Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama Accused of Selling Out on Iraq by Picking Hawks to Run His Foreign Policy
Barack Obama has been accused of selling out his promises of change in US foreign policy by putting national security policy in the hands of establishment figures who supported the Iraq war.
Mr Obama has moved quickly in the last 48 hours to get his cabinet team in place, unveiling a raft of heavyweight appointments, in addition to Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
![[CHANGE?
The likelihood that Mr Obama will retain George W Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has raised doubts.]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/gatesbush.jpg "gatesbush.jpg")
But his preference for General James Jones, a former NATO commander who backed John McCain, as his National Security Adviser and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a supporter of the war, to run the Homeland Security department has dismayed many of his earliest supporters.
The likelihood that Mr Obama will retain George W Bush's Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, has reinforced the notion that he will not aggressively pursue the radical withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq over the next 16 months and engagement with rogue states that he has pledged.
Chris Bowers of the influential OpenLeft.com blog complained: "That is, over all, a center-right foreign policy team. I feel incredibly frustrated. Progressives are being entirely left out of Obama's major appointments so far."
Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos site, the in-house talking shop for the anti-war Left, warned that Democrats risk sounding "tone deaf" to the views of "the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush policies."
A spokesman for the President-elect was forced to confirm that Mr Obama holds to his previous views. "His position on Iraq has not changed and will not change."
But the growing disillusionment underlines the fine line Mr Obama must walk between appearing to reach out to former opponents and keeping his grassroot supporters happy.
Mr Obama seems conscious of the need to move fast, to reassure a watching world that he will be ready to hit the ground running on foreign and economic policy.
He will wait until Friday before formally announcing his national security team, but he will on Monday formally unveil his economic team, with New York Federal Reserve bank chairman Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary and the New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, in the Commerce portfolio.
On Friday night, Mr Obama and his wife Michelle revealed that they will send their two daughters Malia and Sasha to the private Sidwell Friends school in Washington, once attended by Chelsea Clinton.
That announcement ended two weeks of speculation in the capital, where excitement is growing over the arrival of the Obama family in time for the inauguration on Jan 20. City officials now expect four million people to turn out to see history made. Hotels are sold out, house rental prices for the week are rising into five figures and others are buying space for their tents on people's lawns. If every visitor descended simultaneously on the National Mall, each would have just one square foot of space.
But the huge enthusiasm of Obama supporters might dissipate if they believe he is crafting a government more likely to pursue "politics as usual", rather than his often-promised "change we need".
There is growing concern among a new generation of anti-war foreign policy analysts in Washington, many of whom stuck their necks out to support Mr Obama early in the White House race, that they will be frozen out of his administration.
Mrs Clinton is expected to appoint her own top team at the State Department, drawn from more conservative thinkers.
A Democratic foreign policy expert told one Washington website: "They were the ones courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many supported Obama in the first place." Their fear, he added, is that they will not now secure the mid-level posts which will enable them to reach the top of the Washington career ladder in future.
Suspicion of Mr Obama's moves has been compounded, for some liberals, by the revelation that Mr Obama has for several months been taking advice from Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.
His return to prominence in Washington represents a resurgence of the old school conservative realists, who were largely eclipsed during this Bush administration by the neoconservatives.
They place US national interests above the quest to defend human rights or to spread democracy. Progressives and liberals see Mr Scowcroft's hand in the move to retain Mr Gates, an old friend, at the Pentagon and also in the expected elevation of Gen. Jones.
Others are troubled by an announcement on Friday night that Mr Obama will retain the White House political office, an institution recently associated with George Bush's adviser Karl Rove, who has been blamed for running government as a permanent and highly partisan election campaign.
During the campaign, Mr Obama pledged to end "politics as usual" and the "perpetual campaign".
But a spokesman for the Transition team said: "An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election."
166 Comments so far
Show AllThe American people should know that George W. Bush is not only a war criminal: he is also a hate-crime criminal.
George W. Bush had better stop committing hate crimes.
“What did you think of that NAACP anti-Bush race-baiting ad in 2000? You know, the one that practically said Bush was responsible for the dragging-to-death-behind-a-truck murder of a black man just because he didn’t sign a hate crimes bill several years after the man’s death” (Posted by Aaron. Retrieved December 11, 2008, from metafilter.com).
ON THE TOPIC OF HATE CRIME(S):
“Sean Penn accuses Bush of ‘criminal negligence’” (Retrieved December 11, 2008, from deadlykatrina.com). Thus, Sean Penn believes that George W. Bush was at fault, criminally, relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina.
“Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn’t, Bush’s response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina’s, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency’s performance.”
Jacob Weisberg. (2005, September 7). An Imperfect Storm . . . How race shaped Bush’s response to Katrina. Slate. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from slate.com
Assuming that George W. Bush had in fact been criminally negligent relative to his response to Hurricane Katrina, would Bush be responsible for hate crime?
“One of those very least were George Bush’s personal complicity in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger[,] [an African-American woman,] in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of [then] president-elect George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell (Nevada Progressive Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010). Retrieved November 29, 2008, from leolaforussenate.blogspot.com).
Does George W. Bush’s murder of Margie Schoedinger constitute a hate crime?
“A woman in Texas who filed a lawsuit against the president for rape and torture[,] [Margie Schoedinger,] was found shot to death. It was ruled a suicide. No one is investigating. Bush reportedly dated the woman in high school and speculation is that he was using the woman as his sex slave because he is above the law” (John Kaminski (author of “America’s Autopsy Report,” a collection of his Internet essays published on hundreds of websites around the world). (No date listed). Why We Need Martial Law . . . Criminal government is destroying America; military must step in to restore Constitution. serendipity.li. Retrieved December 10, 2008, from serendipity.li).
Do George W. Bush’s rape and torture of Margie Schoedinger constitute hate crimes?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates black people. Through secret government machinations, he caused Hurricane Katrina to form and aimed it at New Orleans on purpose, just so he could wipe out lots of poor blacks. I also believe that before the hurricane hit, he snuck into New Orleans and stole the keys to every school bus in the city to make evacuation of poor people impossible” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
If George W. Bush intentionally did what Janet M. Stroble indicated, would Bush have committed hate crimes against countless black people?
“I believe that George W. Bush hates Moslems. All that garbage about freedom, democracy, and the right to vote is a pollution of their culture. I believe that George W. Bush hates immigrants. There were a lot of immigrants working in the World Trade Center and George W. Bush didn’t warn them ahead of time” (Janet M. Stroble. (2006, April 12). Now I Believe. military.com. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from military.com).
In that George W. Bush hates immigrants and deliberately failed to warn them ahead of time as indicated by Janet M. Stroble: would Bush accordingly be responsible for hate crimes relative to racial minorities who were harmed?
