Obama's Chicago Boys
Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC, "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."
Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed 37-year-old Jason Furman to head his economic policy team. Furman is one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, anointing the company a "progressive success story." On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged, "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, it's Wal-Mart's critics who are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy more broadly for me to sit by idly and sing 'Kum-Ba-Ya' in the interests of progressive harmony." Obama's love of markets and his desire for "change" are not inherently incompatible. "The market has gotten out of balance," he says, and it most certainly has. Many trace this profound imbalance back to the ideas of Milton Friedman, who launched a counterrevolution against the New Deal from his perch at the University of Chicago economics department. And here there are more problems, because Obama--who taught law at the University of Chicago for a decade--is thoroughly embedded in the mind-set known as the Chicago School.
He chose as his chief economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist on the left side of a spectrum that stops at the center-right. Goolsbee, unlike his more Friedmanite colleagues, sees inequality as a problem. His primary solution, however, is more education--a line you can also get from Alan Greenspan. In their hometown, Goolsbee has been eager to link Obama to the Chicago School. "If you look at his platform, at his advisers, at his temperament, the guy's got a healthy respect for markets," he told Chicago magazine. "It's in the ethos of the [University of Chicago], which is something different from saying he is laissez-faire."
Another of Obama's Chicago fans is 39-year-old billionaire Kenneth Griffin, CEO of the hedge fund Citadel Investment Group. Griffin, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Obama, is something of a poster boy for an unbalanced economy. He got married at Versailles and had the after-party at Marie Antoinette's vacation spot (Cirque du Soleil performed)--and he is one of the staunchest opponents of closing the hedge-fund tax loophole. While Obama talks about toughening trade rules with China, Griffin has been bending the few barriers that do exist. Despite sanctions prohibiting the sale of police equipment to China, Citadel has been pouring money into controversial China-based security companies that are putting the local population under unprecedented levels of surveillance.
Now is the time to worry about Obama's Chicago Boys and their commitment to fending off serious attempts at regulation. It was in the two and a half months between winning the 1992 election and being sworn into office that Bill Clinton did a U-turn on the economy. He had campaigned promising to revise NAFTA, adding labor and environmental provisions and to invest in social programs. But two weeks before his inauguration, he met with then-Goldman Sachs chief Robert Rubin, who convinced him of the urgency of embracing austerity and more liberalization. Rubin told PBS, "President Clinton actually made the decision before he stepped into the Oval Office, during the transition, on what was a dramatic change in economic policy."
Furman, a leading disciple of Rubin, was chosen to head the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, the think tank Rubin helped found to argue for reforming, rather than abandoning, the free-trade agenda. Add to that Goolsbee's February meeting with Canadian consulate officials, who left with the distinct impression that they had been instructed not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA campaigning seriously, and there is every reason for concern about a replay of 1993.
The irony is that there is absolutely no reason for this backsliding. The movement launched by Friedman, introduced by Ronald Reagan and entrenched under Clinton, faces a profound legitimacy crisis around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than at the University of Chicago itself. In mid-May, when university president Robert Zimmer announced the creation of a $200 million Milton Friedman Institute, an economic research center devoted to continuing and augmenting the Friedman legacy, a controversy erupted. More than 100 faculty members signed a letter of protest. "The effects of the neoliberal global order that has been put in place in recent decades, strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive," the letter states. "Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population."
When Friedman died in 2006, such bold critiques of his legacy were largely absent. The adoring memorials spoke only of grand achievement, with one of the more prominent appreciations appearing in the New York Times--written by Austan Goolsbee. Yet now, just two years later, Friedman's name is seen as a liability even at his own alma mater. So why has Obama chosen this moment, when all illusions of a consensus have dropped away, to go Chicago retro?
The news is not all bad. Furman claims he will be drawing on the expertise of two Keynesian economists: Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute and James Galbraith, son of Friedman's nemesis John Kenneth Galbraith. Our "current economic crisis," Obama recently said, did not come from nowhere. It is "the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long."
True enough. But before Obama can purge Washington of the scourge of Friedmanism, he has some ideological housecleaning of his own to do.
Naomi Klein is the author of many books, including her most recent, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.Visit Naomi's website at www.naomiklein.org, or to learn more about her new book, visit www.shockdoctrine.com .
© 2008 The Nation
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
162 Comments so far
Show AllI don't think even Galbraith made much of the break with the status quo which is necessary if we're going to fix the mess at hand. The only thing that can fix it is mathematically perfected economy:
http://perfecteconomy.com/
If either Mr. Nader or Mr. Obama are to do their due diligence, they're going to have to square with the only solution to 1) inflation and deflation, 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property, and 3) inherent, terminal multiplication of debt.
Jim Glover,
MY source is electoral-vote.com
(Bob K. June 15th, 2008 8:46 pm)
YOUR source is the right-wingers' bible, the National Journal
(Jim Glover June 16th, 2008 4:31 pm)
You must have pulled this VoteFromAbroad crap out of some hole where the sun don't shine. Either you are dumber than a bag of hammers, or you think the people reading this thread are. Case closed.
fixthisworld, I'm with you. Vote Nader!
just a thought:
those who want to persuade the disenchanted from voting for Nader are doing themselves a disservice by engaging in sarcastic encouragement or panicked pleas. if people who want to vote for Nader hear people telling them---through whatever smarmy rhetorical means they deem (in)appropriate---that they shouldn't vote for Nader, the people who want to vote for Nader feel that they have some power, that they are in a way needed. that's a nice feeling; it motivates inspiration as well as recalcitrant stubbornness.
that said, i'm voting for Nader so long as Obama kisses ass to people who are trying to ruin my life and fuck up the world. Nader is at 6% in the polls right now. that is a bit of enormous, unreported news. if Obama weighs his electoral pawns against one another, and perceives that the bulk of those not in his camp are not enamored with him because of his lack of dedication to things resembling progressive causes, perhaps, perhaps, he will start tilting--or at least pandering---to the left.
Nobody for president.
jzelensk,
Thank you for an informed honest view on what being a progressive is all about.
Wrong again Bob,
Just an hour ago or so he was promising millions of new jobs building new infrastructure, new alternative power and Fair trade. Jobs that are lost are gone but new jobs with a whole new Economic policy is progressive no-matter how you lie about him.
Very progressive not your lies about his program I just watched with Al Gore's endorsement... Bob, you lie about what I just witnessed ... You just say you are honest but you are a con man!
To You honest dialogue is a one way street...your way or your wasting your time.
You are wasting your time and your vote lying about Obama. Being hung up on labels is the best way to put people in boxes like you do and pretend you are the authority with your only DNC link.
The DNC is not noted for even supporting the most progressive or liberal and with their disclaimer, I would not accept them as the only authority when the NAACP is non partisan... they say "reliable sources" ...that is the CIA's and corporate media's line about honesty too.
Funny You are gonna vote the way Rush wants you too and you think you are the authority on Labels. Labels just put people in boxes so that real dialogue gets lost.
Here is your authorities' Disclaimer:
---------------------------------------
VoteFromAbroad.org : Disclaimer
The information contained on this site has been drawn from a number of sources and individuals which were considered reliable, and is offered on a best intentions basis. However, Democratic National Committee offers no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, adequacy or timeliness of the information for any particular purpose. Users should contact the individual county departments to verify information before taking action in reliance on it, because information may have changed since the last update of the site.
