Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEarly Signs Are Obama Has to Guard His Left
SAN FRANCISCO - As he prepares to enter the ring of White House politics, President-elect Barack Obama might need to perfect that left jab just as much as his right hook.
![[Medea Benjamin says (jokingly) the anti-war group CodePink gave Obama "a 24-hour honeymoon." With just over two months until the new administration takes office and the transition in full force, Benjamin's words underscore the challenges facing a president whose historic campaign was bolstered by an unusual coalition that involved the activism, energy and money of unapologetic progressives like Benjamin as well as moderates and independents who are far more conservative.(Stephen Chernin / AP) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/medea1114.jpg "medea1114.jpg")
Not only can the Democratic president-to-be expect the predictable
shots from the conservative right, but eventually a pounding from the
left if he doesn't deliver "change you can believe in" on issues that
concern liberal voters - health care reform, an end to the war in Iraq,
environmental protections and taking care of the economy and the
housing crisis.
"We gave him a 24-hour honeymoon - and that was generous," joked Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, Thursday about the chances of Obama's election silencing protests for the foreseeable future. "We believe in celebrating and then moving on."
Her grassroots organization has wasted no time doing just that. On Thursday, CodePink members hit five consulates in San Francisco - those representing Bolivia, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and Iran - delivering flowers, apple pies and cards with a message as much for the president-elect as for the leaders of those nations: "Yes We Can ... Live in Peace."
"We told them we are embracing Obama's message, and part of that is to push him," said Benjamin. "He's getting a lot of backlash on issues like direct talks with preconditions. But that is what the American people voted for - and we will hold him to that."
With just over two months until the new administration takes office and the transition in full force, Benjamin's words underscore the challenges facing a president whose historic campaign was bolstered by an unusual coalition that involved the activism, energy and money of unapologetic progressives like Benjamin as well as moderates and independents who are far more conservative.
Mainstream tack
And many political observers say that means Obama must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash and its "Contract with America" - a GOP rebirth scenario Democrats don't want to see reprised.
Obama supporter Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, an icon to liberals because of her long-standing activism on issues such as AIDS/HIV and her opposition to the Iraq war, said that as Democrats celebrate the new president, they are also very aware of issues to be addressed.
"We know that the president-elect - and rightfully so - is going to work to unite the country, and we will have to see how he does that," said Lee. "I'm not saying it's going to be easy. If we really want change, you have got to do it differently, you have to accept the process of change and accept that his processes will be more inclusive."
But, she adds, "we're certainly not going to lose sight of our goals and our values. ... If you look at the progressive promise - 95 percent of what we advocated for, energy independence, infrastructure, health care reform - it's mainstream," she said.
'Symbolic victory'
At the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs' California Policy Issues Conference this week, Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan-African studies at Cal State University Los Angeles, said that although she and millions of other Democrats sang "It's a New Day" when Obama was elected, "we need to be very clear ... this is a symbolic victory."
African Americans, particularly, who supported Obama "need to think about ... the fact that we are overrepresented in the prison population, that infant mortality in our community looks a lot like developing nations," and that jobs and economic opportunities are still lacking, she said.
"The only way that change can be substantive is if we push him," she said of Obama. "Push him on the issues that are important to us, ... so institutional racism, institutional oppression can really be eroded in eight years," she told a crowd of young activists and students at the conference, which was held in Los Angeles.
SEIU's agenda
Andy Stern, who heads the Service Employees International Union - the nation's largest union, with 2 million members - says that labor fully expects to push ahead on critical interests, such as health care reform.
Especially since SEIU kept a singular focus on the health care issue by spending millions of dollars on advertising that aided the Democrats' cause - even as tens of thousands of its members provided critical ground troops for his election, he noted.
"Most presidential elections, we are electing a transactional president, someone who comes in and has a set of priorities and bargains with the Congress and tries to find solutions," Stern said. "Every once in a while, we have a transformational president, who actually changes the rules. And that is the moment where we're at.
"This is not about transactional discussions with health care. This is about transforming the economy, to change the way we provide health care, to change the opportunities for people to get an education," he said.
"We say we will have a 21st century economy that can compete globally," Stern said. "We need a fundamental reworking of our economic theory - and it can't just be a little stimulus ... or to provide health care for children only. It is a moment where we have to transform the way we think."
Already, there have been complaints from the left regarding Obama's choice of Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff. Some liberals have complained that Emanuel was too supportive of the Iraq war, too tied to Wall Street and too connected to entrenched interests to represent change - or the views of the left - in the White House, where he worked in the Clinton administration.
Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Urban Politics at the University of Southern California, said they may have reason to be concerned.
Perils of pull to left
"Rahm Emanuel ... understands the perils of a newly elected president who intends to govern from a centrist force and how that president can be pulled leftward," he told the Brown Institute conference Wednesday.
"Emanuel is one of the five smartest people in American politics. He has that experience, he's intelligent, he's tough as nails and he's one of the few people I know in Washington who would be willing to go down to Capitol Hill" and deliver the message to the left: "If you really want to help this president ... then give him some space to enact his agenda," Schnur said.
Emanuel's lore includes an incident in which he reportedly sent a dead fish wrapped in newspaper to an adversary, said Schnur.
If Obama is to succeed, he said, "my hope ... is that there is a steady stream of such deliveries from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to another to help President Obama accomplish his agenda."
