Progressives for Obama
All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grass-roots participation drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama’s very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.
As progressives we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that have failed so far to deliver peace, health care, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.
During past progressive peaks in our political history-the late Thirties, the early Sixties-social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.
We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama’s unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.
Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic super-delegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic national convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory.
Obama’s March 17 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics which have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.
Only words? What words they were.
However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy’s anti-war campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that makes it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming.
We should not only keep the pressure on, but we also should connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision.
- The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years. All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan.
- Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis. Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal health care, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil.
- Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis. We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations.
Progressives should support Obama’s 16-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton’s open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.
The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama nor Clinton would be taking the stands they do today.
Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin.
The American government’s arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate.
The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics, and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation’s future, and living on borrowed time.
The Bush Administration has replaced the Cold War with the War on Terrorism led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack.
We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken.
Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton Administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our Cold War and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counter-insurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, which rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico’s right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically-approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine.
We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman president. But progressives should be disturbed at her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation which was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to “end the war” but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton’s “end the war” rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated-a treadmill which guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was First Lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, proves that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks.
Clinton’s most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming president. In fact he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009.
We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman president, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleeza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American president. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic Hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons’ attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment.
We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vacillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign.
Tom Hayden is author of Ending the War in Iraq, a five-time Democratic convention delegate, former state senator, and board member of the Progressive Democrats of America. Bill Fletcher, Jr., who originated the call for founding “Progressives for Obama,” is the executive editor of Black Commentator, and founder of the Center for Labor Renewal; Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Dancing in the Streets[2007] and other popular works and, with Hayden, a member of The Nation’s editorial board. Danny Glover is the respected actor, activist, and chairman of the board of TransAfrica.
For more information see: http://progressivesforobama
It’s almost as if Obama sampled the progressive sites and picked up on what’s being said.
I like what he is saying, don’t get me wrong. I just see him as being a member of the worthless Democratic Party. I know all too well how corporations control Republicrats!
Is he talking about freeing the airwaves to an honest discussion of issues?
Is he talking about the U.S. standing up to Global Corporate influence on our government?
Does he address “population explosion” make possible through the use of OIL! Oil feeds the world, now what does that tell you about the future?
“However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches.”
Anything less — i.e., real demands on him in exchange for support — would force him to take progressives seriously. Gushing support does nothing but allow him to take your votes for granted. He doesn’t have mine, and won’t, unless and until he adopts positions favored by the majority: complete withdrawal from Iraq and an end to saber-rattling against Iran; serious cuts in military spending; universal, singe-payer health coverage; meaningful regulation of Wall Street; increased taxes on the wealth; serious policies to confront climate change (and no nukes!); and the list could go on.
Where’s your leverage, folks? You’ve just given it away. As you always do, predictably, every four years. You get the candidates you deserve.
Nonsense. What social movement? What we see is a rock star/televangelist figure that is an empty suit peddling his inexperienced wares a la revival tent style. He is a candidate that has Zbigniew Brzezinski (of orchestrating the Mujahadeen and its blowback fame) behind him, an uber war hawk. Obama is a candidate who keeps voting for budgets that keep the illegal Iraq occupation going. Obama, a candidate who supports capital punishment. Imagine that.
Wow, Tom Hayden, et al, these are some progressive values. Eh? Obama will not get us out of Iraq. There is no plan. Obama will not give us single payer universal health care. Obama will not cut the bloated military budget. Obama had and has no plan for ending the Palestinian/Israeli embroglio. Obama will not end, nor work at ending corporate crime. Obama cares little for democracy as his silence when the media muzzled Dennis Kucinich shows. Obama says absolutely nothing about holding those that lied to the country and took us to war under known false pretenses accountable. So Tom Hayden, Barbara and Dennis Glover, since you write that the American people want OUT OF IRAQ, why are you backing someone who WILL NOT! Someone who will replace troops with mercenaries (contractors)? This is what you call progressive?
But you folk know all this well enough. Not so deep inside you know that Ralph Nader is the one candidate with the progressive values and agenda you believe in, but you are so addicted to the horse race and the status quo corrupt two party system that your inability to support Nader creates the self-fulfilling prophecy of not getting someone with your progressive values into the White House. You are in effect SPOILERS of what you profess to believe in. Vote Ralph Nader!
“All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama.”
Well, from this day onward, I will have to use another word to describe myself other than “Progressive”.
It is one thing to urge strategic voting for a politician who may maximize the space for activism to work.
But with this statement:
“Progressives should support Obama’s 16-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton’s open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.”
I see a SELLOUT of stunning magnitude.
We have sttuggled tirelessly for an immediate withdrawl of ALL troops, followed by reparations. This proposal by Obama is an admitted lie anyway! Hatyden Fletcher, Ehrrenrich, Glover, go to hell.
WOW…MORE GREAT WINNERS BEHIND…JUST
ANOTHER DEMOCRAT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT…
TO ME REMINICENT OF MICHAEL DUKAIS…
SMART, ARTICULATE AND PROBABLY AS DECENT A
MAN AS IS AROUND…OBAMA…TALLER, DIFFERENT
SKIN…BUT OH MY, LOOK STRAIGHT IN…WATCH
BODY LANGUAGE ETC….JUST ANOTHER UNIVERSITY
TYPE (ALL CALLED BRILLIANT)…THEY HAVE
SLIGHTLY ARROGANT MANNERISMS AND “NO REAL
VERBAL CONNECTIONS OTHER THAN…PEDANTIC
AND ROLE PLAYING…THE “STATESMAN”. TRULY
SAD..THAT ALL THESE SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES..
I’M STILL A LIBERAL..SINCE 1952…POOR…
SCARED DEMOCRATS AFTER 1968…DIDN’T KNOW
HOW TO COUNTER…THE “EVIL LIBERAL PRINT”
REPUBLICANS PAINTED THEM WITH…STILL INTO
TODAY…DEM’S JUST STUPIDLY….WENT TOWARD
THE “CENTER”…AND EVEN PUKESVILLE TO ME..
THE LAST FIASCO…DEAN, KERRY, ET AL…EVEN
WENT THE “GOD BLESS…I’M A BELIEVER…I’M
NOT A LIBERAL, I’M DEVOUT AND ABOVE ALL
LOVE THIS COUNTRY”…HOW STUPID AND PATHETIC
IS ALL THIS????
IF ALL THESE SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES REALLY
“WERE”…WHEN THE DEMS TOOK OVER THE HOUSE
AND PELOSI AND JOHN CONYERS OF ALL PEOPLE…
SAID “IMPEACHMENT WAS OFF THE TABLE”…
WHERE WERE THESE PEOPLE?…..JUST WHERE THEY
WERE WHEN THE BLACK ROBES COMPLETED THE
FIRST BLOODLESS COUP..I’VE WITNESSED IN THIS
COUNTRY…IN FLORIDA…”AFRAID”…AFRAID OF
WHAT THE WORLD WOULD THINK…AFRAID OF THROWING THE GAUNLET….AND WINNING!! NOPE
…THEY HAVE ALLOWED THE “IN YOU FACE…
GREATEST EMBARRASSMENT LEADER IN MY LIFE…
OF THIS SO-CALLED GREATEST OF ALL NATIONS…
TO BRING THIS COUNTRY TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY…
CORPORATE MILITARY RULE…OVER THE ALMOST
COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL TRANSFORMATION…TO
A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY. COME ON SMART FOLKS
THINK….WHY…BECAUSE THE ELITE OF THIS
WORLD…DECIDED BACK IN THE LATTER 1970′S…
THIS WAS THEIR DESIRE….IT’S IN YOUR FACE
AND MOST ARE AFRAID…TO CHALLENGE TRULY…
AND VOTE FOR NADER OR ANYONE ELSE ON THE
TICKET…TO MARCH EN MASSE…AND REFUSE TO
ACCEPT….WE’LL SEE THEN…IF THERE’S ANYTHING
LEFT OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNTRY.
I expected something like this from long-ago sold-out and onetime politician Tom Hayden.
