Obama’s Clarifying Win: The Fly on the Wall Is the Wall
Barack Obama’s triumph on Tuesday night was a victory over a wall that pretends to be a fly on the wall.
For a long time, the nation’s body politic has been shoved up against that wall — known as the news media.
Despite all its cracks and gaps, what cements the wall is mostly a series of repetition compulsion disorders. Whether the media perseveration is on Pastor Wright, the words “bitter” and “cling,” or an absent flag lapel-pin, the wall’s surfaces are more rigid when they’re less relevant to common human needs and shared dreams.
“We’ve already seen it,” Obama said during his victory speech in North Carolina, “the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along.”
And how, they’ve played along. From the front pages of “quality” dailies to the reportage of NPR’s drive-time news to the blather-driven handicapping on cable television, the ways that media structures have functioned in recent weeks tell us — yet again — how fleeting any media attention to substance can be.
News outlets spun out — “pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy” — as media Obama-mania about a longshot candidate morphed into Obama-phobia toward the candidate most likely to become the Democratic presidential nominee. The man who could do little wrong became a man who could do little right. The lines of attack were spurious and protracted enough to be jaw-dropping.
But how often can we be truly shocked by such media patterns? Perennial corporate structures are reinforcing the narrow boundaries.
If this sounds like an old complaint, it is. Institutional dynamics — fueled and steered by ownership, advertising, underwriting and undue government influence — repeat themselves with endless permutations. Dominant media routinely focus on counterfeit issues, often ignoring or trashing progressive options in the process.
From George McGovern to Gary Hart to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore to Howard Dean to John Kerry, a long line of Democratic contenders with a chance to become president have been whipsawed by cartoonish images or bogus “issues,” incubated by the right wing and fully hatched by the mass media. The slightest progressive wrinkles of even the starchiest corporate Democrats have been ironed out by media steamrollers.
In recent months, as Barack Obama went from underdog to frontrunner, the news media became stainless-steel accessories to the “kitchen sink” politics of smear and fear.
The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions.
Yet, in North Carolina and Indiana, voters had more votes than all the pundits did. Pundits lost. Voters came out ahead. So did Obama. And so did the body politic.
We’re still up against the media wall. But when dawn broke on Wednesday, that wall wasn’t quite as high or mighty. And the nation might be able to see a little more clearly beyond it.
Norman Solomon is an elected Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” A documentary film of the same name, based on the book, was released this spring via home-video outlets including Netflix. For further information, go to: www.normansolomon.com
Norman makes some valid points, but is getting too carried away with Obama. “…in North Carolina and Indiana, voters had more votes than all the pundits did. Pundits lost. Voters came out ahead. So did Obama. And so did the body politic…”
The notion that the Democrats are the “lesser evil” is weary, bogus, & ready for the garbage heap. Similarly, just because Obama is less evil than Hillary does not mean he’s any good. When he says something serious about stopping the wars, slashing the military budget, regulating big business, & holding the Bush criminals accountable for their crimes, we’d be entitled to get enthusiastic about him. So far, he’s nowhere near any of those positions, & there’s no objective reason to expect that to change. All he is so far is a Democrat who’s less lousy than Hillary, & who happens to have a good deal of personal charm — not unlike the Bill Clinton of 1992.
To be fair, BO got the kid glove treatment in January and February. Unfortunately for him, what goes up also goes down. And down and down and down some more. The backlash against him on account of Wright, bitter-gate, etc. has been so extreme and so unfair, it’s not off-base to call it, in Clarence Thomas’s phrase, a high-tech lynching. And he’s an inside-the-beltway “centrist.” Imagine what they’d do to a real left-winger.
if hilliary STEALS the nomination from OBAMA….i’m going to write in a candidate….and it’s going to be …KEM PATRICK FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008……are you listening KEM PATRICK…….HE’S SHARP ON THE ISSUES…i still don’t believe (kem patrick) is IN HIS 70′S
The media has a vested interest in keeping Clinton and Obama fighting it out. It’s free programing for them. It provides them with lots of audiences to sell to advertisers. What a game.
Hoa binh
IMHO: What a hypocratical piece of crap this article is. Hypocritical because Mr. Solomon, a justifiable “hero” of progressive alternative journalism, seems totally blinded to the “fly on the wall” of his own colleagues who persist in “seeing no evil” with reference to Barack Obama. When have you EVER seen anything very critical about Obama in Common Dreams, Alter Net, Z Net, Truth Dig, Nation Magazine or the “releases” of Move On or Democracy for America? (to mention a few). A commenter posting on another Obama-fawning Common Dreams piece (”Atonement”) complained about some of the Obama-complainers (like me) on that thread, saying he had thought that CD was a “haven” from all this. And you know what, he’s right. Solomon complained about Obama as moving with MSM from “do no wrong” to “do no right.” The alternative progressive press is consistent, being in the “do no wrong” camp from the beginning and courageously sticking by their guns. In so doing, they have given no credence or even criticism of allegations against Obama far more serious than the specious one about his relationship with Pastor Wright (though of course of lot of cyber-ink was expended on DEFENDING Obama on this non-issue, with the usual motif of casting Obama as a “victim.”) The alternative media continue to give Obama a pass on his fawning relation (like that of Clinton) to AIPAC, and of course no one in the anti-war sector of this alternative community would ask Obama as well as Clinton whether they were going to vote against supplemental war fund. (Since this question wouldn’t “embarass” Clinton any more than Obama, why ask it?) Another pass has been issued to Obama in allowing him to make his half-truth claims that his is a populist campaign that takes no money from lobbyists, a claim laid bare by Pam Martens, but published only in Black Agenda Report and Counter Punch, two online media that have been honorable exceptions to the “havening” of Obama by the others. Again, to get any extended discussion of the ominous scandal clouds growing around the investigation of Obama’s connections to public housing rip-offs in Illinois, one would have to go to Evelyn Pringle’s articles in Counter Currents, another website that, along with Dissident Voice, has stayed outside the haven thrown over Barack Obama. When these media decide a candidate is a “progressive” (not an early judgment by some of them), they all seem to turn into monkeys with all their sensory organs covered, to use another animal imagery.
Yeah, it’s time for HRC to bow out. Time to face the facts. All she’s doing is dividing.
Even if BO got the kid glove treatment before, he has now stared down both barrels, McCain and MSM, and even with HRC tilting the gun his way he’s proven to be more upstanding. While she was joining forces with the devils on the right, he hasn’t stooped to the same lame crap. He didn’t get cheap and point out, while she was trying to set him Wright, that she and Bill saw the good reverend for counseling when there were marital woes. So we’ve seen what both are capable of, and BO has shown to stand far taller.
I admire him for how he’s come through this.
And whenever there was a serious problem he dealt with it by articulating very clearly a reasonable and tempered response; not by getting cheap and trying to scandalize an opponent.
I just hope someone out there is willing to start talking about McCain now and ask how it was that he was getting medical treatment from “those despicable gooks” that he had days earlier been dropping bombs on, while his comrades were languishing next to him. Seems very questionable to me.
Norman’s point none the less stands. The press invents all sorts of reasons why we should or shouldn’t vote for whoever. If we knew how to do democracy we wouldn’t be in this fix. If we knew how to do democracy our networks wouldn’t dare dwell on drivel while the economy is gamed to death by well
connected speculators. They would have to cover substance. As it is, we have people criticizing Obama for not having Kucinich’s positions, knowing full well if he had, he would no longer be in the race.
It’s possible that Obama is doing this balancing act just right, or at least as well as it can be done. Or perhaps, as some progressives whine, he might be almost as disappointing as Clinton absolutely will be.
I don’t think so. I think he will be great. And if I’m wrong? Then we will have the lesser of three evils. But if we stand aside and whine about how we aren’t given as much choice as we would like, then we have to accept that we have no choice, in other words, take whoever they give us.
Don’t forget; The greater two evils are considerably evil - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,… Bomb Bomb Iran,. Or Obliterate Iran vs. Talk with Iran. Thats enough difference for me.
Time for the younger generation to take up the reins and get this chickenshit outfit heading in a direction that has some use for the people of our country. Damn sure us Boomers let it get away from us. What’s that saying…”doing the same old thing in the same old way and expecting different results?” Something about insanity in there somewhere.
Veteran ‘66-68
Great to hear that American voters are using their brains instead of just voting for what the media ‘instructs’ them to vote for.
Whenever you get the chance to vote against the ‘punditocracy’, make use of that opportunity and just do so. It’s the little bit of democracy that you are still granted.