159 Comments so far
Show AllThis article was dropped from listings? Why?
Joe
Code Pink should take a lot of training pages from the NRA and learn to stop being sucker punched. They knew what was coming when they ditch real anti-war candidates for subtle pro-war ones. I wouldn't be surprised if folks such as madcow the race baiter would still praise Obama even if he does most everything Nixon, Raygun, Klinton, and both Bushes have done.
If Obama did "everything Nixon Raygun and both Bush's have done."
Get over it Carla. A decent man was elected. Ever heard of Medvedev? Go read the NYT's today. You're history. Obama is a winner. A good man.
Ever heard of Russia? Go read the GD paper and get over it.
Detente for the world, if not for the ObamaHaters.
Back in your hole.
Hello President-Elect Obama, I want to congratulate you on your phenomenal victory in the presidential election. You overcame truly steep barriers to become our nation's first African American president-elect, making many millions of people very proud. This is truly a pivotal milestone for America, and I wish you the best in your new endeavor. I write to you as a progressive, one who has long since written off the Democratic Party as hopelessly compromised to the corporate oligarchy, but nonetheless recognizing that there are still a few stalwart individuals within the party who uphold progressive values and work for a genuinely populist agenda. There is much debate among progessives these days as to what your agenda is – whether genuinely progressive/populist or corporatist. I do not know, but hope that you are open to working for progressive causes, which include securing health-care as a right of all Americans, moving rapidly to develop alternative sources of energy (solar, wind, biomass, etc.), tackling global warming, and pulling US troops out of Iraq in 16 months. Moreover, I would hope you would at least open a debate as to whether the US should continue being an empire, with 700 military bases around the world, and spending more on "defense" than all other nations combined spend, or whether the citizenry of this great nation would prefer simply to be a nation among nations, without intervening militarily every other year, ostensibly to protect this or that group or nation. I read a very discouraging article by Glenn Greenwald the other day on commondreams.org which suggested that you have surrounded yourself with Washington insiders, largely drawn from the Clinton administration, those who are part of the so-called "Washington consensus." I hope Mr. Greenwald is wrong. I hope that "the change we can believe in," the change you promised to bring to DC, is more than just a warmed-over Clintonism. Clinton, while he had his merits, was in crucial ways more devoted to a corporatist agenda than to populism. We have him to blame for passage of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal, the catastrophic Telecommunications Act of 1996, the WTO, and many other horrors, including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died from the criminally insane US policy of economic sanctions against Iraq in the 90s. There are good things that Clinton did, of course, and in the light of eight years of the worst presidency this country has ever known (Bush Jr.), the Clinton years look relatively good. But the stakes have been raised since the 90s. The US and global economy are in crisis. Eight years of ignoring global warming have left the world in greater peril of a runaway greenhouse effect which could, arguably, extinguish the human race sooner than we realize. I would like to suggest the following individuals to you as people who might serve excellently in various cabinet positions, as PROGRESSIVES. This country desperately needs PROGRESSIVE leadership. Millions of PROGRESSIVES are looking to you, President-Elect Obama, to lead this country out of the nightmare it has become from neoliberal and neocon govenrance. These would be my recommendations for the cabinet positions named. You can find more genuinely progressive prospects at www.progressivegovernment.org Secretary of Defense: James Webb Secty of State: Bill Richardson Secty of Energy: Rep. Jay Inslee Secty of Homeland Security: Denis Kucinich Secty of Treasury: Elizabeth Warren EPA- Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
All the best,
Pre-f**king-conditions? We progressives have a mountain of preconditions for the chimp-in-waiting and his organ grinder. They think they have a mandate. Hilarious! You can't buy a mandate! Extremely poor judgement on their parts. No surprise there.
THEY, the capitalist, militarist, zionist elites are the ones flailing on their knees amid their catastrophic failures. They are "in their last throes, if you will". We the people, the socialists, the progressives, are standing tall. Our principles are vindicated daily. We chose the principles according to the interests of the people - so it's no surprise, ehh?
You called OBAMA A CHIMPANZEE?
You 'stand tall,' huh, your ego is loud; you stand proud because you voted against Obama?
Call Obama a Chimp again-Idare you.
I think this is in bad taste. A black man should never be called a chimp.
Otherwise I agree with this comment
Do you think that calling a black man a chimp might be considered racist and offensive? I do.
Typical race baiter. You need to look beyond Obama's skin color for what he really is. You fanatic support of Obama despite the fact that he's no progressive or liberal disgusts me just like the rightwing lunatics.
Bush is frequently called a "chimp" too. And he is white.
As you note, he is white. You simply can't call a black man a chimp. Full stop.
So politically correct. Actually you can say anything you want.
madcow -
All this PC stuff is tedious. People have been comparing W to chimpanzees for the past two terms. Get over it. Plus the analogy, ie, that of Barack being cheap entertainment/distraction for the masses, while his masters control his every move, is apt.
http://www.bushorchimp.com/
derek
I have to say I don't think this is a matter of PC, its just good manners and respect. Lets change the conversation of the last 10 years that the neocons brought us.
Rasist America has a history of considering blacks less than fully human. Just like a noose carries special connotations for blacks.
There are plenty of ways to insult the man without going there.
Madcow,
I believe Mr. Obama is half white and half African. So the insult may be only toward the white half in reference to the current Chimp in office, Mr. Bush.
Have a nice day idiots.
