Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama, Telecoms and The Beltway System
As noted yesterday, Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow of Georgia has been one of the most enthusiastic enablers of the radical and lawless policies of the Bush administration. When running for re-election, he ran ads accusing his own party of wanting to "cut and run in Iraq," and was one of the 21 Blue Dogs to send a letter to Nancy Pelosi demanding that they be allowed to vote for the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill to give warrantless eavesdropping powers to the President and amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms.
As a result of all of that, Barrow faces a serious primary challenge in July from State Senator Regina Thomas, who decided to run against Barrow due to -- as she told Howie Klein when she announced -- "Barrow's failure to support his constituents against the encroachments of powerful Big Business interests." As Klein noted yesterday, Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with Barack Obama's views and with the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies, as he himself proudly boasts.
In contrast to Barrow's demands for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, here is the statement Regina Thomas issued yesterday (via email):
After reading the FISA bill -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- I thought "This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment [right of] privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States." I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
Despite all of this, The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported yesterday that Barack Obama -- who has been claiming to be so emphatically opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, to say nothing of the Iraq War -- taped a radio endorsement this week for Rep. Barrow, with the specific intent to help him defeat Regina Thomas in the Democratic primary (h/t sysprog):
Obama cuts an ad to help John Barrow in his primary fight Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has taped a radio commercial on behalf of U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who faces a July 15 primary challenge.
It's the first case of Obama involving himself in a local race in Georgia. . . But the Obama campaign made clear to my colleague Aaron Sheinin that it sees Barrow, a two-term Democrat, as an important ally. . . .
"Senator Obama believes that Congressman Barrow has worked hard to bring change that families in his district deserve, and we'll work hard to help John Barrow win in November," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
In the ad, Obama asks voters to join him in supporting Barrow. "We're going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track," Obama says in the 60-second ad.
The article highlighted the reason Barrow was so eager to have Obama record an ad endorsing him and why it's so potentially important in helping Barrow win his primary:
Barrow beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 and had tough GOP opposition in 2006. But this April, Barrow picked up unexpected opposition from Regina Thomas, a well-known African-American state senator based in Savannah. Barrow is white, and in past primaries in the 12th District, black voters have cast nearly 70 percent of the ballots.
What makes this even more amazing is that, as the article notes, Barrow cynically waited until after Obama's sweeping primary victory in Georgia to endorse him. He did so only once he saw that Obama would likely be the nominee and obviously with the hope of having Obama encourage Barrow's sizable African-American constituency to support him. And now Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress -- not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger. For all of Obama's talk about the wicked ways of Washington, these incumbent protection schemes -- whereby Beltway power factions all help each other stay in power no matter their ideology or positions -- are among the most vital instruments for perpetuating how Washington works. Democratic leaders pretend that they are forced continuously to capitulate to the Bush administration due to their "conservative" members, yet continuously work to keep those same members in power, even when it comes to supporting them against far better Democratic primary challengers.
Obama has made himself a central part of that rancid scheme. Recall that in 2006, Obama -- who now touts his commitment to ending the war -- endorsed Joe Lieberman in his Connecticut primary race over war opponent Ned Lamont, appearing with Lieberman to say: "Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America . . . . I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."
* * * * *
Making matters much worse here, Obama -- who has removed himself almost completely from the pending eavesdropping and telecom amnesty debate -- recorded this ad for Barrow on the eve of that bill's passage, all in order to keep in power a key Democratic supporter of this FISA/amnesty bill. Yet telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington.
Just consider this Reuters article from yesterday in which anonymous officials decree to us that it's now a fait accompli that the Democratic Congress will enact the FISA/amnesty bill -- an article which the commenter pow wow describes as "carefully-planted PR in the government-mouthpiece media -- anonymously reminding the peons that resistance is futile; the game is up":
U.S. phone companies would be shielded from potentially billions of dollars in lawsuits under an anti-terror spy measure that appears headed toward approval, congressional sources said on Wednesday. . . . . Democratic and Republican aides and a lobbyist familiar with negotiations said the House would likely approve the measure overwhelmingly. Despite opposition from its top two Democrats, the Senate would then likely give it final approval, clearing the way for President George W. Bush to sign it into law. . . ..
