Finding Voters ‘Bitter and Frustrated,’ Obama is Sounding Like Nader
I haven’t lived in rural Pennsylvania or in rural Indiana, but I have lived in rural upstate New York, in towns where there are so few Democrats that on some local election ballots, not a single position, from town council to justice of the peace, has a contest. As in China, your option is to vote for the Republican candidate, or to leave that line blank.
And many of the people in these towns, uniformly white, when they talk politics, spend a lot of their time complaining about black people, immigrants (neither of whom can even be found in the vicinity) and the threat to their guns.
Barack Obama is exactly right.
In Hancock, NY and Spencer, NY, there are no factory jobs. There used to be in Hancock, but the companies where hundreds of people used to work have long since folded or moved south of the border, courtesy of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) aggressively promoted and pushed through Congress by Bill and Hillary Clinton during the 1990s. In Spencer, there are no jobs because in the free-for-all bidding by companies for tax giveaways between communities, Spencer had nothing much to offer. The town is so dirt poor that when the library board, of which I was briefly president, got a measure on the ballot to have one extra dollar per taxpayer of school district taxes allocated to support the local little library, which was at that time totally supported by donations, the measure went down to resounding defeat (I was labeled a communist by some for promoting the idea!).
In 1992, neighbors in Spencer told me they were voting for George H. W. Bush-a patrician blue blood if ever there was one-because Bill Clinton, if elected “would take away our guns.”
Of course, he didn’t, and had no intention of doing so, but that didn’t matter.
Don’t get me wrong-the people in Hancock and Spencer are good folks. I’m pretty sure many of them probably give a higher proportion of their meager incomes to charity than do millionaires John McCain and Hillary Clinton. But Obama is right that in their angst and frustration at seeing the good economic times pass them by, at seeing themselves abandoned by the federal government in hard times, and at seeing candidates promise them everything during campaigns, only to ignore them after winning, they are bitter and frustrated.
And they have a right to be, and they should be.
One response to that bitterness and frustration is that they are open to the charlatans in both parties, and especially the Republican Party, who have played on their basest fears. It’s Republicans who have whispered the poison in their ears that their high taxes are because “the Blacks” are getting all that welfare money and are getting all the jobs through “quotas.” It’s the Republicans who have warned them about “hoards” of Mexicans coming across the border to steal their jobs. It’s the Republicans who have been warning them that Democrats are going to take their hunting rifles and shotguns away. It’s the Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist front men who have been saying that the Democrats have been causing the nation’s decline by supporting licentiousness and a “gay” agenda. And it’s Republicans and Democrats who have been hyping the bogus issue of national defense to keep people from focusing on the deliberate dismantling of the US economy that is underway. (Over years of Republican and Democratic administrations, the tax contribution of US corporations to the national budget has fallen from 50% in 1940 to just 14% today. Between 1996 and 2000, 61% of all corporations and 39% or large corporations paid no taxes at all, and that situation has only gotten worse in the Bush years.)
Anything but the real issue, which is how to provide funds so that the children in places like Spencer and Hancock can get a decent education without bankrupting the local taxpayers, how those communities can get jobs again, so that their children won’t have to move out, how to ensure that everyone in town can have health insurance and access to medical care.
Barack Obama is right. I’ve seen it in person. The people in rural America are bitter and frustrated, and after years of being played by politicians, they fall victim to the charlatans who tell them it’s all because of “the Blacks,” or the immigrants, or who tell them that their guns are in danger. Or they turn to religions that preach division or apocalypse-a concept that offers the chance of a final, delicious revenge against the rich and the powerful oppressors on Wall Street and in Washington.
Now I don’t know what Obama has in mind to try and turn things around for these good people, but it’s a start that he’s at least talking to them, not down, but honestly.
His talk (http://pa.barackobama.com/page/s/paletter) in response to attacks on his statement about rural residents being “bitter and frustrated” is as good as anything Ralph Nader has said about the power and mendacity of the ruling political elite in America.