"Have a nice day idiots"
Seeing things as you are again?
Nice, Jim.
madcow:agreed.
Andrew Stern is a stooge for the Health Insurance Industry disguised as a labor leader.
Want proof ?
Ask Rosanne DeMorro what happened at the Labornotes Convention last winter.
Yep, don't expect universal free healthcare, or good union organizing, to come from Andy Stern.
Do you have a link or an article you can give me? I'd appreciate it.
Aquifer -
Good posts, thank you.
My concern is that only 2% or so voted for Nader and other 3rd party candidates, even as Congress ignored the will of 99% of the people regarding the $5 trillion+ banker heist. All that anger felt by the electorate went nowhere, a split vote between two corporate puppets.
We don't appear to have much political leverage, especially as the corporate media ignores all of our scratching and "petitioning."
Do some research on Obama's use of NLP & hypnosis: repeated phrases, plays on emotion, nighttime rallies. The educated and the young are the most susceptible. The guy is a demonic fraud. Just wait to see the fascist state he rolls out, worse than the hated Cheney and Rumsfeld could pull off. You see, we "love" Obama, he's the "One," the Great "World Leader," who, according to a blitzkreig of articles and cartoons is painstakingly repairing our Bill Of Rights and Constitution, or so the Corporate press tells us. Never since Adolf Hitler has a country's leader been so internationally
adulated. With all that corporate and media power behind him, I guess it must be safe for all of us sheep to go back to grazing. Not.
http://www.internet-grocer.net/hypnosis.pdf
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message649781/pg1
Suggestion: avoid all media announcements, paid advertisements, flyers, billboards, televised speeches, and talk shows for your information. Go to trusted sites like this one, and skim down to the dissenting views. Otherwise you'll be sucked in to the false reality (e.g., "left" vs "right" when both are corporatist) that is being created for us, and you'll lose your resolve to hold the system accountable for its genocide, murder, and theft of our freedoms.
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
Great idea!
>>Go to trusted sites like this one, and skim down to the dissenting views. Otherwise you'll be sucked in to the false reality<<
So abandon all news and information except for the bits that have been hand plucked for you. Then further limit yourself by looking for the dissent. With an attitude like that you might as well listen to Art Bell and start looking for UFOs over the White House while wearing a tinfoil hat.
Thank you.
"My concern is that only 2% or so voted for Nader and other 3rd party candidates, even as Congress ignored the will of 99% of the people regarding the $5 trillion+ banker heist. All that anger felt by the electorate went nowhere, a split vote between two corporate puppets. We don't appear to have much political leverage, especially as the corporate media ignores all of our scratching and 'petitioning.' "
Actually, I think we would have considerable, even transforming, political leverage, but too many of us refuse to use it. And until we do we will keep getting more of the same
Exactly Aquifer, this is a missed and misunderstood fact of power, who has it and who uses it.
I just want to know: Are you people getting it yet? You have been snookered once again by the conservative right wing nuts in the PNAC group.
Mr. Obama was playing a progressive for TV. And you bought it again. You bought the attack lie about Sadim Hussein on the WTC, so Bush could drag us into a disasterous war. You bought the housing bubble, the credit sham, and the subsequent bailout of the rich criminals on Wall Street, the banksters, too.
Mr. Hedges is right is stating that you are uneducated in the art of critical thinking. You cannot read and comprehend arguments. You are unfit for citizenship because you think like children. And this is what we get from you people. HOPE. Well, I wish you would just go back to your dope and stop trying to make your pathetic minds think.
I am sick and tired of your collective idiocy. Just shut up and row.
Have a nice day.
Ditto to everything that hoytdouglas said. Obama is no different than any run-of-the-mill neocon. Watch what he does, not what he promised when he was campaigning. THINK!
Hey Hate-Creep; This Bong-Loads for you, and check this; you insult the collective intelligence of Common Dreamers while sounding like a brain-damaged infant having a tantrum? That is cute.
But I noticed this hater; you spew but got no suggestions; so here is a challenge for you; articulate one original positive thought. About anything.
Cause so far I ain't heard one.
P. S. We don't call it dope-dope refers to people like you!
Ahh, the sweet irony.
BringItOn. But Christ, arm yourself first. Read Asia Times, the NYT's, Chomsky, Fisk, Naomi Klien, the CD ARTICLES, cause dude you are bringing a pre-schooler to college...
I just a regular person (not a corporation or owner of a corporation) who doesn't like Rahm Emanuel.
Code Pink has been engaged in positive activism for many years. Progressive groups like Code Pink have always been engaged in pushing, and will no doubt continue to do so under an Obama Presidency.
The real problem lies with mainstream Democrats. They voted for Obama, but I suspect they will not become activists. They won't push, nor make a peep, as Obama turns to the right.
Obama will turn to the right because that's the position of his campaign financiers. There are debts to be paid. We've already seen Obama help his No. 1 campaign donor, Goldman Sachs, by voting for the Wall Street bailout. Similarly, he backed AT&T over the people when he voted for the FISA bill. AT&T was the big donor at the Democratic National Convention.
Quite frankly, loyalist Dems are content with symbolic victories. They are unmoved even as their party becomes indistinguishable from the Republican Party.
I hope loyalist Dems will prove me wrong, and I'll see them in the streets soon. I'm not holding my breath on that one, though.
