EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Is Right
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
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

173 Comments so far
Show AllClinton accusing Obama of being a member of the elites.Isn't that the stove calling the kettle black.
No one, is more a solid member of elites then the Clinton's.
Being a member of the elites, is profitable. Bill and Hillary made $20 million, a staggering 5,600% increase since the pervert left the White House. Most of the new found wealth comes from books and speeches. Bill earned $51.8 million in speeches around the globe as his payoff for Wallsteets instructions. He made $29.5 on books and Hillary $10.9 million. Bill made $15 million with Ron Burkle. Bill is a partner of Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund, which is in Dubai ports. He also made $2.9 million from Info USA run by Vinod Gupta that sells data lists to a third party that have been used by fraudulent telemarketers.
It a joke to think that either of Clintons have anything in common with the working class.
Obama was dead on correct....people are bitter and tired of getting the shaft by the admin and their own parties...and both sides are guilty of ignoring and doing damage to this country.
I am bitter...I hate corruption and the failure to address it and prosecute it.
Obama merely said it outloud....I tend to think most people "got the message".
I watched both CNN and MSNBC yesterday....CNN didn't slaughter Obama on it...they allowed the remark to be analyzed correctly...got 3000 emails about the remark...and they said they understood and agreed. MSNBC took Obama apart on it, for the most part.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know people are disgusted....so what is wrong with stating it outloud?
Rich...
Why is Hillary being demonized....because she lies so often and so obviously...if she can't tell the truth on her experiences that happened in front of a cameraman...what makes you think she will tell the truth about other things.
It comes out that she was in favor of NAFTA....after saying she was against it? She voted for invading Iraq...
I wanted to believe in Hillary..I really did....
But I can't...not anymore.
I will decide at the 11th hour who to vote for...I know who I "will not" be voting for now. I have scratched two names off the list...McCain and Hillary.
I have never felt as though Obama was an elitist...not even remotely.
I hate it when politicians and news commentators try to speak for me and the vast majority of Americans...regardless of the issue.
It is like Bush saying Americans believe we should be in Iraq because of the terrorist threat to the US...
The biggest threat we have is this kind of BS propraganda and trying to lead the people like they have ring in their nose and no brain.
"Say it, therefore it is"
I have news for them....I am not buying it.
I am po'ed, bitter, angry, disgusted, and just sick of the wimp politicians and uncaring neocons, and lying and corrupt bunch of them.
RE - how they voted.
Do you know that Environmental groups applauded the NDP for voting against the Tories "Clean Air Act" - because it did not live up to its name.
RE: - Every word Obamma utters may be turned against him. This looks very bad.
That is part of the game, TBenner, unless you think they are going beyond the pale when doing so (ie swift boating).
RE: - Vaudree, Kem didn't say "controversial", he said "caused the trouble". And it was the phrase that people "cling" to religion or guns or whatever.
BeForKids, concede that being "clingy" does trump being "bitter". Usually "controversial" and "caused the trouble" can be interchangeably, but see your point in this case.
I think Obama was trying to give a "red necks are not the enemy" theme. What remains to be seen is whether the people Obama insulted with the "clingy" phrase are more likely to vote Repug any way or were Democrats that he turned off.
What Clinton is saying about opening up NAFTA on The National last night (newscasts stay up 24 hours, near beginning) scares me more than anything. She did not mention workers or the Environment - only unfettered trade:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html
I know that Conservatives from at least Manitoba went to see Obama and Clinton when they were in Grand Forks North Dakota (we live close by) - which struck my mother as strange because Tories are more apt to support Repugs (especially these ones). Will see if I can find it. The politicians mentioned in my second quote are all Conservatives (so it would be interesting to see whether the rhetoric changes after April 5 for either Clinton or Obama):
Historic night set for Grand Forks
Manitoba Tories are leading the caravan to Grand Forks today to witness first-hand the battle to lead the American left.
Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, both vying for their party's presidential nomination, are delivering keynote speeches tonight in Grand Forks at the North Dakota Democratic Party convention. It's a coup for the struggling state party and the visit by the presidential contenders has the entire region abuzz. More than 16,000 people are expected to crowd into the Alerus Center for both speeches.
En route to witness what North Dakotans are calling a historic event is a collection of Manitoba Conservatives - everyone from Tory Leader Hugh McFadyen to right-leaning city politicians such as St. James Coun. Scott Fielding, to backroom policy wonks. ...
Before they take the podium at the Alerus Center, both Clinton and Obama are having fundraising receptions at the nearby Canad Inns hotel.
