Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Vows To Deliver A Better Future For America
The American Dream is alive and the nation can be better than it has been during the last eight years of President George Bush, Barack Obama said as he accepted the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
People wave flags and posters of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on day four of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) at Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver, Colorado. Obama told Americans their "dreams can be one" if they unite in a stirring new crusade for change, in a riotous finale to the historic Democratic National Convention. (AFP/Getty Images/Mark Wilson)
Delivering the most important speech of his life to more than 80,000 people at
an open-air stadium in Denver, Colorado, Mr Obama left no doubt America was
ready for change and said it was time for voters to stand up and say: "Eight
is enough!"
"I get it," he said. "I realise that I am not the likeliest candidates for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.
"But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's about you."
Mr Obama confronted every criticism made by Mr McCain and the Republicans of his campaign and the Democrats head-on, from his ego and rock star status to his lack of foreign policy experience and his tax policies.
"If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have," Mr Obama declared, referring to his rival's notorious temper and criticism of his own lack of experience.
"America, we are better than these last eight years," he said. "We are a better country than this."
Mr Obama, who made history on Wednesday as the first African American US presidential nominee of a major party, said: "This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive."
The 47-year-old Illinois senator said his Republican rival John McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, had "voted with George Bush 90 per cent of the time".
"I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 per cent chance on change," he said.
Mr Obama, whose keynote address at the party's 2004 convention shot him to fame, gave his 44-minute acceptance speech last night 45 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr inspired the world with his "I Have a Dream" speech.
"America, we cannot turn back," he said.
The final day of the convention was moved outside to the Invesco Field stadium in a bid to show his candidacy extends beyond the politicians who have dominated the convention so far.
Ten supporters, including some who donated only $5 (£2.72), were invited to join Mr Obama backstage beforehand and watched his speech from the front row.
At the end of a convention dominated by the issue of unity between Mr Obama and his former rival Hillary Clinton, the Democrat received the loudest applause when he embraced the idea of coming together.
"The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook," he said.
"The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.
"They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America."
Mr Obama said America needed to restore its "sense of higher purpose" and "the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."
The Democrat also confronted the McCain campaign's accusations over his ego and celebrity status.
He said his grandmother Sarah in Kenya had worked hard so that he could have a better life and "poured everything she had into me".
"I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine," he said.
Striving to dismiss criticisms that his lofty, inspirational campaign consisted of empty rhetoric, he set out "exactly what change would mean if I am president".
He pledged to cut taxes for 95 per cent of all working families, end US dependence on oil from the Middle East within 10 years and create jobs for Americans.
America's troubled economy and its national security were his central focus.
He said he had "made clear we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights" and added: "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."
Mr Obama went on: "As commander-in-chief I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home."
He offered details of his plans for energy and education, health and the climate crisis and pre-empted criticism he was a liberal who believed in "spend, spend, spend".
"I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow," he said.
Mr Obama added that America's failure to respond to its challenges were "a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W Bush".
It was time for Republicans to "own their failure", he said.
"It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for President of the United States."
Fireworks erupted over the stadium as Mr Obama was joined by his wife Michelle and daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, seven, at the end of his speech.
A bid to get most of those packed into the stadium to form the world's largest phone bank - text-messaging thousands more to boost voter registration for November's general election - also underscored how the Obama campaign has harnessed modern technology to garner support in what polls indicate will be a close race between Mr Obama and Mr McCain for a place in history as the 44th president of the United States.
At the end of a convention dominated by the issue of unity between Mr Obama and his former rival Hillary Clinton, the Democrat received the loudest applause when he embraced that theme.
"One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism," he said.
"The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook.
"So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
"The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.
"They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America."
Mr Obama said America needed to restore its "sense of higher purpose".
"This too is part of America's promise," he said.
"The promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."
He explained: "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
"I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
"Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers."
He said some critics dismissed such suggestions as "happy talk", but he said that when rivals did not have any fresh ideas, they "use stale tactics to scare the voters".
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from," he said.
"You make a big election about small things."
Mr Obama used his speech to confront every criticism made by Mr McCain and the Republicans of his campaign and the Democrats.
"If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have," Mr Obama said, referring to his rival's notorious temper and criticism of his own lack of experience.
The Democrat also confronted the McCain campaign's accusations over his ego and celebrity status.
He said his grandmother Sarah in Kenya had worked hard so that he could have a better life and "poured everything she had into me".
"I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine," he said.
"These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States."
He also described his former rival Hillary Clinton as "a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours".
