Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What World Needs From US
Economic meltdown, climate change top list of things that are in need of global dialogue
MEMORANDUM:
TO: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
FROM: THE WORLD
Tourists look at a sand sculpture of U.S. presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama Nov. 2, 2008 at Puri beach, off the Bay of Bengal, near Bhubaneswar in eastern India. (BISWARANJAN ROUT/AP) We
know you are not quite there yet. Whatever. The rest of the planet now
has concluded you will be. Your honeymoon suite awaits with a euphoria
that spans the globe.
A word of warning, however, before you snuggle in for that first group hug. There are bedbugs. And they bite.
A year of rising expectations is about to fall on your shoulders, with a thundering weight many now predict will buckle you.
Here in London, Simon Jenkins of the Guardian nailed the point, announcing the end of the bull market in Barack.
"Sell Obamas now," Jenkins advised his readers. "They are overpriced and the forward market has gone crazy. If he becomes president, the bubble will burst, I guess in the spring of next year."
Your era will begin with some immediate international advantages, it is true. Not least, the sheer glee that your name is not George.
"The first thing the world needs from America is the absence of George W. Bush," is how François Heisbourg, director of the Paris-based Foundation for Strategic Studies, framed things in an interview with the Star. "That guarantees a tremendous advantage. And for Obama - I assume it will be him - it will be all the greater."
How bloated are the expectations? On the waterfront in Barcelona today, artist Jorge Rodriguez-Gerada and an army of volunteers are shaping a mountain of sand, earth and gravel into a giant portrait of you. This is not a joke.
"The piece is ephemeral, it is not designed to last," Rodriguez-Gerada told the Daily Telegraph, explaining the artwork, titled "Expectation," is intended not as praise for you but rather, as a commentary on how desperately the world lusts for the idea of you.
"Who knows if the euphoria surrounding Obama will fade away like sand or lead to something more permanent?"
Many anticipate your first step will be to reboot America's conversation with the world. A kind of "great cleansing," in the words of Charlie Beckett, director of POLIS, the journalism think-tank at London School of Economics.
"Right now there is an enormous residual 'turning off' when Americans speak. The feeling is that during the Bush era, 'They caused mayhem, they ignored the world, they didn't listen to us - so why should we listen to them.'
"Now the conversation will renew. Which is tremendously important for the world. Especially for those of us who believe in America's place in the world as a force for democracy and freedom."
That, of course, is the easy part, given your deft oratorical skills. But the going is almost certainly going to get messy soon thereafter, when talk collides with realpolitik. As Heisbourg notes, "America's national interest is not going to change just because the president changes."
We got a sense of this in Berlin earlier this summer. Up there on stage, all you could see was a throng of 200,000 people chanting your name. But where we were, down in the crowd, we felt a distinct chill when you spoke of a stepped-up effort in war-weary Afghanistan - a conflict that Germans have just about had their fill of. And the rest of Europe is not far behind.
But Afghanistan may in fact prove the least of your worries, given the cluster of global crises on your morning-after to-do list. Global economic meltdown, far and away, trumps them all. Yet the interconnected issues of climate change and energy burn close behind.
Add to that the whole series of other urgent global challenges, from bioethics to migration to nuclear proliferation, and the task ahead wildly exceeds the bounds of a single brain, even one as well-appointed as yours.
Where to begin? Many of your unofficial global advisers suggest the only way forward is a Herculean act of multitasking. You need to dispatch individual teams on every one of these problems, each with marching orders to map how the United States can lead in crafting - and crucially,obeying - a new global rulebook.
Take solace in two important facts as you go forward. First, know that for now, at least, your name is the gold standard of global goodwill. People want you to succeed. And, most importantly, know that however ridiculous the expectations may be, nobody truly expects you to have the all the answers.
"One of the ways to manage unrealistic expectations is to recognize that the United States doesn't have to do everything. It doesn't have to solve all the problems. It just needs to be a constructive global player," said Ian Goldin, director of the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University.
Goldin, a former World Bank vice president, said the next leader's greatest challenge would be to rise above national self-interest. To see the global forest despite the domestic trees, and to understand that what is good for the world will, ultimately, be very good for the U.S.
"It comes down to a question of accepting there will be global rules and to abide by them. The problem with a superpower is that when the world shows you the red card, do you accept the red card or do you play the global bully?" said Goldin.
