See:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8284/
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 1:28 pm

Everyone has stories about people helping people in times of natural disasters, that is nothing new. Did your neighbor help you keep your job and you home when your husband lost his job at the factory? Were they willing to pay to put your kids through school? Were they willing to pay so that you and your family had health care. Were they even willing to pay to fix a few pot holes?

Probably not because Reagan and the Republicans convinced you that you could be rich if you just gave them everything they wanted...power. Then they made sure that you hated government and taxes so the schools went down the drain and governments ran deficits. They want to privatize schools to get rid of teachers unions. They want you to compete with your neighbor for scarce jobs and overpriced housing. Divide and conquer, that tactic works urban or rural.

Kathyodat - I agree with you. Stereotypes about rural people (or urban people) are not very accurate. There are all kinds everywhere.

sjc, I can't agree with you. I lived in rural Minnesota for 5 years and people constantly helped each other. We were outsiders, but they helped us too. When a tornado tore through our yard shortly after we moved to MN, a dozen pickup trucks showed up the next morning with chainsaws to clear the mess. I don't know how they knew, we didn't know those people. When we planted a garden, our neighbors came over with a tractor to plow the ground. Our next door neighbors (1/4 mile down the road) offered to let us cut firewood on their woodlot. People always stopped to help anyone in winter.

I think they practice what it says in the bible: Carry your own load, carry each others' burdens. It was certainly bible belt country, and they had many qualities I admire. And some I could do without. But they embraced and supported their returning Vietnam vets. No homeless vets there.

kathyodat

Bob K, are you in Hillary's campaign? Did you read the full transcript of the debate? And did you get it? Obama was trying to explain that the Illinois legislative system is different from Congress. He tried to explain that his opposition to the 30% cap in the bankruptcy bill was that it was too high, and that there were structural problems in the amendment which had never even gone through a committee. It just landed on the floor for an up or down vote. What I did see was Hillary trying to cherry pick his words and put a negative spin on them, which is her trademark, and which you repeat like an echo chamber.

Hillary didn't want to debate economic polices. She wanted to attack Obama with lies, distortions and misrepresentations of his statements such as "agreeing with Reagan policies" to push him into explaining his statements and to keep Edwards in the background, who kept bringing up uncomfortable subjects she didn't want to talk about. What a piece of work she is.

I missed that debate, being ticked off that Kucinich had been thrown out. But actually it's easier to see what went on by reading it than hearing it. The more I learn about her, the more I see what a disaster she would be as President. She's divisive, devious, vicious, and completely self-obsessed. I saw Bush for what he is, I saw Clinton for what he is, I see her for what she is, why don't other people see it? Why do they keep electing these users? In some ways McCain's better because he's not really a user. He does have other problems, but not that one.

kathyodat

It is interesting to note that rural can mean conservative and urban can mean liberal. Rural people feel self reliant and think people should take care of themselves. Urban people know we are all in this together and together we can face almost anything.

Neither are totally right nor totally wrong. These are perceptions, not reality. We all grew up on myths taught in schools about pioneers and rugged self reliance. We are a modern society and should start acting like a true society or face the consequences of our foolishness.

St John

Bush doesn't have to read the newspaper, or listen to the news....they pump a good deal of propraganda into the media...he already knows what is going to be said...

And the ones who print something negative about him....well...as Cheney puts it, "So?"

He doesn't care what is going on....or what he has done that negatively influences anything...so why read about it?

obama tells the truth about the bitterness that is going on in america and some how its big news... this is not the out and out dishonesty of hillary with a million lies.. a dishonest person means NOTHING she does can be trusted.. the VERY worst thing for any candidate..ducking sniper fire in bosnia telling that lie several times and even saying I REMEMBER not saying i think i rememeber but I remember.. this isa FOCUSED blatant and bald faced lie.. no politician who does this should ever get 1 vote...

BOB K lies like a DOG….

clintons labor secretary reich said that hillary was NOT against the policy of NAFTA but the timing.. she wanted HER fame of getting the health insurance issue first.. she had already put her daughter away in a private school and instead of keeping her daughter with her in the white house like carter did amy which shocked carter and he said so… she could have hired the administration to do that JOB of the health ins .. but NO she weould rather hurt her child just so she could get more personal FAME….

so that issue is a LIE that bob k is spreading.. gergen their other hired gun said only that hillary had reservations BUT their labor secretary Reich EXPLAINED what those reservations was NOT about policy but the timing.. she wanter HER stuff done FIRST!!

bob k should be tarred and feathered in what he is trying to do in forums… why didn't he mention what their labor sec reich said.. not doing so proves bob k is INTENTIONALLY trying to decieve.

Thanks Gail--I will find Anam Cara and read it.

my2sense April 14th, 2008 11:59 am

"Obama is absolutely right. They fear all outsiders, they fear change, they fear anyone who isn't one of them, and they blame whatever is wrong with the world on what they fear. I have lived in the same small town (less than 4,000 people) for more than 25 years. I am still considered an outsider."

my2sense,

Most people don't realize that the phrase "do not be afraid" recurs 366 times in the Bible. I wonder if those "woodsie" god-fearing people who consider you an outsider have actually read the Bible with an open mind?

Would you like to give yourself a special gift? If you haven't read "Anam Cara" by John O'Donohue, you must! It is the perfect companion for those who are living in exile among those who are living in "outer exile". It is truly an extraordinary journey of healing and inspiration.

roncypert -

You should explain yourself if you think Edwards "misunderstood" Obama. I see no misunderstanding.

I think it's clear that Edwards found Obama's explanation of his vote unbelievable, and that's why he pushed for a further explanation. That's when Obama admitted "It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates."

That seems crystal clear to me. Obama voted with the credit card companies against the 30% interest rate cap because it "didn't make sense" to Obama, not because he thought the cap was "too high" as he initially said.

If you have a different understanding of this exchange, I am perfectly willing to discuss it -- in spite of your apparent personal insult.

You can go to the Senate website and read the transcript of the floor debate on this issue. I did.

Senator Dayton spoke passionately about predatory lenders gouging vulnerable people with annual interest rates of 300%, 500% and in some cases more than 1000%. Republicans argued that free markets should set interest rates, and government should not "interfere."

Obama voted with the Republicans against the cap. Hillary voted for it.

This is just one of the many reasons I have previously pointed out that Obama's true agenda is that of a Reaganesque, pro-business Republican who puts profits before people.

Bob K, I saw the debate, so I don't need for you to tell me what was said. And before you jump me about Senator Edwards, I think that he was one of the few candidates that are in the Democratic tradition of being on the side of the people is speaking truth to power. I would be thrilled to have him as President; if I can't have that, then I want him as Attorney General. However, if one saw/heard this part of the debate or read the excerpt that you included above, it is obvious that Senator Edwards apparently misunderstood Senator Obama's comments. "EDWARDS: You voted against it because the limit was too high, is that what you just said?

OBAMA: That is exactly what I just said, John, because…

EDWARDS: So there's no limit at all." I remember why I quit going onto so-called Liberal and Democratic Blogs. They tend to have as much disinformation, vitriol, hatred and verbal masturbation as do the right wing blogs.

roncypert said -

"I would like to point out that Senator Obama opposed the Dayton Amendment because he considered the 30% cap was too high."

Wrong! That was the false excuse that Obama gave for his vote, but in a three-way debate with Hillary and John Edwards in South Carolina his lie was exposed. You should really see the video to get the full effect of Edwards rolling his eyes in disbelief, but the transcript also tells the tale. Edwards pushed Obama into admitting that "It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates."

Bottom line, not only did Obama vote with the credit card companies against the 30% cap on interest rates, he also lied about it in a nationally televised debate and got caught in his own lie!

I'm thankful that Senator Edwards was still in the race at that point. Otherwise, people would have to choose between Hillary's version of events and Obama's version. But, Edwards was really miffed by Obama's blatant lie, and it showed.

Full transcript: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/debate.transcript/index.html

The relevant discussion:

CLINTON: I voted for limiting to 30 percent what credit card companies could charge. Senator Obama did not. That's a fact.

OBAMA: Absolutely. It is a fact, because I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don't know about a lot of folks here, most folks here, if they've got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this provision, that would've been fine.

And we had not created the kind of serious...

EDWARDS: You voted against it because the limit was too high, is that what you just said?

OBAMA: That is exactly what I just said, John, because...

EDWARDS: So there's no limit at all.

OBAMA: ... there had been no discussions...

Hold on, John. Hold on. Listen to this. There had been no discussion about how we were going to structure this and this was something that had not gone through the committee and we hadn't talked about.

It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates.

