Right-wing ABC radio talkshow host John Batchelor has filled my in box in these last 18 hours with e-mails dissecting and skewering what Obama meant when he said at a private April 6 fundraiser that small-town voters in economically distressed areas of Pennsylvania are “bitter.” Batchelor and Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley and Sean Hannity and Rush and O’Reilly are ready and rearing to go, quick to their guns to paint Obama as an elitist. (Read the excerpt from Nation columnist Eric Alterman’s “Why We’re Liberals” in the April 14th issue of The Nation to understand the cynicism and hypocrisy at the root of the conservative cabal’s forty-year campaign.)
The Right has its reasons to play this cynical card. It is the Clinton campaign’s rapid-fire, right-wing populist response to Obama’s remarks that I find so troubling and cynical, and sure to hurt the party and the country in the general election.
Strip down what Obama was saying: He addressed the trouble his campaign of hope and change was having in “places where people feel most cynical about government.” While he has tried to speak concretely about the conditions of peoples’ lives, his campaign continues to have trouble making inroads among white working class voters, and “old economy” voters whose idea of change isn’t hope but rather losing a job or a pension. Yet he is narrowing the margins.
In Muncie, Indiana Saturday morning, Obama was counterpunching, as he should be– explaining and expanding on his remarks:
The problem is our politics doesn’t let the American people get heard. People know that it’s not easy solving some of these problems but they want to feel like at least someone is fighting for them.
It’s interesting. Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter.
They are angry.
They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they’re going through.
So I said well you know when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.
And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about how things are changing.
That’s a natural response.
And now I didn’t say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That’s what sustains us
But what is absolutely true is that people don’t feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives. What we need is a government that is actually paying attention. A government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream. And that’s what this campaign is about.
I can’t think of much truer in our politics today than what Obama is saying about how “people don’t feel they are being listened to…What we need is a government that is actually paying attention… fighting for working people day in and day out …”
At a time when 81% of the country thinks we’re heading in the wrong direction (aren’t these people bitter?) , isn’t it pretty clear that our economy has not performed well for most people for at least a generation, and is now heading into what everyone sentient would agree are likely to be some very tough times. Recovery from this recession is also likely to be even slower than the essentially jobless recovery from the last. The traditional means of jump-starting the economy — dropping interest rates, or boosting consumer spending — have been substantially exhausted, and their pell-mell unregulated pursuit is a large part of what got us into our current mess.
The political discontent is obvious–and Obama is trying to speak to that. Americans are fed up with government’s failure to do anything much for them, or that they’re proud of being part of. ” Here’s how it is,” he said in his April 6 remarks. ” In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania people have been beaten down for so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it.” Here’s where the Right’s generation-long attack on government has done real damage to citizen confidence in government. We see it all around us everyday. But surely the other critical source of citizen doubt is that government has in fact done little recently to measurably improve their lives and give them a sense of national purpose. After all, Bill Clinton, long considered the master politician of his age, was basically in the business of lowering expectations of government even faster than they were disappointed. Obama is trying to amp up expectations which the Right and Clintonism have tamped down.
The right wing is clearly desperate; ready to seize on anything to change the subject and hide how out of touch they are with an America in financial pain. But how cynical of the Clinton campaign to claim Obama was condescending to the people of Pennsylvania.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2008 The Nation
Clinton is worse than any republican and that is really bad. There is no smear she would not use and she is the biggest liar in the world. Imagine to have such a skunk for president. Hillary W. Bush working hard to keep politics in the slime.
Well said, Obama was merely stating the truth, but then we all know what happens to truth sayers. I am not a bit surprised that the Clinton campaign has jumped on this, she continues to reveal her true nature with these tactics and I for one am glad for that.
Too many people are like Pavlov dogs, start a smear and they gleeful salivate all over it. Here’s another truth: Too many racists are just looking for some rationale to explain why they won’t vote for Obama and so they too jump all over these non-issues, fed to them by the Clinton machine, the GOP, right wing pundits and the infamous Corporate Mass Media
What’s wrong with bitterness?
How interesting. Hillary Clinton jumps all over Obama’s remarks as being elitist, and right wing radio parrots the same. Or, was it the other way around? Oh well, birds of a feather…
As with Jeremiah Wright’s honest, from-the-heart sermon, I find Obama’s words to be refreshingly un-P.C.
What a shame that Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation magazine would simply repeat Obama campaign rhetoric rather than examining his actual record and agenda. Where are the serious journalists when we need them?
When it comes to Obama’s campaign rhetoric, voters have a right to be cynical. First, he rarely says anything specific. All he does is spell out the issues and then mouth some empty generalization like “we need government to listen” or “we need change.”
He’s very light on specifics, and for good reason. Obama is a free-trader. His longtime senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a dyed-in-the-wool free-trader who got caught red-faced, privately assuring Canadian officials that Obama’s pledge to Ohio voters to renegotiate NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric.
Obama himself was one of the biggest supporters of last year’s failed legislation to legalize corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers and forgive the penalties against employers of illegals provided by current law.
When Obama had a chance to vote for legislation that would prevent future trade deals that allow “dumping” of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (the Dorgan Amendment to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill) he voted against it.
When Obama said that small-towners are bitter about being economically disadvantaged and that’s why they embrace anti-trade and “anti-immigrant” sentiments, he is indeed signaling his contempt for their anger. Once in a while, his Reaganesque pro-business agenda leaks out on the campaign trail, and this was one of those times.
If indeed Pennsylvania’s votes go to Clinton, then we can say of her campaign: “She reaped what she snowed.” What I have seen of H.Clinton is enough to make the lying George W. Bush proud.
But perhaps Pennsylvania voters will see through the old-style politics and indeed say, “Not This Time!”
I have been stating the same fact as “countess” to my wife and other woman I know who are Hillary supporters only “because she is a woman.”
She is the female equivalent to Bush, and her staff no different than the repug team that got Bush(stolen) elected.
They will do, say, invent anything to win regardless of the facts…..sound like anyone we know? 4 more years of the same; whether it is McCain or Clinton.
So who do you suggest we vote for Bob?
Obama is right, but he certainly doesn’t go far enough. Yes, Americans don’t think their government is listening to them. But what Obama doesn’t say is, if they aren’t listening to us then exactly who are they listening to. They, including him, are listening to corporate America. Our government is more concerned with keeping corporations running that it is with the welfare of the average American. Companies are now more important to politicians than people. That’s what even Obama won’t say and 99% of the media won’t even say. Our Constitution was designed to help build a great country. But along the way the Constitution was sold by our politicians in D.C. to corporate America who now use the Constitution to try and prop up a rapidly declining empire.
Hoa binh
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, don’t care how shallow it makes me seem. I don’t care what Obama’s record is. Whatever it is, it can’t possibly be worse than McBush or Clinton. It may even been basically the same as Clinton. But you know what, I’m voting for him BECAUSE of his speeches. I want my kids to be able to hear the president and not be ashamed. Oratory that inspires DOES count. Just ask any of the countless people who were inspired by MLK.
I hear you kilgore! It’s not about women’s rights, it’s about equality!! For all- black, hispanic, native american, poor, uneducated!!!
But then again, I’m thinking about voting for McCAIN with the idea that when this country hits rock bottom, people will wake up for a change. Well, maybe not- no one’s educated anymore, only specialized in one field- how will they realize?
since1492’s comment points to the elephant in the room.
Well said and right to the heart of the problem.
They are making too much of what Obama says to be sure, but Katrina is making too little of what Obama doesn’t say about remedies, and of his ties to some of the corporate interests that get in the way of solutions. Repeating Hope and Change is not enough.
John Edwards spoke the words and had the action plan to get to One America, but who paid attention.
If Obama were serious, he should include thinkers and activists like John Edwards in his Cabinet. Of Hillary, there is no defense for her desperate behavior.
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
1. There are no honest journalists. If there were, we wouldn’t have this ridiculous garbage being foisted off as on us as news, we’d select our candidates in less than half a year, and we would call those elected into account.
