Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSeventy-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 AllNorman, you're an idiot.
I think that Hillary does not know how to compromise in the political sense since she lost the health care reform package she fought for when was Mrs. president. Obama knows how to compromise very well, he has had to learn it AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN trying to get elected to office in this country. Apparently he had done well and has enlisted the support of many in congress, A NECESSARY art for there to be movement in a new American government.
His rhetoric suggests that he may compromise a bit too much, even the Fox network is beginning to enjoy him. He is going out to everyone and has learned the art of reconciliation and forgiveness as many who write here have not! Certainly the Hillary campaign shows that there are a new list of the hated, the Clintons will take to their grave such as Richardson.
KOLEA. . . .KEEP THE IDEALISM STRONG! BUT IT WILL TAKE LONGER THAN WE HAVE TO MAKE THE CHANGES THAT YOU WANT . . .EVEN WITHIN A CHANGED DEMOCRATIC PARTY. . .WORTH THE WORK, WHAT ELSE IS LEFT EXCEPTING ANOTHER COUNTRY AND IT'S ALL THE SAME JUST MARGINALLY DIFFERENT!
ticonderoga (April 23rd, 2008 5:57 pm) you have a good list and I think No. 3 is the best option, but we'll see in this election whether the majority is finally fed up with the results of the 'Disaster (free trade global) Capitalism' they've been living under to vote against it in large enough numbers that the GOP won't be able to cheat their way into office. But I fear, and I hope I'm wrong, that they'll be swayed by such nonsense as lapel pins and Jeremiah Wright into putting McCain in office to complete our downfall.
If that happens, after we are no longer valuable as a consumer market, I hope we can pick up the pieces and restore freedom and democracy here, but the populace -- intentionally, in my view -- has been so dumbed down by the Big Corporate Media that it may not be possible for that to happen.
Kolea (April 25th, 2008 5:21 am), good comments. I am compromising by supporting Obama, but then no candidate ever has perfectly reflected my view, so even a Kucinich or Edwards would be something of a compromise. Perfection being impossible in this life, especially in politics, we have to work with what we have and working with other people to accomplish something always involves some compromise, unless you like tyranny.
@COMARC-
I don't mean to pick on you, but something you wrote succeeded in provoking me. Much of what I am writing here is not directly applicable to your arguments alone, but touches on points that others have made as well.
You wrote:
"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."
What a shrunken, atrophied and disempowering notion of political activism you are advocating with this formulation!
Where, in your conception of politics, are the street demonstrations, the petition drives, the town meetings, the teach-ins, the letters to the editor, the letters to the elected officials, the campaign contributions, the discussions with friends over beer, coffee or the dinner table?
Citizenship, for that's what we are talking about here, takes a lot of sustained work in many arenas. Citizenship cannot be limited to voting--though there are many in the elite who want you to think that, but it most definitely SHOULD include voting, so long as there are some democratic forms available to us.
You are correct to point to the election as an important opportunity to influence policy. But if the vote caast in November is important, how's about the vote cast in the primary or caucus held earlier? Does that vote also count as influence? How's about getting elected to the county and state conventions where the party platform and resos are fought over and adopted. And where the delegates to the national convention will be chosen? If you think the state convention battles are insignificant, how do you explain the powerful corporate resistance to progressive planks, resos and candidates that is felt in each of those conventions? Is there nothing at stake?
I assume that you are also crediting our votes in local elections as being "influential"? If so, doesn't it matter whether we volunteer and/or contribute to local political campaigns, helping to provide a margin of victory for more progressive candidates?
And are not all of these elections influenced by the letters to the editor, commentaries in print or online, discussions between neighbors?
What I like about your emphasis on the importance of the vote is that you are rejecting the pseudo-radicalism of those who claim the vote means nothing. What concerns me is your overemphasis on what occurs in the voting booth on Election Day. I suspect you have exaggerated your own beliefs for the sake of making a simplified argument, but I think your formulation is disarming, dis-empowering and misleading.
Much of society is "contested terrain" in the political struggle. In the voting booth, but outside as well. On Election Day and the months leading up to it. But also the day after the election, during the legislative session, during legislative recesses. The corporate interests have an "unfair" advantage inside the Democratic Party, inside Congress, inside our state legislatures and at City Hall. They have almost a complete stranglehold over the mainstream media and, therfore, a near monopoly over the public discourse over the framing of the problems facing the nation, the world and our local communities. Welcome to the world of monoploy capitalism. Welcome to the world of imperialism.
You are right that we still have the vote, but we also have other small but important rights as well. We should use our democratic rights to struggle for what we want. We need to combat the influence of the corporations everywhere and push them back to expand parts of our lives that are influenced by popular influence.
You write:
"Face fact. Once election day has come and gone, Obama and the Democrats ain’t gonna give a damn about what you think."
You have latched onto a half-ttruth. That is not a pejorative word in my book. Holding onto a half-truth is better than the much smaller fractions of truth available to us for understanding our world. Heck, maybe I will even concede that you have gotten ahold of a "three-quarters truth"! Obama (or Clinton, or Nader/McKinney/Ron Paul/Kucinich) are not going to be able (or even willing) to deliver onto us a better society unless we demand it from them. LBJ wanted to continue his war in Vietnam until the demonstrations (and the Vietnamese resistance) made it too costly for him (politically, financially and, I think, "spiritually") to continue. Yes, some of that rejection expressed itself in the voting booth in the Democratic primaries of 1968.
In my state, the opportunity to influence the November vote for President is mostly past. Obama handily won the Hawaii caucuses, 3 to 1. At the state convention, we will be electing a new state party chair, a vice-chair, new National commiteeman and commiteewoman and the entire State Central Committee of the state party. We will also be picking the individual national delegates and arguing over resolutions, platform and rule changes. Some of the issues might strike pople as insignificant, especially people with dreams of storming the Winter Palace or setting up anarcho-syndicalist autonomous cooperatives in Spain, Chiapas or Katmandu.
When you write dismisively of "the Democrats," I think such a sweeping generalization serves the interests of the large corporations (and their political operatives) who would prefer that progressives stay out of the Democratic Party and give them free rein. The Democratic Party most definitely is "contested terrain," even if the corporations have a tremendous advantage. Just as they are vulnerable to the influence of votes on election day, they are also subject to votes inside the Democratic Party's internal debates.