Democratic National Committee does not endorse, and shall not be responsible for the accuracy, adequacy or timeliness of any information, advice or opinion made by individuals or organizations linked to this site. Documents linked to this site may also be protected under U.S. or foreign copyright laws, and permission to reproduce may be required.
Democratic National Committee shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, consequential or exemplary damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or profits, loss of business or loss of data, or for any claim, loss or injury based upon errors, omissions, interruptions or inaccuracies in the information housed at or linked to this site.
-----------------------------------------
Also the opinions of those who hate ACLU should be taken into account as well as your only source
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/06/13/media-defensiveness-about-obama-and-his-communist-assoc...
also another right wing opinion From that right winger, Fidel:
May 28, 2008, 14:11
Cuba's Fidel backs Obama
The former president of communist Cuba, Fidel Castro, is supporting Barack Obama in the race for the White House. Castro, who stepped down in February because of continuing poor health, said the Democratic Senator was the most "advanced" candidate running for the U.S. presidency.
The compliment, however, is likely to give ammunition to Obama's rivals. It will hand Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, an opportunity to question Mr Obama's foreign policy.
McCain has already attacked Obama because of the remarks of a top Hamas official. Ahmed Yousuf said he hoped Obama would become the U.S. president. Hamas is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organisation.
In a column in Cuba's Granma newspaper, Castro said that although he disagrees with Obama's decision to maintain Washington's trade sanctions against Cuba, he thinks Obama is "the most progressive candidate for the U.S. presidency."
---------------
So there you have your one "reliable source" with a disclaimer from the not so progressive or liberal DNC and everything else is not Honest... the people will win and you are gonna lose big time.
Jim Glover,
Your links — that you call "another opinion" — go right back to the National Journal: the birthplace of neo-cons and the source from which all right-wing propaganda flows. This is now the third time I've pointed this out to you.
Learning the tainted source of their information would make most people blanch. But not you. You go right on, as if truth doesn't matter.
As to Earl Ofari Hutchinson (from the black entertainment site) his numbers are not reported by the groups he cites. I don't know who he is or what he is up to, but his numbers are wrong.
Once again, Obama is rated the 42nd-most-liberal Senator. Once again, this means Obama is one of the LEAST LIBERAL Democrats in the Senate. His Senate voting record confirms it, his appointments confirm it, and many of his statements on the campaign trail confirm it — including the statements he made to labor leaders in Detroit today, praising globalization and telling them their jobs and industries are history.
Sorry I ever wasted my time trying to engage you in honest dialogue.
Jason Furman was one of the most incisive critics of Bush's proposed Social Security disaster.
To be progressive does not mean to reject markets. Understand the difference between a market economy and corporate capitalism.
Yes Ken I checked your link and you say "Your claims are false."
Did you check my links? We are just gettin started here and this is gonna be a long campaign.
Your link is for voters living abroad... now, I am not sayin they are false just that you should fact check your own before you claim someone else is false.
Gore is endorsing Obama as we speak (if we are still speaking) Now Is Gore's claims about Obama false too?
From http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/stateof/hutchinsonreport209
"When Obama's record and views are separated from the mythmaking and rock-star rapture he's wrapped in, the problem of his electability looms large. Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees and the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature), as well as a huge plus rating from the ACLU. He got such high points from them for his Senate votes on labor, education, the environment, choice, civil rights and civil liberties. These are America's top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders."
———-
Also I guess I am a Nazi too since I do shop at the nearby Walmart… there are no Mom and Pop stores in Brandon Florida and every big store in the USA is now filled with made in China and evey other Cheap labor producing country.
Here is another view on Furman as an economic advisor. http://whippersnapper.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/obama-picks-furman-i-celebrate/
The boys' club and its members are alive and well and now operating within the Obama organization; so much for substantial change. I will, like most people, take a wait and see attitude, but with the likes of the boys' Senator Obama is now playing with, it gives one pause.
Just remember, the write-in option is available in all 50 states: Hillary Clinton for Prez!
That's pathetic. Yet somehow surprisingly optomistic to think that the biggest vote-getter wins.
You can't read or use a search engine.
2rotten
I don't need your rotten pity, You have more than two choices that is true and you will choose to be the Republicans last best hope.
It is more than your vote that counts.. all the votes are added together and winner takes all... that is reality..Sorry if you can't add.
Also, Big Mouth Bob,
Since you like to argue over words here is another opinion
http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2007/03/senator-barack-obama-more-liberal-than.html
and another
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
While you fools muck around with singular words to describe human beings, take some time and consider that YOU are the loser if you actually believe that "reality" consists of only two choices. This is PROFOUNDLY sad because you no longer believe in principles which made this country great at one time. You no longer believe that if people speak up the creme-de-la-creme has to listen.
I pity you. Sitting there holding your breath, waiting for the day that the powers decide to throw you another bone.
Bob K,
You like to argue over definitions of words OK... I never said "incrementalist" that is your word, but I did get it wrong, what I meant is step by step not by degrees (tiny), so I stand corrected on that.
42nd liberal out of 100 senators does not mean that he is not liberal. Kind of puts him slightly to the left in the middle.
A left leaning centrist in the senate is liberal enough for me compared to the other choice.
To me he is liberal not to you, that is fine with me.
In fact since Obama is the first major candidate to advocate talking with adversaries which probably is not even on the charts of comparison he is an innovative Peacemakin Liberal.
Now who do you think those liberal groups are gonna vote for?... for Obama cause he is liberal enough for them and most Americans. Liberal is even a dirty word in media politics, so we need someone better than what the Republicans have to offer. Obama is liberal enough for me. So that is what my big mouth is sayin.
Here is what your big mouth is sayin:
You are willing to take the country in the wrong direction with a wasted vote. It is between McCain and Obama, reality wins ..your fantasy loses.
You think he is not liberal even implied a Republican (Goofy Big mouth). Obama is liberal compared to most senators according to a rating by liberal groups... now if the right wing thinks he is a Commie and the Gloomy Doomers think he is a Nazi, that makes him just right to unite the country.
You will lose and I will bet on it!
You seem to want to make the right wing Happy...Ha you are gonna lose anyway.
I will let the people decide like a LIBERAL!
Anyone recall what launched Obama into senatorship and thus the spotlight to begin with? Answer: crazyass Alan Keyes. Look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2004
News Just In!
In the New York Times this morning
Obama not a hands on person Likes to deligate authority.
Now who do we know that has been doing just that for the last 7 and some years? BUSH Of Course
By the way We can still have Senator Hillary Clinton for our President.
We just get The Stupid (super delegates) to change their minds again.
I believe they are already starting to see Obama will lose big time this fall.
Funny isn't it Bush lied to the people and Obama is lying to the people, Yet you still do not want a Hillary in The White House.
Well , Welcome to the destruction of what is left of America.
Pat yourselves on the back for being a major cause of it.
Senator Clinton still has my Write In vote regardless.
"We DON'T HAVE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY."
Thank you. The system needs to be changed. Picking different leaders is not enough.
"If we did, then this thread would be a non-sequitor as Nader, McKinney, etc., would have equal access and opportunity to getting elected. There would be proportional representation."
I think participatory democracy is more than just Nader or McKinney. If we had it, we'd be doing a lot more than arguing over who should have control over us.