“Did Kanye West[’]s [comment], [‘]George Bush Hates Black People[’][,] get his mother killed?” (Retrieved October 18, 2008, from abovetopsecret.com).
There is a discussion at abovetopsecret.com relating to whether President George W. Bush murdered Kanye West’s mother—Ms. Donda West.
Did President George W. Bush, who hates black people, murder Kanye West’s mother in the heat of raging racism? Somebody indicated that although the president of the United States is monitored by the Secret Service, he certainly can meet with one or more persons where his conversations are not intercepted and secretly “order a hit” on someone or order the murder of someone.
If George W. Bush did murder Kanye West’s mother, would it constitute a hate crime?
GEORGE W. BUSH MURDERED A JEW!
“George W. Bush murdered the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone” (Retrieved December 10, 2008, from andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com). This Internet site has a lot of information indicating that George W. Bush murdered Wellstone.
“Bush’s visit to Israel is under the guise of Middle East peace. You gotta be kidding me! Bush is THE MASTER ARCHITECT of Middle East war, not peace. . . . Bush didn’t go to Israel because he likes Israelis or like Jews, nope, he went there because he hates them. He went there to spread his message of doom, war, pain and death” (Storm Bear. (2008, January 10). PROOF: George W Bush Is An Anti-Semite! bitsofnews.com. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from bitsofnews.com).
Assuming that George W. Bush did in fact murder the Jewish former Senator—Paul Wellstone, would Bush have committed a hate crime? Bush would have “purposefully” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone. Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also died in the plane crash. Bush would have “knowingly” (criminal-law terminology) murdered Wellstone’s wife and daughter. However, would Bush’s murders of Wellstone’s Jewish wife and Jewish daughter also have constituted hate crimes?
Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-did-you-think-of-that-naacp-anti.html
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Monday, November 10, 2008
Andrew Yu-Jen Wang for months had strongly rooted for Barack Obama over John McCain. However, in the end, Andrew Yu-Jen Wang voted for Ralph Nader only as a symbolic gesture because Andrew Yu-Jen Wang expects to be immensely disappointed by Barack Obama who Andrew Yu-Jen Wang assumes will not rigorously make arrangements or seek to have George W. Bush prosecuted—the most horrifying omission of action imaginable.
However, Andrew Yu-Jen Wang acknowledges that it is a hell of a lot better to have Barack Obama as President of the United States than John McCain.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Posted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang at 6:56 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/andrew-yu-jen-wang-for-months-had.html
And so Andrew Yu-Jen Wang did not vote for Barack Obama where Wang strongly suspected that Obama would not really go all out to cause George W. Bush to be incarcerated for his heinous crimes. This omission of action of Obama would be shocking to the conscience. It would be the saddest thing. It would demoralize the American people. It would break the heart of the American people. And so Wang just did not want to make a fool of himself by investing himself in Obama through casting a vote for Obama only then to be mortified and let down by Obama not embarking on a mission to incarcerate the absolutely evil career criminal—George W. Bush.
After George W. Bush leaves office, one of the most important things is for his incarceration to be sought by the American people. If Obama were not prepared to fight diligently for such a thing, then Obama would, in a way, have wasted his time as the President of the United States. Moreover, Obama must be aware of George W. Bush’s various onslaughts against black people. Please read all about it in the blog of Wang (http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/). Thus, if Obama does not have the indignation and rage to seek Bush’s incarceration, one must conclude only that Obama lacks the courage to do it. In failing to seek Bush’s incarceration, Obama—a black person—inevitably shames and humiliates and embarrasses himself.
Obama—a black person (a racial minority himself)—should be profoundly sensitive to the racial prejudice and widespread suffering Bush has inflicted against black people.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://andrewyu-jenwang.blogspot.com/2008/11/electing-barack-obama-president-was.html
Maybe Obama has come to realize that the DEMOCRACY of Iraq is preferable to being in the hands of the Wacky Radical Islamics and he needs to finish the job and withdraw slowly over the next 5 or 10 years vice 16 months...
Obama is a leftie ideologue but he's not totally stupid
Looks like a cage match coming between Israel and Iran...so this isn't over yet...not by a longshot...Iraq was just one battle in a long long war...regardless who's elected president
Source: US Plans to Stage Bomb Attacks in Iraq
TEHRAN (FNA)- US troops plan to launch a series of bomb attacks in different parts of Iraq to force the country's parliament to approve the controversial security pact through insecurity in the war-torn country, a source said.
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8709050246
And it is so:
11 Iraqis killed, 5 injured in Baghdad bomb attack
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/24/content_10405653.htm
3 Baghdad bombings kill 17
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/mideast/iraq.php
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=asSsw1oMMLLk&refer=home
Poor lipless Chimp. In the above picture he looks like he had surgery on his head and was left with a deep scar on his forehead. I guess the neurosurgeons forgot to put part of his brain back in when they closed it up.
As long as there are gun-ho people that will volunteer to wear a uniform as part of the goon squad the leaders can do what they want when they want.
I would suggest that it might be a good idea to stop calling people names or designating them into catagories of your selection just because they don't agree with you.
That became all to familiar a trick under the neocons and their intolerance of any opinion but their own. A little civility goes a long way and respect for others opinions was a trademark of liberals as long as I've been one.
The thing you should acknowledge TM is that Obama is NOT centrist or center-left as you postulated earlier, and worse, he has chosen to begin surrounding himself with people that have consistently displayed conservative/rightist policies and actions - although they may have a "D" after their names or served under a "Democratic" administration.
Knowing their history, you're not going to tell me that Larry Summers, Joe Biden, Hillary, Zbig Brzezinski, Robert Gates, Robert Rubin, Emanuel, et al are centrists. Maybe your insistence to keep foisting these distortions upon others is what earns your getting categorized or called names?
I would like to suggest that 'left-wing', 'center', and 'right-wing' are more often than not relative, rather than hard-coded permanent positions - though there are tendencies (among other things, 'left-leaning' folks tend to be more 'people-centered' while 'right-leaning' folks tend to be more 'corporate-centered').
The 'right-wingers' whine about the 'leftist media' and label anybody not as dogmatic and fanatical in their political ideology as being a 'leftist' - even if on a reasonable political scale these 'leftists' would more likely be considered 'centrists'. The 'left-wingers' can be just as dogmatic in how they see the world.
I have no illusion that the individuals you have mentioned do not either directly or indirectly serve the interests of the status quo; but this, I think, has less to do with whether they are 'left' or 'right' and more to do with their willingness to serve power. They would not be in positions of power, or potential power, if they were not willing.
Excellent analysis.
However, I would suggest that, as far as elected officials are concerned, though their wheels were greased by the corporate power structure, they would not be in those positions if WE had not put them there.
That is your opinion. Thats the whole point. Perhaps the distortion is in your point of view, perhaps you are further left than most. I'd certainly call Hillary a centrist as well as a couple of others.