As he put it, to wild applause at a rally in Terra Haute, Indiana, explaining the difficulty of appealing to the rural working class voters in Pennsylvania:
“For the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shift overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse, they have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions, they’ve lost their health care. And for 25-30 years, Democrats and Republicans have come before then and said we’re gonna make your community better. We’re gonna make it right.
“And nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter, and of course they’re frustrated. You would be too, in fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing has happened across the border in Decatur. (Wild applause) The same thing has happened across the country. Nobody’s looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you.
“And so people end up, they don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s gonna help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns-you know are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. You know, they, they take refuge in their faith, and their communities, their families-things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.
“So here’s what’s rich. Sen. Clinton says, `Well I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know I think Barack’s being condescending.’ And John McCain says, `Oh how can he say that? How can he say that people are bitter? You know he obviously is out of touch with the…’”
“Out of touch? Out of touch! I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?”
“Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt, after taking money from the financial services companies and she says I’m out of touch?
“No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. (Standing ovation) People are fed up! They’re angry, and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington, and that’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America!”
Now who knows whether this is all talk too. Maybe Obama is just one more political charlatan.
What is clear though is that this was a speech that we have not heard from a Democratic politician for decades, and it sure sounded good to hear it.
If Obama sticks to this rhetorical approach in the coming weeks, he will nail this nomination in spite of a concerted attack on him by the corporate media and by the combined forces of the Clintons and McCain.
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.
That’s when the real challenge will come, for an aroused citizenry, in those rural communities and in the larger cities across that nation, to make a President Obama and a Democratic Congress deliver on these words.
For now, they’re pretty powerful words, and just hearing them coming from a Democratic Party frontrunner is an exciting change.
Dave Lindorff’s most recent book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Excellent article.
Except for one thing; it’s here on Common Dreams, (my home-page for years) and here on CD the Democrats are attacked and maligned to the near exclusion of the RepubLikud Party.
The article will be attacked.
The Democrats will be attacked.
Obama will be attacked. While the Republican Scum if even mentioned at all are “no worse.”
Obama ‘08.
And here come the ThreadThought Police…
Clinton and her neocon thugs can say anything they want but having grown up in Pennsylvania I know that what Obama said is true. Clinton is a disgrace.
There might be a few in rural areas of Pennsylvania who take offense at Barack Obama’s words but most people will respect the truth. No one wants to hear sugar coated lies and empty promises or be treated like they are dumb enough to believe in lies and empty flattery. The super wealthy Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both condescending to the people for the advantage it gives their campaigns not because they really give a hoot about people in oppressed rural areas. Hillary waits to pounce on anything Barack says because her campaign is focused on tearing him down. So she, as usual, has made a big deal out of nothing and the media eager for more hype to keep the excitement going between primaries, has picked up the ball. Most people in Pennsylvania are shaking their heads and saying “What was that all about, are we supposed to be offended because someone said we are bitter and frustrated at the current government?” America needs a good dose of truth everywhere from cities to countrysides. How can we clean up our country if we aren’t mature enough to face the truth and deal with our mistakes? We know this needs to be done in ourselves, our personal relationships and families, now we need to realize as the American community that it’s time to take responsibility as citizens and MAKE change happen.
If people want to know whats gone wrong with this country over the last twenty five years all they need to think about is the democratically backed republican leadership we have had. The people in America are upset with our government at the city, state and federal levels but still they support people like Clinton, Obama and McClain.
Obama is speaking the truth here but he’s not going to do anything different, he’s not going to bring about the change we need. The only way to effect change for the better is to shake the very foundations the two party systems is based on. We have to make change at the local and state level first. When we quit voting over and over for the good old rich boys at home then we will start seeing change at the top. Till then complain all you want about the leadership in Washington and watch things stay the same.