This seems to sum it all up:
“From George McGovern to Gary Hart to Michael Dukakis to Al Gore to Howard Dean to John Kerry, a long line of Democratic contenders with a chance to become president have been whipsawed by cartoonish images or bogus “issues,” incubated by the right wing and fully hatched by the mass media. The slightest progressive wrinkles of even the starchiest corporate Democrats have been ironed out by media steamrollers.”
Thanks Norman, you’re a hero…
Obama’s wins point to the fact that the good people of this nation can indeed see beyond (to a better America), behind (clear channel and Rupert Murdoch)and around this false wall.
I just can’t wait until the news of this national pride hits my local stations, then maybe we will get some real news and newspersons.
Do any of you Obama bashers ever venture out in to public? I am serious. Talk to friends and relatives and co-workers, people in line at the grocery store or bellied up at the bar, and let me know if they would vote for Nader or Kucinich. My liberal friends don’t even know who Kucinich is other than a vegan who sees UFO’s. Destroying every political candidate that can win in this election, 6 months from now, is not a plan to save America.
I am a member of the Green Party but I am supporting Obama because he is bringing new people in to the process. You guys can sit on the sidelines and pretend to be ideologically pure and let all these new voters become as disillusioned and as cynical as you, or worse just drop right back out of the process altogether but that is not a strategy to change America. That is a guarantee that things will get worse. If you haven’t noticed, it takes a lot of votes to become a nominee and even more to get elected. I don’t think you are going to have much success recruiting voters to your candidates by cutting down people, who perhaps are more thoughtful than yourselves, for being blinded by the mystic Obama. If you have a plan please let me in on it. Because I suspect your plan is to turn even more people away from the process that is in place in hopes that America completely crashes. I also suspect that most of you are older than me. I was born in 1971. This is the first dynamic leader in my lifetime that makes me feel that We the People can actually make lasting change. You had JFK, let my generation and all those after me, try to elect ours. And unlike the worst generation, the boomers, maybe we can actually continue the fight after he gets elected. Just my thoughts, because I am really getting tired of these cynics who are arguing against what they want to believe (that we are awe-struck and blinded by Obama and Obama-mania and all your other cute nicknames)and not what supporters like me are saying continuously. That I (we) am not voting because he will change the world but because he is the vehicle in the movement by us to change the world. In this regard Obama would be a spectator along for the ride. This is a new generation and a new world. With instant media and independent media we can actually create the change I assume we all want. So stop with the name calling and either join us or share your plan for changing this rotten system we have now.
Hillary indeed needs to drop out. The claim I’m reading now from both Hillary and the MSM is the states that have yet to hold their primaries are home to many older Americans and agricultural communities, and these demographics typically are favorable for Hillary.
Horse shit! How quickly everyone forgets. What the Hell do people think Iowa is? Let’s see… primary industry is agriculture and the median age is way up there compared the rest of the country. Yet in Iowa, Barack pounded Hillary into the ground. Why would anyone think that Barack can’t do well in the remaining states?
Well, I guess if the MSM says it, then Hillary will start repeating it, and then it must be true. I suspect an anchor job on a national news program awaits Hillary should her bid for the nomination fail.
Jerry D. Rose:
I would agree with your statements up to a point. First of all, the reason why the media doesn’t bring up Obama ‘dirt’ because there really isn’t any. The biggest issue they have had so far is that his former pastor sounds like alot of angry Black preachers I’ve heard most of my life.
Beyond the usual suspects of ultra-left outlets like the Black Agenda Counter Punch, there is no ‘there’ there. These outlets make it clear that they I don’t think Obama is perfect, I support Kucinich and Edwards early on. My favorite site, realchange.org, has barely picked up anything on the guy and they’ve gone after stalwarts like Nader and Kuicinich. Biggest scandal may be shady land deal in Chi-town, which, if it had any real legs, the MSM would have made it Whitewater II.
And as for the AIPAC thing — Obama isn’t stupid, he knows better than to screw with AIPAC at this juncture. Look what they did to Cynthia McKinney. Even with the pander he IS doing, AIPAC is still accusing him of being an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent.
Let’s be honest, Obama hasn’t be the public eye long enough to muster any real dirt. We know everything about Clinton and McCain because they been around the game and up to their armpits in scandal for over 20 years. When Bill Clinton first got elected to the governorship of AK, Obama was in law school. And when McCain was in the ‘Hanoi Hilton’ Obama was still in junior high.
Honestly, I think that a lot of progressives have grown so cynical that we can’t believe ANY viable Presidential candidate isn’t a complete slime ball, or worse, we’re waiting for a lefty Messiah to walk on water and save America from itself. We can’t believe that a fairly decent person would actually want this job. Then there is the other percentage that thinks we can solve our problems through anarchy and street riots. But that’s another story.
Thank you…Please can we discuss the issues. Media perpetuates these non-issues into real decision factors, and people are so stupid to buy into it. personally, i refuse to read anything about or listen to any thing about Reverand Wright… IT’S A NON-ISSUE. We need to care more about what we’re going to do with our country, because if you look at the real issues, you’ll see that we’re not doing good right now…at all
realitychecker, May 7, 2008 2:02 PM: “And unlike the worst generation, the boomers….”
Yer paintin’ with a pretty broad brush there, Pardner.
Glen Ford’s comments on Obama are worth checking out.
Obama is better than HRC and better than Kerry, but dont keep blinders on.
His clean slate is his advantage.
Still say all they need is an attack on Iran and people will go to McCain no matter how crazy he is.
Reality Checker…. that was was beautifully stated. Thank you. I’m approximately the same age as you (1965), have been a member of the Green Party, voted for Nader in 2000, etc. Like Kucinich I am vegetarian and believe in some weird shit (not UFOs but other stuff)…. I’ve finally realized, and Obama has helped me, that what I want is not a President who agrees with me on every issue, but a President who is intelligent, authentic, caring, bold and unifying.
Obama happens to line up with a LOT of my views, but I’d like to think I would support him even if we had more differences.
A few issues are deal-breakers however, because where a candidate stands on those issues are EMBLEMATIC of their general leadership qualities. Hillary lost me for good back when she said she would authorize torture under certain circumstances. Then she lost me forEVER with her idiotic, pandering gas-tax-holiday suggestion, and her claim that those legislators who opposed the idea were on the side of oil companies.
The Obama - Clinton affair is about as real as pro wrestling.
If you want to believe in ‘your candidate’ feel free to do so. Just know that you are being played like a dimestore fiddle.
JFK was a chimera, to the right of Nixon on a great many issues. Like Hitler and Stalin, he exorted people to serve the state: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Boomers and their parents were hypnotized by the “Age of Exuberence” that is now screeching to a halt amidst massive overshoot. Solomon’s piece is a hit piece directed at the media; it is not even focused on Obama except in relation to how the media distorts and manipulates. The Obama quote Solomon chose bears repeating: “We’ve already seen it,” … “the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn’t agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along.” If that wasn’t a Progresssive–Naderite–broadside, what is? I don’t think his pastor could have put it better.
skeezyks- I know. Sometimes I get carried away but it seems fitting since they are the first American generation that will leave less to their children than their parents did. Also, their leaders (that are alive) leave a lot to be desired….
Read the Pam Martens article on Counterpunch. Obama is firmly endorsed by Wall Street. Since McCain is in line with the current government and Clinton seems to be spending her own money, what we are seeing here is a battle of interests between Wall Street and the military complex. That’s what this election is about. And of course, McCain is an idiot and Obama is a filmstar.
Obama, a black man who readily trashes his black pastor? how’s he going to treat the rest of black America when elected? Whites know they can play him like a prized fiddle, baiting him with the race card every time he does something remotely “black.”
That’s right–a black leader ashamed of being black in a racist country–what more could he power structure ask for?
have been whipsawed by cartoonish images or bogus “issues,” incubated by the right wing and fully hatched by the mass media.
And did the people vote for the cartoons , bogus issues , incubations , hatching
É.
If Americans arenèt sufficiently discerning to figure that if MSM says it itès a lie they deserve the dictatorship coming down the pike . America will eventually learn as did the French , Russians… The price of freedom is ETERNAL vigilance
I’m with Glen Goodman on this - I think you hit it right. Point taken on “we have people criticizing Obama for not having Kucinich’s positions, knowing full well if he had, he would no longer be in the race.” You said it, Glen.
Beekeeper wrote: That’s right–a black leader ashamed of being black in a racist country–what more could he power structure ask for?