He even echoed Mrs Clinton's passionate speech on Tuesday night when he said: "I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's about you."
Striving to dismiss criticisms that his lofty, inspirational campaign consisted of empty rhetoric, he set out "exactly what change would mean if I am president".
America's troubled economy and its national security were his central focus, with pledges to cut taxes for 95 per cent of all working families, end US dependence on oil from the Middle East within 10 years and create jobs for Americans.
"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe.
"As commander-in-chief I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home."
He also detailed his plans on energy and education, health and the climate crisis.
Mr Obama then pre-empted criticism he was a liberal who believed in "spend, spend, spend".
"I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow," he said.
Mr Obama added that America's failure to respond to its challenges were "a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W Bush".
It was time for Republicans to "own their failure", he said.
"It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for President of the United States."
- Posted in
168 Comments so far
Show Alluhgg, puke!
homeward-angel writes: uhgg, puke!
Okay, now you're ready to vote for Obama.
The ruling class will not allow change. There is no money for change.
It is sad for me to think positive change can only come about due to changes made by the ruling class. Actually, in doing so you are telling them they have control over your life and you are feeling trapped and that can't be a good thing!
Not sure that the ruling class is the only one that can make positive changes, however, I take your point. I do know that the ruling class tries and succeeds to divide us wherever and whenever possible. Therefore, they relish the fact that progressives vote for candidates who will not win an election, no matter how true and clean they are. And this, coming from one who has supported and worked for indies and 3rd parties.
By all means folks, please do work for 3rd parties, but also realize that in this winner-take-all system, someone will be left holding the bag for all those votes that might have gone for the better of the two candidates who _will_ win. It sucks big time, but that's the reality.
McCain/Palin = no abortions, period!
McCain/Palin = drilling in Anwar
McCain/Palin = continued trauma to our constitution, our country, and our future
Oh...and no, I am not a Democrat.
Vote independent if you can. Mass. - vt. - N.Y. - Ala. - Miss. ect. Vote your conscience if you must.
I was there yesterday night and still get weepy when I think back about this historic night. The previous days I filmed the panel discussions organized by the Progressive Democrats of America (http://pdamerica.org) for Free Speech TV, ranging from Impeachment to Voting Fraud, to Out of Iraq, to Constitutional Law. I'm not naive, and am fully aware of the many traps, corporate leashes, and false policies contained in the Democrats' platform (just to mention Obama's support for the scam of so called "clean coal technology" or the militaristic talk about Afghanistan).
But for the first time in a long time the priorities are right and we'd get a leader who will be able to convince many people to join and support these priorities and make them their own.
Read the full transcript here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Let's elect Obama and support Progressive Democrats of America http://pdamerica.org to convince him that progressive policies make sense and resonate with people's ultimate desire for peace, sustainability, and responsible economics.
I will agree that to get to the level of being a presidential candidate in the Democratic party (or the Republican party) you have to compromise basic values and support certain (unacceptable) militaristic policies.
That is why I don't support those parties. The Green Party or Nader doesn't expect you to compromise your core values.
Our military policy is dictated by our corporate policy, not national security. As is our health policy, and most of our government policies.
And Obama's voting record doesn't reflect these words of concern for the general public, so maybe these words are just empty rhetoric, all fluff and hope, no substance.
Many Obama supports say that voting for him will serve a strategic purpose, the main being that it keeps McCain out. And some think that he is more open to change, which seems to be contradicted by how hard the democratic party worked to keep opposing points of view out of the convention, or the debates, or even in their discussions.
If it is a question of strategy, history has shown repeatedly that you will not succeed when you compromise basic values of justice just to get what you want. You lose on two grounds: You never get what you hoped for; and you have to live with yourself knowing that you have compromised your basic core values or for naught.
Obama's policies are above the threshold of what should be acceptable for a fair and just society.
I may not get what I want by voting Green, but neither will supporters of peace and justice get what they want if they vote for Obama.
The sense of betrayal is avoidable when you vote your conscience.
Vote third party, vote Green Party, vote Nader.
Very well put, and thanks. As one who has voted independent for a long time I see clearly the uphill battle third parties face to gain recognnition, support and win seats on the national level.
Barack Obama gives a great speech and he taps into the unrest of our electorate. Yet any thinking voter must question his experiental level, his lack of a track record, his corporate support and his suspect voting record. Sadly, what should be a momentous occasion in our nation's history is just another step on the road to corporate control of our legislative processes.