"That's why there is so much optimism today. There is a view that the United States now will not only participate very actively in establishing the rules of the game. But also they will be responsible players."- Posted in
162 Comments so far
Show AllWhat the world needs is for Obama to renounce his imperialism-militarism, exceptionalism, and corporatism. The world needs a pledge that Obama will stop the U.S. terrorism - and support for terrorists globally - so we can all be safe & peaceful. What the world needs now is for Obama to behave like Nader or McKinney & renounce his voting record as a U.S. Senator.
Corporate capital won't let him do this. He simply can't do it. Not if he values his life, anyway.
I can't wait to see the op-eds from the "progressive" nutroots discussing how Obama "turned" on them when they all gave him their support! Obama never claimed to be anything but a neoliberal deficit hawk. Magical thinking simply won't change the spots on this leopard.
We are in for more war, folks. More killing of innocent babies, innocent civilians. More destruction of countries that want nothing but peace for their citizens.
It wouldn't surprise me if Obama is forced to preemptively bomb in South America somewhere - probably Venezuela, since the Merkin press has already demonized Chavez. Evo Morales has to be scaring the crap out of Washington. Those fat cat capitalists can't be liking what they are seeing down in Bolivia.
I agree with you! According to Vice-President Biden we will know precisely who the plan to kill within the first six months. It's all so sad.
What are you talking about??
Actually, Chavez was asked if he thought relation with the uS would be better if Obama won, and he said that he was "willing to talk to any new president" and "congratulates Af. Ams. if Obama wins who might , at least, bring some joy to oppressed people". (I get the Venezuala Daily Report)
Obama replied that "Chavez was not democratically elected".
I do not know how this wil play out.
How could Obama just lie through his teeth like that? How is that taking any higher ground than what Bush and Cheney did? Chavez was elected **three** times democratically and in elections that were scrutinized in far more detail than any American election ever will be.
So it's pretty obvious that Obama is not interested in taking the high road in foreign policy, but simply wants to mimic the right wing talking points of his puppetmasters to get elected.
Disgusting.
So Chavez is the next target for U.S. imperialism's lust for oil? How sad. It appears that to even be considered for president of the U.S., a person has to be pro-war. If Obama declares unnecessary war on any country, I will never vote for either a Democrat (or Republican) again. Which reminds me, why declare war on a country for what a few guerillas acting on their on do? I still don't believe 19 guys did 9/11; I think the Bush cabal, CIA, and Mossad were behind it. It happened fairly early on in Bush's regime --- to give him ample time to kill people, steal oil and just make as much war profiteering money as possible.
So much optimism and so little reason really to have it. Honestly.
Sure, it looks great to think that the likes of Cheney and Palin are not going to be there in the White House and on TV alongside all the other creeps we have had to put up with for the last 8 years now, but have we really forgotten that Clintonism was pretty damn bad, too? It's just a see-saw game they play with us, and not a democracy actually at work.
I cannot believe people actually think there's a difference between Barack O'Cain and John McBama. They are both in the pockets of the corporate lobbyists. They both have advisors who are sons of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the global chessmaster.
There must be 100,000 articles documenting the similarities between the two figureheads "running" for office, yet people desperately cling to their delusions that it matters which one occupies the oval office.
I would honestly vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for one of these two figureheads. In fact, I may just write in Mickey's name.
They ought to raise the voting age in this country to "mature."
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
It's more mature to vote for Cynthia McKinney than Mickey Mouse, Dave.
Ouch! You got me on that one. But the article was about Obama the savior, presumably compared to McCain. McKinney, while I admire her, was not mentioned in the article.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
What the world needs is to fetter the money-power and reject conservative government.
Robert Kennedy Jr. for EPA Chief.
RFK Jr. is on the short list for Interior. He'd be better there, frankly. He'll have the capacity to oversee and hopefully overturn many of the bad Bush regs of logging, mining, and other resources, and protection of our national parks, etc.
Barack O'Cain and John McBama
He he I haven't seen that before.
Right. The line-up of who Obama is considering for his cabinet is depressing as hell: The Gropenator for Energy, keeping Gates in Defense, Austan Goolsbee of the Chicago School hardcore neoliberal as an economic adviser, ad nauseam. That's how Obama can kick sand at all the progressives: tell them he's being "bipartisan."
How anybody got fooled by this charlatan during the past 2 years of his campaign is beyond me.
Never heard of Austen Goolsbee---gee these psyhos have wierd names..
Chicago School--oh no.....
HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THIS???