Ah, the poor, put-upon, persecuted, would-be progressive loyal Democrats! Perpetually consumed with righteous indignation that the chancred whore and part-time pickpocket and bunco artist that is the Democratic Party is despised as much as the serial-killing, big-haul thief that is the Republic Party!
Will foolish and preposterously idealist citizens never yield to the common-sense necessity of embracing the Lesser Evil?
Well, I won’t. Meanwhile, it strikes me how deeply anti-intellectual the Clinton campaign is. As one might expect from pure technocrats, their campaign is an exercise in manipulating the collective lizard-brain by launching endless micro-”surgical strikes”. In their pathetic and desperate bid to maintain altitude and gain sufficient airspeed to overtake Obama, they simply seize on any chance phrase that has the potential to become a “negative”, and hysterify it.
The Clintons and their fabulously rich and experienced cadre of handlers tirelessly perform supposedly subtle and sincere maneuvers that amount to trying to fling Obama’s own supposed feces back at him, and hoping they’ll stick sufficiently that Hillary comes off sweeter-smelling. It’s the kind of demeaning stimulus-reponse, behaviorist, operant conditioning that is purely top-down; despite the faux-egalitarian rhetoric, Hillary’s constituency is composed of her inferiors: gullible followers, children, lab rats.
Disclaimer: I’m undecided, and won’t know until Election Day who I’ll vote for, if anyone. But it’s obvious to me that Obama talks to his constituency, while Hillary talks at hers.
Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement but it was totally in place before his taking office, courtsey of King Bush I, & PM Brian Mulroney. Bush “Fast-Tracked” the agreement before he left office. A majority of republicans voted it in with the help of several democrats.
Although Clinton pushed it through, it was in place before he took office.
I am going to comment briefly on this article: it “should” be posted on every Corp Media sight for broader distribution.
What I really want to direct your attention to is a book by Lee Iacocca, published one year ago, April 2007. Have any of you heard about it? I know, many reading this sight will wonder why I would even suggest you read anything by Iacocca, but this is an exception. The title is, Where Have All the Leaders Gone? Google it and read excerpts. You will also wonder why it has not been reviewed and discussed here or on other progressive sights. Of course, the Corp Media would not touch it and most politicians of either party would dismiss it as too aggressive. Here is a short excerpt from the book:
“I
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”
Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!”
So, where is the outrage? Why is this man not being heard on every progressive media outlet? Put aside your prejudices about what he did with Chrysler and how he used the government. That was a long time ago. This book has been out for a year, and there is not one word being spoken for it.
I recommend you at least read the excerpts. You will be amazed!
I am committed to Oneness Through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john
Congress controlled by the Democrats?
Hardly…..a special unit of spooks, ex-Mossad/Secret Service, Rove’s Raiders, under Cheney’s direction, have targeted Democrats w/ cocaine, hookers etc. for years, and ‘turned’ them.
Between three and five. Not suspected. Used for key votes.
Thus the RepubLikud control Congress and make the Democrats look like paralyzed fools. CD thread exhibit A.
Think through the cracks.
mikepeters:
I’ be the first to admit that I have attacked and will continue to attack the Democratic party for talking the talk and failing to walk the walk. What happened to impeachment? What happened to bringing the troops home? What happened to election reforms?
I’ll also be the first to admit it when a Democrat or Republican or anyone else (Ralph Nader) gets it right.
This time Obama got it right! The article is right on and Obama’s comments were right on. So were the comments of his preacher Rev. Wright. Unfortunately, whenever he gets it right, he’s forced to back down by the way the media whips up a frenzy of manipulated information.
I will say that at least, while backpeddling on this statement and stating his renunciation of Rev. Wright’s remarks, he overall defended this last statement and gave a good speech about race in this country.
Now he needs to state the obvious - We cannot afford to continue the occupation of Iraq, nor can we continue to increase military spending. If this country is to survive the fate of the Soviet Union, that collapsed as a result of over spending on the military while allowing their country’s infrastructure to wither, Obama must change his allegience to increased military spending and be truthful with the American people. The biggest threat to this country comes not from terrorists, illegal immigrants, or gay marriage but from the corporate entities that claim all the rights of people but are unaccountable for any of the responsibilities of people. These corporate “people” own our government and both the Republican and Democratic Party; this is the reason people criticize Democrats as well as Republicans on this site.
