The Change We Can Believe In?
The Presidential candidate who promises to change Washington raced into Washington’s arms right after the media crowned him as the presumptive Democratic nominee.
During a Thursday visit to the nation’s Capitol, Barack Obama was fawned over by those he critiqued two days earlier: “Washington didn’t give us much of a chance,” he said during his North Carolina victory speech.
Clearly, that’s no longer the case.
But, being hailed as a winner is different from being hailed as the change agent Obama pledges to become.
Obama changed the rhetoric and style of the 2008 contest and would make history if he becomes the first African-American president. A Democrat in the White House would change the dogma. But what else, besides the face of Washington, will he change?
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright called him out as a politician, a description that angered Obama as much as any other declaration by his former pastor because it exposed an unflattering truth. Obama held Wright close when it was politically advantageous and cut the controversial minister loose when it was politically advantageous.
The Obama campaign discouraged revotes in Michigan and Florida. It’s running the clock when it comes to coming up with a solution about seating delegates from those states. Both states ignored party rules when they scheduled their primaries, leading the Democratic National Committee to strip their delegates. The Obama campaign did not rush to find a way to seat them and help Hillary Clinton add to her delegate count.
During the long primary season, Obama was occasionally asked to answer for actions that add up to very ordinary politics. One example is the flap over the North American Free Trade Agreement and an Obama representative’s suggestion that what the candidate was saying on the campaign trail would not govern his actions as president.
He worked with lobbyists as an Illinois legislator and US senator, even as he distances himself from them as a presidential candidate. The Republican National Committee sent out a press release Thursday, noting that a former lobbyist, Antill E. Trotter, held a fund-raiser for Obama that night in Washington. Trotter specialized in telecommunications, transportation, and environmental issues from 2000-2004. The RNC release also contained reminders of an ABC News report that Obama introduced nine bills to make certain chemicals tax-exempt at the request of some corporate lobbyists; and a Boston Globe report about Obama’s work with an insurance lobbyist to make healthcare legislation more acceptable to insurance companies.
A first term senator, Obama’s relative newness to Washington helps him draw a symbolic contrast with Clinton and Republican John McCain. But in recent weeks, as more Democrats in Congress fell in step behind Obama, the establishment provides a familiar backdrop for his fresh face. During Thursday’s visit, he looked like anything but an outsider. Greeted like a celebrity, he shook hands with members of both parties and posed for photographs during a stop in the House of Representatives.
The positive side of this image showcases a candidate who can unify his party and work with Republicans if elected. But part of Obama’s appeal to voters is his promise to dramatically change the political culture in Washington. Savoring last week’s primary victory, he said, “What North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington, D.C.”
The senator from Illinois walks a delicate line. He’s the newcomer who crashed the 2008 campaign and changed the script from Clinton’s inevitability to his own. He argues that he’s best suited to challenge Washington’s political culture because he isn’t steeped in it. Today, Clinton is scorned by Democratic insiders and McCain is more maverick than darling of the GOP.
Obama speaks exquisitely about change; the signs at his rallies and speeches underscore one pledge: change.
After eight years of partisanship and unproductive chill between the executive and legislative branches, it’s a change to see a presidential candidate warmly embraced by the establishment.
But if Obama wins the Oval Office, the next step is calculating how much distance it takes to truly change the status quo.
Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com.
© 2008 Boston Globe
Obama won’t save us or make any big changes, but I will settle for him because I don’t expect him to make things worse. Clinton or McCain would.
Clinton is such a disgrace by any ethical standard that Obama looks great next to her.
Joan Vennochi’s article is lukewarm dishwater. It’s boilerplate background noise — neither vicious enough nor insightful enough to warrant special attention.
Sure, Obama can be criticized in the way JV criticizes him. The real problem, though, is not Obama. It’s a political system that makes swearing fealty to the tenets of militarism & corporatism a precondition for being a “serious” candidate. Once you accept that system, you forfeit your right to complain that Candidate X has “ties” to lobbyists.
In the next-to-last sentence, you can see that JV’s poor brain is running out of gas. Having a deadline to meet for submitting her column, & desperately looking to close on a note of grand profundity, she writes, “After eight years of partisanship and unproductive chill between the executive and legislative branches, it’s a change to see a presidential candidate warmly embraced by the establishment.”
- “Unproductive chill?” Talk about understatement! She’s describing what was essentially a coup d’etat, & the systematic dismantling of the American Republic by a gang of vicious war criminals, as an “unproductive chill.” Too funny! // And then what’s this jazz about it being a “change” to see a candidate “warmly embraced by the establishment”? Actually, Bush Jr was precisely the candidate of the “Establishment,” which is why the media protected him & ran cover for him ever since they helped him steal his way into the White House. There’s no such thing as a presidential candidate who is not agreeable to the Establishment, because you don’t get anywhere near the nomination without Establishment support.
RichM - good analysis, thanks for all your contributions here.
Now where’s Rich Griffin to helpfully repeat his mantra - c’mon, say the magic word, we all need to hear you say it a few more times today…
RICH M: Your analyses are always lucid and powerful. Yesterday the thought occured to me that as much as America has become its own corporation, the elites have probably decided that OBAMA would present a good PR face lift for brand name America. He’s NOT an obvious continuation of the 2 dynastic families that have played a huge role in morphing both parties into one, that of big money. He is a decent orator, his ethnic features may help to make friends of enemies oversea, and as most of us acknowledge, with so much at stake (expanding Middle East War, global warming, US deficits/bankrupt status) the TIME needed to build a Green party/3rd party is not available… so we go with the best of the alternatives pre-selected. There is always the hope the wind of public outrage will rise beneath his wings and carry him further than his corporate sponsors would venture to go. There is, in other words, always HOPE which even Pandora recognized was the last saving grace in a world gone amok.
Of course Obama will serve the establishment they put up the candidates and we get to vote for their choice, not ours. Obama and Clinton are just Bush-Lite so
the only way change will come about is to vote for McCain the worst of all candidates. McCain will aggressively follow the policies of Bush and finish the job on America and its constitution. Only when we reach the bottom and life under the fascists becomes unbearable will the people rise up and fight to get their country back, until then its like sinking in quicksand.
I’m excited about Obama. But, I’m waiting to see what happens in the campaign… I still may vote independent if he ends up being another war monger and status quo seeker on health care.
Thanks for the piece JV.
Siouxrose (12:42 pm) - Thanks — Here’s a top-notch analysis of Obama that’s very much in line with what you’re saying there, when you referred to him as a “good PR face lift for brand name America.” You’re right on target about that.
The article was written back in February after Ted & Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama. (It was also before the Rev Wright dustup, & the furor about “bitter.”) For those too lazy to read the whole thing (it’s both short & excellent), the main passages are these:
——————-
“…It is necessary to distinguish sharply between the political shift among working people and youth, a movement to the left which presages the outbreak of mass social and political struggles, and the efforts of the ruling elite to manipulate popular sentiments, manufacture illusions, and disarm the masses politically.
The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party….