Unbelievable. Hillary, who grew up in a wealthy Republican home, whose father wrote a check to pay for her education at Wellesley, where she was president of the Young Republicans, and who with her husband, has made over $100 million since 2000, is calling Obama an elitist?! He had an unconventional childhood which no one would consider elitist, ended up with his middle class grandparents of modest means, was fortunate to go to a private high school on a scholarship (which had it's own hardships for him - you try going to school with people who because they're privileged think they're better than you) and to Harvard on a scholarship and student loans, which he and his wife have only finished paying off three years ago. Whether or not his father was wealthy (and his grandmother lives in a dirt floor hut so I have to wonder about that), his mother never took any child support from his father.

Meanwhile, we have all these Hillary supporters on CD who have as much difficulty with the truth as she does, although in fairness, some of them may only be suffering from ignorance, which cannot be her excuse.

Chester, I sympathize with you. Here we have a chance to elect someone who could unite us in solving our common problems, and instead we have an amoral destructive liar running as a woman and a conservative confused old man running as a security blanket both out to destroy him. He's the only one who wants to run on the issues, the others simply want to run on destroying the competition. And the public is falling for it.

kathyodat

Be careful about making judgments about Carter's decision to meet with Hamas and about Obama's characterization of Hamas. First, Hamas won an election in which no flaws were found. In other words, Hamas WON the right to represent the Palestinians, fair and square. Carter knows that is true because he was there as an observer at the time and has spent enough time there and with the issue to write a book about it.

Israel refused to recognize Hamas, so the United States would not recognize them either. These two countries created a different Palestinian government and called it the "Palestinian Authority." The U.S. government was counting on the fact that almost all Americans know almost nothing about Palestine.

So, the Palestinian Authority is the U.S. Puppet government over there, just the opposite of what the name implies.

Now, Obama is counting on the same American ignorance when he says he would meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority but would not meet with Hamas because he does not recognize it as having any authority.

Obama is very intelligent. I am sure he knows the truth. He just assumes that his supporters do not.

You won't catch me voting for Obama after this episode. His record of introduced legislation and his Senate voting record in general were a turn-off anyway, but this episode clinches it for me.

I will also never support another Clinton.

If I vote at all, it will be for Ralph Nader. He at least knows what is going on and what the facts are and he makes the assumption that his supporters already know or will take the trouble to learn.

By the way, can somebody out there please write a piece on this ridiculous hang-up that this country has toward supposedly elitist liberal democrats?? Seriously, this needs to be investigated. Because it is perfectly honorable for somebody to be an in your face elitist conservative republican. They are looked at as honorable and respectful grandfathers or something, but if you even SEEM to be an elitist democrat, you can lose a goddamn election over it. Gore in 00, Kerry in 04. I think this is an issue of framing, and how liberals/democrats are framed, perception-wise, unless I'm just full of shit or something. Is this up there with the anti-intellectual turn this country has taken, such as the 00 and 04 elections that favored Bush, and a huge thing in his favor was that he seemed more like a common (conservative) guy you can imagine yourself wanting to have a beer with? DESPITE how goddamn helpful he has been to the ruling elite?? I guess I'm just really pissed that whenever I hear the elitist label being thrown around, it's usually thrown on a democratic candidate who will do more to support the underprivilaged than their rivals.
How on earth did this become such a firestorm of an issue anyway?? It's not like he lied outright over and over about being in sniper-fire territory in Bosnia. Can't anyone simply see what he was trying to get across? Did most of this country ever THINK that he was a fundamentalist backwood gun-toting Christian, and then all of a sudden, oh no, he has made it more clear that he is not, by speaking of this demographic as if it were--and it is-- not one that he identifies himself with??

Also what if he does consider himself to be above this demographic? That would be unfortunate, and not very Christian at all of him, but as a president, so fucking what? How do people think this can register badly for him?

My gloomy prediction is that this "controversy", which the news media and this country are a little too sensitive about, will mean a win, maybe a big one, for Clinton in PA, she will be more emboldened to stay in the race, her truly elitist pals in the party will figure out a way to make her the nominee, it will be her vs McCain, he will defeat her because she seems too contrived and too full of shit compared to Obama, and this country is going to continue its tailspin into the ground for four more goddamn years. which we cannot afford and this world cannot afford. War, death, depleted uranium, nuclear fallout, the rich continuing to get so rich that they become absolutely untouchable. And a stupid, fake controversy like this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And the democratic party, if they know what's best for them, will look back on this, on the last presidential elections that they fumbled so badly that you'd think they fucked them up on purpose, and this party, if it knows what's best for this country and moreover the world we screw with, will shoot itself in the fucking head already. So we can build a new republican-opposition party from scratch that will not be ruined by corporatists, moderate republican-lites and wimps who cave in constantly due to some irrational defeatist complex. All of which, in my opinion, is all too common with Clinton democrats.
I wouldn't be so pissed now had I not just seen a breaking story that Obama's numbers in PA are tanking now.

I say, fuck these people. I'm impoverished, can hardly even pay $300 a month in rent, but no matter, I guess I'm an elitist now, right? For going many steps further than Obama by saying outright, fuck these shithead backwood fundamentalist republican pieces of shit. Let's not be so nice and sensitive toward these people. Yes, oh my, I say "these people" oooo scary. Like I give a shit at this point. They are the cancer that has ruined this country and I am extremely pissed that we've allowed so many people in this country become so selfish, so dumb, so anti-intellectual, so willing to suck the cock of authoritarians. They are exactly what a fascist takeover of our government would want of all of us, and they are proud of it. Fucking morons who, when left disadvantaged, will go to their guns and bibles for solace and fight other people in their lower-class bracket instead of fighting the wealthy and powerful

Lead in the water indeed. They aren't 'stupid', this is the creature in the flesh, "Beastius Americanus", these people are America. Folks who lynched Black men and women for entertainment. Folks who butchered Wobblies because they were trying to organize unions. I see these people panicked in the German beer halls in '32. These folks may not be ready for HRC or BHO but they are definitely ready for a Richfilth Caesar. That they understand, "Obey or die". Simple. The first Caesar paid all the rent of the bottom 20% of those living in Rome, for a year. Pull a similar rabbit, stage a coup to "save the Republic", America would put the manacles on Herself, he wouldn't have to do a thing.

Stay in any party you wish, just learn to Kiss the Whip, you'll be fine. This is America, this who what we are and how we do it. Hell folks, we did genocide and got away with it. We deliberately incinerated 200000 human civilians with nukes and got away with it. You get in the way, the Overseers will kill you, or ritually defame you, or falsely imprison you, the way we have ALWAYS done to anyone who stepped out of our flat-earth genocidal shit-our-own-nest model of life.

All the best. These are the "good old says". Like watching someone die of cancer, today is the best they will ever have, tomorrow is only worse. Enjoy.

Piece.

"Elitist!" Read uppity! Who lives in a town where one of the primary topics is "complaining about black people" and where your branded a "communist" for supporting libraries? Obama is dancing around the main problem: stupid is stupid. There is alot of lead in the water of small town america!

I would like to point out that Senator Obama opposed the Dayton Amendment because he considered the 30% cap was too high. So do I. There used to be something called usery in this country, until the banks convinced the citizens that they would no longer be able to get loans if they didn't support the removal of interest rate caps. What were the other candidates doing while Senator Obama was working as a community organizer, and would it not seem that this experience would put one in touch with the experiences of the "common people", as opposed to working for a prestigious corporate law firm or serving in the Senate. And just for the record, I have been a Clinton supporter and apologists longer than some of you have been alive. I supported Bill Clinton starting when he was Attorney General of Arkansas; I even worked his first inaugural ball as Governor (one of two or three people that kept it from being a catastrophe). However, the tactics of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party elite in this campaign has completely turned me off. Finally, we had an opportunity to have a real and substantial campaign, in which each Democratic candidate would campaign for themselves and not against each other, letting the voters decide as to who best represented their own ideas and beliefs, while all of them campaigned against the Bush administrations and the Republican party. It was the Clinton campaign that dashed this possibility; and it has become increasingly obvious that Senator Clinton's receiving the nomination is more important to them than is the good of the country (citizens). If the Senator Clinton's campaign and the Democratic party elites succeed in wrestling the nomination from Senator Obama , as they did in destroying the candidacy of Howard Dean, then many of us will still vote for Senator Clinton, as she is obviously a far better choice for us than is Senator McCain. However, many of us will have to take a long hard look as to whether or not we should remain in the Democratic party.