"We were working on the bid team with the state Democratic Party to bring the convention to Grand Forks," said Canad Inns president and CEO Leo Ledohowski, a well-known Manitoba Tory. "This is historic for Grand Forks and it's certainly historic for Canad Inns and me personally."
Ledohowski said the hotel is totally booked and Secret Service agents have been on scene for days prepping security.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/4154225p-4742556c.html
Manitobans flock south to see superstar (bottom article)
Several Canadian politicians -- including Treasury Board President Vic Toews and Manitoba Tory Leader Hugh McFadyen -- scored much-coveted tickets to Obama's private, $100-a-ticket fundraiser before his floor speech.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/story/4154833p-4743128c.html
Why argue with me about it ~Vaudree~. Obama spoke and he used words that hurt him, that's unarguable and was his fault. He dropped 20 points in the polls in two days. You can't blame his opponent for jumping on it either, that's politics and it's a game both Hillary and Obama are playing. The press however is making a big deal of it.
Neither are prone from attacking the other. Obama made a big deal about her for having a shot of whiskey and a beer chaser and last week he was drinking beer in a bowling alley, just being one of the good ol boys. If he gets elected, he won't be a 'good ol boy' and neither would McCain or Hillary, balls or not.
On parallell parking and brass balls, I was joking. Was joking about Monica and me too, that's my sense of humor and I find it funny when others take such so seriously. What's that term? Oh yeah,___ "let's lighten up". while we discuss Obama and Hillary, people including innocent children are being murdered in Iraq every minute.
while we discuss Obama and Hillary, people including innocent children are being murdered in Iraq every minute......
yes indeed lets look at this very important issue above... hillary and mccain voted for this horror and big harm to americas economy to booth... netither one of those should get one single vote from the NON rich..
obama said NO... this is an open and shut case of who should NOT be voted into office hillary and mccain... if so what happens.. then anyone can make ANY mistake they want to and later just SPIN and no problem at all..
ANY one that voted for that war... no excuses should be voted out immediately... THIS will send the RIGHT message to politicians... you do RIGHT or ELSE you are OUT!!
Kem, BeForKids said that one of the words he used was "clinged" which I missed. You are probably right on that one.
Obama was both condescending and caring in the way he expressed his words. I give him credit for not running away from NAFTA, though. And that is what he was talking about.
You've heard of Omar Khadr. You've heard of Abdullah Almalki - Maher Arar's time in custody wa slike a trip to Disneyland compared to Almalki's. Any hint of genuinue caring - even if Obama is more like his maternal grandmother than he cares to admit, is better than what you have now or what you will be getting with McCain.
Not all women are caring. Men and women who pretend to be caring to score points scare me even more than misguided stereotypes. I don't know whether Clinton is genuine or not, but have my doubts that haven't subsided yet.
RE: - If he gets elected, he won't be a 'good ol boy' and neither would McCain or Hillary, balls or not.
I should hope not! That is an old southern term used to describe people who scare the hell out of me. James Ford Seale was the prototypical "Good Ol' Boy" and you should have seen the editorial he had published in the local paper days before he tortured and killed those two Black teens in Mississippi. JR Ewing from "Dallas" was another prototypical "Good Ol' Boy." The only somewhat nice people that phrase ever referred to were the Dukes of Hazard.
RE: - The masterful Clinton's are engaging in 'verbal lynching' of Obama for his touching on real class topics that the ruling elites of both parties would like to exclude from a national debate.
Robinea, that is one way to put it. Seriously, Clinton is running against Obama and she wants to win - don't think that Obama isn't engaging in "verbal lynching" himself - though I do think a better term for it is in order. That "Annie Oakley" comment was meant to put the noose around Clinton's neck. Clinton is on record of being for gun control in New York (where such a policy is popular) but her story makes it sound as if she is for it. The real Annie Oakley was a feminist, but also pro war (wanted to serve herself).
RE: - His real crime here is that he even hinted that there are class differences in the USA and some people have been neglected
The others have a point. Obama did say this, but he also seems to see this group as possessing qualities he does not approve of - he portrayed them as gun toting xenophobes who go to church to escape their reality. Those who fit this profile will find Obama's portrayal of it offensive. Those who don't will hate to be lumped in with those who fit this profile.
What are Obama's and Clinton's true position on gun control. Those in Canada who wish to ban handguns (because they put the right to live over the privilege to own a handgun) concede that no ban will be effective unless they can cut the flow of handguns crossing the border from the States.
RE: - Progressives should not jump to defend Obama for his anti-American worker comments.