Important sections of the ruling elite have concluded that, particularly for the overseas interests of American imperialism, a President Obama would provided important advantages. He would at one stroke put a “new face” on American foreign policy, and make it more likely that Washington could overcome the international isolation and global hostility created by the arrogant unilateralism of the Bush White House and its failed intervention in Iraq. ….
This thread is fun. everybody writing makes sense and writes well.
A useful contribution to the conversation is the late Walter Karp. He was Lapham’s right hand guy at Harper’s and a protege of Hannah Arendt.
Karp divided the political world into only two functional types of people: hacks and reformers.
The real conflict in American politics being a contest for power between these
hacks and reformers.
Both parties are a coalition of hacks and reformers. Democratic hacks being the Clintons Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, et al. Lieberman is a hack’s hack.
Dem Reformers include Edwards, Wellstone, Carter, Bill Bradley, Cynthia McKinney, Cyndi Sheehan.
Reformers have been purged from the Republican leadership but the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family forces are morally driven reformers.
The hacks in the Republican Party have more in common with the hacks in the Democratic Party than with reformers in their own party.
I spent last evening talking with a very savvy guy from Chicago. I asked him about Obama and he confirmed what I thought. Obama is a hack but basically a pretty decent guy.
As the by far best analyst I know said, “Obama is the best you are going to get this election cycle.”
So JV’s lukewarm response to Obama is astute. It isn’t that she is incapable of understanding, rather the Establishment is never going to offer up a Carter for the nomination. Obama is the least worst option this election. But he isn’t Jimmy Carter.
If things get wierd enough he may be forced to grow into Lincoln’s shoes. Obama has less impediment to growth than McCain or God forbid, Hillary.
I think they only reason Obama got the Establishment nod is they figured a third of the country would never vote for a black person.
But the Rs don’t have a candidate so things may get wierd.
Karp gets really interesting when he starts talking about thrown elections and dummy candidates.
borussky (1:36 pm) — Which of Karp’s books do you think is most worth reading, for someone who hasn’t read him before?
I remain a RichM dittohead. (Incidentally, RichM, if by chance you have your own blog please provide directions.)
I do acknowledge that Obama has characteristics which are not consistent with the dreadful homo technocratus species exemplified by his competition. But I’m not convinced that Obama is truly an evolved species: homo transcendus, perhaps?
One increasingly enthusiastic supporter I know has devoured a considerable amount of Obama literature, and meets almost any skepticism with assurances that “Obama wrote about that (already)”, or “Obama answered that question”.
Just to pick one example, I was referred to this Kos article when I bitched that Obama was likely to give the present criminal maladministration a pass on rigorous investigation and prosecution. I include an excerpt just to give the flavor:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve. […]
__________________________________________
My interlocutor sees this as thoughtful, open-minded, and reasonable. It might be, but it also strikes me as equivocal and noncommittal. In fact, it’s that pervasive noncommittal tone that bothers me.
So I remain convinced that in our mendacious culture, support for a given politician remains essentially a matter of faith, and not reason. I’m not saying that I’m right to be skeptical or cynical, and my intelligent and thoughtful interlocutor is wrong. I’m only saying that it seems to me that he’s made a leap of faith regarding Obama, such that he’s comfortable with Obama’s typical politician’s equivocation; naturally, he also believes that Obama will reveal a true progressive spirit, either spontaneously or as a result of being “pushed” by progressives, once in office.
Again, I don’t see how one can feel assured by reading his words, regardless of how eloquent and prolific Obama is. My interlocutor, who lives in Europe, has convinced me that the world will perceive Obama as a breath of fresh air, and thus will confer a sort of global “mandate” charging Obama with undoing the evil and tragic depredations wrought by President Unitard and his cohort. Well and good.
But I still say “handsome is as handsome does”.
I want to hear how Obama is going to make Republican members of Congress cooperate. He says the he will unify, Bush said that. Bush’s version of unity was do it his way. Obama will just blame people for not cooperating, it will not be his fault.
I agree about the noncommittal thing. It’s the same bullshit excuses the Dems have been using to avoid impeachment. You know, we’ve got so much to do, it would be a waste of time to hold people accountable for destroying the republic. Better stick to more important things like passing a farm bill designed by Cargill and Monsanto.
It would be a waste of time to bring impeachment from the House on a small majority only to have it defeated in the Senate. It takes 67 Senators to convict and 40 Republicans will NEVER do it. That leaves 60 votes to convict and a COMPLETE waste of time.
But everyone would rather blame Reid, Plelosi and the Democratic party. Grow up! Quit being whining children and face the facts. There is NO WAY that they could get a conviction on impeachment charges and if you even took a minute to think about it you would KNOW this.
don’t include edwards along with bradly and carter as honest and real reformers.. he is NOT !!
bradly and carter has endorsed obama over clinton.. edwards is equal but very supportive of the corporate shill hillary.. edwards is an oportunist a fraud on his principle.
hillary and the clintons are much more in bed with the corporate robber barons than obama.. edwards should speak of THAT he does not NOW after dropping out of the race.. did some one give him money???
EVERYTHING about the clintons is about CORRUPTION!!!
and EVERYTHING about their supporters is about corruption OR dumb as a rock people who can’t see corruption…
we have in this forum people who pretend they are trying to reason on issues but instead are intentionally trying to be dishonest …. these are dishonest and immoral people . a couple of these are kem patrick and bob k..
now lets look at this thing called Everything with the clintons is about corruption!!!.
lets look at the voting of indiana…..marion county indianapolis and lake county where gary ind is …. marion county has LESS blacks as a percent of the population than lake county… with this one would predict that a higher percent of a win by obama would be in lake county…… BUT BUT BUT look at this… marion county obama won by 12%.. but in the county with a slightly less black percent he won by 34%… proving one thing.. THERE was big time corruption in lake county for clinton… and proving obama really won indiana..
the clintons are TRYING and working with the republicans to help with corruption… trying to help rush limbaugh work corruption with trying to get republican voters to PRETEND they are voting for hillary in order to make it SEEM obama is weaker than he is…. when doing this.. this WILL cause some to think he is.. but not the wise… .. the republicans doing this are crossing over and voting who will NOT be voting for a democrat or clinton in the election.. so its a fruad and false and phony vote..
now get this… the most easy way for these repubs to try to influence by corruption is with these polling with clinton aganst mccain and obama against mccain…. the republicans when presented with clinton will say they are for clinton instead of mccain and this makes it look like hillary is the stronger candidate against mccain..
now the clintons KNOW all this corruption is going on … they want it and encourage it..and this is why also her voters have the least education .. picking the most dumb is what the corruption people will do…and working them like a drum…
nearly all of her supporters in politics are also corrupt to the core people.. gov rendell of pa.. evan bayh of indiana…. black congressman charlie rengel of ny..
now rengals district is mostly black.. during the primary they voted more for hillary.. BUT there has been proven many precents did NOT even have a single vote for obama at first… then some who DID vote came out and challenged those totals so they had to revise and give some to obama…. so the truth is we do not know who really won rengels district hillary or obama….