But not from Danny Glover, Bill Fletcher, or Ehrenreich.
Is there any sanity left?
This weekend is Pittsburgh’s umpteenth antiwar rally and march, which has attracted up to 5000 marchers in the past.
If I hear a single speaker or canvasser for Obama. I will take my old, faded peace flag and leave.
But I hope to see some ballot petetioners for McKinney or Nader there.
All the cynics above deserve to have ‘Madam Cluster Bomb’ or ‘Mr Million Years in Iraq’ in the White House (…but we won’t let them!)
In 1933 Germany, they would have been among the leftists who trashed the Social-Democrats, saying there was barely any difference between them and the Nazis.
Obama is in another league from the two clueless fascists mentioned above. His values are in the right place, he knows how to feel, to think, to listen, to convince, to lead.
I have not heard anything substantial from Obama that I would call progressive. He has not earned my vote, although my vote is very easy to obtain. I am a single issue voter opposed to the war on drugs. Obama should declare his opposition to the war on drugs and his intention to end it. Then I will vote for him.
I use a candidate’s attitude toward the wod as a litmus test the same as so many Christians use a candidate’s stance on abortion as the principal deciding issue. My political focus is certainly not that narrow, but I find that a candidate’s attitudes toward all other issues - like war or peace, health care, education, social security, libraries - fall right into place with mine when he opposes the war on drugs.
I don’t trust a candidate who may talk a good progressive program but omits the war on drugs. That’s why I did not vote for Bill Clinton a second time and why I have voted for third party candidates since 1996. I recall that in 1985 it was universally agreed that drugs were the number one problem threatening the nation. Let’s talk about that. Drugs are still with us, and the war on drugs should be no less important as an issue than in 1985 when it was the only issue.
I will vote for Gravel, Kucinich, Paul or Nader if one appears on my ballot, or I will write in one of the names if not. Maybe four more years then of Bushism, Arctic melting, deteriorating economy and infrastructure, war on terror and war on drugs will help people to better understand these issues in 2012. If not, then perhaps 2016, but I’ll vote the same however long it takes.
OFF SCREEN
with great respect to your opinions please use small caps, late at night LARGE CAPS literally explode off the screen, making it nearly impossible to read…
Sorry, but based on the positioning and posturing of the two ocandidated, Hillary and Obama look the same to me.
At least Hillary is old enough to have been engaged in politics when the US was actually moving in some semblance of the right direction.
Let us remember that real progressive change is only going to happen BETWEEN elections through vigorous activism and CD actions.
So generally, we should work to prevent a McCain presidency - hopefully an easy job, and getting a bigger majority of Democrats or progressive independents like Sheehan in office. That’s all - spend maybe 20% of you effort in this in the coming months, then get back to issues-orgainzing. Either Hillary of Obama will do fine for this.
I live in Pennsylvania, I be voting for neither in the primary, but will focus more on the US congressional race primary.
For the first time in 50 years, one candidate has brought together a very large and very diverse group of Americans who believe that America can do better. Obama is the real deal, and he is our chance - maybe our last chance - to turn this country around.
Obama is honest. Obama listens. He may disagree at times of course, but he listens. Obama is intelligent. Obama doesn’t take anyone’s vote for granted.
You are of course entitled to your own opinions and to support the candidate of your choice. If you like Nader, then you should support him. I won’t discourage you.
But don’t discourage us from supporting Obama. We don’t want the cynicism. We don’t want the fear. We don’t want the skepticism. We don’t want the hatred. What we DO want are your hopes, your dreams, your ideas, your thoughtfulness, your talents, your skills, your uniqueness, and YOU.
“…In 1933 Germany, they [‘Madam Cluster Bomb’ or ‘Mr Million Years in Iraq’] would have been among the leftists who trashed the Social-Democrats, saying there was barely any difference between them and the Nazis…”
Make no mistake about it, there had better be a generational change in the White House in Nov or get ready for more appalling muck [add your own version] running America in to the toilet…
Folks, the authors are being honest in observing that Obama is not a progressive, and it requires pressure to keep him veering towards politically safe positions. It is likely that Obama is receptive to the FDR approach who used to tell his cabinet people something like “I like this idea, now go make me do it.”
jozef, the willingness of people at the grassroots coming together for a common purpose, however flimsy the rationale may appear to be, constitutes a movement.
USAn, I agree with your observation that urging strategic voting for a politician to maximize the possilibilities for activism is more honest than asking people to support a candidate based on a plan that is the “best avialable.”
Ghawar, Obama does talk about the “war on drugs” in an indirect fashion. This so-called war has helped put a significant percentage of young african americans in jail for drug related “offenses.” The social issue of incarceration cannot be handled without addressing the “war on drugs” and Obama is keenly aware of this issue.
simonhhh, you didn’t get what I wrote.
The CYNICS here on CD (who see no difference between Obama and HC or McPain) would have seen no difference between Social-Democrats and Nazis in ‘33.
HC and McPain ARE the Nazis of today’s America.
dmia: “…one candidate has brought together a very large and very diverse group of Americans who believe that America can do better…Obama is honest. Obama listens. He may disagree at times of course, but he listens. Obama is intelligent. Obama doesn’t take anyone’s vote for granted…”
The above may all be true, and aside from bringing together a large and diverse group of americans, the description applies to John McCain as well. Obama’s innovation is the creation of a large and diverse coalition of people by appealing to their better sensibilities.
Too bad that neither John McCain nor Obama are progressive. I am tired of being asked to choose between the “conservative nanny corporation” and the “liberal nanny state.”
It is upto progressives to influence Obama, even if many want to (and will) vote for Nader, McKinney or now, Gravel who is seeking the libertarian nomination.
The Obama challenge violates the DLC “politics as usual” scenario for the Democratic nomination. It compels the Democratic leadership to recognize that it must offer something to its left wing. If HRC wins the nomination, but loses to McCain, the failure of Democrats will be blamed on insufficient support from the left, as usual. If BHO wins, but loses to McCain, the fault will lie with the DLC and it’s strategy of camouflaging the candidate as a Republican. Both parties are, of course, terrified of straying from the corporate line. We the public must make the candidate see that it is us who employs them, not the corporations. Left Democrats must first overcome the DLC, then John McClain* in November.
*(Yippee kay yay, mofo.)
wonder6789…I did get what you said by highlighting the accuracy of your comment…
If Obama did and said all the things you posters here are saying he should do and say, he’d have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected and would have gone the way of Dennis Kucinich. And where would that leave us? Nowhere. Like Kucinich, John Edwards spoke the truth about the corporate stranglehold on this country, and look where it got him.
So is voting for McKinney or Nader going to bring us any closer to ending our murderous and disastrous “war” in Iraq? No. Being ideologically “pure” isn’t going to get us anywhere. We have a chance to elect someone who I believe truly wants to bring our troops home. Let’s not blow this chance.
I think all the authors are saying is that Obama is a political animal who is open to support from the left (unlike the other two candidates who still possess more than lottery-like odds of winning at this point) and may react positively to pressure from the left.
My gosh, how many times must the corporate media knee-cap a left-of-center presidential candidate and make it impossible for the candidate to get any traction before some understand that one cannot run for the presidency from the left in 2008 and have any chance whatsoever.
The fact that Obama stayed with Rev. Wright for all those years, and then refused to throw him under the bus when attacked for it, told me something. It told me that there might be some hope after all.
remember, folks: the reason we are so damn frustrated with the (D)s in the house & senate is because they take progressives for granted, just as obama will. they say to themselves: who else they gonna vote for?
the (D) & (R) party have worked/colluded together for YEARS to erect a myriad of insurmountable obstacles to the ballot for what was, only a half-century ago, a rich tapestry of 3d, 4th, 5th parties.
bill (& hillary) spent 8 years in the white house (with corporate media) pushing the viewing slit of the political spectrum more and more to the right, so that the o’reillys & limbaughs & bushes & reagans seem mainstream and kucinich & nader & edwards appear fringe.
NO MORE!
if the (D) party likes the temperature over there in the middle-right, then it’s time progressives move on.
vote Nader! vote your conscience! voting for the lesser of two evils, as jerry garcia said, is still voting for evil.