Of course, Obama is correct in his analysis of what is going on in rural Pennsylvania and all across the nation in town after town. Mr. Lindorff is equally correct when he writes "the Republicans whispered the poison in their ears...." In 2004 rural Pennsylvania voted overwhelmingly Republican. A 2004 presidential election map (The Economist, April 12th - 18th) shows "blue" in Pittsburgh, Clariton, Philadelphia, Scranton and a small northwest corner of the state. The entire remainder of the state is "red." Ever heard of "What's The Matter With Kansas?" This self-destructive syndrome is the product of 20 years of right wing brainwashing and exists in every state. Republican snake oil salesmen, corporate control of media and corporate control of our government have neutered the voting public. I don't know what folks expect from Obama, but you need to remember that he and Hillary have EACH taken more than $6 million in donations from Wall Street. So, folks, where will their loyalties lie?
As Lee Iacocca writes,"where is the outrage?" It doesn't exist and it won't. When ownership of a gun or disgust at a gay person or women's fight for equality and choice take precedent in the lives of people economically deprived because of corporate/government policies, you know this is a nation of pushovers. Let's see how rural Pennsylvania, Kansas, Alabama, Illinois, etc. vote in November. I'll put my money on McCain!

to Jim Glover,
Florida IS bad! LOL. I was there at the time of the last presidential election, in Jacksonville. I was in a restaurant watching the election results come in, talking (privately) to a friend about how we expected the democrats to win because we thought it was SO painfully obvious to the whole country that Bush was horrible-- but we soon discovered the only thing painfully obvious was that no one in that restaurant shared our views. Ouch! You should have seen the whispering, staring and finger pointing.

I have lived in the rural midsection and the people I know there like their guns, don't go to church, and don't really care about anything else if it doesn't directly affect them. They also like to fit in, so if everyone else is for the war, then so are they. They also like to "support the troops" and by no means appear "unpatriotic." I think Obama was being generous to them.

my2sense,
Wow... and I used to think Florida was bad!

Thanks, Jim

I'm happy to see that many people on this blog and others can see through this petty attack on Obama. I am also happy to hear a politician finally describe with pin-point accuracy the mindset of the large majority of rural Pennsylvania voters. I live in rural PA, and in my job in social services I meet with low income rural residents in eleven west central and north central counties here on a daily basis. Obama is absolutely right. They fear all outsiders, they fear change, they fear anyone who isn't one of them, and they blame whatever is wrong with the world on what they fear. I have lived in the same small town (less than 4,000 people) for more than 25 years. I am still considered an outsider. I am tolerated, because I stick to myself (aside from performing my job, which is appreciated) and don't try to change anything. But I will never be accepted. I was warned before I moved here that life with the "woodsies" would be lonely and frustrating. Until this election, it hasn't been a problem. But just last week, as I was leaving the beauty parlor, I mentioned that I was supporting Obama. It was clear, by their reactions, that I need to go somewhere else next time I need a haircut, or I could end up regretting it.

iammyself,

Whatever you heard an Obama spokesman say, I saw Obama on TV the other day saying he would not talk to Hamas but he also said he cannot criticize Jimmy Carter for doing so.

This is very smart. I would not be so smart since the USA's media that is more pro Israel than the Israeli press would make sure I was trashed and never elected.

Obama's job is to get elected first while Jimmy Carter tries to help unite the Palestinians.

It is the only strategy I see that can work today.

Got a better Idea?... not just your opinion of Israel but an idea that would work.

Its not that hard to recognize people that are racist, bigoted, use hate filled anti-American rhetoric and are eletists. Nor is it hard to determine terroists no matter their age or crooked dealings.

These are the people Obama are associating with. Does it make him those things, of course not. Does it give a thoughtful person pause, of course. But its too early to decide, he will show himself as it goes along for what he is.

To those that repeat the "Hillary is a whore" phrase from the disgraced and dismissed "person" from Air America............You are beneath contempt.

Its a shame that folks can't hold a civil discussion without wingnuts from whatever side expressing their drivel.

"'experience' and commitment to 'change' this corporatist Empire which keeps us enslaved"

Enslaved? What a foolish thing to say. You don't even know what want is let alone real slavery. Rhetoric is always just that....rhetoric. Not thought.

Pat,

Whatever Ralph is, he ain't gonna get elected and if your vote is counted it will be a miriacle.

If Obama is a "lobbyist" I need a president who can lobby for change.

A vote for Nader will help the greater of evil, McBush.

By not voting for the lesser you help the greater of Evil.

Of course you can demand that we change from a two party winner take all system.

That would be great if it could be done before the election.... got any bright ideas?

I have a friend who considers himself to be a conservative. He listens to rightwing radio, thinks Muslims are going to take over the world, and loves to quote the line (with all due sarcasm), "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you." (hahahah)

This same person used to be a leftwing liberal who was involved in the McGovern campaign. I don't know what changed him, but he moved back to the land in the early 1970s, married a woman who belonged to a very conservative evangelical Christian church, and over the years "came to" a much more rightwing point of view.

Due to his decision to live off the land and the fact that his wife had 8 kids from her previous marriage, my friend used food stamps to suppliment what his family grew and the meat they raised. He has since become physically disabled and accepts government assistance. In addition, he told me that he was prepared to start a goat business in the early 1980s and had all the equipment to do it, but it never materialized because, according to him, "the government reneged on their loans to all agriculture," leaving him in debt.

Now, this was the Reagan administration who failed to come through with his loan! It was not the "liberal" or Democratic administration who did this to him! If the Democrats had won instead of Reagan, he probably would have received his loan because it was Reagan's "downsizing" of the government which led to reductions in financial support to real people (as opposed to multinational corporations). But somehow, my friend blames "big government" for his problems.

It's absurd that he accepted the "handouts" created by "liberal" administrations and continues to reap the benefits, that he blames the dereliction of government for his failed business venture, and that he still considers himself to be a conservative. Some of my liberal friends and family call this hypocrisy. I think it's just very twisted thinking. His focus is on "god, guns, and gays" and he equates liberalism with the drive to reduce the role of religion in government and society, to take away our guns, and to promote homosexuality. He actually says - and believes - that "an armed citizenry is a friendly citizenry" and that the gun deaths on college campuses wouldn't happen if all students were allowed to carry guns! He thinks there is nothing even implied in the constitution about separation of church and state and that evolution is "only part of the story" that should be supplimented in schools with whatever religious notions he has of creationism.

The rest - the Republican support of big business, the Republican movement to remove the safety nets for our neediest citizens, the Republican's "shrinking" of the government until it has become the largest bureaucracy in US history that does the least for its people, and the jingoistic faux patriotism - are all somehow invisible to him. Obviously these trends are not limited to Republicans, but it's far more blatant with them.

My friend is relatively well-educated with a college degree and even some post-graduate work. If he can overlook the facts, live his life in a way that contradicts much of what he says he believes, and so totally accept the propaganda promoted by the rightwing noise machine, one can just imagine what it's like with more uneducated rural and small town residents from all over the US.

How many people believe, as my friend does, that big government is bad and don't see that so-called downsizing is what has hurt them, who think the government should stay out of our lives but believe that the government needs to maintain the secret surveillance program, that all politicians in America are corrupt yet we are still the greatest nation on earth? The paradoxes are incredible, but they are rampant and widespread. If any politician can get through these misguided concepts, more power to him. I'm not sure Obama is the one, but I am absolutely sure Clinton and McCain are not.

Obama is better suited for K Street
I know he'll make a great lobbyist as he's more corporate than even McCain

Ralph Nader is against corporate occupation of the White House, Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, FDA, FCC, FTC

Rich Griffen,

(Mr perfect)

I didn't know that Nader or Mckinney were on the ballot.

Wasted vote? .. or are you gonna save us from destruction with a statement.

Lesser of evil?

Oh, so Obama is evil now and your not? We are all a little evil, if not then probably some fairy tale God.

Maybe lesser of evil is rational in a non perfect world.

armybrat; you are exctly correct. When things do change, it will not be from guns.

It will be a spontaneous outpouring of millions of people into the streets, rioting and demanding their country back, and they will get it that day.

But that will never happen until americans experience a real decline in their standards of living in their own lifetimes-go from have to have nots; and buchco IS hastening this process......

I have no problem with Obama emulating Nader, but do not want to let him get away with cherry picking him either. This is what I mean:

--Immigration and outsourcing have had, and continue to have a REAL effect on rural America. How many towns, especially in PA and Ohio, have seen their factory jobs sent overseas? Additionally, how many communities have been faced the burden of trying to assimilate a vast increase in their immigrant population?

Now if Obama couples his new-founded Naderism with the same proposed policies of Nader, I'm all for that. But if that's what he really means, and how he really feels, he best come out with it soon.

Nader is also for markedly reducing the military, and a single payer health care system while, to my knowledge, Obama is not. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this.

Essentially, all Obama said was that guns and religion are the opiate of the struggling small town masses, who are all wet about outsourcing and immigration contributing to their difficulties. He implies that their frustration and angst in this regard is ignorance. While ignorance definitely does play a part in people voting against their better interests, one can see a real danger in this kind of cherry picking, which might be construed by many as being 'out of touch' and, from what I can ascertain, Obama is no Ralph Nader.