BUT now the crooked rengel KNOWS he COULD be seen as crooked from his district and mostly black and him supporting clinton… he could be in trouble politically especially if the voting is carefully watched.. he MAY turn on hillary in order to PROTECT his crookedness… he seems to already be doing that blasting hillary for talking about hardworking whites won’t vote for obama… but rengel already with all this has been proven corrupt.. BUT now he will try to HIDE !!
hillaryz use of this flawed logic of saying obama won’t get dumb white votes… she should also be saying that SHE will not get a big group too…. the blacks and the independents and the young … so her saying that proves another corruption type of act…
hillary was proven corrupt with how she did the mich and fla primary.. first signing and agreeing that their election should not county cause of them pushing their primary in front of the super tuesday group.. doing so would have HURT all the super tuesday states .. the smaller 4 states before were selected to give candidates with less money and name recognition a FAIR shake and let the voters decide with alot of FAIR campaigning.. this is why no other states should go ahead…UNFAIR and hurts to find the true BEST candidate…
the clintons will find the BEST way to exit.. the BEST way is for them to lower obama as far as they can but not so far it will backfire on them big time.. also they will exit in a way to try to enrich themselves… maybe stayng to get fundraisers for them and more money for them…they will TRY to set it up like they are a HERO with their exit in order to get as much power and influence as possible and to lower obama as much as possible…
the clintons are the most corrupt politicians in the history of america…… and their supporters are either corrupt to the core people or dumb as a rock !!!! its just as simple as that!!!!
The only change(s) will be superficial. That has been apparent from the get-go.
We will have an administration that ends up performing somewhere between the enforced ineffectiveness experienced during the Carter years and a continuation of the present ameriKKKan policy with a black grand dragon at the helm. It will depend on how much Sen. Obama deigns to please the real massas.
Team Obama came up with a better sales package, a better slogan. But it’s the same old company and “change we can believe in” will not come from within Washington which is where Sen. Obama definitely resides.
It seems like “hope” has been dropped from the equation. It was never really a tangible offering anyway. Real change will get thrown out the window, or under the bus, next.
RichM…karp’s book “the politics of war” is a CLASSIC. it’s a history of the US between 1890 and 1920. you’ll never view woodrow wilson the same again after reading this book. it also provides a vivid portrayal of a real american hero…robert laFollette.
RichM 12:16 pm, very good points…
my eyes also lingered on those last 2 sentences
the words are awkward for a few reasons. as you pointed out - no one has a chance to become president unless their somewhat receptive to corporate/establishment needs.
—————————————————————————————
to extend your point i think liberals/progressives often forget our views - at least views concerning the restructuring of society in a humane fair way - are a minority, and many americans will vote against their economic self interests, many americans work for MNC’s and war contractors, many americans will buy a new vehicle that gets 15 MPG, many americans supported this war -at some point during its inception/evolution, many americans continue to ignore our impact on the environment.
it’s a short list. my point is that our consciousness hasn’t evolved very quickly. our government and it’s operatives represent our underdeveloped ability to see political alternatives to the status quo (IRV, fed financing of elections, easier 3rd party ballot access, referendums)
obama is a politician. but as a politician many of his constituents are people who have experienced social injustice (african-american vote) and many of his constituents are youthful voters seeking a candidate that understands their culture and will address their needs.
who is obama relative to his constituents? a 7 pg article in the NYT’s addressed this yesterday.
Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html
will they be disappointed? of course they will. that’s our opportunity as agitators and activists, to step in and organize. it will happen if mccain is the pres or if obama is the pres. the question is, how do the tactics of the left adapt, when the corporate/right president becomes a corporate left/center president?
i suspect obama will be closer to our (prog) vantage point b/c he will be (to a degree) held accountable to his supporters (especially if he wants to run again in 2012).
either way i see myself in the streets in the next 4 years.
——————————————————————————-
Siouxrose 12:42 pm,
thank you for your comments, very well stated ………..
especially,
“the TIME needed to build a Green party/3rd party is not available… so we go with the best of the alternatives pre-selected”
until the green party has national clout (a few governorships, 10 or 20 seats in the congress, 4 or 5 US senators) it is not a viable alternative - in terms of attaining the office. it’s a protest vote.
Obama could easily win w/ a surge of new seats in the congress, when the dem’s secure the office (and the risk of more frightening fascists crafting policy diminishes), greens will have an opening to attract the voters who were activated during this election cycle. that’s the pressure we (as the left) can apply to president obama, the pressure has to be applied consistently throughout his first term, and the way to do that is to build a party that could win a few congressional seats in 2010.
that should be the highest priority of the green party (have a voice in the us congress). this is what frustrates me about ralph nader (i person i supported twice 96,00). i know nader can win a congressional seat (especially from new england) if he tried. who exactly would this green president work with? (an imaginary friend - the green congress?).
i will keep the option of mckinney open - as a protest vote- if a dynastic candidate (clinton) is the nominee, or if for some unforeseen tragic reason obamas VP choice becomes the candidate before the general. that is why it is absolutely crucial for obama to distance himself from the clintons (humm…the macbeth’s).
i agree w/ ted kennedy obama should choose an ideological leftist as his running mate. he should address economic issues aggressively (as edwards did this year) and he needs to find an anti war candidate - pro social justice (r fiengold?) so that the position against the war is solid kerry’s weakness).
if obama stays to the left and amplifies his voice w/ another left/center candidate, mccain’s campaign will go down in flames - literally.
…peace…
RichM,
I agree with webwalk, Siouxrose, and iowablackbird on your take on JV’s article.
iowablackbird: Within the unholy alliance of the three main candidates, I could only support Obama, the best of the lot, but not good enough for me to vote for him. I’ll stick with McKinney, the more honest of the presidential candidates and the only one running to speak against the policies of Bush/Cheney from the start and vote against their legislative bills.
Constructive and positive change will not happen until the people change their attitutde and vote for the best person running, not who the power brokers select for them.
Thanks Souix Rose.
Except for that American Imperialism Horsefeathers stuff, I’d say thats a fairly good summation of Obama and thanks for posting the article.
iowablackbird May 11th, 2008 3:29 pm
Are you equating Progressive/Liberal with Leftist?
Siouxrose 12:42 pm, iowablackbird May 11th, 2008 3:29 pm, RichM
Some very good points. Especially on the pressure. But if Obama selected a Leftist for a running mate you might as well hand it to McCain. Its going to be very close unless one or the other make a clossal mistake. Obama is unlikely to win at the moment.
borussky: “Obama is the least worst option this election. But he isn’t Jimmy Carter.” Huh? Jimmy Carter’s a great guy, but he didn’t have a DROP of leadership quality! Furthermore, he kept deciding something one way on Friday, and reversing himself on Monday. I had voted for him, but he drove me nuts.
Look in any direction: global warming, the economy, foreign debt, etc. We’re heading into a really bad patch. What we need most of all is a leader who can inspire us, get us to do the right thing, and (polar opposite of Carter) keep our spirits up!