Nonamnesiac, in what shape or form was Obama's comments "anti-American"! In other words, what constitute being "pro-American" according to your definition of it, and how did Obama fall short.
As far as the working class is concerned, it is a matter of whether they believe either Obama or Clinton on NAFTA. McCain thinks NAFTA is a good agreement - which is not in the worker's interest.
RE: - Come on, people, you don't have to be a racist to oppose Obama, nor a sexist to oppose Clinton. I'm fed up with that kind of rhetoric out of both camps! But then again, I was for Edwards; so I guess I'm both a sexist AND a racist.
If you were, I doubt that Edwards would have wanted your support since he, out of all the candidates, stuck me as the one who would stick up for the little guy or gal most consistently. Former Edwards supporters are on this thread arguing who is better out of Clinton and Obama but secretly wishing that Edwards was still in the race.
RE: - BOB K lies like a DOG
You mean he greets you when you come home, lies on the chesterfield while you are sleeping but gets up and lies on the rug when he hears you get up, and then poops in the most awkward corner of your storage area hoping you never discover his accident. Bob K is a spindoctor who either works officially for a campaign or took it on himself to support a campaign. He puts a lot of work in gathering his information (or somebody does).
The National Post used to be more right-wing than the Globe and Mail when Conrad Black owned it, but, now that the Aspers own it, they are both about the same. The late Izzy Asper, though right-wing in thought, was a life long Liberal but his son Leonard who now runs the CanWest Global media empire did vote Conservative in the last Provincial election. Izzy's daughter Gail is behind her father's Human Rights Museum. Izzy figured that any country named after himself (Israel) could do no wrong.
Both the Globe and Mail (which prides itself on its buisness section) and the National Post are proNAFTA. These are the kind of people who, if they believed that Clinton and Obama were being honest about their positions on NAFTA, would wish to change their minds on the issue.
Want to know any more about Izzy, because I am sure you've heard of Lord Conrad Black.
jclientelle, Question Period (my favourite soap) is about to start and will watch your tape after.
It is interesting that former President William Clinton will be remembered for his lies when he was being impeached, and Hillary Clinton when she ran for president.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel and the other Obama apologists are wrong because Obama was wrong. There are two kinds of bias at work in what Obama said:
(1) big-city bias against the country and small towns that costs democrats so much.
(2) yuppie/buppie class bias toward the working class.
Everyone is in one class or another, so a little class bias is inevitable and no big thing. If Obama was right, it wouldn't be so bad. His conclusions about rural and small town America are utterly false and based on a class bias he shares with McCain, Hillary, Vanden Heuvel, and most of the Washington political class.
Rural and small town America has been losing jobs and population for at least a century & half. Before and after those loses, they continued to hunt, go to church, oppose large waves of immigration and illegal entry, and they have always opposed phony trade, aka free trade. The politics and beliefs of their big city cousins are not economically based either.
Obama makes the usual democrat/republican asumptions – it is founded in the same need to marginalize and condemn the majority (that exists beyond race and sex) that he is not a part of. It is so convenient for the real middle class to say the politics and beliefs of the working class are just the bitterness of sour grapes - sour grapes is meritless. If the politics of the majority is without merit, there is more justification for government of the few, by the few, and for the few.
The problem is not that the working class (urban or rural) is beaten down. The problem is we don't have the representation in congress that our numbers warrant. That is not going to change because the bipartisan monied interests employ a black man to say – "change we can believe in." How about an Easter bunny we can believe in? How about a better reality instead? Never mind belief, and the cotton candy of dreams.
Maybe I should thank Obama for giving me an opportunity to put him in the same category as McWar and Hillary.
If you are happy with what the two party system has delivered, keep voting for it. If you really want change vote outside the two party system. Real change won't happen until "none of the above" wins a plurality of votes – write it in.
A VERY disappointing article, I expect better of Katrina and The Nation, lately they've become part of the Kool-aid drinkers!
I guess people of Privledge, or Blue-Blooded, would consider Obama, 'middle-class'! Most blue-collar workers, or children of blue-collar workers wouldn't!
He grew up in Hawaii (expensive living) both his parents were college graduates, he went to a private expensive Occidental College, and graduated from Two Ivy league colleges! Student loans didn't cover all that!
He now lives in a 1.5 Million dollar home! He can relate to the Wroking Blue-Collar Voter HOW??? He worked on Wall Street, where some of his biggest doners, and bundlers come from!
I agree with the poster above; Have You Heard enough Yet?