2. Obama was right. I have talked to many people in recent months, and they are extremely bitter over the state of this country and how they have been treated. It saddens me when I hear them say they think McCain offers the solution to our problems when he is part of their cause.
Clinton doesn’t care about people, she’s just out doing fetch and carry tidbits to the super delegates she’s counting on to choose her as the more electable candidate no matter what the voters say, in other words what she seems to stand for currently is not democracy but an oligarchy of superdelegates.
Meanwhile, I’m getting more and more enthusiastic about Obama who is not afraid to say what he thinks, and to clarify it when it gets him in trouble, as with Wright, and what a memorable clarification that was! Smart, graceful, elegant, and ringing perfectly true. This is the president I’d like to see representing the United States in international negoitations. Maybe the world could finally come to agreements on the many international crises!
KaneJeeves, good for you! I’m with you! I love the way he makes young people feel like getting involved in politics. For 30 years, they’ve been sitting it out. And we need them. We need their numbers, we need their energy.
What do you want since1492? Do you want Obama to go all the way off a cliff? He’s already getting slammed and the media is jumping on the Hillary/McCain bandwagon. They’re not reporting that excellent speech on UTube above. They’re trivializing him. No, he doesn’t go as far as you and I want to see, but he goes further than anyone else who has even a chance at the Presidency. Let’s elect him and see how far he goes once he’s there. I mean, you can always let Hillary or McCain get elected.
kathyodat
Would the oligarchs care if you vote for McCain because you don’t like Obama or Hillary? In fact, they probably count on the masochist vote.
countess__ strange name you have for someone throwing slop around the way you are doing it. Hillary needs to fight back when there are people like you out there.
H Clinton is no where near the same kind of candidate that McWar is. After eight years of constant improvement after the Bush one mess, it appears the Clintons did pretty good. The country was running well, and the debt was being handled as we had budget surplus then. If you cannot see the difference between then and now, you are blind or nuts.
Obama gives a good speech, but talk is cheap, and most campaign promises are forgotten anyway. He will be far better than any Republican, but we have no idea how he could handle the rotten mess we have now. At least, the Clintons have a good track record of managing the country.
In 21st Century America would seem that getting caught in a lie is no big deal. It’s getting caught in a truth that’s unacceptable.
Not only are the majority of the people today angry they are bitter. It is shown in vaious ways by most people.
Our founding fathers were angry and bitter because of what had been taking place in their history. Oh! Remember that the average age of the signers of out Declaration of Independence was 33 years of age.
A person can be a fool at 20, 40, or 71. Also a person may be wise beyond their years at 20, 40, or 70.
I get so sad when I listen to Obama’s supporters: the “cult of Obama” is like all other cults, there is an ugly underside that will bite you once you’ve woken up from your dream of charisma and getting young people involved and find that he can’t deliver - because it was all delusion to begin with, folks, he isn’t who he says he is - he is how he has voted as a U.S. senator, and he is who he tells us he wants to be: another Ronald Reagan or George Bush I.
I like Hillary Clinton. I don’t see her as the evil woman she is made out to be. It doesn’t jibe with her record. Why do we need to demonize her? I did that glassbooth.org survey thing that finds which candidates are best suited to you and Mike Gravel came in first (90%), Hillary Clinton was in 2nd (81%) and Obama was only at 68% for me. Not a big surprise. He has been a disappointment on issue after issue. He’s slick & reminds me of Gov. Deval Patrick (what a surprise he’s been - a terrible governor!).
I strongly urge everybody to end their infatuation with this non-progressive nightmare candidate and embrace REAL progressivism - vote for Nader or McKinney!
(p.s. everybody: run to see “Body Of War”, the best movie of the year!!)
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.
Notice how all this flack replaced the ‘White House Torture Council” expose by ABC and AP last week?
If Bush and his aids authorize crimes against humanity, the pols yawn, but just let someone ‘tell it like it is’ and all H___ breaks loose.
The populace sleeps again aided by major press ignoring the ’smoking gun ‘ of crimes against humanity by the White House Staff, abetted the head chimp.
Perhaps an Obama presidency will move us toward being a more compassionate and progressive nation, but I’m not sure that we have either the time or luxury of taking ‘baby steps,’ while maintaining the status quo. As I’ve said before, I’d love to be wrong about Obama.
In today’s New York Times, Roger Cohen quotes an Indonesian saying “I used to support Hillary, but now I look at her eyes and see someone always wired, always calculating…” Here in Pennsylvania we won’t be surprised to hear her give a “god, guns, gays and guts” speech this week.
I.M. Salmon, Another Bitter Pennsylvanian for Barak
Woaha! America is so conditioned to P.R. spins about prettiness — that we no longer see the beauty of truth. Obama spoke truth — people are bitter — and it doesn’t take brilliance to understand that truth. We’ve been so painfully and shamelessly ripped off time and again.
To claim this statement and Obama “elitist” or “out of touch” best describes the true character of the finger pointers.
It is no surprise that Hillary would jump on the band wagon. She’s done nothing but show us time and again what kind of pathetic, self-serving President she would make. John McCain is just another Bush — bound to tangle all of us in his own marionette strings.
By the way, trace those puppet strings and you will also see the same puppet master for John McCain also has Hillary stringed up waving “Howdy” to everyone! Obama is no saint — but closer to the truthful mark than the other two.
Thank you katiecat. And BeForKids, all I want is the truth from anyone who says they want to represent me in our government, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Hoa binh
ezeflyer,
I spent a few hundred hours researching that very question. I wanted to know whether to vote my conscience for Nader, or vote for the least-worst candidate from a major party. In order to make an informed decision I needed to penetrate campaign rhetoric and discover the candidates’ true agendas.
I posted about it on March 4. You can read what I learned here:
CANDIDATES’ VOTING RECORDS COMPARED
Bob K. March 4th, 2008 2:10pm
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/04/7465/
In short, I was surprised to find that Hillary’s voting record in the Senate is quite progressive, especially considering all the hateful frames she endures both from corporate media and the Left.
By contrast, Obama’s voting record is much more centrist. (He regularly votes for profits before people.)
Yes, Hillary cast that woeful war authorization vote in 2002 but so did 76 other Senators, including John Edwards. I was marching in the street with tens of thousands of people during that time, and we all knew that Iraq had no WMD and nothing to do with 9/11. How could 77 Senators not know? Ignorance? Cynicism? Politics? All of the above? There’s no justification for her vote, but one can understand that as a Senator from New York (where the 9/11 attacks occurred) Hillary had less choice in the matter than 75 other Senators who were not from New York who also voted the wrong way.
I’ve also read that Hillary was mindful to not reduce the powers of the president — not Bush, but the office. I don’t know whether that is accurate, but the theory is that as president she could utilize the power that Bush amassed to the office to undo everything he did.
Remember too that John Edwards’s antiwar transformation came after he retired as Senator from North Carolina, and was no longer tied to that constituency.
Obama, of course was not a Senator in 2002 so had no vote. However, we know from his statements in 2004 and from his Senate voting record that he would have joined the 77 Senators in voting for the war authorization.
Moreover, when Hillary voted in 2007 to require withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, Obama chose not to cast a vote on that measure.
Even more telling, Hillary is cosponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders’s bill to end the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama opposes that bill.
Add Obama’s pledge to expand the “war on terror” with a preemptive invasion of Pakistan, and you see that Hillary is the closest thing we have to an antiwar candidate, aside from Nader of course.
I have also been surprised to learn that Hillary has been introducing CEVA (Count Every Vote Act) legislation every year since 2005. She is very out front on the issue of vote-count fraud and election reform. People for the American Way (PFAW) enthusiastically supports her bill.
See:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10099
and
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23648
All in all, my own preference is for Ralph Nader and I will support him in the coming months. It’s important for several reasons, including moving the Democratic nominee to the left. However, it’s also important that people understand that Hillary is the most progressive candidate running for the Democratic nomination. If she is on the ballot in November, I may vote for her.