The proposed compromise would allow a federal district court to dismiss a suit if the company was provided written assurances that Bush authorized their participation in the spy program and that it was legal, sources said.
The telecom amnesty bill is something that has been engineered by telecom lobbyists from start to finish, while Bush officials engineer the part of the bill to provide full-scale warrantless eavesdropping powers. While the ACLU and other grass-roots groups have been shut out of the negotiation over this bill almost completely -- it's been conducted, like most important government processes, totally in the dark -- telecom lobbyists are not only fully informed about what is going on but have been participating directly in the negotiations. Along with Bush officials, it's the telecoms' lobbyists who are "negotiating" with Congress over how to write the law providing for their own amnesty from breaking the laws passed by Congress. This is everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger.
None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens -- either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.
But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.
Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill. This is, after all, a bill which his own party is seeking to pass and justifying their behavior, in part, by claiming that they're doing it to protect Obama politically from being attacked as Weak on Terrorism. If this bill passes and Obama does nothing to stop it, he'll bear significant responsibility for its enactment. Here's his campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]. I'll post other contact information as people leave it in comments.
* * * * *
A few quick updates about the FISA/telecom campaign: The amount raised in the last 1 1/2 days is now an amazing $115,000 -- brining the total for this campaign to $195,000. By any measure, that is an extraordinary amount to raise for a campaign like this, through a handful of blogs, in such a short time. It attests to the intensity and depth of the constituency for defending our constitutional framework and the rule of law, and it will only grow.
New ads are being prepared right now to run ASAP in the districts of Hoyer, Carney and Barrow, and they will continue even if the vote occurs Friday.
Simon Owens interviewed several of the members of the "Strange Bedfellows" alliance and wrote an excellent article about the campaign. Bloggers, activists and organizations that want to join that alliance can do so here. The ACLU Press Release announcing this coalition, as well as a tool for embedding the amount raised for this campaign, can be found here at the Strange Bedfellows site.
As indicated yesterday, this will be an ongoing campaign for all matters relating to constitutional protections, civil liberties, unchecked government power, and the rule of law -- particularly devoted to removing from power those who enable the assault on our constitutional liberties and to put into power those devoted to their preservation. The massive money bomb being coordinated now by the Ron Paul faction will enable many more deserving political figures -- both good and bad -- to be targeted.
UPDATE: Here's the newly elected Rep. Donna Edwards, who defeated Bush-enabling Democratic incumbent Al Wynn, speaking on telecom immunity after she defeated Wynn in the primary:
Wynn was not only heavily supported by the entire telecom industry, but by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership as well, who tried to keep Donna Edwards out of Congress and keep the Bush-supporting Al Wynn in power. As Matt Stoller wrote today: "I don't know what kind of game Obama is playing, but using his remarkable brand to protect conservative Democrats is a move reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi endorsing Al Wynn."
Democratic leaders expect that you're going to be understanding when they tell you that Bush gets everything he wants from Congress because -- oh-so-unfortunately -- there are so many members of their caucus who support those radical policies, the "Blue Dogs" and the like. But when it's those very Democratic leaders doing everything possible to keep those pro-Bush Democrats in power, even when it means defeating far better Democratic candidates, then they bear the full responsibility for the consequences.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
29 Comments so far
Show AllWhat's this crap about Obama being an African American? His mother is a white chick and his daddy is an Arab. How do you get Black out of that? I'd say he was a Sand Honkey if it mattered, or maybe a Sand Cracker. What'cha think dudes?