Ready for something better?? Go to the Green Party web site, 85 members alreay holding elected office, and another 1000 candidates running! A convention in July, and No Corporate Money! A REAL Party Platform, written, that every candidate runs on! (No Blue-Dog surprises later)
The only difference between Repugs. and Democrats; are the Corporations that support them!!
***Country Before Party***Go Green (Party)***votesmart.org**
SkinnyCat - if the person is for the "right" of Americans to own handguns (and against the right of Americans to not die in the crossfire) - they are not going to vote for someone who supports guncontrol.
One needs a big warchest to win an election in the US. Until you ban corporate and union donations, place limits on personal and third party donations, and place a cap on how much a candidate can spend during an election, you will get someone who doesn't know what most people are going through. Our choises are between:
1) Someone who cares about those they don't really understand; and
2) Someone who doesn't care about those they don't really understand;
Clinton booting Mark Penn out was the smart move, politically, and would have probably been the smart move, politically, whether he did anything inappropriate or not.
Is what is right and what is smart for the short term always the same thing?
Think everyone will be moving over to the new thread on this topic. That is what usually happens.
tailcap, yes, well reasoned and understood.
Yes, the WSWS column is, as always, accurate and insightful on this 'dust-up' ---- which is kicking quite a lot of dust up regarding Obama and Clinton, while they compete in this second vetting for the Democratic Party right to represent the 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind the facade of 'Vichy' American government.
The ruling elite 'corporatist Empire' certainly is sensitive about the choice(s) they offer the masses in '08 --- since they made an almost fatal mistake in the vetting process of '00, in allowing a candidate who almost pulled a Hitler switcheroo on the corporatists, and went ballistic.
As the 'corporatist Empire' adjusts their control away from 'hard' proto-fascist Bush/Republican overreach, to a more acceptable 'soft' Democratic alternative 'Vichy' choice in '08, Obama seemed initially to have passed the vetting process with his vacuous, but appealing, 'hope shtick'. As Andrew Sullivan insightfully wrote, Obama looked like The "Best Face" for Imperialism" --- which is the best 'soft' face for continuing the rule of this entrenched 'global corporatist Empire'.
http://eldib.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/andrew-sullivan-on-obama-the-%E2%80%9Cbest-face%E2%80%9D-for-imperialism/
But now, the 'corporatist Empire' is getting nervous about it's first vetting process possibly being inaccurate, and wants to vet Mr. Obama again to make sure that he will fully support the central 'corporatist Empire' to the hilt, including it's Middle East branch, the American-style Imperialist Political Action Committee.
All this recent talk by Obama about economic inequality, anger, bitterness, continuing oppression of the masses and such is getting the Empire real nervous. So they will make him jump through even more hoops, grovel at the Empire's feet, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will never again suggest any real progressive and populist issues that might agitate the masses. Fortunately, for the Empire, Obama will comply completely.
However (comma, he says), this discussion which started with Obama's gaffe will not go away after Obama himself has cowed to the 'corporatist Empire'. A fire will burst from this innocuous flicker of working-class anger and animation, and it will engulf the entire phony election sham. This flame will grow to a general conflagration and strike a cord with the masses --- who will be looking and prepared for a true progressive champion to assault the 'corporatist Empire'.
Thus Obama's gaffe and retreat will serve a great purpose for the multitude who will look beyond Obama early, timid, and retracted mass democratic progressivism – and prepare the '08 election for the 'anti-empire', and real democracy movement of Nader, and all of us who yearn and struggle for the completion of the Second American Revolution.
I live in Pennsylvania. I believe the reason Obama's message was offensive to the Democratic base voters in this state is as follows: Despite the efforts of the far right to break them away (through the gun control issue, religious hot button issues, racial issues)these voters have remained with their Party. We are a very racially and ethnically diverse state where even in the small towns there are "minority" communities. I would argue that it is in our older neighborhoods that real integration is occurring. But, instead of celebrating that, Senator Obama has himself stereotyped these loyal Democratic voters by invoking all of the above far right issues, essentially calling these people close minded racists. They didn't deserve this treatment from a candidate in their own Party.
The Winnipeg Free Press ran the exact same story as the Globe and Mail -- word for word. They both carried The Canadian Press report. I'm sure every major newspaper in Canada carried this report on March 7, 2008. (Just like newspapers across the U.S. will carry the same Associated Press reports.) So, it really doesn't matter who owns the Globe and Mail, because it wasn't their report.
By the way, both the Globe and Mail and CTV (the TV network that aired the false report about Hillary) are owned by the same parent conglomerate, BCE, Inc.