I simply don't care for incivility, name calling or someone designating anyone as brand X.
Thomas,
"That is your opinion. Thats the whole point. Perhaps the distortion is in your point of view, perhaps you are further left than most. I'd certainly call Hillary a centrist as well as a couple of others."
One could argue, of course, that the same thing might be true of your position, with the correction that "perhaps you are further RIGHT than most." The fact that you would call Hillary "a centrist" gives some credence to that view.
Warmongering (Hillary) is generally not considered a centrist platform, not to mention many of her other positions that are not centrist. That's not just my opinion but many others. I notice too that you conveniently fail to discuss Obama's other picks that are clearly on the right.
Now, should one use perhaps a single word ("name-calling", "categorization") to describe someone like you who disseminates distortions such as this, or does one have to use an entire "civilized" paragraph to explain how you are doing it??
I hope all you naïve Obama supporters and two-party cowards are paying attention.
And if you had three strong parties you would be complaining about the party that won with only 35% of the vote.
I hope I am wrong, but if Obama becomes desultory on ending the Iraq war,just like the Congress in 2006, the people have to refuse to let this happen. I voted third party and even though I think it is cool to have an African American family in the White House, I seriously doubt that when you see who Obama has surrounded himself with, that things will change much.
Obama is a Centrist who only pandered to the anti-war Left to win the Democratic nomination. Anyone who examined his voting record in the U.S. Senate knew that.
Even his vaunted 2002 speech at an anti-war rally was "in part a political calculation that he hoped would benefit him among Democrats . . ." according to "Obama: From Promise to Power," by former Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell. (At the time, he was running for Illinois State Senate and courting support from leading liberal Democrats in Chicago.)
We should all take note of the names of these (supposed) Leftists who supported Obama and now claim surprise that he is a Centrist. These people should no longer be considered knowledgeable or credible.
Tim Chipman nor anyone else that has posted here has any idea what Obama's policies are going to be or what he is going to do. Reading his article and reading all the comments here it seems that if you didn't like Obama before you don't like him now. Fair enough. I was persuaded very late to vote for him and I am willing to give him time to see what he does. But I don't know what he will do, can do or will have top do dictated by circumstance. Governing is much different from a discussion, an ideology or particular goals of singular groups.
People that expect him to govern based on the ideology of a very small minority of the population are pretty much doomed to disappointment. Not only is he not doing that, he should not do that. He represents all the citizens of our country, though of course being a liberal, he will make some changes we want.
Anyone that expects a complete change to a "progressive" government is once again doomed to disappointment. All real change is incremental. Always has been, always will be.
My real question is, why would anyone want him to fail?
No one here wants him to "fail", unless they're GOP trolls. But it is hard to see how he can be considering many progressive policies when he's surrounding himself with right-wingers, while preaching "bi-partisanship". Also, Obama's record on many issues is clear (9-11, FISA, A-stan/Pakistan, the recent bailout, etc.), and you have his various post-nomination speeches wherein he swung to the right.
All real change is NOT always "incremental", so don't use that canard as an excuse for letting Obama off the hook. Look at the first 100 days, or say the first few years of FDR's administration - hardly incremental, and quite a departure from what had come before from Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, even Wilson.
You should try to get your info from more accurate sources.
"No one here wants him to "fail", unless they're GOP trolls."
Damn, I'm glad you said that. No kidding, my die hard Republican friends, even the hard right ones are giving him more leeway than some here. Its mind boggling. And THEY sure dion't think he's gone right.
I perhaps shouldn't have said "All real change is incremental" That was an absolute and their are exceptions. Though look at the real timelines and situation and I don't consider FDR's first 100 days "revolutionary"
If someone is not far left you designate them right wingers? Gen. Jones is certainly no right winger I can tell you. Centrists are not right wingers. I would suggest that what someone says and does as a junior Senator is far differnt than what he will do as President.
I would suggest that because he disagrees with someone else's opinion it does not make him wrong. Aside from that, anyone that expects Obama to go far left on his appointments is doomed to disappointment. No matter he is a liberal, he will have to stay center left most of the time. I believe my informatiion is usually reliable.
No one really knows what he will do.
I suppose some people in the US will think that anything even slightly to the left of Bush is "center", and slightly further than that is "far-left". Amazing how in the US these definitions have changed over the years from constant tolerance of what might have been considered fairly extreme conservative positions not so long ago. In Europe and elsewhere, Obama would be considered right-wing, not centrist.
But please explain how support for the outrageous FISA bill or suggesting escalation of war in A-stan and Pakistan is centrist or center-left. (?)
"In Europe and elsewhere, Obama would be considered right-wing, not centrist."
I don't really think so unless you are speaking of socialist countries.
"But please explain how support for the outrageous FISA bill or suggesting escalation of war in A-stan and Pakistan is centrist or center-left. (?)"
Didn't say it is. I keep trying to point out that campaigning is not the same as being President elect or President. You seem too knowledgeable about politics not to know this.
The center has moved farther left since I became a liberal, but things haven't changed that much over the lasst 25 years. Perhaps more change in the 15 years precedeing that time period.
Is most of Europe socialist? I'd say not.
Campaign statements and promises are indeed often different than the actions taken once in office. But that cannot excuse Obama's now tangible choices for Cabinet and high-level positions, with many more yet to come.
His spokespeople have also recently done a backslide on the pledge to close Gitmo. Ditto with the pledge to rescind the Smirk tax cuts to the wealthy, and giving tax cuts to those under $250.k. What the hell do you call that: centrist? NO, those are continuations of Smirk's fascism.
Your last statement I find to be just the opposite of the reality in the US today. The center is actually further right than in years past. Nixon was considered mainly centrist or center-right in his day, but with his social policies and ending the Vietnam War he'd probably be called a leftie by today's so-called conservatives.
"All real change is incremental. Always has been, always will be."
Thus the term "revolutionary change", right?
The idea of "incremental" change was put forth as centrist justification for tinkering around the edges as opposed to any significant structural changes in the status quo. Things have gotten so out of whack that the best Obama can do, if he continues his present trajectory, is to prop the system up a bit longer. But he will not be transformational, he will not change anything--he will be a stop gap moment in time on the long spiral downwards- that is change you can count on and it will NOT be meted out in an incremental manner, but rather a wholesale looting and destruction of the social contract.
You want to tell me why change for the better must be "incremental" but change for the worse is something we can't do anything about?
And, every time I see one of these apologetic platitudes straining credibility as to why Obama should get yet another pass, I wonder about the vow to hold him accountable, to hold his feet to the fire, to make him better...WELL?
I don't see how you got any type of a "apology" or "apologetic platitude" out of what I said. And further I can't imagine who an "apology" would be for. That was my opinion.