Progressives for yet another anti-progressive candidate. Yeah, that’s worked so well for us in the past that we should do it again ….. Not!
The problem the left has is that it is not seen as having any real political power. And if we continually keep backing whichever candidate Wall St puts in front of us, we never will have any real political power.
kgarry : “vote Nader! vote your conscience! voting for the lesser of two evils, as jerry garcia said, is still voting for evil.”
You sound just like a neo-con armchair warrior: “the world is black and white, no shades of grey, you are either with us or against us”.
I keep seeing this bizarre idea that someone the left can ‘pressure’ Obama after he’s elected.
So, how has ‘pressuring’ the Dem leadership in Congress been working for the last year and a half? Has your ‘pressure’ gotten them to cut off funding for the war? Has your ‘pressure’ gotten them to even start investigations and hearing leading towards impeachment?
After the election, the left will have absolutely no chance nor ability to pressure Obama. None, nada, no way, it ain’t happening. The peak of the ability of the left to pressure Obama has already passed. It was basically just before the Feb 5th primaries. That’s when he was most desperate for our votes all across the country.
The left has already gotten the best it will ever get from Obama. He’s going to move increasingly to the right to get the Dem party hacks who are ’superdelegates’ to support him. And he’ll move even more to the right for the general election.
And after he’s elected, the people he’ll be listening to is the Wall St types who have funded his campaign. He won’t give a damn about what the left thinks. Especially since as an incumbent President the anti-democratic Democratic Party won’t allow a serious primary challenge to him in 2012.
If you want to ‘pressure’ Obama, the one way left to do it is to build a strong and serious anti-war campaign behind another candidate in the Nov elections. That’s the only ‘pressure’ a politician understands …. fear of losing.
COMarc, the difference here is that Obama is inviting us to pressure him.
kathyodat
I like Glover’s films and his commitment. I use to admire Hayden in the Sicties while serving in Vietnam. Glover and Hayden a short six months ago were supporting Edwards. Presumably they did so because Obama was offering food to their distaste. The shifts in their support reflect the general state of affairs of lesser evilism so common in our contemporary moment. Despite their shifting sentiments, it will never change the fact that Obama is in bed with the military industrial establishment and sitting in the pockets of corporate America. Also having spent 30 years as an environmental activist, radical environmentalists are avoiding Obama like the plague. Obama’s environmental plans are inimical to the Earth. Bio Fuels and Nuclear are proof positive that he is in bed with the forces of our demise. Follow this advice if you want more of the same. Of course, that is precisely what the sheeple do. I will be voting for the only progressive in the pack: a guy named Ralph Nader.
One other thought: this group is enthusiastically supporting Obama today: but what if Clinton gets the nomination via the super delegates. Will we be seeing another status quo shift from this group serving up their version of orthodox political entitlement. My guess is Hillary will be as acceptable to this group as Obama is now. Taking refuge under the rubric of “social movements” of the Sixties denies that fact that these people are entrenched elites currently. Their vested interest in the status quo obvious: Hayden is married to the Democratic elites he serves; Glover a very wealthy black man; and the others working for corporate Ameri(k)a. If these Cats want a few crumbs off the table, it is understandable given their organic relationship to every thing that is wrong with this country. It is easy to characterize themselves as “progressive” while collecting power, prestige, and the cold hard cash that benefits their class entitlement, while dancing at the end of the corporate whip.
Huck, this “group” is a little more diverse than you give credit for. Until I started looking into Obama I wasn’t going to vote for any Democrat, and he’s the only one I would even consider voting for. I am appalled by Hillary’s tactic of trying to destroy him as a viable candidate to make her acceptable to the voters. Doesn’t work for me. Even McCain has more integrity than she does. I think it would be a great loss for our country if he doesn’t get the nomination, and if the super delegates are there to serve any purpose they should put a stop to her behavior. If she can’t win on her own merits she doesn’t deserve the nomination.
kathyodat
Huck, I’ll second what Kathyodat just said as far as not voting for Hillary Clinton. I was a Kucinich supporter and Obama was my second choice. While I disagree with Obama on a whole host of issues, I think he’s more progressive than he’s letting on, because he’s playing the game to get elected. (Kucinich wasn’t willing to play that game.) But under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton. If she’s the Dem nominee, I will vote for McKinney or Nader. By the way, did you see that Gravel just announced that he’s leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Libertarian Party?
Huck March writes:
“Glover and Hayden a short six months ago were supporting Edwards.”
—–
And they should have stayed with it, and should get back to it.
Note: the comments to this piece at the PDA blog are similar to those here.
Between REAL Republicans and people who are too wussy — that’d be Hillobama, the birthday-suit “diversity” twins — to stand UP to Republicans, what’s the diff?
Folks used to say “don’t trust anybody over 30″ — these days, maybe we should be saying “don’t trust anybody over 30 grand” …
As anyone who has read my posts knows, I do not fall into the “progressive” stereotype. While I consider my self someone who embraces change, which is the normal connotation of progressive, I am not regressive (wanting to return to the past). For these reasons, I support Obama. He clearly is an imperfect candidate, but the alternatives are so horrible, who else is there? I have talked to a number of folks from other countries, and they uniformly wonder how a country as great as the US cannot find someone “good” to run for president. i have tried to explain that an “outsider” cannot get the coverage to contend.
Mr. Obvious, there are many here who use the term progressive to indicate an approach to dealing with issues rather than a noun. In the current political scenario, both usages address issues that fall within the charter of the American progressive movement (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism).
I can’t believe they have sold out to a candidate preaching neverending use of preemptive military power (including use of military mercenaries),
I am exteremely disappointed in these defections from sanity.
Obama says “pressure me”
OK, This Friday, at 9:00 AM, at Soldiers and Sailors Hall in Pittsburgh, the Western PA Coalition for Single-Payer Healthcare will be bird-dogging Obama - as they did Hillary at the St. Patricks day parade. Since ticked will be sold-out, the bird-dogging will instead take the form of a demonstration at the front entrance instead.
The reaction of Obama’s followers to a demonstration at his appearance will be very telling.
Hopefully we can organize another gauntlet-of-protest at his inauguration like we did to Bush in ‘01)
And, if Obama is so much for ending racism, why isn’t his itinerary taking him to Homewood, Braddock, the St. Clair Projects or other poor black neighborhoods. Did he visit any in Philly? His speech there showed little understanding of the nature of racism - http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16976 )
Also, the whole idea that I should vote for someone on some kind of “assurances” that he is lying about his real intentions, is positively bizarre.
dmia: Al Gore was just such a candidate who brought together a very large and very diverse group of Americans who believe that America can do better. Al Gore is the real deal and if all the Progressives had supported him, maybe we wouldn’t be in this position. Obama is just another member of the Boy’s Club; nice smile, tall, dark and handsome, great tan and will tell you just what you want to here. A whole lot like the white boys in pursuit of a one-night stand. Obama is not the equal of Al Gore in terms of political experience, miliary service or accomplishments in public service. Senator Clinton is also not on the same level as Al Gore; she is older, wiser and in so many ways, much stronger and able to deflect all the wethering criticisms and half-truths being circulated at “fact”.
I don’t discourage you from supporting Obama. “We don’t want the cynicism. We don’t want the fear. We don’t want the skepticism. We don’t want the hatred”. Maybe you need to get Obama to shed Rev. Wright and Mrs. Obama. What we DO want are your hopes, your dreams, your ideas, your thoughtfulness, your talents, your skills, your uniqueness, and YOU - How Sweet! Grow up and smell the coffee and better yet, join the real world!
Yes, UsAn, it is bizarre. Doesn’t mean it’s not true. It is what you have to do to get elected in this f—-d up country.
Rockerbabe, I don’t look at Obama at all like a white boy in pursuit of a one-night stand. He has a lot more class than that. I totally agree that he and Gore are not equals. Gore is now the “elder statesman” and Barack Obama is the young, idealistic but pragmatic upstart. Gore has some centrist Democrat stances he should atone for, but he’s come a long way since he left the White House. I think he and Obama would make an awesome ticket (given our other choices).
Obama/Gravel 2008!