-TIA
Have reservations about degree to which Code Pink will do more than show up in a lot of public venues in their signature T-shirts, or organize mini bailouts, ad hoc and piecemeal for folks who manage to get media attention for their personal plights, but agree with you completely about "mainstream" Dems,, whoever they are.
As far as Obama turning to the right, he's already there. The aberration was his seeming to be somewhat left during the primaries for purposes of energizing the base. Follow the money, as they say.
It amazes me the extent to which many Obama fans are already going to spin his actions.
I believe Code Pink is counterproductive. I always thought they generated more negative feedback than positive force. Others don't see it that way.
Thomas More: same thing was said about ACT UP. It's about getting public awareness for the issues, while at times, adding humor. I think Code Pink is wonderful.
Sometimes a person's best quality is also their worst quality. In this case theatricality, self-confidence and combative spirit.
CodePink has great energy and shows up where somebody ought to show up. On the other hand they often come in, hog media attention and explicitly or implicitly take credit for actions that others have actually organized. I have heard a lot of annoyed comments from activists.
I suggest CodePink act in a more cooperative, inclusive and respectful manner toward other sectors of the protest movements, at least.
Joe
Thanks for the input. Thats been part of my impression.
And please include yourself in that say anything invitation.
Many people do. I simply look at them dispassionately and what they do delights many progressives, but the mainstream don't view them that way.
Consider what the lady looked like that interrupted McCains speech at the convention.
Blocking Marine recruiting offices in California.
These do not generate positive images in my opinion. Confirmed by asking other people. Thay get public awareness, but its not the issues that people become aware of.
But in the end, its just my opinion.
Thomas More: "lady" is a woman. The Granny Peace Brigade blocked the Times Square recruiting office doorway while requesting to enlist instead of grandchildren be asked to kill and die. You are entitled to your opinion, but you skipped the part about ACT UP.
The goal is media attention since the media is quite lax on the peace issues. It used to be (and may still be) that the media likes violence for tv. I think I'd rather Code Pink use their variety of tactics. Look up the Granny Peace Brigade. We're talking old women. Activists like Code Pink. There's all kinds of ways. I like it. I might not like every kind of "theater" that they use, but I applaud their entire concept and work. Have you seen their website? They also recently saved a woman's home in Queens, NYC from being taken for mortgage nonpayment; a real mess and her kid was a vet.
I had no probl;em with the Grannies @ the times square recruiting office. The San Francisco affair was marred by abuse of others there.
I don't agree with contraveneing others rights so you can make a point. Thats what I object to. If you deny my rights, then don't I have a perfect right top deny yours. In fact don't I retain the right to defend my rights?
I didn't say they didn't do good things. But their theater hurts us all. Thats just my opinion.
Thomas More:I am not familiar with the San Fran. event. I can't think of an answer to such as question as, "If you deny my rights, then don't I have a perfect right top deny yours?" (I think you meant "to" not top.) I'll say what my mom said when I was a kid, "Two wrongs don't make a right.". I don't see how "their theater hurts us all" because some people don't like it and I think you are basing it on your original point (way back somewheres on here) that some of Code Pink's actions bother some people so they are counter productive. We shall have to disagree. I like that you can disagree civilly. Thanks.
Of course we can agree to disagree. Plese look at my reply to Ardee because the two high school classes bothered me too. Though I guess you can't blame Code Pink for their presense. I would say not "some", but "most" people don't like it.
Heck Ardee and I sometimes go at it, but always with respect and civility, though when he calls me Mr. Moore...thats when I know he's about to try to take my head off!!!!
We come at things from different angles. Ardee is far left and I am center left. He calls me a Centrist which I take as a compliment.Everybody needs a token Centrist anyway. But I have always respected his viewpoints and he has even changed a few of mine. He can say anything to me because I know he means it as discussion, never as personal insult or denigration. Please feel free to say anything you like, I;'ll feel the same way about you.
Besides if everyone had the same viewpoint I'd know somethimg was WRONG! Thanks for your kind thoughts.
Top was a slip of my one finger typing!
Thomas More:which reply to ardee,chuckle? I don't see how you can say "most" vs "some" in re Code Pink. If you don't like their ways, OK. I am not trying to change your mind, just saying why I think they are great. Did you see what I wrote about saving a woman's home in Queens,NYC? (It's on DemocracyNow from about a week or so ago.) I am not sure where I'd place myself of the Left-Right continuum. I'm still a Democrat, barely. More Kucinich than anyone else in the Dems, maybe Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Woolsey, but I was against the bailout, as were Kucinich and Kamphur. I frequently disagree with both you and ardee. I am not sure what Far Left is. Glad your comments are near the top because it's getting tedious to scroll. I do like civility and I dislike the graphic body parts and sexualized language on CD, but it's no doubt my being an older feminist. or whatever.
"Thomas More:which reply to ardee,chuckle?"
TRUE! We get carried away.
"I frequently disagree with both you and ardee."
Jump in there and straighten us out, other thoughts are always welcome.
"I do like civility and I dislike the graphic body parts and sexualized language on CD, but it's no doubt my being an older feminist. or whatever."
I would say its because you have respect for others which some here don't. Its callow children that need to emphasize their comments with filth. Adults seldo do, though something slips out if you feel strongly enough about something. Like racisim...I hate that and I really hate people here using that kinsd of speech.
I have spent some time replying to some folks that are simply useless and I'm going to try to control that from now on.