Also, from my understanding, Ralph would have not even thrown his hat into this race, if he believed either Hillary or Obama were sincerely championing the populist cause, as opposed to a corporate one.

Until Americans pour into the streets like people in other countries do - on work days, week days, rain or shine - nothing is going to change in this country. There is no 'savior' coming to rescue us from our own insanity and stupidity - we have to put our money (our bodies) where our mouth has always been and REALLY take the moral high ground by doing the hard stuff, like risking your job, your home, your family, or even your life - freedom isn't free. I know because I've seen the cost in enough countries (post-WWII) and I know why the people pour out into the streets and demand their rights. I just don't understand why they're giving the US a free pass - that's what they should all be protesting right now, because their future is at stake. Maybe if the rest of the world got out there in public, Americans would catch on - nobody wants to live under tyranny, and we all want a secure and prosperous future - we all want the same things, so we should all be doing whatever it takes to win our freedom.

It's just a shame that Common Dreams continues to shill for the Republican in Democrat's clothing, Obama, and allow the most progressive Democrat in the race, Hillary, to be tarnished with that same old broad brush.

Here's the stupid theory. The Clinton administration was less than what we had hoped, Hillary is less than perfect, therefor we need a "change." But a change to what? Someone who is even more a Republican than either Clinton? I don't think so.

mikepeters, thanks for pointing to this mornings column from Kristol --- I totally missed it while reading Krugman.

Looks like Kristol has delivered a pistol shot from his Lugar at the head of Obama ---- this will be hard to escape.

Well, the neocon, neo-Nazis are good at this sort of political assassination, and we'll have to see if this one is fatal to Obama's campaign.

Of course, there was already a strong, subterranean 'hit squad' out on Obama by the American-style Imperialist Political Action Committee, and this gaffe only makes their job easier to target him.

However (comma, he says), this gutting of the supposed progressive Obama may well be a 'bridge too far' by the forces of the 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind this entire facade of the two-party 'Vichy' government and vichy media intent on keeping the ruling-elite status-quo comfortable in their comfortable raping of our country.

Perhaps that majoritarian 81% of Americans who know that their coujntry has been taken on the 'wrong track', and that their country is not their's but merely an Empire, and that 'bitter and frustrated' 81% of average Americans who are willing to fight to get back on the 'right track' will now have no Obama 'pressure valve' to painlessly (and uselessly) bleed off stream in this Empire will have to turn to a truly progressive fighter for president, turn to a truly courageous and tenacious 'democracy advocate' who has already proven his 'experience' and commitment to 'change' this corporatist Empire which keeps us enslaved.

Great article Dave! The more I hear from Obama, the more I like him. I thought I couldn't possibly have more contempt for Hillary, but I was wrong.

A correction. Someone has said these things, and very forcefully I might add. He was the candidate that was ignored by those in the media and considered "angry", so much so that Sen. Obama fomented the meme himself by saying John Edwards "Two Americas" was a myth and that what he saw was "One America", no red states or blue states. How quickly they forget, guess we will see if it's accepted as "a new kind of politics" and truth since he is the one expressing it now.

Obama's positions are nonsense.

The so-called "terrorism" is better described as armed self-defense against a vastly better armed adversary. And, the "Iraeli right to exist" is a nonsensical concept - no nation-state has a "right to exist" - they are diplomatically recognized by another nation or they are not. These are EXACTLY the things to be negotiated to begin with! Nowhere in the world of diplomacy would anyone agree to unilateral disarmamant and diplomatic recognition of a brutal enemy as a condition for talking. They might as well just announce unconditional surrender and subjugation!

Candidates usually get in trouble when they tell the truth. Poor whites have been bamboozled for years by manipulative conservative politicians who tell them that liberals, immigrants, homosexuals, feminists, gun-control support, etc - when the real reason they are poor is that business leaders have screwed them over, repeatedly.

Obama calls them on it, and of course, everyone has a hissy fit, because he actually told the truth.

Until poor, rural, whites wake up from their stupor, they will continue to be used by conservatives as cannon fodder in the culture wars.

To my fellow crackers in the countryside - if you vote republican and you are not a millionaire/billionaire, you are a sucker - nothing less.

Obama is on to the election winning issue if he stays with it and doesn't allow himself to be sidetracked. Ralph Nader has stated in the recent past that Obama is the most likely candidate to be moved in a Progressive direction by the voters AFTER the election is over. His only real criticism of Obama is that he has been "self-censoring" about issues that could be emphasized to differentiate himself from the DLC Democrats like Hillary and Bill Clinton. I'll vote for anyone to keep McCain out of the White House, but I sure would like to cast an affirmative vote for Barack Obama.

formernadervoter April 13th, 2008 8:55 pm

"Did you did hear that Obama just rejected Jimmy Carter's peace initiative in the Middle East? Endorsed by Nader, btw."

Not true.

Obama said that he would not meet with Hamas until it renounced terrorism, but also said that he would meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority.

I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I think his position is well reasoned.

April 10, 2008 7:16 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports:

President Jimmy Carter is heading to Syria next week and is slated to meet with Hamas representatives.

This presents a unique situation for presidential candidate Barack Obama – who is well documents saying he'd meet with America's "friends and enemies" if he were President, one difference he has with Senator Clinton.

But Obama draws the line at meeting with Hamas.

In a statement issued today by Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki, the Senator does not agree with Carter sitting down with Hamas, "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. As President, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas."

Obama explained his position on March 3rd in San Antonio as well.

When questioned by ABC's David Wright if Hamas fell into the category of meeting with adversaries, Obama said no, "It does not include Hamas. They are not heads of state and they don't recognize Israel. You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of the country to exist. So I understand why Israel doesn't meet with Hamas."

Obama said that Hamas are not heads of state, even though they won the election, and are not even recognized by the head of the Palestinian authority at this point.

"I think that it is entirely legitimate to make distinctions between those who are heads of state, heads of established countries and those who have advocated terrorism," Obama concluded, "I think that is a perfectly appropriate distinction to draw."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-contrary.html

This is an article that speaks as though it is talking to intellegent people . The Clinton and McCain groups are all in the LOBBYING business and are trying desperately to increase their government influence . They have been milking the system for along time and doing well and now this Obama upstart has come along to try and spoil their game . Our jobs are leaving because of what LOBBYIST have done . The Republican party does not believe in domestic spending and the CLINTON's are quasi Republicans . Domestic spending is socialism and we can't have that . No one in the corporate media will say what happens when our tax money and the money we spend on foreign goods leaves our community circulation and goes abroad . FDR got us back on track by putting our money back in circulation in our country with domestic spending and that is the ONLY way we can get back to a higher living standard . It's our money and we want it spent here . The Clinton entourage and the McCain entourage are all LOBBYIST surrounded by Washington influencials who are more interested in milking the system and collecting our tax money . Our government gives money and other things of value to friendly countries who in enjoy that so they use our money to hire LOBBYIST to keep the money flowing . The LOBBYIST stick some of the money in the back pockets of members of our government who now have a steady income of tax payer money . There is no money in doing anything for some small town in any State . Small towns without LOBBYIST in Washington will always be FORGOTTEN .

The difference between Ralph Nader's and Barack Obama's remarks is that Nader's are genuine and backed up by his actions, while Obama's are duplicitous and belied by his actions.

Obama plays on blue-collar misery for political gain, while his longtime senior economic adviser (and died-in-the-wool free-trader) Austan Goolsbee, privately assures Canada that Obama's pledge to renegotiate NAFTA is just campaign rhetoric.

Obama tells blue-collar voters "we're gonna make it right," but he voted AGAINST Senator Byron Dorgan's Amendment (to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill) to prevent future trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition -- a major cause of the blue-collar misery Obama now exploits.

Not to mention the fact that Obama was a prime mover of the failed legislation to legalize corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers (otherwise known as "immigration reform").

Trying to change the subject, Obama falsely claims that "Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt," but the truth is she voted AGAINST the 2005 Bankruptcy Act. Even more galling, Hillary voted for the Dayton Amendment to that bill (to cap credit card interest rates at 30%) and Obama voted against it! Obama is neither "in touch" nor honest.

Lindorff's claim that Hillary "aggressively promoted and pushed [NAFTA] through Congress" is false. Clinton White House insiders have repeatedly said the First Lady opposed NAFTA in those years. And, as Senator, she voted FOR the Dorgan Amendment.

Lindorff finally says he doesn't know whether Obama "just one more political charlatan." Too bad he didn't do his homework.

Enabling Obama's conflation of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush is both dumb and dangerous. If Obama ever becomes president, Lindorff and other Obama supporters will live to regret their sloppy analysis and reckless support of someone who is to the right of, and more corporate than, either Hillary or Bill Clinton.