It’s getting harder and harder to think I could ever vote for Hillary. I would, of course, never vote for McCain, but I’m so mad and disgusted with Hillary (she shames my gender and my party), I just don’t know if I could ever vote for her. A Barack Obama comes along once in a lifetime and we need him so much right now. If Hillary somehow gets the nomination, she will have robbed us of a better future.
I don’t know why the democratic cry right now isn’t any of these:
“We’ve seen what the reblicans can do. Do we want to let them do it to us some more?”
“THE REPUBLICANS — showing how bad government truly can be.”
“The Republicans have always thought that government was the problem. Under them it sure won’t be the solution.”
Or for Obama:
“The Clintons and Bushes have had their chance. 8 more years?”
Folks…. Let the guy get in first.Obama has to negotiate a very tricky political landmine to be president and THEN start trying to change things. Does he really mean what he says? You decide. Can he bring about change? We are not sure…But..what other choice do we have? The system has to be changed from within. Obama is the only person on the political horizon who even has a chance. He has the knowledge and intelligence, obviously. Will he be able to tell the masters that for their own long term good, the “slaves” on the plantation should be treated better? We can only hope and trust…
Hillary has run a blatantly racist and militaristic campaign, and when not doing that, she feeds the Republican fall campaign, as she has with this contrived “bitterness” debate. When all this started, I would have assuemed that come a nomination I didn’t agree with, I would as nearly always, hold my nose and vote Democrat. Over time, Hillary’s campaign has convinced me otherwise. There may be a difference between her and McCain, but not likely on policy; they are both AIPAC candidates; anything Hillary says now that sounds like promotion of the popular good needs to be understood as stuff that will be thrown out next January if she gets in; but I don’t even think she cares about getting in. If she can’t win, she’s so mad about not getting her entitled “turn” that she’s willing to give it to McCain (both she and Bill have repeatedly compared him favorably to Obama). If I voted for her I couldn’t sleep at night ever again. I would not have voted for G. Wallace when he was a “Democrat”; why would I vote for her race baiting? 40 years after Wallace, she is taking us back there, and that after her and Bill’s whole careers were built on black support (oh, yeah, so actually was G Wallace’s). I will write in if I have to, but I will not vote for her. Never.
Ironically correct Katrina–and yeah I will reluctantly vote for the dude if he is nominated, but I would rather he be “left” as in progressive because we need so much more than someone who is “right” at this point in our history.
Perhaps Kathyodat is correct (not “right”–did ya notice the choice of word there?) and Barack is a stealth progressive doing what it takes to get nominated. At this point all we can do is hope.
Hillary Clinton accusing anybody of being elitist is kind of like Pat Robertson accusing somebody of being homophobic.
FYI - apparently the people know the truth - in spite of those pols who want it covered up.
Several accounts of speeches being given by Obama and Clinton in PA & IN, all have Obama applauded for his remarks when he raises the bitterness issue. When Clinton raises it, with or without ‘elitist’ comment, is met with silence and or jeers and boos.
Frank1here sez:
Hillary Clinton accusing anybody of being elitist is kind of like Pat Robertson accusing somebody of being homophobic.
*************
Or being called ugly by a frog.
Obama is right wing? (certainly from this Canadian perspective)
Obama was ‘right’? I sppose… partly (a tip o the ol hat though to Derrida)
Obama is an elitist? Well…duh
Obama was being paternalist? “Does daddy know best?” (sic)
Obama made a political blunder? Seems so…
Obama probably made another political blunder entering a “faith debate”? I’m no god, but..??
I suppose the bigger question is does rage, anger or bitterness really matter or is it just part of the larger excess of the market machine? Supplemental: Is American politics much more than public relations and marketing??
Is American politics much more than public relations and marketing??
Not with the majority of MSM candidates, I fear.
chessgames56 April 14th, 2008 1:07 pm
“Perhaps an Obama presidency will move us toward being a more compassionate and progressive nation, but I’m not sure that we have either the time or luxury of taking ‘baby steps,’ while maintaining the status quo. As I’ve said before, I’d love to be wrong about Obama.”
chessgames,
Do you check your opponent in one move?
Strategy.
Yes, Bravo, to the woman who did her homework! Hillary Clinton’s RECORD is far more progressive than Barack Obama - so why has she been so demonized? Don’t people realize that the mainstream media demonizes her precisely BECAUSE she is the more progressive candidate?? I’m not voting for her; I’m deciding between Nader and McKinney, but I wish folks would wake up to the reality of who Barack Obama really is.
Teji April 14th, 2008 1:34 pm
“Folks…. Let the guy get in first.Obama has to negotiate a very tricky political landmine to be president and THEN start trying to change things. Does he really mean what he says? You decide. Can he bring about change? We are not sure…But..what other choice do we have?”
Well put, Teji. I’ve thought along the same lines, but you put it very well.
I used to be one of the backbench bomb throwers until I realized that politics, as ugly as it is, requires certain protocols (games). Not only within politics, but with the electorate. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich are stand up guys and I’d vote for either in a New York minute, but neither will ever be president. They don’t play the games. So, we are left with the best candidate who will play the games the right way and give us the best he/she can when they’re in office. First though, they have to get into office, and that requires a good amount of aplomb. I think Barack Obama, for all his imperfections (why can’t these candidates be more like us?), looks the best to give progressives a platform to work from.
No guarantees, just an opportunity. That’s all anyone can ever ask for.
In reading these posts, it is interesting that the posters who hate Hillary and accuse her of such unethical behavior, are themselves guilty of many foul statements against her actions. It seems that such a high minded group would be able to express themselves with better than gutter language.
On the other hand, most of the posters that have reservations about how Obama may deliver on all he is promising to do, seem to be able to state their case without using vile and insulting terms. It would be quite easy to come up with some very raunchy comments about Obama if that was the type of post one wanted.
In short, I hope Obama has better judgement than many of his supporters.
God! This is great. Real politics, where reasonable ideas and reasonable people clash with the raw wanton greed of modern America. And, yes, I’ve been cynical, angry and bitter too. Who hasn’t? Senator Obama has opened our political dialog and we’re all talking. That’s democracy in action. That’s how we clean out all that Bush garbage, too. Now let’s listen to each other with the respect and kindness due each and everyone of us.
John Thomas Ellis
“Yes, Bravo, to the woman who did her homework! Hillary Clinton’s RECORD is far more progressive than Barack Obama - so why has she been so demonized? Don’t people realize that the mainstream media demonizes her precisely BECAUSE she is the more progressive candidate?? I’m not voting for her; I’m deciding between Nader and McKinney, but I wish folks would wake up to the reality of who Barack Obama really is.”
Yeah, but we all know what pieces of crap most House and Senate bills are. They are so pork (aka attachments) laden that it’s virtually impossible to tell why anyone voted any which way. That’s why I’ve switched tactics to voting on instinct (mine) instead of mere records (theirs).
To whit: Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004.html
The country’s on fire and the Bush crew are fanning the flames. Standing in line to take control of the problem are McCain and Clinton, each holding a can of gasoline. But let’s not worry about that, let’s nitpick Obama - the only person trying to put water on the inferno - because we’re not happy with the way he’s hooking up to the hydrant.
I look forward to seeing the Republican desperatin level increase. If this is what they have now, I wonder what it will be in September when the outcome of the election is painfully obvious.
The Neocons create these “Bitter” situations and then attack Obama for bringing these truths out
in public. Obama speaks more truth in one speach than the whole bush administration has spoken in
7 1/2 years.
This is amazing.
I think someone should write it down, so that we can look back to this day - I actually got FIVE COMMENTS IN before I ran into the usual C.D. negativism and pessimism.
Bob K. is the winner!!! with this wonderfully written slam to people like me that aren’t as hopeless as some…—>
———————————
#
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 11:46 am
“What a shame that Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation magazine would simply repeat Obama campaign rhetoric rather than examining his actual record and agenda. Where are the serious journalists when we need them?
When it comes to Obama’s campaign rhetoric, voters have a right to be cynical. First, he rarely says anything specific. All he does is spell out the issues and then mouth some empty generalization like “we need government to listen” or “we need change.”