Don’t say he didn’t warn you…
Here’s a glimpse of the foreign policy we can expect from the Obama Administration:
LARRY KING: A couple of quick things, Senator. Would you, in your administration, make use of Bill Clinton?
BARACK OBAMA: Absolutely. I think that, you know, Bill Clinton is a brilliant statesman and politician, and I think that any president would want to use his skills and his relationships around the world.
By the way, I would reach out to the first George Bush. You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn’t get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us 20 billion dollars. That’s all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people. So I want a bipartisan team that can help to provide me good advice and counsel when I’m President of the United States.
If this is what “progressive” means in America these days, we are truly lost. The “lesser evil” logic doesn’t cut it for me, and if I don’t have Cynthia McKinney to vote for in November, I’ll have to pick “none of the above” for President in 2008.
Common Dreams: Please stop running these Tom Hayden campaign ads for Obama, or, if you do, ask for a hefty fee for running them and identify them as paid political ads.
I imagine it goes like this: Goldman Sachs pays the Obama campaign, and then the Obama campaign pays Tom Hayden to write about Obama as if he were some sort of second Jesus Christ, roping in some respected writers because Tom Hayden lost credibility after selling his soul to the Democratic Party decades ago after abandoning his ’60s activism as something only fit only for chumps and losers.
Hayden: “I can bring in the chumps for Obama” (I imagine him saying).
Please, get real. Speeches and excitement happen in every campaign, but it’s clear how Obama voted in the past (for war spending, NAFTA). His record is marginally better than Clinton’s. Obama’s campaign cabinet, filled with war criminals like Zbigniew Brezinski, really shows where he’s at.
The Democratic Party has ignored us thus far, so what’s stopping it now? Also, Obama is not some grassroots candidate. He’s well funded by Wall Street. Send money to him? How about sending money to General Electric or Exxon Mobile - hoping that your $50 will change their stripes? It’s just absurd.
One thing progressives continue to be successful at-divide and conquer.
Mr. Obama may have gained a lot of his experience simply by being an attorney. Having to deal with the lack of justice in this country based mainly on racism prepares you for politics. And having to live your life as a mixed race individual allows you to be subject to racism everyday.
Why don’t you do something like make sure people are registered to vote and your district won’t be subject to voter tampering.
When will you learn that the only way we can make a change is to work together?
Progressives don’t like to unite with predators! We like to unite with other progressives, Tom! So please, purge the predators from your organization first! Until then you know where to find us - we are over here standing on the TRUE progressive platform.
This, for me, is beginning to move from bizarrely humourous to totally pathetic.
When you are all done debating who would be the best KING perhaps we could spend a few weeks (minutes even!) discussing a progressive movement in CONGRESS.
You know, like as if we are citizens of a REPUBLIC.
If all progressives can do is yap about the executive, just because it is a “Presidential Election Year”, than the Corporate media and the crypto (and not-so-crypto) fascists have already defeated you.
To put it another way, exactly how long do you think it takes to decide who should “preside” over the executive?
10 minutes? A day? A month? A YEAR?
Wake up and smell the bullshit people!
If we ASSUME the machinery of democratic influence is non-functional, it will BE non-functional, that is how Democracy works.
Sometimes I am truly amazed at what has happened in the U.S., it’s like there’s been a coup without a fight, and all the revolutionaries are so eager to fail that they don’t even think about using all of the tools they have in hand.
staggering. sad. expected.
-matti.
And it will be the Obama movement that makes it necessary and possible
All the other movements were about RESULTS!! But THIS movement is about an American Idol! See the trick? Tricky tricky.
Forget it, Tom, go back to the DLC and tell em PROGRESSIVES DIDN’T TAKE THE BAIT. The bait we want is one or two DLC mafia dons cooking on a spit.
Normally I keep out of the fray over who will be the best candidate. However when I see trite statements like the one below from Rockerbabe1 I have to put in my two cents.
‘She is older, wiser and in so many ways, much stronger and able to deflect all the wethering criticisms and half-truths being circulated at “fact”.’
Will she deflect “withering criticisms” by bending over for the Right? Maybe she’ll dump a few tons of ordinance on some Middle Eastern country every time something unsavory about her comes to light.
Hillary oozes status quo. Where does her experience come from? Just over one term in the Senate? Living in the White House for 8 years? If Hillary is the best that the dems have then I am not impressed. Like the Bush Dynasty, The House of Clinton had its reign and now it’s time to move on.
Mutt: divide and conquer? I could say the same about you and Hayden and his status quo friends. Of course, you are free to join the authentically progressive candidate Ralph Nader. Anyone else here is welcome. It really is that simple. Just say NO to more of the same and those who advocate for it.
Obama is a PRO-WAR candidate! Why is the anti-war movement embracing this foolish man? He lacks vision, is much more likely to move to the right than to the progressive left, lacks passion about ANY issues, while he’s well intentioned, he IS inexperienced… the Democrats are making a huge mistake, no surprise there. Winning the Presidency is meaningless if policies basically remain the same. The REAL work is in changing our corrupt electoral system - all of it! I urge everyone to support a multi-party parliamentary system with a complete overhaul of campaign finances, voter enfranchisement, abolition of the U.S. senate, abolition of the electoral college (so everybody’s vote can at least count while we strive for more)
wonder6789:
for a while i was really confused re:your obama upchuck –
(kgarry : “vote Nader! vote your conscience! voting for the lesser of two
evils, as jerry garcia said, is still voting for evil.”
You sound just like a neo-con armchair warrior: “the world is black and
white, no shades of grey, you are either with us or against us”.
to my earlier post. but then i read your other post:
Obama is in another league from the two clueless fascists mentioned above.
His values are in the right place, he knows how to feel, to think, to
listen, to convince, to lead.
and i realized you’re just another obama fan running on some visceral reaction to soothing oratory.
i’m working and pleading for 3d, 4th, 5th party alternatives, and your obama-mania causes you to see this as a neo-con binary worldview? you sound like paid obama staff, or maybe just someone overcome with vapors whenever you hear a pretty man speak well.
on the other hand, maybe you’re partially right when you say “Obama is in another league from the two clueless fascists mentioned above.”
yeah, he’s a fascist, but not totally clueless.
A progressive who supports the Democratic Party is an idiot. Case closed.
Greenuprising (March 26th, 2008 12:10 pm) wrote: “He doesn’t have mine, and won’t, unless and until he adopts positions favored by the majority: complete withdrawal from Iraq and an end to saber-rattling against Iran; serious cuts in military spending; universal, singe-payer health coverage; meaningful regulation of Wall Street; increased taxes on the wealth; serious policies to confront climate change (and no nukes!); and the list could go on.”
Obama has committed to removing all US troops from Iraq within 16 months and closing our permanent bases there. He has said he will negotiate with Iran. He has said he will raise taxes on the wealthy to finance green technology and resurrect our economy, as well as join with other nations to solve the climate crisis. On universal health care, he’s said this:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. … A single-payer health-care plan, a universal health-care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, and we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.”
– Barack Obama, speaking to the AFL-CIO in June 2003, as quoted by Media Matters.
Also presumably on your list would be NAFTA and similar trade agreements. Here’s what Obama has consistently proposed:
“(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate — we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.”
– Barack Obama in Janesville, WI, Feb. 13, 2008, as quoted by The Nation.
“We sharply differ with some of those views, particularly Obama’s opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
– Chicago Tribune editorial, Feb. 29, 2004.
“The two big Chicago daily papers both endorsed him enthusiastically in the primary, even though they disagreed with him on major issues — his opposition to the war in Iraq and, in the case of the Tribune, his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement.”
– The New Yorker, May 31, 2004.
If you want to know his stands on various issues, go to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Jozef (March 26th, 2008 12:23 pm) as you can see above, and from reading at his website, Obama actually is progressive, contrary to your post. But he has to get elected to do any good. Were he to embrace every position that Nader has at this point, he would suffer the same fate at the hands of the corporate media that Nader has — that’s the reality.
USAn (March 26th, 2008 1:06 pm) wrote: “If I hear a single speaker or canvasser for Obama. I will take my old, faded peace flag and leave.”