"You want to tell me why change for the better must be "incremental" but change for the worse is something we can't do anything about?"
Think about the change over the last eight years, that wasn't revolutionary, it was incremental and quite effective wouldn't you say. If Cheney had slammed all that crap on at once how far do you think he would have gotten.
Of course you can do something about change for the worse, hopefully we just started doing something about it.
Because radical change brings with it real instability and that change usually doesn't last. But the main reason I say it is that you can't force people to change to a timetable.
I don't remember ever vowing to "hold his feet to the fire" or anything like that so I couldn't tell you. I personally don't know what he is going to do for sure. I picked the best available in my opinion and am hoping I made the right choice.
"Thus the term "revolutionary change", right?"
Unless you believe we are going to have a revolution like the French Revolution, exactly. And we will not have any kind of revolution like that, nor will our economic system undergo a revolutionary change. But it will be darn sure pulled up by the short hairs.
All you have are apologies and when you can't defend your position any longer you start to whine about civility--or the intellectual superiority of posturing Progressives--or what have you.
The claim about incremental change under Bush-Cheney is laughable--considering the scope of the damage still underway. If you need proof of that, typing a response isn't worth it.
Within context of the choices--McCain-Palin was a known factor--they would've accelerated the decline and it actually may have provoked grassroots reaction. With Obama there was the possibility that he might have been a positive surprise for the better, but unfortunately that is increasingly unlikely. He is an establishment candidate--catering to vested interests at a time when they are vulnerable and the institution of alternative priorities are possible. Looks to me like he is squandering the opportunity more and more with each passing hour. The word for Obama: disappointment.
Vern,
"McCain-Palin was a known factor--they would've accelerated the decline and it actually may have provoked grassroots reaction. With Obama there was the possibility that he might have been a positive surprise for the better, but unfortunately that is increasingly unlikely." And the problem is that those who might have been active under a McCain admin are giving every indication of rolling over and playing dead under an Obama one - the "give him time" and increasingly pitiful excuses coming from the mouths of supposed "progressive" gurus are blunting, nay, sabotaging, a truly progressive agenda. There are some here who simply cannot bring themselves to seriously consider the possibility, let alone admit, that their hero's feet are made of clay (well financed clay, to be sure, but clay nonetheless).
However there are some here who were not deluded by his rhetoric, who did not "hold their noses", but who, in fact, like what he is doing and voted for him because they hoped and believed he would pursue the course he is. These folks, I suspect, liked Clinton (Bill and/or Hillary) and are pleased to see a continuation of the Clinton era. I think by reading over some of the exchanges in several series of posts, one can figure out who they are. Hey, that's OK, but I wish they would just come out and say so.
CONTACT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK OF HIM HIRING MORE OF THE SAME!!!!
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html
Seems to me what with the announcements that he has made, the USA has elected a coconut. Brown on the outside white on the inside. Certainly he is not a progressive, coconut he is.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
After the last eight years of the Bush administration I found myself longing for the return of the Nixon days.(lol) Through the lens of time he (President Nixon) looked pretty "progressive" compared to the crowd currently occupying the White House. (Humor intended)
"Brown on the outside white on the inside."
I see President-elect Obama as a human being. Not as a Black man. Not as a White Man. Certainly not as a coconut.
You want change? Elect third party candidates who promise to tax the wealth of property until there is no wealth people.
Take the wealthies money, you take their power.
Exactly! too many really stupid people have inherited way to much power, take it away through taxation, anyone with more than a few million should be helped in their divestment for the good of the rest of the country.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Why all the surprise? Just because a man has African blood doesn't mean he's not part of a corrupt system that will always support the wealthy. How many betrayals by the Democratic Party does it take before we learn that our two party system is defunct.
I'm not a supporter of the American voter. Why? Well, after the victory of Prop. 8 and other bigoted measures, the American voter has proven once again that it is ignorant and incapable of making intelligent, moral choices. So be it.
How prophetic are the Nader and McKinney voters looking now?
Take a guy like Hayden groveling in the mud on behalf of Obama and other so called progressives.
Turns out everything that those to left of the Democrat Party were saying is true. The only question, when is the rest of the herd going to wake up?
If you think of the people as a herd, why bother?
Joe
Hey Joe!
Welcome back to the fray.
Glad to see you didn't leave us!
Thanks - I look forward to your comments too.
Joe
Obama can do very little against the establishment
The people has to lead the charge and he will follow , he will not fight them
Alone the Establishment owned and controlled by Zionists ,( remember they own and control the media, banks most institution of learning , most influential in Americas think tank etcetera !!, etcetera,!! Etcetera!!) along with the racist south would simple crush him.
One should be cognizant of the facts that Zionists control most of the politicians if not all in both Parties
I am not talking about Jews , I am referring to a small powerful segment of political ideologies in America who happens to be a small part of the Jewish faith
I wrote the stuff below on July 2 - and it has pretty much come true. Except the part about people losing interest. Things were so bad, and the man is so personally attractive, people continued to show interest. I wanted Obama to win, and did some work on the campaign with my eyes wide open. I do not regret that, since otherwise we would have had McCain Palin - an erratic old man and his narcissistic Moosalini waiting to take over.
So far the worst paranoid fears (cancelled elections, assassinations) have not materialized. Instead it we are seeing the slow dull tedious signs of smothering initiative, initiative for reclaiming what could be good in our country, economically, politically, diplomatically. Even I (known as the cynical one in my family) underestimated how corporatized his Cabinet selections would be. He has repeatedly chosen free-market political pitbulls over proven experts, Nobel Prize caliber talent and vision, and those honest voices whose unpopular warnings and prophecies have proven correct.
I would like to remind us that the millions who worked and voted for Obama and have had their hopes raised and their attention sharpened are still out there. They are a wonderfully likeable, diverse and energetic group. They have experienced the relationship between work and result. Let us keep talking with them and find ways to channel their idealism and organizing experience into practical projects based on the inescapable household woes that are increasing and cannot be addressed within the top-down framework that is being built before our eyes. The Obama supporters are our brothers and sisters and the best hope for change.
HERE IS WHAT I WROTE ON JULY 2:
"Obama may be changing his tune for any number of reasons: in an attempt to build consensus; to protect himself, as vmulier suspects; in a short sighted move that panders to people's fear and superstition; because the fresh energetic organizer has given up his intelligence and idealism and become the tired sanctimonious mainstreamer careerist.
The public is getting a taste of what to expect. The campaign is becoming Kerry-ized. (Mealy mouth so much people become confused and lose interest). The presidency will be Clinton-ized. (Go back on key promises in an instant, bomb someone to show you are tough).
You know what song comes to mind? "I wanna be there to pick up the pieces when somebody breaks your heart". That's going to be the job of progressives vis-a-vis Obama supporters, if we are lucky."
