Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Party Like It's 1932: The Obama Option
Seventy-six years ago, to many ears on the left, Franklin D. Roosevelt sounded way too much like a centrist. True, he was eloquent, and he'd generated enthusiasm in a Democratic base eager to evict Republicans from the White House. But his campaign was moderate -- with policy proposals that didn't indicate he would try to take the country in bold new directions if he won the presidency.
Yet FDR's triumph in 1932 opened the door for progressives. After several years of hitting the Hoover administration's immovable walls, the organizing capacities of labor and other downtrodden constituencies could have major impacts on policy decisions in Washington.
Today, segments of the corporate media have teamed up with the Clinton campaign to attack Barack Obama. Many of the rhetorical weapons used against him in recent weeks -- from invocations of religious faith and guns to flag-pin lapels -- may as well have been ripped from a Karl Rove playbook. The key subtexts have included racial stereotyping and hostility to a populist upsurge.
Do we have a major stake in this fight? Does it really matter whether Hillary Clinton or Obama wins the Democratic nomination? Is it very important to prevent John McCain from moving into the White House?
The answers that make sense to me are yes, yes and yes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In 1932, there were scant signs that Franklin Delano Roosevelt might become a progressive president. By the summer of that election year, when he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for president, his "only left-wing statements had been exceedingly vague," according to FDR biographer Frank Freidel.
Just weeks before the 1932 general election, Roosevelt laid out a plan for mandated state unemployment insurance nationwide along with social welfare. Even then, he insisted on remaining what we now call a fiscal conservative. "Obviously he had not faced up to the magnitude of expenditure that his program would involve," Freidel recounts. "Obviously too, he had not in the slightest accepted the views of those who felt that the way out of the Depression was large-scale public spending and deficit financing."
Six days later, on October 19, FDR delivered a speech in Pittsburgh that blasted the federal budget for its "reckless and extravagant" spending. He pledged "to reduce the cost of current federal government operations by 25 percent." And he proclaimed: "I regard reduction in federal spending as one of the most important issues of this campaign." If he'd stuck to such positions, the New Deal would never have happened.
As the fall campaign came to a close, the Nation magazine lamented that "neither of the two great parties, in the midst of the worst depression in our history, has had the intelligence or courage to propose a single fundamental measure that might conceivably put us on the road to recovery." Looking back on the 1932 campaign, Freidel was to comment: "Indeed, in many respects, for all the clash and clamor, Roosevelt and President Hoover had not differed greatly from each other."
The Socialist Party's Norman Thomas, running for president again that year, had a strong basis for his critique of both major-party candidates in 1932. But in later elections, when Thomas ran yet again, many former supporters found enough to admire in FDR's presidency to switch over and support the incumbent for re-election.
"The Roosevelt reforms went far beyond previous legislation," historian Howard Zinn has written. Those reforms were not only a response to a crisis in the system. They also met a need "to head off the alarming growth of spontaneous rebellion in the early years of the Roosevelt administration -- organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities."
Major progressive successes under the New Deal happened in sync with stellar achievements in grassroots organizing. So, in Zinn's words, "Where organized labor was strong, Roosevelt moved to make some concessions to working people." The New Deal was not all it could have been, no doubt, but to a large extent it was a stupendous result of historic synergies -- made possible by massive pressure from the grassroots and a president often willing to respond in the affirmative.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Support of a candidate does not -- or at least should not -- mean silence about disagreement. There shouldn't be any abatement of advocacy for progressive positions, whether opposition to nuclear power plants, insistence on complete withdrawal of the U.S. military and mercenaries from Iraq, or activism for a universal single-payer healthcare system.
For good reasons, Obama doesn't say "I am the one we've been waiting for." He says in speech after speech: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." Whether that ends up being largely rhetoric or profoundly real depends not on him nearly so much as on us.
A crucial task between now and November is to get Obama elected as president while shifting the congressional mix toward a progressive majority. Next year will bring the imperative of organizing to exert powerful pressure from the base for progressive change.
At a recent caucus in California's 6th congressional district, I was elected as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. It's clear to me that Obama is now the best choice among those with a chance to become the next president.