So, you want peace, but not with Obama supporters? Perhaps you’re not quite as ‘progressive’ as you think.
Ghawar (March 26th, 2008 1:18 pm) wrote: “I am a single issue voter opposed to the war on drugs. Obama should declare his opposition to the war on drugs and his intention to end it.”
Ghawar, among the three candidates, one of whom is going to be president next January, which one do you think is most likely to have a sane policy on drugs. McCain, Hillary or Obama? McCain has already said he’ll support Bush’s drug war; Hillary Clinton will be no different from hubby Bill, so that leaves Obama. He has said he favors treatment rather than imprisonment for drug problems but if he came out for decriminalization now, he’d be roasted over an open pit by the media and his opponents. Ghawar, how has your voting for third party candidates advanced your cause of ridding us of the War on Drugs?
I can’t believe how many intelligent and sincere progressives I read here who just somehow don’t understand that in the corporate political environment currently controlling our media, a candidate says who certain things — like Kucinich — will be hounded out of the race or just ignored. You aren’t going to change that culture unless you get people elected. I have voted for many Green and alternative party candidates in the past; in 2000, I voted for Ralph Nader. Explain to me how exactly that pushed this country in a more progressive direction? The nation is worse off now than it was then and we aren’t going to save it by voting for Nader again. As much as I like what Ralph stands for, and admire what he’s done in the past, he’s a terrible politician. He seems to enjoy the role of the ‘Lone Wolf’ who clings to his agenda without compromise — a man who can say “I may have lost but I was right” — but how does that improve the situation, except by exerting pressure on those who are elected?
Obama is a reasonable and liberal man who will listen and act on good ideas and accepts no PAC or lobbyist money in his campaign; Hillary and McCain are divisions of the Parent Corprocracy who will take their orders from the boardroom, not the people.
COMarc (March 26th, 2008 3:18 pm) wrote: “And after he’s elected, the people he’ll be listening to is the Wall St types who have funded his campaign.”
As I’ve written, his campaign is NOT taking any money from the Wall Street lobbyists and PACs, so why would you think they will then have influence on him after he’s elected? Why do you think the Big Media is so freaked out by the prospect of a President Obama?
Huck (March 26th, 2008 4:05 pm) wrote: “Despite their shifting sentiments, it will never change the fact that Obama is in bed with the military industrial establishment and sitting in the pockets of corporate America. Also having spent 30 years as an environmental activist, radical environmentalists are avoiding Obama like the plague. Obama’s environmental plans are inimical to the Earth. Bio Fuels and Nuclear are proof positive that he is in bed with the forces of our demise.”
Please post exactly what members of the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate America have endorsed Obama. Obama has stated he supports using biofuels and nuclear energy only as temporary measures to reduce coal and oil emissions — our ‘carbon footprint’– while providing enough power to maintain our economy. Long term, he wants a transition to solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy.
“Well, I don’t believe that climate change is just an issue that’s convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it’s one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That’s why I’ve fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That’s why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn’t just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”
— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 14, 2007
Thoughts_Into_Action (March 27th, 2008 12:40 am) wrote: “Obama’s campaign cabinet, filled with war criminals like Zbigniew Brezinski, really shows where he’s at.”
Obama’s foreign policy campaign advisors are ALL people who opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning. I think that says something about Obama’s desire to end the war. Read “The Obama Doctrine” by Spencer Ackerman at The American Prospect.
“When considering any presidential hopeful’s foreign-policy promises, it’s important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate’s roster of advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would have seen through Bush’s pitch about a humble foreign policy and realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.) Obama’s foreign-policy advisers come from diverse backgrounds. They are former aides to Democratic mandarins like Tom Daschle and Lee Hamilton (Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, respectively); veterans of the Clinton administration’s left flank (Tony Lake and Susan Rice); a human-rights advocate who helped write the Army’s and Marine Corps’ much-lauded counterinsurgency field manual (Sarah Sewall); a retired general who helped run the air war during the invasion of Iraq (Scott Gration); and a former journalist who revolutionized the study of U.S. foreign policy (Samantha Power). Yet they form a committed, intellectually coherent, and surprisingly united foreign-affairs team. (Shortly before this piece went to press, Power resigned from the campaign after making an intemperate remark to a reporter.)
“They also share a formative experience with each other and with Obama. Each opposed the Iraq War at a time when doing so was derided by their colleagues, by journalists, and by the foreign-policy establishment. Each did so because they understood that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda. And each bore the frustration of endless lectures on their lack of so-called seriousness from those who suffered from strategic myopia.”
– Spencer Ackerman, “The Obama Doctrine,” The American Prospect, March 24, 2008
Also, read my comments regarding his so-called ‘Wall Street’ funding — Obama’s campaign is not being financed by Big Corporations.
Rockerbabe1 (March 26th, 2008 9:00 pm), thanks for not trying to discourage us poor deluded wretches from voting for Obama; if you had we might have caved in and just voted for anybody! BTW, I’m fully grown and have smelled the coffee — I believe it was when I was taking sniper fire at Tuzla airport.
This is not directed to RSJ who is a paid Obama political operative, but to anyone interested in the truth.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/20/2648/
You might also check out www.opensecrets.org if you want to track the corporate money flowing into the trough from which he feeds.
End of Story!
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
Huck, you’re absolutely wrong — I am NOT a paid Obama political operative and, in fact — and my comments are here at CD to prove it — previously supported Edwards.
BTW, that article you cited at CD, Pierre Tristam’s “The Audacity of Fraud: How Barack Obama Is Losing My Vote,” was written on July 20, 2007, and a lot has happened since then. Aside from that, it is mostly Tristam’s opinion of how Obama will perform. Obama may have said “We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities,” but he wasn’t talking about any Bush-style invasions or occupations, as he has since made clear. Compare his ideas to those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Open Secrets shows that, as of Feb. 2008, Obama has received $192,757,471 (100 percent) of his campaign funds from individual contributions, and his Disclosure rating is in the 93.7 percent range. He has also released all of his tax returns to the public.
In contrast, look at Hillary Clinton: Out of a total $107,934,718 raised (as of Feb. 2008), she has not disclosed where $13,180,282 of those contributions have come from, and she refuses to release her tax returns.
John McCain has taken in $45,135,170 as of Feb. 2008, and has not disclosed the source of $4,713,065 of that amount. He has also not released his tax returns.
(All info from the Center for Responsive Politics.)
And, incidentally, Ralph Nader has accepted support from openly pro-Bush groups in the past, so his shoes aren’t exactly clean in this area.
I have never said that Obama was the perfect progressive candidate, just that he was the most viable progressive candidate in this election.
Bio Fuels represent less than 7% of energy expenditures in the US. To assert that these are “temporary measures” is taking refuge in dishonesty. How does the construction of a Nuclear Power plant represent a “temporary” solution?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/
You get the world you dream. And how do you share your dream? With words. With words only. They’re all we have to begin to build a new world. Barack’s speech was singularly mature and sophisicated. He knows. He understands the problems we face are more important than pandering to any political constituency. He is quite possibly the most perfect amalgamation of a pragmatist, progressive, and democratic leader we’ve had in decades.
I’ve read the piece and all the comments. First off surprized to see who contributed to this article, other than Hayden. The problem with Obama is, he isn’t progressive as stated by the authors. He needs to be Led, Pushed, and Pressured, not in one or two areas but several. We the people are now what? expected to lead the Leader.
Frankly, after the 5 th anniversary of the illegal invasion with over 1 Million Innocent Iraqi Deaths, there’s no way I’d vote for Obama who contributed by voting for those military funds.
Many people say, he’s playing the game and he’s really a good guy but apparently gutless. Wellstone had guts, no wishy washy there. I’m sure Clinton and Obama are glad not to be running against him today, as they wouldn’t have been able to plow over him like they did with Kucinich.
USAn and matti are correct. It matters more who is in Congress than who is president. And it matters that citizens remain active and continue to put pressure on their representatives and senators. Voting for Obama is not a movement. Working for change is. Maybe that is why this bandwagon is so appealing. It is easier than long, hard work - and even sacrifice.
btw, Where were all these ‘progressives’ when Kucinich and Edwards were in the race?! Obama is not progressive.