People refuse to note that Obama receives more corporate monies than does McCain, works, not end war, but to shift the war to another theater. His much acclaimed health care plan still leaves 25 million of us without such care, an unacceptable figure by any standards of compassion. It is not enough to vote for "the lesser of two evils" because we are left, in the end, still doing a disservice to our nation.
When will we learn?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
While I can agree with your opinion of the uphill battle of third parties..well put...I must disagree that voting for Obama or McCain is a vote lacking consience or a disservice to our nation.
Reality is that no third party candidate will even show as a pimple on the voting graph. So I'd say its wasting a vote not to choose one of the two rather than a useless protest vote.
But thats my opinion, I'd encourage you to vote for whom you like and ask that you both allow others to do the same without chastisement.
McCain had Obama scared he might pick Joe Lieberman as VP candidate so Obama got suckered into a marriage of convenience with Joe Biden, but what an ugly couple and coupling that is! Meanwhile, McCain goes out and finds himself a new pretty wife, and one that is a young White cutie, too! So now we have two parties representing 'Change' that is no way real change at all. Barack shot himself in the foot with Joe and deserves sneers for his stupidity and vapidness, not cheers like this article does. And CD and the rest of you not so 'progresive' liberal not so 'radical' types seem as lost as Obama is.
I tell you, it is a blessing not having a television.
Yes it is.
I'm slowly learning Spanish so I keep my television on Univisión in the evenings. Noticias Univisión carried Walk On Water Obama's speech and they carried some of the convention in their Última Hora newscast.
The convention has been the only time since I started slowly learning Spanish that I was glad that I didn't know what they were saying.
Right on! Been seven years of the sanest and most alive and informed I've ever been. Thank GAWD for the Internet!
A speech is just that: a speech. If the folks here and on other alleged Progressive sites don't vote other than a "Uni-Party" choice, they shouldn't show their typed words anywhere ever again!
Scratch Open A Cynic And You Will Find An Angry Idealist.
Thanks for watching the speech and reporting on it so that I don't have to. I COULDN'T, really-- I've never had a grand mal seizure, and I don't have the guts to risk one.
But I presume you understand that We the People don't want to hear about all of that buzz-harshing wonky stuff anyway, which is why it's quietly being swept into the Memory Hole beneath a glowing cloud of ultraviolet oratory.
We the People want Euphoria, god-da... gosh-durn it!
You really didn't miss much.
An hour of meaningless fluff and applause lines. For the little bit of substance in the speech, we also know this is the same Obama who has already broken every promise he made to Democrats in the primaries. So, that little bit of substance is easily discounted as lies to fool people into voting for him. The man has a track record of saying things that sound good to get votes, then later dismissing his words as 'overheated rhetoric'.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I agree:
"Obama explicitly talked about the need to send more troops to Afghanistan to "finish the fight with Bin-Laden." That is a lie, pure and simple. The US has troops in Afghanistan because of oil and pipelines. It has NOTHING to do with 'fighting terrorism' or bin Laden."
Dishonesty pure and simple. Osama BEEN FORGOTTEN. OBL worked for the CIA and the corporate propaganda mill has created a big phony lie about a guy who might as well be part of the Cheney-Bush team if he isn't dead from kidney failure. What a pathetic load of crap--the myth of OBL has been used to justify Oil Wars that are manifestly illegal and based on a grand hoax. They had war planned for years, they planned "catastrophic terror attacks" for decades going all the way back the the NORTHWOODS PROJECT. Look it up. Know that this country has staged a false flag operation and/or allowed an attack in order to grease the PR machine for war and convince gullible citizens they are being threatened. Gulf of Tonkin, 'Remember the Maine,' Pearl Harbor--all involved US government staging. http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=28069
I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 because he explicitly said over and over that he was running to build the Green Party. In 2000, he had a shot to get enough votes to qualify for matching funds. It didn't happen. This year, Nader is running AGAINST the Green Party (he says he left them because of "infighting" - irony?) and therefore he is insuring that neither he nor the Green Party will make a dent.
I will vote for Obama not because of him, but because of what he represents. He is the product of a massive popular movement, and he knows it. I'm also dismayed about FISA, but that is a good example of what I'm taking about. After that vote, one of the activists on his website started up a page (you can open up a blog on his site) calling Obama out. After a few weeks, that dissenting page was getting more traffic than the main BarackObama.com page! Obama was forced to confront it, and explain himself.
