Obama Could Set an Earthquake Under the Established Electoral Map

Laziness, ignorance, disinformation and narcissism are obstacles to activism, but not with everyone. Not everyone is a sheep or a goose.

Samson correctly points out that people are who are working hard to survive have to be selective in how they allocate their time and energy. The main reason I hear for non-participating in peace demonstrations is not disagreement with the goals, but that such demonstrations are ineffective. There is more than a grain of truth in that and I wish I had better answers.

It is a creative challenge, but I believe that peace and political activities have to be more connected to survival. For instance if the city says they have no money for education and want to cut after-school programs that are vital to working parents, that is the theme for peace activism – to tie the school cuts with war spending, to enlist the citywide parents' organizations and visit Congresspeople one by one to get commitments about re-directing fund from war to education.

This is hard and often unglamorous work in the beginning. However, I feel there is no alternative. Nobody is going to rescue us. We have to rescue ourselves and FORCE politicians to help us.

"...he has managed to articulate the aspirations of many people from whom we previously heard little..."

-with mind-numbing platitudes, vagueness and talk of hope

"Will he be a vehicle for their hopes, or will they be a vehicle for his political ambition?"

-to ask the question is to answer it

Excellent post, matti. I totally agree.

Hey, I don't know about the rest of you, but at 47 years old I am not comfortable with the notion of the 18-29 age group deciding a presidential election. I remember what I was like when I was 18-29, far from capable of making wise political or social decisions. I was very focused on myself, my schooling, my appearance, my social life, my budding career. I knew little of history or politics. I voted, but not intelligently. I had superficial knowledge, little depth. When I look around me now at the people in that age group, I see no difference between them and me at that age.

Wow - whoever said there's no difference between the Democrats & Republicans must have been living under a rock for the past 8 years.

Change is imperative and it always starts with people. The bu*sh administration has almost totally silenced the people - but you would only know that if you had been actively trying to be heard.

To watch the "Obamania" phenomenon is to watch a textbook study of the power of personal charisma in a TV world.

As an example of what I mean:

The most common criticisms that I have seen on this site (And been confronted with in person-to-person discussions) are basically of the "what has he actually DONE, huh? What legislation, what program, has he backed that's so darned great? Show me one." variety.

This then always goes a while with out getting a real response, couple of attempts a deflection, couple of tries at distraction, etc. .

Finally, someone brings up the whole "He can't get elected if he says or does good things", throw in some references to " what happened to Kucinich", hang the whole thing on the "Mainstream Media" and boom, criticism effectively refuted- at least in the Refuter's mind.

The bizarreness of this -that people can, at the same time, hold the belief that a candidate for office cannot endorse wildy popular ideas (like socialized health care, or environmental protections at the cost of capital and industry) because it is not "politically" expedient, and the elites and their media will castigate him, and the people will blindly believe and follow the elite's media against their own concerns. That they can believe all of that and still be determined to vote, and to encourage others to vote in that same broken system- the essential "ungroundedness" of this thinking, is the signal that we are dealing with the TeleCultured.

Because what's really happening is that people watch Obama on the screen, they hear his voice, and they like him. That's it, they just like him. Its why they're always comparing him to the Kennedys, they were great on TV too.

What happens next is what ALWAYS happens next in TV land.

You buy the product.

You buy into E-trade, because you like the baby. Or you "ask your doctor about" the drug, because you like the woman in the ad.

You invent any number of justifications-after-the-fact, most of them suggested by the seller themselves:

"I don't have to pay a broker, and why should I, I'm a smart guy right?" or "Look, I'm concerned about osteoperosis(sp), I don't want to spend the last 20 years of my life enfeebled like my mother, alone and weak in a retirement village in Phoenix."

But really the sale was made BEFORE any of this thinking, when you LIKED what you saw, and put a little subconscious smilie-face sticker on the memory.

So it goes with "Obamania" as well, though in this case the "product" is both the man himself and a vague concept that might be summed up as:

"We still live in a participatory democracy, everything was Bush's fault, Obama isn't perfect but he's at least not crazy like ol' king Shrub, right? Electing a Half-black guy will impress all the foreigners Bush pissed off and stuff, right? Everything's cool, we just need a little Reform or something, I don't need to get off my ass and risk my life and freedom to make the land free for my children, right? 'Cause I'm effing exhausted man. I just want to watch this Show/Game and drink/smoke this beer/wine/weed/cig and hit the sack. I can do that, 'cause things aren't that bad, I mean look at Obama, right?"

Once the Consumer has decided to buy, we are then regaled with the justifications-after-the-fact, including the "super-duper Secret Progressive" one.

I think it would be interesting to study the correlation between time spent watching Obama on television and support for his Campaign. If the numbers, in a group of young Leftists, say, come out the way I think they would, I believe it will put us in the position of needing to confront the autocratic potential of Telegraphed Picture Information in general, and "the medium's" affect on democratic potential in specific.

I also think we should remember a useful general rule:

When Charisma combines with Ambition to Power, it is ALWAYS Dangerous, even if the Person is Good.

Remember, neither Gandalf nor Galadriel could take the Ring to the Fire, only a small, unambitious Hobbit could be Trusted, and even he needed the intervention of Fate to Succeed.

Have fun,

-matti.

But Obama and (DNC) Dean decided against taking corporate bribes, didn't they?

Samson,

The intent of millions going to DC would not to be to engage in symbolic legal marches or demonstrations then go home. They would be to block the sreets, build baracades, block and barricade doors, and put those in power in a position of either acceding to our demands or things only getting worse for them - up to and including losing their lives. Would some of us lose our own lives? Of course we would.