Yep, that's Goolsbee. The Chicago School of Economics is like the heartbeat of classical economics and neoliberalism. In other words, regulation bad, free markets good. I remember reading way back when Obama started campaigning that his economic adviser was Goolsbee, and I knew immediately that this guy isn't planning on being any FDR.
Try Reagan instead.
I'll be shocked if Social Security ISN'T privatized within the next 4 years. And you can forget about single payer.
Sioux Rose
In the popular musical hair, one memorable lyric was: "When Jupiter Aligns with Mars... " and then into "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius."
Mars, usually associated with War, has a positive attribute in that of stimulating life to climb out of its hollows at the summoning of spring. It therefore can warrant new beginnings. With an orbit of 2 years it passes through Aquarius at regular intervals. The sun energizes Aquarius, the realm of creative solutions through synergy, each year from January 20-February 19. In 2009, Mars (ruler of the first fire kingdom, Aries), joins the sun (ruler of the second fire kingdom, Leo) with a third and VERY significant player, Jupiter. This planet associated with the miracle-making power of faith, the gift of the archer in his capacity to aim the arrow at the target (goal) and win a bulls-eye, has a 12 year orbit and also will enter Aquarius. Thus the zodiac's 3 "fire kings" will unite in the sign most conducive to friendship among the unlikely, to unique coalitions that together ignite a spiritual potential taught by Christ and more recently by persons like Marianne Williamson.
To atheists and those who lack spiritual imagination, the concept that a force exists outside ourselves that can and act in support of those with sincere humanitarian initiatives is mere fiction. (Nor need gravity believe in you to augur its affects.) Unfortunately, there apparently is a dark force that has allowed the likes of Cheney-Bush to render a path of destruction far greater than any allotted to previous war "leaders." My point is that a fertile pocket of cosmic energy exists that like a jet stream may be entered into by those of like-minded intention. It reminds me of Luke Skywalker and his motley crew using their joint abilities to take down Darth and the death star.
I do NOT see immediate solutions, but rather suggest a phase that's fertile for true synergy among free thinkers, artists, poets, writers, visionaries, inventors, innovators and radicals arrives with this 3-planet congress convening in Aquarius. "As above, so below." By the way, TRUTH is sacrosanct to this sign... maybe some persons who felt muzzled by the Bush junta and its no holes barred approach (offshore prison camps, disappearances and so forth) come forward due to this celestial impetus. (Needless to say few will understand what prompted them, that is, on a cosmic scale!)
Sioux Rose
The peak on the aforementioned cycle is late January through early March 2009.
RICH M: Occasionally the spirit transcends the man or woman. People have prayed for and seen miracles result. I do believe that Christ was able to raise Lazarus from the dead, and the feats reported by adepts in India defy Western logic 100%. There are more things in heaven and earth... I am NOT an Obama fan, but the energy being projected towards him, almost talismanic, may be such that due to the enormity of NEED for change, forces way beyond Obama allow him to become their conduit.
Many years ago while at a Latin party in college a young woman began almost flying around the room. It was absolutely bizarre, nor did I know enough Spanish to understand the gossip flying trying to make sense of the event. Turns out she was studying to become a trance medium, and the incessant drumming that accompanied some music being blasted on the party stereo allowed a spirit to take over her body. The Catholic Church has rights specifically designed for exorcism, and most indigenous cultures recognize subtle forces that we ensconced in Western materialism take for "nonsense" when it's our sensory outlets that have become jaded and defunct.
I am merely stating that this guy could be a lightning rod, although FEW if any of his positions directly warrant the hope he sells so well.
Luke_walk_on_the_sky
Namaste
A clear sign that Obama can show he is serious about climate change is reversing Dubya, Cheney, & Co.'s withdrawing the USA from the Kyoto Protocol. Another is re-regulating the financial industry and making sure the proper agencies have budgets and powers. It would be a start.
Re-regulating the financial industry won't work. It's already been done and look what happened. We have had "regulations" on the financial industry since FDR. The problem is one that is inherent in capitalist structure: the corporations have the means (financial, judicial, legislative) to overturn regulations or weaken them. They use their money, their clout, and their armies of high-paid lawyers and lobbyists to insure that regulations result in but a blip on their balance sheets.
No, I'm afraid "re-regulation" at this point is just a joke. It's time to recognize that Marx was, in fact, right: Capitalism has eaten itself alive with the economic meltdown, just as he predicted.
It's the entire system that requires change, not just the "financial industry." Until our government acknowledges that neoliberalism is nothing but a huge Ponzi scheme, nothing will improve.