For those who think that electing Obama and then "holding him to the fire" bespeaks a total disregard for reality. As a case in point one need only look at the Clinton Administration to prove this 'belief' is false.
As an environmental activist, I worked closely with groups that literally begged the Clinton Administration to take action on Climate Change: Clinton did absolutely nothing to lead on the issue.
There where other progessive organizations who begged Clinton to close the School of the Americas: Clinton turned a deaf ear.
At the end of the Clinton Administration, Clinto pardoned over 400 inside the beltway corporate executive like Milliken and left Lenord Pelliter to rot in prison.
Any one who thinks that you can influence someone to take true progressive action once they get the presidency is living in a dream world.
"What is it about participatory government that you don't understand?"
Huh? You see, now we know why Obamacrats are in la-la land. We DON'T HAVE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY. If we did, then this thread would be a non-sequitor as Nader, McKinney, etc., would have equal access and opportunity to getting elected. There would be proportional representation. And that is exactly the point that Dems cannot see. Go ahead and defend that, but don't suffer the delusion that it is "participatory democracy" or that it will bring about change. Obama's motto should be: "Change you can count on not coming". It can't come as his major contributors payback debts guarantee. As for Dems being fascists, we'll it is endemic in the Party. What else would you call corporate control of the Democratic Party? Look up Mussolini's defining of fascismo and then tell me that doesn't describe the marriage of both major political parties and the Corporations.
Obama is an establishment Democrat. He was primed for this presidency since his establishment-promoted debut at the DNC in 2004. All of you who think that Obama is some sweeping reformist underdog that rose against the system on a wave of grassroots support-you're delusional. Obama enjoyed favorable media coverage for months on end at the beginning of his campaign. If you want to see what media coverage looks like for real nonestablishment candidates, look to the media blackout on Kucinich and Ron Paul.
Obama has successfully exploited America's desire to feel good about itself and to move out of this era of negativity. Nader, a real human being who also obviously won't be getting any free media coverage, saw through it immediately. Remember this article?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/07/6230/
To all those pragmatic Storm Troopers on Common Dreams that condemn readers for considering "enabling the enemy" by "throwing away their vote on Nader," you're missing the boat. This isn't about the lesser of two evils. This is about the failure of our citizens to change existing governmental power structures. We elected Congress, yet they only have an 11% approval rating. We elected Bush, and he's the worst president in history. Until the citizens of the US stop accepting the establishment candidates that are pushed on us, we will never experience the dramatic change we so desperately need.
Americans have been fooled repeatedly into accepting dishonest establishment candidates, and refusing less polished and less well-funded candidates who represent real change because "they can't win."
Equally delusional are those who believe we should elect Obama and keep his feet to the grindstone. We can no more exert pressure on Obama than we can on Pelosi to reverse her stance on impeachment. These establishment people aren't shaped by public opinion. THEY shape public opinion!
Just like you wouldn't buy a new car with a serious defect, nor should you vote for a politician with a serious defect and then work to fix it later. You also shouldn't buy a car with a serious defect because the only other car on the lot is an even bigger piece of junk.
What should you do?
Keep your money and walk, and tell the dealership that you aren't buying until they carry something that's worth buying. That is how we get quality cars, and that's how we'll get quality leaders.
Jim Glover,
Why don't you check the link before you open your mouth? The seven groups' mean rating of Obama is 42nd-most-liberal.
You ignore facts when they are presented to you, and continue in your opinion based on ignorance.
Some day you should try supporting your claims with facts.
I asked previously for any evidence that Obama is a progressive, and you came up with this bogus "most liberal" myth. I disproved that myth and told you it's propaganda straight from neo-con central, the National Journal. You can Google it. I showed you that legitimate groups which routinely rate Senators give Obama a mean rating of 42nd-most-liberal U.S. Senator. In other words, he's one of the LEAST LIBERAL Democrats in the Senate.
So, where is your evidence that Obama is progressive? Where is your evidence that he can even be mentioned in the same sentence with JFK? I know you don't have any, because Obama is not progressive and is nothing like JFK. And, evidence doesn't begin with "I think."
Your claims are false.
Obama, Jimmy Carter, Brezinski all Nazis.... probably all branwashed at the University of Chicago too....
Wake up Sheeple!
Even Nader has kept the real truth from us!
Oh my God, We are Doomed!
The ONLY reason the Democrat Party exists is to toss a few crumbs to the working class - to prevent the hoi polloi from having a full scale revolution and taking back what is due to us - which has been stolen by the hegemony of fuckwit transnational corporate cartels.
Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, John Edwards were the true progressives in the presidential primaries - the only voice speaking up for the poor. Although I voted for Obama in California primaries - it was because I loathe the Clintons.
Yup, I will vote for and campaign for Obama - because the notion of four years of John McCain means the war in Iraq will NEVER end. That moron, McCain wants permanent military bases forever in Iraq, Iran - oh and BTW - McCain wants to drop nukes on Iran. No mention from either Hillary or McCain what to do about nuclear fall out drift which would float from Iran to our soldiers/private contractors stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Obama is ok - but do I really expect him to disaband Bildenburg Group, Bretton Woods organizations, Bohemian Grove Club, Commonwealth Club - Obama would be assassinated and wind up in a coffin in Arlington Cemetary. When JFK was assassinated in Dallas - JFK had a bill to sign waiting on his desk which created BI-LATERAL nuclear disarmament. JFK convinced the Commies to de-escalate the nuclear arms race. It would have meant hundreds of trillions of dollars in lost military contracts to WMD arms merchants/manufacturers.
Sure, Obama is pro-labor, decent record on the environment, pro choice but do I expect HUGE changes in redistributing the wealth in America?
Let us not be gullible and we need to PRESSURE the Dem Party platform to include IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Obama's plan for Iraq is to keep the war going another 2 years with very gradual troop withdrawls every couple of months. This actually leaves our remaining soliders profoundly vulnerable - with insufficient numbers of troops to defend their lives. It will be a bloodbath with VERY high death rates. I don't see much courage from Obama about taking a clear stance on Iraq to end the war NOW.
Where is the Democrat Party of George McGovern, Euguene McCarthy, JFK, RFK, Sargent Shriver? The current Dem Party is merely a paper thin, pale imitation of what it used to represent in the 1950's - 1960's and 1970's. With the rise of globalization in the 1980's (Reagan Era) came union busting, plant closures, outsourcing jobs to Third World, dumping mentally ill patients in state hospitals onto the streets with no place to go, creating catastrophic problems with homelessness - we are still struggling with today.
When Regan was elected in the 1980's - that was when Democrat Party morphed into "Republicrats" - totally bleached out, soggy wet pile of mush Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein - who is really Sen. Joe Lieberman in drag - those crypto-fascists are a little to the Right of Attila the Hun.
Does anyone believe a Democrat Party run by the likes of Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, the Clintons and Howard Dean really give a flying fuck about working poor, homeless, Iraq soldiers suffering without adequate medical care? I don't see much difference between Democrat & Republican legislators. It was DEMOCRATS who pushed through Patriot Act, Military & Commissions Act of 2007, anti-labor CAFTA and NAFTA. Again, it was Nancy Pelosi who pushed through Bush's request for continuous funding of the war in Iraq. It is Nancy Pelosi who banned any discussion of impeachment of Bush/Cheney/Rove crime regime.