Joe
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
What can Obama really do for the peoples of America,? He has to step very carefully
He will only be allowed to make changes in accordance with the puppet masters of the US
My opinion is that the real power that controls America's policies ( the powers behind the throne) lays deep within their layers, while controlling every aspect of American power
I would cautiously say it is almost impossible to have them dragged into the common light of day for all to see
Remember these lines "Give me control of the economics of a Country; and I care not who makes her laws" ���������� Amsel Rothschield
and he should know he and his family controlled the bank of England for decades, ALSO has huge investments in the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
What can Obama really do for the peoples of America,? He has to step very carefully
He will only be allowed to make changes in accordance with the puppet masters of the US
My opinion is that the real power that controls America's policies ( the powers behind the throne) lays deep within their layers, while controlling every aspect of American power
I would cautiously say it is almost impossible to have them dragged into the common light of day for all to see
Remember these lines "Give me control of the economics of a Country; and I care not who makes her laws" ���������� Amsel Rothschield
and he should know he and his family controlled the bank of England for decades, ALSO has huge investments in the Federal Reserve Bank of the USA
When they ridiculed Mike Gravel during the primaries, ignored Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, and excluded Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul from the later debates, all of you so-called "progressive" or "liberal" or "Democratic" voters should have known the jig was up. But no, in the end you were spoon fed (yet again) the two oligarchic/plutocratic candidates - this time McCain (hard-right wing) and Obama (right-wing) - that you apparently wanted.
Obama's record was there in front of your faces. What did you THINK you were going to get - FDR?? Kennedy?? - considering his record on FISA, 9-11, A-stan, etc., his VP pick Biden, and so many of the things he said after his nomination?
Or some would say it was willful ignorance.
After all, from 8 years (actually...28 years) of having our pants down around our ankles, anything was better than Bush Again, right?
Well it looks like we're getting Clinton Again. Or a bit more benign socially but just as warlike, LBJ Again. It's enough to make one vomit.
Why didn't so many of you who busted your asses for The Great Black Hope do so for a REAL progressive?? Did you forget the lesson of 1992, when Ross Perot's candidacy struck fear into both parties, after which the debates were no longer administered by the League of Women Voters, and instead are now run by a corporation to the exclusion of the 3rd parties and alternative candidates??
Do you Obama voters feel now like Charlie Brown does when Lucy yanks the football away? I hope so.
Seditious u r right on! Obama's record was right in front of everybody's eyes and they willfully ignored it and listened to the spoon-fed pabulum and swallowed and smiled and blindly voted. Obama might not be a bad guy. Who knows? We, in this perverse Plutocracy, never really get to know our leaders. They are the Elite. They go to Yale and Harvard and Columbia and enter the Skull and Bones society (I know Obama wasn't in that particular Club--they probably don't let African Americans through those Doors) and rub elbows with other Elites and drink from the Cup and...Nothing really changes. We are the Kingdom of Fear. Long live Hunter S. Thompson. Remember: Kill the ones who eat you, and eat the ones you kill...HST
p.s. everyone should check out John MacArthur's "You Can't Be President". A great book and an enjoyable--albeit scary--read.
I have "Rick" McA's book on order at the library, and I've heard him on a local radio interview and on Democracy Now! Very interesting the work he's done.
Unless Obama pulls emphatically left against the tide of the very people he's appointing - and I doubt he will or he wouldn't be hiring them - he is nothing but a bought-and-paid-for shill for the Inc's. His donor list and affiliations are clear. He's gone to Ivy League, been a law professor and a politician. MacArthur has said vis-a-vis Obama in his book tour that he must tow the current DLC line to a large extent or he won't be greatly supported. However, it looks to me that by appointing Hillary to State, he may be attempting either to nullify or absorb the Clinton right-wing of the Dems.
HST is one of my heros!
These comments are chock full of folks attacking those of us who, based upon early observations, might be feeling wary of Obama's choices and motivations.
To all of you, so critical of CommonDreams and of those CD-enizens who lend a critical eye to not so much Obama himself, but to the flow of political events surrounding him and his choices, I suggest you read:
Jeremy Scahill's article "This is Change...?" published on Common Dreams Nov. 20.
It is loaded with *facts*, names, places, records, biographies, history.
To actually LOOK at those facts and not get the sensation that early indications about the new administrative team don't seem to be all that directed towards:
finding WHO CAUSED the FAILOUT leading to the Bailout (how else can we avoid repeating that disaster?)
finding out why, perhaps, the US taxpayers have had to bail out so many other "risk-takers" before — S&L's, lenders in Mexico, SE Asia, etc. — who socialized their losses, too? Is there not a lesson to be learned here?
repairing the damages done to our judiciary & legal structure
talking (talking, at least) about the abuses to our Constitution (and maybe about repairing them)
mentioning the *illegality* of the Iraq War and Occupation (why must we be "responsible" only when it comes to "getting out"??)
investigating high crimes of this Administation (rather than sweeping them under the rug)
locating the trillions missing (yes!) from the DOD budget
What is it, folks, that bothers you about FACTS, about indicators?? Do you find them disturbing?
What is your presumptive "hope" based upon, besides just a desire to sit back and let things ride?
Many of you probably railed on Bush for doing nothing as we watched Katrina careening closer, and nothing being done to evacuate folks nor to shore up levees (for years). WHY? Because the facts indicated what was coming and what might be done to prepare for it, right? Yeah, criminal negligence.
So...why NOW do you avert your eyes from facts and history, and don't want to hear about what indicators say might be coming our way?? How similar to the "Palin Approach to Reality"! Just "talk it" away.
Do you all agree that we should do nothing about the MANY impeachable crimes committted at the highest levels of this Administration? Do you feel we should keep the 14 US bases going in Iraq? Do you think we should meekly pay out whatever Blackmail is foisted upon us in the name of "Crisis" by the oh-so-believable Bush Regime??
By not going after each crime as it was committed (or at least shortly thereafter), Dems have place this nation on a very vulnerable and dangerous path whereby crimes go unnoticed much less unpunished, and citizens are kept in the dark about who is committing them, and thus are unable to organize in their own defense. Silence and triangulating by DLC-run Democrats in Congress for electoral purposes is not so innocuous as some would have us believe.
The "official" Dem narrative always goes like this: first we have to get elected, then we can make change happen. So....? Been there. Done that. How 'bout a little hocus-pocus pixie dust miracle "change" powder in the air, hmmm? Maybe all those folks in the tentative Obama line-up are all "in" on it, too — just gearing up for January 20 to reverse the nasty abuses.
Y'know, if I were even more of a cynic, I'd say you were just a couple of right-wing freepers who kinda like Robert Gates, or who are trying to preemptively deflect criticism from those thinking folks that just might get or maintain others active, vigilant, or involved in defending our freedoms and our communities.