Then I take it you would more than likely support the proposition of a 28th Amendment which would state that only natural persons are entitled to 14th Amendment protections, because the means that you wrote of that corporations use are a by-product of the "corporate veil." Seeing as how passing a new constitutional amendment is even harder than passing meaningful legislation, revoking the Phil Gramm give-away and reinstating the original intent of financial regulatory agencies is a good and possible first step. Rome was not built in a day.
DOTM = Dead on the money!
We grant charters to corporations to operate inside our states throughout the country. We demand that they act in the best interests of their shareholders rather than the national interest. This structure places corporations in opposition to citizens. The insanity is that we do this intentionally with the unsupported hope that we can "keep them under control" with regulations. We cannot.
It is NOT possible to regulate corporations because those that are successful swallow up most of their competition and, as they grow larger and larger ("too big to fail"), they exert a wildly disproportionate and inappropriate leverage on the political process.
The revolving door between industry and government further weakens the power of citizens even further.
Corporate advertising drowns the voices of we, the people. They have the resources to create demand; we don't have the resources to explain to the American people why certain products are harmful (e.g. cars causing global warming).
Corporations spend billions to defeat "unfriendly" legislation proposed by citizens' groups. Corporations should not be allowed to participate in the political process in any way whatsoever.
Regardless of what system we choose to replace the current unsustainable madness, we must ensure that we don't release the mice with the hope that we can eventually catch them. Corporations should only be permitted to exist when they serve our common objectives rather than compete with the interests of citizens and the interests of the country. Those corporations that fail to meet these tests should be disbanded.
Corporations should not be allowed to exist at all. As you point out, their very existence is in opposition to the interests of we, the people. And the concept of limited liability means that we have no way to control them, except for regulations, which are undermined by big money. No corporate charters, from now on.
If someone wants to go into business, let them. And let them be liable for the damage they do. That should keep them in line, and still allow them to make money, if they operate responsibly and provide a good product.
We're so far beyond any capitalism that Marx predicted. This casino capitalism, which gambles profits instead of reinvesting them, or sharing them with workers, is a perversion of any rationality.
I am so over capitalism.
I'm OK with your position on corporations but let's poke at a few of the details. I hope others join the discussion.
First, let's reiterate that corporations, as currently chartered, are an affront to democracy. We install these cancers into our society with the naive hope that we will be able to regulate them. The evidence shows all too clearly that we cannot.
Corporations grow larger and larger until they become oligopolies and then, with huge resources behind them and with the view that they are too big to fail, they begin to dominate our legislative process, our electoral process and our entire culture.
The question then becomes, what system is better?
Many have cited the problems with the "limited liability" aspect of corporations. Essentially, we as a society have permitted enterprises whose only goal is profits to act with limited liability when the society is harmed. Should we therefore eliminate this system?
Let's start with a blank slate. A group of people, let's call them the workers, is formed to run a business. If the business requires capital to get started, let's say a manufacturing plant and its equipment, is it reasonable to limit the source of capital to those employed by the company or should we support some other method of raising the necessary capital?
If we allow stock to be sold, as we currently do, is it reasonable to hold the shareholders personally liable for the criminal activities of the employees? Is it reasonable to hold the shareholders liable for civil damages the employees might cause to others? One could certainly argue there is a huge disconnect between what businesses do and the shareholders' knowledge of what they do. Most investors have little knowledge of day-to-day decisions that might cause public harm. Is it reasonable to hold them liable? Would it be different if they provided loans (or purchased bonds) rather than "owning" shares in the company?
If the argument is that corporations should be outlawed, what legal methods should be available to businesses to allow them to raise funds?
If domestic anti-trust laws are aggressively enforced, i.e. no company is allowed to get too large, what domestic policies should be implemented if foreign competitors are not similarly constrained?
What near-term steps should be taken to end the corporate stranglehold on our government?
Is all corporate advertising the same as political advertising? Should public interest groups be provided with equal time at no cost?
What I would really like to hear is a more detailed blueprint of the exact steps required to transition our society away from greed capitalism and into a more citizen-oriented, democratic, sustainable society. We see all these posts that do an excellent job citing the horrors and inequities of the current system. When it comes to societal transition, however, we mostly get "build a movement" or "vote for the Greens" or whatever. That's fine as far as it goes.
If we were petitioning the government to specifically take certain actions, what exactly would those actions be? Write the laws; clarify the policies; put some meat on the bones.
This is the bright spot, as I see it.