While I can understand the emotional "logic" behind those who want to remain uncompromised by working for a Nader or McKinney campaign, I would recommend that you have a responsibility to discipline your thinking on this. And to examine your hearts. Yeah, it feels good. But do you have a greater responsibility to feel morally pure or to have an effect upon social conditions? If you do not like the compromises that must be made when building alliances within the Democratic Party, the ONLY way you can avoid those compromises with your third party effort is to remain small. Once you expand beyond your initial, fairly homogenous social base of "green" voters, you are forced to make compromises. You only postpone the significant compromises by remaining within your small group of likeminded people. Join the Democrats, and you will be forced much earlier to struggle over the very real question of remaining principled while garnering enough support for other groupings in order to advance a small portion of your agenda.
Remain small, remain pure, remain marginal.
"Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and
the wisdom to know the difference."
Those are the virtues we all need in progressive politics: serenity, courage and wisdom.
Marx sorta said the same thing: "Humanity makes history, but not under conditions of its own choosing."
American society offers us limited opportunities for influencing the world around us. We live in a society with weak democratic opportunities. We have to learn how to use the tools available to us, while developing new ones, strengthening ourselves, developing our knowledge, building our alliances and contesting the corporations, and their lackies, in every arena possible.
On April 21st, 2008 6:38 pm CoMarc says
“We need to build a political movement. Right now, neither political party represents our views. I think such a political movement needs to be nimble enough to move in and out of the Democratic party as needed. I’d like to see the same political movement be able to move into the Democratic primaries to try to fight for decent candidates. And then it needs to be able to move into the general election backing an independent or 3rd party candidate as needed.â€
We should build a political movement within the Progressive Democrats of America group (PDA). PDA has an inside and outside strategy like you described. PDA has five priorities and a progressive agenda that candidates can be measured against www.progressive2008.org. The only issue I have with PDA is that they only endorse Progressive Democratic Party candidates or no one. PDA should continue to work to change the Democratic Party and endorse any PDA member candidate that supports the five priorities and progressive agenda.
Here he goes again... Norman "sucker for the Demopublicans" Solomon is at it again. I can't wait for him to pull his McCarthyite attacks on McKinney and Nader for standing up to corporate power again just like he did in 2004. He is so perfectly predictable.
Underground elements of the Weathemen were in close contact with several Mid-East terror groups as late as 2005, Check it out.
I think the story about Obama having any relationship with them is a scam though.
Seems to me like we've got three options:
1) The repubs and dems are evil and won't quit and there's nothing we can do, and we're all fubared, so we might as well hang it all up and watch American Idol and 24 or whatever stupid TV show floats our boat.
2) Voting and emailing our representatives won't help, and we are going to need to hit the streets en masse, with a real revolution.
3) The repubs and dems know what they've been doing is fubaring everything, and know they need to do something about it. And they will, regardless as to what we do, in order to save their own skins. After all, they make us too poor, we can't buy their junk. And all we can do is try to make them do something about it a little bit faster, by voting for the best candidate we got and by emailing our reps like crazy. And protesting.
Translation:
1) Get fatalistic and do nothing.
2) Channel Che Guevara.
3) Vote, write and protest, and don't quit. And boycott.
KEM PATRICK (April 22nd, 2008 9:12 pm) wrote: "I am concerned about the new story that Obama was close with some of the “Weathermenâ€. The guys who bombed the WTC with the U’haul truck bombs. If that’s so, I’d like to have him explain it. How about you?"
When did the Weathermen ever bomb the WTC? That was the first Al Qaeda attack on the WTC, not the Weathermen. Aside from that, when William Ayers was active in the Weather Underground, Obama was 8 years old and didn't know Ayers. What is there for him to explain -- what someone else did in their past? This is a phony issue trumped up by Sean Hannity to smear Obama.
Speaking of which, MSNBC said today that Hillary's campaign is using the RNC's 'oppo' research on Obama, provided free courtesy of the GOP. Sheesh, she's not even Republican Lite anymore.
YES, IT IS ENTERTAINING TO LISTEN TO THIS RIGHT BESIDE THE POINT STUFF!
10 out of 10 for erbalist. Until the majority of america wakes up from the american dream, our discussions here are entertaining, informative, but that's about it. most don't even have the common sense to realize that they should be just a tiny bit "bitter". The majority gets the government they deserve, the rest of us suffer because of their decisions.
What kind of person thinks that since we as a citizenry got us into this mess that we, as a citizenry will get us out? We are screwed; it's over. Not until a critical mass is reached by those disenchanted with the consolidation of wealth/power into the hands of the few will we see change. And that, my friends will not happen, for everyone likes to think that someday they just might be rich and powerful.
I don't care if he's close to Cheney and Rove. The problem is, he votes 99% with Liberman and McCain.
I am concerned about the new story that Obama was close with some of the "Weathermen". The guys who bombed the WTC with the U'haul truck bombs. If that's so, I'd like to have him explain it. How about you?
But Kem,
He is close to a lot of folks, including those who can't stand Lieberman.
His being close to those with much different views is not a negative in my mind, because a president needs friends of different views to get things past.
This may be the key to why he may get things done differently than in the past where not much is done but the things we both don't like...
Guilt by association?
I just don't think his friendship with Lieberman is that important and even maybe beneficial for Change.
Hi ~JIM~, When Lieberman was Gores running mate he sure wasn't a Bush supporter, so when we voted for Gore it was a totally different Liberman we were seeing and hearing,
After his last Senate election, Lieberman became a Bushie, it was priomarily Bush money and support that got him elected as an independant, after he lost the Demo primary.
Obama has suported Lieberman on almost every vote or bill submitted by Liberman, who is now in FULL support of the important Bush policies. Liberman was Obama's tutor the first year he was in the Senate and they are just as close now as they were then. ___Check it out.
Or does anyone here think that Lieberman is a strong supporter of Obama?
I didn't think so and the Israel lobby is afraid that Obama will not take orders.
Now can you figure what is goin on?
If Obama said what Nader, MCkinney, or Dennis said, nobody would have to worry!
Todd Gitlin, former SDS President and now sociologist and writer makes it clear that at bottom most Americans are conservative. Epithet or compliment the term is correct and to win that basic fact must be acknowledged and dealt with in a realistic way. That way is reform of the party and inclusion of those who call themselves conservative but hold many liberal views. Yes, Americans are confused and easily swayed by clever politicians. Let's hope the Democrats can be clever enough not to screw themselves again. I don't give up on progressive views or programs but if you don't win elections you can just sit outside and whine. I've had enough of that. Gitlin is right that the progressive "factions" need to cooperate or lose again big time.