—–
Worse, a so-called “black” leader who really isn’t black, who turns on the black or white as it suits his purpose (to get elected), who appears to be embarrassed by black when the audience is mostly white, who appears to think that only blacks and half-blacks can discuss race and so he harshly criticizes a white who says he got where he is because of his color when he said the exact same thing about himself 2 or 3 years earlier …
Norman Solomon takes pity on Obama, I wonder how he feels about Clinton, considering that the MSM treatment of her has been a billion times worse …
I’m 72 ~JLover~, but please don’t write that type of thing, I’d much rather be the King for a year.
Boy oh boy, we’d be out of Iraq in five days for starters and our Naval fleets and Air Force would be on their way back home. A copy of our Constitution would be hanging on the walls of every fast food outlet, coffee shop and Wal-Mart rest room in the country.
Bush and Cheney and their mob would be in a monistary in Baghdad, which would previously have been called the American embassy. And John Edwards, Kucinich, and Paul Newman would be my close advisors. Might even find a position for Monica. Lobbying would be a crime with a 99 year jail term for the first offense, death penalties would be abolished.
We’d be building thousands of clean energy plants and phasing out the coal fired and nucker jobs. There would be millions of good paying jobs and the national speed limit would be 58 mph and enforced. Then we’d work out a decent election process and insure our free press was truley free. Helen Thomas would be in charge of that job. That’s for starters.
Then I’d go visit Fidel Castro and ask how we could assist his country if he needed any assistance. Then when a fair and honest election was in progress for an entirely new Congress and president, I’d retire and write blogs here at C/D.
Obama supporters are simply wrong. Prove your point by pointing to real policies, to leadership as a U.S. senator - it’s sad and exasperating! Obamaniacs got their way and we all will go down. This is a say day for the world.
As long as the Left continues to form circular firing squads to shoot down middle-left candidates, the Right will continue to win. What is the real prize here, folks? The prize is keeping McCain out of the White House. The corporate media has a vested interest in putting McCain into the White House, and that’s why we see so much “news” about the Obama/Clinton horse-race. Please let’s remember that if we’re talking about the lesser of two evils, that means that there is a GREATER of two evils, and that’s Mccain. Let’s keep McCain out of the White House, and then let’s stay awake and make sure that we don’t rely on either Obama or Clinton, whoever wins, to help us take back our Constitution. We have our work cut out for us no matter who wins in November; let’s unite and get that work done!
It not a prerequisite for me that a candidate hold all my positions or even a majority or any of specificity for that matter. I question myself often and try to learn from others. I do try to listen to opposing opinions, even if they are not well reasoned as far as i can tell. And I’ve grudgingly come to respect the importance, and yes necessity of nuance because a diverse society requires it (and I do respect and celebrate diversity, I was just slow in making this connection). I’ve come to believe that if I can judge the nuance to be genuine, it is a potential leader saying “hey! you guys have to help me with this”. This is the allure of Obama for me. But I draw the line at being lied to. If you don’t know what I mean you haven’t been paying attention. Follow the money.
The bitter pill is that there won’t be any difference regardless of who is ‘elected’.
A train only goes on the track laid in front of it. The Democrat train and Republican train are running on the same tracks. Obama, Clinton, McCain, are just the words painted on the side of the engine.
Beekeeper and atheist:
I agree with the perspective of your posts of “what could be worse” for blacks than a “black” leader ashamed of them and giving the “nigger get to the back of the bus” message that he gave to Pastor Wright or the “respect the verdict” admonition to the outraged relatives of police-massacred Sean Bell. When I read of the 80% or so of blacks in NC who voted for him, I have to think of Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” and ask “What’s the Matter with Black Americans?” It’s the same story: Frank says rural people in Kansas vote against gays and abortion and get a Republican party that gives them corporate giveaway bankrupty “reform” acts or “Class Action Fairness” (limits suing the people that hurt you) Acts, both of which Obama voted for just like his Republican buddies. Blacks vote for one of “their own” and get a politician who really cares more about his Wall Street handlers and his AIPAC kiss-ups than he does black people. And in all of this you gotta feel for those voters who are so manipulated, whether Kansans or blacks, but especially blacks. They’ve waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing “identity politics” even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)
So what do we need in 2008 America for President? How about a truly progressive person, not a DLC clone like Clinton or Obama? How about a woman? How about a black? How about a black woman? There are several black women that I would support: Barbara Lee and Cynthia McKinney come immediately to mind. But wait a minute, McKinney is a candidate for Green Party nomination isn’t she? And that puts her out of bounds, doesn’t it; since we must once again troop to the polls in November and vote for one of the two candidates of the Corporacratic Party, one with an R beside his name and one with a D beside his or her name. Why? Because that’s the way we play the game of Presidential politics in the U.S.of A.; and it doesn’t make a damn what “generation” we are; if you’re young, well kid, you’re just going to have to choose between the two sides that the old farts have bequeathed to you, so shut up and get to either the D or R side of the bus, because there aren’t and will never be any other seats.
glen goodman: Don’t forget; The greater two evils are considerably evil - Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,… Bomb Bomb Iran,. Or Obliterate Iran vs. Talk with Iran. Thats enough difference for me.
Couldn’t have said it better. I’d like to add… Think about what McCain will do to the Supreme Court. I’m not crazy about Hillary, but I would vote for her if she were nominated on the basis of protecting the Supreme Court from the Republicans. I sure hope that those who are bad-mouthing Obama will think about what the effect of a non-vote or a vote for McCain could bring about. McCain’s choices (more Roberts and Alito’s) will have a devastating impact on the quality of life for generations to come. I know Obama is not as progressive as most of you would like, but he is probably going to be the nominee, and we must support him.
Boy, you Democrats really, really hate each other, don’t you? When McCain wins by a landslide in November, you won’t be blaming Nader and the Greens, will you? It’ll be interesting to see you metaphorically running about the streets with the blood of other Democrats in your fingers and teeth. I wonder if you’ll even be around to have a presidential candidate in 2012. I guess the Republicans will have their chance to unwittingly execute America for its crimes against the Native Americans and African slaves. I feel sorry for our children, but then children have never had a snowball’s chance in hell, have they?
“They’ve waited how many generations to even get the vote, much less to vote a black into the Presidency, so how can you blame them for playing “identity politics” even if it interferes with their own political interests? (For that matter, how can you blame women for supporting Hillary Clinton for the same reason?)”
Exactly- it’s the old divide-and-conquer routine, and it appears to be working exactly as intended.
Alice in Wonderland- I agree with you. First things first, rethugs OUT NOW and we will work on the fine tuning during the democratic administration that must come next!
Its interesting to see the “biased media is against us therefore we’re good” thing playing out in the Dems., having been so long a staple of the GOP, isn’t it?
As far as I’m concerned, until a candidate openly avows to foreswear and roll-back the unconstitutional powers accumulated by the Executive over the last 7, 27, 37 years and longer, they are running not for president but for King, not for the office of Chief Executive but for the Imperial Scepter- and so do not have my vote.
I can see all the reasons why this is unlikely to happen before an actual Convention Nomination makes someone the actual Candidate for the Democratic Party, but I just don’t buy the idea that it couldn’t happen After.
What would the Candidate have to worry about?
The threat of McCain? Don’t buy it. You really think that the People are into the idea of Electing ANOTHER old white guy? One who’s claim to fame is being shot down while bombing civilians in an unjust and nasty war, and yet supports indefinitely the bombing of civilians in another unjust and nasty war? A man so mad or desperate that though he was himself tortured by non-regular units of a nation’s military, he actually Supports torture by the non-regular units of the U.S. military? A man who pledges to support every policy of a King who’s reign may be the most unpopular and openly despised in the Nations’s History? A King who came into Office 7 years ago with eggs pelting his limosine and will leave Office in less than one year having been a “lame-duck” for fully a Quarter of his time there?
C’mon, pull the other one.
Everyone knows that this thing is the Dems to lose.
The whole “the media is against us and they’ll trick all the idiots into voting GOP” thing seems to be a sort of desperate attempt to find a way for a Dem loss to make any sense, but it ignores a few truths:
1)Everybody knows the TV is full of crap. That’s right even the working class, small town people who vote GOP know this, they just think its a slightly different kind of crap.
2)Everbody knows the Parties and their Candidates are full of crap. Even in the fly-over states. That’s why the turnout always hovers in the 50-60% range. Only a little over half of the People in any given year can talk themselves into voting for any of these millionaire politicos.
For the last 40 years or so, “none of the above” has won the Elections for “president” with a large plurality every four years. In other Nation-States, this is called “abstention” and seen as a problem with the Candidates, in the U.S. this is called “apathy” and seen as a problem with the Voters. A true Majority lies in appealing to this abstaining 50%.