So, who's the "spindoctor" now?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/canada/story/4139056p-4730309c.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
Shada (above) -- Well said.
good moral americans should STOP horsing around with dishonest people like its a good sport.. it is NOT this causes the greatest harm to we the people....
dishonest people ARE immoral people.. its as simple as that...and these should be tarred and feathered and BRANDED as dishonest and immoral with an X on forehead..
its TIME to stop the silliness of treating dishonest people as a good game and sport...THAT is what has led to terrible govts..and terrible harm to we the people !!
some here are this dishonest and immoral and should be tarred and feathered and branded..
like one regular dishonest person that runs thru the forums he says obama has dropped 20 points cause of his remarks... at times he has even said in penn.. but at times not... and the poll he is selecting to USE is a renegade poll not mainstream .. and renegade polls are mostly bought and paid for by candidates to try to influence...
the latest poll by public policy polling has obama with a 3 point lead in pa.. last week it showed hillary with a 3 point lead and the week before it showed obama with a 2 point lead.... realclearpolitics.com and rasussenreports.com and gallup.com are ALL showing NO harm at all to obama... so that person who is spreading the poll that says hillary is 20 points ahead and HE SAYS he has DROPPED 20 points.. this person who has spread that is a dishonest and immoral person and should be tarred and feathered and branded... good people needs to stop this horsing around with dishonest immoral people that causes harm..
and the other bob k.. goes around saying gergen a former clinton adminstration official has said hillary has said things against nafta.... BUT robert reich clintons labor sec says yes and then EXPLAINS she hAD NO PROBLEM with the POLICY her problem was with the TIMIMG.. she wanted HER FAME FIRST to do the health plan where she put her daughter away in a private school in order to get the fame instead of having one of the cabinet to do the job... a INSANE LUST for fame and power by hillary..
so bob k leaving out what robert reich explained about the problems that hillary had with nafta was BLATANT dishonesty.. so bob k should be tarred and feathered and branded as a Immoral dishonest person..
its time for we the people to put a stop to this immoral dishonesty that is causing we the people so much harm... put them IN THEIR PLACE!!!
The people who find the statement Obama made offensive join the rest of the American herd who only want to hear nice. The truth is difficult. Sure we will find people out there who will not accept the fact the government of the US uses its population and discards it when it has extracted all it can, whether it be the young who are sent to die, the houses it allows them to have briefly before foreclosure, or the loss of the pensions they have worked so hard to have and have become worthless. The politicians later talks about the equity for the working class hero in America.
Sure there is rhetoric the young people adore in Obama's platform, yes, there is lack of substance because the ideas are unformed and will rely heavily on the "business as usual group that surrounds him and advises him, but yes he is a politician. . .and yes he has galvanized the youth in this new playbook that may count for more change than anyone can now imagine. All say because of him there has not been an election of this kind in their life-times. If nothing else it is something although they are all rigged in a one party system with minor differences.
Change will happen because the brewing environmental catastrophe will require the world to clasp hands around survival. We are now beginning to see the advance shock-waves with the fuel for food disaster and it is just the beginning. With all the other bunch wanting power we will see more of the same stupidity and failed bitter policies and people.
For those who want Nader to carry the mantle, this is a man who could find very few in this Oligarchy to follow his voice. He may be a great guy and has done good things but is unable to capture the people. He should be given the EPA in the next administration much more suitable.
The only hope left for this country, such as it is, will be Obama hopefully surrounded by young people who are not jaded and can reach into the drawing-rooms of power.
Hey bojanglesA1,
Did you know that Robert Reich openly supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights? So, shouldn't he be tarred and feathered and run out of the country along with me, the "feminists and abortionists," and all the other people you despise?
bob k YOU with held the information from reich EXPLAINING hillarys problems with nafta.. it was NOT about policy as he says... yOU with holding that info and just giving gergen's words saying she had reservations and NOt giving out the two ladies that abc news interviewed who was at the meeting with hillary on nafta saying she SAID it was good for the economy... and she was WORKING to get it passed...you doing that BOB K proves you are a dishonest and immoral person and should be tarred and feathered and branded..
bob k your kind is what has harmed america
bob k.. it is DISHONESTY that causes the greatest harm and is the greatest SIN... you are THAT!!! immoral seex sins does not cause the harm like dishonesty does !!
I fear ~Riverman~ has changed his name. Or ~BojanglesA1~ is a cloned copy.
I noticed that too.
"SEEX" and on another thread "read it and weap" __LOL___ It's him, stupid humor is back, live and in black and white print.