He’s very light on specifics, and for good reason. Obama is a free-trader. His longtime senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a dyed-in-the-wool free-trader who got caught red-faced, privately assuring Canadian officials that Obama’s pledge to Ohio voters to renegotiate NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric.
Obama himself was one of the biggest supporters of last year’s failed legislation to legalize corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers and forgive the penalties against employers of illegals provided by current law.
When Obama had a chance to vote for legislation that would prevent future trade deals that allow “dumping” of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (the Dorgan Amendment to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill) he voted against it.
When Obama said that small-towners are bitter about being economically disadvantaged and that’s why they embrace anti-trade and “anti-immigrant” sentiments, he is indeed signaling his contempt for their anger. Once in a while, his Reaganesque pro-business agenda leaks out on the campaign trail, and this was one of those times.”——————————
Thank you Bob K. for making me say “F This, I can’t take anymore of these people being smarter and righter than the rest of us dummies. C’ya.
as a 25 yr. reader of the Nation, i almost blew my lunch while reading katrina v’s piece.
here’s obama’s initial comment: “..they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration.”
who doen’t feel that some people get side-tracked by minor issues and don’t vote for what some of us would consider their real interest? i couldn’t help but find it a bit odd that obama would throw in religion here after his constant reminders of his christianity over the last month. but what really got me about his statement was his inclusion of anti-trade sentiments as being another illusory source for their frustration. now, really, who’s anti-trade? we all make transactions with each other daily. what most of us object to are trade agreements structured for capital at the expense of labor and the environment. and that’s what these so-called “free” trade agreements do. austan goolsbee is obama’s chief economic adviser. remember his “wink-wink” to the conservative canadian government after obama’s supposed populist talk in ohio? goolsbee is also strongly connected to the business wing of the democratic party through the DLC. red lights should be flashin’ for anyone with progressive/populst inclinations.
vanden heuvel tells us “his campaign continues to have trouble making inroads among white working class voters, and ‘old economy’ voters whose idea of change isn’t hope but rather losing a job or a pension.” JEEZUS!!! what the hell could this mean? people lose their jobs because runaway capital can find governments (mexico,china,etc.) that are willing to exploit their people and degrade their land. is she telling us that we’ll be able to live on obama’s amorphous hope instead of wages or pensions? and what’s this about the ‘old economy’? making steel, textiles and shoes has become passe? are we in the “advanced” USA all to become reich’s symbolic manipulators?
the Nation was supposed to represent the progressive community….what happened?
Kernal say:
“In reading these posts, it is interesting that the posters who hate Hillary and accuse her of such unethical behavior, are themselves guilty of many foul statements against her actions. It seems that such a high minded group would be able to express themselves with better than gutter language.”
It’s called “moral outrage”–the language is reflective of what any decent human being feels when faced with a Hillary Clinton.
mirf59 April 14th, 2008 3:19 pm
“I look forward to seeing the Republican desperatin level increase. If this is what they have now, I wonder what it will be in September when the outcome of the election is painfully obvious.”
Republicans don’t have a lock on desperation, mirf59. Just look at the comments on Common Dreams and you’ll see plenty of desperation.
Even though these are desperate times, we need to keep our heads. Things are bad now, but they can be far worse, and might be if we lose our heads.
The main things we have to understand is that most of this political stuff is a circus. It’s a big-tent circus with big-time acts, but it’s still a circus. What’s really important is that we don’t fall to cynicism. Democracy requires that the people do the work, and we have fallen down in that regard because we have become cynical and paralytic.
We need to vote for whomever rings the truest for us, but then we need to actually do something ourselves. Reality TV and Common Dreams are entertaining, but they don’t actually do anything to keep democracy greased and moving. That’s our part.
hey, i responded to this article before i read the reader’s responses. i guess i just repeated what bob k said. but maybe, it NEEDED repeating…
Obama is an excellent orator. I am desperately hoping that Edwards (I am a BIG Edwards fan) will join Obama’s campaign - either as VP - OR - as a presumed high ranking member of his administration.
Obama’s rhetorical skills matched up with Edward’s aggressive take-no-prisoner’s in fighting Corporate America style would (I think) go a long way towards enabling Obama’s message to be heard and appreciated by the economically distressed “bitter” voters.
I also believe that Edwards and help Obama overcome some of the inherent racism which is still prevalent in this country, particularly in the South (where I live).
Clinton’s experience includes:
1. She worked actively to pass NAFTA. The misrepresentation that Bob K. refers to regarding Obama supporters denying NAFTA to the Canadian gov’t is another Clinton lie. Actually, the Canadian gov’t said that was true of of the Clinton staff.
2. Clinton voted in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill promoted by the credit card industry which makes it almost impossible to get out of bankruptcy
3. On the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart between 1986 and 1992, she stood by as Wal-Mart and the Rose Law Firm, where she was a partner, fought to smash labor unions. She did nothing as Wal-Mart discriminated against women workers and shortchanged workers their time on the clock.
4. The Clinton administration, which she claims as her experience, deregulated the banking industry which has led to the current mortgage crisis.
5. She says she didn’t know her that the Iraq vote was a vote for war but it was called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq AND she voted against the Levin amendment which would have required more diplomatic efforts. No Bob K., Obama would Not have voted for war with Iraq.
6. After a trip to Iraq in 2/05 she said, “I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out.” She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing. She did not really come out against the war until she started to campaign. Expediency?
Judgment and intelligence are the most important qualities in a President and I trust Obama not Clinton.
Tell BO to give back all the Wall Street money and the Energy money and the Defense money and the Big Corp Media money, and then we’ll talk.
Until then, he’s no different than any other politician who has graduated with honors from Public Speaking 301.
Nader’s been saying the same things for 50 years - and has a “money where your mouth is” track record that dwarfs all the candidates’ records combined twice over.
Discussing who’s “words” are prettier is just another Rove trap, designed to keep the conversation away from the continued dismantling of the country formerly known as The United States of America and what to REALLY do about it.
doggone -
First Lady Clinton did not “work actively to pass NAFTA.” Recently released White House schedules show only that she attended a few NAFTA meetings. People who attended those meetings have repeatedly said she opposed NAFTA in those meetings. For example,
David Gergen, interviewed on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” 2/25/08: “I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA.”
Also false: “Obama supporters denying NAFTA to the Canadian gov’t is another Clinton lie.” It’s absolutely true that Obama’s longtime senior economic advisor Austan Goolsbee, a dyed-in-the-wool free-trader, met with Canadian officials and assured them that Obama’s pledge to renegotiate NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric. The Associated Press obtained documentary proof. See it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf
False again: “Actually, the Canadian gov’t said that was true of the Clinton staff.” After completing an investigation into that allegation, the Canadian Prime Minister held a press conference and said: “Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA.” Read the chronology here:
ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
The rest of my earlier posts stand as stated.
The Globe and Mail URL (above) should be:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
Heard something the other day, when I turned to CNN for a few minutes, where they were actually comparing Obama to Nader - and, stranger still, not in a positive way - for the “bitter” comment.
The spin doctors are trying to twist it to make it sound as if Obama said that people of a certain State are inherently bitter people (an insult directed against a whole population), rather than what he actually said - that these people are justified for feeling angry and bitter about the fact that their government doesn’t listen or seem to care about them.
RE: “They feel like they have been left behind.”
The “left behind” comment he stole from watching Jack Layton on Lou Dobbs talking about NAFTA - even compare the delivery:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_MR7tL7tWs
barely says: “What’s wrong with bitterness?”
Nothing except the pessimism. Bitter is best described as the past tense of “pissed off.”
RE: Austan Goolsbee
Bob K, there are reasons why I choose to believe Goolsbee (whom I know very little about) rather than Harper and his minions in the PMO (PM’s Office). First of all, the initial leak was about Clinton, the second leak was about Obama. Secondly, what was attributed to Goolsbee sounds like someone spindoctoring what Obama said earlier. Obama said that he was more worried about Mexico than Canada, as far as NAFTA went, because Canada has higher worker and environmental standards than does Mexico.
Finally, Harper is pretty good at keeping a lid on his minions (to keep them from saying something inappropriate - and did not seem at all upset with the NAFTA-gate leak (not his usual reaction).