You can say say such thinking is utterly unrealistic and right now, it does look impossible, but no doubt it looked impossible in St. Petersburg in 1916, in Bucharest in 1990, in LaPaz and Cocabamba in September of 2003, and in the case of Caracas, on Saturday of April 12, 2002, no one probably imagined that just 24 hours later, largely through mass action, they would reverse a military coup - an unprecedented historical act.

I love people who want to be activists but who seem to hate the rest of the country and make no attempt to understand the mass of the people. They just complain that they people don't do what they think they should do.

First off, everyone who isn't rich is struggling more and more to just survive. There's the old joke about yes there are more jobs, and I've got three of them. If you are working two jobs or lots of overtime just to survive, its a little silly to expect these people to show up at protests.

Except, if you study the fall of the Soviet Union, you see an interesting pattern. For years there were small groups of dissidents who tried to organize and protest. They had very little impact. Except, as the SU was collapsing, suddenly there was a different dynamic.

First people realized that they could join the protests with more safety than before. Joining a protest wasn't just a quick path to being under police surveillance. This raised the number of people protesting from tens and hundreds up into the thousands.

Second, people realized there was a chance for change. Protesting wasn't just a symbolic statement, but there was really a chance for the protests to create change. This raised the numbers protesting from thousands to hundreds of thousands or millions. That's when the government fell.

We aren't there in America yet. Anyone with half a brain can see that going to an anti-war protest is at best a symbolic act. This is different from say the 60's, when there was at least an inkling that the Democrats might pay attention to protesters. Today, the Dem leadership has made it very clear that they care as little about the opinions of the people as the Rethugs. Thus, anyone with any sense can see that in this political environment, that protesting is at best a symbolic act.

If you are working two jobs and overtime just to survive, you don't have time for symbolic acts. That doesn't mean that they don't think there's a problem, and it doesn't mean that they are just apathetic. It means that they don't see an effective action that worth the time that it would take away from their daily struggle to keep food on the table and the bills paid and the gas tank full.

What's just wrong is that so many self-styled activists sneer at these people and insult them by comparing them to barnyard animals. And its patently obviously that anyone who hates the people and disrespects them so badly will never be able to be a successful organizer.

What's the answer ... elect politicians that will care about what the people want and who pay attention to this.

If that election is in doubt, then millions will come out to support that candidate and make sure they get a fair vote count. That's the piece that's missing from what we've seen in other countries. In other countries the voters can know a candidate will really change things, thus they'll come out to make sure they don't have the election stolen.

Or, once such a candidate is in power, then the people will become much more active because they'll see that their actions can make a difference.

Don't expect to see this for just another corporate Dem who will fully back corporate policies. Its a waste of time to protest or work to get that candidate elected. And people realize this.

But put forward a real chance for change, and you will see different results.

The reasons the Democrats lose is that they have never put forth a vision distinctly different from that of the Republicans - their differences being largely in style rather than substance. And, even if they started today outlining a genuinely progressive vision, they will need to weather at least 16 years of losing elections before they succeed.

This was the formula for success for the current conservative regime. Read my post from June 9 5:10PM.

But, the problem is, unlike the right, putting forth a genuiely populist vision from the left will face severe opposition and probably violence, form the privleged business classes. Nonetheless, with a critical mass of young people, it would be possible if the Democrats decided to do it. But the Democrats have no intention of doing it, because they represent the capitalists too - gay and feminism friendly, theater going, downtown condo-or redwood coast-living, environmental lip-servicing capitalists, but capitalists nonetheless.

Why do you think putting millions in the streets of DC would change anything? The one message that has been delivered loud and clear is that the current crop of corporate back politicians don't care what people think. So, why would they care if they look out there window and see people who don't support their policies?

To me, 'electoral politics' is the route to change. The difference is that we absolutely must stop electing politicians that are beholden to corporate money.

If we had politicians who owed their election to a mass political movement, they'd care about looking out the window and seeing all those people because that's their power base. The difference is that if Obama is elected he'll know its corporate money that got him elected and thus he won't care about the people out the window as long as the lobbyists in the White House are happy.

Yes, we need to vote. But the key is to realize never to vote for the candidates you see often on corporate TV. Those candidates are backed by the corporate money that lets them buy ads and the corporate media that supports them. Thus, those candidates will never represent us if elected.

'Electoral politics' in terms of voting for the Democrats offering of yet another corporate-owned candidate is indeed a waste of time. But 'electoral politics' that elects independent candidates that are opposed by corporate America is the peaceful route to power that our constitution gives us. There's a big difference.

Obama's going to be almost exactly the same as Bush and McCain. If you pay attention to what he's saying, instead of the fantasies that are spun about him, he's quickly aligning himself with exactly the same policies. Go check out his recent speech to AIPAC for just one example.

And, he's quickly following the established pattern for Dems in the last 4 or so election cycles in that he has obviously lied to the Democratic Party to get the nomination. We always see the pattern where the Dem candidates lie their rears off to the Democratic primary voters to get the nomination. But, then as soon as they get this nomination they quickly disavowal all the things they said during the primaries and move hard to the right. This is exactly what Obama is doing right now. The only difference is he's doing it a few months later because the nomination took so long to decide.

If you pay close attention to Obama, he always manages to avoid any details as to the change he wants to provide. Even during the stage of his campaign where he was lying to the Democratic voters, he went to great lengths to avoid any specifics whenever possible. This was obviously so he had less to disavowal now and could avoid the 'flip-flopper' charge by never committing to specifi progressive actions that he would later flip from.