Y'all need to think about clearing your ideological heads. Start thinking like a revolutionary and not like a Democrat (or Republican). Use the enemy's weaknesses against him. Forget single payer health care, bloated defense budgets, impeaching Bush/Cheney, reversing Mid-East policy and similar futile horseshit. If the major parties haven't done anything about these issues, you won't. Go to the Republicans and tell them that if they will give Ralph Nader lots of money, he will be able to get on the ballot in almost every state. Once on the ballot, he doesn't talk about the above issues, he talks about issues that both Democrat and Republican voters can support. 1. Crackdown on corporate crime, 2. Adopt a carbon pollution tax. 3. Repeal Taft-Hartley, 4. Adopt a Wall Street speculation tax, 5. Put an end to ballot access obstruction, 6. End corporate personhood, (to name a few). Then tell the Republicans that you are going to use their money to suck votes away from Obama which will get McCain elected. Then, use both Democrat controlled houses of Congress over the next four years to block the Republican agenda (because the Democrats will be so pissed at losing their third election in a row they won't let McCain crap without a congressional resolution). Now by 2012, Nader, Ron Paul and those of similar ilk form a coalition party based upon common appeal and go back after the voters that helped the Republicans kill off Obama, and they go after the mainsteam democrats and republicans who will vote "Nader" because they haven't been alienated by the stupid, shortsighted Ideological clap trap pushed by doctrinaire Republicans, Democrats, Greenies, Commies, Socialists, Conservatives, Whatevers. STart thinking like a revolutionary and you'll have yourself a revolution at the ballot box, common ignorance and stupidity of the American voter notwithstanding.
lj329 June 20th, 2008 10:37 am
"He has always said that he is going for including Independants and Republicans in his coalition."
Highlighting the fundamental weakness and cowardliness that are hallmarks of Democrats.
It would be unthinkable for Republicans to include liberals in their coalition. Come on, wouldn't it?
Imagine George Bush putting Dennis Kucinch and Ralph Nader in his circle of advisers and actually listening to them.
On the other hand I could see Obama putting Republicans in his cabinet or as ad visors. Remember, no red states, no blue state, just one big happy family that radiates hope and change. Yea, right!
Yeah, I have to affirm what the first poster on this thread said. Surprised? Who? As in; who hasn't contributed to Cindy Sheehan's campaign yet?
lj329 June 20th, 2008 10:37 am
"He has always said that he is going for including Independants and Republicans in his coalition."
That's called making a deal with the Devil. The Democratic-Republican Party is united in its goal of making the US a police state with greatly diminished civil liberties. Habeas Corpus, the right to a speedy trial, and the right against illegal search and seizure are out the window thanks to them.
Putting Obama in office will not address this issue or many others. He apparently thinks its important to keep the right wingers happy too. The enemy of greatness is trying to please everybody.
The party Obama represents has completely sold out.
A) Democrats refuse to impeach Bush or hold him accountable.
B) Democrats refuse to end the illegal occupations.
C) Democrats just granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity for breaking the law.
When enough people say enough is enough we can break with the Democratic-Republican Party and elect enough third party candidates to begin to reverse the massive damage done by the Democratic-Republican Party. Until you folks fianlly wake up we are screwed!
Thank you Mr. Greenwald.
Every step of the way we need to demand that Mr. Obama hold to his commitments.
http://www.counterpunch.org/glendenning06192008.html
Techno-Fascism
Every Move You Make
By CHELLIS GLENDINNING
Surveillance of private calls and emails. Cameras documenting every move. No habeas corpus. Unimpeded entry into personal financial records. Voting machines changing election outcomes with the flick of a switch. Protest defined as terrorism. Many people hope that the loss of civil rights Americans have endured since the onslaughts mounted by Bush Administration II is a political reality that can be reversed through electoral will.
Established mechanisms of political power are, of course, the immediately available means for attempting change. Notions of citizens' rights, freedom, and democratic participation are compelling paradigms that have consistently stirred the bravery of U.S. citizens – and yet elder political scientist Sheldon Wolin, who taught the philosophy of democracy for five decades, sees the current predicament of corporate-government hegemony as something more endemic.Â
"Inverted totalitarianism," as he calls it in his recent Democracy Incorporated, "lies in wielding total power without appearing to, without establishing concentration camps, or enforcing ideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressing dissident elements so long as they remain ineffectual." To Wolin, such a form of political power makes the United States "the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed."
Wolin rightfully points out that the origins of U.S. governance were "born with a bias against democracy," and yet the system has quickly lunged beyond its less-than-democratic agrarian roots to become a mass urban society that, with distinct 1984 flavorings, could be called techno-fascism. The role of technology is the overlooked piece of the puzzle of the contemporary political conundrum.