People in countries like EU, UK,Canada, will not have to LIVE under the continuation of the policies of greed, so they are fully supportive.
I hope that that alone wil improve our reputation in the world.
Hey! Lookin' for a positive, folks!
What should be the US role in the world? What should Americans ask of their government? Should we ask our government to exploit weaker nations so that we might benefit? Should we spend our national blood and treasure deploying more than 760 military bases all over the world and engage in a "war on terrorism"? Should we put sanctions on countries we disagree with even if that policy results in severe hardships to the residents of those countries? Should our 3% of the world's population continue to use 30% of the world's energy just because we can afford it (can we?)? Should we continue our carbon-based lifestyles that are threatening all life on the planet because of global warming? Should we continue to use our CIA and our DEA and other agencies to topple democratically-elected foreign governments? Should we continue to use our military to subsidize multi-national oil companies by guarding private, commercial oil pipelines outside the US? Should we continue to allow companies like Monsanto to export their "Roundup Ready" death seeds that will destroy global agriculture? Should we continue enabling the International Monetary Fund to blackmail foreign governments into submission? Should we continue to endorse global trade treaties like the WTO and NAFTA that deprive citizens of their rights while granting a free hand to multi-national corporations?
If, like the article's author, you are hoping Obama will bring changes to the many abuses mentioned above, all I can say is he has not campaigned on these issues. If by some hocus pocus, even though we've watched him run as a pro-corporatism, pro-militarism, pro-centrism, pro-globalism candidate, Obama suddenly tears off his mask and emerges as a hero of global good citizenship and non-corporate citizen empowerment, the whole world would rejoice. The need for such magic could not be more urgent; the evidence for it, tragically, could not be more scant.
Just as an aside, look what the US has been up to now. Will Obama denounce this activity and put an end to it? I haven't even heard him mention the topic.
The following excerpt comes from this BBC news story:
"From today all the activities of the US DEA are suspended indefinitely," the Bolivian leader (Morales) said in the coca-growing region of Chimore, in the central province of Chapare.
"Personnel from the DEA supported activities of the unsuccessful coup d'etat in Bolivia," he added, referring to the unrest in September which left 19 people dead.
"We have the obligation to defend the dignity and sovereignty of the Bolivian people."
US officials have denied any wrongdoing.
Cynthia McKinney has campaigned on most of the above.
.
I’ll say it again…
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2000.
We needed Ralph Nader as President in 2004.
We NEED Ralph Nader as President in 2008.
Never before as we do now
http://www.votenader.org/index.html
.
Can you discuss, or are you limited to chanting?
Can you make any substantive comments, or do you spend all your time running around this forum chastising everybody else?
no honeymoon... no more lies (err... position adjustments)
I'd much rather believe that monkeys will be flying out of my butt than Obama even bothering to read the letter let alone follow it.
this PIECE implies that georgey bush acted in the usa's best interests all along, that he just wasnt a 'global playa".. like its jus an issue of bad manners with others and bush is a tru-american.. wtf? excuse me, but he acted with lies and hate against america's people for SPECIAL INTERESTS (oil cartels, military/industrial$$$, and his ego being the main players), and in my opinion, VERY LITTLE did the fkr act for usa's interests, nor did he ever seem to act as if he loved the american people or supported their best interests. how DARE this author assume bush was just blind to the world while suporting america's interests, this is the GREAT LIE that has been put forth to justify all he has done. clearly bush acted for specific evils, verly little of which was ever intended to support the interest of america or americans in general. have u ever heard of corporate profit muthafkr? to this author: suk meh botch.
Re-regulating the financial industry WILL WORK, blair, as long as the financial industry pirates that caused the meltdown are not involved in drafting regulations. FDR's financial industry regulation worked very well.
History shows us that from 1776 until 1929 the US frequently experienced financial crisis. FDR's 1933 regulations resulted in NO US FINANCIAL CRISIS occurring from 1933 to 1987. Note: Yes, several minor recessions occurred during that period. The series of financial crisis the US experieced since 1987 were the result of a thirty year series of deregulation of the financial industry starting with making it legal to securitize mortgages in 1978.
If the next president assigns re-regulation responsibilities to somebody like Nomi Klein we will see meaningful regulation. The alternative is an accelerating downward spiralling of the US economy to third world status.
Who the hell is going to appoint Naomi Klein?? I wish...
Why not stop pre-judging Obama. Why not see what he does rather than what you say he is going to do?
Are expectations too high, of course. But anyone should be given a chance to work before being fired.