Harper’s tight grip can’t silence the past
By: Joan Bryden (WPG Free Press)
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has worked hard to shield his Conservative party against the racist, sexist and homophobic outbursts that thwarted the growth of its Reform and Canadian Alliance predecessors.
Tory MPs have been essentially silenced. They’ve been warned repeatedly about the dangers of speaking to the media or otherwise pronouncing on sensitive social issues like abortion or gay marriage. And they’ve been lectured on the need for strict discipline in presenting a tolerant, mainstream face to Canadian voters.
But even Harper’s iron control over his MPs can’t erase the past, which periodically comes back to haunt the party.
The latest example is a particularly nasty 16-year-old video in which Regina MP Tom Lukiwski denigrates “homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases.”
It remains to be seen whether Lukiwski’s slur, for which he abjectly apologized Thursday, will do the Conservatives any lasting damage. But similar redneck eruptions in the past have cost the party dearly.
Five years ago, Lukiwski’s predecessor in his Regina riding, Larry Spencer, was booted from the Conservative caucus for suggesting homosexuality should be outlawed because it leads to early death from AIDS and other health problems.
During the closely fought 2004 election, the Conservatives were repeatedly forced on to the defensive over controversial remarks by their candidates.
A video of Tory MP Cheryl Gallant surfaced, in which the Ottawa-area MP was heard telling an anti-abortion rally that there’s no difference between aborting a fetus and the beheading of an American by Iraqi terrorists.
Another Ottawa-area MP, Scott Reid, was forced to resign as official languages critic at the start of the campaign after calling for cuts to services for minority language groups.
The capper came just a few days before voting day, when a video of British Columbia MP Randy White surfaced. In it, White railed against same-sex marriage and predicted that a Conservative government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the courts should they conclude that the legal prohibition against gay marriage violates the Charter of Rights.
“Well, the heck with the courts, eh?” White said in the video.
White’s tirade was widely credited with snatching election victory from Harper, giving Liberal Paul Martin a last-minute boost to keep a minority government.
– The Canadian Press
There is an undercurrent of class warfare in the term “elitist”. The lower classes are oppressed and deserve relief from the ruling classes, but if someone says this they are called ‘elitist’ and it is said that the lower classes are capable of fixing their ‘own’ problems, and saying they are not is demeaning to them. This same rhetoric can be applied to anyone who is victimized: that saying they are victims is elitist and demeaning; thus those who speak the truth about is castigated and ignored, and the exploitation is covered up.
What id Obama was not ‘elitist’? That would mean he was speaking for the the people — and that the bitterness of the people at their oppression should be taken seriously and their oppression lifted.
In this month’s Harper’s magazine Kevin Phillips has an article “Numbers Racket” which explains how the recent past presidents have cheated on the important figures to make them look good.
Starting with Cost of Living, inlfation, they have changed the methods so that it read much lower than it really is.
First, we have the marvel, CORE INFLATION, I sure you have heard about. In case you don’t know it EXCLUDES food and energy, two items we only use on holidays, I think.
If the number was correctly listed I would receive at least 70% more in my monthly Social Security. You know, the money taken out of you pay each week. Do you think that make me BITTER?
Unemployment figures is another gem. People that no long recieve unemployment payments are no longer listed because quote, they are no longer looking for a job. Does that make people BITTER?
It goes on and on……check out the article if you can.
Now, am I BITTER you bet I am. Damn BITTER. What the hell does the MSM know about being BITTER——nothing. On second thought what does the MSM know?
He said, she said…what a bore!!
I could care less what comes out of Clinton or Obama’s mouth, its all just empty rhetoric.
Can somebody tell me what Obama stands for? What in this fake progressive’s past would make anyone willing to leap to the conclusion that Obama will be an agent of change.
He is just a pretty package, window dressing for United States Government of Corporate America, all talk and no substance. Sorry that I don’t hang on his every word, but I find him a complete bore.
Damn I’m bitter for the mindless majority being spoon-fed yet again another Bill Clinton. I think Hillary would be less like Bill than Obama is going to be. But it’s all bad at this point, we all need to wake up America, we will all be getting screwed again by Obama, it’ll just sound pretty.
As always with Obama, the question is “what are you going to do about it?”
In his speeches, he sometimes does a good job (between the repititive chantings of the mantras of ‘hope’ and ‘change’) of saying what the problem is. But he always ducks the question of what is he going to do about it.
I agree with Obama that we have a political system where anyone (not just people in rural PA) are not listened to. But, what is Obama going to do about it? There’s an obvious answer here. Its our system of legalized corruption in the way that we finance out political campaigns that causes the situation where mere citizens are not listened to. Its big money that decides the elections, so naturally the politicians listen to big money.
So, what is Obama going to do about it? There’s a defeaning silence here.
Here’s why. There’s big money backing both Obama specifically and the Dem party in general. So Obama isn’t about to stand up and say that if elected President he’s going to reform our election system to make sure that big money isn’t the deciding factor in each election. Obama isn’t about to tell the Wall St robber-barons that are flooding his campaign with money that if elected he’s going to make sure that they no longer have any more influence on an election than any other citizen.
Or, lets look specifically at the economy in these areas. The Wall St robber-barons that fund Obama’s campaign have made fortunes by killing off all the good jobs in this area and sending them off to sweatshops in Mexico and China. Obama knows this is an issue, but again he at best talks obliquely around it. He again go with the “I feel your pain” stuff. But he’s not about to repeal the WTO agreements. He can talk vaguely about NAFTA mainly because he knows NAFTA has largely been replaced by the WTO agreements.
Typical Obama. Sounds nice until you look at it. But, when you look closely, you see there’s nothing there.
Ok Obama, by now we’ve figured out you can see the problems. But what are you going to do about fixing them?
Sure I’m bitter…bitter about Clinton’s millions, McCain’s beer heiress trophy wife, Obama’s boyish good looks and gift of gab.
Then there’s the bitterness I have about the billions CEO’s have accumulated and spend on crazy luxuries life Lear jets, and 400 million dollar yachts, and Bush’s insane war which will cost 3-5 trillion and, yes, I’m bitter because I can just about afford my cat food diet and now I worry that even the company (Purina) might be bought out by some hedge fund. Please don’t mourn for me, organize.
Heck, I’m bitterness incarnate. But, I decided to move on. I started a group supporting Obama for president. Bitter as I am, I think he would be the best president ever.
Like I said, I hope I don’t have to cast a purely negative vote AGAINST John McCain and looney Republican war machine.
I am not an elitist and I will vote for Obama. Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to get elected. Did anyone see “Meet the Press” yesterday (4-13)? When Tim Russert showed 3 instances when Hillary said she was under fire in Bosnia? She lies as bad as Bush. At least Obama tells the truth. YES I AM A BITTER AMERICAN. You get an honest person to run for president and look what they do to him.
Gawd what crap the Democrats are putting out about the Clintons and NAFTA.
I don’t remember Hillary making Bill send back any of the big campaign contributions that funded his 96 campaign. That campaign was well funded because Bill was looking out for corporate interests with stuff like NAFTA. I sure don’t remember Hillary complaining about having that money.
So, now we get this complete BS that even though the Clintons were raking this money in hand over foot, now we are supposed to believe that she was quietly opposed to NAFTA.
In politics, you don’t get do-overs. At the very best, Hillary was publicly silent on NAFTA. At the very best she swallowed any concerns and didn’t speak out. You have to judge on ACTIONS. And Hillary took no public ACTIONS to oppose NAFTA. I don’t give a damn what she did in private. That’s completely ineffective. She could have come out and been a public voice against NAFTA. She did not. That’s what counts.
Gawd the crap the Democrats spew out to try to explain away that thousand times they’ve screwed us all for corporate money.
Most the time you can’t tell if Obama is lying or not because he goes to great efforts to not say anything specific. Like in this case, he says nothing about what he’d do to start to solve the problem he’s identified.