What are its mechanisms of control?
The use of telecommunications technologies for surveillance is obvious. So are willful alteration of computer data for public reportage, manipulation of television news for opinion-shaping, and use of microwave-emitting weapons for crowd control.
Less obvious are what could be called "inverted mechanization" whereby citizens blindly accept the march of technological development as an expression of a very inexact, some would say erroneous, concept of "progress." One mechanism propagating such blindness is the U.S. government's invisible role as regulatory handmaiden to industry, offering little-to-no means for citizen determination of what technologies are disseminated; instead we get whatever GMOs and nuclear plants corporations dish out. A glaring example is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that, seeking to not repeat the "errors" of the nuclear industry, offers zero public input as to health or environmental impacts of its antennae, towers, and satellites – the result being that the public has not a clue about the very real biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. Inverted mechanization is thrust forward as well by unequal access to resources: corporations lavishly crafting public opinion and mounting limitless legal defenses versus citizen groups who may be dying from exposure to a dangerous technology but whose funds trickle in from bake sales. In his Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-Of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought, political scientist Langdon Winner points out that, to boot, the artifacts themselves have grown to such magnitude and complexity that they define popular conception of necessity. Witness the "need" to get to distant locales in a few hours or enjoy instantaneous communication.
Even less obvious a mechanism of public control is the technological inversion that results from the fact that, as filmmaker Godfrey Reggio puts it, "We don't use technology, we live it." Like fish in water we cannot consider modern artifacts as separate from ourselves and so cannot admit that they exist.
Social critic Lewis Mumford was among the first to make sense of the systemic nature of technology. In The Pentagon of Power, he identified the underlying metaphor of mass civilizations as the megamachine. The assembly line -- of factory, home, education, agriculture, medicine, consumerism, entertainment. The machine -- centralizing decision-making and control. The mechanical – fragmenting every act until its relationship to the whole is lost; insisting upon the pre-determined role of each region, each community, each individual.Â
Mumford deftly peels away false hope from a social reality based on principles of centralization, control, and efficiency. In 1962 he peered into the future and saw the pentagon of power incarnate: "a more voluminous productivity, augmented by almost omniscient computers and a wider range of antibiotics and inoculations, with a greater control over our genetic inheritance, with more complex surgical operations and transplants, with an extension of automation to every form of human activity."
Inverted totalitarianism is both inverted and totalitarian because of the power of modern mass technological systems to shape and control social realities, just as they shape and control individual understandings of those realities. Its contemporary existence is most definitely the result of the efforts of a group of right-wing fundamentalists who hurled themselves into power through devious means -- but today's desperate social inequities, dire ecological predicament, and fascist politic are the offspring of long-evolving technological centralization and control as well.
The challenge is to see the whole and all its parts, not just the shiny new device that purports to make one's individual life easier or sexier -- which in itself is a contributor to the making of political disengagement. The whole is a megamachine, with you and your liquid TV, Blackberry, and Prius a necessary cog.
Forging a survivable world is indeed going to take a change of administration -- for starters. The terrifying reality that is mass technological society suggests more: radical techno-socio-economic re-organization, and to that end spring visions informed by the indigenous worlds we all hail from, the regionalism of Mumford's day, and today's bioregionalism. Or visions of the forced localization that Peak Oil, economic collapse, climate change, and ecological devastation propose.
Chellis Glendinning is the author of six books, including Off the Map: An Expedition Deep into Empire and the Global Economy; My Name Is Chellis and I'm in Recovery from Western Civilization; and the forthcoming Luddite.com: A Personal History of Technology.
I don't think that most politically aware people ever thought of Barack Obama as progressive. His organizing principle - or mission statement - has always been "one America." You can't create unity by being a pure progressive. He has always said that he is going for including Independants and Republicans in his coalition. I believe this is a worthy goal and could be a step toward building a progressive majority in this country. Once you get people on your team you can help them stretch their understanding.
If we want a particular piece of progressive legislation (or don't want a really bad bill like FISA), it is up to us to do the grassroots legwork to make our position widely supported. I see this is happening more and more and it's very exciting.