When Democrats stand up for “We the People” in fact as well as they claim to stand up for them in speeches they will earn the respect they would like to claim.
Bitter? You bet I am! Is Obama condescending, or does he just have a clue?
this is for rickster469…..obama is “CHANGE” obama is not cut from the same cloth as hilliary or mccain…….obama JOLTS the gop and the democrats….so they use FEAR …IT’S ALL THEY HAVE !
Too bad when John Edwards spoke these words, they did not hear him. And Obama derided Edwards’ populism. It is not enough to speak these words, it is important to have policies behind them. Not being beholden to Wall st. would be a good beginning.
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
Obama’s right on. He should NOT apologize for something that’s true.
mikepeters - once again..please try to understand the CD ambivalence to the Democratic party.
Notice it is NOT the CDers slamming Obama over his comments but other DEMOCRATS.
I for one congratulate Obama for “telling it like it is” as I see other CDers doing.
Now, if we could get rid of his corporate paymasters and string pullers, there would be hope for at least 1 Dem candidate(Obama).
It was Edwards who came out with the Manufacturing Plan for America. Why wasn’t it hailed? Edwards was not only in touch with the bitterness of so many, but the hopes and the dreams of people for better opportunity, and he put policies behind his words. He would never have summed up the people he cared to help as sum and substance, “bitter”.
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
My sympathy for embittered Republican voters is limited, and I have lived in a central Pennsylvania town. They would vote the same way if times were good, and in the past they have. It’s not the lack of jobs that makes them vote Republican, it’s the cult of rugged individualism and white male privilege. Any white man who works hard gets ahead is the sacred myth, and they cling to it like it’s Jesus. It gives them a perch from which to look down on nonwhite America and sneer. They still sneer even when knocked off that perch. It’s why they rage against welfare for black people but don’t mind subsidies for agribusiness or defense contractors because those are models of what they admire. They’re bitter because they are ENTITLED to a decent living and respectable reputation, unlike those sniveling welfare cheats in the ghettos, and they’re not getting them. They’ll eagerly take federal help, but not on universalist terms that put them in the same categories as those low-class scum in the cities. If a truly fascist mass party (as opposed to the current quasi-authoritarian regime) appears in America, they’ll jump right in.
Obama’s right, even if he didn’t express it in the most articulate way. A few years ago I worked as a journalist in a small southern town. The town’s main industry had been textiles, and every week there was news of a new plant closing, as foreign competition took its toll. The unemployment rate was 25%, and most young people left town as soon as they were old enough to see the city limits sign in their rearview mirror. Were people bitter? You betcha. Once you chipped away the surface of southern hospitality and gentility, you found people angry that a way of life that they had enjoyed for generations was disappearing. And yes, most of them were “conservative,” in the sense that they were distrustful of any perceived change in popular culture, moral values, religion, the economy or pretty much anything else. Not surprising, really, given that the only “change” they were exposed to left them economically worse off than before. They talked about the “good ol’ days,” and generally resented most attempts by outsiders to question their values. Like any people who perceive themselves to be under siege, they rallied around what they were most familiar with and comforted by, their religion and their community. But on the whole they were generous and friendly, and quite a few local “eccentrics” lived there without any trouble that I could detect. There were musicians, painters and artists in the town, many very talented. If it wasn’t exactly HBO’s “Sex and the City,” it wasn’t quite Sinclair Lewis’s “Main Street,” either.
When I first read about the ranting and railing against Obama saying that people are bitter about their loss of economic well-being, I wondered why everyone was up in arms because it is true. It is true in Canada, Mexico, and the USA as well as everywhere else in the world right now. We are p.o.’d. Maybe people don’t understand the meaning of bitter? This article is bang on.