As anybody who follows politics knows, the Senate is filled with non-perfect laws. You have to compromise. Obama explained that he voted for a compromised bill, and that he plans on undoing immunity as president (Biden voted against the bill). Russ Feingold, who has been great on FISA and related issues, understands Obama's strategy even if he thinks it wasn't great.
Obama has to listen to the popular movements that put him where he is. McCain will not listen to popular movements.
A lot of the griping on CommonDreams to me demonstrates that we have all lost touch with the CONCEPT of democracy. Democracy is not finding a savior and electing them to do all the work. Democracy is keeping pressure on whoever is in office. Obama is much, much more likely to respond to that pressure.
What Obama represents is more of the same of what you've been getting for the last 16 or 28 years. Nothing different.
Obama clearly does not listen. He basically lied to the Democrats to get the nomination. He presented himself as an alternative to the Clintons, then as soon as he got the nomination he gathered all the Clinton money-men and hacks around him. He also announced that he's essentially a Bush clone running for office.
On FISA, the 'compromise' was giving the Bush administration and the telecoms everything they wanted. Its dressed up in a grass-skirt called 'compromise', but that's just BS from a politician trying to explain why he did something that a big majority of his supporters considers awful.
If this was a one-off thing, I might accept it. But its not. Its the common modus operandi of today's Democrats. They are constantly doing things that their party members consider abhorrent, then they are constantly finding new bits of BS to throw back at their base to try to explain it.
Obama shows absolutely no sign of listening to popular movements. I live in Denver. So, I've seen the riot police that comes out when a popular movement says they want to talk to Obama.
Obama is spending all of his time talking and listening to the right wing. Most of the leaders of the left were in town this week, and I saw or heard absolutely nothing that said Obama was talking or listening to them.
If Obama is so great about reaching out and listening, then why won't he sit and talk and listen with Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader, or Media Benjaman. Or many others who were in town. Why is it that when Iraq Vets against the War try to march to the corporate sponsered arena where the Dems were having their gathering, they are met with riot police.
If Obama is so wonderful about talking with and listening to popular movements, why weren't the leaders of IVAW invited in to talk with him. They eventually were able to hand a letter to Obama's staff. But that was only because they stood their ground in the face of the intimidation from the riot police and someone in Obama's camp decided that video of the riot police busting heads of vets in uniform wasn't what they wanted.
I've seen this week what happens when a popular movement tries 'to pressure' Obama. Out comes the riot police and the batons and the pepper spray and the razor wire cages. I've seen for the last two years the way the Democratic leadership is completely unresponsive to popular movements. Popular movements have been calling for everything from the end of the war to national health care to stopping police state spying on Americans to impeachment. Has the Democratic leadership in Congress 'listened' to those movements? Heck, I can't think of any time they've even been willing to talk with those movements. And, Sen Obama as a sitting Senator and front -runner for President over the last year could have exercised some leadership of his own and changed that. But he clearly has not.
Sorry, but this is all just bull. Its all just the spin the Democrats put out to try to explain why they constantly do what the corporations and the Republicans want and constantly screw their own party base.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Thanks, Samson.
Nicely stated, and it spared me from making similar points in a cranky, sarcastic, and unpleasant tone.
Thank-you Samson, good comments.
In more genuine "democracies" - France, India, Pakistan, Korea; right now in Thailand, protests at least get acknowlegement and some action from their poiliticians for their efforts - even if it is often lip service.
But here in the US, even to get the most minimal lip-service from the people who are supposed to be representing us would be a big victory! Instead, we get phalanx's of cop-thugs and complete silence behind them. It is enraging!
And, to correct your piece - It has been going on for much more than two years - more like since Clinton, at least. Remember the insulting slander and disregard of the popular issues brought up in Seattle?
Samson,
I'm getting so sick of all your half-truths and misleading comments.
"Obama shows absolutely no sign of listening to popular movements"--- WRONG! the post above just described an example of how he listened to an online movement
"when Iraq Vets against the War try to march to the corporate sponsered arena where the Dems were having their gathering, they are met with riot police"---MISLEADING! a representative of the group was allowed into the convention and was able to share the groups concerns with the campaign.
"Obama is spending all of his time talking and listening to the right wing"---WRONG!
I could go on but it gets so tiresome. ALL you ever do is trash democrats---you never say anything helpful or have anything positive to say. Your posts are getting more and more strident and desperate. Take a few breaths and try to calm down---I'm worried you might explode!
Tell me how horrible it was that he opened up his convention to the public and 85,000 showed up. Or how his ability to inspire is SO bad for democracy....