I know that I have dreamed of having a real strong progressive in the Whitehouse. Right now I am supporting Barack Obama because I believe he is sincere (he really has not promised to be our progressive knight in shining armour - he has always said that unity is his "prime directive"), is extremely intelligent and can build coalitions to win both the presidency and positive change in modest increments. He has disappointed me many times but I still think he is the person who can help us climb out of this national nighmare without creating a backlash. I hope we get the chance to find out.
@ kgarry | 7:17 am
Don't you mean the "Caps UNlock key?" ;)
PS: I agree about the all-caps, and I also wish that people would consider paragraph breaks instead of posting long "tombstones". And I personally feel that links are a better alternative than spamming entire articles onto the comments.
BUT, the stylistic possibilities here are limited not only by the woefully crappy El Cheapo Deluxe software CD uses, which is buggier than a Roach Motel in a Tijuana whorehouse. And to add insult to injury, the tricksy webmasters capriciously block HTML tags, etc., without even the courtesy of warning commenters.
Since you used bold face, I presume that at the moment HTML tags are OK; but who knows for how long? It's too aggravating to risk it and see comments simply disappear. I'd cheerfully contribute generously to a CD fund drive for the purpose of upgrading the comments software.
Oh, and of course Obama's zombie-like passivity in the face of telecom amnesty and further anti-constitutional surveillance is a bitter disappointment. Luckily I never quite bought into the hype that he's some kind of secretly revolutionary political adept or master.
Obama did vote against the MCA and spoke up in glowing terms with regard to the narrow Supreme Court decision to restore Habeus Corpus. The Barrow and Lieberman endorsements are mind boggling os it is a mixed bag so far. Still better than McSame but the bloom is off the rose.
Should any of us be surprised by this? VAGreen, tailcap, racom40, and RichM (as usual), have already said what needs to be said. (jcrumb may also have added something worthy, but I'll never know because s/he can't seem to locate the damn Caps Lock key!
(An aside: it has been demostrably proven that all caps are extremely difficult to read. It does not add emphasis! That is what bold faces, exclamation points, and well-turned phrases are for. There is a reason you are being constantly harangued for your indiscriminate use of caps, which is reminiscent of those people driving around with their stereo volume so high all you hear is distortion from overworked woofers.)
So, let me just add: McBush et.al. continues to paint Obama as a radical leftist, the better to make their radical right-wing agenda appear more mainstream. In fact, the differences between the two are in their neck ties, not their suits (by that I mean in the small details, not substantively). Vote McKinney (to fund the Greens next time around) or Nader, and send Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, and the others a strong message. Support Cindy Sheehan's and Regina Thomas' bids, and urge true progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich, Donna Edwards (hooray!) and Russ "Most-of-the-Time" Feingold to leave the Demo-Corporate party and join Bernie Sanders as Independents.
Obamamaniacs: where is the change?
Barockstar is endorsing a neo liberal, pro war Dem over a progressive woman? WTF?
Thanks Glenn Greenwald another good article.
...anonymously reminding the peons that resistance is futile; the game is up"~ Vote for McObama or you'll get McSame. Hurry the sky is following! The Democrats will save us! Quick, vote for a Democrat!
...he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain~ yea, that one!
"Blue Dogs" "Yellow Dogs" to me Democrats are just plain dogs. The ones that aren't should follow the principled lead of Cynthia McKinney and leave the party!
"His foreign policy team, which already included Brzezinski, now includes all the Clinton Admin heavyweights — Madeleine Albright, David Boren, Warren Christopher, Lee Hamilton, Tony Lake, Sam Nunn, William Perry. There is talk that he might pick Nunn — a conservative Democrat — as his running mate."
Same old, same old. This will keep our political pendulum swinging between center-right Democrats and far-right Republicans. Go McKinney!
No sense in getting disappointed now folks, would Hillary really be any different? The raw facts are this:
all politicians are sell-outs and this country is paying a hell-ov-a price to them. The war will go on, the economy will continue to faulter, the rich will get richer, more of our children will get asthma, we will have no health care, our food will become more dangerous, global warming will grow worse, etc etc etc.
This country will not survive.