I'm sorry to disagree, because I would love it if Obama was able to give edifying dissent, but that talk is nowhere near the quality of Ralph Nader's. It is clearly an appeal to the emotions. He uses only one concrete example and it is the most prevalent economic issue of the last 6 months. Why not bring up the issue of what has happened to the credit hearings since this 'crisis' has emerged? Ralph Nader refers to edifications from past centuries and cultures, he has had experience effecting mountainous reforms. Yet when liberals get together, they seem more alloyed to a half-tested and emotionally appealing candidate. What I want to know is what Obama stands for when the 'rhetorical change' is no longer necessary and the actual change needs a salesman in Washington. Then these generalizations won't hold water.

How long is it going to take before people abandon the lesser of two evils crap? As soon as you who are contributing to our destruction can make up your minds to vote your conscience and vote for third party candidates (such as Nader or McKinney), we will continue to destroy ourselves. Stop your madness!! Reject Obama 100%.

Obama is a populist fraud, part of the Democratic Party establishment. I have never been duped by the Obama speech rhetoric. I feel actions, policies and bedrock positions take precedence over inspirational speeches.

That being said, I will support Obama over Clinton and McCain in yet another case of the lesser of two evils. But lets get real and not be duped by thinking that Obama will be a messenger or facilitator of fundamental change. He has always been an opportunistic centrist, to often willing to capitulate to the center, with the political center leaning ever more to the right of middle.

Yes, he will be a welcome change from the Bush years, but I do not foresee him operating much different than Bill Clinton's two pandering and centrist terms in which all real economic and environmental issues will be at best soft-pedaled by Obama. Those rapid Obama supporters who think that he can do no wrong are setting themselves up for a supreme disappointment as he will at best advocate for spine-less change-light versus finding the backbone for fundamental and regulatory change that would truly change the paradigm of our national race to the bottom.

The trolls are out, the trolls are out--quick everybody cokme see the freak show the trolls are out!

Oh Dave I had such high hope based on your article and so I pasted the youtube link and watched Barack's "talk" and, well, how predictably boring. But in fairness to Barack at least he diden't have that silly smile and nod like some bobble-head doll ala Hillary as he paced back and forth, trash TV televangelist style making his points.

What Poet is looking for in a candidate for the presidency:

1. Does anything actually anger them? I'm not talking about sarcastic put-downs or smooth talking insults. I'm talking about bulging vein, hoarse and harsh anger.

FDR had that when when he inveighed agsint the moneyed merchants of monopoly, Harry Truman had that when he talked about the do-nothing 80th. congress, LBJ had that as he half-exhorted and half-threatened the Democratic segregationist ridden congress and Senate to pass the civil rights legislation they had been ignoring for the previous decade by teling them "we shall overcome!".

Have the Democrats forgotten how to be really angry?

The closest I saw to anyone tapping this well of motivation was Dennis Kucinich standing before a crowd of labor union members in Chicago during one of the debates and promising that if elected he would sure enough repeal NAFTA as quickly as possible.

The tumultuous roar of applause he received should have been a wake-up call for the rest of the field to get in touch with the anger of America.

2. Is anyone willing to risk telling the American people that they ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way they have pampered the well-off and forsaken the least fortunate in our midst? Is there anyone willing to tell congress to stop prostituting itself before special interests and set the example by not doing it themselves?

3. Does anyone have any vision for America that speaks to something deeper than the desire to consume more and more and more? Cleaning up our environment, repairing our bridges, roads, cities, and towms, providing opportunities through federal funding for healthcare, higher education, and restoring the liberties and freedoms lost by the last 8 years of Republican dominated misrule. Does anyone care enough about such things to boldly proclaim them to America?

For the past 8 years we have had as chief executive a brainless scarecrow, on the evidence available he will be suceeded by a heartless tinman who will be surrounded by cowardly lions. Indeed my fellow Toto's: "we ain't in Kansas (America) anymore".

Americans are so funny.

In order to get within a bull's roar of a Senatorial ticket, you have to sell your soul. END OF STORY.

So Obama talks nice; that's just lovely.

Political fawning over this or that candidate ("X is COMPLETELY different from other politicians") represents perhaps the most egregious example of the triumph of hope over experience.

So Obamma will probably win, and Democrats will spend the next eight years pretending that they haven't been completely abanddoned when he absolutely fails to fulfil any of the hopes that they currently hold for this fellow.

He seems a nice enough chap when he is squinting at the autocue (he looks like he is watching tennis when he gives a speech). The fact that he is utterly incapable of extemporising indicates, dear Readers, that them thoughts ain't his'n.

And remember: to get the backing of either Party, you have to be owned, lock stock and barrel, by that Party. Your soul is not your own and you are reduced to whatever role you are told to play. It's the same in every country on Earth, but it has been concentrated to a high art in the US.

Cheerio

GT
France

OBAMA 'S HYPOCRICY: WAS HE EVER PAPTIZED?:

Farhat Maquami

We have to stop this madness this Obama Mania which is tearing apart the chances of any success in the next election. Obama is the new Logo for Corporate librals!
He is an elitist because he was nurtured as an elite, was financed as an elite, schooled as an elite, and lived like elite!
As a son of a well-to-do Muslim he went to private school and that is why he never identified himself with Black Americans and he does not understand the struggle of working class black or white in America. He is using black Americans to gain victory over Hillary, yet he never shared neither their history nor their daily struggle.

I BELIEVE that Obama is the best Marketing tool invented by Multinationals corporations to sell America to the world after 8 years of debacles and shameless destruction to the US image in the world. I support the efforts of the CNN and MSNBC to push Obama over Hillary.
What I am against is the orchestrated attempt of the Media to fool the public and push an image of Obama that is not true.; therefore depriving American electorate to make an educated choice! When the same media that pushed for the War in Iraq and the same pundits who unquestionably defended the War in their SITUATION ROOMS, we have to be skeptical of their choice!

I don't care if Obama is Muslim or Christian . What I care if a man is telling the truth or is shaping the truth so it fits his goal. We immigrants do everything to get ahead, but this is not a business adventure. This is the Presidency of the United States and for God's sake take it more seriously.
OBAMA was introduce to Christianity in his early twenties , introduced but never Baptized! He worked for the Church, went to the Church, sit in the Church, even listened to some of the sermons of Reverend Wright, but was never officially converted to Christianity!

I am so surprised of the superficiality of analyzing Obama 's background in the media. MSNBC is enchanted with Obama, as the first son of a Kenyan-American who can pass as black Americans , how can get their backing without sharing their history!

I am a Muslim-American and like every progressive liberal democrat would like to see Obama as president, it would be very good for image of the US abroad However, I have a problem with Obama and that is his opportunism and hypocrisy.
He says he believe in Jesus, so does every Muslim. But, the question is when was he baptized. To become a Muslim you must have a Muslim name and to be baptized as Christian Obama like every other CHRISTIAN should have been baptized somewhere.
He has a Muslim name Barak and Hussein, in what church , where and by whom he was baptized as a Christian?
The son a Muslim is always a Muslim, that is the law of Sharia! I would like to know when and at what church, a son of a Muslim Father and a Devote Muslim Muslim step dad converted to Christianity.
I went to Jeremiah Wright Church at the age of 23 is not good enough. Muslims have nothing against Christianity and by choice anyone can attend and should attend other religions sermons and respect them , and understand them so he understands why Mohammad was the last Prophet!! I attended Church so did Obama! But that does not mean he ever become Christian.
Lets assume that at the age of 23 Jeremiah Wright baptized Obama in a recorded ceremony and gave him a Christian name then we have to see what was Obama's belief before that!
My son went to Catholic School and even attended mass but he never became Christian. Indeed many affluent Muslim pay high tuition and send their kids to Catholic Schools, that does not make them Christian!

I love Obama, but I like to know what are his beliefs .I know as son of a rich Sunni Muslim he went to a Catholic schools, but going to a Catholic school doesn't make any Muslim Christian. If he is able to get away with trashing Jeremiah Wright and dismissing his ideas just to beat Hillary Clinton and get the nomination he is man with no principal. A shameless opportunist who should not be trusted!
A political opportunist who would do anything to get elected! This is not good for America, not because all politicians lie; but because only a man who by all accounts was a non practicing Muslim until 23 and cannot prove that he has been ever baptized to Christianity should not hoodwinked a nation about his beliefs. He cannot be trusted!

Republicans know these facts and would discredit Obama in case he gets the nomination!

amacd: there is little or no difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues —- because neither of them have committed to ANYTHING on the issues. Whereas, Nader has fully committed (in writing) to 12 major issues that the vast majority of Americans want.