Take a careful look at the people who are inspired by him, and how different they all are---then look next week at the people who McCain inspires...
Samson is more than capable of speaking for himself, but don't imagine you're occupying some moral high ground because, as may be inferred by your stance, you see yourself as "positive" simply because you choose to view the Democratic glass as half-full.
Even though it's been decades since I read, "The Games People Play", the technique or trick of attributing hysteria to someone with whom you disagree is an old and tired one. I don't think you're worried at all that Samson might explode; I think you would find it a relief, since discordant and dissenting views annoy you so much.
Handsome is as handsome does, as the Gaffer always says. Of course Obama and his campaign apparatus is going to be superficially receptive to popular input. I'm certainly not as impressed as you are by minimal gestures such as allowing a "representative" to talk to his staff in lieu of direct communication, etc. His actions are basically those of a chaste Bill Clinton-- i.e., he's a prissy centrist (center now being right) neo-liberal who buys into the myths of Amerikan exceptionalism and militarism, and warmly embraces conventional religious "faith" and corporations.
Civil liberties, not so much. But those inspired by Obama-- as the Pied Piper inspired the innocent children-- cling to the belief that once he's got the power, he'll prove to be much more of a humanist and consensus-builder than his actions during the campaign suggest.
I find this cant improbable at best-- and, as you say, "tiresome".
"I don't think you're worried at all that Samson might explode; I think you would find it a relief, since discordant and dissenting views annoy you so much"
I might find it a relief, but not due to discordance or dissent---I welcome both in a nicely reasoned argument. It's the half-truths and out-right lies that get me. It's the inability to accept the fact that Bush and co. and the republicans are the ones who've led us down the path to fascism, and that McCain represents more of the same. It's the refusal to notice any difference in the parties at all. It's how the purists never acknowledge the power of fear and how it's been used by the right to stifle the opposition. It's this push by the right that gets me and the absolute failure of Samson or others here to acknowledge it.
"I'm certainly not as impressed as you are by minimal gestures such as allowing a "representative" to talk to his staff in lieu of direct communication, etc."
My post expressed no regard for the "minimal gesture". It was only stated as an example of the misleading half-truth of Samsons comment.
"But those inspired by Obama... cling to the belief that once he's got the power, he'll prove to be much more of a humanist and consensus-builder than his actions during the campaign suggest"
I don't think we can know for sure how he'll turn out. But I do know that he'd never get elected if he ran as the "perfect progressive" that some here only have tolerance for.
I wonder which is worse, supposed half truths and lies or placing ones faith or 'clinging to a belief' in the future actions of a candidate who displays no inclination in that direction while campaigning.
The definition of the words of one with whom you politically disagree may be mischaracterised by you as lies or distortions, but that in no way makes them such. I prefer fact to faith myself.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I agree with Actually post. I was nihilist in my young years and never participated in elections. Then I realised that my vacant place was filled with swindlers, but it was too late. Thirty years later my former country is no more.
Yes, voting for Obama will accoplish almost nothing. But almost nothing is infinitively more than nothing, while abstaining from vote is voting for Kain, for brothercide. With all deficiencies of the American Constitution, one cannot deny that the USA in 2008 is better place than that of 1776. Collapse of the Soviet Union had shown that nihilism may bring results one would not imagine in his nightmare. Collapse of the USA might bring even worse situation. IMHO, rational puppet still much better than irrational puppet.
Perhaps you should have watched the Nader Open the Debates Super Rally on Free Speech TV the night of Hillary's appearance at the Democratic National Convention Farce. You would have seen Cynthia McKinney and other Greens. They disagree with you about Ralph Nader.
"because of what he represents"
What ?
So you're a corporatist ?
Actually wrote:
"As anybody who follows politics knows, the Senate is filled with non-perfect laws. You have to compromise. Obama explained that he voted for a compromised bill, and that he plans on undoing immunity as president (Biden voted against the bill). Russ Feingold, who has been great on FISA and related issues, understands Obama's strategy even if he thinks it wasn't great."
The word Perfect has nothing to do with any of this. It's just a way of making excuses and apologies for the Dems.
"Actually" wrote:
"you have to compromise." No you don't on this stuff if one has the courage of their convictions. One does not "compromise" to help cement the Bush Dictatorship. And it's interesting that it's nearly always the Dems who are doing the compromising. Not the Repugs. Again, it's another excuse. The Repugs get their agenda rammed through congress whether they are in the majority or the minority. The same cannot be said about the Dems. And if you believe that lord and saviour Obama is going to undo immunity...LOL. Dream on. Yeah, one always votes FOR something just to undo it later.