Kem, if anyone here voted for Gore/Lieberman than we were supporters of Lieberman and willing to have him Prez.
Now do you have any proof that Obama is now a "strong supporter of Lieberman"?
YES, YES, lets have more of this anger, there are just three choices and two are just impossible to consider. But, you have three choices, impossible, poor and vaguely possible to rally the people, never mind the egalitarian rhetoric. Never mind searching for that great hope Nader or the Green party never to reach possibility until New York, LA and Florida are under twenty feet of water. What kind of democracy do any of you think exists in this country? It is an oligarchy and never was a democracy. It is a republic that is owned by the wealthy as most are in the world and never will be other excepting the possibility of control by the dictatorship of the wealthy few families that can fight it out to live on well stocked dry land. The open road to the future America.
~WC 652~ You say Obama isn't a strong supporter of Lieberman??? ___ You say that's proven by what Obama wrote in his book. ___LOL.
Of course Obama didn't write that fact in his book. If I was a con-man and wrote a book, I wouldn't write that aspect of my personality or method of operation either. I'd
write how good I was.
It's not hate at all Daniel David. Pity is a the appropriate word. I pity all Sophistical types and you so often display that pitiful trait. ___ Check it out.
I don't think or believe you're a bad or stupid person and often I fully agree with your opinions. But when others challenge your opinions, you often are obtuse and display a sophistic attitude with YOUR elevated sense of superiority.
So does OBAMA.
Phenix -
If you think there are only slight differences between Hillary and Obama, you should read my post at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8284/
Bob K. April 14th, 2008 1:28 pm
Information provided there adds to my earlier comparison of their voting records. Surprisingly, there is a significant difference between the two candidates. Hillary is much more progressive than Obama.
And, speaking of Feingold, you'll see from their voting records that she voted for the Feingold-Reid Amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, requiring withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. Obama -- the supposed anti-war candidate -- chose not to vote on that measure.
I'd just like to mention that FDR had a track record of experimentation. He took proactive steps to help the citizens of New York while he was governor. Barack Obama does not have a similar track record. He made one speech against the war prior to gaining power yet he has supported the war once he was in power. He is also a hawk when it comes to Iran and Pakistan as well as a lap dog for the Israeli lobby. Furthermore he is a neo-liberal. If you read the his bitter quotes you will see that he also mentions free trade. This man is no FDR. He will be the best candidate to deactivate what is left of left wing of this country.
I live in Pennsylvania and I've chosen not to vote in the presidential primary but I have voted for local offices. The differences between Hillary and Obama is so slight that I really don't care who wins. I dislike Obama more because he has outright lied about his connection to lobbyists and he is being given an anti-war card because of a speech he made 6 years ago. The man has done nothing to earn anti-war credentials while in the Senate. In a perfect world I would want Feingold to run.
COMarc writes:
"Despite what Mr. Soloman is saying, FDR did not run as a ’stealth’ candidate."
This Obama baloney from "left" luminaries (and their Republican publishers) is tiresome bad politics reminiscent of Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Viet Nam.
The Democrat who actually IS like FDR is John Edwards, driven from the race by the "leadership", and the corporate moneybags of the diversity twins and their fetching amazing birthday suits. If Edwards isn't the nominee, the real "left" thing to do is vote McKinney or Nader, or just STOP voting, and get ready for the main event.
Outside the charmed circle of the uber-left and the rest of the, er, "rich", people in the U.S. are getting hammered. Trying to elect a "black" John Kerry makes no sense at ALL.
nelson -
Did Gavin Newsom support the use of mercenaries? Did he shill for nuclear power companies? Did he (obscenely) support increased military spending? Did he favor preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of international law?
Are you sorry you voted for the more-progressive candidate? Or do you just feel lucky that the centrist turned out OK?
Sorry Norman, that dog won't hunt. This isn't 1932. Al Smith has NOT already implemented the New Deal Programs in NY. Huey Long is NOT pushing the WH and Congress for Progressive Change. And America is neither hungry enough nor is it in the streets, nor will it be.
As you know, our society is owned by the RICHFILTH with the total support of our entire political class (not surprising as they have been bought and paid for since the 70's). We WORSHIP the richfilth animals. We WORSHIP THEM. We are programmed to “know†they are better than us “by bloodâ€.
Dims & Repugs represent FAITH BASED POLITICS, hope-a-hope. Pray to Jesus or maybe some Dim operative like DD from these pages. Otherwise - JUST SHUT UP AND KISS THE WHIP. Which is all anyone in Authority is EVER going to tell you to do. And America will, like America always does, because of 6 core American Beliefs:
1. Aryan Male Supremacy
2. Gender Slavery
3. Human Slavery (as long as we aren’t the slaves)
4. Massive Child Abuse (installs free-floating rage essential to #5)
5. Constant War
6. Genocide (when we wanted the land and didn’t need the people as slaves).
That's what America believes in. That's what America has always fought for. Not the Bill of Rights and certainly not the Constitution. We were always clever with words. We like to put 14yo Black slave girls on all fours and fuck them while writing noble phrases, "We hold these truths to be self evident..."
We had a noble experiment in building an egalitarian society that peaked in the mid-60’s. We had the greatest distribution of wealth ever seen in the history of the world. The END of Poverty was in sight and lifetime stable employment was on the horizon. We were looking at the fulfillment of the Roosevelt Legacy and America said "NO!!!"
We said we would rather live like animals than give up Male Supremacy, allow women and minorities an equal place at the table, or give up fucking our children for the “glory†of constant war.
We got our wish. None of this is an accident or the acts of a flat-earth genocidal blood god from the ME. And now we’re going to burn for it. The experiment failed. Back to feudal theocracy children. If the species survives our collapse, in a couple hundred years maybe we’ll try again. We got an “F†on this one.
Peace.