Barack Obama has the potential to become as great a president as Franklin Roosevelt -- while social and political movements in the United States have the potential to become as great as those that made the New Deal possible. I seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton has such potential. And John McCain offers only more of the kind of horrific presidency that the world has endured for the last 87 months.
"War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," the documentary film based on Norman Solomon's book of the same name, has been released on home video. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org
139 Comments so far
Show AllAfter lots of frustration, anger and disgust with Democrats I have nevertheless re-registered Democrat and decided to do what I had always done before -- vote Democratic in the elections. Realizing that third parties can't really get anywhere (look at the facts and read Todd Gitlin's books The Sixties and The Bulldozer and The Big Tent) it is time to build a real party like the Republicans have done and stick to it even though it is not perfect. That means being a year-round party, not an ad hoc cheerleader at election time. Winning is everything, as the Republicans know and it's time for all the interest groups to grow up and cooperate or lose again.
Obama would be a janitor-cleaning up another Republican mess. Elephants leave more of a mess than a donkey.
Norman Solomon is a true progressive. This article is a tactical endorsement of the corporate, conservative, intelligent, articulate Obama. Compared to McCain and HRC, I like Obama as a bit less awful in terms of policies and past votes as the other two. But . . . I don't think we are faced with an either/or situation at this point. We progressives can plan to vote for Obama; and we can support Nader and the Green Party to be included in the debates; and we can form or join progressive caucuses in the Democratic Party; and we can support the Green Party, the only national progressive party in the US.
Either/or thinking is not going to help us, given the complexity we face to bring forth progressive solutions to foreign policy, domestic policy and electoral/constitutional policy. Either/or thinking will only divide us. But . . . both/and thinking gives us a chance to unite and focus on what we can do. I think that is Solomon's underlying assumption.
Franklin Roosevelt made the statement to a citizen (don't remember who it was) who asked him about reforms that the questioner felt the Government needed to make under the Roosevelt administration and how it could be accomplished. FDR's response was the following: "YOU HAVE TO MAKE ME DO IT."
This is in line with Norman Solomon's article and the historians he quotes to the effect that grassroots pressure on the President elect is what effected real change and what is known to history as the NEW DEAL. Barack Obama is the best candidate because he is the most amenable to such pressure from the electorate. Clinton would be less amenable to such populist demands, and McCain would be impervious to them.
The comparison of this election with 1932 is apt in regards for the need of serious change in direction after a Republican administration governing with a combination of cronyism and laissez faire has led to our current state. What is different is the generational and cultural struggle going on in the Democratic Party: young, educated, & urban led by Obama, versus older, blue collar, & white led Clinton. If one wants to go with the favorable demographics, then Obama (who also has charisma to burn) is the clear choice if the Democrats truly wish to clean up the mess the Bush crime family has left. Another thing to consider is that Obama is more likely to aid Democrats in Senate and House races as well. Clinton is unlikely to inspire the electorate enough to get veto proof majorities in Congress.
The majority of Obama's record-setting campaign funds aren't coming from college kids' pizza money. Was FDR's campaign oiled by vast sums of corporate dollars?
"For good reasons, Obama doesn't say "I am the one we've been waiting for." He says in speech after speech: "We are the ones we've been waiting for." Whether that ends up being largely rhetoric or profoundly real depends not on him nearly so much as on us.
A crucial task between now and November is to get Obama elected as president while shifting the congressional mix toward a progressive majority. Next year will bring the imperative of organizing to exert powerful pressure from the base for progressive change."
A well reasoned and written piece, IMO. Far better than saying "Vote all Democrat all the time and all your worries will disappear."
WE are indeed the ones we have been waiting for - nobody is going to be our savior. That we have gotten where we are is in no small part due to OUR (writ large) laziness in the democratic process.
I know that merely voting for Obama is not going to change things in any appreciable way - after all, the opposition will still be there working to undo things. I need to keep working to push this ship back to a sane and humane course. That means no let up on Obama or on the Democrats. They WILL hear from me at every step - but I know I have to do more than just yelp at them, I have to also let them know when I think they're on the right track. One way that I do this is through letters to the editor as well as direct letters and calls to my "reps." One tactic that gets their attention (especially with local reps) is to CC my local peace listserv when I write to my reps. Gets their attention knowing that 200 others are seeing their responses and records.