Then there’s stuff like the Iraq war where Obama’s been so far all over the place that you can’t tell where the heck he is. He’s gone from opposing it (2003) to saying there’s no differences in policy between him and Bush (2004) to supporting the funding for it (2005-6) to saying he’s against the war and casting symbolic votes against it.
My sense about Obama is that he’s as bad as the rest at saying anything to get elected.
What would poor little Katrina do without her soap box to stand on?
I think the point that’s being missed here –as well as in the mass media– is that Obama has tried to talk about politics in a different way from the usual partisan, attack-mode that has prevailed ever since the Right wing backlash against the 60s began. Both Clintons are embedded in those politics; they are among the most manipulative, scheming, ambitious politicians we’ve seen in quite a while. They’re also smart and play well on TV. What has attracted people to Obama is the fact that his voice is different, he is trying to reach across these long-nurtured chasms of American politics, to move us past the manipulative emotional politics of the Right that has buried people’s ability to think about their material interests in an economy that has continued to dump on them for decades now, to build a common “people’s movement’ against these force so they can be transformed. Yes, he could have worded those comments a lot better than he did, especially knowing how the media work, no doubt. But the effort is worth our support. No one knows how far Obama can or is inclined to lead down that path, but he’s laying the path and inspiring people in the process. It’ll be up to us to continue to organize, reach out, and insist that his administration, should we be so lucky, continues on that path against all the counter-incentives that will be at work on whomever is president.
But, again, the point is the Right Wing blowhards, the intimidated, can’t-think-past-the-horse-race media, AND Hillary Clinton are all part of that partisan attack-politics mode which has been diverting us and tearing us apart for about 40 years now. It’s time to change all that pathetic excuse for so-called “democracy.”
I did not take Obama’s statement as offensive. Rather I see it (as did many other CDers) as painful truth. I would rather hear honest, well-meaning words than those wrapped in the silk folds of “political correctness”. Truth hurts, but I believe it makes us more alive and responsive when we hear truth rather than the delicate misinformation fed to us by blatant liars.
This is why you should vote for the other candidate for President, Cynthia Mckinney. She is black and a female and does not reflect Hillary, a female last time I saw her, not Obama, a black man last time I saw him.
Cynthia y la Partida Verde. GREEN PARTY!!!!
The Republicans are trying to put the idea across that they would rather run against Hillary because she would be easier to beat. Wake up!! If that was really true, they certainly would not tell us. Obviously, they are more worried about facing her than Obama. The one thing the Repugs can get right is how to manipulate people, so don`t fall for that line.
Personally, it looks to me like we are going to need someone in there that has a proven ability to get this country back on it`s feet again, as it was before the Bush gang got in. This hero worship of Obama is short-sighted as he is not tested yet and may well disappoint us.
It might be wise to remember how many people were fooled by George Bush and all he was going to do, then we got just the opposite actions. We are in such serious trouble now that it might be wise to support the candidate that could turn things around, and that is Hillary Clinton.
Right above this screen I’m writing on are the words in big block letters,
_______________ JOIN THE DISCUSSION__________
Uhhh, nooo, __ I’d rather not.
It is SOOO ironic that Hillary, McCain, Lou Dobbs, and every other privileged, status quo defending pundit on the airwaves has the nerve to call Obama and elitist. Those who depend on Americans being dumb, working hard, beer guzzling and too busy to care how they are being ripped off by the ruling class, are the worst kinds of elitist pigs. They think people are so dumb that they will fall for the same old lies and dirty tricks, the same old plays on language and twisting of the truth that is responsible for the loss of their jobs, security, homes and in many cases, their lives. They are all elitists, and if Obama is, that is not what makes him different from them. What scares them about him is that he is willing to share the power, to empower those who need it most. In my book, that is not elitist at all, it is called democracy.
Kernel say:
“The Republicans are trying to put the idea across that they would rather run against Hillary because she would be easier to beat. Wake up!! If that was really true, they certainly would not tell us. Obviously, they are more worried about facing her than Obama. The one thing the Repugs can get right is how to manipulate people, so don`t fall for that line.”
If any of what you’ve written there had been remotely true, we’re to assume conservatives are so good at hiding that truth that they say and do exactly the opposite, while communicating their real feelings among themselves via telepathy. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a significant number of the creme of the right-wing elite in the U.S. have been openly advocating Republicans crossing over and voting for Hillary Clinton for months, now. In that same time, the Clintons and their supporters have been using Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other right-wing outlets to throw their sewage at Obama. Only a few nights ago, yet another example: Geraldine Ferraro was on Fox claiming (minus ANY facts to support the charge) that the Obama campaign had been organizing a campaign of harrassing phone calls against her. The right, which controls these outlets, allow the Clintons and their supporters to do these things because they want Hillary in the fall. They’re desperate for Hillary in the fall. Only a deluded fool could watch how this campaign has played out and come to any other conclusion.
TO MS. VANDENHEUVEL: YOUR CONSIDERABLE TALENTS WOULD BE EVEN BETTER SPENT TOUGHEN UP THE BACKBONE OF A PARTICULAR MAGAZINE I’VE BEEN READINMG FOR YEARS…why even respond to right-wing drivel, of course Obama is right-on!…let’s have a few more I.F. STONE moments in its pages..you’ve got almost 190,000 readers now….it’s time to sound tougher, rougher and more strident. our COMMON DREAMS demand it!!!!and most of the READERS want it!
Clinton’s out of control ambition and her willingness to sacrifice all semblance of integrity or concern for the future of our world, in her quest for the nomination, is a sad thing to watch unfold.
When someone has to seize upon words of their opponent that are in fact a widely acknowledged truth and then parse and twist to make of them ammunition, one sees only desperation and sadly, ultimately failure. Even if she gets it, she has cast herself in the mode of a tragically flawed person.
I am truly sorry for her as she has lost sight of what really matters—the journey, focusing instead on the intended destination, which she surely will not reach with these methods anyway. Her methods are not in allignement with Light or with LIfe.
There are some here who don’t want to join the discussion because they think the Clintons care about them and dislike a black man running for office. There are some who just can’t stand the fact that Obama is ahead and captures the heart of the people, who realize that there is just no where else to go in this so-called democracy and will vote for any one, as long as its someone different. There are some who know that we have been used as a means by the corporations to get the money for the endless wars by scaring the people to death. But the fellow here who has nothing and eats cat food to survive, he has it right and that is why Obama will win!
The people will try anything to get away from more of the same and anyone who has sat in that chamber of laws with Dick Cheney who represents the worst president that has ever sat in the seat of government.
Yes, star, it is shameful the way politicians whore for power. Those who don’t play the media game, don’t get any coverage. We, the people, have been marginalized for so long now, most of us don’t even realize it. I wonder what it says about those willing to play the game?
COMarc,
Name one First Lady who has come out publicly in opposition to a President’s policy. It hasn’t happened in my lifetime.
Hillary got plenty of flack in those days for not being enough of a traditional First Lady. The last thing she needed to do was to publicly oppose the President. I think your claim that she should have done so is just unrealistic.
The fact that she attended NAFTA meetings in the White House and opposed NAFTA in those meetings is the most anyone could expect from a First Lady.
Sadly,my only sibling is a very ill and angry paranoid schizophrenic. This did not stop the State of NY from a totally inappropriate discharge plan that endangered my whole family. It resulted in the death of a family member, great financial loss to our family, and much much fear and anguish. NYS legislators more or less tell us to suck it up. However, when Sen Clinton was threatened through a letter by this very same person while he was under the supervision of the NYS Dept of Mental Hygiene and behind razor wire, the ill person was charged with terriorism and may now become a prisoner. I wrote to Senator Clinton to point out how the safety and well being of the common man seems to be unimportant compared to her safety and well being, I got no response from her or her office. It is so apparent that all men and women are definitely not created equal in our society. Some people are expected to have unlimited suffering without any relief while others get a great deal of relief. I can only assume that this point went unnoticed by Senator Clinton since I have heard nothing from her or any of her aides. She certainly is not listening to me. Her talk is cheap.Obama knows that unaddressed inequity abounds in our society and breeds bitterness.
I love starofthesea’s posts for their spiritual component, which I feel, but are rarely so present in my posts.