In San Francisco, we had a choice between two viable candidates for Mayor - Matt Gonzalez, the Green Party Candidate, who was the "true" progressive, and Gavin Newsom - who everyone said was an elite, centrist, Republican in disguise. I voted for Gonzalez and hated that Newsom won. Turns out, Newsom could not ignore the populist spirit in San Francisco, and he turned out to be more courageous, and more liberal that even Matt might have been. Democrats shunned him as he stuck his neck out on several issues, and proved that he can be the mayor for all San Franciscans, rich or poor, queer or straight. He has been one of the best mayors this city has seen in a long time. Democrats still will not get near him with a ten foot pole (including Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer), but I'm sure glad enough people thought he was centrist to vote him in. He has been able to build coalitions and make change, something which someone from the left of him might not have been able to do.
Moral of the story? What appears centrist in a conservative political climate, might be more progressive than you think. The real test will be whether we can stay engaged in the process once the winner has been declared and continue to push through the changes we know this country needs. I, for one, would love to see Diane Feinstein sent packing!
We have a new winner in the lamest-excuse-for-supporting-Obama contest.
We're not told to support Obama because his record and agenda are best. God no, don't examine his record! It's more Republican than Democratic! As to agenda, Obama himself repeatedly tells us he's more centrist than Hillary. (Remember, she represents the big-government "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" that reduced our "dynamism and entrepreneurship"— things like environmental protection, occupational safety and health, civil rights and equal rights.)
We're not even told to support him because he gives (supposedly) inspiring speeches.
Now we're told to support him because he could "potentially" be the next FDR, and make sweeping New Deal-like progressive change. But why? Why does Obama have this potential? We're not told. Why doesn't Hillary have more potential than Obama to be the next FDR? We're not told. We're only told that it's "clear" we should choose Obama.
It's "clear" that the less-progressive candidate has more potential to make progressive change than the more-progressive candidate? I don't think so.
The idea that Obama is some sort of stealth-progressive candidate is ridiculous on it's face, but here's the real kicker. We're told that if Obama fails to make sweeping progressive changes it will be our own fault, not his. We're told we need to actively oppose Obama's agenda, just like the strong grassroots and labor union movements of the 1930s opposed FDR's agenda, and if we don't . . . the changes won't occur.
Well, that's a problem. First, we don't have strong grassroots and labor union movements like they had in the 1930s. Clicking on a "contribute $50" button on a web site is not the equivalent of getting your head bashed open in the streets. Second, we don't have the Great Depression and World War II forcing fundamental changes on our political structures.
More specifically, Solomon says we should make Obama our president and then actively advocate for progressive positions like "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."
This is truly bizarre advice. Solomon doesn't mention that Obama is the champion of the nuclear power industry. Nor does he say that Obama will not only continue the occupation of Iraq, he also pledges to increase the size of the military, increase military spending and expand the phony "war on terror" into Pakistan (which he calls the "right battlefield") whether Pakistan approves or not. Neither does Solomon mention that Obama wants to continue the use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Hillary is cosponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders's bill to end the use of mercenaries. Lastly, Solomon fails to mention that Obama's healthcare plan is further from a single-payer universal system than is Hillary's plan. At least her plan is universal.
I say, if these are your issues you should be supporting Ralph Nader for president and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Supporting the most progressive candidates — not some sort of voodoo, magical thinking — is the way to make progressive change.
I have followed here, patiently the dreamers, the pseudo intellectuals, and the great scholars who think they have the sort of thinking to be able to help bring this country back from the horrid mess it has become. Those here who offer their great thinking to help us to think more clearly. None here have touched the central issue, this countries greed, the economy and your 401ks. You have been sold this as good Americans you all are and believe it is your way to survival. Greed is a very difficult and human characteristic that holds nothing or no one sacred, as of course some of you know.
The essence of the fight for human retrieval and the reestablishment of ethics, morals and purpose, that so many who write her would like to see, is the reason people spend there time reading many of these petty responses to the problems we face. Those who respond to the articles here, written by people who are surely less than the quality of the true thinkers likes Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and so many others who wrote about human fallibility, the human condition and power, so well.
Those who write here, are people generally frustrated and feel helpless in terms of where we see this entire human global adventure going and see clearly that this American election can possibly hold the seeds to genuine change in this country if not the world. However, many are not fooled by the array of candidates and their claims to complete truth and fairness, as it should be. A healthy pessimism is necessary so long as it is not cynicism.
Some of us understand that survival is surely not based in the petty politics practiced here on this blog but a clear recognition that there are people writing whom genuinely care about the sate of this power gone amuck called the USA.
Sadly, we all know that the slate of candidates running leave a great deal to be desired. Yes, they have all dissembled, as politicians are wont to do, in the endless necessity for compromise. One cannot come from the masses, be a politician who aspires to become president of this woebegone culture and not have to assume the sickening compromises that would attract support to continue on the quest and be pure. Impossible! When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician.
But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the lesser of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one who holds that possibility, without question if we join and accept some of the thinking here. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!
We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in this country for it to be able to take the lead in the world once again as it once did, based in truth, and caring and concern for what humanity confronts. The need now, as never before to the present degree, is to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place.
The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change that is fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many that believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!
Finally some decent "wisdom" from ole KEM:
“If Obama wins the Demo primary I’ll vote for him and cross my fingers if he’s our next president. I’ll shit my pants if McCain is.â€
Your much-hated friend, Daniel David, has been arguing for months now on why and how we must avoid that very Republican president that could cause such a bad consequence for your pants. Though I can't get you or lobo gris or some others on board, I think I shall keep speaking out for the benefit of pants everywhere.
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Annebrit - I hope it is not as gloomy as you portray it. I am also a Norwegian, but lived in the USA for 30 years. 3 months ago I finally moved back because I was very troubled by what I was seeing over there. I frankly felt I was "saving" my daughter by taking her to Norway. Now I see that those nasty capitalist tendencies are here too, though it doesn't seem nearly so bad - yet. I stay clear of the Fremskritts parti which seems to be the mindless rightwinger party of Norway, but most people fortunately do not support them - so there's hope! I do feel better that I am not paying taxes that are used for murder, torture, and conquest anymore. Anyway, at some point we all have to realize that we are on this globe together and act accordingly!
“So let me get this straight: If I(we) vote for Obama and he wins, then fails to bring about the “change†he touts, it is my(our) fault for not pressuring him to bring about the “change†that he purports to bring to Washington?â€
--Obama is fully integrated with the Washington establishment. He and the unctuous Joe-Boy Lieberman are chummy buddies. I may be wrong but, like other politicians, I think Obama is more intoxicated with the IDEA of being president and his self-image than he is with bringing meaningful change.