Oh, the dream of liberals that The Democratic Party can return to the days of Delanor! Dream on Norman. Dream on Michael. Dream on and on and on...
"Either/or thinking is not going to help us, given the complexity we face to bring forth progressive solutions to foreign policy, domestic policy and electoral/constitutional policy. Either/or thinking will only divide us. But . . . both/and thinking gives us a chance to unite and focus on what we can do. I think that is Solomon's underlying assumption."
Agreed, Earthian. Far better approach than throwing ourselves on our "progressive" horses and madly riding off in all directions.
The Right has beaten the snot out of the us through the smart use of tactics. Time for us to do likewise.
I mostly agree with earthian, except...
I've done my homework and reached certain conclusions: I've read their books, listened to them, read their position papers, visited their websites, assessed their strengths and weaknesses - and come to the opposite conclusion of most on common dreams. I support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, but cannot vote for either of them.
I basically agree with Hillary Clinton on 80% of her positions; Barack Obama about 65%. I also believe she IS more experienced, and will be more able to get things done. I think his "conciliatory/civil" language will backfire on all of us (read: tilt rightward).
Real progressives have a lot of work to do:
-Boycott all major mainstream media & make noise for others to do the same;
-Support & build non mainstream-media alternatives, and participate as much as possible
-Support progressive culture! This is vital! We have to support our artists, culture is a way to reach persuadables!
-Support & build a progressive party & support progressive candidates regardless of party affiliations
-Agitate for the inclusion of other parties to be included in presidential debates (anyone who is on enough ballots to get 270 electoral college votes)
My hope is for a brokered convention and a more progressive candidate to emerge. If not, my hope is for Hillary Clinton. I cannot vote for Barack Obama. Enough of us won't and it might just cost him in the fall. I hope so. I wish HE would drop out of the race!
Rich Griffin, you already stated you wouldn't vote for either so really, who cares? The only thing you can help do is elect McCain, that will be great...Just what we need, four more years of stupidity...
My question is whether progressives can exert maximum pressure on Obama now, not after he assumes Office. His position on Iraq seems to be to the Right of the Baker Commission: only "combat" troops will withdraw, over an elastic period of time. Obama wants MORE troops and to attend to an expanded theater in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He evades talking about Palestinian rights. On domestic policy, he offers no proposals to expand the tax base, and artfully leaves open the need for the possibility of "entitlement reform." The country is not in a Great Depression; the Republicans may lose big in the fall, but will hardly be destroyed. So how exactly is pledging support for Obama NOW going to cause him to adopt progressive positions once he takes Office? With our votes in his pocket already, there's no reason for him not to tack to the Right, and it's easy to predict this is exactly what he'll do as Hillary fades and he begins to take on McCain.
The author says, "I seriously doubt if Hillary Clinton has such potential." Well, of course not, because even if she were to be elected, no one, not even the Democratic Congress is going to want to "follow" her anywhere. They didn't, for instance, in her 1993 health care goof-up. And they wouldn't this time either.
YET, if she's nominated, she's ours to support---because of veto, Supreme Court, agencies, law enforcement and wars.
The stakes are too high to say we like McCain's "personality" better, even though we might.
All this is why it is now so critically important that we somehow let Obama happen, or make Obama happen. We really do need the "hope" part to energize us to the progress part of "progressive."
To Rich Griffin:
If you WON'T vote for Barack Obama as you so fervently stated, then who will you vote for? McCain or Nader.
Interestingly you said that you agree with Obama on about 65% of the policy positions (not that good but more than 50%).
You said you cannot vote for either of them, but your hope is for Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is more DLC (corporate Democrat) than Obama and if anybody shifts to the right I daresay that it will be her. Remember if she can't get a lot of coattail democratic congressman and senators to come in with her on Jan. 09, her hands might be truly tied.
Are you suggesting that you can't vote for Obama simply because he happens to be male??? Because there doesn't seem to be that much difference in the policy positions. Is there a difference between them other than gender that I'm just missing?