Obama’s economic advisors are more conservative than Hillary’s. His positions are not that different from hers. And, I don’t see any reason to think they will change. Whoever is elected will have to work with Congress. And, if you constantly insult anyone who does not agree with you, that does not bode well for uniting people. Many Obama supporters seem to be for Obama - period. They say they will whine and walk away if he is not selected. I am becoming embarrassed at the self-righteous attitude of so-called ‘progressives’.
btw - Obama was invited to speak to community groups in a black community in Philadelphia, but did not. I think he was on vacation. The same week, Hillary came to a local community college and almost half of the crowd was students, or young people - many young families also. I don’t trust the media portrayal and the pundits’ spin of events.
If there is division is the Democratic Party, why should it all be blamed on Hillary? I think her supporters will not desert the party if she is not selected. It’s not ideal, but it’s all we’ve got at the moment.
Suckers. Suckers. Suckers. I can’t believe Barbara Ehrenreich. She has lost so much credibility with me here.
Look back 200 years and you’ll find Democrats arguing basically the same points here for the shill candidate of their day — William jennings bryan. Woodrow Wilson.
Obama has basically the same positions as Clinton. We all know that. ESPECIALLY ON THE WAR. Moreover, HE IS WALL STREET SPONSORED, by the same Wall Street vampires who JUST PERFORMED THE BIGGEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH OUT OF BLACK COMMUNITIES. Obama talks a prettier game to attract lefties and Clinton pitches herself to right-wingers.
For them to dissemble about these major points, and to already pledge their support at this stage is so strategically idiotic. Even if they want to be as stupid as this and support DUMS, they are much better placed to pressure the candidates by staying on the fence.
The progressive “movement” is a joke. And the progressive media is trash just like the MSM. Common Dreams has been one of the THE WORST PROBAMA SHILLS OUT THERE.
All i can say to these sellouts is TALK TO US IN 4 YEARS.
See you then suckers.
Danny, Tom, Barbara, Bill,
So that’s it? Line up behind the Democrats … again? Want another kick in the teeth? Vote Dem!
In the meantime, we could use the radical strategy of …. begging and complaining? Demanding? No, that’s off the table, according to these writers. Should we take the risk? Should we complain too much? So much radicalism here on CommonDreams, my head spins.
Obama is for change all right: He gave an anti-war speech, got into the Senate (as a result?) and then, indeed, he did CHANGE… into a war supporter! He’s one of two people the empire’s two-party system has deemed promising and reliable. The most brutal country in the world has manufactured our consent and given us Barack Obama. Read between the lines. And you upper mid-class writers, politicians, and movie stars, have lowered yourselves to the status of cheerleaders - with a “hopeful, dreamy” twist.
I am happy to say, I’m free from this ultimately damaging strategy.
I’m very thankful to Nader and McKinney for giving me someone to vote for. I made a VotersForPeace Pledge to NOT VOTE FOR ANYONE WHO VOTES TO FUND THE BRUTAL OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. I intend to keep my promise.
Nader has gotten a bad rap, painfully unfair, while your Obama - who votes to fund the war, give Israel money to finish their ethnic cleansing, Patriot Act, etc. - gets a cheerleading section.
Huck wrote: “Bio Fuels represent less than 7% of energy expenditures in the US. To assert that these are “temporary measures” is taking refuge in dishonesty. How does the construction of a Nuclear Power plant represent a “temporary” solution?”
Obama would increase spending on biofuels and mandate their use by internal combustions engines in the US. Refurbishing nuclear power plants, and a few new constructions, is indeed a temporary solution, when you think in terms of long this conversion to clean energy will take. Ten to fifteen years would be overly-optimistic; more like 20 or 25. In the meantime, nuclear and biofuels would replace coal and oil which are more dangerous to the environment. Just how long do you think it’s realisitcally going to take to get America off of oil and coal — a couple of months?
“Obama would increase spending on biofuels and mandate their use by internal combustions engines in the US.”
Precisely why people ought to be running for the exits. Biofuels like fossil fuels contribute to climate change and not reduce it. The Bio Fuel Lobby is gaining momentum in this country and in ten years will mimic the Oil Lobby. I am not here to hold RSJ’s hand for him or her. Go to the home page of Common Dreams scroll down to the search engine and enter BIOFUELS to discover just how inimical this source of energy is to the Earth. Despite Biofuels being harmful to the Earth and contributing to climate change, Biofuels are allowed to expand thus supplanting farm based land production, world wide food supplies will diminish contributing to starvation and higher prices for those left to afford it.
To assert that “refurbishing” Nuclear is Obama’s sole position on Nuclear is a bold faced lie. You people are free to vote for whoever you want to. But don’t lecture the 1% who think for ourselves or tell us how we ought to be voting.
This cast of characters has long been morphed into the status quo. They have forgotten the ‘edge’in their lives and what it means to stand in that space of unknowing. I’ve walked away from many opportunities that would have made my life comfortable and live off of less than 10k per year working on behalf of the Earth and Poor. I spent two years in Vietnam. I think I’ve earned the right to think for myself.
anne faith March 26th, 2008 2:46 pm
“If Obama did and said all the things you posters here are saying he should do and say, he’d have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected and would have gone the way of Dennis Kucinich. And where would that leave us?”
Yes, that’s the point I’ve come to. I started with Kucinich, but realized that no-one who speaks that candidly will last long. If by fluke of history he were elected, he would be dis-elected with a bullet.
I think Obama knows this. While he’s not the second coming of Christ, I think he has some good stuff in him and will give progressives the room we need to get some real work done, if he can open up the Democratic Party and work with us to clean out the deep shit that lurks within. And that’s the key - the work needs to be done by all of us.
The U.S., in it’s treatment of the black population, is in no way different politically than the racist, apartheid regime of South Africa, for the disappearence of which the whole world owes a debt of gratitude to Cuba. So, logically, it must be asked why the most racist regime in the world would allow, and be covertly facilitating, the candidacy of a black person for president? Clearly, the only reason can be so that Obama will function like a “beard” and thereby disarm the aspirations of the segment of society which has learned just how crooked are the worthless scum which truly run the U.S.A..
The fact that Obama would condescend to include the first president Bush and that equally worthless former president Clinton as possible advisors, or mentors, shows clearly that Obama is one of “Them”. With an Obama presidency nothing substantial would change in the U.S. and the superfluous changes he would increment would not be worth supporting him in order to get the vile republicans out of office so that a milder regime could increase daycare while still committing mass murder against other countries. If you watch any of the coverage on the corporate-media then it is obvious that they are subtlety pushing the democrats, and if “they” want a change in party governance then any true progressive certainly doesn’t. If that vile trash which runs the U.S.A. is allowed to hide behind their beard then the present anger against them will abate but they will keep forging ahead, behind the scenes, in their evil attempt to dominate the whole world with their capitalistic “globalization”.
Good posts, anne faith. I don’t agree with you Obama haters. I think there is more in him than you give credit for. And considering the alternatives, Hillary and McCain for god’s sake, I am willing to give him a chance. At worst I would be disappointed but I’m prepared for that, and I may well not be disappointed. Time will tell if Hillary doesn’t succeed in beheading him first. I certainly couldn’t be disappointed by Hillary or McCain because they couldn’t perform any worse than my expectations, although McCain could surprise me by performing better. Not Hillary. In fact, whenever her behavior appears to have hit bottom, she finds a new low.
By the way, how many of you Obama haters actually listened to or even read the transcript of his speech? It was brave, honest, respectful, thoughtful, and showed more integrity than Hillary has ever shown. Those are the qualities I want in my President. He’s chosen intelligent thoughtful advisers, not one of whom supported the invasion of Iraq. And for those of you who think he should destroy any chance of becoming President, go ahead and vote for Gravel. And see how far you get. I don’t expect to get as far with Obama as I would with Kucinich, but I believe I will get a Hell of a lot further than I would with those crooks and liars running against him. And if Hillary manages to steal the nomination, I will have some hard choices to make, between McKinney and Nader.
