobs to pay for their basic needs and forty million people living in poverty. The system supports another form of slavery.
All this based in a "free enterprise" system of government that allows corporations the right to, exploit their workers, go where they wish with government subsidy- thereby destroying communities which they were part- and the lives of people without any checks by government; also to pollute the population and communities with toxic waste leading to any number of health related issues. The public is left to pay for the medical attention caused by the pollution the corporations have caused, if they have the money to do so.
The "American Dream" has caused endless abuses to its population, with the false promise of fame and riches that are legend, supported by the Hollywood myth and media indoctrination. The claim that anyone can be president is manifold. However by some fluke of chance and hard work a man has come along that somehow defied conventional wisdom and possibility. He has made the inroads into populist thinking. The masses and particularly the young who want to be heard have embraced him.
Barbara, he has given voice to the dissatisfaction felt by so many people in the USA and the world. Obama has offered change, and yes, we who have lived long enough, know it is necessary to be critical. Obama echoes many of us who know intrinsically, what Americans understand: The USA must move in another direction quickly for its citizens and the world! He knows, as we all do, human life hangs in the balance and America bears twenty five percent of that responsibility.
For those who are cynical and pessimistic, I support your views but there is not too much time left! OBama, Kucinich, and even Edwards plus a few others out there have some good ideas that are worth supporting and trying to get the public behind. Given the nature of the political machinery, this is not a simple task and will require a congress sympathetic to Obama's ideals. It is necessary not only to elect a new president that embraces change but a congress as well that also wants these changes. Obama is not a fool! He knows that this will be difficult, he admits as much.
As populist president, it is his intention to go back to the people to help him get his plans through congress should he encounter difficulty and a deadlocked Congress as is the situation now. We need only look at the surveillance bill hung up for Bush because the House recessed before giving its approval. It was a way to allow it to expire before approval, knowing there would be a howl of public anger if the house moved to put it into law.
The American people voted for a change with this Congress, yet to be realized because it is still tied to the "failed policies of the past" with people like Pelosi and others like her, or the Clintons who are part of that inner back-room type of political deal. Obama is a realist and knows the difficulties in front of him should he get the nomination and the presidency. Unstoppable? Oh Barbara, how much I wish you were right.
The ideas that we all put out here are necessary for others who can convey them to the candidate. While it necessary to maintain a healthy pessimism, I think we must shelve cynicism for a while and not let it affect reality. Nothing is perfect; nothing will be perfect, including the nomination of Obama. But we must do what we can to make it work, as I am certain we all try to do. This is necessary to deal with the last possibility of change in the American way for both the US and global survival.
The war must end! The money spent on the war must be diverted to the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America, as well as to the social services that Americans want. The tax on the excessively rich as well as the diversion of policies away from everything in the world but American need must be looked at in a new way. It is important to help the world but not with military adventures, excepting those, which take place through the UN although, it too must change.
It is necessary to make America and the world a more environmentally aware place. The export of American technology can help its economy and also make it energy self-sufficient. It is not only America that must be assisted but also the world; Obama, I am happy to say, suggest those beliefs in his rhetoric. The USA lives in a world with other nations like China, whose environmental policy can sink us all.
These are the challenges that Obama has made reference to in his speeches. Yes, one can look at him and the entire process, with pessimism, as many do here quite rightly including myself. Yes, there is a possibility that Americans may be wronged once again by the political process. However, if we do not take this last time to try, by helping Obama if we are able, we may also give up one final chance to make the changes all the world needs. I believe as a fervent, committed environmentalist, working in communication, we have lost our last chance if we don't try.
Krappola. The man speaks well, and I admire him deeply. But I am increasingly alarmed that Obama has yet to provide an inkling of substance to back up his sweet words. The result thus far is that he is seen as a smooth-talker. It may not matter. At this point, it is clear that neither he nor Hillary can defeat the Republican machine. What we should be doing is preparing for another eight years of Bush-driven leadership.
Only corporations are unstoppable.
Can't beat the Republicans? Oh wow, Danny Quale could beat McCain now. __ Al Sharpton or a write in Dumbo could.
I'd like someone (like since1492 perhaps) to explain to me exactly what things like "until the American people change themselves" means. And here's why:
I'm not a huge fan of Obama as a person. He's alright. But I am a VERY big fan of the Obama movement - the hundreds of thousands of people who have changed themselves from apathetics to activists -- the hundreds of thousands of people whose work has (thus far) succeeded against the money and power of the Clinton machine -- the hundreds of thousands of people who have changed the way America thinks about politics and may have forced the Dems in the House to grow even the tiniest spine in the last two days. If I pull a lever for Obama, it will not be a vote for him, but for the people behind him.
So please, in all sincerity, tell me what you mean.
Still waiting for this website to print one article which expresses support for Cynthia McKinney for President. Or perhaps an article supporting a potential Nader run? It certainly has no problem printing articles saying nice things about Obama.
What's up? Common Dreams says it prints "views for the progressive community". However, apparently only certain views are allowed on this website.
The delegtes in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania outnuber the rest of those states combined ~Riverman~. And even if Obama wins all of the others by 60/40% and he very well may, he won't garner all of the delegate votes from them.
Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are the key for who has the most delegate votes when the convention votes. Whomever has the most should recieve the Super Delegates. If Obama has 60+, Hillary is out of it and will have to realize the jig is up.
It's simple math ~Riverman~, logic is not an issue for counting delegates.
Maybe no one has written such an article that makes a lot of sense ~USRCJP~
jcarleski -
thank you - you proved since1492's point.
people ARE beginning to change, but many, many more are needed.
We the people let our constitution be gutted in the name of fear. We needed to stand up and be counted-we did not!
To see how our rights have been stripped since 9/11 see:
Rule by Fear or Rule by Law?
By Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg
"Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." ......
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL&hw=detention+camps&sn=005&sc=288
Yuk. This unstoppable" thing (don't call him "inevitable") has gotten me so bummed out over our Progressive voices!
When corporations shaft their workers yet we still buy their products; when our leaders lie to us yet we keep electing them, there are always people like Ehrenreich, who maintain a clear and analytical take on matters that matter most—they see fluff as fluff, challenge rhetoric by demanding proof, and (seemingly) aim to hold everyone accountable.
BUT when one of our own (Obama) carefully dresses up in the cosmetic Reaganesque feel good brand packaging—to such an extent that Andrew Sullivan praises Obama for his "FACE"—Ehrenreich and others advise us that now it is good to vote based on ethereal crap like "hope" and "change." It is not a good thing that libertarian wingnut Andrew Sullivan wants to build an American brand with Obama's face—its an acknowledgement that, like a cartoon mouse, what we're buying with Obama (not necessarily what he is) is a face, façade, spirit, figurehead, mascot or logo that can be used to sell us any type of policy, good or bad. The same attention to public presentation over substance makes Wm Kristol or Condi Rice look somewhat levelheaded and concerned for us. It also sells us sneakers, cars and empty calories as foodstuff. It isn't that Obama is likely to wreck us, but it sets a bad precedent for progressives to join republicans in praising and rewarding salesmanship and packaging over substance. Clinton (not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice) is clearer on what she will do and how she'll do it.
I praise Paul Krugman, who unlike Ehrenreich, has torn apart the economic and health care policies of Obama and Clinton and given us real information on which to base a decision. Amy Goodman (democracynow.org) has also investigated and compared the records of both. Real policy differences do exist and are more substantial than "change" (Note: neither the sitting pres or vice pres are running—we're getting change even if we make our choice based on other more substantial reasoning).
We're progressives! We can demand to be talked to like adults and have serious policy debates or we can do what Barbara and so many others are doing, give Obama a pass and vote on spirit, which ultimately, involves faith and trust and all those unaccountable things that law and government are not based on, but that Bush has insisted upon for 8 years.
Excellent observations BUFORD 33.
I think the biggest mistake (no pun intended) Clinton made was to brand herself as "Mrs." Clinton and to allow the press to get away with saying that Obama et al are running against "the Clintons" - sort of like "the Simpsons..."(?!). From a feminist perspective I feel she would have articulated more personal authority as "Ms." Clinton. Her partner should not be seen as the "running mate" as he has turned out to be but simply a supportive spouse with his personal political power much reduced and downplayed. The running mate, in your US political system, is the VP, right? She would, theoretically, appoint this person if she was able to get the nomination. Clinton should have been branded as a strong, independant woman - several steps removed from her spouse who I'm sure has far too many old political axes that need grinding to be particularily benefitial to the project of making her a president.
In the final analysis she learned her own lessons during her time in the White House and I'm sure they are not the same lessons that her partner learned. The spin should have been her ability to stand on her own and not be perceived to be leaning on hubby - too 50s and not particularily progressive. Their co-dependancy has been outed and that is why people are rejecting them.
I think a lot of people are missing a major point: Obama has managed to pull disparate groups together in an astonishing way. He mobilized the previously apathetic youth of America; he symbolizes hope (obviously) and change for millions.
As for the finance reform thing... I totally agree with you zazmo. The money that's been spent on campaigns is absolutely ridiculous. But I hope it doesn't escape anyone's attention that Obama's campaign is almost completely funded by small donations - 99% of his money comes through small individual contributions.
McCain will be next, and all this speculation about the Democrats is really academic. My candidate was Kucinich, and I will have to write someone in if I bother to vote at all this time.
Every president in the country's history has been a white male. So the Democrats offer a choice between a mulatto and a woman. The Republicans offer a white man, a veteran, a hero. With the show trials of Abu Ghraib terrorists scheduled for summer, and with revelations about Obama's cocaine addiction, his Arabic background and his homosexuality also planned for summer, well, McCain will be a shoo in. McCain's only worry at this point is that black baby he fathered a few years ago.
I think I've pretty well covered all the pertinent issues here, and now I'll relax until November and see how it all turns out.
I began to start thinking Obama was stoppable when I heard republicans were voting for him. The same people that stopped McCain by implying he fathered a "black child". Guess what, Obama has fathered a...you get my drift. If we didn't assume that politicians were impervious to the light of inspiration, maybe they wouldn't be. We set molds, I call them "blogs of stone", around our politicos turning them into robots. The swift boats are coming around the bend. I can here their engines. It sounds like blogblogblogblogblog!