One very clear distinction between FDR and todays politicians is the willingness to respond to the greater needs and desires of the people. Quite simply, they do not listen nor care. HRC has proven that the WTO takes priority over our economic needs. Any fair assessment of NAFTA reports a failed agreement that has cost us dearly. Not only us but Mexico has been hurt by it. It is corporatocracy, and she cannot hide from her support of it. McCain is far,far worse, his answer to any problem is B&B, bombs & bullets! We need another FDR or we will watch our country continue to sink into the third world country status.
RidhGriffin___ I agree with you on Hillary Clinton being the best one to clean up the Bush catastrophy as she does have much more experience and knowledge about what needs to be done and how to do it. It did not take Bush long with the experience of Cheney to get things moving their way and throw out most of the policies that were in force then.
Obama would likely be about as successful as Carter, who took several years to get going and never did accomplish much. The Repubs are more scared of Hillary than Obama, they will have a great swiftboating operation prepared for him. There is nothing more they could say about HRC, as it is all old news and will not have the shock and awe value.
Obama has plenty of corporate support also. That $96 average contribution is misleading as it is average, not median. A few million dollar donations balance off a great number of small $10 ones.
Obama is arguably smarter than Clinton, and he can just as easily tap the "knowledge" of what needs to be done from the old Clintonites as she can. We do not need "her" just to get "them." That she's more qualified and can be more effective is a myth. Every serious policy liberal in the country is salivating over a chance to serve in a real "movement." Hillary is a throwback to Bill, at best.
Barack is an opportunity.
Well. don't come crying to me when in a couple years it turns out Obama Christ wasn't the savior, at all. And is in fact, as much a neo-liberal flack (despite his campaign posturing), as Clinton or whomever.
And Solomon should be truly ashamed as he is well old enough to know better than to let these newbies get so fanatical abt a reflective surface - that's what Obama is; what do you need to hear to believe in him. he'll say it.
Just remember; if you come crying to me after you realize Obama is another politician, and not a messianic figure, I won't bother with an I-told-you-so, I will just slap you.
I'm not going to pussyfoot or beat around the bush. If some wish to be angry with me for voicing my opinions, or saying what I can see with my eyes, that's their problem.
Obama is a very intelligent man and the best by far orator I have ever seen or heard. He's also the best con artist I've ever seen or heard.
And finally, if ~Daniel David~ types are banging the drum for Obama, it ought to give another strong clue, that McCain does not want to run against Hillary Clinton.
It is really frustrating to be a citizen of Norway, knowing that your presidential election has a bigger impact on my everyday life than any election in my own country.
It seems like you all have forgotten the obvious alternative to Clinton/Obama. A Kandidate who have a lot of experience, have proven his integrity, knows your Constitution by heart and dont't run his campaign on corporate fuel - RON PAUL!
For the sake of the world - clean up your own mess and let us alone!
There are some 2-Ton gorillas in the room that no one seems to want to acknowledge, let alone discuss.
Before I go farther, I had been a Clinton supporter/apologist for more than 30 yrs. However, the desperate tactics of her campaign and many of her supporters have turned me off completely. While there is no doubt that she would be light years better than McCain, she is the one that turned this campaign, which started out well as all of the Democratic candidates were campaigning for themselves and against Bush/Republican, into the old "General Sherman" politics (scorched earth).
Now to the gorillas in the midst. Anyone who thinks that if Senator Clinton gets nomination, the general election will be about our present and future needs is in a state of denial. Does anyone really believe that McCain, the Republican Party and their compatriots (507s, etc.) will not go back to the past (1990s) and bring up all of the same trash that they did then. It will be more about the past than it will be about the present, and more importantly, the future. There is just too much of a treasure trove of material with which to work. And if fits their playbook.
Just another quick question. Why/How can Senator Clinton now be cozying up to the Leader of the same "vast right wing conspiracy" that did everything in their power to destroy the Clintons? A man, and newspaper, that now support and endorse her campaign. I thing that the Republicans would much prefer to run against Senator Clinton, for the above stated reasons.
No Mr. Kem Patrick
I'd reserved that best con artist title for the current leader:
"uniter not a divider"
"kinder, gentler foreign policy"
"no nation building"
"no child left behind"
blah, blah blah
Come on. How much of a con artist will Barack Obama be allowed to be. Please!!! Every move he makes will be of so carefully scrutinized. It's not like he's been able to get away with anything so far. Really what's the fear here?