Thanks and I'll look forward to your posts in the future.
.Opinions are like rectums after all, we all got 'em...
I believe ,Thomas, that we discussed this Berekely action before, have you forgotten? The blocking of those recruiting offices was in response to their refusal to stop approaching High School students without permission of the parents. Do you favor such as that?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
True. No I hadn't forgotten and you know I am adamently opposed to high school recruiting.
My comment is in the greater context. Their purpose could be pure as the driven snow, but its effect in the greater community was exactly opposite of what they intended. And to me, thats counterproductive.
This is part of a larger concern about strategy and tactics that I believe will emerge as we go along.
Is confrontation for confrontations sake a good thing? It can be I know, but is this type good, bringing negative attention to purpose? Not an idle question.
.Lets belabor this point, shall we?
The "greater community" in this case is Berkeley ,California and the publicity was positive there. But I do understand you mean the country at large, and many within that community will react with a knee jerk negativity to any seeming attack on the military however justifiable it might have been. I say so what?
Look Thomas, jsut because people refuse greater truths doesnt mean those truths are invalid, just because people reject standing up for ones principles in certain instances doesnt mean those principles are not worth the effort. In this particular case the recruiters, faced with quotas and pressures from above, violated a basic and sacred tenet; speaking to minors without parental consent. That that creates negative reactions is due to the poor reporting of the events and their nuances and not to the lack of merit. Do you honestly believe that the majority of this nation concurs with such actions? Not the parents of this nation surely.
But, Mr. More, there is a greater issue here that needs be aired. My first demonstration was a Ban the Bomb march in front of the White House ( Spring of sixty one I believe), sponsored by the American Humanists ( which evolved into SDS. My contingent, from the Michigan campus, arrived early and decided to go ahead and march. I was barely eighteen and rather shy. The ten or so of us marched and I was very uncomfortable, ahhh youth. The next day was Saturday and ten thousand of us showed up to march. My, but I was elated, at least I wouldnt stand out! That this led to my being made a marshal, wearing an armband and standing out after all isnt the point. I learned to overcome my fears and stand up for what I believed in, the people will follow if your cause is just. Besides, that allowed me entrance into the ranks of those who would go on to form the SDS, and gained me much education.
There are issues that need airing, there are causes that need folks to fight for them, and the possible negative publicity is, in fact, better than none at all. Doing something is better than doing nothing, every darn time!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Lets belabor this point, shall we?"
OK! I don't see them as the same thing at all. Banning the bomb, marching and lawfully demonstrating your disapproval of anything is as American as apple pie.
"In this particular case the recruiters, faced with quotas and pressures from above, violated a basic and sacred tenet; speaking to minors without parental consent. That that creates negative reactions is due to the poor reporting of the events and their nuances and not to the lack of merit. Do you honestly believe that the majority of this nation concurs with such actions? Not the parents of this nation surely."
None of the above do I disagree with, except the poor reporting of the event. I saw video of it. More than enough.
NYCartist spoke of a similar demonstration by the Grannies in NY at a recruiting depot that I had no problem with. They went in to volunteer and choked the operation down thast way. Brilliant!
In San Francisco, they chained themselves to the door, abused men that tried to enter, their supporters were much worse, I saw one abuse a lady that was counterprotesting behind sawhorses set up by the police, by tearing a flag out of her hand, I saw some of the young men shove older veterans while the police stood by. The Marine report identified most of the younger people as two high school classes brought there by their teachers to support Code Pink. I find that disgusting and both teachers should be fired.
Its not the refusal of truth nor is it a complete disregard of protesting, its the tactics these people used and their manner in doing it. I believe they were counterproductive.
I watched marches before and after going, joined two after I got back (some meaning to that?), seen many protests over the years and only a few I'd be ashamed to be connected with. This was one of them.
In this instance, I think we'd have been better served doing nothing.
As you say, we all have opinions, about this....this is mine.
I'd appreciate your comment on http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/14#comment-1077185 by the way. I need your help there.
ardee:I am a bit older than ye. My first demonstration was a picket line to protest that teachers didn't have a right to organize a union in NYC, in 196l. My 2nd, a big protest, was the big march by Women's Strike for Peace in Autumn?,1961 or 1962 to demand that President Kennedy sign the nuclear test ban treaty. We young teachers took the day off from work, calling to tell them we were not coming in and that we were not going to take a sick day on principle and they could fire us. (We didn't get fired.) I'd been too young to vote for JFK for president in 1960. But I was working.
What if Obama -- who seems more like a "black" Alfred E. Newman with every passing hour -- is the dead fish Emanuel and his king-making consorts have sent the country?
Maybe Jesse DID cut his n-words off? Why ELSE would he not take a stand on Lieberman ... and leave the Senate just in time NOT to vote on it??
At the risk of unleashing the tirade of opprobrium which always accompanies the mention of his name, have you seen the Nader video on U-tube, The Obama Nuts @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdJ5zGRow4 . Pretty funny, but, unfortunately all too true.
.I am still chuckling as I type this, thank you for that link. However, behind the humor is something very ,very sad.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Aquifer -
I got about 3:20 into the 10 minute video, and stopped. It is interesting, but I don't have time for this kind of humor or personalizing of the troubles we face right now, although I am sure there are lots of kids who would enjoy viewing it.