Obama is well funded by Wall St and corporate America. This article tries to drum up the small donors, but that's only a part of his money. Big, big chunks of money from corporate America have also flowed into his campaign ever since the Feb primaries where he took the lead form Hillary.

The difference is, to get the small donor money he has promised nothing. But you know corporate America is not pouring millions into his campaign based on vague generalities. To them he has certainly committed to what he'll do as President. And you know dang well that he didn't commit to any big changes that corporate America would oppose. Instead, he's certainly done the opposite. Obama has certainly reassured corporate America that what he won't do is do create the change that the small donors are thinking they'll get.

The plan would to turn out several million in the streets of DC and keep them there. This is what they do in most democracies around the world - most recently in Korea - while ostensibly it is over importation of US beef, but actually in opposition to the opening of Korea to corporate domination in general.

But alas, USAns are a passive and completely self absorbed lot - like cattle passively plodding to the killing floor. There are few places in the world as passive. So, one could argue that it is better to let things get worse as fast as possible so the people finally wake up.

Its fascinating to watch the Dems make exactly the same mistake with the 'youth vote' in every election cycle.

They start with the stereotype that all youth voters are young progressive liberals. Then they try to declare that getting the 'youth vote' out will propel them to victory. You saw exactly this same talk during the Kerry campaign.

The mistake lies in the stereotype. For instance, if you pay attention to what the fundamentalist churches are doing, they are also very aggressive in registering their 'youth' and getting them to vote in the election. Oops, there went the stereotype and any strategies based on that level of sloppy thinking.

What the numbers show is that he did get a higher percentage of the youth you are more progressive and lefty to participate in the Democratic primaries. Since primaries are always a question of getting people to participate, this is a very different question than anything that happens in the general election.

That's ok in terms of a strategy as to how to win the Dem nomination. But there's no guarantee at all that this translates in any way to the general election.

So what's your plan, Beekeeper?

To think that Obama will magically transform into some champion of common citizen is to fall victim to delusion. One cannot have even a basic understanding of US history and still think that Obama represents anybody but corporate America. He knows this; I know this; you probably know this if you have even a shred of honesty in you.

QUIT HOPING FOR STUPID MIRACLES AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON! WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAVE OURSELVES THROUGH ELECTORAL POLITICS OR THROUGH BLIND FAITH IN THE CORRUPT.

Kristina40 - My original choice for President was Kucinich. I was in the Super Tues. voting block and Kucinich was [of course] already canned by the Corporate MSM. Demonized, marginalized - even Progressive voters have been brainwashed by the "Kooky-Kucinich" mantra. It sux.

I do really appreciate Dennis & all his bravery - he's the real deal.

Obama's going to be a good President if we can raise enough voters to blow Rove's "The Math."

Here's a great analysis by another of my heroes, www.TruthIsAll.net on the subject of WE NEED A TSUNAMI this year:

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionModel.htm

If the election were held today, the 2008 Election Model indicates that Obama would win by 310-228 electoral votes.

The State model projection indicates that he would capture 52.3% of the 2-party vote.

The National model average is 52.6%; but the latest 3-poll moving average (53.2%) shows he is gaining steam.

These graphs display the trends:

Aggregate poll shares

Electoral vote and win probability

Electoral vote and 2-party vote share

Latest battleground state polls

Battleground state win probability

Projection sensitivity analysis for 5 undecided voter allocation scenarios

The expected 2008 electoral vote was calculated in a Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 election trials. Since Obama won 99.5% of the trials, that is his win probability.

The model ran five scenarios of undecided voter allocation. In the most likely base case, 60% were allocated to Obama. In the worst case (50%) scenario, he had 51.2%, 289 EV and a 88% win probability,

Obama leads the latest state poll aggregate by 45.7- 43.0%. He is ahead in CO, IA, MO, NM, OH, VA.

He leads the latest national poll aggregate by 47.4 - 43.9%.

But there's a catch: the projection assumes a fraud-free election. It assumes that the recorded vote will be equal to the True Vote – but it never is.

Approximately 3-4 million Obama votes will be uncounted (70-80%) and there will likely be vote-switching on the DREs and central tabulators.

The Democrats need a very heavy voter turnout to overcome the fraud. Obama will probably need at least 54% of the True Vote (2-party) to win.

Now for the good news: Obama should get the 54% - at a minimum. It's only June and he is still leading despite all the media-driven negatives from the primary. Bush is at 25% in the polls – and McCain supports his policies. Obama's poll numbers vs. McCain can only go up as the focus turns to the election.

In 2004, the Election Model projected Kerry the winner with 51.8% of the 2-party vote and 337 electoral votes.

Unlike the Election Model's poll-based projections, the Election Calculator Model was designed to determine the True Vote based on the estimated vote shares of returning voters.

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.htm

The number of returning voters is estimated after adjusting for voter mortality and assumed turnout. Uncounted votes are estimated based on census statistics as a percentage of total votes cast.

Each candidate's share of returning and new voters is entered into the model (the preliminary National Exit Poll "How Voted" category is a reasonable best case estimate).

The 2004 Election Calculator determined that Kerry won the True Vote in a 67-57m landslide (53.2-45.4%).

Slightly adjusting the 2004 NEP vote shares for 2008, the Election Calculator indicates that Obama should win the True Vote in a 71-59m landslide (54-45%).

Prophet of Peace - I agree with a few of your comments, but um ... Obama, bush & cheney are related to an ancestor born in 1662. I wonder who you're related to. Should we judge you on the basis of some possibly nefarious distant 10th cousin once removed?