Why everybody knows that if Barack Obama became president we wouldn't have to ever worry about impeachment being off the table.
I didn't say there aren't gobs of con artists in higher office. I said Obama was the ___ best___ I'VE ever seen.
And if any believe Obama will be his OWN man if elected, they're delusional. He's already bought and sewed up. Who's ACTUALLY supporting him finacially? ___ Do you buy that "grass roots" bull, even though that story has some credence? Who's the largest corporation in the world that plans to have a hundred more atomic plants operating? Do any believe Obama will have our troops out of Iraq in even four years?
RichGriffin:
"Real progressives have a lot of work to do:
-Boycott all major mainstream media & make noise for others to do the same;
-Support & build non mainstream-media alternatives, and participate as much as possible
-Support progressive culture! This is vital! We have to support our artists, culture is a way to reach persuadables!
-Support & build a progressive party & support progressive candidates regardless of party affiliations
-Agitate for the inclusion of other parties to be included in presidential debates (anyone who is on enough ballots to get 270 electoral college votes)"
I agree with all these, Rich, and try my damnedest to support them.
It seems like the CD community, having been stripped of other progressive standard-bearers are down to two, neither of who are that progressive. Never one to look down my nose at others who vote their conscience, I can't help but think that we (progressives) are allowing ourselves to be herded into disparate idealogical pens where we can't do much but bleat our protests while the machine grinds us down.
I fully realize that the two remaining Dems are corporate players - they wouldn't have gotten this far had they not been (whither thou, Dennis Kucinich?). However, I think your point is very well made, Rich. Whether we vote for Obama, Clinton, Nader, McKinney, or Pat Paulsen, we have to keep walking our progressive values. After all, having not seen any one of them resurrect themselves and walk on water, my bet is on the People to move us in the direction we want to go.
We are the ones we've been wating for!
OBAMA
You have to make me do it!
F D R
Remember these things.
"Norman makes a good point with the idea that it's not about Obama himself; it's more about what can potentially arise from the interaction between Obama & "social and political movements in the U.S." — ie, for anything good to come from an Obama presidency, there must be input from the rest of us."
Well said and I think it bears repeating.
I don't see Hillary as anything at all like Bush or McCain. I see a vast difference, based primarily upon her combied votes as a Senator.
With Obama? He's been very skillfully hiding the fact that he's a neo-con supporter, a strong supporter of Joe Liberman before and after he was elected to the Senate for just ONE appropriate example. Obama has gotten away with it with his truly magnificent speeches, that really are just a lot of nice words. That's what con artists are good at and he's the best con I've ever seen and we are all prone to being conned and we all should be aware of that.
Any here ever been stroked and conned? I have. Over years of time one become wary. The words ___ "years of time" ___ is rather objective and pertenant.
A year ago I might have believed that Hillary was the one to undo the mess the Republicans created, but watching the two of them run their campaigns, I think Obama is lightyears ahead of her in organizational skills, flexibility, and in his ability to react quickly to attacks, not just give them. He responds to these attacks by becoming more transparent about his thinking processes instead of having a siege mentality and cranking up the drawbridge of obfuscation and denial, as Hillary has spent years doing. I think this will do him well in actually bringing diverse groups together as he becomes more vulnerable by opening his process up to scrutiny which may encourage others to do the same. A leader leads by example, from the top down. It is not so much that our next leader needs to already know the ropes as it is for them to have the quality of mind to adapt quickly and lead us effectively. Obama has already proven his nuts and bolts deftness in the running of his campaign.
All those party provocateurs pushing candidates and cramping Norman's style make me sick. The rest of us are trying listen and participate. Thanks Norman for reminding us that there's an opportunity to turn this nation around and for showing us a progressive direction that makes sense and has a historical basis we can all draw from.
John Thomas Ellis
Obama isn't responsible for running his campaign. the same smart people who are actually calling the shots for Obama will be the ones telling him what to do when he's in office, if he is elected. An that is a maybe.
McCain's back room gang are licking their chops and honing the blades waiting and praying to run against Obama. It's a myth that they fear him over Hillary. That's another con-job so many have bought.