What is important about fascism, as Webster Tarpley makes clear in his biography of Obama, is that it is a ground-up, not a top-down thing. When we have a mass of people uncritically following someone, that is something to be afraid of. I have found the Obamabots singularly incapable of accepting criticism -- substituting "hope" and "change" for points of substance at every opportunity. They get angry when you call them on their baloney and force them to connect rhetoric with fact. The devil is always in the details (i.e., legislation).
Did you catch the recent bruhaha over Barack's change.gov site scrubbing all that info regarding compulsory service for all Americans, even into their 70's -- a brainchild of Emanuel and the DLC, as if a (former?) Israeli Mossad agent could teach US citizens "what it means to be an American." Who cares about nationality when Obama is alleged to have been born in Indonesia as "Barry Soetoro," and has yet to release his full birth certificate? But I digress, even though Hitler's and Schwarzenegger's being born in Austria should have been red flags for their respective runs (or planned runs) for office. Note that this blurring of national allegiance is a necessary precondition for our acceptance of an international government/banking/taxation system. As Obama says repeatedly, "We're global citizens" now.
http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/obama-sued-in-philadelphia-federal.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/20/19724/5977
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10734
***
911 was an inside job. Cheney suspended the Constitution via the imposition of Continuity of Government on 911. Congress has been denied access to the COG details. COG is martial law. http://prisonplanet.tv/alex_jones_live.html
oh Derek - if we don't "personalize the troubles we face right now", politics ceases to be a human enterprise and becomes nothing more than an academic exercise in political science. As for sense of humor, what I found rather "neat" (to date myself) was the idea that an "old guy" like Nader, who still uses a typewriter, understood the potential power of the new media to break out of the moated MSM model and allowed his younger followers (sorry, Obama doesn't have a monopoly on the youth) to go with it. I "enjoyed" it on several levels, and I'm not a "kid".
Frankly, it is the the Nader component of the younger generation that I have hopes for, as long as they are not beaten up by the stampede of Obama euphorics.
WHY DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO PULL "BLACK" INTO IT? INSLUTINGLY? YOU ARE A TOTAL AND UGLY RASCIST, DOES THAT FILTH FLY IN YOUR LIVING ROOM? NO DOUBT. YOU INSULT OBAMA AGAIN BASED ON SKIN COLOR AND I WILL HUMILIATE YOU
GO TO H*** RACSIST.
AND BRING. IT. ON.
SIGNED, ONE WHO HATES THOSE WHO FOCUS ON SKIN COLOR.
...but you spelled racist wrong! I just couldn't resist.
Who's humiliating whom?
Something perversely satisfying about heckling the apoplectic.
Dear Araquin,
The American people are dunces. They have no idea what happened in this election. They truly believe that the choice was between an evil war monger and a black reformer.
The facts speak differently. Mr. McCain is a corporate shill, as well as , Mr. Obama. The public was given the false choice between twiddle dee and twiddle dum. They took the black guy, because they "felt" that he identifies with the poor, the sick, the old, and exploited.
Mr. Obama has been priviledged his entire life, and he is rich. He has no connection to people of color, except he married a well educated American black woman.
The result of this election is "the new boss is the same as the old boss."
Have a nice day.
He hasn't always been rich, but that doesn't stop someone from wanting to work their way up. It's not clear to me (I'm not on the 'inside' or too knowedgeable about his earlier years) but he may have become involved in community organizing and such to break into Chicago politics -- and establish some 'street creds' as part of his overall plan -- or he may have been sincere and just sold out -- or he may be playing a game now to reach more liberal goals. Or he might just like playing the game and not be all that concerned with which side he's on. Maybe even he himself doesn't know. What we do know is which dogs he's been lying down with, and we might hope he hasn't picked up too many fleas from them, but in any case the left has to keep the pressure on and try not let the liberal go neoliberal.
Dear Bluepilgrim,
As you can see with todays news, Mr. Obama has offered MS. Hiliary the Sec. of State job. As you may know (or may not know), Ms. Hiliary is a founding member of the DLC. The DLC is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council) a group "that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions."
You knew all this, or should have known these facts, before you voted for Mr. Obama who has been and is a shill of the corporate elite.
But let us have "hope we can believe in." Never mind that he slogan was just that it is a lie.
Have a nice day.
.Odd that you would cite Wiki as a source for a misstatement. The DLC was founded in 1985, when Hillary Clinton was a Governors wife:
Founding and early history
The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of incumbent President Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), as well as Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).[1]
The organization started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall. Their original focus was to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of a southern conservative Democrat such as Nunn or Robb. After the success of Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, in winning a number of southern states in 1988's "Super Tuesday" primary, the group began to shift its focus towards influencing public debate. In 1989, Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank which has since turned out policy blueprints for the DLC. Its most extensive series of papers is the series of New Economy Policy Reports.
.......
She did serve as a chairperson on an important committee in the DLC,after winning her election to the Senate, and currently still does, however she was not a founder.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I didn't vote for Obama -- I voted for Cynthia McKinney. (And for Kucinich in the primary.)
GIVE HIM A CHANCE!
We gotta keep pushing from the left ... Medea Bemjamin and Andy Stern are on the job already. But don't diss the chickens before they're hatched.
It's not clear what influence Rhambo will have on policy...that's not the job of a Chief of Staff anyway...R's a good organizer, knows the players and gives good Bad Cop...and every C-in-C needs a ballbreaker.....while Obama is great as Good Cop...looks like an effective team to me...