The only way things have ever changed is if enough people make it so. Sitting this one out is dangerous. Another 4 years of this corruption & we probably won't recover in my lifetime, maybe yours either.

If we don't make an attempt to better our world - I guess we deserve the crap we get.

I tend to agree with the posters that mention had he done all the Progressive things as Kucinich has done, he'd be sitting home watching the elections like Kucinich. Hillary would be the nominee and we could look forward to four more years of the SOS. So far as viable nominees goes, he's our best bet. He's not perfect but he's the best of what we have to choose from and has got people involved in the process. His message is much like FDR's, go out and MAKE me do it!

Democracy and elections are a farce.

The ruling elite control all politicians who are running for high office positions, fact.

The coming US election pits Obama against McCain, a seemingly no brainer of who will be elected - no one can seriously vote for McCain the man is a nutcase whereas Obama is the candidate the ruling elite want to be elected. Let us not forget that Obama is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Anyone hoping that by electing Obama will see a change will, yet again, be sorely disapointed as he is just a tool of the ruling elite, he is also related to both Bu$h and Cheney, he even jokes about Cheney being the black sheep of the family.

The question is, have you learnt anything yet about governments?

The government does not care about the genuine people who vote and who the government are meant to represent. The government represents corporate interest and the will of corporate interest and we are shat on all the time, whoever holds office.

After observing this I have came to the conclusion that governments are just another tool of control over us and a way of making us submit to the rule of the elite, keep us divided and to enhance the power of the ruling elite whilst at the same maintaining an illusion that we have a say in how society functions.

We saw in the 2000 election that the courts where used to give the election to Bush, the same process can be used to invalidate an election.

It is simple, everybody who can register to vote do so, then when polling day comes do not vote, this is important do not vote. When the results are announced they also give a turn out figure and if this figure for the turn out is under 50% then the election can legally be declared null and void if it is taken to the court system. The only way to bring it down is by using their mechanisms.
The thinking behind this is that over 50% of voters have to vote for the winning candidate, so if under 50% of registered voters fail to vote then the election can not be valid as if 50% is needed to be elected then 50% of registered voters need to vote to validate the election process, any court of law has to agree with this logic and an end to false governance can be achieved.

Here's to world where we all live in true peace :)

Namaste

If Obama had joined in on the Impeachment issue he would have been demonized & marginalized and would no longer be a candidate for president ... like Kucinich.

Thanks Joso - I have the same philosophy.

When wondering WHY the Democrats haven't done as much as we expected them to be able to do in their 2 years since 2006, remember the "bushdogs" – the DINOs [Democrats In Name Only], who vote with the "R-Thugs." There's been a lot of chicanery over the last couple of decades starting with a bang in 2002 with the implementation of BlackBox Voting Machines.

That's why we need a veritable Tsunami of voters to counteract the very suspicious 49% to 51% "wins" by the "R"s. I believe in '06 there was a slight miscalculation in turdblossom's "The Math" because of the unexpected surge in anti-republican voters. I believe in reality the Dems should have picked up a lot more seats than they did.

And don't forget the "D-Majority" is very small, hampered by the "bushdogs" and further hamstrung by Darth Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

Nader has never been able to sell himself or his ideas to a majority - and even though I agree with a lot of his ideas, he has never energized me. Unfortunately the same goes for the Greens and Libs.

Obama is waking up the sleeping masses - this is something very special that doesn't come around very often. Here's where your vote can make a difference. Here's where we can gain a real majority in Congress with more Progressives than ever before.

The awakened masses will be encouraged to remain active instead of SILENCED like we have been for too long - Obama wants to have regular "fireside chats" for transparency of our government. Refreshing, after 8 long years of dictatorship.

The opportunity for people like Kucinich, Paul & Nader, etc. to affect policy is possible with an Obama win, but totally IMPOSSIBLE with a McClone win.

So - think about it. How can you make a difference this year? Vote AGAINST Mcbush, but make your vote count.

Thanks to all for sharing your insights, which undoubtedly resonate for each of us if we are open and honest with ourselves.

The gift of intuition is the most valuable tool we have for assessing character. Several years ago, as Obama made himself increasingly visible in mainstream media, I assumed he considered himself presidential material, so paid attention to what he was about. I found that he tended to parrot the auspicious policies of his colleagues, and after listening to his narration of his autobiography, something hit in my solar plexus that said Obama is not genuine. (Obama and NAFTA, for example). Like Hillary Clinton, he is ambitious, but does not possess the true qualities of leadership that it now takes to turn around a country miserably suffering from decades of failed leadership.

What most concerns me about Obama is that he dismissed his Constitutional duty to hold the president and president vice accountable for their numerous, investigated, impeachable offenses, as a waste of his time. Obama flatly refused to co-sponsor any of the impeachment resolutions, because the train is headed in a different direction. Kucinich was the only candidate with the courage of his convictions, but the media washed him up handily. It has been legislators like Obama who have given Bush/Cheney carte blanche to continue their crimes, and to set a hideously dangerous precedent for future administrations.

Because of this, I am frightened by the ever growing cult of Obama sycophants, who, blinded by their rose-colored glasses, refuse, like the Bush supporters, to see where and why the hem of Obama's robe is an illusion. His rhetorical eloquence and "charisma" has persuaded otherwise well-informed Progressives that their savior is at hand, and as the ever growing idol worship grows, one is quickly accused of being *racist* for not joining the Obama cult.