3) “Media bias” can only have an effect if a Candidate and party are either, a) too small and divided like the Greens or b) too cooperative with the media bias. Meaning here not the B.S. “biases” of “liberal” and “conservative”, but the true biases of the “medium” (i.e. the actual Television technology) for simplistic and vague language and ideas, and toward constant confrontion over them. These biases are inherent in the machine iteslf, in the same way that my car tends to drive on tires on roads and not fly with wings in the sky -it’s not an airplane, it’s a car.
If a candidate refuses to attend 27 “debates” hosted by TV idiots, refuses to speak in sound bytes and vagurey and instead publishes and promotes and publicly defends a series of concrete, realistic, and needed proposals the “media” would be forced to adjust. This would NOT mean BTW forfeiting an ability to get things out in the simplified short-hand TV ads and discussions force. One could easily reference “My 25 Proposals” or “Our New Way Forward” etc., and then allow citizens or journalists to look into the details.
If Barak Obama adjusts his campaign strategy in this way after he is the clear Candidate for the Dems then he may just have a chance to do more than simply take hold of the Crown and Scepter, he may be able to figurehead a greater Movement to breath new democratic (little d) vigor into the dusty halls of our Republic turned Empire.
Though if not, I surely won’t be surprised.
As for Clinton, how can she be a symbol of new democratizing change if she can only win the nomination by out-dated back-room shenanigans? How can she be a symbol for democratizing change when her main claim of qualification is being the “First Lady” of a previous King?
Any nods from Clinton towards the wishes of the People will be transparent political tricks and calculations. Whether Obama is full of it or not, he certainly seems genuine and certainly doesn’t have a big “LIAR” sign around his neck like Clinton does.
In 1932 the economic and social situation in the U.S. impelled the Dems and their old-money Establishment Candidate to turn politics and government into something that worked for the People. Sixty-six years later Roosevelt and his administation are still fondly and nostalgic-ly remembered by most everyone but Super-right Nazi Nutcases.
Once they get their silly squabbles settled the Dems of 2008 need to decide if they want to return to being the Popular Party of the Majority of the People, or remain the Second-Favorite Lapdog of the anti-democratic Corporatist Oligarchies.
-matti.
Cappadonna3030 writes:
“And as for the AIPAC thing — Obama isn’t stupid, he knows better than to screw with AIPAC at this juncture. Look what they did to Cynthia McKinney.”
Well, she’s running for president, which comes in handy for people who’d like to vote for a black person WITH politics. Obama may not be stupid, but he’s never actually won an election where there was ANOTHER side. And then there’s that MOBSTER thing. And that Patriot Act thing. And that never mentioning POVERTY thing. And that horse puckey about Afghanistan.
Voting McKinney means never having to say you’re sorry.
Corporations, their lobbyists and the US Media are running scared. They realize that Obama if elected can directly communicate with people without the interpretation or analysis by the media pundits or the toning down and softening by the lobbyists.
A leader who directly appeals to people instead of first checking with the lobbyists and then sending up trial balloons to be vetted by the media is unheard of in the US these days.
The last president who favored people over corporations was FDR.
Obama has the potential to do all that - this is truly scary for the inside crowd.
CD seems to tread Obama like he is a saint and Hillary is a villian. Counterpunch is a more balanced site. We need to get away from propaganda, whether it be from the ‘left’ or ‘right.’
Beekeeper, if Obama is “ashamed of being black,” why did he marry a black woman and father children with her?? Hmmmm?
No matter what he does, Obama haters will say he’s either not black enough or not white enough, blah blah blah. I’d just ignore them if I were him. All he has to do is not favor one race over the other — which is exactly what he is doing.
If you have trouble agreeing with Solomon on this one, regardless of which candidate you support, you have not been watching TV, reading a newspaper or listening to the radio.
In response to qbaldsmoove who wrote:
“I just hope someone out there is willing to start talking about McCain now and ask how it was that he was getting medical treatment from “those despicable gooks” that he had days earlier been dropping bombs on, while his comrades were languishing next to him. Seems very questionable to me.”
I’m an Independent and don’t care for any of the 3 candidates but let me enlighten you on McCain and Viet Nam. Read below what was taken from wikipedia.com-
“John McCain’s capture and imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[36][37][38][39] McCain fractured both arms and a leg,[40] and then nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi.[36] After he regained consciousness, a mob attacked him,[41] crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him; he was then transported to Hanoi’s main Hoa Loa Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton”.[41][42]
Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, instead beating and interrogating him to get information.[41] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care[41] and announce his capture. His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of The New York Times[43] and The Washington Post.[44]
McCain spent six weeks in the Hoa Loa hospital, receiving marginal care.[36] Now having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[36] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[45] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[46] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]
In July 1968, McCain’s father was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater.[2] McCain was immediately offered early release.[36] The North Vietnamese wanted a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful, and also wanted to show other POWs that elites like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[41] McCain turned down the offer of repatriation; he would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well.[47]”
Does this still seem “questionable” to you? As I said, I am not a John McCain fan for president but he definitely has served his country well, even though we shouldn’t have been in Viet Nam.
Kem Patrick: Those are some lovely goals. All in favour of Kem being King for a Year say ‘aye’.
Also, one thing that we need to remember when talking about the media is that the courts have ruled that the media has NO OBLIGATION to tell the truth. That’s right, it’s FULLY LEGAL for the media companies to broadcast FALSE information, and outright lies, under the guise of truth. That in itself really says something.
Everyone should read the comments ~TBALTIC~ posted at 4:04 pm. Then read it again and once again. Then digest it and insure you understand it.
That folks is how it is with __Obama__and ~Tbaltic~ could not have said it any better or more wisely.
Thanks for your comment, realitychecker!
I’ve been a big fan of Dennis Kucinich since I met him in June, 2003, and I was a precinct captain for him in Dubuque in January, 2004.
He is correct on every issue, and he’s a great Congressman.
At this point there are three candidates for president, and I’m with you on Obama.
John Freeman,
Amen to that! At quite a few the events I attend, it’s usually senior adults like us. Mostly white hair in the audience, at the rally or on the march. Too many of our young take everything for granted. Hard to get through to them.
Jerry Rose, what a brilliant post.
OK, maybe I will vote in November after all. I’m going to research Cynthia McKinney, and if I like what I see I will vote for her.
Matti: 5:11pm post: You explained your points very well.
I don’t trust Dems anymore and will be voting for McKinney.
The two-party duopoly has got to be challenged.
Go listen to Cynthia McKinney in person. Go hear what she has to say.
She’s constantly smeared in the corporate media. Don’t believe a word they say. Go find out for yourself who she is.
I was lucky enough to have formerly lived in Atlanta, so I’ve had the pleasure of seeing her talk and working on her campaigns. And I’ve seen how you can pick up a corporate paper and read about her and think that you must be reading about some completely different person.
Go see her speak in person.
Here’s one thing the corporate media won’t tell you. In Atlanta, her campaigns felt like an extension of Martin Luther King’s old movement. You’d volunteer, and you’d be meeting people in their seventies who’d marched with the good doctor. Her dad is Billy McKinney, who was a long time activist for equal rights in Atlanta stretching back to the early 60’s. That’s the background she comes from.
So, you can support the phony. You can support Obama who’s speech coaches have tried to teach him the rythyms of a black preacher. And who’s supporters try to draw phony comparision between him and Dr. King. Or you can support the real thing. You can support the lady who grew up in that movement.
Injun Trouble has been smoking something good!
That’s a wonderful example of the fantasy candidate that we are supposed to pretend that Obama is. The problem is, he’s not putting forward any proposals that would support this. And he’s sucking up wall street and corporate campaign money with the world’s largest vacuum cleaner.
To believe in your mythical, fantasy Obama, you have to believe that Wall St. is willing to put millions of dollars behind a candidate that is going to then turn around and oppose the corporations.
If you are that dumb, I’ve got a full-size replica of the Brooklyn Bridge that can be yours for only a couple of million dollars … no, make that Euros (real money).
funny, the baby boomers came closer to pulling off a real revolution in this country than anyone since about 1776. The sixties got closer than anything else I’ve seen.
Too bad the damn kids that have followed ain’t done crap.
–that’s for you ‘realitychecker’
Obama-Clinton Hilarious Math Update
“It’s reached a point that everyone has known for months it had to reach, the point at which even people paid to do so cannot keep it going with a straight face. On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama picked up approximately 99 new pledged delegates from North Carolina and Indiana, while Senator Hillary Clinton picked up about 85. The final count may move a delegate or two, but these numbers are close enough for the following calculation.
