Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Canadian Scientists 'Mourn Death of Evidence' under Harper Government
- The New Company Store: The Final Step in the Corporate Takeover of America
- Leaked Docs Reveal 'Off the Charts' Damage at US Nuke Plant
- LAPD Freak Out At Protesters Who Are Armed (With Chalk) and Dangerous
- Banksters Take Us to the Brink
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
Due to trouble with browser compatibility, Common Dreams has reverted to the older version of Disqus for comments while they fix these problems.


173 Comments so far
Show AllClinton 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.