America has been so strongly tilted in Israel's back pocket that we are no longer a viable brokerage in that region of the world. Obama's misguided patronizing of the pro-Israel lobby is not only dangerous, but an insipid move to secure the White House in November. A year ago, Obama said "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people." He seems to forget that under international law, Israel's occupation of Gaza is illegal. Obama has made himself putty in the hands of those who've molded the policies of the current administration. Obama, like others, bows to big money.

As was the case with Bill Clinton, people are not thinking clearly about Obama. If there's anything Obama does represent, it's more-of-the-same. I'm not sorry to see Hillary out of the race, but then again, maybe better the devil we know than the one we don't. Like George W. Bush, I believe Barack Obama has a dangerously inflated image of his abilities. If the GOP could make flip flop/mincemeat of John Kerry, I shudder to think of what they'll ultimately make of Obama. As Gore Vidal points out, we have one party with two right wings. Yes, we need now, more than anything else, the rise of a third party which is truly "progressive."

JOSO's post should be copied & emailed around by anyone supporting Obama.

To persuade oneself that the cause is lost in advance is to justify our own political impotence. Obama's campaign for the presidency is a tremendous chance.

As with Pascal's famous wager, if we bet on Obama & he wins, but nothing changes, we lose nothing; if he wins & we assist in delivering the change, then we win, if not everything, at least our true calling & our worth as a people.

I still don't get it

what has Obama done to
(1) hold Bush accountable for war crimes?
(2) Stop funding the war?
(3) Stop one-sided support of Israeli imperial-colonial-racist policies?
(4) hold Bush accountable for domestic spying of Americans?

Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

The Dems are not an opposition party, it is the complicit party - and Obama/Clinton/Pelosi are complicit.

Come this November - anybody but the two parties!

.

http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us-concentration_camp-location...

Where do you live?

44 States listed…

http://www.libertyforlife.com/jail-police/us_concentration_camps.htm

.

Anybody who's in a position to get the hell out better do it now. We are not looking at the dawning of the age of Aquarius. The folks who got something to sell will have gallons of snake oil, instant remedies, remnants of the True Cross, bags of scapegoats, and not much else. This is the fulfillment of Harry Truman's National Security State, Hoover's COINTELPRO, Nixon's benign neglect, Raygun's Enterprise, Clinton's betrayal, and Bush's constant war achieved through a single false flag operation.

As each group of us in turn was thrown under the bus for the last 35 years, Insulated white America turned it's face away and said, "Fuck you very much. Doesn't affect me. Go away and die." Well that insulated white privilege is now looking pretty flammable. We've got tent cities in the railroad yards (Americans live there) and parts of Los Angeles are now at $5/gal. Can we hit $6 before the election. Even without bombing Iran? But even more, if you use 20 gallons in a week (in Los Angeles basin that is nothing)can you afford $120 a week $480 a month just to get to work? INquiring minds want to know. I do know this,

Those who had no mercy will seek it in vain. This country is tinder set to burn - by design. Final lockdown. They are ready and prepared to burn us and send us to the death camps. Vilcomin Amerika. Arbeit macht frei.

For Mr. Obama, after he takes office (if a single lone gunmen with 3 names doesn't kill him), if I could, I would like to read his excuses for doing nothing from outside the US. I already read the Dim excuses for doing NOTHING for two years, nothing that is besides blowing richfilth animals for big bucks.

Peece.

Kind'a feels like a political version of Carlos Casteneda's "A Separate Reality" to read the juxatpositioning of JOSO's swept-up-in-the-magnetism of Obama (and what he COULD represent) in contrast with the earthy, logistical recounting of all the things not being addressed as well-chronicled by WSWS.org.

One thing I will share in this forum as a professional astrologer is that we are in a time that's been pre-programmed into our homo sapien matrix that is a transition more powerful than anything we've seen in our collective lifetimes. In fact, we don't have much of a basis for comparison. The legacy of 2200 years of polarized conditioning spawned from the theologies that characterized the Piscean Age (where fish faces fish antagonistically) is that we either survive by LEARNING to get along, in spite of our differences; or we prove that our foremost achievement, a means to end it all, becomes our tribute to the false god the masses have been taught to grant homage to.

The astrologer can step outside of time to understand its thematic frameworks... there is both free will AND cosmic law operating, and the mix between the two has created a confusing maelstrom. The very things that should be solid and lasting have been undermined or sold at the myopic bidding of the temporal. Higher truths are masked or mutated before they reach the public. The more people who follow their hearts and answer to the inner intimations of Truth, the greater the critical mass to cause that awakening that might wake mankind (or much of Anglo-European culture and its American equivalents)in time... this IS the judgment day in that how we live, the ideas and ideals we entertain, the way we treat our fellow citizens, the politics we support all make our case, singularly as well as collectively, for survival on a planet of hope, or struggling in a hell hole of despair, much like the US has visited upon Iraq and given its history, other peoples.

Some rise above unjust conditions and commit their lives to making the world a better place. Others succumb to vengeance and seek the means to plot revenge. In the final analysis, KARMA wins... most in this forum understand this principle and do their human best to live up to its demands. I write books hoping to project this message to those who have never heard it, or might be ready to consider a view that differs from the ones they've been commercially fed, the dietary equivalent of faux filler rather than honest nutrition. In any case, just as US weather is rocking and rolling, we are in for one kick ass HOT summer. The eclipses of August, in LEO sign of kings, does not bode well for all who aspire to power... perhaps they portend the arrival of NEW light in a morbidly dark political equation. I have hope.