Let's count how many powerful rightwing forces Obama has connected with and/or sucked up to in the last 2 weeks. There was most famously (& chillingly) AIPAC, then the Miami anti-Castro fanatics. Then there was the rightwing government of Colombia. He named some close associates of Robert Rubin to head his economic team. (Rubin stands for financial deregulation -- the "principle" that the federal government may not impose any limits or oversight on the Wall St swindling racketeers. In other words, a protector of the folks who brought you the "subprime mortage crisis.") His foreign policy team, which already included Brzezinski, now includes all the Clinton Admin heavyweights -- Madeleine Albright, David Boren, Warren Christopher, Lee Hamilton, Tony Lake, Sam Nunn, William Perry. There is talk that he might pick Nunn -- a conservative Democrat -- as his running mate.
Isn't that great?? Just what we need to produce meaningful "change" -- a bunch of re-treads right from the heart of the Dem Party Establishment of the 1980's & '90's.
Now we see that he's sold out on free trade (see Nichol's CD piece, today), and on Telecom immunity. Meanwhile, he's being praised with real enthusiasm by the likes of the NYT's David Brooks, & the Wall St Journal (who wrote admiringly on Tuesday that Obama might be open to "cutting corporate taxes"). We already knew that he was going to give the insurance companies a major say in any contemplated health care reform -- which means that no significant improvements can be made.
Yes we can (dupe naive so-called progressives)!
Ha, ha, Obama the empty suit - and I am being polite. The Dems and Obama are the problem, not the solution. They represent the Complicit Party.
Come this November - anybody but the two parties
A whole hell of a lot of supposed progressives have allowed themselves to be mesmerized by Obama. A whole hell of a lot of progressives told them all along Obama was no real progressive. I'm proud to be in the second group: i.e., the group that was right. Forgive my momentary childishness, but, Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!
Actually, RSJ, you're dead wrong once again. You falsely accuse emkay of claiming that Obama endorsed Lieberman against Lamont in the general election -- but that's not what emkay said.
Emkay wrote (12:47), "Obama showed his true colors by endorsing Lieberclown over Ned Lamont." Note that it's left unspecified, as to whether Obama's endorsement of Lieberman was during the general or the primary campaign.
Then, after falsely quoting emkay to set up a straw-man, you have the brass to lecture him about "lying"!
emkay [June 19th, 2008 12:47 pm] Obama DID NOT endorse Lieberman in the general election against Lamont, and I wish you Obama-haters would quit spreading this lie. Obama made some speeches for Lieberman early in the primary campaign, but supported Lamont when he became the Dem nominee for Senator from Connecticut. It says a lot about who you are that you have to lie to try and make a case against a candidate. Lamont, incidentally, has endorsed Obama for president.
"After endorsing Lieberman in the primary, Obama endorsed Lamont in the general election, gave $5,000 to Lamont's campaign and sent out a fundraising email for him, but didn't campaign for him, which was a big disappointment to the Lamont forces."
-- Greg Sargent, TPM, June 10, 2008.
Read more about it here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/top_lieberman_staffer_we_begge.php
My peers are in the Obama Generation---the thousands of young people who will march lockstep behind Obama into the voting booth in November to vote for him no matter how corporate or Republican he has become. I am proud to not be drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, as Jeremy Scahill would say. To support a candidate that thinks in order to beat McCain you have to become a better McCain... to repeat the mistakes of John Kerry and fight to cure yourself of all symptoms that might show signs that you are a liberal is unforgivable. The people of this nation need to be knocking on the doors of Obama's headquarters from the West Coast to the East Coast demanding that he be the populist candidate and leader of The Uprising that Americans wanted to elect to the White House in November.
It's either that or turn off the corporate media and get tough with an underground campaign for Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez, which I am doing. But Ralph Nader? He spoiled the election! I hate him!
Well, do one or the other. For the future of America, do not just wait and vote in November. Pressure Obama or help third party/Independent candidates get into the debates and pressure Obama. Please.