First, you will get Hillary in the primaries, then you will get McCain for BAU--that's how corrupt this country is. I hope I'm wrong. McCain... just imagine that! The neo-cons take us over the cliff in a 100-year war. War presidents R us.
Speaking of finance, ya'll should check out and see why payday loan facilities are so numerous now, before you get enamored and ga-ga over any candidate.
Some people above, who say the are progressives are also progressively unrealistic to think they will get the truth, regardless of who is up there trying to be part of this political process in America. This process called the American ideal, the dream, built on the foundation of the "the untruth" which is essentially what the masses are as Ibson knew; As well as the empty windbags in the political process who court their vote!
But having said that, the youth are involved as never before and it is their chance to speak! They support Obama, call it what you will, put it down and tell us what reality there is? Please, gentleman pessimists tell us but I believe in supporting the youth. If we don't, we have lost them this time! What ever the chances with Obama may be; I also believe that he may grow into the job by some quirk.
So keep telling us how it should be in Valhalla.
greenerthanthou February 15th, 2008 1:18 pm
Excellent post! Inviting to think carefully about the consequences of the US-NATO-Israel aggressive advancement on the Russian borders with First-Strike nuclear weapon.
We are ignoring the danger of the ultimate instigation of war - thermal-nuclear war with Russia.
Obama will follow suit, the one put on his back by his owners, and as with Clinton and Carter, the liberals will give him "the benefit of the doubt" and mass murder will follow as was true in with Carter backing Somoza in Nicaragua, resulting in killing 50,000 Nicaraguans, more than Reagan and Bush I, combined. Brzezinski wanted a Pan American invasion force, lead by the US to overthrow the Sandinista Revolution, but couldn't obtain.
The Reagan regime was convicted by the World Court for war crimes in Nicaragua, and by the same criteria so would have been Carter and Zbig. But, there was no real outcry until a republican administration got into office!
Bill Clinton is a mass murdering war criminal like the Bush I & II, and the liberals in congress, the media, and "activist" could not see the US-NATO aggression against Yugoslavia for what it was, or played partisan politics with it. In doing so, that conspiracy of silence was complicity in those war crimes, which dumped tons of depleted uranium onto Europe, where it will poison and mutilate humanity forever.
Consequently, the de facto rulers of this fascist empire know they can get away with mass murder better with a compliant democrat in the white house and control of congress, because the "honeymoon" will last, analysis never arise, and proof is, both Carter and Bill Clinton are not reviled for the miscreants they are for what they have done.
The only good news of the day is, Rep. Tom Lantos is dead! Wish it on all the neocon-neonazis, both domestic and foreign!
Independents have voted in the primaries by a wide margin for the democrat candidates and the registered democrats have come out in droves. Their votes outnumber the Republicans by almost two to one. Also, many Republicans have voted for the democrats. That trend WILL continue in the general, (if there is an election,) no matter who the Democrat candidate is. Even Diebold or Karl Rove can't stop this train.
Please don't get me wrong because I think Obama means well and he's a darn sight better candidate for president than any of the other nincompoops that are running.
We live in a society where the media is controlled, the Constitution is snubbed, people are put into concentration camps to be tortured, and our phones are wiretapped.
I believe Obama will try to effect some change but will fail. He will fail because he won't get the support he needs from the people. He's up against a huge, insatiable, angry, insane machine. It will be a miracle if he can somehow effect positive change.
I will not vote for Obama because I never supported him before and if I cast a vote for him now it would be an act of hypocracy. I will continue to resist him as I did before he became so 'popular'. I disagree with most of his policies and I think most of his speeches are just empty promises.
I would advise you to be careful. Is Obama the person you want in the White House? Do you concur with most of his policies? Know what they are and know where he stands before you cast a vote for him. No candidate is perfect but if you cast a vote for one then you must be prepared to reap what you sow. (bush supporters are still in denial that they are responsible)
All my hopes, my fortune, and my life are in this country. Obama lacks the qualifications necessary to be hired for this position and will not get my vote. If he wins, I honestly hope he will do well and make a positive change. If he does, I will consider voting for him on his second term.
"Obama is different, really different, and that in itself represents 'change.'" This is where Ehrenreich and I part company.
I don't see Obama as ANY different, or certainly MUCH different, than anyone else, including Hillary. His voting record in the Senate is the same as Hillary's, including voting to continue funding the war in Iraq, and supporting the Patriot Act. His positions on most major issues are the same, including Iraq, Iran, Israel, climate change, etc. And where their positions differ – health care, the economy, taxes – Hillary's are better, and even most economists think so. He is just as beholden to special interests as she is, having accepted MORE money than her from certain industries, including the energy industry. He has skeletons in HIS closet (Rezko, Exelon et al) just as Hillary has – though Hillary's are all well-known and have been publicly flogged ad nauseam. Etc.
So what, exactly, makes him so "different?" The facts of his birth? And this makes a difference – how? – with respect to solving the problems that will confront the new president on January 21st?
No, Barbara, Obama is NOT "really different" if he is different at all.