Let's at least let them take the field, show their stuff... before we start throwing stones...
Sam Abrams
mas.smarba@gmail.com
"Medea Bemjamin and Andy Stern are on the job already"
Oh, dear! Sorry, but I am not impressed. In my estimation, Medea may, or may not, be well meaning, but she is seeing Obama through pink colored glasses, while Andy is angling for his own power base and will compromise whatever he needs to to get it.
Rahm will have the keys to the entrance to the Oval Office, and constant access to Obama's ear. If this is the man Obama chooses to give such power to, what does this say about his "leanings"?
It could mean he knows he is going to have trouble with Congress and selected a guy that can handle it. Isn't it more important what he does than which way he leans?
What is your objection to him?
Rahm Emmanuel, so I have read, in his function as organizer and fund raiser for the DLC (corporate) wing of the Dems, used his influence to "discourage" true anti war Dem candidates from running in '06 and supported more conservative Dems instead. In addition, in his strong pro Israeli gov't views, I think the Palestinians have no hope of getting even a fair hearing, let alone a change of policy from Obama.
Which part of Congress does Obama "know" that he'll have trouble with? Which part of Congress can Emmanuel "handle"?
What he does - aren't his appointments part of "what he does?" And doesn't one usually "do" in the direction that one leans?
Thanks.
I'd say he will have trouble with the whole congress in a number of areas in the next 4 years.
The little I know of Emmanuel is second hand, but he is supposed to be a brilliant tactician, hard as nails, foul mouthed and a good friend of Obamas and knows Congress inside and out. Senator Fulbright once told me that people would be amazed how few Congressmen and Senators knew the rules.
What he does - aren't his appointments part of "what he does?" And doesn't one usually "do" in the direction that one leans?
Former...yes, latter...only if you want yes men around you and in any case I don;'t judge this guy to be a Bush. He will set the direction and tone, not the VP or some staffers. At least I sure hope so.
.Emmanuel, along side Charles Schumer, led the fight to discredit the fifty state efforts of Howard Dean immediately after the democratic successes in the '06 election. He is a poor choice as chief of staff from the perspective of the left certainly. He may be useful to President Obama as a tool to deflect what will surely be a left leaning Democratic majority Legislature, again not a boon to the left.
The appointment of a cabinet will show plainly that centrism and status quo will be the hallmark of this coming four years, that is why it is so important to make our opinions known now, though I doubt that even a well organized outpouring will alter Obama's centrist course. To believe that there is a time and place for protest is to diminish the reasons for such protest.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"that is why it is so important to make our opinions known now"
Like any Democrat really needs to listen to any of you leftists from CD. Nader got 0.5% and Obama got 52%. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Losers.
.Well, there IS a loser present...and thanks much for making it very clear that it's you.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
If he's a good buddy of Charles Schumer, who I consider a self server of the highest order, you make a point.
Wil Ayers for Chief of Homeland Security!!!!
Hey, let me ask you who are in the know from across the Atlantic: Since Obama is so heavily relying on Clinton's cabinet during the transition period: Why did he ever fight the Clintons????? Why did he present himself as something completely different from Hillary?
And: Why did most of YOU here portray him as something completely different? Do you think Hillary Clinton's transition team would have numbered fewer Clinton people than Obama's? I am beginning to wonder whether it wouldn't. It surely couldn't have sported MORE members of the Clinton administration, that's quite impossible.
Folks, do some of you get the feeling that you've been had? I am honestly curious.
"do some of you get the feeling that you've been had?"
No. not at all. There aren't many executive experienced Democrats that didn't serve in the Clinton Whitehouse. Just because Obama is picking experienced people for his cabinet who worked with Clinton doesn't mean he's a Clinton clone. But if you want to judge him now, before he's even in the executive branch, and before he's done a single thing as President---go ahead. It amazes me how ready people are to tear him down.
madcow,
Thanks for this post.
It's funny that several of us feel the need to serve as Obama apologists, especially considering that his term doesn't begin for over two months from now!
We'll all stay tuned and continue our discussion every day as we examine every move from the president-elect's camp. It's a common dreams thing.
.I do not understand those like you who seemingly feel no sense of urgency or expected something new, both in direction and in leadership from Barack Obama and now, seeing the same old faces, continue to make excuses and express wistful hopes. There were those among us, prior to the election, who expressed concern that then Senator Obama was not what he portrayed himself to be. Now we see, after the election, the same old faces being trotted out, a clear indication that the same old politics will be in play. I refuse to believe , as you intimate, that our pool of capable executives are so limited as to necesitate these choices.
Expressions of concern regarding President Elect Obama's staffing of his administration is not "tearing him down", just as all those who claimed they would "hold his feet to the fire" now seem to be among the missing. Werent you one of those? When, exactly, do you start to build that fire? How do you plan on being near enough to his feet when he is already erecting barriers like Rham Emmanuel to keep him isolated from folks like you and me?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee,
In this democracy we will continue to strive for all we can to make this political process more democratic and more humane.
Next Saturday and Sunday I plan to be outside Fort Benning, Ga., with School of Americas Watch. Our group not only protests School of Americas, www.soaw.org, but celebrates goodness, truth, and justice.
Many scoff at this vigil, after all, this is the 18th annual vigil; what has it accomplished? Rahm Emanuel will deride it, perhaps Obama will, too.