It's about time we finally have some scrutiny of Obama's actions and policies !! Unfortunately the masses of young people who prefer to play video games or update their MySpace pages have no desire to read these articles, and if you try to engage in intelligent discourse they take immediate offense and tune out. We cannot allow the most ignorant and least experienced voters to determine who will be President.
like i've been saying, he's a donkey man, and like virtually all the democrats he will turn out to be a liar.
and the telcomm legislation is another sad congressional joke. only a judge may interpret the law, all the parties know that and know that therefore presidential assurances cannot absolve the telcomms' crimes.
ecrasez l'infame!
another thing to watch is the candidates that people like emanual and hoyer recruit for dem campaigns. they are usually independently wealthy people who don't oppose the war and who are safe votes to continue corporate rule. these are the people the dccc will recruit and run as dems.
when you see true progressives or anti-war candidates or candidates who oppose bills like this, they are almost always independents who are running against the candidates backed by the dem leadership and funded by the dccc.
this is just another data point to confirm the point in the last paragraphs. the dem leaders use the fact that there are so many dinos in the dem party as one of their typical excuses why they have to do all these awful things. but then if you watch closely they recruit and support these candidates and oppose anyone who dares to challenge them in a primary.
surprise, surprise, surprise.
this is just another data point in the emerging picture of obama. like with all dems, watch actions and discount words. and even more so with obama, ignore fantasies that fly around that obama doesn't even support with misleading words but that his supporters just wantonly create.
watch actions, not words, and you'll see the true obama. like now
(i figure all the caps on this page are used up so i'll just write ee cummings style)
I can't believe anyone would be so surprised at this that they would type in all-caps.
Kenobi and Yoda knew enough to walk away for the duration and work behind the scenes. That is what some of us are doing now.
By the time there really is "change you can believe in", you'll have no problem recognizing it.
Deconstruction - it's what's for dinner.
Barack Obrother. Campaign spending limits now!
OBAMA.......NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! WHY? WHY? WHY? IS HE BASICALLY RUINING HIS CHANCES? IS THIS WHAT IS GOING ON...DID THEY TAKE HIM TO THE SECRET ROOM AND GIVE HIM THE LOW DOWN.." YOU WILL DO THIS OR ELSE YOUR PLANE WILL FLIP OVER ON THE RUNWAY WITH IMAGINARY "ICE" ON IT'S WINGS...MR. OBAMA...REMEMBER PAUL WELSTONE...OKAY..YOU CAN GO NOW..DON'T FORGET..WE'RE WATCHING YOU.."
I KNEW THAT HE WAS A "POLITICIAN" I KNEW THAT..THEY..AND WE...ALL SWIM IN THE SAME WATER...BUT HOW DO YOU LIKE THESE APPLES?
JEEZIS...K-RIST...WHAT THE FUUUUUUCK!
OBAMA IS GIVING THIS THING AWAY TO MCSAME...OSAME V. MCSAME..HOPE! I AM BECOMING EVER MORE HOPELESS...LIKE MY SPELLING..
I AM...WHAT IS NEXT..MAN? WHAT THE FUCK WILL THIS MAN DO NEXT...? AGREE WITH BUSH ON EVERY ISSUE? PRETEND TO AND TALK ABOUT CHANGE AND THEN EFFECT NO CHANGE AT ALL..?
I AM SO SICK OF THIS...TIME TO GET A SCRAMBLER..TIME TO DEVELOP COUNTER MEASURES OF OUR OWN...
THIS I REALLY GRIM..I NEED TO GO AND EAT...DROWN MY DEPRESION IN FATTY FOODS...OR ..DRUGS IF I CAN FIND THEM..NOW THAT THE EURO IS WORTH 2 DOLLARS DRUGS ARE ALL GOING TO EUROPE...FUCK! IT JUST GET'S WORSE AND WORSE..
And anyone who has been paying attention is surprised at this, why? Obama showed his true colors by endorsing Lieberclown over Ned Lamont. And he continues to reveal just how he is another shrewd tool. But then he wouldn't have gotten this far without the blessings of his masters.
As for pressuring Obama and other Dem party leaders, will somebody remind me how well that's gone so far? You know, since we put the spineless fuckwads in power to stop the war? And then there's impeachment, which is 'off the table'...yup, that pressure thing has gone real well.