Agreed, he'd be better than McCain, or perhaps even Hillary (but there I'm not so sure). Obama might throw the people a few crumbs. Stop the tax breaks to Corps sending jobs offshore (big deal, they don't need them anyway). Maybe cheaper health insurance for some. Other than that, expect business as usual. I expect many will be disappointed, especially if the economy continues to tank and off-shoring along with unrestrained immigration remains the same.
The problem is that the system is presently so corrupt that establishment politicians have their hands tied by special interests and the insiders who are wholly in their basket. They'd have to bite the hand(s) that feed them to bring sweeping change.
Not likely.
(pardon my sausage fingers)
"If Obama wins the Demo primary I’ll vote for him and cross my fingers if he’s our next president. I’ll shit my pants if McCain is."
Hey Kem,
Obama will lose here in the Keystone state 54 to 46%, and then the same in the fall.
See if Pampers makes a size 12…come Nov, you’ll need them.
your friend
banjoman
"If Obama wins the Demo primary I’ll vote for him and cross my fingers if he’s our next president. I’ll shit my pants if McCain is."
hey Kem,
Obama will lose here in the keystone state 54 to 46%, and then the same in the fall.
See if Pampers makes a size 12...come Nov,you'll need them.
your friend
banjoman
Obama, a black male imperialist.
Hillary Clinton, a white female imperialist.
McCain, a good old white male imperialist.
"So let me get this straight: If I(we) vote for Obama and he wins, then fails to bring about the “change†he touts, it is my(our) fault for not pressuring him to bring about the “change†that he proports to bring to Washington?"
Yup.
Sucks, don't it? A democratic republic requires citizen participation, and we find ourselves in this pickle in no small measure because we have allowed ourselves to be redefined as consumers.
After the Constitutional Convention had finished its work in 1787, a woman asked Ben Franklin what kind of government had been decided upon. He replied: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
What did Ben know that we don't?
From the article: "Whether that ends up being largely rhetoric or profoundly real depends not on him nearly so much as on us."
So let me get this straight: If I(we) vote for Obama and he wins, then fails to bring about the "change" he touts, it is my(our) fault for not pressuring him to bring about the "change" that he proports to bring to Washington? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama's Change = Chump Change.
What we need is publicly funded elections. Are choices are have become an either, or, because money determines a candidates ability to be heard. This puts the choice of candidates in the hands of those who have the financial wherewithal to make those choices, for those who do not.
The top 1% have two politcal parties representing their interests, the other 99% have no representation.
Yet the 99% stand around waving flags shouting we are free.
This is not democracy!This is the illusion of democracy for the masses.
By demanding publicly funded elections, we the people can take away that power!
Is anyone still reading these posts?
As an Obama fan, I'd like to refute previous claims on Joe Lieberman's association with Obama.
Presently I'm reading Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father." Neither book mentions Joe Lieberman at all, in some 25000 words apiece, I don't see a single mention of JL in either volume.
Perhaps we could put this to rest as neither Senator is proud of their previous tenuous association.
Hi ~LOBO~. Yeah Daniel is pissed at me because on the thread about executions, most all of the comments were against the death penalty. Daniel David of course was for it and blogged several comments and referred to those who opposed it as "YOU LIBERALS".
So I asked how he defined a person as a liberal and he refused to answer, but rudely replied that he wouldn't bother to reply to such a silly question. So I told him he's a sophist and indeed he is. I don't care if he likes me or not and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. I can live with that.
I don't dislike Obama, he's a fine man and has gone a lot further in life than I have. If he was as good as he says he is, he'd be the finest president we've ever had. I don't believe he's near that good and is not presidential in my opinion and we all have opinions.
He has from the get-go been a deciever by attacking Hillary for voting yes on Prop 114 and then he's supported the war 100% ever since he was a senator and continually has supported Joe Liberman stands and that's why I'd rather see Hillary win. If Obama wins the Demo primary I'll vote for him and cross my fingers if he's our next president. I'll shit my pants if McCain is.
The same bogus mass media and corrupt congress will be in place after the November election. That's guaranteed.
No matter which Dem might win Prez, no deep progressive reforms can happen without a large/coherent/active people's movement. An amalgam of Greens, left Dems, & others who know the issues and aren't afraid to politically blow congress out of its slime pit, with or without a Prez initiating the charge.
Best organized from the bottom up, state by state with honest local people, then melding into a national force, preferably at least joined by the Prez.
If McC wins, it could even gel this force into creation quicker than an Demo win -- not that I favor such a stretchy scenario.
But neither Obie or Clint will or can do much on their own if elected. The systems as it is, is just too far gone for that; too densely rotten to change from inside. It needs outer meltdown by the ire of average people, and new construction by same. Anything less than this simply won't work.
When Obama twice "innocently" gave Hilary the finger at the Tuesday debate when she was criticizing him, it didn't help him at all with the press or the audience. It did demonstrate a character flaw that when he is angered, he acts childish and combative and doesn't control it well.
He's not taking this Pennsylvania primary well and has at times lost his cool and shown arrogance with the press a few times. They see something they had not detected until now and more importantly, the super delegates see it also. They watch and listen with very critical eyes and ears. I think the honeymoon with those two important groups may be over.
COMarc - please say your thoughts are influencing people beyond the short-timers, nuts, and pathetic shills that habituate "Common"Dreams?
In my fantasy you ARE Ralph Nader, come to save us all!
What? To school-girlish?
-matti.
KEM PATRICK April 22nd, 2008 12:12 am
"If you’re getting tired of the crazy old wind bag bashing you DANIEL, stop blogging comments on so many issues that deserve your being bashed. If you care to check it, I’m just one of many who bash you and I don’t consider myself to be a sage or a soothsayer. I’m just another crazy Common Dreams blogger here and bashing trolls or those who write like trolls is the fun part."
Good for you Kem. If anyone around here is a windbag it's DD. I don't think anyone cares if he/she likes Obama or Hillary, it's his/her constantly trying to co-opt everyone else with statements like;
"YET, if she’s nominated, she’s ours to support"
No if she's nominated she is DD's to support but most certainly not mine.
Lobo Gris
Obama '08. With Richardson. Hi Daniel David, interesting day, Pa., and all.
Interesting also to watch Obama getting smeared by the media-tells me The System does not want him in-that is a pretty good credential, huh?
Peace, From A 'Troll'
Consider the source.