Getting back to the article, when the author wrote “The Obama campaign did not rush to find a way to seat them [FL and MICH] states that broke the rules) and help Hillary Clinton add to her delegate count” I started yelling at my screen. HILLARY not only broke the rules along with these two states, she keeps saying she “won Florida,” which is ludicrous, since no one else campaigned there! So SHE breaks the rules and HE is supposed to “help her add to her delegate count?” This is just too dumb to consider.
zgoobadooba (3:27 pm) - Thanks for the Karp book recommendation. (I already have a very negative view of Wilson, & a strongly positive one of LaFollette.)
Little Brother (2:04 pm) - Not really my own blog, but I do write an occasional article that winds up on various sites.
peaceman, webwalk, Siouxrose, iowablackbird & others — Thanks for your comments; all much appreciated.
If we want “the establishment” to have less influence in our elections (and their lobbyists in Congressional deliberations) we must enact full public funding for all federal offices.
If we want debates that actually treat all candidates equally and reveal candidates’ positions on issues instead of inanities, we need to return to debates moderated ONLY by the League of Women Voters and shown on network TV without commercials or other interruptions.
How we can get the major media to help us learn about the candidates instead of the horse race, I do not know.
Obama looks good on TV, and Americans are suckers for anything that looks good on TV.
Closer examination of anything about Barack Obama always turns up a vacuum, and his ridiculous no-mandate healthcare plan is typical of the whole empty mess. As Paul Krugman said:
But every simple-minded Obamabot thinks he or she knows more about the economics of healthcare than Paul Krugman, and they may actually succeed in putting their telegenic spokesmodel in the White House.
It would make about as much sense to elect Ryan Seacrest.
Siouxrose
Sorry about that mispelling!
Peaceman,
i respect your choice, obama could still lose my vote. i toyed w/ the idea of voting for gore in 2000. literally w/ in 10 minutes of discovering that gore had chosen lieberman as his running mate i unequivocally knew i would support nader(of course lieberman is now supporting mccain).
this cycle is different for me b/c i honestly believe obama is an electable candidate. and obama did prevent clinton2 from reclaiming the throne (very important). but your correct, for me it is political calculus. i clearly saw obama as the strongest democratic candidate (since about 10/07). i spoke w/ reps from the edwards campaign on several different occasions at length (20 mins) and was seriously considering voting for edwards before i went w/ my conscience and decided i would vote for kucinich, when i received this message on my answering machine…
“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change,”
Kucinich did not have the prerequisite amount of supporters to recieve representation from my district. edwards for many reasons (iraq war vote, kerry) did not garner my vote, so i supported obama.
as i stated, i will be in the streets irrespective of who is president, demonstrating against unjust policy. i do believe obama would be an improvement and provide an opening for more progressive candidates in 2010 (as i noted).
if a green candidate is on my slate -local/state/US House- i will instinctively vote green.
the only viable third party candidate for president (t roosevelt) came in 2nd in 1912 w/ about 30% of the vote after the republican party fractured. the greens are nowhere near that threshold. it’s a protest vote.
vote your conscience….
btw/ i hope the rally in SF was a positive expierience, please share…
…peace…
thomas more,
fair point, although it is an interesting subject. the first leftist were the anti-royalist in france in 1789 (jacobins- general assembly). if i remember correctly, they sat on the left side of the chambers.
i was a little confusing when i wrote…
“i agree w/ ted kennedy obama should choose an ideological leftist as his running mate” ///”liberals/progressives often forget our views…..are a minority”///
by leftist i meant he could choose a ‘liberal’. both liberals and progressives/socialists are left of center.
it’s a question of gradation and context..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
“Over time it became clear that there was something to the left even of that “left”: the precursors of socialism and communism. The original left, and their radical or republican descendants, had stood for a certain abstract equality of rights, but this emerging socialist left stood for a more radical notion of equality: in its more extreme forms, for an absolute leveling of wealth and a willingness to use the power of the state to achieve that postulated “equality”. The traditional right views civilized society as existing primarily to defend property rights.[citation needed]
As late as 1848, even with the participation of socialists in the European revolutions of that year, many liberals, with essentially the same politics as the Girondists of 1791, and certainly the radicals and republicans, remained considered unequivocally part of the Left. However, the increasing importance of socialist, anarchist, and especially Marxist Communist politics over the next century would steadily move the scale farther to the left, so that by the time of the Russian Revolution, many would confine the use of the term Left to Communists, or at least socialists. Increasingly, and especially in economics, the laissez-faire views that once defined the Left came to be characterized as a rightist position.”
—————–
“Similarly, during the Cold War in the United States, there was no significant socialist presence in electoral politics, and very little overt social democratic presence. Instead liberalism in the United States, blending elements of classical liberalism with elements of social democracy, came to constitute the electoral left”
—————–
“Meanwhile, in Western Europe, social democratic parties often participated in, or even led, governments; in several Western European countries, Communist parties remained an important part of the political landscape, to the point where what constituted the “left” of U.S. electoral politics would be considered “centrist” in Europe.”
—————
—————
liberals barely cross the center line (left of center). progressives provide the core ideas (from the far left - usually years beforehand) that over time are distilled through the 2 party system. i don’t believe there are many true progressives in the US congress (maybe b sanders, who openly adores the scandinavian socialist model or kucinich).
social/economic progressives believe in positive government intervention : education, pensions, socialized medicine, demilitarized society - the view of say many of the writers/posters here at common dreams.
liberals - i see as more pro business (clinton/nafta/DLC - privatization of prisons) w/ the veneer of ‘progressive’ views on select subjects like abortion, gay marriage or gun rights. some liberals harbor anti-war or environmental views while being pro business on other issues.
i think clinton is an unabashed liberal (pro business), obama also will represent the economic elite, but he has a history of listening to others (union, ngo’s, advocate groups). thus i see him as an improvement over clinton but he is still a liberal (not a progressive).
the key is to distill progressive ideas through the 2 party system more quickly, to engage the president on the issues (maintain channels of communication), which is why the newly activated voters need to be activated progressively.
the right has it’s own subtle gradations of ideology. obama would be further to the left than mccain..
…peace…
iowablackbird,
I can’t disagree with your logic. You make a valid argument for Obama, as many do.
Had Lyndon B. Johnson not invaded Vietnam, he would have been the second greatest president of the 20th century, with the much needed progressive legislation he passed. As for Obama, we’ll have to keep our fingers crossed and be optimistic.
Forgot to ask: Did your nephew (?) go to the rally? It was great! I thought I’d be able to hook up with Curmudgeon99, but so many people came, I couldn’t do it.
Got to speak with Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan, two fine women. The other lecturers were also outstanding. If and when a full length DVD is made, I’ll post it on Common Dreams.
The peaceman marched with the ladies of CODEPINK. They rock!
Like cazillions of others, I must confess I have also been obamasized. But ultimately, it is really going to be about all of us having to pull together to make the necessary changes.