Bob K you’re tiresome. Hillary ADVOCATED for NAFTA. She didn’t have to do that if she really didn’t approve of it. She is on record for not really opposing NAFTA but opposing the timing as distracting from her darling insurance industry universal health care plan.
How can you want a President who can’t even wait to be elected to start telling lies - and getting caught? Who can’t run on her own platform and merits but must try to get elected by shredding her opponent? She didn’t start out that way, but when Obama was winning she decided the only way to win was to try to destroy him. Many people have turned from her for her behavior. But since you haven’t, I must assume you have her level of ethical standards - which is not what I want to see in a President.
Obama has never hit first, he is being described as a counterpuncher. And what a laugh calling him an elitist. He’s not the one whose Daddy paid for an elite college education (Wellesley). The Clintons have made over $100 million since 2000. Since Hillary has started running for President, they’ve donated to charity like never before, except most of it goes to their own foundation, which has conveniently made donations that help her campaign (like to a library just before a campaign visit). I have never seen such a pair of users.
kathyodat
There are some here who don’t want to join the discussion ~IKE~, because if they are the LEAST bit critical of Obama, they are “white-balled” as Hillary lovers and asked why they hate blacks.
I too always love to hear from starofthesea, which happens too infrequently.
kathyodat
On the Sunday after 9/11, like many I went to Church. My minister’s message that day was that if only we had been able to convert all those young Muslim men to Christians, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? Who could argue with that logic? That was my last time in that church. When the Jeremiah Wright story broke, I took a cynical view. I could not believe that Obama would choose to subject himself and his impressionable daughters to the teachings of such extreme (even if “true”) rhetoric. I just assumed that Barack “clung” to his church, because it was a good base for a man in Chicago with local political ambitions. Fast forward.
I am a democrat. Always have been, always will be. Born in the mid-west to families of merchants and farmers and retirees from Catapiller tractor. Blue collar. Union workers. I don’t have a PhD in socialogy, so I can’t say whether Katrina Vanden Huevel is right when she says Obama was right. She might be, but it doesn’t matter. What I do know is that my family “clung” to their religion and guns even before those “bitter” days - in those halcyon days when union jobs reigned and they were living the American dream. What Obama said in Indiana to “clarify” is not the point. As Obama himself says, he can give a good speech. It is what politicians say when they don’t think the camera is rolling or the microphones are on, when they are with their people, that is most revealing. Unfortunately for all Democrats - including Hillary supporters - Obama’s “unartful” words are going to be hammered this fall as part of how Democrats don’t “get” rural or middle America. It really doesn’t matter if Obama is “right.” In his legislative role, Al Gore really did help “create” the internet, but that didn’t matter either.
classicliberal___You are still taking the bait. The right wing Repos and their Foxy media know quite well that most people will not think of voting for Hillary Clinton because they recommend it. You need to think like a tricky Repug to understand their methods. Remember they turned war hero`s into liars and traitors and got away with it. They are scared of Hillary, not Obama, as they will have plenty of ammunition stored up for him if he gets nominated. What can they say
about Hillary that has not already been told a thousand times?
You can’t be a more corporate Democrat than the Clintons, since Joe Lieberman is an independent. Obama is the best major candidate we have seen in many years, but I doubt that he will get the nomination, because Americans are not that lucky. There are so many on this web who do bash Obama, because they are indeed bitter.
I am most amused by the blogger who believes that Ralph Nader wouldn’t throw his hat in the ring, if he thought there was a “real” progressive in the race. If Ralph is breathing, he is running for President. He will be there in 2012 to help John McCain’s second term and then in 1216 for Vice-President Joe’s run.
But such is your destiny if you can’t the difference between the candidates. “Don’t you just love the smell of napalm in the morning.”
Yet again the media goes into a tizzy whenever a presidential candidate oversteps the established parameters of political debate. Rather than becoming a legitimate issue, Senator Obama’s remarks become fodder for media self-indulgence. Entire books have been written on this very subject-”What’s the Matter With Kansas?” by Thomas Frank, “Who Will Tell the People?” by William Greider,”The Twilight of American Culture” by Morris Berman, to name just a few, and incidentally, for what is the raison d’etre of talk radio other than to safely channel to the ground much as a lightning rod, the frustrations, anger and fears of its listeners?
If this circus goes on much longer there will be no one left standing?? OMG, does that mean we would have to start over? Too long to be productive. My patience is threadbare. Enough is enough, started way too soon.
“When Obama said that small-towners are bitter about being economically disadvantaged and that’s why they embrace anti-trade and “anti-immigrant” sentiments, he is indeed signaling his contempt for their anger. Once in a while, his Reaganesque pro-business agenda leaks out on the campaign trail, and this was one of those times.”
Construing an attempt to understand the way people feel and the reasons why as a sign of contempt for those feelings is a sure sign of unclear thinking. If anyone has an agenda, it is you.
Obama was forthright and impressive at Messiah College, embracing choice and evolution. Hillary was evasive and grandiose. Obama’s Achilles heels–both based on erroneous perception created by the Hillarites–are elitism and lack of patriotism. The best thing for him to do, in keeping with his direct style, is to tackle them head-on. Quote Bill Clinton’s words about bitter working class voters back to Hillary and show her as the hypocrite she is. Lay out the predatory policies she supported on the board of Wal-Mart. Acknowledge that Michelle Obama and Reverend Wright have also been accused of bitterness, and that the outrages of the Bush administration have made most Americans angry. There is noting unpatriotic about anger at criminal, unconstitutional, brutal, devious, corrupt and mendacious governance.
Lots of people admire Obama and and yes they are still reloading! He did not offend me but of course ,I took the time to understand what he meant instead of jumping in line with the brain dead monkies of the press or politicos.
Most of this senseless word mongering is coming out of hateful mouths that are not remotely connected to a BRAIN.
~WOODY~ You ask, “Who could argue with the LOGIC, that if all of those Muslem men could have been converted to Christianity, 9-11 would have never happened? ____ Every single Muslem could and would argue it, ___ for starters.
RE: - John Edwards spoke the words and had the action plan to get to One America, but who paid attention.
Karita, I paid attention.
RE: - There are no honest journalists. If there were, we wouldn’t have this ridiculous garbage being foisted off as on us as news
It is not a matter of whether they are honest or dishonest - they are not journalists, they are personalities. You can have Paris Hilton up there doing what they are doing, and not wondering where the “news” is coming from or what it means.
Speaking of News, the latest of Obama and Clinton was a lead story on The National tonight (wait an hour and it will be up):
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
RE: - She worked actively to pass NAFTA. The misrepresentation that Bob K. refers to regarding Obama supporters denying NAFTA to the Canadian gov’t is another Clinton lie. Actually, the Canadian gov’t said that was true of of the Clinton staff.
Enthusiasm (or lack there of) won’t get Clinton off. The only card she might have is if NAFTA was the will of Congress and Clinton’s husband was reluctant to VETO it. True or not, she better check the make-up of congress first.
Bob K - the Grope and Flail has Sandra Buckler who says the Clinton camp didn’t say it and Ian Brodie who said they did. And Layton, who seems not to have heard Buckler’s comments:
“It has changed the dynamic of the U.S. primary for the Democratic party and it has given a club to the Republican candidate which he can use time and time again to go after whether it’s Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.”
According to CTV Sandra Buckler said that the French were offering troops in Afghanistan (while failing to tell us than none were going to Kandahar), lied about why the Opposition leaders could not attend the NATO summit where the Afghan mission was going to be discussed, talked prematurely about Harper winning his libel suit against an Opposition leader over the Cadman bribe, lied outright about what the PMO knew about prisoner transfers in Afghanistan - NOTHING about Clinton and NAFTA at all.
The CBC has it but says that Buckler referred specifically to “Clinton’s aides” and what they deny was that there was a “private briefing.” That doesn’t necessarily mean that there wasn’t a conversation with someone from the Clinton camp.
Is that comment Obama uttered all the oppositon currently has on him?
Kinda weak in my opinion, but of course the media is selling air time with it.