RichM's observations about how different our milieu is compared with 1932 is very apt. Unfortunately, the analogy for an Obama presidency is not FDR, but Bill Clinton. Obama sounds a lot like Bill Clinton, with "real change" promises, fake healthcare reform, support for NAFTA, etc. Obama has learned to speak different things to different factions, just like Bill Clinton did.
The point is always the same here. You can never rely on campaign rhetoric and how you feel about a candidate. You must rely on the candidate's voting record. In that case, there's not much difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
McCain should have been arrested for accepting a bribe from Charles Keating. He can't even oppose torture, having been tortured (some say) himself. Still, the problem is that an Obama or Clinton presidency will be just as resistant to public pressure as a McCain presidency. Normon Solomon is being hopeful, but incorrect, that Obama will yield to public pressure. The reason: corporate funding, a common thread through all three candidates.
So, we have no choice but to support a third party. The structures of the Democratic Party and Republican Party are wholly corporate owned. People have no input in them. Besides, we are talking about a very small percentage of the voters here. Politically aware progressives are 10 percent, maybe, of voters. We shouldn't throw that away on parties that don't represent us. We should get serious about supporting alternative parties, even though it's a winner take all system. Who will change that system? Only a strong third party.
The pressure that Solomon refers to doesn't come from within the Democratic Party, which is a party of sheep and corporatists. The pressure comes from outside it. Democratic candidates must be compelled to woo progressives, but they haven't been doing that at all in this campaign because they've taken the progressive vote for granted. Don't give it to them. They don't deserve it.
Another poster made this comment. I think it explains the picture perfectly.
‘Democratic Party hacks would rather elect a Republican hack than a Democratic Reformer.’
Vote Green or Nader, that will change the party dynamics. Otherwise whether you are voting for McCain, Obamma or Hillery, you are still voting republican.
so it goes...
The capitalist beast is playing the race/gender cards this season because it is in dire straits after chimpy's reign - vulnerable to ringing revolution wakeup calls to the rabble.
Superstar O'Bama is the fitting pilot for the Superpower cockpit, and the Superstar Trek series production should keep the audience intoxicated for another four years while the theater staff picks their pockets toward completion of the "new neocon century" agenda. That agenda tasks Americans to consume ever-increasing volumes of global production, themselves contributing implements of destruction, petro-fired grain, and military control fortresses worldwide.
O'Bama will be likudated if he tries to touch that agenda. It's going to be business as usual until the rabble organizes. Volunteering for the Green party and toeing its line is better than nothing but best we individually work on practicing our principles for the long run.
When we practice progressive principles, we are naturally inclined to organize. When we delay this practice, organizing is hypocrisy. When we practice progressive principles we understand the hows/whys of the platform, we can advocate it, set examples, and naturally organize and make the next one do progressive public policy like they "made FDR do it".
JavaRunner
"Bruce Willis thinks..." Who the hell is Bruce Willis, that you should invoke his name as though he were some widely accepted authority on anything? Would you care to name a few of these "very smart historians"?
Better yet, perhaps you could stay on topic.
"Kristina40 April 21st, 2008 11:44 am
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…"
How very arrogant and undemocratic of you. A person is not entitled to support the candidate of THEIR choice unless it is also YOUR candidate. Why are you more important than the Nader voter. Why do we owe our support to bad Democrats ? Have you ever heard of the Constitution of the United States ? Where does it say that you must support bad Democrats to block worse Republicans in a never ending freefall of lesser-evilism to the bottom of the barrel. I think you are no more a Democrat than Karl Rove.
Hi There ~Locust~, I appreciate you just as much. Thank you for the nice words.
~MIMICcS~, you say FDR started the war with Japan by cutting off their oil. Lots of falsehoods about FDR that over the years people have uttered and many tend to believe.
Actually we did cut off oil, rubber and steel, etc, to Japan, we didn't attempt to blockage them though. Which was a damn good thing. Why would we do that to the poor, innocent Japanese?
Well, for starters, Japan had already invaded and taken Korea, invaded Manchuria and China, India and were planning to invade and conquer all of Southeast Asia, the Phillipines, Indonesia and then Australia.
The Japanese didn't want to pay for the raw materials needed for manufacturing. Did you know they had a nuclear facility in North Korea and were working on the atomic bomb before we were? Check it out, Google Japan's atomic program. They had scientists who equaled Oppenheimer in that area of physics. Japan wanted to do what Bush is presently doing in Iraq.
On top of that, FDR was first elected when our country was bankrupt and in the throes of a terrible depression. His policies brought us out of it without startng any war. We stayed out of Hitler's and Tojo's wars until we had no other choice except to just surrender to Japan. We didn't do that. FDR did not start anything with Japan, they made their own bed.
If you're getting tired of the crazy old wind bag bashing you DANIEL, stop blogging comments on so many issues that deserve your being bashed. If you care to check it, I'm just one of many who bash you and I don't consider myself to be a sage or a soothsayer. I'm just another crazy Common Dreams blogger here and bashing trolls or those who write like trolls is the fun part.
I don't condemn you for supporting Obama BTW, my wife does and we don't discuss it with one another. Some issues at our home are off limits,___ nothing is here. I pointed you out cause I figure you may be one the ones who doesn't want McCain to face off wth Hillary. She'll wax his sorry ass. He'll beat Obama. Now that's my opinon, which is as good as anyone elses.
“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.â€
Ehh? Bring diety Roosevelt back down off the pedestal. The New Deal was the work of: "organization of tenants and the unemployed, movements of self-help, general strikes in several cities". Suggestion: Don't worry too much about which talking head is insterted into the oval orifice. Just focus on the grass roots actions we will take to force his/her hand. Implication: we could force the chimp too if we just decide to do it. The puppet strings are always in the hands of the people.
raphaelbruno2,
We have already done that drill with Ralph Nader; and we don't have the time, treasure or lives to do it again.
I have no doubt that under a President Nader, with a compliant Congress, we the people would indeed fair the best. But it ain't gonna happen. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfield, you go with the candidates you have.
You know. Mr. Solomon's comments really reflect a great deal of what I've been thinking these last several months. That Obama might be just another liar, or he he might have the potential to be the greatest president we've had during my lifetime, anyway.
It remains to be seen which it is, but with the other two, there is no potential, just more lies.
Obama is no progressive and one has to wonder how a smart person like Solomon can believe he is.