I'm not sure that We-The-People can afford either party. What the Cheney/Bush Cabal and their ChristoCorporate Catastrophy have spent so far to murder a million Muslim martyrs could have been spent to hire the throats cut of every man, woman and child in North America. Half a trillion dollars and more has left a very long bloody trail.
I don't like any of the front runners. They're all liars and all have voted horribly wrong on issues that piss me and others here off.
But if we honestly check out their votes carefully we can easily see which one is actually FAR more progressive. Which liar do we vote for is the question?
My questions for Obama supporters: how will his becoming President help us with "progress"? (progressivism). How can you justify support for someone who has so clearly stated that he favors the foreign policy ideas of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I? (failed imperialist policies; not progressive). He has the rhetoric, but so does Clinton, it's just that people aren't listening to her. What are his policy positions that you can't wait to see happen in his first year as President? Or is it just that he isn't McCain after all?
And for those who say it's the man/woman thing: I'd much prefer Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Russell Feingold OR Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Cynthia McKinney for President.
We are debating over these candidates with hopes that our side will win . The media wants this debate to continue as long as possible with hopes that something sensational will occur and is presently skewing the count to get the results they want us to believe . We all know tobacco is detrimental to human health . The people we have elected know this also . Yet the people we have elected allow the tobacco producers to continue to market their products . What does that say about the concern the people we elected have for our health ? Tobacco LOBBYIST are better at getting their attention than we are . We have developed in to a debt ridden society because the people we elected are under the influence of LOBBYIST from financial corporations . Fuel prices are chocking us because the energy LOBBYIST are controlling the people we elected . In other words , the people we have elected have almost no concern for our lives in any way and pay no attention to us until election time . The LOBBYIST are where their love really is .
Some of our candidates are VERY deeply involved with LOBBYIST who have a lists of items that will do us even more harm (jobs) and with that much influence our lives will not be worth anything at all . For our lives sakes we must look at our candidates for what they REALLY are .
We may get our candidate elected by destroying the opponent but is our candidate the person we are going to be satisfied with when the smoke clears ?
I for one am not overly worried about McCain winning. His handlers may be licking their chops, but so far the nastiness has been primarily between the two Dems. I can't imagine the voting public approving of someone who gets into fights in Congress (1992), can't distinguish Iran from Iraq, did an infantile parody of "Barbara Ann" ("Bomb, bomb Iran")(a few years ago) and called his wife a "cunt", to her face, in front of at least one reporter (recently). Once the Dems have decided on their candidate, stop fighting among themselves, and focus on trashing McCain, all this and a lot more will be out there for the public to see. It's gonna be ugly.
And I'm an Obama supporter, but will vote for either him or Hillary depending on who is nominated. Either would be capable, and either would be far, far preferable to McBush.
Annebrit: The United Nations gave Norway the highest livability index rating in the world. I wanted to emigrate there but the consulate people told me that Norway stopped immigration in the 1970's. A smart move but what a shame. Anyway, don't expect the United States to clean up its own mess and leave you alone. This is a nation that doesn't want to leave anyone alone. This is a nation full of puffed-up phony tough guys who want to crap on everyone's head, then swagger into the nearest bar that has a neon martini glass in the broken window out front, get shitfaced and take on everyone in the place. This is what the United States has come to. It won't be over until we have destroyed ourselves and we've had a great 8 year start on that.
What about congress? How is that going? Have you managed to unseat an incumbent? Is Obama trying to change the make-up of congress? Are you? What's the point if the same bums keep power? Progressive anti war candidates for congress is what is needed at this time. Got any? Do you know of any? Is anything happening out there? Get involved if it isn't too late.
Rich Griffin: You forgot Mike Gravel. So did everybody else.
I was on a volunteer work corps in one of our larger National Parks last weekend. At camp the Ranger who was leading our group remarked upon the ridiculousness of the $600 we were all receiving which is supposed to fix the economic mess the country is in.
"I'm not going to return it, but I am going to donate it to the campaign of whoever the Democratic nominee is."
I thought that was a great idea and that we should all do the same.
From what I can tell, this article is complete nonsense.
By comparision to Obama, FDR and the Democrats were very forthright about what they would do if elected. Awhile back, I was reading FDR's 1932 speech to the Democratic convention. This speech is historical and easy to find these days because its the speech where he laid out the New Deal for the country.
http://www.feri.org/archives/speeches/jul0232.cfm
Early in the speech, he says this very un-Obama-like sentences ...