If too many of us have become fossilized in out wealth, I have no doubt that we can defeat Obama in his efforts to lead us to a more sane world–if not in Nov then in the months afterwards.
And Heaven help us if we do as the old politics of blame the other would produce nothing but war and unhappiness in the coming post consumerism era–the end result of too many of us taking too much and the consequent dismantling Planet Earth Support System.
Will that change be like our ‘lovely’ ‘democratic’ congressional majority that has done nothing since Jan 2007?
I suspect the biggest change will be of American voters diapers when they find out how screwed they are from 28 years of privatization, de-regulation and globalization. All them pension funds, municipal bonds and other viable ‘investment vehicles’ mixed in the toxic sludge of a financial market bubble of trillions of dollars of mortgages based on ‘predicted’ valuations of the future earning power of the workers in the US….only the means of production have transferred to slave labor markets in highly over-populated 3rd world countries.
sjc It makes no difference if the dems fail, should they bring articles of impeachment against Bush/ Cheney. what matters is that they stand up for the constitution and show they are not complicit in the crimes of this administration.
The fact that they refuse to do it proves that they are most definitely accomplices in all the folly of the last 8 disastrous years. A pox on both their houses.
I fear if Obama gets in … congress will eat him alive. He still has the tender skin of a baby - and lacks specifics about the issues that confront us. I do NOT believe he’s the one who should or even can take that 3 a.m. call - not now at least. Hillary tried to toughen him up during a few of the debates and unfortunately it didn’t work. Obama in eight years - YES - if he studies like he’s cramming for an exam between now and then. (And he is, or should be.) I still have hopes that Richardson or Gore will step forward in the next month or two and save the day.
We can’t take the chance that the man or woman who takes the oath next January is standing on nothing more than hope.
I was just glad to see JV give Sen. Obama credit, sort of, for his handling of the Rev. Wright situation. Given his success so far, I’d say he handled it just right. (Take that, Tim Russert!)
You want real “change” vote for Nader.
IOWA BLACKBIRD: I sure do appreciate your explanation on left versus progressive etc. to Thomas More. I am out of my league in such matters… prefering as I do the more mystical explanations for things of this world!
PEACEMAN: Glad you got to march with High company!
Siouxrose: Wish you were there! The vibes were high.
And Iowablackbird and all the others not able to be there but did something for the movement in your own way.
I remember Rebel Farmer taking the day off (like I suggested) and working in the garden and speaking to neighbors about ways to stop this madness in D.C.
Obama IS the status quo.
If Obama were different 7 of his top 14 contributors would NOT corporate lobbyists; corporate fat cats jump started his campaign, indeed Wall Street vetted him before he ran, approving his very conservative proposals.
If Obama were different he’d be for widely popular answer to the health care crisis: single payer; instead he wants to leave HMOs in charge.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for a huge cut in the bloated war budget and a roll back of our world wide empire of over 700 military bases in over 100 countries; instead Obama wants to increase war spending.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for the implementation of fair trade; instead he’s a free trader.
If Obama were different he’d be in favor of repealing Taft Hartley so workers could fairly organize and raise their wages.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for PAID family leave.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for a war on corporate crime.
If Obama were different he’d be against the death penalty, instead of for it.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for performance exhibitions instead of standardized testing.
If Obama were different he’d be calling for a national minimum starting salary of 40,000 for teachers rather than wanting to “experiment” with the proven failure merit pay.
If Obama were different he would have condemned the Sean Bell ruling; instead he counseled to suck it up and not riot. Now, that, was pathetic.
This guy isn’t change. Why do some progressives think he is?
Wake up.
“#
sjc_1 May 11th, 2008 2:57 pm
It would be a waste of time to bring impeachment from the House on a small majority only to have it defeated in the Senate. It takes 67 Senators to convict and 40 Republicans will NEVER do it. That leaves 60 votes to convict and a COMPLETE waste of time.
But everyone would rather blame Reid, Plelosi and the Democratic party. Grow up! Quit being whining children and face the facts. There is NO WAY that they could get a conviction on impeachment charges and if you even took a minute to think about it you would KNOW this.”
A waste of time? WHAT? Is doing the right thing always a waste of time to you? I’ll agree that it probably would not succeed, but impeachment would not be a waste of time. The Iraq resolution, the bankruptcy bill, CAFTA, Kyl-Leiberman, and other passable garbage was the real waste of time. At least with impeachment we might get gridlock and the inability of the government to pass further laws that kill thousands at home and abroad, laws that steal from the poor and give to the rich, and laws that rape the environment to profit some mutant that has more than any reasonable person would ever need.
I don’t know about Ried, but Pelosi and the democratic party have earned a fair share of the blame. The first thing they did after the 2006 elections was appropriate more money than bush even asked for his war crime called Iraq. Look at all the legislation that clittin got passed while he was fuhrer. The democrats also went along with a lot of reagan’s wasteful and crony budgets.
The democrats just seem to only want to screw us 90% as bad as republicans. I’ve been calling the two parties demopublicans and republicrats since the mid 80s. They’re just two wings of the fascist party.
Let’s see, these are the people with whom Senator Obama, as President Obama, will have to work, in order to accomplish his stated goals; yeah, he should really belittle, deride, embarrass, ridicule and castigate them on international television before he even gets started. Now that would really get a new, change oriented administration off to a blazing start and glory bound.
This site seems to be overpopulated with prophets, mind readers and those that can read one’s soul. Its just amazing.
Oh, and to all of you who say you will be voting for Senator McCain or a Third Party candidate if your candidate isn’t the Democratic nominee; you can go ahead and start writing your letters of apology to our children, our grandchildren and our grandchildren’s children (that is, if there are any).
I say start now, as it will be a very long letter, and you will need a lot of time in which to write it.
peaceman 7:24 pm,
no, my younger brother (he’s 24, i’m 41) didn’t attend the demo. he recently moved to vallejo (4 months ago) and he couldn’t jeopardize his employment (although he was beat up by cops on tv protesting the war in chicago -2003- when he was 19, and he did attend the tibet demo in SF a few weeks ago).
i took the day off of work, my supervisor is german. i said, “otto, thursday is may day, there’s a possibility i might be sick or have car problems”. he smiled, said ‘chicago’ and w/ in moments, we were talking about the IWW and the haymarket riots and the fact mayday is celebrated in scores of countries, despite the fact the US govt surreptitiously moved ‘workers’ day to labor day. otto was the only person where i work who understood the importance and symbolism of the day.
i spent the day reading scahills book blackwater, but i was thinking of you and my comrades in olympia…
…peace…
Siouxrose 10:14 pm,
sometimes my words are didactic and clumsy, there was an informative interview on media matters b/w juan gonzalez and bob mcchesney that touched on this subject (liberal/progressive/change/social movements).
in minutes 7-20 of the 60 minute interview juan goes into great detail delineating between progressive and ‘neoliberal’ policies. mcchesney and gonzalez do a much better job of explaining the subject, id encourage you to take a few minutes to listen.
juan believes that until americans understand america’s neo-imperial role (he points out even the poorest americans live lives of luxary relative to the 3rd world) and the ways we benefit from this position, we will not have a true progressive candidate (it’s about public consciousness).
interview b/w juan gonzales and bob mcchesney
Media Matters.. 2/10/08
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm
i do have a mystical side that is absolutely in love with life w/ this experience on earth, unfortunately it has been overshadowed by my awareness of the damage the bush administration (w/ our complicity) has imposed upon all of us, a keen awareness of others suffering.
i hope you had a wonderful mothers day…
…peace…
RichM has it spot-on. Good comments by him.
formernadervoter__I agree with you that while Obama is a fine speechmaker, he will not be an agent of change that many are convinced of. He may even have an uphill battle to get elected as the McCain train will probably run over him in the same way their crowd has steam-rolled everyone in their way for eight years. If he does get in, it is doubtful that he will
do any better than Carter did, as he will be up against the big boys and his battle with Clinton will look like childs-play.
iowablackbird,
Sorry about the cop thugs beating on your brother. He gets an A+ for courage! Give him my regards.