In any case, his analysis is way off here. Are we talking about the same FDR who backed brutal U.S. military operations that killed hundreds of thousands(at least) of innocent civilians in Europe. Civilians who had nothing to do with Hitler's power grab and the expansion of facism? Why was it alright to bomb innocent civlians then but not now?
Let's face it. FDR was just another U.S. president that condoned and justified war crimes. True, he started worthwhile social programs but only to pacify a powerful militant labor movement. At the same time, he allowed to U.S. military to commit unspeakable atrocities(such as indiscriminate bombing on heavily populated cities), once again, in the name of "freedom" and protecting "democracy".
Oh, please. If we still think that we can change this country at the ballot box -- by electing Obama or anybody else -- we're day dreaming. This country is run -- and has been run since the murder of JFK -- by a cabal of global power brokers who care no more for a subject in Kentucky than they do a subject in Bosnia. We're all just collateral damage to these people on their way to their New World Order. Even if Obama is smart and righteous, how far do you think he will get? Any farther than JFK? Any farther than RFK? Any farther than MLK? Need I go on?
The question is this: Who in the world brought down WTC 1, 2 and 7? And who killed JFK, RFK and MLK? Bruce Willis thinks they're all connected and so do a lot of very smart historians. If we don't find those criminals and bring them to justice it matters little whether we voted McCain, Hilary, Paul...or Obama. If the power brokers have decided they are going to have WW III it will happen, even if they have to stage another 9/11 to fire up the American population one more time. We really need to grow up and stop believing there is a Santa Clause in the field of presidential candidates. And even if there IS a Santa in that field, they will do to him what they did to Jesus. And the others I mentioned. This is our world, people. There is no easy way out.
And even if we DO hang the criminals who keep taking us into Korea, Vietnam and Iraq and soon Iran, then we have to contend with Her Highness Technology and the global Scientific Dictatorship She is devising. See iRobot and The Matrix to get what I'm talking about. Or just go to www.sillyConValley.net.
So, McCain enthusiastically revels in the long-term application of American military power--war without end, amen--and Hillary speaks of obliterating countries (Iran), and Obama sees the problems of the world stemming from Islamic radicalism and absolves "our stalwart ally, Israel" from any blame. God help us, although I suppose that in this dismal scenario Obama is somewhat less repulsive than the other two.
JConrad
Correction: Obama *couldn't* vote for the invasion of Iraq. He wasn't even elected to the Senate until November, 2004 - 7 1/2 months after the war started. For a sample of how he voted on the war when he was actually given the chance, I refer you back to the post by chlamor (6:42). Thanks chlamor.
Obama's just another blowhard politician, and anyone who blindly believes a politician is beyond being educated.
Both Clinton and Obama have stated that they would bomb other sovereign states. Both have lied numerous times. The fact that Obama ran at all means that he is willing to break his promises when it suits his ambitions. He promised that he would complete his Senate term no matter how good his chances might be in the next presidential election - and now he can't be counted on to show up for important votes, or to vote other than 'Present' when he does bother to show up. Clinton's lies have been discussed endlessly, and I've no intention of repeating them.
- - - - -
I like neither. They are both sleazy politicians. The only thing that can be said for them is that they aren't (quite) McCain.
The chance to tell them all to shove it (at an olique angle) was in the early primaries. Kucinich was my first choice, but any 'second-tier' candidate was far superior to any of the main three, who were all annointed by the corporate media. (Yes, that includes Edwards: remember, he got a fair deal of publicity, in the form of 'news stories.')
How many progressives failed to vote their consciences in the primaries, complaining that 'Kucinich can't win.' (Well, of course he couldn't win, since progressives were willing to buy into that tripe propagated by the traitorous media and vote for one of the corporate stooges.)
Will Obama be like FDR? I am extremely dubious. First, he hasn't the guts. (Refer to his voting record.) FDR: "You have to make me." Obama: "Try and make me."
Second, even if he found the courage, (and I would be pleased to have him prove me wrong on the above), would Congress back him? (Think that load of neocons wouldn't continue, if not step up, their filibustering?)
Third, if anything progressive got through Congress, there would still be that evil-tilting astonishingly politicized Supreme Court to cut it down.
Obama might function well as a sort of 'place holder,' a do little president who might at least slow some of the disintegration, primarily in areas other than Iraq, until we can clear more neocons (and DINOs) out of Congress.
chlamor__Very good information, and it shows what some of us have known all along, Obama`s voting record is no better than Clinton`s. His vote against the war was not in the Senate, and he has gone along with all that fake terror just as much as Hillary.
Giving a great speech is a fine thing, but getting the job done is not so easy as many people are not going to like his vision of unity and change, and if there are not a good majority of new Dem Congresspeople elected it will be impossible. Obama is a good man, but he will fall far short of what many people are expecting from him if he is chosen.
Its quite obvious HRC is the Republican choice
For those who wish to make phone calls
or other grassroots contributions
to Obamas campaign please go to
barackobama.com.
It is a lie to say that his
campaign is supported by corporations.
RICH GRIFFIN says, "We haven’t had a real democrat in the white house since 1980 - that’s 28 years of right-wing policies." I agree. Most of us think of time as linear failing to recognize that time is the result of specific energetic patterns that recur. We could almost say that history reflects something akin to a pendulum as cycles of liberal/progressive thinking rises to the surface to impact public policy, then recedes. In l984 the planet of deception entered the sign of politics and remained there until 1998. In the late l990's, there was a magnificent Aquarian surge that manifested as the worldwide web and a beginning global conversation. Meanwhile, the financial elites strategically backed think tanks, media and publications to bring THEIR rationales into the public discourse and little by litte marginalize dissent, or policies of broader social justice.
2009 holds potentials for some progressive inroads to be made through communication channels. The end of 2009 into 2010 shows GREAT financial stress, and the need to re-invest in infrastructure, but the $ will not be there. In 2010 we are going to see (and this will impact MANY countries) very strong legal initiatives to fight the curtailment of civil liberties growing through many important nations under the guise of "fighting terrorism." The rise of independent miilitias or strong cohered "rebel units" will be seen in 2010 and continue for many years as the BATTLE between progress (progressives) and the retardation of civilization (as the redundant pharaoh caste seeks again to enslave the multitudes) will resemble a snake reaching for an enemy only to later recognize it has swallowed itself. This may be the myth of the Aztecs... civilization devours itself to give birth to what is next...