It's puzzling how anyone could support either of the capitalist parties and help perpetuate a status quo in which far-flung capitalists such as the executives of General Electric dictate the industrial composition of your local community without any care whatsoever about your well-being.

No, Obama is not a progressive, but he is way better then the other two, and he makes a few progressive noises now and then, and that's what Patrick Martin thinks touched off this firestorm -- talking about, essentially, class warfare:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/obam-a14.shtml

It's still going to be up to the people to take the country back -- but it will probably be easier with Obama in.

As for voting records, you will probably find them through

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/resources

It would appear as if Obama has had his Kassandra (the Trojan princess) moment. Hopefully, his fate will not be hers.

What puzzles me about both Obama and Clinton is, what past accomplishments qualify them to be president? Just being a senator doesn't seem like enough to me.

As we found out with Bill Clinton after 1992, what a presidential candidates says doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what they will actually do in office. The best guide to what they will do is what they have already done.

So what have Obama and Clinton done while in the Senate? Can anyone give me a link to a website where I can look up their Senate voting records?

Lynn Porter

I think Obama got it wrong... way wrong, on one point. I do not think that bitter people turn to religion... at least not any good religion. At times healthy religion can rescue bitter people from their bitterness. Many times healthy religion protects people from becoming bitter. My experience with most small town religious people is that they tend to be less bitter than everyone else.

But, a religion that is a refuge for the bitter is a sad religion indeed.

As for guns... guns and bitterness seem to me a dangerous combination.

Common Dreamers: Today 4/14/08 "OBAMA AND MARX" in the THE NEW YORK TIMES.

Editorial Section by William Kristol.

Barack Obama Is A Communist.

Kristol (Israel) want McInsane (to attack Iran) therefore Obama is a Communist.

RepubLikud-McCarthyism.

"They're simple farming people ...."

So said the Waco Kid (Gene Wilder) to Bart (Cleavon Little), who is the newly appointed black sheriff of the racist frontier town of Rock Ridge in the movie "Blazing Saddles."

Unfortunately, Republican racist tactics and appealing to fears and prejudices really works. (Republican candidates can't appeal on the basis of the narrow corporate interests they favor.)

When times get bad, fundamentalist religion is there to placate. It serves to escalate fears of the "other," with a further movement to the right.

These fighting-mad "simple farming" folks are more likely to vote Huckabee if they can, or they'll just settle for McCain, who looks like them (pasty and half out of the grave). They certainly won't vote for a "sophisticated urbanite" like Obama.

Lindorff's observation that the upstate folks won't help their little town library, considering him to be a socialist for wanting to do, so pretty much says it all. These folks will vote Republican and will join them goose-stepping in the square.

This was a good essay, except for Lindorff's notion of trying to shoehorn in Obama as a populist. Even simple farming people can look up Obama's voting record and funding. It isn't populist record. The funding comes from big Wall Street firms.

Why vote for someone who sounds like Ralph Nader at one moment, and then is praising Ronald Reagan the next? Why not just vote directly for Ralph?

It's really simple to vote for your interests, and the man who has represented those interests the most over the years is Ralph Nader, not Barak Obama.

Is Obama calling for huge cuts in military spending? Is he calling for diverting those massive resources into health and education? NO.

Enough said.

the reason people will vote obama and not nader is because obama is 'ok' in mainstream, but nader is not 'ok' in mainstream.

it is too much of a stand against mainstream to vote for nader.

and how come obama is so 'ok' in the mainstream? could it be that obama is just sooooo smart and soooo charismatic that he is able to pull the wool over the eyes of those running and controlling media and govt!!!!!! hmmmmm.

or is this another distraction so that people will stay distracted from the real issues while they vote and sit around waiting for a man in govt to make everything ok - and meanwhile the ruling elite continue on with their plans which i would say have been going very very smooth for them.

shisha

Go ahead and vote for Nader, but first open your wallets and support his campaign. Vote for Nader, help elect McCain. You like the war in Middle East, vote for Nader and help McCain's faith in the surge help escalate the military effort. Put a million solders and contractors in Iraq and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Surely, John has the right idea when he thinks we can win a military victory in Iraq, he still thinks we could have won the war in Vietnam.

Of course, Nader was right, there was no difference in 2000. I wonder if he realizes how bad Bush turned out to be?

"Obama's words might be starting to sound like Ralph Nader, but only in that vague fluffy way that Obama rips off everyone else."

CoMarc....BULLS-EYE!

Obama parrots Democrats and Republicans alike. Whichever way the wind blows, so does Obama -- whatever Zbigniew Brezinski advises, so Obama does. Brezinski = Trialteral Commission = New World Order.

In his latest book titled "The Grand Chessboard" Brezinski says,'Bush disregarded the three basic imperatives of imperial geostrategy. As I described them (using deliberately archaic terminology) in The Grand Chessboard , these are "to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together".'While Bush's buzzword has been 'freedom,' Brezinski's is 'dignity.' Notice he carefully avoids *integrity.*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caeP33025UY

Does anyone really think that any candidate not a partner in crime stands a chance? Kuncinich? Nader? Edwards? Ron Paul, for that matter?

Dave, as your article title says, "Finding Voters 'Bitter and Frustrated'.... " isn't really that hard.

After all, 81% of the American people think that 'their' country (which is not really their's at all) is on the 'wrong track' --- and that has the tendency to make people 'bitter and frustrated'.

And, oh, also a lot of Americans (even in rural areas) heard that our dear Vice Emperor and idiot boy-Emperor said about the country not really being very democratic anymore --- "SO?"

So yes, Dave, tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans are very likely 'bitter and frustrated' --- and with very good reason.

Now about this majority of Americans who are 'bitter and frustrated', it's interesting that you mention Nader ---- because all the way back in the 2000 election, when Nader ran as a Green, one of his key points that really hit me, and that he made in all those massive 50 city tours that attracted thousands and thousands of supports to come and actually make donations to hear him (instead of being recruited by advanced men, like the other candidates had to do), was his truthful point that his position on the issues, and his commitments in the Green platform, actually reflected the majoritarian view of all Americans ---- not just those from rural areas, or those who were religious, or those who were frustrated ---- but the majority of all Americans.

And now we are finding out the truth of what Nader was saying ---- now that the neocon, neo-Nazi Republicans have wrecked the country and waged imperialist global war for their oil and financial Empire, and now that we have seen the supposedly opposition Democratic Party fold like a 'cheap suitcase' after the 2006 anti-war mandate vote and become entirely complicit and financed by the same 'corporatist Empire' ---- now we are seeing that majority of 81% of the American people finally acknowledging what Nader was saying 8 years ago and all agreeing in utter frustration that 'their' country (which is not really their's, but controlled by the corporatist Empire) is actually on the wrong track --- and that this Empire is not only killing their democracy, but also killing their children, their savings, their homes, and their lives.

St John - I remember when the Iacocca book came out it was the subject of a CD article and the usual lively discussion. Gist was pretty much "nice words, but little action."

Odd that people wish for Obama now that he is going populous. Why not get the real thing and support Nader?

tetti tatti is most correct: Obama may sound like Nader(actually, though, for only about 12 seconds) but he votes like Cheney.

C'mon Mr. Lindorff, you are usually right on the money. What happened?
Did you did hear that Obama just rejected Jimmy Carter's peace initiative in the Middle East? Endorsed by Nader, btw. And how come the great Obama doesn't sound like Ralph on that issue?

And there's a reason why: big business wouldn't be giving BO all that money if they didn't view him as a player.

Obama is not a progressive, he is not running as one and he is not going to govern as one. His administration will look, act and feel much like a Colin Powell presidency, and that is to say, pathetic.

Australia just got rid of a pathetic conservative, right-wing government.

But then we don't have the handicap of a retarded President and we don't have both Houses of Parliament controlled by Corporations, Israel, the MSM and Religious Fundamentalists either.

Move to Australia, the land of the free!

wesselpessel, he's a fast learner. And he isn't belatedly catching on that our economic system is royally f**ked up. But he would have been eaten alive if he said so sooner.

He's still refusing to savage Hillary the way she's savaging him and I respect him for that, I just hope it works. At least I'm reading that some Hillary supporters - older women and men as well are being turned off by her tactics and shifting their support to Obama. Hopefully voters will see through this, although a slew of Hillary super delegates are jumping on the bandwagon to demonize Obama. I guess they don't care that if he wins the nomination anyway they are delivering a scarred and bleeding candidate to McCain. I realize they are hoping that by wounding him they can argue he isn't viable and they don't seem to care that they may cost the Democratic party the election. Only he is bringing in young people and independents. Along with Hillary's high negatives, a majority of voters think she's dishonest - which she is. Like my son said, only the Democrats can lose a slam-dunk election, and he said that in 2007. He saw it coming.

kathyodat

Words Are Important, good point when you say, "And they (Democrats) don't even say that much".