Obama now has 1,592 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,419. There are 217 delegates remaining to be pledged. Of those 217, Clinton would need to win 196 to beat Obama, or a victory of 90 percent to 10 percent. That’s about as likely as Dick Cheney hitting 50 percent approval.
Will Clinton finally at long last drop out on Wednesday? Will she wait another week for West Virginia, or yet another week for Kentucky and Oregon? Will she hang in there until June to make sure Puerto Rico doesn’t win it for her, or Montana and South Dakota? And will people dumb enough to still watch television have to endure this crap all summer?
I have nothing against West Virginia or Oregon. I wish every state could be involved in the primaries. I’d hold them all on one day in October if it were up to me. But the corporate media has not been keeping Clinton on life-support these many months out of concern for the voters of remaining states. I’m glad to complain with the best of them when pundits hound decent candidates out of the race after Iowa and prior to 49 states. But once the outcome actually has been decided, why should we tolerate our televisions pretending it hasn’t been?
The numbers above are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out, and also do not include 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.
These numbers do not include Super Delegates. Why not? Because this is a democratic republic, and only pledged delegates are awarded by voters. These are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers.
Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.
So, why does the corporate media behave as if it’s still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.
When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn’t the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?
What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama’s chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?
And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?
Don’t believe me? Don’t know how to do addition? Don’t own a calculator? Here’s a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media’s role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937
Here’s how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html ”
— David Swanson
RichM, the first poster is correct. Norm is getting carried away.
Obama is going to run to the right to try to get elected but it will never be far enough to satisfy those whose votes he’s trying to get. This guy wears DLC, corporate Dem all over his sleeves.
Obama may have won, but we, as a country, have already lost again.
My log in says formernadervoter but I have no choice but to vote for Ralph again. Your only other option if you are a progressive is the excellent Cynthia McKinney.
“To believe in your mythical, fantasy Obama, you have to believe that Wall St. is willing to put millions of dollars behind a candidate that is going to then turn around and oppose the corporations.”
Sigh…this is getting old.
1. I don’t want a corporate candidate to be the next president.
2. A corporate candidate will be the next president.
3. I have to reconcile these two truths and vote for the one that shows me the most promise. I’m not waiting for perfection anymore.
Lillulu, why can’t we let them know that we’ve had enough? Because of the revenge her supporters will visit upon our heads if Hillary gets pushed out before she damn well pleases. The promise that they will move to McCain if we so much as look at them cross-eyed. That is the force that is keeping her dawdling, posturing and mugging for the camera. And they know it.
Why do all the “major” candidates have two blind eyes re. the environment, both in this country and world-wide? Has anyone checked out the League of Conservation Voters?
The world is in a global environmental crisis and all three candidates for the US presidency are showing the environmental awareness of a clerk at the Burger King drive-thru. Of the three only Obama has any hope of opening his mind to reality.
In case anyone hasn’t notice our ability to secure the food, fiber and fuel needed to maintain our glorious economy is in serious jeapordy. You can’t even go to WalMart anymore because the rising prices are giving people paper cuts as they leap off the floor and back onto the stickers.
By the end of the summer at this rate admitting you’re a republican will be akin to stomping kittens while displaying kiddy porn. The Dems will get a share of the blame but since the road to hell has been paved with GOP billboards it won’t make a damn bit of difference.
Hillary should quietly fade away while pretending to campaign to the finish. We need to quit the games and get to work fixing this mess.
I’m going to vote for Obama, but I am shocked at Norman Solomon being so enthusiastic about the guy. Nothing he has said or done merits this sort of thing. He’s better than Hillary and way better than McCain and realistically, that’s enough to get me to vote for him. But he’s a slick, manipulative politician, not as painfully phony as the Clintons, though he does remind me of Bill Clinton in his early days. What they say about Clinton is that he is extremely intelligent and one-on-one a very good listener, one who makes you think he’s with you all the way. Obama seems to have that same effect on people.
There is plenty of info out there about the guy. He’s a classic center-left Democrat. Again, better than Hillary, but then Hillary has really been scraping the gutter, with talk of obliterating Iran and her stupid gas tax pandering. But Obama is also the guy who pretends to be shocked at the notion that US supports terrorism or has committed terrorist acts. This isn’t change–this is the same old thing. Yes, he’s better than the alternative.
And by the way, realitycheck, I wouldn’t be comparing any politician I liked to JFK. JFK was another one of those charismatic politicians whose charisma far outweighed any actual substantive contribution he made as President. He did help get us into Vietnam though. LBJ, who was even worse on Vietnam, was the traditional sleazy corrupt old politician who actually accomplished some things on the domestic front.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Jerry D Rose
Beekeeper
Athiest;
WOW with caps! So now you guys know more about what’s good for Black America than Black America does! That’s about as racist as it gets guys.
I agree with Reality Checker (May 7, 2:02) that Obama can be the vehicle; we have to be the change and stay engaged. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
(But I would compromise on an Obama - KEM PATRICK ticket.)
FDR was a better president because the depression and his wife Eleanor required many actions of him that he might otherwise not have taken.
I don’t think for a second that we should expect Obama, or Kuchinich, or Nader, to be our new Messiah.
They would all fail us, and the media, the military-industrial complex, an assasin, many, many things could put up multiple road-blocks or bring a new administration to a grinding hault.
An engaged electorate — which we rarely come close to having, and always need — is our real need. Not just on election day, but year-round, every year.
KEM: Please add to your regal agenda (1) the need to do something about the mindless brainwashing of TV, and (2) the drug induced stupor of people listening to too many pop love-songs. We have more we need to hear and sing about than sit-coms, reality TV, American Idol, and love/lust in its many forms, desired, unrequited, lost, screwed up, etc. (3) Please nationalize oil as a public utility, with profits going toward renewables, (6) require (and give incentives for) victory gardens instead of lawns, and (5) let Marilyn Manson, Rage Against the Machine and any rap group be the liasons to defense contractor CEO’s for the disassembly of the Military Industrial Complex.
Just a few ideas I thought I’d throw out there. See what you think.
Just let up on HRC, please. This sense of urgency, that we absolutely must have a decision right now or the world will collapse, is a myth, a self-interested sham promoted by a) some people who can’t stand HRC, and b) other people who don’t care who wins but just can’t stand uncertainty and have to have an answer now, right now, or they will just burst because how could they go to sleep at night not knowing who is the chosen one on whom to project their hopes or their enmity.
Remember the same urgency myth when Florida was counting votes in 2000?– “We can’t have more recounts, the world will collapse if a winner (Bush) isn’t declared RIGHT NOW. God forbid that we might have to improvise for a few weeks in order to ensure that the will of the people is respected. It would be unprecedented, and this nation above all must not do anything unprecedented”.
Its not the job of the MSM to step in and decide the matter. That is foolish. This is an internal matter for the democratic party and its adherents, and the party rules are that a delegate needs a certain number of votes to win. Neither candidate has the votes yet, so the contest goes on. Let the people in every state have a voice.
So, lighten up. Other countries hold major campaigns in the span of just a few months– like the span from the August convention to the November vote. Its more than enough time to distinguish tweedle-dee from tweedle-dum if the MSM would just focus on the issues. Thats the real reason we hate to see this race go on.
Yep ~PF LFYER~ I’d have a very busy year, no days off, lot to clean up. Any company who outsoureced to a foreign country would be taxed 80% off the top. TV ads would be outlawed forever for politicans. The supreme court would be elected by the people and serve no more than a 12 year term. Teh auto indust y wold have thre years to produce good electrical powered vehicles. Lots of stuff to do.
And ~NANNIE~ I’ll say it again.
Ralph Nader won’t win.
Ralph Nader won’t win.
Ralph Nader won’t win.
We need a one year King or Queen and I nominate Paul Newman, Ophah Winfrey or Jay Leno.
I don’t think it used to be this way in America, this two plus year media fixation on the presidential race. Christ, we have another six more months of this crap and nothing is going to change no matter who gets elected. We’ll have a few months reprieve, then we’ll start hearing about the 2010 election then the 2012 election shortly thereafter. We’re already hearing about Hilary’s probable bid in 2012.
Americans buy millions (billions?) of dollars worth of “how to diet” books and get fatter all the time, as if buying a book will make one thin. Similarly, fixating on this pathetic bunch of presidential candidates, ad nauseum, will not cure the ills that plaque this society.