I want to share some of my thoughts that were triggered by this article and the one by Tom Hayden (yesterday on Common Dreams http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/07/9495/ ). Tom expresses well my own hopes for the transformational potential of the movement Obama is mobilizing. His intuition about Bobby Kennedy, where he says "it was my sense that he was on some deep level, astonishingly, on our side", is what I also feel about Obama. My own limited experience with organizing community action makes this following insight about movement building seem essential, and I do feel like he could be "the one" we need now. As he sensed about Kennedy; "... he was the only one who could bridge the chasm between the traditional Democrats and the disaffected young, the striking farmworkers, the rebellious blacks, even the utterly disenfranchised native Americans. I learned from that experience that, like it or not, a charismatic and willing candidate, not just a linear program, is needed to mold a diverse majority."

Most of us who are moved by our own well-grounded vision are engaged in linear efforts which we hope will lead to the outcome we believe so important for the future. However, we are, as the larger progressive part of society, separated into a cacophony of linear programs in competition with each other for supporters and resources and for fealty to 'our' vision. What became so clear to me while trying to organize follow-up to the gatherings of excited people we created, was the seeming impossibility of drawing people toward my own linear program (or to any of the others represented), or going beyond them to create a broader agenda that could unite us. There are so many 'good' visions we work for, and most command strong loyalties to the narrow programs they have created to fulfill their particular hopes. I do now think it will take the emergence of a transcendent charismatic leader with an incredibly open attitude to allow all of those so aware of our needs to be drawn together as one force.

I have characterized our efforts for change in the progressive community as the futile attempts to defeat a fearsome dragon by going at it with isolated small forces armed with fly swatters. By themselves, they are easily dismissed or defeated by the dragon of our disciplined status-quo forces. I have come to feel that we must somehow create our own powerful dragon to fight the forces now running our world over a cliff. That is what I see Obama, a "charismatic and willing candidate", trying to do in his decision to run, to respond to "the fierce urgency of now". If his broadest vision is realized, when our many efforts can be united to identify and forge the weapons that will overcome that dragon, we may be able to eventually neutralize that powerful threat to our future. We must come to believe that we have many more passionate souls who are crying for a more just and humane world for all.

However, it is not enough for him just to beckon us to follow behind him, as the pied-piper might. By himself, he can quickly be seduced by the awesome temptations of power, and begin to imagine himself, in all the adulation he receives, as the one who is important and whose own ideas should be the only basis of his agenda. This is a great danger in our climate of celebrity and focus on individual action. This movement he is calling into being will only realize its potential if it is quickly given form and institutionalized anchoring beyond Obama himself, so that the agenda Obama must champion can be the agenda we all can fight for together, with him initially at the forefront. Maybe it must begin under the banner of a 'reformed' Democratic party, but it must eventually become something new outside the party that provides an intense counter-force to the dangers inherent in organized party dogma and the blind loyalties parties foster. Hopefully, he already realizes this, and has the wisdom and humility to catalyze the formation of this larger vehicle that will be created when we are all at the table working with him to define our common agenda. But more importantly, we also must recognize the essential responsibility we all now have to enter into the fray with him and go beyond our commitments to our precious linear solutions, and offer our voices in humility and with passion to the creation of a common pathway we can all march forward with together. Perhaps this process of giving form and structure to this movement can put us on the slow and difficult road to the really important changes we so desperately need to face the many crises of our time.

So let us put aside fighting separately with our impotent fly swatters for now, engage with him in this unprecedented opening to forge together our unifying power, and get on with the task of forging the tools that will, by uniting us towards the future we desire, move us past this dragon that seeks to subjugate us all. As Hayden says so well, "Those who denounce Obama — and the possibilities of all electoral politics- - should ponder the effectiveness of sitting judgmentally on the sidelines while an Unexpected Future arrives through the sheer will of a new generation." And, as the article above ends, we must be clear: "The great thing about Obama's candidacy is that he has raised expectations about what American can be and do in a way that nobody else has or could in recent memory. Whether they develop into pressure or descend into cynicism is an open question. Will he be a vehicle for their hopes, or will they be a vehicle for his political ambition? The two are not mutually exclusive. But their connection is far from assured." The answer here is largely up to us. I, for one, am willing to place my bet that this is possible. I certainly don't see any other force bringing about the uprising of hope we so desperately need. Yes, he may prove to be a phony, and is just the dupe of the corporatists. So stop carping or just following passively, and help figure out how this movement can capture its united potential. Divided, we can be sure we will fail to realize anything from this opportunity for we, the people, to reclaim our power!

"obama could create an earthquake" and you have fallen into the crevice.

Gary Younge is a Brit but still, if you're commenting on the U.S., it would be an idea to get something right on Constitutional law.

But about Obama: For all the excitement, all I know about his proposed policies for our nation is that he's going to support the most far-right-wing Likudist line on Israel/Palestine, a line that is rejected by the great majority of American Jews AND Israelis. Not to mention the rest of the world.

Some "change."

Still, it's an historic day in America! … Gee, that's funny, I remember when it was a "New Morning" in Amerca. That was Reagan's con-line. … Plus a change, plus c'est la meme chose.)

BUUUUuuuUUUUUULLlllLLLSHIIIIIiiiiIIIITTttttTT!

Xenophobic as ever, American mainstream media conveniently forgets that black leaders have been in charge of countries, in charge of militaries and in charge of corporations for quite some time now. Some good, some bad. How's Colin Powell grab ya for a black man with integrity? Any word from him about any of the above issues?

Quoting from the following article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/elec-j09.shtml

"Having a black man, Colin Powell, as chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or a black woman, Condoleezza Rice, as national security adviser and now secretary of state during the ongoing war in Iraq does not alter the imperialist and predatory character of those wars.