Just as an aside, I happened across this old (1946) Encyclopedia Britannica educational film recently regarding recognising the signs of rising despotism, and thought you might want to check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2iBHYS_YY
The Home of the Knave
The home of the bubble brain knave
treading in freedom but drowning in dreams
can’t agree on prosperity or perilous pain
while trying to retain ill gotten gain
as the refrain left and right teams up
with calls for more of the same
Count on the spin to take it all down
left in the north and right in the south
but…
save the plunger for the biggest mouth
“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 agree.
Obama, for all his faults, talks to people’s desire and bitterness and frustration and hope. He has to keep talking turkey to the people and keep building his grass-roots base while leaving the smarmy and trite to the Clinton/McCain team.
If he goes on to win the general election, Obama will need a lot of support and help from progressives. If he gets that, I believe he will have the mandate to start moving the Democratic Party to the good side.
Jeez, this makes me a little hopeful. Feels good!
I am not a rural Pennsylvanian, but I am a Pennsylvanian and I WILL vote for Obama on April 22. I supported Edwards and I have been wavering between Clinton and Obama, but I’m not wavering any more.
I certainly hope Obama will continue the populist message and follow through if elected. This could be our last chance.
I am just a common man. This country needs a leader that will stand up for me and other frustrated common people in America.It is real scary to think some chinese person has my job and no way to compete. There isn’t even a bread line I can feed my family with. At least Obama is trying.
Here’s a little thing I came across some time ago - just a little nod to difference between liberals and “right-wingers”
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN
Article courtesy of PunkVoter.com
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservative are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”
Obama may be talking a good game, but look at his record. He is still going to do nothing but “look” at NAFTA, not lead the charge to dismantle it. When he had a chance to vote to put a 30% cap on annual interest on credit cards, he voted against it.
i am shocked to see such intelligent readers believing in obama - the man came out of nowhere, he has been treated as an equal in the press, even more than that, the media has NOT bashed him in the way it does with ‘unworthies’ like nader and ron paul. even with all the fuel from the clintons. if the media is good to someone, well….
no one just gets into elections out of nowhere and has such a smooth campaign without the corporate rule behind it.
and what is more, so what if an honest person does get into presidency (against all odds of a totally rigged process)? is one man going to dismantle the multibillion$ military industrial complex? is one man in government going to bring morals and ethics back to a government that is owned by a few multinationals?
(plus, is it total coincidence that obama is an 8th cousin to bush and is a 32nd degree freemason - i think not - google it!)
shisha
Obama might sound like Nader, but he acts like Cheney. He’s a Democrat, isn’t he? Mind what he does, not what he says.
Obama has voted to fund this illegal war the same way Repubs have. And didn’t Obama join Republicans in 2005 in passing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits?
Obama also voted against a bankruptcy bill which would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Obama votes with the Republican Party more often than not.
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
His record in regulating the nuclear industry and energy policies are dubious at best.
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it.
He’s supposedly against NAFTA but in his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war.
beyondempire; Thank You for crucifying JoeRepublican; damn that was HILARIOUS.
You generously deferred from flaying his hateful rascist sexist soul which was kind, being this is Sunday the Day of The Lord and all…
Thank you curmudegeon99 for your thoughts.
shisha; hello. I too feel strings pulled. Hillary w/ MSM support could have beaten mccreep. His alleged strength is foreign policly. Hers was too six months ago…I thought she’d be the tougher matchup…..Karl Rove & Satan & the MSM.
militantliberal — “It’s why they rage against welfare for black people but don’t mind subsidies for agribusiness or defense contractors because those are models of what they admire.”