No, the Democrats are making absolutely no commitments about issues and platform in this election.

It's no surprise that everyone (including the vacuous media) agrees that there is little or no difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues ---- because neither of them have committed to ANYTHING on the issues.

Whereas, Nader has fully committed (in writing) to 12 major issues that the vast majority of Americans want.

If either of these 'Vichy' phony Democrats were to actually win the presidency, the people would turn around and find that they have absolutely no commitments for their new president on Iraq, Wall Street thievery, domestic spying, imperial presidential powers or anything else.

Either of these phonies would enter office owing the people of America absolutely nothing ---- but owing their fat-cat, rulng-elite backers everything!

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

Except...there is no perfect. There are only degrees of good and bad, combined within us all. So, when we wait for the perfect, we wait for what isn't.

If you support only the perfect, why post here? Vote for Nader or McKinney or Ish Kabibble. But, they aren't perfect and you know none of them will win. Or, you could stay home and knit a scarf or wash your windows or rant into the computer about your lack of a perfect candidate.

The Democratic Party stinks and the Republican Party sucks and the Green Party is rowing only on the left side and going in circles. Meanwhile, the perfect storm of problems is moving us closer to the day or reckoning.

What will we do? What will you do? I will suck it up, vote for the best candidate my conscience allows, and work for the good.

Why would I want to vote for someone who sounds like Nader when I could vote for Nader?

While Obama is certainly the least distasteful of the mainstream candidates (he has the right words though not the right actions), he doesn't get my vote because he wants to increase the military and didn't say anything when Kucinich and Mike Gravel (who is still a democratic candidate) were excluded from the debates.

Good Grief, support your conscience. Don't get suckered again by the democratic party. What they say is not what they do. And they don't even say that much.

so it goes...

frank1569, right on!!!

Why buy an imitation 'democracy advocate' when you can have the real thing --- who actually has proven for 40years that he has the guts and courage to fight (AND BEAT) the corporate Empire?

The 'other' presidential candidate, 'democracy advocate', Ralph Nader, would never have accepted the lies and dissembling that all the 'leading' candidates cowered before in last week's Iraq 'slow dance' Senate 'show'.

The only presidential candidate who won't drag his feet, delay, and 'slow walk' the Iraq war is Nader.

The only presidential candidate who recognizes, confronts, and will fight the 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind this 'Vichy' two-party sham of a government is Nader.

The only presidential candidate who will stop the corporatist Empire's looting of the FED and US citizens is Nader.

Stop the 'Shock Doctrine(s)' of the corporatist Empire in Iraq oil-wars and economic oppression and tyranny at home --- vote Nader.

Obama told a white lie and this is what happened to him! Just imagine if he had told the truth (that the majority of the American public is dumb: elect GW what more proof does one need?). And as for bitter, I am not even a blue collar worker and am bitter as hell.

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority." -- Barack Obama

One simple reason to be skeptical of Obama -- he refused to support impeachment resolutions. Under oath, he swore to uphold the Constitution. It is his duty to represent his constituents, not the executive office, and to impeach for the crimes committed by Bush/Cheney et al, already investigated by Waxman, Conyers, and others who dangled the idea like a carrot before the 2006 elections.

What makes Obama think himself capable of leading this country when he lacks the integrity to uphold OUR Constitution? Obama believes that impeachment should be reserved for higher crimes than those committed by Bush/Cheney. A war of aggression against Iraq, warranatless wiretapping, authorized torture, indefinite detention of detainees, subverting the law through signing statements, etc., for Obama, are not impeachable offenses. That well over a million Iraq citizens have been slaughtered for the Bush/Cheney crimes doesn't matter -- for Obama, impeachment should be 'reserved' for more grave offenses than this! Like what? Wait to see what's next? And this is who considers himself presidential material?

Clinton is pathetic, and frightening, but nothing can convince me of Obama either.I find the Obama cult really frightening. Yes, he's intelligent, and for some, charismatic, but he does not have the maturity, courage, or integrity that I hope to someday see in a future American president. Is Obama the best the Democrats could come up with?

In the end, what difference will it make? In Massachusetts, Congressman John Olver asserts that Bush/Cheney plan to bomb Iran election day, declare a state of emergency, nullify the election, and, come January of '09, Bush isn't going anywhere. Scarey? Even more scarey is this -- Olver refuses to co-sponsor impeachment resolutions.

This week, New Hampshire will host a historic event on impeachment with Ramsey Clark, John Nichols, and others -- at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord. If we have any hope of unifying our country, impeachment should be on the frontline, every day. No decent human being could possibly trivialize the Bush/Cheney crimes the way Obama has.

http://ccanh.com/ShowDetails/96/314
http://web.mac.com/sidhall/iWeb/www.bettybhall.com/Impeachment.html

Friedmanite laissez-faire capitalism is a mega-catastrophe and none of the shrimps in Washington want to admit it. Let them fry, let them fry, until they "get tender".

"And if he does win the nomination, and resists the siren calls of the Democratic Party leadership to "move to the middle," and instead hones this populist message, he will go on to win the presidency."

I totally agree!

The following link is a truly ugly economic picture of where the Republican Right and Democratic Middle has taken this country with its job outsourcing and a trade deficit that continues to baloon out of control as the almighty DOLLAR drops in value......this is reality!:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/sutton/2008/0411.html

jlover April 13th, 2008 12:55 pm

obama is "CHANGE"

Based on the voting record in Washington over the last two years it appears Obama and Hilary are all but on the same play book. When it comes to contributions they are both sucking up to the big corporations. What do you think Obama's going to do when it comes pay back time if he gets the presidency?

Because Obama and Hilary are the possible democratic choices it appears where in for at least another four years of republican ruler ship. I can't vote for the lesser of two evils so I will either vote for Nader or not vote at all. There is a lot of liberals/progressives that feel that way. Not only that among the followers of Hillary and Obama, a lot of them will not vote for the other, so I see nothing changing come November.

When the Democrats move back to the liberal/progressive side of center maybe then we can change at the federal level. That's not going to happen though till we the people make change at the local level.

Apparently Lee Iacocca is a verboten name on this site. Not one comment on my early post. David Lindorf, do you not have a comment on his book and his commentary on today's world?

"Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" Published 2007 April.
Another Excerpt:
"The Test of a Leader

I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points—not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.

So, here's my C list:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.

If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right."

Have any of you actually taken a look at this book? Don't attack the messenger until you have read the message. It may surprise you. Curiosity, anyone?

I am committed to Oneness Through Justice and Transformation.

peace,
st john

I did grow up in a town in PA, Levittown. There's Bristol, Croydon, Tullytown, Bensalem, Feasterville and Trevose. Albeit these are 'burbs of Philly, yet this part of Bucks was built on the Steel Mill, Paper Mill and 3M. M Night makes his flix in many of the aforementioned towns now because he grew up in Bensalem. All have long been closed, I do think the Steel Mill had a Brit Corp. that had, I do not know if it remains so.
Awhile ago few drunken white boys decided to strike up a conversation with a gay young man, lured him to their car, slit his throat and set the car on fire, nice fellows. Drugs are the norm not the exception, crime is rampant, old folks being robbed by the use of push-in robberies, horrible now.
I no longer live in PA but am back often to visit Mom, Grandma and my younger sister and Senator Obama is 100% correct in saying they are bitter, getting guns and clinging fervently to religion. What in he$$ is wrong with him stsing the truth?
Today Clinton bellied up to, I presume upstate PA, bar with the types of white men I spoke of drinking boiler makers. Is a 60 year old woman in a skirt drinking boiler makers okey dokey?

I don't know whom I will vote for but ENOUGH! Damn...

I read the words of Obama in this piece, and I see him saying that he thinks he understands the problem. I read the words in this piece and I see him attacking his political opponents. But, when I read the words in this piece, I don't see a damn thing about what he's going to do.

Awhile back, I went back and read FDR's speech to the Democratic convention where he laid out the New Deal that he would implement if elected. It was a very specific speech that listed exactly what I know from history that he did do. FDR went to the country and said, not only do I understand the problem, but here's how I plan on addressing it.

And as always with Obama, there's that big war chest full of Wall St dollars sitting there behind him. All that money that Wall St is pumping into his campaign to make Obama President. The same Wall St that got rich by destroying the economy of the areas this article talks about.

Its no accident, nor rookie gaffe, that Obama is speaking to rich elites. That's who Obama is going to represent as President. The same rich elites that have been getting rich on the pain of others all along, and thus can afford the 10 mil houses. Obama doesn't have any intention of making life better for the people in the rural areas of places like NY and PA.... not if it costs Wall St and his wealthy backers one penny to do so.