I like Otto already! The Germans had strong labor unions and the capitalists used the psycopath Hitler to break them up.
‘Labor’s Untold Story’ by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais is still a classic and Haymarket and the IWW are detailed in the book. Get a copy, Iowa, you’ll like it and learn from it. Very few Americans know US labor history, including trade-unionists.
Jeremy Scahill is first-class! When Clinton and his lackey, Tony Blair decided to bomb the hell out of Serbia, Scahill was in Yugoslavia covering it, and I listened to his reports on www.kpfa.org, and was impressed by his coverage. The Blackwater expose is excellent.
One more thing. You did your part by taking the day off. That was just as important as the folks who took off to march. Imagine if 25,000,000 people took off that day? You have my respect, you certainly do!
barack obama did not immediately discount reverend wright as soon as those videos were eagerly put on heavy rotation everywhere you looked; it was only recently that he completely cut ties with him. just because he’s a member of an otherwise amazing church and felt a sense of loyalty to an imperfect man doesn’t mean he had any sort of devious thoughts about it.
Obama is a war mongerer. Obama won’t rock the boat. Obama is not progressive. Obama owes Wall Street and will deliver for them if elected.
But… if you want some more understanding why McCain will win, read Glenn Greeenwald’s excellent “Great American Hypocrites”, particulary the last chapter about John McCain.
“One example is the flap over the North American Free Trade Agreement and an Obama representative’s suggestion that what the candidate was saying on the campaign trail would not govern his actions as president.”
The answer to that is to quit electing the Democrats and Republicans who have gotten us in the mess we are now in. Remember America the definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same actions over and over while each time expecting different results.
Lobo Gris
Change? Probable scenarios:
President Obama with present Senate = Status Quo.
President Insane with present Senate = Further destruction.
As proven in the past 8 years, the Federal Government can be deconstructed while the Legislature is rendered impotent. (witness FEMA in New Orleans, Inability to end Iraq occupation, Health Care, Debt…)
Change requires positive legislation which is improbable with the present makeup of Congress. President Obama might be able to heed the Hippocratic oath: “First do no harm”. Don’t expect more.
I disagree - Obama WILL do much harm!! Post after post have pointed out his policy positions and they ARE harmful! formernadervoter put it best.
But we are more likely to have a Pres. McCain. The media is biased in his favor; Obama has not done well enough in the states needed to win in the fall and his supporters have alienated enough Clinton supporters that it will be political suicide for him; add on the Supreme Court’s decision to disenfranchise many mostly black voters; the machinery rigging will help Repubs; voters often vote against their best interests, witness choosing Obama over Clinton.
You could say Obama will do LESS harm, but you can’t say he won’t do a significant amount of harm!
The Obama campaign discouraged revotes in Michigan and Florida?
yeah, because the campaign has a say in that.
Good points by Siouxrose, Rich M, borussky, and iowablackbird.
If I thought Obama was anything other than a good politician and a less-than-perfect human being, then I might be worried by Joan Vennochi’s analysis. But since I have never confused him with a winged deity, then all of her huffing about Obama schmoozing with the Washington Elite amounts to a hill of beans, and not magic beans, either.
FDR did his share of partying with the Potomac types — it helped get his agenda through Congress. Obama is a moderate liberal in most of his positions and, as Siouxrose points out, there’s no time to mount a serious challenge to the two major parties. But even a moderate liberal will seem like Norman Thomas after eight years of the Bush Republicans; Obama will be the start of the turn-around, not the end.
I have to disagree with this paragraph in the WSWS article, though: “The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party….”
While it may very well be a ‘preemptive attack by the ruling class’ they have not been very good lately at keeping the chumps happy and the international capitalist calliope rolling. As the piece mentions, the hand-picked corporatists Bush and Cheney have mucked things up completely at home and abroad, and too much imperial ‘disaster capitalism’ is ultimately bad for business.
While Obama may be, wittingly or unwittingly, ‘their’ candidate, so was FDR, and he balked at them. Obama has also shown some tendencies to bite that hand that feeds him — for example, he pushed through strict ethics legislation in the Illinois State Senate, curtailing its cloaked activities and aggravating his mentor, eager lobbyist doormat Sen. Emil Jones, one of the biggest dispensers of pork and patronage in the state.
Obama won’t bring the Military-Industrial Complex crashing down, but I think he will start making cracks in the foundation.
sjc_1 [May 11th, 2008 2:28 pm] wrote: “I want to hear how Obama is going to make Republican members of Congress cooperate.”
The same way he got Republicans to cooperate in the Illinois State Senate. Besides, with Bush and Cheney gone, and a large Dem majority in both Houses, it will be much easier for a President Obama to get things rolling in the right — ahem, left — direction. However many Republicans remain in Congress after the next election won’t want to sacrifice their soft jobs defending the failed neocon policies of the Worst President in History.
BTW, I agree sjc_1 [May 11th, 2008 2:57 pm], but there’s no reason we can’t prosecute them later. Henry Waxman, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Wexler, John Conyors, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders have been compiling records of Bush Administration fraud and abuse of power; while Junior may never be made to pay, and Cheney will doubtless hide out in his multi-million dollar fortified estate in Dubai, some of the others, like Rove, Rummy, Feith, et al, could be held to account.
AdeleTheCzech [May 11th, 2008 5:34 pm], good point — why should Obama help Hillary after she reneged on her agreement to ignore the FL and MI votes?
Did Jacob Freeze say something? He’s turning into ‘Ryan C. Christ’ or something like that? (On a bicycle built for two?)
IOWA BLACKBIRD: Thank you for the reference. I have a dial-up system and probably would not be able to download it. The discussion on methane gas has me more rallied than the distinctions between progressives and liberals at the moment. I always found it odd that certain Times writers who were so obviously pro global corporate capitalism were defined as liberals! Now I have a bit more insight into that conundrum.