Hail Kem… The best so far…Hail
We are getting the signatures and donations to provide for a good solid run.
while all the fussie fussie goes on with O&C the real contender for the office of President, Ralph Nader is getting it all together and will be such a force everybody will welcome his experience, wisdom, honesty and intelligence.
That we are waxing poetic over Obama shows how low the bar is set in our expectations. He is, at least, a possibility. There is an element of unknown. His campaign funding has come largely from Mom & Pops and their kids. Not so bit on the corporate bribery. That smacks of potential. At this point, it’s enough. It’s all we have, really.
I agree realitychecker!
Obama is differant, he gets his contributions and votes from college educated (ie: intellectuals) as well as the poor and middle class.
I’m trusting him to unite our fractured country.
Please don’t discount the baby boomers or the little old white ladys, I’m one..
whatever you say: (May 7 11:43 P.M.)
So now its “racist” for a few humble posters on this site like myself to join those “racist” folks like Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon and Margaret Kimberly at Black Agenda Report in making some comments on what we think is best or worst for black Americans. No, I’m the wrong “demographic” (white “intellectual” older male living in Florida) to be able to have an authentic understanding of those black American needs. But it’s perfectly ok for Solomon and for the Purity Police for Obama (PPFO) who patrol this website to “wax poetic” about the “need” for the whole country of this uniter who will take us “beyond” race and gender and regional and even ideological differences. If we’re “racists,” what term is there for folks who presume to make judgments about what’s “right” for people outside their own narrow “demographic?” Could we please get a waiver from the PPFO to exercise our sense of civic responsility to think about the needs of all people in this country–and in the world for that matter? If we’re wrong in these judgments, you’ll “correct” us, but let us speak at least without being put down as racists or whatever-ists If we can’t get this waiver, I’ll take off my watch and jewelry a la Marcia Clark and you can take me straight to PPFO jail to join all those folks (mostly black) in the incarcer-Nation that your hero never seems to talk about. (Oops I presumed again to express a judgment sympathetic to black Americans; how racist can you get?)
To Samson and all “closet” McKinneyites out there: it’s tough to find a similarly-hearted person on this string and not be able to make contacts without making your overtures to the whole world wide web. I’ll put my e-mail here to encourage the beginning of a web of communication that you won’t get through the “media”: either MSM or the so-called “progressive” press which belongs to Barack Obama. My address is jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. Let’s talk, folks, through a Committee of Correspondence, if necessary. With Common Dreams, Nation, etc. likely to shift their partisanship now to bashing Nader and McKinney with Clinton almost gone from the race, these contrarian posts on the next round of their service to Obama, along with whatever independent networks we can cobble together, may be our only hope for any small “voice” in the upcoming decision in November.
.
Obama’s Top Contributors
here is the web page once again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
It explains far better than I…
.
McCain will win the general election for president of the US. Why?
McCain will exploit the racist leanings of Americans by portraying Mr. Obama as a black crack head, a pimp for Wall Street, unpatriotic, etc. etc.
Americans, by and large, are dumb as bricks. But shades of facts makes the best propaganda.
Nannie, thanks for hanging in there on this with your 8:23 post this morning.
The link you provide is still the best “quickie” way to encapsulate the campaign funding of Obama’s “populist” campaign; Martens’ work is a lot of icing on that cake.
Looking again at that link, I was struck with a “coincidence” with an item in this morning’s news. The 3rd-highest contributor is listed as UBS ag at $363,000 dollars, and I presume this is the international powerhouse brokerage firm UBS Financial. Today’s Boston Globe headlines that the AG of Massachusetts has just negotiated a $37 million settlement on behalf of cities and towns and the turnpike authority in the state for having lost money by investing (on UBS advice) in “auctions-securities” which seem to be bundled bad loans from subprime mortgage lending. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/05/08/broker_to_return_37m_to_towns/
The New York Times reports this morning that, as a generality, class action suits of investors against Wall Street firms are very difficult to prosecute, since Supreme Court decisions keep “raising the bar” on the level of proof required to sustain a claim of damage for wrongful investment advice. The article doesn’t mention the effects of the 2005 Class Fairness Act, which was actually an effort to put a cap of class action suits, and which our populist hero, Senator Obama, supported. Even if the Supremes are the major culprit in this, reflect on the oft-stated that we just have to have a Democrat in the White House to appoint the next Justices; but do you reckon that Obama would appoint justices likely to circumvent the agenda of his Wall Street supporters. Or am I being “racist” again, just because so many blacks (and people of all other colors) have lost their homes in the housing “bust” that wasn’t a bust at all for the WS profiteers from same?
Opeluboy (May 7: 5:l5 P.M) “If you have trouble agreeing with Solomon on this one, regardless of which candidate you support, you have not been watching TV, reading a newspaper or listening to the radio.”
Something must be awry in my reading skills. I don’t watch much TV or listen to much radio, but I do read each day(online) about 30 newspapers (well, let’s be honest, I scan them) in the U.S. and worldwide, and for some reason I still “don’t agree with Solomon on this one” (or did you notice?)
Well said, realitychecker! I wonder waht these ideological purists say about the state of public reason within the progressive community.
I have no problem with honest and fair critique of Obama’s policy positions. Indeed, I think that there are many legitimate criticisms of Obama to be made by the progressive community.
Nevertheless, I think that realitychecker is right to point out the cynicism and elitism of the progressive-purists who say that a large number of Americans are blinded by the Obama mystique. I don’t think it’s that simple.
I wonder if this kind of ideological purity isn’t symptomatic of late-capitalism. In other words, is the progressive community actually turned off to the real world of the people they want to help that they turn to their private sense of morality into a set of uncompromisable political beliefs?
ISSUES: here is one we never hear about from the Dem’s and may comeback to haunt them if not dealt with. Oil - attacking the oil company profits is a loser. What we need to think about is using the remaining crude oil for plastics and stop pretending we don’t need it for anything at all. Certainly we can replace it as the most common fuel for vehicles within 3-5 years tops. The efforts of which would ceate more jobs and help the economy. The economy needs jobs not more rhetoric, and tareting companies for making profits is a loser everytime.
I’ve been impressed by Obama’s political savvy, and he’s been pretty successful at painting the Clintons as practitioners of the politics of the past. His speech in response to the smearing of Reverend Wright was subtler and smarter than almost any one I’ve heard on MSM. But, what has he said to make us believe that he will take on the war machine or the parasitic corporatocracy? As one writer said on C-SPAN BOOK TV, “I find his statements remarkably short on substance and meaning”.
I believe that Obama has had enough obstacles to overcome the Clinton machine that the last thing he needed was to be branded as an ultra liberal, especially when Clinton has positioned herself further and further to the right. I believe Obama will become more and more substantive once he nails the nomination. This election is going to be fun; finally, we’ll have a real decision to make instead of choosing with whom we’d rather have a beer with.
“Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.”
That’s correct, but this isn’t new; Clinton lost this race three months ago in the very way you describe, and embarked upon that strategy–to get the superdelegates to pull a George Bush Jr. and throw out the results of the election in order to coronate her. The corporate press has been acting as her enabler, rather than telling the public this. Every single person who has voted for her in that time-frame, without exception, has been, in effect, backing Junior Bush’s 2000 post-election coup attempt.
~NANNIE~ thank you for posting that very revealing link today at ( 8.23am ). Obama has constantly said he takes NO money from PACS, but he’s actually recieved ($131 million ) from PACS as I read it.
Now let us go back to what ~TBALTIC~ posted on ( May 7th at 4.04pm ) He is absolutely correct. Why hasn’t Hillary pointed out more of Obama’s flaws or mis-statements in that respect? Because when she or Bill Clinton do, they are accused of playing the race card.
If Obama was as good as he sounds or as good as he has written about HIMSELF in his book, he’d be the best president we ever had. ____ Sorry, he’s not what he says he is and he didn’t put it all in his book. He’s not even close to his SELF portrayal. But wow, can he ever deliver a speech, magnificent.
If any take the time to check his votes as a U.S. Senator, they would discover that he’s as close to McCain or Lieberman as any could be. And McCain and Lieberman are as close to Bush as any could be. Talk about the Pied Piper, ____ time will tell.
In the end, the fault always lies with the overwhelming stupidity of so many Americans who cannot, or refuse, to see through the manipulation of corporate media. The present incarnation of the MSM peddles the world’s greatest brand of utter bullshit since the communists and the nazis. The only difference is that it’s more “entertaining”. So go ahead, “my friends”, and have yourself of couple of yoks before they flush us all down the toilet.
TIME ALWAYS TELLS.