" I have many things on which I want to make my position clear at the earliest possible moment in this campaign. That admirable document, the platform which you have adopted, is clear. I accept it 100 percent.
And you can accept my pledge that I will leave no doubt or ambiguity on where I stand on any question of moment in this campaign. "
That's exactly the opposite of Obama. Obama only just chants the words hope and change and never ever ever says what he'll do as President.
He then goes on to list item after item of what the New Deal is and what he'll implement if he's elected President.
Or, how about this section a few lines down. This sure doesn't sound like FDR is being a 'centrist' Republican-lite candidate
"Yes, the people of this country want a genuine choice this year, not a choice between two names for the same reactionary doctrine. Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens."
I won't copy more of this speech in here, but go read it via the link above. This is massively different from Obama. Despite what Mr. Soloman is saying, FDR did not run as a 'stealth' candidate. Instead what I see when I read speeches like this is a candidate who is being very straight-forward and candid about what he'll do as President.
You know FDR was different by the results. Look at the famous 'hundred days' after he was inaugurated. The reason he could do that is because he was very clear with the country before the election on what he planned to do. Thus, he had a clear mandate to do it.
One thing really bugs me about Obama and his supporters. He seems to constantly be trying to tie his image to the images of other famous Democrats and progressives. So, you see BS articles trying to make Obama seem like JFK or RFK. For a few weeks, its was MLK Jr (and his speech rythyms are designed to make that connection as well). Now its FDR.
How about this? Instead of Obama trying to link his name to every other famous liberal, why not have Obama actually do something or propose something that would make people in the future compare themselves to Obama. Ain't seen it yet. All I see is this same BS where Obama tries desperately to link his image to others to try to get the favorable light of which we think of FDR and the New Deal somehow attached to Obama's name.
Why not have Obama propose his own sweeping set of new policies, a New 'New Deal' for Americans that he can run on?
BTW, I think I know the answer. The Wall St types who've pumped millions into financing Obama's campaign don't want the rest of us to get a New 'New Deal'. Which is why Obama is reduced to having his supporters churn out this sort of stuff that tries to make Obama look like FDR even though the vision and courage of an FDR seems completely missing in Obama.
Who really has the time or the energy to listen to those here who want to support a liar and dissembler? Bosnia, is a just a small sample of the lying of this women who would be president, who supports the lobbyists, and puts forward views with her shaking head trying to make truth out of falsehoods. But democracy allows for different opinions, however out of touch and old fashioned they may be. I am confident she will lose!
The most important point is that this well-educated man, Obama, regardless of his faults to which he openly confesses has activated the American electorate not seen for at least 50 years. If the young people are drawn to him that is sufficient for me since it is their world which we here have helped destroy with our ignorance, selfishness and stupidity! They have the right to elect the person that can attempt to reverse this disaster that those writing for Hillary, will not live long enough to see.
Norman Solomon is spot on and closer to the reality than the seniors with their biased, conservative and rather pretentious views, projected here.
"Next year will bring the imperative of organizing to exert powerful pressure from the base for progressive change."
I keep seeing this same garbage from the Democrats. Let me explain this con to you.
As an American citizen, you get one measly little chance to influence the political system. That's when you vote. These days, the rest of the time you are completely shut out of the system.
To illustrate that lesson, instead of looking to the mythical Obama presidency that his supporters are pushing, lets look at the recent past. Tell me exactly how much success you've had since the 2006 elections pressuring the Democratic majority in Congress to adopt any of these issues?
Have you been able to pressure the Democratic majority in Congress to end the war? Nope
Have you been able to pressure the Democratic majority in Congress to start impeachment investigations? Nope
Have you been able to pressure the Democratic majority in Congress to implement single-payer health care? Nope.
Have you been able to even talk to the leaders in Congress about any of these issues? Nope
In fact, when a mother of a serving soldier tried to talk to Rep Obey, in the halls of Congress because she couldn't get into his office to see him, he took off on a rant about 'idiot liberals'.