Obama is better than Hillary - but that is not saying much. How INTERESTING Obama's chief aide is a Wal-Mart afficiando - just like Hillary served on Wal-Mart's board of directors!!!!!
Keep Hope Alive
Naomi Klein is right on! We do NOT need any more University of Chicago Graduate School
of Economics people giving advice to our governmental policy makers - - that's why we are in he mess we are in today as a nation. The Milton Friedman theories of Disaster Capitalism have wreaked havoc wherever they have been adopted. Their whole message is privatization; unemployment and the disappearance of the middle class has been the result; the rich get even richer and the poor get poorer. Why did the New Deal succeed where the lead-up to the Great Depression failed? Keynesian economics and the empowerment of the people! We may need a bit of modification of straight Keynesian economics to meet all of the needs of these times, but we don't need any more traitors fiddling with the economics of our countryu, and that's exactly what the Chicago School boys are! Read Naomi's book: "Shock Doctrine" and figure it out for yourself.
Brezinski/Obama Nazi policies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDpLK0e0QoU&feature=related
The Nazis didn't loose WWII they just had a changed their address.
They control BOTH parties PERIOD
Bob, also if all these groups agree:
"ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
ADA - Americans for Democratic Action
CDF - Children's Defense Fund
LCV - League of Conservation Voters
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
SEIU - Service Employees International Union"
and If they think Obama no real liberal like you imply maybe they will endorse the Greens right?
But I don't think so.... they don't want to make Rush happy either.
Bob so all those groups rate Obama as 42nd? Sounds like too much of an exact duplication of opinion... I didn't know there is an exact science of labeling who a liberal is and if you know what progressive is too, good for you. Promoting Change and innovation is what Obama is advocating and if Hillary is more progressive for you fine.. She is now supporting Obama and if you think Obama is a Republican because some "insider" told you then you are welcome to your opinion..... no he is not a revolutionary that wants to bring the system down and get lucky with that. A vote for a 3rd party for prez will help the right wing... so go for it.
I will support Obama and you can vote for whoever you want... I'll bet Rush will love it too.
You will help the right wing and think you know all the answers... Good Luck!
VA green,
I was not addressing you in the quotes of mine above I was addressing others who were calling all Dems Fascists , Blind Fools, Dick Suckers and other kind stuff.
I treat people like they treat me, and I like the Good fight.
You say "You wouldn't like it if I addressed you in such a fashion, and being a liberal Democrat does not give you a special right to do it other people."
You can address me in any fashion you like, and you will probably get back in like fashion.
I try to be nice to those who are nice to me. The tone of these political discussions get very heated every time and it is because they are so important and the stakes are so high for our future. I just got off the phone with an old friend from the 60's and told him about our conversation and he said Obama is the best since JFK and I agree.
But politics is Hardball and it gets heated so spare me your high moralistic tone.
Like I said if you think I am "Smug and condescending" I have no problem with your opinion of me.
I will defend your right to say whatever you wish.
But I am really into content not arguing about tone or style, I'll leave that up to you. I don't mind criticism and I don't mind giving it.
and JD Smith,
If I was runnin for president I would want to know what the CFR and the Bilderbergers and Skull and Bones where up to first hand.
This is the big system and a president should know everything he can about it.
We can't afford to take the word of those who think they know any longer.
But maybe this is a good time to get off this track going nowhere and in circles for a bit and check out something more important going on.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/water-fuel-car-unveiled-in-japan/3934702477
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU&NR=1
and I wish you all good luck and all the Best anyway.
Jim Glover,
You sure have a lot of opinions for someone who doesn't even know what progressive means! (No, it doesn't mean incrementalist.)
You say Obama is "generally regarded as most Liberal." That's bullshit. Obama is rated the 42nd-most-liberal Senator by the following seven liberal groups:
ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union
ADA - Americans for Democratic Action
CDF - Children's Defense Fund
LCV - League of Conservation Voters
NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
SEIU - Service Employees International Union
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html
In other words, 41 Senators are rated more liberal than Obama.
The "most liberal" tag was stuck on Obama by William F. Buckley's ultra-right-wing "National Journal" magazine, the birthplace of neo-cons. Are you a neo-con? Do you read National Journal? Why do you promote this Obama is "most liberal" myth, and then claim you don't know what it means to be a progressive?
All we need to know about Obama has been public knowledge for some time.
He's a member of the Council on foreign Relations (CFR).
"No I am not the "new politics of hope and change".
Obama says he is. His supporters ought to follow his example.
"If that is smug and condescending, so be it."
Advocating a vote for Obama is not smug and condescending. These sorts of statements are:
"You are helping the status Quo by being irrational.
I am glad the majority of Americans can see through your ruse so I tell our Gloomy Doomers once again, since you have nothing rational to offer this discussion, go ahead and vote for whoever and the rest of us will deal with reality step by step like responsible people."
"Now go ahead and get angry at reality as always… I am enjoying watching you all squirm and flounder in your ingrained ignorance of reality. The angrier you get the more Rush gets happy."
You are perfectly capable of making your case without talking to people who disagree with you like they are stupid and ignorant children. So far, you have chosen not to of your own free will. You wouldn't like it if I addressed you in such a fashion, and being a liberal Democrat does not give you a special right to do it other people.
Yeah, yeah - so let's just pronounce McCain as emperor and have done with it. Change? Who in hell would want change? This is such a wonderful place. We're all doing wonderfully well under the Bush regime. Why end it?
I say this as a lefty who voted for Nader in 1996 (write-in) and 2000:
I absolutely will vote for Obama, but I believe in doing so with eyes open. He has opened up the rhetoric, speaks with a different (new) voice, and that pays off ... to a degree. It inspires a lot of people who've given up on politics or younger people who were never interested in politics to be interested & engaged. [Think how hard it has been to get people involved in your favorite grass-roots efforts, at least for more than one shot.] He promises some degree of movement in a liberal direction on public policy --which also energizes people to think about politics & government in a meaningful way.
But he is not a real lefty and we shouldn't sit back and expect him to be one. Like every other presidential nominee he will go with the conventional, corporate-supported, "legitimate" experts on issues of foreign policy and the economy, for those are the key issues that define the boundaries of what the system will tolerate in the way of change. It is up to us to mobilize an active support for his liberal reforms that promise to be meaningful, and to mobilize public awareness of the limits of the corporate/capitalist boundaries. It should be getting clearer and clearer to people that there are systemic flaws in the system we (and the globe increasingly) live under: vast inequality, resource-control wars, and the erosion of the ecosphere.
One job of activist lefties is to both engage at the local level but also to connect the dots: local to global & systemic --in the process, making clear that the president is, after all, only the president.
sjm30741,
Absolutley, we will win that way and keep Obama to his promises if he wants to get reelected.
The Dem haters will split their few votes among themselvs, and if McCain wins they will blame it on Dems but we know their plans already. The Dem haters never talk about the need for a progressive congress, and they never get elected to any national office after all these years and they can blog like crazy to make you think they have a strong force but never work hard to organize cause they think bashing all Dems is all they need to win them votes...the best they can ever do is with Nader in 2000.
So Greens, get out and organize and impress us this election and show us your bite is as strong as your bark.
Anyone looking at the money backing Obama OR Clinton could have surmised as much, before Obama started naming advisors.