Haven't you looked at his voting record and the way he flipped on just about everything? He drove me mad and crazy by selling out and that's why I still feel angry and betrayed enough to vote for Ralph. Besides, Obama's gonna win with most of the brainwashed electorate ready to choose between two clones Obama and Mccain. I don't trust that Obama will turn around and listen to us true progressives and liberals. Sorry.
I understand what you are saying....and there are certainly others that feel the same. But I'd suggest that some things he's done are quite understandable and others are because things changed. Things are not static, so a good leader has to fit his policy to the circumstances. Without abandoning his core principals of course.
I decided to vote for him instead of McCain because we would be far better off with the unknown at this point than the known. I'm just saying, lets give the little feller a chance. Lets see who he picks for his cabinet and appointees.
We already know who the possibilities on the short list are for his cabinet. And the news isn't all that great - especially the potential Supreme and Circuit appointees. He wants to keep Gates in Defense. How's that for "being different from McCain?" Oh, I guess it's possible McCain would dump Gates, so they actually are different! Obama is considering putting the Gropenator in at Energy. It's hard to take that one seriously. Arnold isn't really much of a "green" governor - he just plays one in Sacramento. Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff? Goolsbee for economic adviser?
Those are pretty hard center-right picks. There isn't much "progressive" there.
blair
Thanks for your thoughts.
"Those are pretty hard center-right picks. There isn't much "progressive" there."
But he hasn't made those picks yet. Things change and common report is common error many times. I am simply saying give him a chance and see what he will do.
Some should be center-right. Its a center right country. God forbid he ended up with a bunch of yes men that thought exactly the same as he did on every subject like Bush had. Remember, the president is supposed to represent the whole country.
Perhaps you could rethink and give him say 3 months to see who he picks and where he's going?
.Thomas,
Some might note that you remain in the immediacy of the moment while others, active in politics for a long time, take a longer view of things. Many of us have seen this all before, JFK, Clinton, candidates who talked the talk and failed to walk the walk.
Obama's short resume is already replete with votes anathema to progressives, as is his switching stances on issues once he gained the nomination, as is his penchant for voting "present". Some of us feel that trading in a "good old boy" for a demagogic orator who is plainly wedded to the same interests that have reduced our economy to shambles and seek to continue wars for profit is not progress.
I have waited forty years for an end to corporate piracy and a restoration of this nation to the principles of its founders, so forgive me if I prejudge Barack Obama on the evidence and call for a change in the system as well as a better person for the job.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
I am in the immediacy of the moment. Though I assure you I take a much longer view. This moment will dictate where we go for two years and if we begin to dig out of our hole. We've been around about the same length of time and have seen pretty much the same things (albeit with different nuances sometimes).
I'm well aware you knew from the start that no third party candidate existent would win, but you were going to vote that way no matter for principle. (though I have the sneaking suspicion that if you thought McCain might win, you would possibly reconsider....maybe)
"Obama's short resume is already replete with votes anathema to progressives"
Let me suggest now that some of these votes/policies/decisions that the left finds anathema are going to have to be modified a bit. Some movement off strict ideology or down in flames again. Our best chance since LBJ is now. I would suggest to all concerned thats its hard to sway rational people with irrational arguments.
"Some of us feel that trading in a "good old boy" for a demagogic orator who is plainly wedded to the same interests that have reduced our economy to shambles and seek to continue wars for profit is not progress."
And you may be right. I simply don't know. All I suggest is wait and see. See what he actually does. But remember he is not elected to represent progressives, but all Americans. If the left approved everything her did he would be as bad as Bush. If the hard left, progressives and liberals are halfway happy with what he is doing he will be a great president.
"I have waited forty years for an end to corporate piracy and a restoration of this nation to the principles of its founders, so forgive me if I prejudge Barack Obama on the evidence and call for a change in the system as well as a better person for the job."
Me too my friend. And regardless of Obama the restoration of America has started at last.
.I will make a small confession, but only to you, please dont let anyone else read this...
When Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of these United States I will take a moment to celebrate my nation entering the twenty first century and making a great step forward. I will then resume my fight to make this nation a place one can truly be proud of.....shhhhh
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.
Nader said."Obama doesn't represent real change, This guy is the biggest con artist in our generation by far."
.
Nader says? Is that like Simon says?
.Simon says grow up....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The problem is...Nader doesn't really know, nor do I, nor does anyone else here. We'll just have to wait and see. Obama won't be inaugarated till January.