We have every right — duty, even — to actively reflect and comment about each move and innuendo this Administration-to-be makes as it comes together to formulate policy which effects us all. It is high time THEY come to rely upon US for indications of which directions we must be moving. Democracy is not an act you do one day every four years.
I'm not critical of CD, they supported Obama and even went so far as to state so in the fund raising letter they mass-mailed before the election. No, alank, I just disagree with bitter Naderites like you who would rather sabotage the most progressive president ever elected, rather than work together for change. Nader is the new Lyndon Larouche, and the enormous egos of Nader and his cult have turned the public against their cause. Sorry, alank, but the politics of division have come to an end. Your negativity is useless. We must unite as proud Americans to save this country. Join us in supporting Obama. Join us in creating hope. Join us in our creating our vision for the future.
Joe, if you seriously think that Nader is comparable to Larouche, then I'd say you're delusional. I hear a lot of the use of words like "ego" and "bitter" towards Nader from Obama supporters who can't seem to face the facts on Obama. This is the same tactic used by the GOP against their Dem rivals that we've seen all too often, a tactic that your own candidate largely claimed to eschew.
I for one will not "join" you, if that means swinging once again to the authoritarian right under the guise of "unity", "bi-partisanship", "hope", and "vision", all propaganda terms for the same bullshit we've had for many years.
You need to get real, drop the rock star worship, and if you claim to be a progressive or liberal, start acting like one instead of like a Reagan "Democrat".
Thank you!
I haven't even read this article but I am astounded at the headline. What do people expect? Why is anyone surprised that Obama would sell people out? Because he's black? It sort of puzzles me.
Politics and political life is not determined by individuals; it is determined by classes. And classes have political parties. A political party does not exist in a vacuum. A political party represents classes, groups of people.
The Democratic party was once the party of slavery, it is now a capitalist party. The funny thing is that during the late 19th century when William Sylvis and others were trying to build an independent Labor Party, it was very hard to get the black folks to abandon the Republican Party which they correctly saw as the party of liberation.
But the slightest knowledge of history teaches us this; that political parties have a class base. So what is it with all the academics and liberals that they are surprised that their choice for president, a member of the Democratic Party, abandoning workers and the promises they made when they asked for us to vote for them? What do they expect?
This naivete stuns me.
http://www.weknowhatsup.blogsport.com
As I see it: one side here is still having hope (give him, Obama, a chance); the other says that Mr. Obama is betraying his promises.
The facts suggest that he changed into a right winger, immediately after beating MS. Clinton in the primary.
Therefore, both of you only have yourselves to blame for your delusions.
You will go through, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, then acceptance.
No, Obama has not changed into a right-winger. As several other people have pointed out, his voting record since he's been in the Senate does not suggest that he was ever anything other than the center-right politician who caters to corporate interests in almost every political action he takes that he is now.
The nascent Obama administration is looking so Clintonesque that I have only one question: when is Monica Lewinsky returning?
Alex
Cheap shot.
Are you doing your best Karl Rove impersonation or do you work for the Republicans? (if not, they'd happily pay for you to keep attacking Obama) Keep it up, I'm sure Palin is proud of you for making it easier for her to run in 2012. Is that what you want?
I hate to say it, but the only person who will make it easier for Palin to win in 2012 is Obama. All he has to do is end up being another Republican-lite Dem who doesn't follow through on what they promise voters. Seems like that is his current strategy.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
What exactly did he promise that he's not adhering to, aside from repeating empty slogans about "hope" and "change you can believe in"?
Duhhh…
Few bothered to listen, even on this web site. Few bothered to listen to Obama himself. Who and what do you think got him elected?? Big money and trickery. The empire is still imploding. He'll just continue adding fuel to the fire, like he's being told to do. Now all those who had waved the Obama flag and vilified those who warned against this can have another thought, maybe, that they allowed their enthusiasm to blind them. Oh well.
COMPULSORY DRAFT--THE MOST VIABLE APPROACH
A strict compulsory draft might well have prevented this ill conceived Iraqi war, and would discourage other such future misadventures. It would coerce our legislators into better scrutinizing their approval of such military action, since their offspring (and those of their constituents) would then be subjected to military service.
It would also enable abolishment of our shameful engagement of reckless and unaccountable mercenaries, which has further degraded our international standing.
I think that this is well-intentioned but misguided. Many countries with belligerent foreign policies have used conscription to right their unjust wars. The fact that our volunteer military is too small to take on new wars is helping to keep us out of Iran.
This swing from leaning left to center-right did not just happen with the cabinet and White House staff appointments. Obama's shift occurred right after the nomination was clinched. It is a betrayal of the promise of change he ran on, a betrayal of the people who worked for him and elected him, and bad news for the world that may have been expecting a welcome change in the U.S.
"Change" is not a promise, it's just a word. Obama has never leaned left during his entire term in the Senate. Many people feel betrayed, but that's because they listened to the empty rhetoric rather than looking at his voting record and policy positions, which have always been center-right.
An Open Letter to President-elect Obama
Dear Mr. President-elect,
As a Constitutional Scholar, you will probably not need this reminder, but I pass it on none-the-less. Remember the oath that you take, to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - To your predecessor, that meant no more than shred and flush a "goddamned piece of paper,"- which should have brought on an impeachment in itself.
All We the People asked, when we elected a Democratic majority in 2006 was to have the Constitution replaced, intact and functioning, in the Halls of Government, to end the illegal wars and impeach the war criminals that prosecuted them, to bring the war profiteers to heel and curb the runaway Pentagon.
None of that happened. The war criminals are still in power, the military, the wars, and the war profiteers are still raping the nation. Hundreds of Billions of more dollars have been spent Thousands are still dying or being forced from their homes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We the People expect you, of all people, to take your oath of office seriously. It would be nice if, in your first address to Congress and the Senate, you remind them of their oath, and insist that they take it seriously also.
With our Constitution and Bill of Rights back in the Halls of Government, there is nothing we, as a nation, cannot handle and survive.
With the Constitution and Bill of Rights supplanted by the various enabling acts of the Cheney/Bush government, the mis-named Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the various other domestic spying and surveillance acts that have proliferated in the last eight years, the numerous treaties (Constitutionally the "Law of the Land") that we have abrogated, we have been reduced to the status of a rogue, third-world dictatorship. We use the bayonet instead of diplomacy. We starve those who do not submit to us, we kill them, we subvert them.
Our police routinely beat and jail those who protest these policies. Posse Comitatus has been eliminated and NorthCom is poised to launch seasoned combat brigades against We the People who may protest this disintegration.
I just want to remind you, as an individual of We the People, to remember the Constitution you vow to protect and defend and make sure it is the rule and guide of our conduct as a nation instead of a quaint piece of history locked away in a restroom somewhere next to the shredder.