"Nor did having an African-American (CEO Stanley O'Neal) at the helm of Merrill-Lynch make the collapse of the subprime mortgage market—due largely to rampant speculation and deceptive lending practices—more tolerable for millions of low-income borrowers (a disproportionate number of them from minority communities)." Click here for the entire article, "Obama, Clinton and identity Politics" -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/elec-j09.shtml

Nor about the following:

-- The fact that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world, By far. NOTE WELL: Not as compared to advanced industrial countries, as compared to *ALL* the countries in the world -- with one out of every 135 US residents currently incarcerated; and with prisons being one of the fastest growing industries in America.

-- The fact that the United States is the only advanced industrialized country without universal health coverage -- with over 50 million Americans not covered by any health insurance whatsoever.

-- The fact that neither Hillary nor Obama nor McCain has ever uttered the words "single payer" in their entire lives.

-- The fact that Canada spends *less* money on health care per capita, yet covers *more* people and covers them *better* than does the US system.

-- The fact that the state of Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country in the world. By far! And that their occupation of the West Bank and, in turn, their ghettoization of the Palestinians is morally reprehensible. (As Arthur Miller put it in his play "Incident at Vichy" --"Even the Jew has his Jew. He is the other.")

-- The fact that, today, the Palestinians occupy 10% of the land they did in 1949.

Or how about these issues:

-- Illegal domestic wiretapping.

-- The fact that the US has the highest rate of homelessness of any advanced industrialized country. By far.

-- And this grotesque obscenity --
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

Is Obama fixin' to "change" any of these realities? Answer: Don't hold your breath.

(Continued)

Realitychecker: Change FACT to ASSERTION (I stand chastened.)

I am ASSERTING that the CHANGEmaker will garner the necessary funds from "Wall Street" - the campaign supporters from FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate), the coal industry, pharma, and manufacturing and commerce in general.
Almost $8M now and a shitload more coming. Apparently, the corporadoes are betting on November's winner - so that he will fit snuggly in the corporate pocket. (McCain is safely there already.)

So you think the "little people" will continue to pony up for the CHANGEmaker? If so, will that make Obama in favor of a non-interventionist foreign policy? For single-payer? For less secret government? What will the donations from the "little people" get them exactly?

We'll see if my "assertion" was correct this November.

Anything else to take issue with, RC?

-- The fact that 50% of the world's population lives on $2 a day or less; with 20% of the world's population living on $1 a day or less.

-- The fact that 35,000 people die every day from *preventable* causes, most of them because of polluted drinking water.

-- The fact that scientists estimate that the cost of making virtually all the world's drinking water safe to drink would be around 10 billion dollars. Less than what the US spend in Iraq in a month.

-- The fact that the United States has the highest homicide rate of any advanced industrialized country. By far.

-- The fact that the United States has the dirtiest air of any advanced industrial country. By far.

-- The fact that the United States has the highest rate of corporate welfare of any advanced industrial country. By far. About 125 billion dollars per year.

-- The fact that the United States is one of the few advanced industrialized countries that doesn't have proportional representation in their legislatures.

-- The fact that the US electoral system is *awash* in corporate (corrupting) money.

-- The fact that the welfare system in the United States -- welfare for the poor and needy, that is, as opposed to those with full pockets -- is the most mean-spirited welfare system of any advanced industrial country in the world. It's always been mean-spirited, President Bill ("I Love Black People" )Clinton's so-called Welfare Reform Act made it much worse.

-- The fact that the United States has the highest rate of poverty of any advanced industrialized country. By far.

-- The fact that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any advanced industrialized country. By far.

-- The fact that in other advanced industrial countries: the streets are safer, the air is cleaner; the sick and the elderly are taken care of; students don't have to go broke to attend college; workers are paid better; unions are stronger; vacations are, at a minimum, *twice* as long; voter turnout is higher; the difference between male and female pay is smaller; the penal system is more humane; public schools are not a sick joke. And on and on.

QUESTION: Heard anything from that crusading feminist/progressive, Hillary Clinton, about any of those issues? Or from that loyal patriot, John McCain? Or from the Democratic Party's newest savior, Barack "Earthquake" Obama?

ANSWER: Nada y nada y pues nada.

(Continued)

Now begins what might otherwise be called "the liberal delusion." Or, put another way: the cockeyed, delusional idea that Obama is anything other than a mainstream, well-financed corporate mouthpiece.

How's this for an "earthquake" – here's a candidate who just *happened* to forget to mention the following issues in his campaign:

-- The *criminality* of the Iraqi War; with now well over 1,000,000 Iraqis dead, many of them children -- http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/02/9363/

-- The ***Democratic Party's*** criminal complicity in the War.

-- The obscenity of spending 15 billion dollars per month on the Iraq War. (15,000,000,000 PER MONTH!)

-- Torture.

-- Extraordinary rendition.

-- The US government's foreign policy -- a murderous foreign policy that's existed for decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations; with the bombing of Afghanistan standing as the *20th* country the United States has bombed since the end of WWII.

-- The stenographic spinelessness of America's mainstream media.

-- The concentration of media power into fewer and fewer hands; aided and abetted by the shepherding of the 1996 Telecommunications Act through Congress by then-Vice President Al ("Recount-What-Recount-We-Don't-Need-No-Stinkin'-Recount") Gore.

-- The media-supplicant observations made by co-conspirator Scott McClellan in his just released (best-selling) book.

-- The rape of the American political system (not to mention the entire planet) by "The Big Boys," i.e., multinational drug, oil, bank, and insurance corporations. (I guess there aren't any women executives or black executives involved in any of those multinational corporations).