As for your being mystical, don’t you think Einstein who many believe to be the greatest mind that ever lived was too? And Leonardo Da Vinci? There was a time where great minds studied the great mysteries and were not so confined by the amassing of redundant data or the nod of a conformist group of fellow scientists. There was more poetry, a greater reach of intuition and imagination. When some use science as a way to deny Creator, ego has taken too much hold of their basis for discovery and belief. Those of us who in the face of all the evident madness still see the beauty in the design of it all are the ones truly gifted with VISION. In the way the tree records its take on history through its elaborate labyrinth of interior circling rings, I believe we carry the legacy of all we’ve come to understand into future lifetimes. If this planet enters a complete renovation phase where human life cannot survive, there may be other places we go, perhaps not in entirely embodied form, to continue our work. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and AS matter, nor can we, at essence.
RS: Excellent posting. I think you and I probably carry the same form of hope in that OBAMA has an open mind and probably a decent enough spirit unlike the DAMAGED goods that make for a McCain or Clinton. With that being said, forces like that of millions of people sending LIGHT might open him up to doing the right thing.
Obama is a Leo and that sign is ruled by the heart. Leo is known to care for children and is something of an actor, plus highly creative. Leo also has a big ego (I know, I am one); but unless the Leo is maimed or wounded, their wish for a legacy to out-live them is based on doing things that IMPROVE the lives of others. Therefore he may be motivated by a wish less for power and wealth, more by the aspiration to leave behind a legacy that made life better for many. Imagine what that would mean for Black citizens?
The world waits on this election for it’s not had to “wear the lenses” U.S. citizens have had placed on them by a dark pro-war media. JUST this new face and his bi-racial background BREEDS the hope of change. It’s not everything we wish for, but it’s a damned good start compared with the alternatives!
Perhaps the most useful Karp book is “Indispensible Enemies”. It is sort of a text book which refutes all of the axioms we were taught in 9th grade civics and shows how things really work.
Carter is an interesting case study. He wasn’t perfect as a human being or as a politician. But it was his virtues not his weaknesses which made him a target of the bi-partisan hack establishment. The guys who really whacked him were Teddy Kennedy, Tip O’Neil and Jim Wright. Karp talks about this in “Liberty Under Siege”.
Remember Kennedy ran against Carter, a sitting President of his own party for the nomination.
“Leadership” is a difficult thing to define and measure. When the newspapers say a president is not getting legislation passed because of a “lack of leadership” it is high sounding but hides more than it exposes.
I learned the hard way that you can’t lead people who don’t want to go where you want to lead. The Democratic Party hacks did not want to be led to fair open and honest government, and why would they?
When Reagan got in, a reporter asked Tip O’Neil why he got everything passed Reagan wanted. O’Neil said “What can I do, he’s so popular.” O’Neil acted as Reagan’s majority whip.
But O’Neil made sure nothing Carter wanted got passed.
Once one really accepts that the Republican Party hacks and Democratic Party hacks work together in collusion to frustrate progressive politics, the whole world makes perfect sense.
Why did the Democrats put up a soft white party hack, Mondale, with nothing to offer against Reagan?
Why did the Republicans put up a tired old grumpy hack against Clinton? Dole was too old, was a lousy speaker and campaigner, had nothing to point to for popular accomplishments and had already run for President three times and gone nowhere. These guys are dummy candidates and are put up as a professional courtesy.
We think of politics in sports terms, like football or horseracing. Better sports metaphors might be the Republican party hacks and the Democratic party hacks playing keep-away with good government with the public in the middle.
Another useful sports metaphor for American politics is TV Wrasslin. “Oh man he’s hurting me!”
Lobo Gris says the solution is to stop electing Democratic and Republican party hacks. An implication of Karpian analysis is that it is much easier to take over an existing party than to build a third (second) party.
The Democratic Party has been driving smart ambitious capable people out of the party as fast as it can for many years. Boredom is a powerful tool if used well. There are reasons Central Committee meetings are so boring.
Filling up the Precinct Committee Officer slots with reform minded friends and neighbors is a lot of work. Not difficult work, but a large volume of work.
Then you take control of the Chair and start putting in reform minded state committee men and women.
Eventually you get control of the state chair. Hee hee. I have been part of doing this and it works.
There is no easy way.
Impeachment might not achieve removal of Bush but think of the information that would be made public in the process.
Once that information is in the public eye it is embarassing not to prosecute crimes and the impeachment process would remind people of all the criminal behavior which has been covered up.
Whose time would this waste? Fighting off impeachment might divert their efforts from larger crimes.
“It would be a waste of time to bring impeachment from the House on a small majority only to have it defeated in the Senate. It takes 67 Senators to convict and 40 Republicans will NEVER do it. That leaves 60 votes to convict and a COMPLETE waste of time.
But everyone would rather blame Reid, Plelosi and the Democratic party. Grow up! Quit being whining children and face the facts. There is NO WAY that they could get a conviction on impeachment charges and if you even took a minute to think about it you would KNOW this.”
This is all very, very true. Bush could never have been convicted in the senate. The point, though, is that for the sake of democracy, constitutional rule and the future of the nation, the Dumbocrats would have demonstrated some spine, made the effort and shown that rotten little punk, George Wanker Bush, that there was still some official regard for democracy. Someone was going to stick it to that puffed-up, miserable little shit weasel and his Stalinist veep that democracy and the rule of law still had advocates in this country who would put up a fight against creeping totalitarian rule.
iowablackbird May 11th, 2008 7:02 pm
“if i remember correctly, they sat on the left side of the chambers.”
Correct as usual.
Thanks very much for that explanation of current positions. I think that is fairly clear and I believe right. I have been getting a little confused lately.
I see what you meant about Kennedy now. Good point.
Re. sjc_1 [May 11th, 2008 2:28 pm] wrote: “I want to hear how Obama is going to make Republican members of Congress cooperate.”
That really is up to us. We have to give him a mandate (an unqualified victory in November) and a cooperative Congress (enough of a majority to enact needed legislation and defeat legislation that is counterproductive).
As FDR said to the Congressional leaders of his time (may be a paraphrase), “You have to make me do it”.
No one person can provide a change that will be systemic and meaningful. The American people need to send to the Congress progressive-minded politicians, and both President and Congress need to be relentlessly pressured to pursue policies to put the U.S. on a new track away from the warfare state. Bush and his cronies in Congress need to be shunned. No photos should be taken with those who have sought to destroy our Constitution and Republic.
RSJ 10:28
“Bush and Cheney have mucked things up completely at home and abroad, and too much imperial ‘disaster capitalism’ is ultimately bad for business.”
“Republicans remain in Congress after the next election won’t want to sacrifice their soft jobs defending the failed neocon policies.”
– exactly… clinton would have mirrored traditional democratic tactics, obama’s newly activated voters (young/black) will provide opportunities for red states to move blue, and for red congressional districts to sway democratic as well. not only will the repubs lose (as they have been for the past 2 years), but w/ a dynamic leader of the party repubs will be more willing to compromise (a ‘leftist’ reagan revolution, FDR).