We wish you the best of luck in restoring our nation, but We the People will be watching all of you very closely to see that Government does not revert to "business as usual,"- with the lobbyists and special interests calling in their markers to keep the wars and the chaos going and the pork and money trough full.
Sincerely,
(We wrote this right after the election. Apparently, he is not listening.)
Good letter - I agree.
Don't write him off quite yet. Maybe he has one or two other things to do before he gets back to you.
You know, George Bush has proven (in a negative way, unfortunately), just how interlinked this world is. It is very true that when the USA sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.
Barack Obama will be the preeminent leader of the world, and the rest of the world knows it. He has a rather big job to do, and every single person alive can count on the fact that he will not do it perfectly nor to everyone's complete satisfaction. The world is even more broken than it was, thanks to the neo-fascists. If we can't give this guy (who, by the way, isn't even in office yet) a hand, can't we at least give him a chance?
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
It's surprising and a bit disappointing to see all this entrenchment on the left. Is it not clear that the President-Elect will have to implement change in the country as it IS and not as we all want it to be? He is loading his administration with smart and highly accomplished people who are respected on both sides of the aisle, know how government works and how to get things accomplished in the existing framework. He's been very clear about governing from the center and being a President for all the American people. This is not - nor was it ever billed to be - a revolution in conventional terms. There is the potential for huge change - and the conditions in which we find ourselves demand huge change. I think you have to look at the means - Obama is reconciling opposites, de-polarizing - as likely to yield very different results than the longtime entrenchment in polarization with which we've governed ourselves in the past. We might want to assess what he's doing in different terms: maybe these very different means will inevitably bring very different results. Maybe that's placing undue importance on the leadership of this one individual, but thus far his judgement and actions have proven to be remarkably good. I share the concern about the underrepresentation of progressives in his appointments, but there's a world of difference between weighing in from the left and throwing in the towel on our influence because it's not going far enough fast enough. Let's try to muster some wisdom and patience while making ourselves heard during the transition.
The problem with this logic katfish is that the "center" according to both isles in DC is NOT the center of public opinion. You seem to think that working with Republicans or moderate Democrats is "centrist". If 2/3's of the US public want universal healthcare even if it raises taxes and Obama doesn't do so, whose "center" is he governing from? What about the ignored opinions of the US public on economics, Iraq, etc? The center isn't between ideological opposites, frankly the two sides have blured in DC. Both parties have backed the packaged ideas of "free trade", a hawkish foreign policy and the flawed and ineffecient healthcare system. The "center" is between the opinions of the US populace and the elites in government and private industry. If you think that is what is needed then argue that, but don't accept the phrasing of the elite media and out of touch DC politicians and assume it makes any freaking logical sense. I agree that people should stay engaged, but his appointments have, if anything, sent a signal. Obama is intelligent, when he appoints Emanual as his chief of staff, he is sending a message. When he appoints "free market" gurus to head his economic team and appoints hawkish neo-liberals like Clinton, he is sending a message. I hope the American people GET that message and stay engaged by creating change outside the two parties. He might be a move in a positive direction in some ways but no one deserves a break from criticism, the stakes are too high and we live in a democracy. Ideas and policy decisions need to be logically defended, at all times without exception.
I think that part of the "entrenchment" on the left comes from being betrayed repeatedly by the Democratic Party for the past 16 years. The Clinton years were a great disappointment to many progressives. I did not join the Democratic Party to continue the Cold War AFTER the USSR had been dissolved, to increase welfare for corporations while cutting it for the poor, to put tax cuts before increased domestic spending, to cut back on civil liberties in peacetime, to push Phil Gramm's ideas about deregulation, or to sit back while CO2 emissions increased. This was pushed me out of the Democratic Party by early 2001.
Throughout the Bush years, the Democrats continued to capitulate to the Republicans on the Patriot Act (twice!), CAFTA, the Iraq war, FISA, the bailout, bankruptcy and class action lawsuit "reform", Supreme Court Justice Alito, legalizing torture, etc.
"Bipartisanship", "centrism", and "pragmatism" became code words for giving Bush pretty much whatever the hell he wanted.
Many of the left are concerned about Obama's votes on FISA and the Wall Street bailout. Bringing in Larry Summers (who helped get us into our current economic crisis by pushing for deregulation as Treasury Secretary) as his chief economic adviser raises questions about his plans for change. If Obama governs as a centrist, we could lose the opportunity to really change things before the Republicans take power again and continue moving the country to the right.
Our current President is not one of the top 10, the top 20, or even in the top 30 of the Presidents that we've had, but I have to agree with what he was trying to say:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't fool me again."
Your comment that it is disappointing to see all the entrenchment on the left is an understatement.
This is the best chance in a generation for progressives to have any real influence, but as usual the far left is going to throw childish tantrums worthy of 5 year olds who don't play well together. The comments on this website show that.
The results will be the usual for purist lefties: being irrelevant and not having a clue why.
It sounds like you've got a plan. Let's hear it. Which direction will you steer President Obama and how will you accomplish it?
Us leftist purists will probably hit the streets. Adults and respectable people don't do that. They sit at home and watch TV, mostly.
-TIA
On the evening of November 4 the President-elect stood on the edge of history with a vast horizon of potential and goodwill before him, but, alas, weakly chose the dustbin of the forgotten.
"No creation, no destruction, nothing has ever happened." Ramana Maharshi
Your opinion of course. Not the opinion of millions of your fellow citizens and the greater millions upon millions of others around the world. I forgot; They are all stupid and you are not.
Where did Wei Wu Wei say that everyone who disagreed with him or her was stupid?
Stop putting words into other peoples' mouths.
My sarcasm Pal. The stupidity of others is implied in everything you "mental giants" post. Surely you get it. (No dissertation required)
It's you and the other members of the "Sit Down and Shut Up" crowd who are calling progressives who have the temerity to question Obama "completely insane", "spoiled brats", "purists", and "bigoted". You just proved my point with your last post, "Pal".
I am not a member of any 'sit down and shut up crowd" and I probably agree with much of your world view. We differ only in method. For me change is evolutionary. It will take time and we must move one step at a time. I believe President-elect Obama is the first step. (You might think otherwise) The negativity expressed by many commentors here on CD is counter-productive to any change and only assures that things will stay the same or get worse.
Sorry about the "Pal" remark. It had nothing to do with you and everything to do with my reaction (frustration) to the negativity expressed on these forums.
Thomas Gilbert
Sorry, I was too harsh to you as well. I agree with you that some of the anti-Obama stuff is over the top. I didn't vote for Obama, but I can understand that many people did believing that he would be progressive or a lesser evil than McCain. I don't hold Obama voters in disdain; I couldn't have convinced some of them to vote for a local Green Party candidate if I did.
Do you not see a conflict in the "we will make him better" promise or the old "we will hold his feet to the fire" oath and the persistant accomodation of those view complicity, if not regression, as the only option?