Kernel suggests that we shouldn’t be fooled by Obama like we were fooled by Bush during his campaign. My opinion of Bush during the 2000 campaign was that he was a dangerous bumbling huckster doing the bidding of self-serving special interests. Boy, was I fooled! I wonder if my opinion of Obama as an effective, charismatic leader will also miss the mark.
Kem, you are so right.
Kem Patrick. Yes. It was absurd to convert all the Muslims - and counterproductive. That’s WHY it was my last day in that church. You shoulda read one more sentence.
Woody, did you see “What Muslims Think” on cbc.ca/sunday yet? Seems that you were right and the Minister was wrong.
RE: - remember his “wink-wink” to the conservative canadian government
The leaks (and there were more than one highly coordinated leaks) involved both Obama and Clinton. And how can I forget it! Every other day in Question Period it comes up!
It gets stranger and stranger:
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NAFTA-gate was a serious breach of government security which damaged our international reputation and implicates the Prime Minister’s inner circle. Yet the government secretly outsourced the investigation to a private company.
Why did the government choose BMCI Investigations? What is its mandate and will all its findings be made available to the public?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as we have said many times, this is a serious matter. The Clerk of the Privy Council was asked to investigate the matter. He is using the resources that he believes are necessary to answer the question, because the issue of our relations with the United States is very important.
I understand the hon. member shares that concern that we have positive relations with the United States, that NAFTA is an important agreement, that it has yielded tremendous benefits for Canada as well as for our partners in NAFTA. We want to ensure that nothing is done that hurts that relationship because we want to keep it strong.
next intervention previous intervention
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is another example of how the government has misled Canadians about accountability and transparency.
The Prime Minister has had five weeks to investigate the NAFTA-gate leaks. The Prime Minister even told this House that Kevin Lynch would conduct the investigation. We now find out that it has been secretly outsourced.
Every time the government makes a mistake, it either covers it up or refuses to answer the questions.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he stop dragging his feet and tell this House when he will make this report available to the public?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative minister, Michael Wilson, now the government’s Ambassador to the U.S., was aware of the NAFTA leak that interfered in the American democratic process before the story broke.
Mr. Wilson is now hiding behind a so-called private conversation to deny any wrong. That is not good enough.
An internal probe by the Prime Minister’s staff will not get to the bottom of this scandal. When will the RCMP be called in to investigate the actions of Ian Brodie, Michael Wilson, and all the other actors in the NAFTA leak?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are taking this matter very seriously. It is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is right now carrying out a full and complete investigation.
I want to express to the hon. member the importance of our free trade agreement with the U.S. We have a good free trade agreement. It has been productive. It has been very good for job creation in our country and also in the U.S. and Mexico. We hope to continue to build on the good relationship that we are having with the U.S. in the near future.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, leaked sensitive diplomatic conversations to the media. Then, a classified memo was leaked from DFAIT. Now, we learn that the Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Michael Wilson, leaked the same information to a reporter. Coincidence? I think not.
We have three leaks with a desired result to interfere and influence the Democratic primary.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson are under investigation and that they have stepped aside? If not, why not?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said last week, this leak is a serious matter and that is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is currently conducting a full and detailed investigation.
I should point out to the hon. member that trade and diplomatic relations between Canada and the United States are important. These relations will remain good and valuable. NAFTA has been good for all countries involved—Canada, Mexico and the United States—and we will continue to work in harmony with the Americans.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the government is lacking transparency to such an extent, in its management of confidential and secret information leaks involving our relations with the United States. The government, which promised to be open and transparent, continues to break that promise when we put questions to it regarding this embarrassing leak.
Will Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson leave their jobs during the investigation to determine whether or not they gave away this secret information, yes or no?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council is investigating the matter. The investigation is going on right now, and I can assure the hon. member that, just as we work in a transparent fashion for Canadians, we are going to do the same in this case. This is a very serious matter, and the Prime Minister has said so. We are investigating.
The Clerk of the Privy Council is currently investigating, and we will definitely get to the bottom of this issue.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Obama is clearly the dems best choice, unless you consider his affiliation with foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brysenski. Brysenski is a cold warrior of the Dr. Strangelove variety and is programming his Manchurian Canidate Barack to carry on New World Order policies with a particular distrust and hatred for Russia. Who is the man behind the curtain and what is he up to?
Kernel say:
“classicliberal___You are still taking the bait. The right wing Repos and their Foxy media know quite well that most people will not think of voting for Hillary Clinton because they recommend it. You need to think like a tricky Repug to understand their methods. Remember they turned war hero`s into liars and traitors and got away with it. They are scared of Hillary, not Obama”
And, as I said, your “argument” is that we’re to assume Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest are a part of some huge Machiavellian conspiracy when they openly and repeatedly urge their listeners to go to the polls for Hillary Clinton. We’re supposed to assume that, while all of this is going on, they’re communicating their true feelings–what you descibe–only secretly between themselves, presumably via some form of telepathy. Some things in life are a lot simpler. Here’s what Jerry Falwell had to say about the race, not long before he died:
“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate. I hope she’s the candidate, because nothing will energize my constituency like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”
And that’s why the righties are backing her.
Something else you missed is what it says about Clinton and her campaign that she’s willing to use outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh against another Democrat. That says a great deal about her, and doesn’t say anything that would make her supporters proud (unless they, like her, subscribe to the notion of “anything to win,” with that end justifying any means).
Katrina vanden Heuvel is certainly correct that Obama is correct — regardless of whether he expressed it exactly right.
As Heuvel accurately notes, 81% of the American people are obviously frustrated that their country (or the country they thought was their’s) is on the ‘wrong track’.
Faced with this frustrating situation the American people complain that their “voices are not being heard”, and then hear from their Vice Emperor, “SO?” —which would certainly make many people ‘bitter’ —- and angry!
And while people are digesting this ‘kick in the teeth’ with no say in the deadly and frustrating Iraq imperialist oil-war and their own economic oppression at home, they may start to think, “what’s the difference between this unresponsive government here and the virtual dictatorship, only posing as a democracy, in Zimbabwe?”
If you want to talk about frustration, ‘bitter’, and even outright revolt, just wait until the average American ‘working class’ and even middle class learn that the GINI coefficient of income INEQUALITY in the US is about as high as strongman, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe — which places the US inequality in with South American ‘banana republics’, oily monarchies, and central Asian dictatorships —- as well as being above the level that ‘our own’ CIA warns, “leads to civil unrest and revolt.”
vaudree,
The news report published by The Globe and Mail newspaper in Toronto clearly says: “Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama’s campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office said Friday.”
And, “After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday. “The answer is no, they did not,” said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.”
And, “Ms. Clinton’s team reacted furiously to the Brodie story and offered the Canadian government ‘blanket immunity’ to publicly release the name of any campaign official who might have offered such back-channel assurances.”
The report goes on to explain that, while the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Ian Brodie was ALLEGED to have told CTV (a Canadian television network) there had been a contact from the Clinton campaign, he now DENIES having said that.
I may not know the Canadian media like you do, but it sure seems like CTV was engaging in tabloid journalism by trying to create a sensational story out of nothing — or perhaps out of some hot-air from Ian Brodie.
I also know that the report published in The Globe and Mail was reported by The Canadian Press, Canada’s version of the Associated Press — in other words, a legitimate news organization.
According to Wikipedia: “The Canadian Press (often abbreviated as CP) is Canada’s national news agency established in 1917 as a vehicle to permit Canadian newspapers of the day to exchange their news and information. The Toronto-based company is a private not-for-profit cooperative, owned and operated by its member newspapers. It is the Canadian version of the The Associated Press (AP).”
Since The Canadian Press has reported that the Prime Minister’s office has put this false story to rest, and even Ian Brodie has denied it, I think it’s high time we stop suggesting here on Common Dreams that there might be something where there is nothing. There was no contact by the Clinton campaign, period. End of story.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
Sorry WOODY, I always try to carefully read everyone’s comments. I didn’t realize that’s why you never attended that church again. Sometime I only attend a church service one time and never go back for a variety of reasons. I actually don