——————————
“while Junior may never be made to pay, and Cheney will doubtless hide out in his multi-million dollar fortified estate in Dubai, some of the others, like Rove, Rummy, Feith, et al, could be held to account.”
i have a dream………
i think there’s hope these guys will space out and unwittingly find themselves in holland or france (i could see rumsfeld spacing out for cash) to make beau coup dollars for a speech about, ‘how to effectively dominate everyone on earth’.
the ICC (dutch-french) police will storm through the doors - tasers in hand- hopefully w/ a scandinavian film crew in toe. amidst the howls of the conservative guests, ‘how dare they!’. we’ll watch on cnn, they’ll be fingerprinted and booked awaiting prosecution for crimes against humanity….. one of the neo con policymakers will become ‘the accidental tourist’… could happen…….
i want to thank you for your analysis. i appreciated your elaboration of the macbeth theme a few weeks ago (clinton stumbling through the chambers, tumbler of scotch in hand - mumbling in nixonesque self talk). your imagery stayed w/ me for days.. thank you
…Peace…
Siouxrose 10:31 am,
media matters is available in a real player audio format that you can listen to w/out ‘downloading’ files. i also have a dial up service and yes it is frustrating not having video clips. however, i end up reading more and watching less…
i can listen to dem now or media matters while reading articles or doing dishes (dem now is not available on the airwaves here). i hope you give it a try, in addition to juan - bob interviews n klien, chomsky, n wolf, p krugman and others. mcchesney is an amazing interviewer and the gonzalez interview is good (not to sound like a pusher).
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/am/mediamatters/default.htm
about methane bubbles, the universe and god….
unless the international community aggressively works together to look for ways to capture or offset the amount of methane scientists anticipate will be released in to the atmosphere, i don’t really know what i could do (i do live a relatively simple life) to stop that crisis. if the surface temperature of earth increases 5 degrees in the next 60 years, what can we do ? except adapt? from what i understand it’s already too late to prevent this from happening…
politics interests me for many reasons.
the spiritual path of the buddah resonates w/ me, but the mind is an amazing tool (very pliable) and it’s possible altered states of consciousness (meditative bliss, OBE’s,psychoactive hallucinations, near death experiences) are just a cleaver -very natural and explainable- function of the brain. i reserve judgment on ’spiritual’ subjects, although i’m receptive to the ideas (i have friends who are both atheists and spiritualists). joseph campbell is one of my heros.
i share the same birthday as che guevara and donald trump. i admire both nietzche and marx…
thank your for your thoughts and wisdom….
…peace…
iowablackbird: Interesting post. I do admire you. And your link is good. Bob McChesney is a national hero.
Peace and Harmony
Rich, great article. Thanks for posting it. This sentence is particularly interesting:
“Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing.”
Siouxrose [May 12th, 2008 10:31 am] wrote: “As for your being mystical, don’t you think Einstein who many believe to be the greatest mind that ever lived was too? And Leonardo Da Vinci?There was a time where great minds studied the great mysteries and were not so confined by the amassing of redundant data or the nod of a conformist group of fellow scientists. There was more poetry, a greater reach of intuition and imagination.”
This reminded me of a quote I heard (paraphrase), ‘Art without science gives us pointless chaos; science without art gives us war and destruction.’ We desperately need more Leonardo’s and Einstein’s who appreciate and combine the operations of both sides of the brain. (BTW, as a sidenote: did you read that the Vatican yesterday officially embraced the idea of sentient extraterrestrials as not inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? I don’t know what sparked this pronouncement, but I thought it was interesting.)
Siouxrose [May 12th, 2008 10:36 am] wrote: “I think you and I probably carry the same form of hope in that OBAMA has an open mind and probably a decent enough spirit unlike the DAMAGED goods that make for a McCain or Clinton. With that being said, forces like that of millions of people sending LIGHT might open him up to doing the right thing.”
Thanks for the compliment, Siouxrose. I don’t think Obama is perfect and I won’t always agree with what he does — I haven’t already — but a President Obama will be part of a general shift to sanity in this country, and improve our standing in the world. We’ve been tending to the ‘dark side’ for too long; it’s time to restore some kind of balance. Also, as a Constitutional scholar, Obama knows the document well and, I think, will bring the government back to functioning under its precepts. As you say, it would be one of the final stakes in the heart of festering American racism which has been fading but, as we’ve seen from the West Virginia results, still exists in some areas, mostly among people poorly educated by underfunded and inadequate school systems and kept in ignorance by politicians and corporations to exploit them.
Borussky [May 12th, 2008 10:43 am], I have only read a little of Karp’s work, but I was impressed. I’ll check out your recommendation. Jimmy Carter lost in 1980 over one issue — the hostages in Iran. I recall running into many people from different walks of life at the time who were angry that Carter ‘made America look weak’ and, even though they didn’t agree with Reagan on his conservative social and economic policies, voted for him because he shook his sword against the Iranians. They didn’t consider how they would feel if all of the hostages were killed, or if an attack on Iran ended up in massive US casualties and a nuclear confrontation with the USSR, just what the diplomatic Carter was carefully trying to avoid.
Since Carter has been out of office, I’ve been amused at the right-wingers who have tried to decimate him for trying to do good works for humanity instead of playing golf or making high-paid speeches, as Ford and Reagan did. The decency of Jimmy Carter has been indelibly defined by his corrupt, selfish and deceptive detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney.
I agree that the Dems have been driving competent and smart people out of the party — I was hoping these folks would put their intellectual muscle behind a third party effort, but many of them have simply retired to the sidelines. Obama is a smart, capable person who has chosen to stay in and try to ‘work within the system’ rather than joining some high-priced law firm — I hope he’s rewarded for his effort.
BTW, Edwards has just endorsed Obama in Michigan and it looks like a ticket to me. Obama is a canny politician — he just took the air out of Hillary’s West Virginia sails.
Iowablackbird, thanks. Bob McChesney, Democracy Now and Media Matters are great sources.
Atheist [May 14th, 2008 6:25 pm] has it ever occurred to you that Wall Street bankers and media moguls give money to ALL of the major party candidates. They’re trying to buy access. Unless you can prove a definite quid pro quo between Obama’s voting record and money given him by Wall Street, et al, then this information is meaningless.
RSJ, you make it sound like “access” is just a tea party with the President, not some favor in return. The companies and lobbyists wouldn’t continue to give so much $$ if they received nothing for it. They’re not stupid.
atheist [May 14th, 2008 7:43 pm] wrote:
“RSJ, you make it sound like ‘access’ is just a tea party with the President, not some favor in return. The companies and lobbyists wouldn’t continue to give so much $$ if they received nothing for it. They’re not stupid.”
Okay, atheist, Obama’s in their back pocket — that’s why he’s sponsored and passed legislation to hamper corporate lobbying and make it more open to the public (the 2007 Ethics Reform Act) and government transparency laws. He did the same, BTW, in the Illinois State Senate, which aggravated even many members of his own party. As the saying goes, there is none so blind as those who will not see — nor check the facts.
Here, go look for yourself:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_record_of_accomp.php