The solution is not to skewer the election with Nadar (let Barr do that to McCain- and he WILL!) - the solution is to make sure to elect a solidly progressive congress to keep Obama in check... which is how our system is supposed to work in the first place!!!!
To those who say you have to play the cards you dealt, I say that is
nonsense and will perpetuate the problems and solve nothing.
Currently the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is
only cosmetic and make belief. Both of them are owned and controlled
by big Money/Business and are beholding to them.
Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is futile and useless and voting for a
third party is the only way out. Yes, that party will initially lose
but eventually when more and more people wise up the party will
grow and get strenth.
The Green party is a good start. It has the organization in place and can
grow.
So vote green and not for Nader. Nader pops up each for years and then
vanishes but the Greens has the organization and staying power and stamina
to stay on the scene.
VAGREEN,
No I am not the "new politics of hope and change".
I have Hope for change but not from McCain.
You say "Nader is good. Voting for the Green Party's candidate is better because it helps to build an alternative party to the Democrats and Republicans."
McKinney, the Socialists, the Independant Party and all the other progressive 3rd parties are trying the same thing over and over with the same result... faster slide to Hell. Because of reality, all their votes will only hlep the right wing of politics.
If you were working to get them together to build a more realistic alternative, more folks would take you seriously, but what you are doing is helping maintain the 3rd party myth and the right wing of politics.
I am not saying you are doing it with that intention although many on this debate have said they want to bring it all down and start from scratch.
Helping the slide to fashism is not a toy to use as way to hope and change. Our system is not the best but it is what we have to work with now and good intensions have unintended consquenses.
solidarity for the best choice possible is a realistic helpful option.
solidarity needs our votes to count for hope and change now when we need it
If that is smug and condescending, so be it.
"Obama can be linked to people that are mildly distastful."
You consider people like Wright. Pfleger, Bill Ayers and his wife to name a few, "mildly distasteful"?
Thats like saying David Dukes is a bit misinformed or Farrakahn is not fond of Jews. These people are racists, bigots,criminals and anti-Americans. Two perhaps personally involved in murder.
Arvy June 14th, 2008 5:03 pm on post by
VAGreen June 14th, 2008 4:52 pm
Let me add my Bravo to yours!
Free market is an ideal which has never been accomplished because government subsidies (anyone remember the transcontinental railroad) have always been in effect. Ergo, what Obama means to communicate is that he's a realist. Did anyone ever think he was an ideolog of the left. I didn't, and I'm an ardent multi-$25 contributor and supporter. I do expect him to make massive adjustments to priorities, but the last thing we need is a revolutionary. What we need is someone who can instill some confidence in hope that the system can move away from the predatory attitude (I got mine, now you get yours) marked by 40 years of repluguglycans. This shrill voice of idealogical purity makes me sick. It emanates from people who've never dug ditches, pumped gas, or waited on tables for a living -- the same demographic which forms the capitalist right. Go get a job, then talk about what you learned, instead of propounding all this theoretical crap as a battle between good and evil.
"You are helping the status Quo by being irrational.
I am glad the majority of Americans can see through your ruse so I tell our Gloomy Doomers once again, since you have nothing rational to offer this discussion, go ahead and vote for whoever and the rest of us will deal with reality step by step like responsible people."
"Now go ahead and get angry at reality as always… I am enjoying watching you all squirm and flounder in your ingrained ignorance of reality. The angrier you get the more Rush gets happy.:"
My, how smug and condescending of you! Is this the "new politics" of "hope" and "change"?
Quote from poster above:
"You poor, poor dreamers……who think a vote for Nader accomplishes anything!! It is up to US, the voters, to hold Obamas feet to the fire after he is elected…..WE hold the key, not the candidate…..when we forget that, it is all over for Democracy!!"
It was "all over for Democracy" when the Democrats gave Bush, etc., the right to illegally occupy Iraq, when it allowed torture, illegal wire tapping, extreme rendition, when Democrats continue to fund the war against the will of the people, when they refuse to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, etc. Voting for Nader will accomplish a hell of a lot more than voting for another tool of the empire. A vote for Nader, at least, makes you not complicit with the crimes committed by the Democrats. C'mon people you can see it. The system is giving you a frontal Obamaotomy.
I should have said, Cedar Rapids was my hometown until I graduated from college there. The area under water was where I spent almost all that time. It is sad to picture one's childhood haunts submerged, even if that period was decades past....
SO the jury is in for some here on CD... we might as well roll up our flimsy tents and go home. Our leaders are hopelessly corrupt, we have no viable options ( for that very reason) so let's just whine about our powerlessness.
Sorry. Accuse those who disagree as being occupiers of lala land.... Some posters here seem to get it. Progress comes one baby step at a time until ( unless) a critical mass can be reached. Obama or anyone running is one person-----if any of you here think the one person at the helm controls the destiny of this ship of state, you aren't paying attention.
If we don't get off our butts and start taking back the government that was intended to be OUR VOICE, we deserve the crappy leadership we are currenly stuck with. Cease and desist from magical thinking. Each and every citizen's participation matters a helluva lot more than who occupies the White House. Those who would determine it's ever changing residents thrive on our believing that is all that really matters, and thus lull us to go back to sleep for another 4 years. NOT SO!
What is it about participatory government that you don't understand? If BushCo could create their own reality, surely those of us who hunger for peace and justice can go toe to toe with such as they. Pull back the curtain. They are cowering wimps!
And as someone sitting in the Midwest watching Gaia's fury unleashed in torrential rain and almost daily tornados, I find myself wondering how many of us are going to come through these events, notwithstanding from the aftermath of some election 5 months hence. My hometown of Cedar Rapids is one quarter under water---another Katrina...how many more? and with fewer and fewer resources available to repair the infrastructure. You tell me what really matters to those folks.
Thanks, Naomi. We can ill afford to subscribe to the notion that only a white knight is going to save us, and either try to make Obama that hero or reject him because he's moderate. Any way you slice it, it's the job of the American people to reclaim their government. There's reason to believe that Obama is more open than others in this carnival of electoral politics to influence from outside the box. Nader is obviously outside the box already, but he is not in the running for the position of President of the U.S. Roll up your sleeves, folks. We've got work to do, and only under an Obama administration do we have a shot at real progressive influence.
Jim Glover June 15th, 2008 11:38 am
Actually you made some good points. But two big reasons I refuse to vote for Democrats:
1) Refuse to uphold the US Constitution by allowing Bush and Cheny to break the laws
2) Refuse to stop the illegal occupations
But you made good points. We "Dem Haters" do need to get involved in helping to get third party candidates elected instead of bashing Democrats non-stop. That is true.
ps Good call on the Argument aD Hominem - Abusive. I need to put that on check. You're right!
I still believe that most people who say that they will not vote for Obama, will vote for Obama. I'm a late-comer to the Obama camp. I think when faced with the hard choice of Obama, McCain, Nader, McKinney, NOTA, most lefties will vote for Obama. (NOTE: for all those who simply must attach labels - I am an independent).
It's a bitter pill to swallow, and I fully understand the hesitancy in swallowing it, but the ugly and hard truth is that either Obama or McCain will be our next president. The real work will come after the vote in November. That real work must be done by us. The system serves the corporate masters while digging a hole for the rest of us. We must rebuild it. The question I ask is: How deep in the hole do I want to start?