Anyone who thihnks Obama is "going to change FISA when he gets in office" is too big of a fool to vote.WHY wouldnt he just vote agsint it now?? I am several others bloggedhis website for weeks tryingto get hin to come around--it was coo he let us do that--but he czpitulated anyway!@ If he DID have a propensity for change in him--teh DNC griped it ou tof him. Now, he';sjust another politician.
Actually wrote:
"Democracy is keeping pressure on whoever is in office. Obama is much, much more likely to respond to that pressure."
I don't know why you would think that other than you wish that were the case.
Oh yes, that has worked so splendidly since 2000 hasn't it? I mean, Pelosi has responded to the pressure to put impeachment BACK ON the table and you name it! The Iraq occupation has ended. All the troops are home. The war criminals are in jail for life.
"Keeping their feet to the fire" has worked beautifully since 2000, hasn't it.
LOL.
The only pressure Walk On Water Obama will respond to is the pressure from the military industrial complex and the corporations. Period.
These politicians don't give a damn what any of us think (except for a Kucinich). If they did care what we thought, we wouldn't be where we are today.
This paraphrase article left out the part where Senator Obama mentioned "clean coal" and nobody clapped. Then he mentioned nuclear energy. More dead silence. He soon got around to legitimate environmental improvements and got tepid clapping, then needed two minutes to win the partisan audience back.
His looking at the morality of going forward was excellent. It's good to see a candidate with an excellent head and a pretty good heart.
Yawn, burp, fart....
You said it homeward-angel.
Let me know when Obama starts
raining missles on Russia; praise
the lord for change!!!
Most sincerely, Dwayne Chandler.
RichM has basically said it all.
Fundamentally there is absolutely no difference in the policies of the two parties, except in their approaches--especially when it comes to war.
At least with republicans, you know what you're getting. They'll level their violence at other countries while the democrats will commit violence against Americans, i.e. Waco, taxes, etc...
Both suck, but given the viciousness directed by democrats at Nader and other third-party supporters, its clear voting democratic isn't an option, at least for me. The "liberal" writings (and filmmakers) of such leading franchises as The Nation and Michael Moore are very disturbing. Again, at least to me.
I'm sorry, but I've just can't vote for either of these warmongering parties.
Nice speech by Obama. GREAT venue. However, its the meat below the skin that bothers me. I've tasted it before.
Same consistency, different spices.
The real keynote speaker, our leader Dennis Kucinich, called on us to join this battle. It's not the ground we would have chosen, but it's the battle that needs to be fought. A victory won't be decisive, but a defeat would be! Dennis has led in the struggle to prepare that ground, with his presidential runs, the impeachment fights, the fights over war funding, and by clearly and passionately articulating a program for the working people. But that phase is over, and now we must fight the battle in front of us, with the commander that history has thrown up for us, Barack Obama.
Last night I hosted 15 Moveon.org supporters to listen to Obama together. They and I were moved by Obama's vision and rhetoric, fuzzy though it was. I also re-played Kucinich's 6-minute speech, which had them cheering! The loudest laugh of the evening was when I told them of the one phrase Dennis had been told to remove from his speech: "... they're asking for four more years. We should give them 10 to 20!"
Leaders are often far from what we would wish, but revolutions are made by the people, and often leaders set events in motion that couldn't have been predicted from their resumes. Granted, Obama's deeds don't match his words, and he's made his bargains with some pretty unsavory characters from the credit card industry, from Wall Street, from Big Coal and AIPAC. Washington was a slaveowner, but the people who rallied behind him and re-defined our world were marching to the words of Tom Paine! Lincoln was a railroad lawyer who picked a slave-owner to be his vice president, but the people who waged and won the struggle he led were fighting to end slavery!
Roosevelt was a capitalist from the family that brought us the Big Stick policy, but the people who rallied to his call transformed the place of labor in America and brought down world fascism! Patton was practically a NaZi himself, but thousands of progressives followed him into battle to smash the Siegfried Line! Lyndon Johnson, a rather unsavory Cold Warrior, a representative of Big Oil and the old Jim Crow South, was swept into office by an alliance of labor, African-Americans and those who feared (with good reason) that Goldwater meant to start a nuclear war, and it was Johnson that signed the Voting Rights Act!