I have a friend, a life long Democrat favoring Obama who expected until recently to vote for whoever wins. But she said she can’t bring herself to vote for Hillary after this performance. She is repelled by how low Hillary is willing to go. I saw a WJS/NBC poll showing Hillary’s negatives have gone up 20 points in the last two weeks. I can’t think of a more fitting outcome than for her own behavior to make her unelectable. Of course she may end up sinking the entire Democratic ship with her but I don’t think she gives a damn. And if she does pull the party down with her, maybe something good will come out of it. Like the end of the Democratic party as we know it.
kathyodat
Kathy, that is a total mischaracterization of the scope of comments on this page. I don’t “hate” Obama as a human being. I am arguing against his environmental policies which are harmful, and his cozy relationship with Corporate Ameri(k)a. Anyone who thinks that money pouring in by this demographic is nothing more than a “donaton” is living in a dream world. These are not donations but rather ‘investments’ which these entities expect a return by way of favorable legislation.
RSJ noted (my paraphrase) that things would significantly change if the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats have sided with Republicans on numerous issues from Supreme Court appointments, the Patriot Act, the diminishment of our collective rights against unreasonable search of our private conversations and records, to funding the Iraq War after promising otherwise, to the single most important issue facing our species: i.e., climate change. Obama is wrong on all these issues. I hate his Plan. Vote for whoever you want, but don’t follow a few celebrities blindly just because they have a soap box of name recognition.
NMBill March 26th, 2008 12:05 pm
“Is he talking about freeing the airwaves to an honest discussion of issues?”
NMBill,
I wonder how many people are aware that “FIRST RESPONDERS” in this alleged “War on Global Terrorism” were not considered when our Government (FCC) sold-off our airwaves to Verizon? To this day, NOT ONE FREQUENCY has been put aside or saved for our first responders to communicate in another crisis like 9/11 or Katrina without any possibility of another communications screw-up!
If our government was so concerned about another terrorist attack, wouldn’t you think they would RESERVE at least ONE frequency just for the use of first responders?
Do the people running this country have a brain or just deep pockets?
Agreed, Huck. I don’t think it serves a good purpose to characterize anyone as Obama haters. By inference, that makes me an Obama lover, which I am not. I will vote for him, but that’s far from saying that I will follow him no matter what or that those who don’t approve of him will do what they can to diminish him.
I’m a late-comer to the Obama camp as I despise the Democrats in their current incarnation. They are treasonous, feckless, leaderless weasels and the sooner this country is done with the malcontents, the better. There are also some decent Democrats and it’s my hope that behind Obama we can sweep out the garbage (the Clintons and Terry McCauliffe and Nancy Pelosi and others) and mount a revolution against the corporate fascists that are in control.
iam: i respect any one’s right to vote their conscience. What I don’t respect is a bunch of sixties activists riding their name recognition purporting the status quo. If Obama wins the nomination (and I have serious doubts he will) given the Clinton’s entrenched political cronies in the system. Obama’s environmental policies will contribute to climate change. This country lacks the resolve to take the steps necessary. Every indigenous elder Ive worked with is now saying the same thing: life on planet Earth as we have known it in our lifetimes is undergoing significant change for the worse. My advice is to PREPARE for that day!
Don’t be suckered. Whoever posts to that “beforkids” moniker is NSA, located at 126 Platano Street in Roanoke, Virginia. It’s one of their 3002 safehouses across the nation. Besides being stupid, they are also obvious, the same as all of their undercover operatives on the street, because they always overplay their character.
Huck, I apologize for mischaracterizing you as you do me. I’m not an “Obama lover” but I do see him as - hopefully - our best hope at this time. I also acknowledge I could be wrong about him and you all out there could be right. But I sense an honesty and integrity in him that is clearly missing in Hillary. That was before his speech, which only made me feel more strongly that I am right. Yes, Hillary would have thrown Wright off the train, and maybe that would have been the politically profitable position. But he refused; instead, denouncing the words but not the man. How much more Christian and courageous can you get? I want a President who takes right and honorable and courageous positions, even at the risk of costing him popularity. Hillary would never do that. She can’t even behave with decency in her campaign.
Yes, I could go on voting for Nader or whatever third party candidate I can find as I always have since 1972, but this time it is I who am willing to take a risk at being wrong and hope I am right. It’s never been that I’ve been unwilling to be pragmatic as I have been frequently accused. I’ve just drawn the line at holding my nose and voting for a sleazebag or even a candidate without principles. I understand our current system well, and no candidate has a chance in Hell if the corporate media decides to bury him/her. Even now. it wouldn’t be safe for Obama to propose too radical solutions for the mess we’re in and he is avoiding specifics and drawing fire from lefties for that. but I’m willing to wait and see what he would do in office. I have a suspicion he might surprise some of you. Have those of you so opposed to him studied his legislative history in Illinois? That’s what drew me to him. Until then I was with you, seeing him as a black Hillary.
When my Russian mother-in-law decided to emigrate to the US, she quit her engineering security clearance job - I think it was in Leningrad - and got a job in Moscow selling theatre tickets. She needed to become innocuous and get under the radar. And she did it for 10 years. She’s in the US now but never would have been allowed to leave if she hadn’t done that.
The corporate welfare state allows politicians to throw some crumbs our way with their votes, but expects them toe the line on big ticket items. But once a person is actually President, they can decide for themselves if they want to stay in the corporate pocket or climb out. Bill Clinton chose to stay, and we found out years later why. His ambition was not to help us, but to get very very rich. And now people want to elect his wife?? We’re a country of slow learners. I want to see what Obama decides when he’s in office. I can’t guarantee what way he will go, but his past history has not been about getting rich - that’s a start.
And Obama’s the one who said “A leader will go where the people will push”. George Bush isn’t a leader, he’s a despot. There’s a big difference.
kathyodat
jmacneil, whatever are you smoking?? Are you talking about me?
kathyodat
Kathy, let me say this one more time: Vote your conscience. I respect your right as a free being to do so. I hope you are right about Obama. I agree that Clinton would do the only politically expedient thing if it insures her power. It is the only thing she is in it for. Yet, if she gets the nomination my question is where do you intend to go?
Obama may be the hope candidate but it is going to require much more than rhetoric to shift human behavior and consumption patterns to Save the Humans of Planet Earth.
Even Gore acknowledges that we are at the tipping point. I believe we have long since fallen over the edge.
If you are not willing, or able, to deal with reality, then you should quit proselytizing about voting for any recognized party. What rules the U.S.A. is a criminal organization and if anyone who posts cannot recognize that perspective, then they should desist from commenting on current affairs because, obviously, they are not qualified to do so.
I KNOW we have a criminal organization running our country. I wasn’t fooled by the Warren Commission report on the JFK assassination, I knew then it was a conspiracy cover up but I knew no one who would listen to me. I was only 21 and totally uninformed, but I figured back then that everyone was in denial out of fear because otherwise the gloves would come off and we couldn’t even pretend to be a Democracy. I had no information about Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King, just suspicions, partly based on past experience. I was suspicious of the Mel Carnahan plane crash, I generally am when something is fortuitous, and much more so after Wellstone was assassinated.
We still have the right to vote, and here’s Obama, a cautious careful man. Telling us the power belongs to us, we just need to get behind the right candidates. I believe if we do it right, we can take our country back, bit by bit, law by law. That means to keep replacing Republicans and DLC Democrats with progressives. I don’t give up until there’s nowhere left to go. We aren’t there yet.
Huck, how can you question me about what I would do if Hillary gets the nomination? I already said, I don’t know if it will be McKinney or Nader. In my opinion, the Green party is a disorganized mess - certainly here in Oregon. Although I’ve been in it until right now (a closed Democratic primary coming up) because I haven’t seen anywhere else to go. I do vote for and support Greens, it’s just that Obama brought me out of the woodwork. Figured I might as well try a Hail Mary. Certainly running around and voting for fringe candidates may be good for the soul, but the corporations could care less about that. I know it doesn’t make any difference, it just doesn’t make me feel like shit walking out of the voting booth. Obama won’t either - this time. Next time is up to him.
jmacneil, can you please explain this line to me? Whoever posts to that “beforkids” moniker is NSA, located at 126 Platano Street in Roanoke, Virginia.
kathyodat
Huck, I suspect our economy will be helpful in shifting human behavior and consumption patterns. There may, however, be a problem with China and India.
kathyodat
Nanoo (March 27th, 2008 10:48 am) wrote: “Many people say, he’s playing the game and he’s really a good guy but apparently gutless. Wellstone had guts, no wishy washy there. I’m sure Clinton and Obama are glad not to be running against him today, as they wouldn’t have been able to plow over him like they did with Kucinich.”