We're already in a hole - let's not dig ourselves deeper.
Tailcap and friends,
The Congress as a whole are not Dick Suckers... they are cowards in time of war afraid to be branded unpatriotic and because of this, afraid they will not get re elected and that is why impeachment was off the table because even half of the Dems are not progressive enough.
We need more progressives in Congress and a better president. If third parties could organize and quit splitting their votes between them, only then could there possibly be a chance to challenge the 2 party hold and it would be only a slight chance but if a new coalition together with angry folks like you could join in an effort to elect more progressives you would be helping. Voting for one of the 3rd party candidates who split votes among themselves is how the status quo keeps the congress under control.
To be afraid and even cowardly in times of war is predictable if you study politics and history so these things need change and progressive change means developing in stages... by degree step by step like Pete Seeger says, small is beautiful.
When you and others call us names and insult all Dems because of this reality, instead of tying to help change in stages, you will never find many rational folks to join you.
Since this is the 2-party system, voting for a 3rd party, if you are more on the left than right, only helps the right wing of politics.... this is math and real. Your anger at the system and all those who want to work with what is possible is really not helping even yourself. It is self destructive and destructive of any possible change for the better but as far as the "lesser of two evils cliche" what you and your Dem haters are doing is helping the greatest Evil.
You are helping the status Quo by being irrational.
I am glad the majority of Americans can see through your ruse so I tell our Gloomy Doomers once again, since you have nothing rational to offer this discussion, go ahead and vote for whoever and the rest of us will deal with reality step by step like responsible people.
Rush and the right wing are depending on you! You are their last best hope because your irrational analysis makes you not even understand that counting the votes is more than counting you own vote... it is counting all the votes and the winner takes all. The Republicans and the Status Quo want you and they got you in their hip pocket signed sealed and glad to be delivered.
Now go ahead and get angry at reality as always... I am enjoying watching you all squirm and flounder in your ingrained ignorance of reality. The angrier you get the more Rush gets happy.
sphne June 15th, 2008 11:05 am
I think it was P.T. Barnum of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus who said, "There is a sucker born every minute."
He can't run against the "free market" as well as for progressive tax policies. That's just not going to work. I'm disappointed in his bellicose posture towards Pakistan and his fealty to AIPAC, as well as his appointment of a former Walmart conservative to his policy team, but at the end of the day he can't be elected in the American media bubble unless he plays to its core delusions.
AS others have pointed out, he is still a far more appealing candidate than McCain, whose foreign policy blindness and more-of-the-same economic plan are barely distinguishable from Bush.
I you people think a country that elected Bush twice is ready for a Kucinich or Nader you are out of your freaking minds. I liked what Edwards had to say, and I believe he was the most real of the forerunners (even with the $400 haircut), but Obama is still better than Hillary or McCain. We can work with him, we can hold his feet to the fire. If you read his books you understand how his mind works.
We know the cornerstones of President Bush's foreign policy. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Middle East. Dangerous regimes are communist/socialist (Cuba and much of Latin America) or militant Islam (Iran). We now also know the cornerstones of wannabe Obama's foreign policy. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Middle East. Dangerous regimes are communist/socialist (Cuba and much of Latin America) or militant Islam (Iran). Where is the change? What a fraud this Obama!
thedeed, Democrats usually stab each other in the back, unlike the Republicans who stick together no matter what. That also makes it easier for Republicans to get away with stolen elections. It should be a landslide win in November for Democrats.
By the way, WHAT kind of Democrats would vote for McCain because they're upset that Hillary didn't win the nomination? What a spoiled bunch of immature sore losers. That doesn't say much for her OR the Democratic party.
thedeed June 15th, 2008 10:08 am
Other notable minorities: Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice
Thoughts_Into_Action says:
"This Chicago school of economics represents perhaps the most savage political influence on the planet."
Not really. IMO, that distinction goes to our Federal Reserve System which places the control of money supply in the hands of private capitalists, instead of the federal government where it belongs. It is the Fed System that allows the private sector to control our lives, without any accountability. Almost nobody seems to understand that. On the other hand when I see the clowns that we vote into office, I am not so sure if they can be trusted either.
"Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine," deftly exposes the Chicago boys' crimes."
Yes - everybody should read that book to get an understanding of the pervasive spread of American fascism in the world. Hitler's imperialistic ambitions pale in comparison.
"Obama's affiliation with them is real bad news for working people."
I'm not sure that "affiliation" is the right word. I hope that by his "exposure" to the Chicago School, he will have gained an "understanding" of the insidious nature of their economic philosophy, and will oppose it.
"The Chicago boys think nothing of butressing fascist governments to make a buck. They think nothing of people being tortured in Pinochet's Chile; they think nothing of people starving in Russia - all to get filthy rich themselves or to enrich their class."
Yes, they are the proponents of a brand of economics that leaves no room for the "Golden Rule". And unfortunately, it is that brand of economics that is taught in every American university. It is the most destructive intellectual force in the world - and few people realize it - and that is just about what "Thoughts_Into_Action" said above.
Myth: Obama will end the occupation and bring all the troops home.
We spend more on our military than almost the entire planet put together. Obama wants to increase it. He calls for adding another 100,000 troops. He wants to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan not really bring them home.
From his website:
"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
It is very clear al Qaeda isn't leaving therefore Obama will keep many, many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, fighting and dying for Big Oil and Big Profits Inc.
Thanks, CD, for giving us more reasons to vote Republican. Obama is awful. Why vote for America's first minority President? Why vote for someone who wants to end the war? Obama can be linked to people that are mildly distastful. That's all I need to know. I would prefer four or eight more years of Republicans to electing a Democrat that is less than perfect. Why even vote?
I'd rather vote for Nader, and I'd rather have voted for Kucinich, but I don't want to see "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" John McCain in the White House. The guy is dumber and crazier than Bush, which I never thought was possible.
"and work to change the rules of the game."
Why don't we discuss that for awhile? It's obvious that arguing about the candidates is going nowhere and accomplishing little.
1)Is there a difference between Democrats and Republican?
Not really. Both know that in order to get elected they have to position themselves in the "middle". Republicans slightly to the right and the Dems slightly to the left.
2) Do Democrats and Republicans need each other?
Definately yes. They always point at the other side and blame all the problems on them. That way they guarantee it will be either, or. They function like a tag team with each getting a chance to do the bidding of Big Business. This way they can exclude all third parties.
3) Will we always be ruled by the two major parties?
Probably yes. Most people are scared to vote for third parties and this virtually guarantees they will not win.
Lillulu, is correct:
In fascist America, we have two choices:
Obama if you want soft-core fascism,
McCain if you want hard-core fascism.
Voting for Nader would be useless and a waste of a vote (that's if they're counted).
If we had preferential voting and could vote our choices, then a vote for Nader would be useful, in fact merited. We have a lot of campaign fundraising reform and election reform to do first and it isn't going to happen before Nov. 4th.
FDR ran middle of the road and governed liberally. Lets remind Obama he says "We" and that We want fair trade and an emphasis on middle class security and healthcare and by all means Out of Iraq and No war on Iran.
It is not a perfect world. You have to play with the cards you have been dealt -- and work to change the rules of the game.
Also listen to: Webster Tarlpey:Zbignew Brezezinski leading Obama Campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfip0k2Oit8
"Enlighten the people and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day."