All these posts about how Hillary should get out now, she’s only in there as a spoiler, she’s an ego-maniac, you name it: I can’t totally disagree but for all that, whether she gets out or not I think the “superdelegates” should absolutely hold their decisions for now if not right up to the convention. My reason, and you Obama adorers won’t like this but, like it or not, here’s what I think are the “facts, m’am” just the facts. In Obama we have a person who, rightly or wrongly, is incredibly vulnerable to being Spitzer-ized: you know, one day you’re the top of the world, the next you are dog meat because someone with an interest in grinding you up is able to come up with some “information” about you that means your immediate downfall.
Obama’s “vulnerability?” Not any kind of sexual deviance, homo or hetero, so far as I know, rather it’s his business dealings (Nixon’s downfall if you remember): both in Chicago and with Wall Street. The Tony Rezko trial in Chicago seems to be proceeding without any Obama “implication” being established in any chargeable way, however “irregular” his relations with TR might be. But DA Patrick Fitzgerald has already sent one Illinois Governor to jail, and who knows whether he would stop at any opportunity to do the same with a Senator?
As for the Wall Street thing, we’ve argued on this thread about what kind of campaign contributions fuel Obama’s campaign, but one thing is “perfectly clear” as RN might say: he was the recipient of $330,000 from UBS, really a toxic name to be found as your third largest contributor. It’s the Swiss investment conglomerate which is now tanking as it “writes off” billions in its assets and, just this morning, one of its executives was “briefly detained” in the U.S. on suspicion the company may have been advising clients on U.S. tax evasion (a Swiss financial institution? nah!). Is this an indication that Bush’s “Justice” Department is perking up its ears for a prosecution in which Obama just might be involved? I found this morning (yes I’m looking, as investigative reporters—which I’m not—should be looking) an article on a reporter’s “picking through” Obama’s investment portfolio. In truth the pickings were slim except in terms of a couple of investments in 2005 when there was a “coincidence” of Obama’s small (and unprofitable) investments in telecommunications companies that just happened to be seeking and getting some large “homeland security” grants from Congress (no evidence that Obama was directly involved in the funding decisions.) Interesting here was the identity of the investment firm which recommended these bad investments to him: UBS, which specialized in bad advice and is currently a respondent in investor law suits for that very reason.
Scoffers will say that these are small potato things that could be “picked out” of anybody’s past, and of course they’ll say that Hillary is so very much worse. But we’re not talking here (please!) about Hillary’s vulnerabilities but Barack’s.
My point is not to raise accusations against Obama but simply to point out that there is enough smoke in his background to provide the possibility for some Spitzer-ing fire as the Republican noise machine cuts loose on him when he’s a candidate. So here’s where the super-delegates come in. They have been much maligned as un-democratic but their non-commitment may be the last safety net for dealing with suddenly discredited candidates. I wouldn’t want to see a repeat of the Tom Eagleton affair in which McGovern (wasn’t it?) had to replace his vice-presidential nominee after he was already announced and then it was revealed that Eagleton had once (gasp!) been treated for mental problems, and McGovern had to say weakly, “well I asked him if he had any skeletons in his closet”) one incident (among many other factors) that contributed to the McGovern ticket’s humiliating defeat. As Pam Marten said in her articles on Obama’s Wall Street connections, WS “vetted” him as acceptable for its purposes before it chose to sponsor his presidential bid, and that a party has the same responsibility to “vet” its candidates with the “skeletons in the closet” questions before they put their eggs in the basket of that candidate.
Now I’m not a Democrat (only a former one) and in a sense I don’t care how flawed a candidate the party puts forth but in a sense I am concerned and, when push comes to shove and the “lesser evil” of a Democrat or Republican has to be chosen, I won’t be making that “choice” in my own vote, but I’d much rather it would be a “viable” Democrat; and that’s where the super-delegates might come in as a Mighty Mouse to save the day for the Democrats, the Republic and the world.
~JERRY D. ROSE~ you have nailed it perfectly. It isn’t that Obama has recieved PAC money, they ALL accept PAC money. The issue for the Republicans will be that Obama has constantly denied it, among other things that are going to be impossible for Obama to answer with any credence. The Repugs will “obliterate” him. Sorry, the devil made me use that word.
In addition as you noted, Obama has a closet full of skeletins and the Republicans will empty the closet on him for all to witness. Hillary has not done that for many reasonable reasons. After all, Obama will likely be the Demo candidate and she knows it and she’ll campaign for him because she doesn’t want to see McCain win either. But the Republicans will have a field day with Obama.
Let’s grant Jerry D. Rose and KEM everything they say about Obama’s vulnerabilities, as well as their position that ultimately this is where the whole superdelegate concept shows itself to be a wise feature of the DP’s nominating process.
The question remains, what should the superdelegates do and what can they do?
Here’s what they can’t do (not in terms of authority, but in terms of public perception): they can’t say, “both of these candidates (Obama and Clinton) are flawed, so we’re nominating some third candidate.” That would require way more spine and several more testicles than anyone in the DP has.
So they’ve got Obama and Clinton to choose between. Who do they choose?
Jerry’s made a case for Obama’s vulnerabilities (as has KEM), but Jerry suggests that Clinton’s got them too. (and I think anyone who’s been awake for the past 20 years would be able to produce a list of these without much difficulty)
KEM suggests that she does too, but that she’s kept these hidden for some undisclosed reason (I suspect because they actually are hiding in plain sight and have been for 15 years or so).
So we’re back to the question of what the superdelegates do to save the DP’s chance to take the white house.
Thoughts?*
*Does anyone here remember when the Yippies ran a pig for president?
.
Dear Friend:
Here’s a safe bet: the two major political parties will nominate Presidential candidates from the corporate wings of their parties.
What will that leave us in this election year?
Corporate control as usual.
If this happens, we have two choices – throw in the towel.
Or fight back.
If we choose to fight back, here’s a good option:
Join with a person whose life is one of dedicated service to the public interest.
To help him organize a political campaign in every state against corporate control over our lives.
Luckily, that person – Ralph Nader – is running such a campaign.
But he will need active and informed citizens in every Congressional district in the country.
He will need volunteers.
He will need funds.
He will need dedication.
That’s why I’ve signed on at Nader’s campaign web site at www.votenader.org.
Check it out.
And spread the word.
In 2008, it’s either sit back and watch the drift.
Or get off the couch and fight back.
Hope you will join me.
Thank you.
.
I should add that I don’t think it is going to come down to the wire, despite HRC’s declaration to stay in until the end. I think you’ll see more and more people inside the party rallying around Obama just as David Bonior, John Edward’s campaign manager, did today.
HRC will (I believe) ultimately not want to damage her own future presidential aspirations by appearing like George W. Bush, convinced that she alone knows what is good for the country/party and ignoring the growing chorus of voices calling on her to bow out gracefully.
That approach worked disastrously for Ted Kennedy back in 1980, when he pushed his claim to be the party’s nomineed right up to the moment of the convention. The lesson that HRC will draw from this is not that Kennedy’s tenacity cost the Dems the white house in 1980, but that it effectively ended Kennedy’s presidential aspirations forever.
.
I went back and checked on the other candidates to see who was getting from whom and found a interesting thing.
Ron Paul who of course is the ” NO WAR ” candidate received almost ALL of his top contributions from DEFENSE corporations. Odd…
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008
.
In the U.S. political landscape, being opposed to war doesn’t mean being opposed to militarism. So Ron Paul’s acceptance of defense corp money doesn’t surprise me a bit.
I never heard about the pig being on the ballot ~ERIC~
but we’ve had a lot of jackasses to vote for or against.
Sure Hillary has skeletens, but her’s have already been hashed out and they aren’t hidden and many are bogus and most know about those. She has exactly the same amount of rabid supporters as Obama has. The problem is, If Obama is the Demo nominee, a whole brand new list of things about him that HE’S so far hidden from the public, are not hidden at all, but no one has brought them up yet.
The Republicans are frothing at the mouth to bring them out into the open and Obama will be exposed for what he actually is and the honeymoon will be over. It will be sadly known by all, that Obama is just another smooth talking politician and a very decieving one at that. ___ McCain will win.
If Hillary is the nominee, the charges the Repugs will toss at her have already been tossed so often they are practically meaningless. And McCain will be running agaisnt Hillary and Bill Clinton. Bill is still very well liked, in spite of his making oral sex a household word.
If Hillary is the Demo nominee, she will beat the pants off of McCain, but ONLY IF Obama is her VP choice. So that’s what the super delegates and Obama have to consider. You asked for an opinon ~ERIC~ and that’s mine. We all have opinions, I’m often right however, I must admit with all humbleness and full respect for most others.