Nanoo, you may not be aware that Paul Wellstone once tried to run for president — I know because I was receiving his mailings — but didn’t collect enough money to launch his campaign. That’s a shame, but I have a feeling he would have been denied the Dem nomination at the time for being ‘too liberal’ anyway. Nobody is claiming Obama’s perfect, he’s just the best we have at the moment, and while he has his own style, I wouldn’t call him gutless. Who would you have him emulate — Bush, Cheney, McCain, Hillary, Joe Stalin?
Areader (March 27th, 2008 11:17 am) wrote: “btw, Where were all these ‘progressives’ when Kucinich and Edwards were in the race?! Obama is not progressive.”
I never had a chance to vote for Edwards; he quit before my state’s primary.
Areader (March 27th, 2008 11:17 am) wrote: “Obama’s economic advisors are more conservative than Hillary’s.”
Dr. Austan Goolsbee is a conservative? The will be a big surprise to his University of Chicago colleagues. Please point out who among Obama’s advisors you think is more conservative than Hillary’s advisors. BTW, just yesterday Hillary announced that she thought the housing crisis could be solved by Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan — Rubin is the ultimate Wall Street insider and Greenspan is the neocon Milton Friedman free-marketeer who is greatly responsible for the economic disaster we’re currently experiencing. This is an example of Hillary’s ‘more liberal’ approach to economics?
Areader wrote: “Whoever is elected will have to work with Congress.”
Obama has demonstrated his ability to work with Republicans to get progressive legislation passed when he was in the Illinois State Senate. In his presidential campaign he has stressed unity and the idea that we must pull together to get things done.
Areader wrote: “And, if you constantly insult anyone who does not agree with you, that does not bode well for uniting people.”
Who has Obama insulted? Am I insulting you?
Areader wrote: “Many Obama supporters seem to be for Obama — period. They say they will whine and walk away if he is not selected.”
So do many Hillary supporters — “Hillary or nothing” — and some have even vowed they will vote for McCain over Obama.
Areader wrote: “I am becoming embarrassed at the self-righteous attitude of so-called ‘progressives’.”
So am I, especially the people who won’t face political reality in this election and don’t bother to educate themselves on where the various candidates stand and who they are, preferring to toss rocks — or kitchen sinks, as the case may be — from their glass houses.
Annika (March 27th, 2008 1:40 pm) wrote: “Look back 200 years and you’ll find Democrats arguing basically the same points here for the shill candidate of their day — William jennings bryan. Woodrow Wilson.”
Uh, Annika, I think you should check your history here — William Jennings Bryan ran for president three times about 100 years ago, and he was definitely no shill for the wealthy Robber Barons of the day. Read his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech sometime: ” I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity.” … “We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the cross-roads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York; the farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day—who begins in the spring and toils all summer—and who by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of the country creates wealth, is as much a business man as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the price of grain; the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb two thousand feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured into the channels of trade are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world.”)
Cross of Gold speech: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_Speech
Woodrow Wilson was another matter, but he did try to establish the League of Nations after WWI, a forerunner to the UN, to prevent another world war.
Annika wrote: “HE IS WALL STREET SPONSORED, by the same Wall Street vampires who JUST PERFORMED THE BIGGEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH OUT OF BLACK COMMUNITIES.”
As I posted here March 27th, 2008 8:05 am, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has received $192,757,471, or 100 percent, of his campaign funds from individual contributions, most of them less than $200. That being the case, please cite exactly what Wall Street firms are sponsoring or controlling him.
Annika wrote: “The progressive “movement” is a joke. And the progressive media is trash just like the MSM. Common Dreams has been one of the THE WORST PROBAMA SHILLS OUT THERE.”
What’s your viable alternative, Annika? Shrieking at people in ALL CAPS and calling them ’suckers’ just doesn’t cut it.
Obama is a charlatan. I am very disappointed to see activists I respect supporting someone who is sponsored by corporate money (despite his finger pointing to Clinton for doing the same); he proposes and Iraqi withdrawl but does not set a date on this, and he wants to augment the Aghanistan occupation; and as many have pointed out, Obama’s economic advisors are far more conservative than Clinton’s. It is not enough to join the “wave of ‘change’”; what change I ask? Plus que ça change….as they say.
Nader is the only sane choice out there. Should he withdraw from the race, I honestly have to make a moral choice: to vote for the Democrat both of whom are sadly disappointing and moving further and further right merely to appease the masses or to vote for McCain who at least is honest and says he will bomb the )*^# out of Iraq and seek out all of Al Quaeda–a McCain who is progressive for many Republicans and has alienated the far right. In the absence of Ralph Nader, I would feel that the difference is so negligible between McCain and Obama or Clinton, that I will once again be force to chose the candidate whom I trust or distrust. Despite his politics, I feel like McCain is someone of his word–these other two are simply not. Wake up fellow Americans. The word “change” is not equal to real change.
The emperor has no clothes.
For anyone still interested in this thread, note that RSJ is one of the most committed ‘true believers’ you will find anywhere on the planet as he shovels dung while pontificating to the rest of us. His self righteousness goes beyond appalling and his ignorance of the issues astonishing in scope. Thank God for the internet otherwise these types would be out haunting the streets with their sunken eyes and twitching lips while accosting anyone with a sympathetic nod or ear turned in their direction. It is clear that the ‘true believers’ among us have a lot vested in their belief system. My Grandmother use to refer to these types as “big talkers and little doers.” It is almost comical if it was not so pathetic.
Just checked back and Huck if you read this, I agree with you. RSJ must be a plant for Obama. The environment should be the number one issue as it would ultimately include military actions of any kind.
There are many reasons to support Obama — such as appointment of a pro-choice Supreme Court justice — but his being progressive isn’t one of them.
Sigh…another thread devolved to the point of hysterical paranoia.
“Ghawar, how has your voting for third party candidates advanced your cause of ridding us of the War on Drugs?” –RSJ March 27th, 2008 6:15 am
Well, RSJ, a lot of people say I’m a spoiler, that it’s my stubborn perversity as a third party voter that brought us George Bush. So be it. If it takes another four or twenty or thirty-six years of imbecilic presidents, Bushism and stupidity before the message sinks in with the Democratic Party, then that’s how it will be.
You might ask yourself what your voting for the lesser of two evils has accomplished these last four decades. What it accomplishes is that with each and every election both parties edge a little more to the right, and now finally they’re both composed of fascists and torturers.
I vote for the candidate who represents me and who is able to say so.
All you Obama bashers, I invite you to read this link and then discuss Obama. Otherwise, you discredit yourselves. I always go to links people post when I’m not agreeing with them to see what their information is. I invite you to do the same. Then, please come back and argue about Obama from an informed point of view.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/80623/?page=entire
Thank you, kathyodat
Nanoo, why is it that if someone supports Obama, they must be a plant? Being ardent isn’t being a plant. Plants don’t respond to any challenges to their positions or discuss questions about their statements. They don’t deviate from their stump speech. RSJ doesn’t fit that profile.
kathyodat
Nanco, last time i looked over 60% of US tax revenue went into the military industrial establishment and their coffers. And then a Cat like RSJ who puppets his status quo line asserting lie after lie that Obama is not participating in this build up. All you have to do is look at his voting record: he never saw a Iraq FUNDING BILL he did not like.
Ghawar: don’t hold your breath my friend. It will NEVER sink in with these people. People like Hayden and his chums will be spinning their ‘one size fits all’ mantra as the world slips into chaos and the Earth becomes a burnt out cinder so a guy like Glover can speed around Hollywood in his Hummer.<