Characterizing those who are openly critical where it is merited as strutting some kind of superior intellect smacks of the anti-intellectual charge of the Right. It suggests that if one isn't hoodwinked to go along with the program or exhibits any independent critical thinking then, of course, they are being unreasonable for not conforming.
After all, who do you think YOU are, smartypants?
I welcome and appreciate all the constructive criticism expressed by many of the authors of comments here on CD. Unfortunately much of what I find here is not constructive but rather deliberately destructive in nature.
Perhaps some would like to give up all hope and search for nothing but that which is negative but many more prefer to look for that which is positive. Millions upon millions of people around the world are more positive today as result of the decision made by the citizens of the United States in this past Presidential election. Does that not tell you something? Hope is in the air (although not so evident here) everywhere.
Who do I think I am? I am Thomas Gilbert. An Optimist.
Well said, Dante, you're preaching to the choir.
Hey Thanks Joe.
dante.
be positive. its so easy to put someone down on a post like this by calling them a name or acting like their not as intelligent as you are. Its not going to change anything in the world by putting someone down. be constructive with your criticism and work for change.
Ok. Lets give Obama a chance. but aren't you a least bit curious why he is promoting people like H. Clinton and Rahm Israel Emmanuel to key posts? I am and obviously there are alot of others who feel that the "change" isn't really a change.
I suggest you check out counterpunch.org and read what other progressives are saying about Obama's recent choices of his posse.
Peace to you my friend.
"be positive." You jest? (smiling)
No one has tried to more positive on this site than I. In the past I complemented many I did not agree with but still appreciated the presentation of their ideas. Not today. I give up. Be Positive? Have you been reading this site? This site is about hatred.
Perhaps Mr. Emmanuel will make a fine Chief of Staff and perhaps Senator Clinton will make a fine Sec. of State under a President Obama administration. I don't know. Either do you. Who would Ralph have put there? I don't know. Either do you. One thing I do know is that these people (Obama's Choices) will be professionals who can and will execute any program the President directs them to.
I am not going to get into the game of micro-analysing events that have yet to happen. Silly speculation coupled with attempts to influence an environment of distrust in an administration that, as of yet, does not exist is counter-productive to any environment one would term positive.
Peace to you also my Friend.
Thomas Gilbert
Ps. The United States is a country of over three hundred million citizens. A very diverse population representing multiple cultures and interests. A President's cabinet must represent these multiple interests as closely as possible. If worse comes to worse, he hired them and he can always fire them. I am sure many would not like Ralph's cabinet if he were in the same position the President-elect is in today. It is all so easy when viewed from the security our favorite arm chairs. Not so easy when you have been elected to the most important political office in the world. (TJG)
Obama isn't even in office yet, so clearly it's too early to judge his administration. But if one can infer anything from his initial offerings of cabinet officers and other advisors, his administration looks to be a grand disappointment. The only change seems likely to be from promise to the same old same old.
It seems to me that he had two choices - 1. Choose relatively unknown, untested people or 2. choose those from both parties who've been around the block. With everything he's facing, and being a relative neophite, #2 just might help him pull it off. I still say give him a chance to prove he knows what he's doing.
If any of the articles on Common Dreams even came close to being accurate, or any of your opnions even close to being correct then maybe there would be some credibility, but if any of Common Dreams articles were accurate then Iran and Israel would have obliterated each other and the US and Russia would be in WWIII and John Mccain president of another stolen election. This site really is becoming ridiculous and I am beginning to see that any extremist left or right are pretty much insane. The man has a job to do and is doing what he needs to. And all of you act like theres some conspiracy already at work. Yea, I get it that you all hate Bill CLinton too, but I also know how prosperous the country was under him. My business (construction)is the perfect barometer of how the country and economy are doing and business was booming under Clinton. hmmm 22 million new jobs was a bad thing? turning the largest deficit into the largest surplus was a bad thing? Obama will do alot of great things for alot of people, but because he isnt your choice you'll just keep on complaining, don't you people ever get sick of carrying around that much hate and negativity? I had enough of it during the Bush years, the rest of the world is delirious in celebration and so am I. The Phillies won the world series, and Obama won the White House. And pretty soon we'll hear that we have a fillibuster proof senate. And business is going to be real good this coming year....and alot of poor people will be alot better off, but of course that doesnt matter to you rich spoiled little know it all brats as long as you have your ipods and crappy music.....
Thank you.
"If we live our lives continually motivated by anger and hatred, even our physical health deteriorates." --- His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Hey, liberal. Your requirements for an elected representative of the people are rather light. From your definition, Bush also had a job to do and did what he needed to do. Why should anyone complain?
For some people, the economy did just fine under the Bush years. They feel the same about Bush as you do about Clinton. Is your personal prosperity the only yardstick for a good president?
What people are trying to say, and you aren't hearing, is that Obama is picking people who led this country down a rathole in the past - to paths of war. Does that matter to you? Won't you demand better?
-TIA
"This site really is becoming ridiculous and I am beginning to see that any extremist left or right are pretty much insane."
I'm on your side. I completely agree with you. You make sense to me.
Some people are tone deaf to Obama's message of peace.
They would rather focus on division instead of unity.
On the past instead of the future.
On hate instead of love.
On playing politics instead of being bipartisan.
On being idealistic instead of realizing compromise is necessary.
But don't get too hung up on all the "rich spoiled little know it all brats" on CD (Ha! I bet...), they are a minority. The Democrats support people like us. And don't forget that there are still some progressives like Norman Solomon, Juan Cole, and Michael Moore who worked tirelessly to help elect Obama. Even the editors of CD appeared very supportive of Obama during the election. They stand with people like us. So don't lose hope, Brother. We are not alone, indeed, we are the majority.
Can we save the world?
Yes, we can!
Join us and build a brighter future.
Love will find a way.
Obama will save the day!
Liberal,
Well put.
"If any of the articles on Common Dreams even came close to being accurate, or any of your opnions even close to being correct then maybe there would be some credibility, but if any of Common Dreams articles were accurate then Iran and Israel would have obliterated each other and the US and Russia would be in WWIII and John Mccain president of another stolen election."(liberal with an... November 23rd, 2008 6:55 pm)
You said it all here. What I find interesting are those commentors who feel they should apologize for voting for Mr.Obama. I strongly doubt that any of those had voted for the new President-elect in the first place.
As P. Diddy said, "Obama is our first cool President".
As M. Morford said "Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."
Obama is no sellout.
Obama is a cool.
Obama is a lightworker!
He is blessing from G*D who has come to heal our planet.
I only wish that was so....
He certainly came off like that but I fear it was only a facade.
I certainly hope I am incorrect, but if indeed I am not there will be no more trust with our government at all. I am very uncomfortable to where that path might lead.