Obama's words might be starting to sound like Ralph Nader, but only in that vague fluffy way that Obama rips off everyone else. Look for actions. Look for proposals underneath, look for where they say what they'll do as President. As usual, Obama manages to dance away, this time with a portfolio full of new campaign checks, without ever actually saying what he'll DO. That's the key. Pay attention to the difference between Obama and Nader on that ... Nader will tell you what he'd do if he's President. Obama won't.

But you know Wall St hasn't given all that money to Obama so he can hurt Wall St profits looking out for rural PA.

It's not WHAT Obama said, which is essentially true, but WHERE he said it. He made his speech at weathy enclaves in the Bay Area, in Atherton - where fixer-upper estates start at 10 mil and at a $2,300 per event at the San Francisco home of billionairs Ann and Gordon Getty. (He probably collected 3 mill from these appearances) He was "telling tales out of school" - talking about the hicks to the elites. Had he made this speech to people in rural PA, telling people he feels their economic pain, his numbers would have soared. This is a rookie gaffe. In these complex and dangerous times we especially need a president who understands the political nuances of speech, foreign and domestic - not someone who needs training wheels.

Thomas Paine and Jefferson himself wrote extensively about self-rule and our supposed responsibility to the principles of self-governance. We seem incapable of having that kind national conversation without running into the resistance of an activist press that pushes opinion and propaganda as if were newsworthy facts. Senator Obama seems to offer us an alternative to the bought and paid for crap that has passed for political discourse in this great nation. And yes, I'm one of those pissed off country bumpkins who is tired and frustrated at watching everything I love and care for reduced to a commodity that can be traded away by a system that offers allegiance to no one. Call me old-fashion, but I need to work and I like to earn my own way and over the last decade it has gotten harder and harder. I want change, now.

John Thomas Ellis

But no, Obama isn't sounding the least bit like Nader.

Little brother,

Good points! I should add that the very way you used the words "loser" - to mean "someone who cannot ever do things right because he is innately defective", is unique to the American-English language. Just finding a way to translate it accurately it another language is difficult. Probably the same with "winner".

This is the heart of the national religion of exceptionalism, which prevents anyone among the down-trodden from ever considering any cause but personal failure for their troubles, and because that would cause one to be a "loser", that isn't allowed either. so instead they generate fantastical bogymen for their troubles. Meanwhile, the true bogymen - their capitalist bosses cannot be blamed, because they are, by definition "winners".

" a speech that we have not heard from a Democrat politician for decades" (except for Dennis Kucinich)

change will not come from the top down. change will come from the people up.

and let me add that it is time to think out of the marxist box - his theories are not the be all and end all of theories. and dare i say that the 'founding fathers' are not angels or prophets, they were actually indian killers and slave owners.

we must question everything at this point until we can start from point 1, from the very first step, from the first universal truth, and then build from there.

if we go on building on lies and falsehood, well, it will only continue to lead to lies and falsehood.

we must question all the slogans and rhetoric, and begin from the beginning. why are we alive? why do we die? where do we go? who are we? what is the point of life? are people equal or did we evolve from monkeys so that some poeple are now more evolved than others?

is there even a transcendent truth? can truth be relative? who has the right to make up truth and laws and dish out punishments?

if we do not have the courage to face these questions sincerely, with dignity, and humility, then how can we have courage to fix corruption when it is right in front of our faces?

shisha

Karita,

I only recently took down my Edwards for President sign, only because the wind had knocked it over. Since he left the race, I have watched from the sidelines, imagining that I'd end up supporting Obama, only because Clinton and McCain were out of the question.

I admire Obama's speeches. He's bright, he's charismatic. He certainly can raise money like nobody's business.

And he's finally coming, late, to the realization that the economic policies of the past decades are bankrupting all but the very rich. I'm glad he acknowledges this reality. But I'm not optimistic that his inspiring words will translate into concrete action, should he become president. I've looked into his voting record and the advisors he has surrounded himself with. They don't give lots of reasons to suppose he'll bring a new populism to a Democratic Party that really does favor the interests of its biggest donors.

But, thank you for your thoughtful post.

Now wait here; Obamas remarks were all right until he attributed opposition to "free trade" as just a emotional consequence of this bitterness.

Bullshit!

His so-called "free trade" - or more properly, the sell-off of popular sovereignty to global corporate power, is indeed something to be angry and bitter about!

I wrote above:

[...] Thus, to this day our culture programs, transmits, and encourages an approach to life that is both stoic and hysterically optimistic; the mythical ideal is that Amerikans are always optimistic, resourceful, proud, steadfast, and cheerful. Even, perhaps especially, in adverse circumstances.

Upon further reflection, I would say that this New World gringo template mandates that citizens are to be formally considered, and spoken of, as Winners. It's like the Special Olympics, which is apropos in a culture in which vested ruling classes wield a corporate media organized to manufacture consent and co-opt the political process by turning it into a sensationalist soap opera. The Establishment, to dust off a still-relevant concept, relies on a citizenry that is largely politically challenged, and is easily bamboozled and manipulated. But in the Ownership Society, Everybody's a Winner!

Even implying that Americans might be in any way fallible, or have, in spite of their best efforts, fucked up in any way is the equivalent of calling them Losers. And that will not stand!

So, does one support the crafty and cunning status quo politician who either buys into these neurotic, pathological templates or cynically invokes them to attract support by increasing her opponent's negatives, or the politician who openly eschews such machinations, and engages voters on an adult/adult basis instead of a controlling adult/child basis?

Disclaimer: I remain undecided, and in any case have no real enthusiasm for either of the Democratic lesser-evil candidates. So my overloaded question isn't predicated on my personal support, or any expectation of what the candidate is likely to accomplish in office. I'm just reporting the view from the 50-yard line.

"Finding Voters 'Bitter and Frustrated,' Obama is Sounding Like Nader"

Hey - let's just go ahead and cut out the middleman and vote for Nader then.

Oh, right, forgot - he has the ego thing that trumps his lifetime of public service and refusal to take any money from and do the bidding for any of the economic terrorists still ruling We The People.

No, BO is the way to go - he'll most surely "stand up" to the Wall Street scum and Defense war profiteers filling his campaign coffers. Sure he will...

Dave Lindorff -- Perhaps the appropriate advice is buy one's rifle at one of those GUN SHOWs, using cash (or on the Street), as I seriously doubt the as-advertised reasoning behind the information dragnet on everything that Americans DO, BE, or HAVE.

I believe that it is not paranoid to assume that all obvious purchases of guns, and being carefully tabulated, to ALLOW one to properly "turn-in" ones guns, when THAT law is passed -- but to ensure that they know exactly where to go IF one decides to act like all the guns are already turned in.

I suspect, that this will be especially more so now days, when so many may feel the urge.

I myself can shoot,

but prefer to follow the golden rule but more so,
living in the conscious knowledge that my
BEingness is far stronger than any ACTIONs
that I can take.

Namaste

The more I think of this conversation, the more "bitter" I feel about my fellow Democrats, and the remaining Candidates included. And, yes, Barack Obama, I did grow up in Pennsylvania, Western Pennsylvania, on the edge of Appalachia. I worked for Bobby Kennedy in 1968, indeed, helped draft him, and I worked for John Edwards, exactly for the same reason. Because they cared and realized about the economic problems of Western Pennsylvania, the Rust Belt, and Rural and Urban American small towns all over America, West, East, North, and South (as in New Orleans), and they didn't need to go on a campaign trail to discover it. No, they went on the campaign trail to solve it and to reach out to the people, with utter respect and empathy.

Like John Edwards, I have been dismayed that Democrats have not had the backbone to solve poverty and economic woes in America, because largely both parties are too beholden to mega-corporations. Think of it, Richardson, now an erstwhile supporter of Barack Obama, chided Edwards for fomenting class warfare! Class warfare, you say, Richardson!! No, John Edwards truly empathized with the economically disadvantaged of our country, and came up with the programs to solve their problems. He knew the Democratic Party, the Party, folks, needs as much transformation as does the Country, and he was ready to deliver it. Now, Obama is making some discoveries about the conditions of economically disadvantaged Americans. Better late than never, I say, but give some credit, where credit is due, and maybe we can all join in the solution.

How about a Unity Ticket that includes all the candidates who worked so hard in this last campign, two candidates at the top and identified cabinet candidates, as well. A real ticket that would include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and yes, Richardson, too. And even Gore and Kerry, two winners of the two past elections, called as lost. A place for everyone in the administration. Each has something to contribute. Give credit where credit is due, and maybe, just maybe, we can win and start solving the problems in America. Let me see, it has been since 1968, that I have been waiting. That's too long and I am getting too old for this Western Pennsylvania born American!

Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat

I call an Edwards Democrat, a Democrat with backbone.