Absolutely right. I suppose even if they knew that corporate welfare accounts for 10 times more on the dollar than welfare at large, it still wouldnt matter. Privilege is way too deeply ingrained.
militantliberal (1:34 pm) is absolutely right about white rural midwesterners, whether in PA or WI, where I live. I’ve noticed the same thing for years. It’s all about them, and if they’re not making it, blame blacks, or liberals (mainly liberals, because there are hardly any blacks anywhere in sight) or people needing any form of public assistance, or of course “illegal immigrants” stealing all the jobs they won’t take in any case.
They’re the heart and soul of knee-jerk American fascism, and they’ll comprise the core of the party that forms around those reactionary values as soon as the effective rightwing populist rises up out of the heartland. If Obama can preempt that reflex by appealing to them from a quasi-liberal angle (and I agree that Edwards was doing it better, and Kucinich better still, but the centrists at the DNC weren’t going to permit that, so those two rabble rousers were predictably stifled), I’m for him. Anything that can pacify the disenfranchised rural white conservatives is a good thing for the progressive cause. Let him throw them a few bones.
Incidentally: the Puritan pioneers who settled on this continent gave us the gift of repression, which has grown roots deeper than any sequoia. They also imparted an adversarial world-view: life is a continuous challenge for existence, and a wilderness filled with threats and enemies.
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.
Lesser politicians– which is to say, about 95% of our past, incumbent, and aspiring political elite– piously capitalize on this orthodoxy, this dogma, and beat opponents with it like a stick if the opponent dares to come out from behind the curtain and speak unpleasant and unpopular truths.
Clinton’s amoral, technocratic approach to campaigning shamelessly responds in this low-road, cheap-point-scoring tradition. She hopes to leapfrog over a stunned and beseiged opponent exactly the way Jimmy Carter’s opponents did when he “foolishly” dared to observe that a “malaise” pervaded the nation.
The corporate media loves this kind of artificial sensationalism and ginned-up controversy, of course. Every one of our fabulously successful and well-regarded celebrity infotainwhores can make hay out of the breathless simulated shock and chagrin of Obama’s “gaffe”. The man actually said that Americans were bitter! What kind of slap in the face is that?
And intrepid correspondents and a phalanx of pollsters will stream into the diners, general stores, and bus terminals in the nation’s rural byways to obtain clips of Barney Bowlingshirt and Lucy Lunchbucket, and maybe even the local Republicrat politician, expressing outrage and indignation that Obama insulted them by implying that local folk are “bitter”. Bitter! What could there possibly be to be bitter about?
And the infotainwhore Peanut Gallery, from Cokie Roberts to Tweety Matthews, will take up the chorus and ponderously conclude that, yep, this is a Mortal Negative all right– like Dukakis fluffing the Kitty-rape question.
Well, politics ain’t beanbag, and the “realists” among us understand that the mature, sober response to political campaigns is to disconnect the neo-cortex and pre-frontal lobes, and toss ‘em in the refrigerator until the erection is over. And if going all lizard-brained is what it takes to win, that feisty wonk is a-goin’ to do it!
What Obama, his wife, his pastor, and everyone else in America needs to learn, is that you don’t get elected to be President of the United States by speaking the truth. Better to speak the mythical American narrative of hope, upward mobility, opportunity for all and equality. Dare mention inequality, desperation, immoral foreign or domestic policies, and you get slammed. Lie Barack, lie!
Thanks to everyone here for your great comments — all of them equally as important to what needs to be said. It’s reassuring to see that America hasn’t lost her soul completely.
Here’s an excerpt from and link to a good read, titled, “Opulent Wealth alongside Blissful Ignorance of the Capitalist Illusion.” (You might need to copy/paste to read it, since for some odd reason, the blue type appears on a black background).
“However, it is not just the corresponding leader of the oligarchy, who values money-making highly, who reinforces the governing system of oligarchy. It is the governed people, who, in an oligarchic system, have a value system based on money, not on virtue or honor. The consumerist and money-making culture that is pervasive in our society today is evidence of our being most closely related to an oligarchy: with the message that making money is the most important thing you can do in life, the citizens are trained to believe that those who possess the greatest accumulation of wealth, even if they didn’t earn it themselves, are the most successful people, and therefore the best leaders.”
http://vcscompphil.blogspot.com/2005/10/opulent-wealth-alongside-blissful.html
Hey Voice Apart, thanks for the link to the video on despotism! I watched it and boy is it petinent to today! I hope everyone who reads these comments will take the time to click on the link and watch this.