Thomas Jefferson
Obamacrats please take Mr. Jeffersons advice here is a clip of Obamas campaign organizer speaking openly of theirs plans for the near future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs26Dx6ECJw
Please open your eyes before it's to late:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpaxFCoNtcc
Penny Pritzker..
Obama as a real libility with her as his head of his campaign finance commitee considering what he as said about the subprime mortgage debacle.
Follow the link for more on little Penny. The penny that Obama should drop!
http://loanworkout.org/2008/03/25/obama-penny-pritzker/
"The Republican are far and beyond despicable. Another 4 years of them and we're in deep shit. At least with Obama there is hope of some reason, and some change in the right direction. "
I think you are now already in deep shit. It is not at all clear yet whether the U.S. will ever get out of this mess in the coming 100 years, even if you have 'progressive and reasonable leadership'. You will just have to get used to the fact that the U.S. will play a much less important role in the world than in the past. Get over it and enjoy life, without always being "the greatest nation". Take a walk in the woods and appreciate the fresh air.
I'm not really sure whether another 4 years of Republican rule would really make such a difference. This realisation comes too late: the time to make statements like that was 2000. Before that fatal year, the Republicans had already messed up the country far enough. Eventually, even the staunchest Republican supporters have to come around and face the facts. John McCain will be under more pressure from the countries who lent it the capital to engage in all these follies of the last 8 years. America is bankrupt and John McCain will have to face these simple facts. Who will bail you out. It is better that the Republican party is finished by one of its own, because if they are beaten in an election, I am sure they will gather again to gain strength again in the future. They will always be reactionary towards 'progressive and reasonable' ideas, unless they are committing collective suicide by one of their own. That time is very near.
Of course, I hope (and I also think) that Obama will win, and this will definitely be an improvement, but I still regard it as a problem that the Republican Party will still exist, and they will still have credibility. I don't think you can't sink any deeper in the shit than you are already now. People should not be very afraid of a McCain victory, especially if that constrains you in your criticism of Obama and other Democrats.
You have to turn Nader into a monkey wrench in the machine or O'Bama will turn you into a cog in the machine. Your choice.
PS - If Bill Clinton really promoted a just and fair system of government, there is no way the Bush Jr could have changed the system so drastically. But he didn't. His biggest crime wasn't that he got a blowjob. It was NAFTA, lack of universal health care, cronyism, etc, and Bush just took is a step or two further, but in the same direction.
Impeach War Criminals.
McCain will hold you 12 inches under water, Obama 6 inches under water. Some might see that as a viable choice. It isn't. You drown just as much.
The question for me is whether I want to vote for the Green Party so they get 5% of the vote to qualify for matching funds, or Nader whose positions I mostly support.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote third party, but don't try to say that Obama is a progressive or will do anything to address the major issues effecting humankind - war, protection of food supply, corporate justice, universal health care, environemental damage, protecting the public trust first and foremost.
so it goes,
voting Nader or Green
The lesser of two evils nonsense is so tiresome, "Nader doesn't have a chance so why waste your vote.....blah, blah."
When I drive the freeways in America and it's time to stop and eat, there is nothing available except shit burgers, fries soaked in hydrogenated poison, and all the sugar you can eat, but I don't eat any of it. Just because Americans, for the most part, like to eat crap foods, doesn't mean I have to "choose the lesser of crap food" and eat it anyway. I usually bring my own, or just don't eat. Likewise in voting, just because Americans like to vote for people with shit for brains doesn't mean I have to choose the less shitty.
I support lillulu's sentiment. I voted for Nadar in 2000. Now I think, if Gore had been president, how different the world would have been - far from perfect but much different. I seriously doubt 9-11 would have ever happened.
Bill Clinton's presidency had it's share of corruption but it contrasts STARKLY against W's. I likewise feel there will be a pretty stark contrast between Obama and McCain. I wish I could vote for my ideal and have it count, but we just don't have that luxury - not yet, at least.
In fascist America, we have two choices:
Obama if you want soft-core fascism,
McCain if you want hard-core fascism.
Voting for Nader would be useless and a waste of a vote (that's if they're counted).
Klein's observations are ... shocking!
Lots of people write here, trying valiantly (I suppose) to alert Democratic-voting loyalists that Obama (and Clinton and McCain) don't represent their interests. However, I am sorry to say, but loyalist Dems just don't seem to get it.
This Chicago school of economics reference may be lost on most Dems, but it represents perhaps the most savage political influence on the planet. Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine," deftly exposes the Chicago boys' crimes. Obama's affiliation with them is real bad news for working people. The Chicago boys think nothing of butressing fascist governments to make a buck. They think nothing of people being tortured in Pinochet's Chile; they think nothing of people starving in Russia - all to get filthy rich themselves or to enrich their class.
Republicans have never had to apologize for the destruction wreaked as a consequence of their adulation of the so-called free market. Democrats used to write legislation to check corporate crimes. They used to know better, maybe. However, we've seen Democrats abet these crimes (Clinton with NAFTA, etc.). We've seen the Democratic Leadership Council control the Party's agenda in a way that's indistiguishable from the Republican agenda.
So, yeah. Anyone voting for Obama would be abandoning long-held principles of the Democratic Party (like using public tax dollars to support the general social welfare, etc.). Klein's revelations are that serious.
No one courting the Chicago boys gives a rat's ass about fairness or justice. It'll be class warfare, but loyalists Dems won't see it. Forget the "internment camps" that folks talk about here. The real weapon of control is economics. And we're all about to get screwed.
Voting Democrat or Republican simply ensures that your tax monies will not go to helping people. It'll go to corporations, to help them do things like outsource factories abroad. The Democratic Party has no social compact with the people anymore, and the Republican Party simply hates people outside its class.
Wake up Dems, as you're likely clueless if you're still feeling the hope about Obama. This latest Obama revelation really ices the cake. If you don't understand what's being referred to here, please start educating yourself. Don't write a word here until you know what Obama's embrace of Chicago school advisors will mean for us. You're just spreading ignorance if you think he's on your side.
You can make a real statement this election by not going along. Voting for your oppressors just encourages them, so don't do it. Don't be a sheep and fall for the manipulations. Realize that you're equally screwed should it be Obama or McCain. Forget post-election influence plans, which have no historical precedent of being effective except when people are near rioting in the streets.
If participation in mass protest isn't on your agenda, you don't understand the gravity of our times. We've already lost much of our Constitutional protections, thanks to Democratic legislators following in lock-step with Republican criminals.
tetti_tatti June 14th, 2008 6:03 pm
"Nader is the only honest vote."
Nader is good. Voting for the Green Party's candidate is better because it helps to build an alternative party to the Democrats and Republicans.
I, for one, wish that CD had been more on top of the contradictions in OBAMA when the primary had still been a three way race among Edwards, Clinton and Obama, progressive media was as unfair in its absence of coverage of Edwards' superior progressive agenda as was corporate media in its negatively distorted coverage of the Edwards' candidacy. If we can't count on progressive media analysis (or even any analysis at all, who can progressives trust with news and opinion. I guess us.ssorrry for trh improper syntax of my lssst message. just gtting left hne strentht gafk fter mild stroke.)