Now Obama, in stirring rhetoric, is calling on the people to rally in a clearly-defined direction, for economic recovery, peace, justice and fair play. If we do, and if we can sweep the Repugnicans out, we emerge feeling our strength, with grass roots organization, with hope and expectations - and a new struggle on our hands to hold him to his words and enact that agenda. If we should fail, those who have chosen the direction of war, plunder, repression and denigration would have prevailed, and the Masters of the Empire would have a free hand. The struggle would go on, but in a mood of fear and despair and under much more unfavorable conditions. Make no mistake, lives are on the line now, and not just figuratively! I love Ralph Nader, but a McCain victory will not pave the way for a win by a third party next time, if there even is a next time!
Each of us gets to choose now whether we will be an arm-chair cynic, an idealist demanding that things be as we wish them to be, or a warrior for the people, fighting the battle that history has thrown up before us. This isn't the battlefield we might have chosen, but Kucinich, who has earned his leadership and our trust over and over again, has challenged us to take it on, to throw ourselves and our hearts into it and win!
Chris Horton
Oh come on. At least 80% of the speech was meaningless drivel. Obama said dang little in that speech. I was paying close attention, and I think we went about 25 minutes into the speech before he said anything of substance. Before he said anything about what he'd do as President. And even then he was incredibly fuzzily vague.
When he did get to the short 'substance section' in the middle of the speech, he did promise to end tax breaks for sending jobs overseas. But in the very next sentence he was immediately promising corporate tax breaks and ending the capital gains tax for corporations. This was one of several sections in the speech where he sounded more like a Republican nominee than a Democratic nominee.
"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.
I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class."
(why 95%? Something's up his sleeve there)
He promised to end our dependence on middle eastern oil. To me it was a very strangely worded promise.
"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East".
The way he said that, my first thought was to wonder if he meant he'd invade Venezuela to grab their oil. Typically, this is worded by most speakers as 'ending our dependence on foreign oil.' Why would Obama change that to 'middle eastern oil'?
Then of course, he jumped straight from that into promising big government subsidies to the coal industry, the nuclear industry and the big three American auto companies.
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced."
Most of that sounds like a Republican. Money to the coal, nuclear and auto industries. The only part I like is the $150 billion to alternative fuels. And even that is fluff because he's inflated that number by adding up all that he wants to propose for the next 10 years. It comes to $15 billion a year, which doesn't sound nearly as impressive next to the TRILLION or more a year he's going to continue to spend on 'defense'.
Then later he went into pure channeling Reagan mode. Calling for 'accountability' of teachers, attacking the federal budget, attacking the federal beauracracy, blaming all of the rest of us for the countries problems and saying its our fault and our responsibility.
There is nothing in this speech that is 'clearly defined'. Only someone who wasn't listening could even think that. Most of it was meaningless applause lines.
It was also one of the most war-mongering speeches I've heard in a long time. Obama is promising lots of war, death and destruction in his time in office.
Heck, Ronald Reagan could have delivered most of this speech.
Me, I don't think we can take four more years of this. And, I certainly know that if we don't step out of the Democratic Party and start building an alternative, we'll be stuck with the same Republican-like, war-mongering, give-money-to-corporations choices from the Democrats four years from now. Just like we are stuck with this crap now because four years ago everyone back Kerry's right-of-center-right campaign.
Its time for real change. Its time for something different. That means its no longer the time for the Democrats. They've had their chance.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I'm choosing that arm-chair cynic thing.
Now all I need is an arm-chair.
Just look by the side of the road. Somewhere near you is the belongings of a foreclosed family who's been forced out of their family home by the bankers.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
BTW, did anyone notice that Obama said absolutely nothing that proposed any relief or solution to the problem of many American families being forced out of their homes.
Obama touched on it when he was listing the problems of America, but offered not a word of solution.
By contrast, here's FDR addressing the 1932 convention.
"Rediscounting of farm mortgages under salutary restrictions must be expanded and should, in the future, be conditioned on the reduction of interest rates. Amortization payments, maturities should likewise in this crisis be extended before rediscount is permitted where the mortgagor is sorely pressed. That, my friends, is another example of practical, immediate relief: Action.
I aim to do the same thing, and it can be done, for the small home-owner in our cities and villages. We can lighten his burden and develop his purchasing power. Take away, my friends, that spectre of too high an interest rate. Take away that spectre of the due date just a short time away. Save homes; save homes for thousands of self-respecting families, and drive out that spectre of insecurity from our midst."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/1932/jul/02/transcript-franklin-d-roosevelts-acceptance-speech/
If you read that speech, you'll see a long list of specifics designed to help the nation out of its crisis. Exactly the opposite of Obama's vague speech which sounds good and proposes little.