Get used to it folks. If Clinton gets to be president we’ll have 4 or even 8 more years of incompetence, whining, blaming others, and business as usual. She’s almost as good a double speaker as W’s folks. Betrayus, Dr. Condi, Killer Dickie, and of course W (when he’s sober)are doublspeak record holders. The Clintons come from a similar mold. Hopefully, from the looks of the Barack is trying to tell the truth, he may be a shade better.
In terms of policy, on the surface there’s not much difference between Obama and Clinton. But Obama strikes me, a 70-year-old geezer, as more than just another cynical manipulator like Hillary/McCain. What he offers is not a set of policies that will fix everything, but a leadership that will inspire us to take democratic action locally, which is the only arena where it matters anyway. He inspires us to talk to our neighbors, to let rationality into our lives. It’s about us, folks, not about him. He is more like Lao Tzu’s ideal leader, who gets his followers to say, “look at what we’ve done on our own.” Obama stands no chance all by himself to dismantle the corporate culture that infects this country, but he might be able to get more and more people to click off the cultural hologram. He’s only the first of many potential leaders we need to help us take our country back.
The fishing season opened yesterday and I was walking the walk list for Obama with my political button on–
“I hope you catch a lot of fish” I hollered to those fisherman- I am fishing too for him -pointing to my button.
”But he is going to take away our guns!”
“Just cool it guys, my own father is a big hunter ( well that was true before he died and I hate guns myself) and Obama is doing no such thing because we have a lot of real problems that need immediate attention like jobs, warfare, environment and all that”
Well they kind of admitted that they just were shooting from the hip and they shut up.
“Seriously- I hope you catch a big one”
smiles all around…
Just to add: I do WANT TO TAKE PEOPLE’S GUNS AWAY FROM THEM!! YES! Absolutely, no doubt about it - ZERO is the number of guns we need to lead productive lives.
Obama, who I dislike, is actually close to the truth about this issue - it doesn’t change that his policies are terrible & destructive & in some cases, worse than Clinton or McCain; AND that this “gaffe” will cost him next Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton will win in PA by a wider margin than originally anticipated.
Thanks for all the comments.
I’d just like to say that these days, with the very real danger of fascism hanging in the wings (as Gen. Tommy Franks has said, one more 9-11 type incident and we’ll have military rule in the US and no Constitution), I am no longer anti-gun. In fact, I think it might be a good idea for liberals and progressives to start learning, or relearning, how to shoot.
Myself, I’m a crack shot. Grew up with a rifle, which my parents let me buy and use out in the woods on my own when I was 12.
Try to take away my civil liberties and my democratic government and I’ll defend those things as necessary.
There are some things worth fighting for, but it’s hard to fight for them if they take the guns away.
The point is, though, that the whole gun issue is really bogus. It’s not going to happen, and it is being used by the Right to keep working people from voting for their real interests.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
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.
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
Namaste
“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…
I wrote above:
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.
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!
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.
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
” a speech that we have not heard from a Democrat politician for decades” (except for Dennis Kucinich)
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”.
But no, Obama isn’t sounding the least bit like Nader.
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
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
“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
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”.
“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
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.
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.
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…
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
Odd that people wish for Obama now that he is going populous. Why not get the real thing and support Nader?
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.”
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.
“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?
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?
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
Is Obama calling for huge cuts in military spending? Is he calling for diverting those massive resources into health and education? NO.
Enough said.
“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.
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.
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.
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
It would appear as if Obama has had his Kassandra (the Trojan princess) moment. Hopefully, his fate will not be hers.
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
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.
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!
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
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”.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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 .
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 e