In fact, when people tried to 'pressure' Rep. Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings, she went off on a rant on how she wished she could have those people arrested for loitering, and complained loudly that she couldn't because of the first amendment.
Face fact. Once election day has come and gone, Obama and the Democrats ain't gonna give a damn about what you think. If you try to organize a big anti-war rally in DC, all you'll see of the Obama Presidency will be Marine One taking off and flying President Obama out of town. After the election, you'll have absolutely no ability to pressure any of these people.
That's the con. You've got exactly one thing they want from you ... your vote. Once they've got that, its game over. You get exactly one chance to influence the system, and that's on election day.
So, you should be very, very skeptical of voting for a candidate that opposes what you want on every issue across the board, and the only reason that even his supporters can come up with is that you can 'pressure' him after the election. That's the con. They want your vote, and they won't even offer vague promises in exchange.
Keep in mind that we had people during that period that were not intimidated and not afraid to speak up. Father Coughlin for one, and then we had Dr Townsend who was promoting a retirement plan that became Social Security.
COmarc,
Yup, I fully agree.
Write you congressperson, it gets unread, and you get an idiotic form letter in a couple months. Go to DC and insist on seeing your congressman, get listened to be some kid staffer and get blown off. Return to his office with a couple hundred other people exercising their First Amendment Rights, get arrested.
Go outside into the streets, 100 or 500,000, it doesn't matter - you will face face police harssment be ignnored by the media anyway.
Now, try the same thing, but as a representative of a big corporation - prepare to be wined and dined...
Right on Norman. When Hillary bitches one more time of Obama's "bitter comments" let's reveal what she said in 1995 as regards small town Pennsylvanians: "Screw 'em they have done nothing and you owe them nothing Bill" She is a foul mouthed selfish liar who needs to be exposed.
They are all liars ~IKE~, which has PROVEN by votes, to be the most progressive? Which one more supports the Bush agenda?
Dear Mordechai Shiblikov-
Yes - Norway has a lot to offer - yet. But our government have close ties to USA (since WWII), it is our eksperience that whoever controls the North-Atlantic controls us.
We have a very open economy, and a big part of what we've earned by pumping oil are invested in hedge-founds and so on. We lost our savings the same way back in 29' and will probably do it again.
We have adopted your schoolsystem and is being rapidly dumbed down. The Police State is creeping up on us and we're sending troops to Afghanistan.
Besides - economic welfare doesent make us as happy as for instance Mexicans or people in Eastern Europe.
I belive that what you Americans and we Norwegians have in common is the lack of hope - hope of a better living.
The biggest mistake of you americans progressives is to refuse to give up on democrats. Sure, the mobilization of grass-roots organizations is the only force capable of doing some real change in anywhere politics. This would continue to be true not only for Obama, but for Hillary and even Mccain at some level (as in the sense that any trully powerfull mobilization can pressure any government, and not just one that is open to it from the start). But choose to be on a position in wich you have to hope for a president to do what you cheer for him to do is just not smart. Especially if you have in the political scene someone that you already know that share you views and believes. And that's Nader. The mobilization would still be necessary, but would be one along with Nader. To pressure everyone that would put up a fight against progressive politics. And not to pressure the president itself. He would already be on our side. Because, you know, even with a progressive in the white house would still be a harsh fight against conservatives to get going some real progressive politics. Winning the presidency it's not everything. Can Nader pull it of in the ballots? Probaly not. And this has a lot to do with this kind of thinking that stick with the democrats even when you know that they really aren't on your side. And they haven't been for a while now. Again, a powerfull mobilization of grass-roots forces can do a lot of achieviment. Can put some pressure on Obama. Or can even give Nader some electoral viability. Even if he doens't really win, can you imagine what strong message would be for democrats if he achieved a good percentage of the votes? Sure, the cost would be four more years of republicans. And that's a high cost. But what is it the cost of supporting a party that doens't really share the same positions with you for some time now? One, that, once elected, would do more or less the same things that the republicans? One that, even when in the oposition, doens't really opose the republicans, at least not with the energy that it should? To me, it seems clear that is the cost of ultimate political surrender. Progressive greetings from Brazil
Obama says, "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Clinton says, "I am the one you've been waiting for."
I'll take Obama's "WE" over Clinton's "I" - any day!