-- The ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor and the rich and the middle class in the United States; the largest gap of any advanced industrial country. By far.
... And the largest gap in the United States since 1929.

-- The fact that in the United States 45% of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the population; with the next 19% of the population controlling the next 40% of the nation's wealth -- leaving the remaining 15% in the hands of 80% of the US population.
(Continued)

...

solrak,

Thank-you for reminding us of the time, not long ago, when we had a REAL movement underway. One that embraced everyone from teamsters to anarchist turtles. Not 1968, but from 1998 to September 11, 2001.

Gorsegrower wrote:

"In our present messed-up "system" of politics, a candidate cannot freely blurt out his true convictions on many issues and still hope to win an election."

Of course they can! What do you think the conservative Republicans have been doing since at least the Goldwater days, and winning big since the Reagan days? They did it by speaking their minds honestly - even when their viewpoints were very unpopular. Remember when Reagan was openly mocked as "Ronald RayGun"?.

So, why not the left-Democrats? A political movement wins an election by, through force of eloquent argument, convincing the electorate that your program is the best - while fully expecting to NOT getting elected in the first few attempts.

This is what the Republicans did - they presented a convincing appeal that selfishness, greed and swaggering militarism is what "makes America great". It started with Goldwater - considered to be an extremist kook when he was defeated by Johnson in the most lopsided presidential election in US history. But, with continuous hammering of the message, they laid the foundation for the election of Reagan 16 years later, establishing a 30 year dynasty of extreme conservatism - be it a Republican or Democrat president or congressional majority.

So it should be obvious that the democrats need to do the same thing - appeal to community, solidarity, humility, compassion, and global neighborliness as the things that will make America great. No, they won't win the first few elections that they try this, but with skillful delivery of the message with charismatic messingers, they will begin to win and establish an entirely now course for the nation. They have done none of this.

So, we have to conclude that:

1. The democrats are stupid and know nothing about movement-building or the pedagogy and dialectics of movement building; or,

2. The Democrats largely agree with current ultra-conservative market extremist and imperialist ideology, and have adopted the role of make-believe opposition party to provide the electorate the same illusion of choice they they have in the economic sphere as workers and consumers.

I thing explanation No. 2 is the correct one.

The drooling campaign show is underway with McCain's scripted shriek: "he's gonna raise taxes." Obama preceded this podium belch with his own; a lame: "He's just like Busch".
What's needed is change. Not audacious, fairy tale change, but change that Americans want and need. Nader/Gonzalez are at 6%, all that without any MSM coverage. Cleaning the House and Senate comes next!

Change, Change I dream of it everyday I lost all hope the moment he begged for the Pro -Israeli vote... he is not going to be that different from all the others politicians.

bushiswmd and anyone else posting links to Open Secrets-- It is not a FACT that Wall Street will pay Obama's way. The amounts listed there are less than $8M out of nearly $300M he has raised. He may be a complete corporate sellout but these figures do not prove anything...

obama is only a politician, what do you expect?
lets keep the pressure on.
what we want is a chance to build a new foundation for democracy.
elections with Instant Runoff Voting, equal media space for all candidates and one person, one vote. then, how about open source policy drafting ?

The real test of what Obama stands for is who he picks for V.P. If he caves in and picks Clinton,
he will lose my vote.

While I continue to remain dedicated to Obama's campaign, Jerusalem comment at AIPAC was way over the top. The question of Jerusalem is at the heart of contentious negotiations between Israel and Palestinians. Furthermore according to their faith, Muslims believe that the City has more or less the same status as Mecca.

At the very least, that is an issue that a party that wants to be seen as an "honest broker" should not be taking sides on if impartiality is to be taken seriously. Committing oneself deeply in favor on one side would also be indirectly endorsing current policies on Iraq/Iran.

"We are in government but not in power," said Lula's close aide, Dominican friar Frei Betto. "Power today is global power, the power of the big companies, the power of financial capital."

This is the central question of the next century. Any solutions to the massive problems that face us must address it.

What do we WANT?

Folks should start mobilizing for inauguration day, no matter the outcome.

Another world is possible. The Battle of Seattle was the foreshadow moment. The time is now.

In our present messed-up "system" of politics, a candidate cannot freely blurt out his true convictions on many issues and still hope to win an election. Thus O's assurance to Israel; a "friend" does not automatically endorse whatever sin or foolishness one adopts. Instead, a true friend acts and advises in one's best interests. This leaves O a lot of wiggle room when he takes office. A much more nuanced position that the idiot-in-chief, whatever you do we support it. It tells me that O is as skillful a politician as we have seen for some time.

the OLIGARCHY has ANNOINTED freshman SENATOR OBAMA
what part NEEDS MORE CLARIFICATION
1) progressive he is NOT
2) LIBERAL see 1).
3) revolutionary see 1).
4) pawn of IMF, FED RES, K STREET he IS

The argument that Obama lacks the experience needed to be effective in Washington holds no water. We already know what 8 years of a Republican administration will get us - a big mess. Can Obama, with an entirely different approach, produce results that are any worse? The fact that he is backed by the people rather than the oil companies by itself is indicative of positive change.

"He has also transformed the model for funding, creating a broad popular base of small donors. Unprecedented numbers of people have invested in him. The question is whether they will see a return."

The above quote from this Guardian piece continues the spin about Obama's donors. Facts need to be presented regarding the assertion that the Obama campaign will be funded by "little people."

The FACT is that Wall Street will pay Obama's way. His votes have already signaled that he appreciates Wall Street. Open Secrets will show non-believers the way here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/wall-street-bets-on-obama-for.ht...