I think many here agree that there is a major shift of national priorities and moral orientation needed in America, and that Obama offers the best hope that such a turn might be made. Of course, to make any impact, Obama must first be smart enough, resilient enough, and careful enough to do whatever it takes to get elected. Too much truth telling will allow the forces now aligning against him to destroy him before he has any chance to show his true colors (if he really is an authentic agent of 'changel, as I fervently hope). Given the growing awareness of the threat he poses to the status quo, he will have a very hard road ahead slogging through the muck and mire they will place in his way. I see the tone in the media beginning an ominous shift away from him, and I don't think it is just some 'balancing' or 'vetting' emphasis. The powers that be are getting very scared of him, I think. And there are more violent or underhanded moves to stop or sidetrack him that can be made by the those powers that be, if they see their slime approach is failing with the public (as so far it appears to have not dented his popularity much).
A hopeful insight came to me the other day about how he should move if he actually does make it into the oval office. It seems to me that, once in power, he should go directly to the people to spell out his call for a radical change in our national priorities. I would like to see him, as soon as possible, begin an aggressive campaign to educate us all on what we MUST do to face the future as a country with intelligent seriousness. Perhaps, as part of this, he could make a series of weekly prime-time speeches to the whole country, honestly outlining the depth of the problems we face, and his vision for the role of our country in their solution. He must be able to, rather soon in his term, effectively communicate why it is urgent that our nation must go in a new direction in order to get through this difficult time, but also how such a shift in emphasis will revitalize and strengthen our society in every way. This could be his ‘fireside chat’ dynamic, so to speak; a reasoned call for the understanding and support of the broad public for a new and 'hopeful' direction in fulfilling the American Dream. He could cover the many areas, such as our energy policy and our relationship to our environment, as well as our positive role in the world, where our perceptions and commitments must change, and gradually build a coherent picture of the consensus we must build for what must be done, with the objective of getting a large part of the public behind this agenda. This new understanding could be supported using the input of the most respected experts in every field where intellectual authority is needed to cement his conclusions. Without some such bold approach to building broad popular support and engagement from the public for his agenda, we can be sure that he will be blocked at every turn by our many entrenched interests, as well as the bought-and-paid-for politicians of both parties in Congress. If that kind of setback to a progressive agenda is allowed to happen, it will be set back very badly early in his first term, and another regressive is sure to be elected in 2012 (if we should survive so long).
Along with this campaign for building a positive redirection of our thinking and acting, it would be important to institute many transparently 'bipartisan' official investigations that would soon reveal, in glaring detail, the lies and crimes of those whom we will have just removed from office. There is an ocean of revulsion to be released there, if only we can objectively get wide circulation of the clear mountains of evidence that would come to light. As with the Nixon era, these examinations of past actions must provide a clear exposure of the ugly truth of their crimes to a public who have ignored or turned away from the shame of what this gang has brought upon us. Between the calm and intelligent exposition of the way forward Obama and his team of officials and experts could paint for us, and a wider public beginning to come to terms with the disgusting criminal past, there may just be a chance that some of we distracted, polarized and dumbed-down citizens will come to our senses, and begin to actively support such necessary efforts to make the real changes our country is so much needing, while also repudiating the old agenda of those who have been about destroying our country for so long. How this is implemented will be important to our healing and coming together, and may require something like what was done in South Africa during their Truth and Reconciliation hearings. I see Obama, due to his race and his orientation to reality with regard to what will build unity among our divided nation, as the only one who might possibly allow us to achieve such an awakening and potential transformation in our political landscape. We can be pretty sure that it will not happen if either of the other two choices being given to us are at the controls come January. Of course, the odds of his success, even if he is inclined to attempt such a redirection and reconciliation, are slim at best, given the entrenchment of all the interests against such change, the media's reluctance to support such an approach, and our own resistance to accepting such a shift in our way of life and expectations as Americans. However, who knows what kind of shocks may occur to our complacency and sense of security and privilege before November. We are at a desperate place where we should do all we can to give this potential a chance.
"Over 50 million people voted for George Bush, not once, but twice! BLAME THEM!! If the democrats would stop nominating the wrong candidates they would win with or without my vote!! And I agree that at the margins democrats can do some good things, but it’s not ENOUGH!!"
I agree, brother, I agree. I still can't wrap my mind around how anyone voted for Bush - twice. And I'm having a hard time understanding how the Democrats (I am not a Democrat) can keep sending up these sow's ears for us to choose from.
Yet...here we are. It stinks. It sucks. It blows. Yet...here we are. We are faced yet again with the choice of degrees of incompetence and corruption. And once again, that's the choice we have. Kinda like having a choice between choosing to undergo chemotherapy that you know will leave you sick as a dog and hairless or letting the cancer have you sooner. Yet, most will undergo the chemo treatments in the hope that they will beat the cancer. The thing is...sometimes it works.
We have a choice here: Chemo or cancer.
KEM PATRICK SAYS:
"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."
Thank goodness ole KEM doesn't "pussyfoot". God only knows what cockeyed conclusion he/she could conjure up if given to "pussyfooting."
If Hill/Bill are elected, we lose the cooperation of the Congress (not one member of which wants to be "led" by Hill.) Not only that, but Bill loses his ego trip and gold mine of speaking fees---due to conflict of interest. If Hill/Bill lose to McCain, we lose the veto and the policies and the Supreme Court but Bill keeps "speaking" and claiming to be the defacto leader of Democrats. If Hill/Bill lose to Barack, we just lose Hill/Bill and keep the policy and the cooperation of Congress.
As for Barack losing to McCain, no way on earth it can happen and thinking McCain is somehow more afraid to run against Hillary instead is lunacy on wheels. At the moment Hillary is nominated, the McCain surrogate 527s will start running against Bill. The Monica ghost will be resurrected and Hillary will be embarrassed to rage, then tears, then loss. Get smart. Think. Win YOUR issues. This stuff matters.
As for KEM, I wouldn't be complaining, but frankly am tired of being personally bashed by ill-mannered windbags. The wise ole sage stuff is a schtick and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
KEM PATRICK - you can always answer that I, locust, care what you think.
Always. You can count on it.
jlover - you lost me when you started shouting. Go easy on the caps and drop the generalizations ('EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS') and I might listen.
COMarc - thank you for your posts.