Of course, an arm-chair cynic like myself would point out that Obama's campaign has been financed from day one by precisely the same crooks on Wall St who've gotten rich off this housing bubble. So, I'm not at all surprised that he's offering no FDR-like solutions that would upset Wall St and the bankers who bought Obama long ago.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Thanks. The Roosevelt speech was a revelation. Imagine a politician dealing in substance. I am sending this excerpt to my friends.
Joe
Obama said that "helping peopoe out of the moprtgage xcrisis " would ve a "moral hazard" (but apparently not Bear Styearns). He said that getting rid of HMOs would "cost toomany jobs"--cant these peole find jobs that dont involve the death of others, unlike war and the health insurancer industry? As for Obama's "public sacrifice"--exactly how much is it to go to Harvard these days? Cause Michelle was working for Univ of Chicago Hos. making $950,000 a year when Obma ran for th3 Senate. I wonder if that why , at the time, he "aset' the "wealth" level at $1 milion. I dont auppos it infl his HMO ideas at all.. no. NOW the "welth " level is $250,000. The avg Am. makes $42,000 a year. I dont make that much. I shlud vote for Obama , why???
Brillaint imagery..and , living as I do in Stockton, foreclosure capital of California, I have seen a number of such pitiful scenes.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Obama is no Roosevelt, no matter how many times the propagandists in his campaign try to tie the names together.
And are you really citing Gen. Patton as an example of progressive leadership that the Democrats can give America. I knew the Democrats had turned into a blood-thirsty, warmonger bunch, but gawd, I didn't know they'd gone that far as to start citing Patton as an example of a great leader.
Of course, after a week of watching the Dems in their limos and big SUVs run around my cities going to expensive corporate-sponsered parties that no one else is even allowed to see. After watching the local Democratic administration send the riot police out into the streets to violently crush any voice of dissent, and to close 'the festival of democracy' in the local park, maybe the Patton reference makes a certain bit of sense. After seeing all of this in person this week, the name for this party that's come into my mind is 'Demo-nazi'.
Actually, if I stop and think about it, Gen. Patton might feel quite at home in today's Demo-nazi party.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
My point about Patton is that in war as in politics (or business) there comes a point where the battle lines are drawn, the battle has begun, the leaders are who they are, people have to either choose a side and a leader and engage or abstain, and that major gains can be sometimes made even with a weak leader, or even with a bad one.
Who was it that said "To know, and not to do, is not to know"?
Chris Horton
Chris Horton
Granted, Obama's deeds don't match his words
You said it all right there.
Lobo Gris
Rich,
You're looking at the Democratic Party wrong; it's not really a party. It has no real ideology, it has no control over who is a member, no right to expel people, no control over who votes in the primaries for its candidates. It is more properly seen as a structure within which political struggle takes place. Most members of the ruling class, according to G. William Dumhoff, now belong to the Republican party, which solidly represents their interests, and the Democratic Party has become the stage on which the much wider array of non-Republicans must struggle for the right to challenge a GOPer.
Dennis represents the possibility of representatives loyal to the working people winning dominance in the "non-Republican" Party, and from there winning power nationally. We're a long way from that, but we're a long way from a Nader win too.
For now it's either going to be McCain or Obama, and I agree with Nader that McCain would be a serious disaster, Obama an opening for struggle.
Chris Horton
I meant to say I agree with *Kucinich*! But actually I hear in Nader's speeches that he agrees with this also!
Nader would not agree with the statement that 'Obama would at least be an opening.' That 'opening' is not acceptable to Nader because he understands the limitations of voting for the lesser of two evils. Otherwise he would be supporting Obama and not running for president.
There are many people who believe that voting for Obama is a 'strategic' vote. Nothing has changed in the democratic party leadership since the same people voted 'strategically' for Gore and Kerry in the past. Three elections, three corporate sellout, millionaire candidates served up by the democratic party leadership.
And now they are offering up corporate sellout, millionaire, Obama. And people will follow, just like Charlie Brown always tried to kick the football, again and again, even though it was yanked away at the last second each time. Charlie Brown always had hope that the ball wouldn't be yanked away.
so it goes
I have this dream (Elizabeth - you in?) that Kucinich is going to be ready to hang up his congressional seat after this term and might just go for broke and run as a Green. He would be such a huge threat, because I am sure that the Kucinich supporters would stick by him to the end instead of voting for the chosen Dem.
An extraordinary speech by an extraordinary man!