Seriously, McCain will beat Obama and Hillary/Obama will trounce McCain. That’s the bottom line.
Well, I’m glad to see I’ve raised some misgivings about the Obama “vulnerability,” as short as I may be on the “superdelegates” as the solution to the issue. Probably this “vetting” should have happened much, much earlier in the campaign; the information about the Wall Street and Chicago has been available for months, but few have sought it to address it, maybe because they felt that the “normal” process of selection would “take care” of the Obama-problem.
Nannie, to your post above about Ron Paul’s contributions; I had already posted a requested “explanation” on thne Atonement article comments, but that string is about to peter out and you probably didn’t see it:
…..
Nannie, interesting observation and question. Explanation? Well, I have trouble navigating Open Secrets when I have a question of who gives what to whom, but I think it’s something like this:
1. Ron Paul’s “defense corporations” are first of all the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, along with a few defense contractors, and Google, and I presume that these are “bundled” contributions from soldiers, employees or even internet users, that are recorded under these rubrics.
2. The contribution levels are small, compared with the 6-digit level “top” contributors to Obama and Clinton, something like 72,000 I believe as the “top” contributor compared to the over a half million from Goldman Sachs to Obama. I would think that these same contributors who are “tops” for Paul would appear way down their fatter lists.
Bottom line: I think Open Secrets shows that Paul is far more the authentic “populist” fund raiser than Obama claims to be; I don’t like the “libertarian” cast of Pauls’ domestic policies, but I admire his forthrightness as opposed to the “half truths” that come so often from Obama.
And the outright lies.
Well ~NANNIE~ I have consistantly stated, “a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain”. But I sure am having second thoughts about that.
This is definately the year for a third party candidate and that will be Ralph Nader.
The media is doing a blackout so the only attention he is getting is through the blogs and by giving speeches in every state that he is trying to get on their ballot. You know what a grinding road that is.
Visit his election webbsite, give them some encouragement. Donate if you can . You won’t see Goldman Sach contributions there.
He will be a fine President.
.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Nader Issues:
Adopt single payer national health insurance.
Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget.
No to nuclear power, solar energy first.
Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare.
Open up the Presidential debates .
Adopt a carbon pollution tax .
Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East .
Impeach Bush/Cheney.
Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law.
Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax .
Put an end to ballot access obstructionism .
Work to end corporate personhood.
Lets just annoint him as King for a year NANNIE.
I think the media should be censured and the FCC should rule that no media has the right to exclude any politician who is running for office as happened recently with the ABC debate. The only exclusion should apply to a candidate not sitting in public office. The license of ABC would be lifted if the rules were changed but the congress, with the exception of a few pushes for more media conglomeration supported by special interests. I hope that someone picks up on this thought. We have seen an obsession by FOX and CNN, particularly in the form of Wolf Blitzer, constantly referring to the Rev. Wright controversy.
He is quick to use every possible negative he can against Obama from the Flag Pin to anything else he could get his mouth around. His bias for Clinton has been clear and inappropriate for CNN to call itself a “fair and balanced” news network. I quote Mr. Nichols:
” The media pretense of being a fly on the wall has often been preposterous. In the real world of politics — where power brokers and manipulators proceed with the cynical axiom that perception is reality — the fly on the wall is the wall. The political press corps is not observing reality as much as redefining it while obstructing outlooks and constraining public perceptions.”
As usual, few are able to see the stampede of the public sheep. I support the change that Obama represents! He is intelligent and wants America once again to be looked upon as a great nation that it could be and once was. The present “lack of experience” cry of Clinton is preposterous. Could anyone have been near the White house as long as Bush and done as badly for the USA? There is experience! However, saying that is the discovery of a job approval rating at about 28% by the American people. No one could have been as bad as the Bush team! There is experience!
A flight from entrenched American politics is necessary . . .it has ruined this country and made greed the single value of importance. The young people once again embrace hope as a result of the Obama campaign. The Hillary political group and entrenched politics have virtually destroyed America with its policies and exclusive power clubs. She has believed this form government is America. She has recently morphed to the Obama populist message while at the beginning showing her Madeline Albright bomb the children image.
Can anyone truly think that change is unnecessary? I guess so since all the politicos have adopted his message including McCain? The mistakes that Obama may make as president cannot be greater than those of the past seven years. It is also necessary to give him a democratic congress to make certain that the programs that Americans want can be enacted.
Mr. Gore Vidal, has pointedly criticized mainstream media as one of the major problems and what is wrong with the USA. The corporate media conglomerates control the message and that message is perversely distorted and panders to its advertising portfolio!
Wolf Blitzer one of the glaring examples of this criticism shows clearly those distorted ideas in his reporting, which is nothing more than partially factual opinion. He is a person who has no right to shape public opinion and is far from being the “fly on the wall” he espouses to be. We must remember flies morph from maggots. He displays ignorance as a virtue for the entire world to see, an example of what is considered, by many in Americans to be news reporting. If billed as a CNN commentator, at least the public would not be hoodwinked to believe his reporting to be the truth or his lack of concern for accuracy, rectitude and fairness to be news rather than opinion.
The people of the USA have been so ill informed as to what a change would really do and mean to this country and the change in leadership that is necessary, they have forgotten that no one could be worse than George Bush. . . No one; not even a dogcatcher, at least the dog catcher has compassion for animals!
The problems with the US future leaders, Obama or McCain, as president, is the problem once again the public kept ignorant of the issues by the media. In the heat of elections the media panders to voter ignorance. The emphasis, as we see nightly are candidates miscues as a result of the media sensationalism, the wrong problem and the wrong message at this crucial time. The emphasis should be on having the politicians address a credible platform of ideas based on an American and global interaction and world problems.
There is not enough time left for civilization to focus on rubbish. The energy and environmental issues for example or food and health care are the problems the media should be focusing upon. But to use the Rev, Wright issue for one week, to try and hurt the candidacy of Obama is a travesty. The issues most pressing are once again avoided, those really important issues before the congress, like the environment, continued funding of Iraq energy issues, education, health care and so many others not dealt with, all impacting upon the economy, is outrageous!
The issue of this election will impact on the environment, economy and the future of the USA as no others. Yet, if more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes it will be a miracle because of regressive US election laws and media obfuscation. It is compulsory for every one to vote in Australia it should be so here as well. Few of the candidates are really talking about the major points, the environment in association with the economy or health care and elections reform to name some as a result of all the nonsense punditry for so many hours.
The world looks at America and its “star struck reality” in wonder.
Still the political discussion rests on the complete lack of talking points in isolation, such as Clinton’s health package, or the nonsense gasoline tax rebate and it’s cost, rather than what is really at stake with energy issues, which is human survival. The candidates wanting to be president rarely talk about the complete interrelated package of all these issues combined, as Obama alludes to and wants to enjoin. When he asks for this to occur it land on deaf ears because the media and special interests do not want this to occur.
The media reduces the public debate to its most simplistic level with pundits arguing about one inconsequential issue or another rather than the truly important issues of our time. The American people are kept from hearing about the entire package of issues which a true leader must address and deal with for the very survival of America in the world within a global economy are at stake.
The media keeps the public dumbed down for obvious reasons they represent the money people. As a result the public becomes unable to talk about moving radically toward change to deal with climate change, energy issues and the global economy not only American economy. All the other issues like people losing their homes as a result of Wall Street manipulation are tied to these fundamental problems. These is the first and major issue which affects all other issues and is completely related to the economic changes which must take place.
The media board rooms instruct their so-called journalists (news/opinion readers) to stay clear of those subjects that would attack advertising, consumption, and result in the decline of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. All environmental problems are in one way or another associated with the Western world’s consumption based lifestyle led by the USA. These issues are affected by consumer advertising much of it coming from the millions spent on irrelevant product and campaign advertising. The media should be dealing with true American and global issues in this campaign affecting the very basis of the so-called American Dream, fast becoming the global nightmare.
yes.. the media is working for their robber baron owners and their interests….they all should be locked up after being tarred and feathered….
their plan is to keep americans in the worst slavery system as possible to help enrich their robber baron owners.. how in the world did americans get so brainwashed to allow the news to be OWNED by the rich robber barons???
one can find out where the most wise people are by checking the counties and their voting….. if one is checking to find the most WISE white people…. then you will a low vote for hillary and the clintons.. cause they have been vetted and PROVEN as the most corrupt politicians in americn history and one ALWAYS takes a NON vetted person over a proven crook.. so any wise person would take obama over hillary..
when one has been vetted and PROVEN as corrupt to the core like the clintons… that s