Placing one's hopes in Washington is a bad bargain. The corruption there is systemic and has taken on a life of it's own, a living evil. Change must flow from the outside in. You are the change, not Obama.
Nader? NADER?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me?
OK, seriously, who's the dreamer? What world have some of you allowed yourselves to live in? This is the American political farm we are talking about here. I can't believe anyone would honestly believe Nader has a chance in hell of winning when remembering his - not to mention Gore's - utterly successful 2000 campaign. Face the facts you so called 'progessive' Obama haters, there are only two candidates to choose from now, and anyone who thinks Nader has any chance of getting even 1% of the vote is living in pipe-dream world.
Only a fool would allow themself to believe that Obama will be the save all for America. Afterall, becoming president is American cut-throat politics at its best, and anyone who thinks differently might want to look up the definition of naive. But who among all candidates at this point has a legitimate chance of winning the election? Nader? LMFAO!!!
So yes, please, continue making things as difficult as possible in attempting to get a democrat back in the White House. Way to go Ms. Klein, particularly when considering the propaganda machine the republicans have been so astute in creating over the past 28 years. Great fodder indeed! Apparently, the least you could do is bite your bitter tongue long enough to even hope for an ounce of change out of this campaign before throwing us into your hell in a hand-basket.
We are free to vote for the Corporate Sock Puppet of our choice. It's not who we vote for that counts but who counts our vote.
I like James Galbraith and Susan Rice and BO's campaign manager. And I like BO. I think he is smart
and I think the World will welcome him on January 21.
And why not Ralph Nader and/or Al Gore somewhere in his close circle of advisors? Could happen. In time Barack Obama will have answers to most of those tough questions. He needs to get elected first. I think he is a strong candidate and I am going to vote for him. Nobody's perfect.
You poor, poor dreamers……who think a vote for Obama accomplishes anything!!
It is up to US, the voters, to get Nader
elected…..
WE hold the key, by selecting the candidate…..when we forget that, it is all over for Democracy, cause once they get the power of our treasury and executive orders,
there isn't much we can do - as if 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush hasn't shown you that!!
Jim Glover June 14th, 2008 6:11 pm
Oh and if us Dems are fascists, wait until you get McCain.
I don't think Democrats are fascist. But if you look at all the crimes George Bush and Dick Cheny committed and got away with. The Democrats have abandoned their constitutional duty to uphold the law. The leader of the Democrats says impeachment is off the table and they continue to fund the war in spite of the fact it only requires 41 resolute Senators to stop it. The Democrats choice for president, Sen. Obama hasn't mentioned impeachment let alone pushed for it. Why not?
Some think Dick Cheny is the brains behind the operation because it has become evident George Bush is a moron. If that's true then Dick Cheny has suckered the Democrats in Congress into not pressing charges against him. That means rather than being fascists the Democrats in the Congress are actually a bunch of stupid Dick suckers!
So lastly, if the Democrats in the Congress are nothing but a bunch of stupid Dick suckers what does that make those that vote for them?
tetti_tatti writes:
"By the way, why are comments not being allowed on the Tim Russert's death article on CD?"
Probably because the media is busily re-creating Russert as a martyred giant of journalism, and not wanting to muss up the archives with mentions of Cheney, Plame, RussertWatch, and similar things. Do check the New Yorker review of Russert's "Big Russ and Me".
Another funny thing is there's no mention in the mourning of Russert's house on Nantucket -- where Kerry's a neighbor -- though exhaustive material on the city of Buffalo has been presented again and again.
Anybody who watches Russert knows that he gained a LOT of weight in the last month -- which I figure, based on my own life, is an indication of being really worried about something. Now what would Russert be worried about, having whipped all of MSNBC into the Obama column?
Just wondering.
"By the way, why are comments not being allowed on the Tim Russert's death article on CD?"
Probably because they know that there are callous louts lurking who can't take time off from their personal agendas long enough just to pay tribute...or shut up.
Naomi Kleiin and Stephen Zunes have done us a favor, cluing us in to the realty of the new man in our Party from Hope, Barack Obama, though i must sy some of uw Edwards Democrats remqinee wary, wwwwwthough gnerally supportive. We believe that Obama still need to have his feet kept to the fire on a number of issue: economic justice, peace, eneergy AND lobbyist reform. I, for one, wiwsh thqt CD hd vbrrn mor4 on otp of the contrqdictione in OBAMA ewhen th4 prim1ry w
Naomi Klrin nrf Sssstph4n Zunew hqve edone uw qbig fqvor, cluing us in srto th reqlitey of the new man from Hope in our E43modrq
The only silver lining in Naomi's cloudy assessment is the reality that Obama is just as much an unknown to these Chicago fascist economists as he is to the rest of us.
JFK twitted the NAM (National Association of Manufacturers-long a hot-bed of fascist reactionary political sympathy) in a famous address in '62 after his fiscal and taxing policies began to revive what had been a stagnant economy.
He said in part, "I am aware that most of the membership of this organization did not support my candidacy for president, except those who thought I was my father's son." Perhaps the overwhelming historical uniqueness of an Obama presidency will convict Barack to channel his inner reformer instead of his inner Nazi. We should all hope so.
Arvy June 14th, 2008 5:03 pm
"In fact, it raises the even more fundamental question of whether the progressive agenda deserves to win and should win in a democratic society if the majority of USans are opposed to its honestly stated goals. I don't believe they are, but many progressives here and elsewhere appear to think so."
Excellent point, Arvy!
American voters must learn that besides just voting for a candidate and than sit back and watch him to deliver, they need to keep up their pressure and demand the changes that were promised. Social changes never happen on their own, or from the top down! If the new President have the public support than he can justify the changes knowing that the public support is solidly behind him. FDR couldn't have got the New Deal passed if it were not for the majority of the population that were outraged and ready to start a revolution agaist the Robber Barons who have looted the nation and brought the country into the Great Depression. This social upheaval brought about Government Controls and Regulations to deter and to curb Corporate Kleptocracy and cronie capitalism, the very same regulations that Reagan and his anti regulatory policies help dismantle.........that once again brought us back to the brink of financial disaster as it did in the Great Depression!
So the pressure needs to be on the next President to restore financial discipline, regulations and a more labour friendly economy.
To revisit the WTO, NAFTA and all these agreements and policies that give tax incentives for corporations to move off shore!
The trickle down economy is BS! Nothing trickles down!
If workers get a fair living wage, and have an expendable income, they spend more domestically. Otherwise they can barely survive in a country where a CEO have the nerve to compensate themselves 300-400 times that of a worker! But without the increased productivity of the workers (up 80%) what company could post record profits? Yet wages are at record low!
The voters have entrusted the President to introduce the promised "changes" and they need to remind him to keep those promises and to deliver!
Harry Truman once said that if you give the public the choice between Republicans and Republican wannabees, they will take the Republicans.
Every time we get psuedo-republican democrats in the White House, we get rewarded with right-wing nuts the following election (from Carter to Reagan and then from Clinton to Bush Jr.).
Its time we look at history. FDR pushed a progressive economic agenda from day one of his presidency and was elected 4 times, followed by the election of Harry Truman.
Americans hate politicians who don't stand for something. Unfortunately, we seem to prefer obvious fascists like Bush & Cheney instead of "wafflers" like Obama.
My vote for Obama is based on one truth: To slow the USA's slide to fascism. Forget about any real progressive agenda.