It continues to have meaning for me along with the other 15,000 who attend, for we see things, not as they are, but as we are.
.You will be doing important work, and thank you for it.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
wc652:well said and bravo. I am happy to note that my "peeps", wheelchair users are always there,too.
I won't judge him on who he puts in his cabinet. I will judge him on his policies and his actions in office. He doesn't take office for 2 months. I expect him to name a few Republicans and more Clinton Democrats to his team. He ran as someone who wants to move beyond the partisan divide that has brought our government to stalemate. That means he has to reach out to the opposition. Fine. I can live with that.
I never thought Obama was a Kucinich in disguise. He ran to left of Clinton and the DLC, and to the right of Kucinich---and if he governs there, I'll be happy. It's movement in the right(left) direction...
The "partisan divide that brought our country to a stalemate" is utter nonsense. What world do you live in? We had a quasi-fascist regime and an "opposition" party that largely collaborated with the fascists.
The opposition party won and has a big majority. In any normal democracy would mean pushing their agenda hard and yielding nothing. Appoint a Republican in the Cabinet? That should be considered insane! Instead, the democrats capitulate to their opponents before they even start bargaining. It is like starting your haggling over a used car by offering over their asking price!
And, this behavior cannot be explained by "spinelessness". It must be deliberate. in reality the Democrats are the phoney opposition party of the oligarchs. They can go to hell.
.Arent his cabinet appointments a real key to understanding his direction?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Uh,oh, is your attitude common among Obama supporters?
Probably, yes.
The Democrats are the alternative gang for use by the corporatives. Clinton would have done fine but she couldn't be elected because of her baggage and the hatred of the right wing. For the corporatists, however, Obama was a good compromise, and would settle down the peasants and look good to the rest of the world (good public relations). As to how far Obama can deviate from the corporatists (and he has a stong centrist and business streak anyway -- a believer in empire) depends on how much we peasants agitate and how sharp our pitchforks look).
How much anyone understood of this depends on the individual, and many people were still Clinton groupies. The right wing augmented this by attacking Clinton, eliciting a defensive reaction from many towards to left (who otherwise would have been more critical of Clintons).
There's lots of mind games which were played, and are still being played, and I would guess that most people here are still immersed more in appearances, as influenced by the media, than reality (many, maybe most, people still think Saddam had WMDs and responsibility for 9/11, think the 'surge' worked, and that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons). Wishful thinking is still a powerful force in the US.
.Hi Blue,
I think that Senator Clinton sort of self destructed with a horrible campaign. After so many years of preparation, after amassing so much money, some of which she shared with her party unlike the Obama folks who husbanded all of his war chest, it was sort of sad to watch her self destruct in the race for the nomination.
I am in no way a supporter of the democrats but I believe that the Clinton campaign would have been far more confrontational than was that of Senator Obama. Otherwise I believe that their Presidencies would not have been very different. Nor would the left have been happy with either.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Excellent synopsis. People seem to think that the battle in the Dem Party is between the left and the corporate wing of the party. I suggest that that is a false formulation, you can't have a battle unless both sides are willing to fight. The "left" isn't willing to fight - only "petition". The real battle is who will be at the head of the corporate wing, who gets to tap into and dispense the largesse of corporate favors in return for advancing its agenda; the fight was between Obama and the Clinton's for that position.
Many of us out here knew there was no real difference between Obama and Clinton, which is why we supported neither. Many of us also know there is no real functional difference between Dem and Rep corportists, which is why we supported neither and continue to take flak for it. However, unlike the Dems,, most of us of this ilk will not be cowed by the name calling that appears to have been a successful tactic when used by the Reps against the Dems.
Time will tell who is correct about Obama and his crowd, the early signs, to my way of thinking, are not encouraging for any other than a cosmetic version of "change". But if the analysis that I support is correct, any satisfaction I get will be purely intellectual; for the sake of the country, I hope I am wrong. By the same token, I see the role of us "cynics" (one of the kinder labels attached to some of us) as that of someone who needs to keep shaking, pinching, prodding another who has just taken a large dose of narcotics to make sure that (s)he doesn't fall into a terminal coma, even though that someone keeps saying "You ole' meany, go away and leave us alone, this is good "stuff"!" That's just holding the fort, hoping all the while that the drug will wear off, the person will wake up, refuse to take more drugs, and actually fight by making demands which, if not met, will produce REAL consequences. (And no, I'm not talking about violence.)
Aquifer, this was great, thanks!
Obama never went for the lie that Saddam had WMD or responsible for 9/11.... Which was an important reason he won.
He also did not think the surge was the answer to our problems....
Many here wanted McCain to win to teach us a lesson.... most all views were expressed on CD.
.Obama failed to stand up for his beliefs about that war, and still doesnt. He voted with the hawks every chance he got. He did speak out negatively about the surge until after the primaries and , when face to face with McCain, backed down sheepishly from that stance.
I saw no posts here suggesting that McCain should win, not for any reason. Perhaps you can point to one? I do admit that Ive only been here about eleven weeks so maybe I missed those.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Obama wasn't chosen by the corporatists, he was elected by 52.4% of the people.
How do you think he was ever in the running to begin with? You refer to the final vote but there was a long road getting there, and a lot of fund raising before the people heard of him. How did he even get to the US senate? It's in the primaries, and getting to the primaries, where most of the machinations take place.