Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Doves Keep The Faith as Obama Team Tilts Right
Leading opponents of the war have mostly been silent as president-elect Barack Obama, who first built his national image on the foundation of his early opposition to the Iraq war, assembles a group of national security hands that is anything but a team of doves.
Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he's remaining on the same course he's always charted - one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer. It's a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party,
at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war
and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a
commander-in-chief whose every action they've opposed for the past
eight years.
"Shock has paralyzed them for the moment," said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. "We are in an Obama bubble now. And it's tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble."
Especially, he added, before that bubble takes shape.
"You've got some people like myself who are saying there may be an interesting design in what Obama is trying to do. Maybe it doesn't fit easily in a neatly sculpted box of liberal pacifist and warmonger hawk. Maybe it's more complex than that."
Still, it's clearly a team that tilts to the right of Democratic foreign policy thought.
Vice-president-elect Joe Biden initially backed the war in Iraq and has supported other military interventions in his long Senate career. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also supported the Iraq war resolution, a vote that Obama framed as a critical failure of judgement during the primary. She's also taken a harder line on Iran than the president-elect-and is in line to be his Secretary of State.
Jim Jones, a retired Marine General who advised Clinton, Obama and John McCain during the campaign and has refused to disclose his partisan leanings, is slated for National Security Adviser. And running the Pentagon? For at least the first year of his administration, it's virtually certain that the new president will retain Robert Gates-the Secretary of Defense appointed by President Bush.
Liberals scored one victory, though, when a top candidate to take over the CIA withdrew from consideration this week after concerns surfaced over his views on the agency's interrogation methods. In a letter taking his name out of consideration, John Brennan said he didn't want to be a "distraction" to the president-elect.
Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama's foreign policy.
For now there is a measure of trust from liberals who believe Obama will hold to the principles he espoused during the campaign: end the war in Iraq, negotiate with adversaries and restore America's standing in the global community.
"We should have a simple sign on our wall saying, ‘It's the policy stupid,'" said Tom Andrews, the former Maine congressman, riffing off James Carville's 1992 Clinton campaign mantra. "Many will give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt about who is executing the policy as long as there is no comprise or backtracking on the policy itself," added Andrews, who now heads the group "Win Without War."
There is, Andrews noted, a reluctance to carp before Obama is even sworn in. "He hasn't been president for one second yet," the former congressman observed.
Progressives who knew Obama before his ascent onto the national stage also suggest that he's remaining on the same course he's always charted - one that hews closer to the middle than those on the right will give him credit for or those on the left would prefer.
Maryiln Katz, a veteran of the peace movement dating back to her days as a member of Students for a Democratic Society, helped organize the October 2002 rally in Chicago's Federal Plaza where Obama declared his opposition to what he called a "dumb war."
But, Katz recalled, the then-state senator also made certain to point out he was no pacifist.
"He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement," she said. "He wasn't us. He didn't pander to the crowd."
But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.
"A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him," she said. "And that was never him. It was never true."
Still, President Obama sounds a lot better than President Bush to a peace movement whose members have spent the last seven years in a posted of principled, if often powerless, opposition-and who now have to find a new point of orientation.
"It's a real challenge to those of who have grown up in opposition to everything," said Katz. "How do we behave in a way that it expands the progressive point of view? How do you maintain an independent NGO, issue-based infrastructure based on something other than a culture of complaint?"
Some clues could come in Chicago, where from January 1st to the 19th (MLK Day and the day before Obama's inauguration), a coalition of liberal groups will rally in Hyde Park at what they're calling "Camp Hope" to push for various liberal priorities at home and abroad. Still, the language of their "presence" -- they do not call it a protest-highlights the confusion as to how to relate to an incoming president who is, at the least, less adversarial to their agenda.
The group will congregate daily to "congratulate Senator Obama as our new President-elect and recommit ourselves to progressive actions he promoted on his campaign trail," states the message on their Web site, which adds, "We earnestly hope his presidency will signal the dawning of long-needed progressive change in the United States."
To be sure, there are some voices who haven't hesitated to take on the president-elect when he's departed from their line, but those voices have found themselves increasingly marginalized by the press and those in the peace movement willing to give Obama a chance.
"He is violating the people's mandate," complained Jodie Evans, a Code Pink co-founder who emailed from Tehran, where she was meeting with government officials and other peace activists. "The people elected him over her precisely because of their different foreign policy stances. Here we are in Iran, working to establish citizen diplomacy, hearing the concerns of the Iranian people and how it feels to have [Clinton] say she wants to obliterate Iran. Those comments are not taken lightly and [are] seen as policy positions here."
Evans, who with her husband helped raise money for Obama during the primary and general election, hinted at how the new president-elect has kept the left-wing at bay since winning the election-by focusing on the issue that first brought them to his side.
Recalling her interaction with Obama at fundraisers, the veteran liberal activist said: "It has gotten to the point where he sees me coming and before I am close he just keeps repeating, 'Jodie, I PROMISE, I will end the war, I promise I will end the war.' It is effective in limiting the amount of time I have to complain about what ever is up [to] at the moment."
Those vested in power, though, are less inclined to complain just yet.
"My immediate reaction was that I feel sure that President Obama knows that he was elected on a campaign of change, and that includes on foreign policy," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), a Bay Area liberal who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus, when asked about the new commander-in-chief. "Regardless of who advises him, he must and I believe he will embrace a bold agenda that uses our non-military power,"
Woolsey said others in the peace movement are holding their fire because they are "so relieved that we will have a leader they can trust," even as, she said, they are "counting on the progressives in the Congress to keep his feet to the fire."
So far, though, Obama's yet to feel the flame.
Observed Clemons: "It's very hard for even leaders of the left to poke holes because too many of their followers will say, ‘give the guy a break-he hasn't even been in there yet.' You should see the ridicule or hate at anyone that tries to poke a hole in the Obama myth right now."
- Posted in



108 Comments so far
Show AllHope springs eternal...
.So funny that it hurts....But at least I am not disappointed, nor will I be in the coming administrations continuance of far too many of the status quo policies that fail us all. I saw this coming and was vocal about it, as were more than a few here, several now among the missing....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
And a faith-based political relationship is what folks had with Bush--and what he apparently had with himself.
This is JUST THE SAME.
Folks in the US have not changed. Nor have their leaders.
You need to figure out why you are WRONG before you can make any positive change.
There is no 'Iraq War' and using that term makes it harder to bring home our troops from Iraq. Many Americans (especially military) will not support withdrawal of troops from an ongoing 'war' (when victory is just around the next corner or after the next surge, supposedly). It will be much easier if we talk of bringing home troops by ending the friendly occupation.
Iraq and the US have negotiated an agreement allowing US troops to stay in Iraq for awhile. Does that sound like a war?
There is a war against terrorism (al-Qaeda in particular), which is fought in Iraq and elsewhere. But only I talk about how this is different from the Iraq occupation, instead they are lumped together. This makes it harder to deal with each separately.
End the 'Iraq War' by denying it exists. Then deal with the real problem facing Mr. Obama, the ongoing and impossible to win 'war on terror', which keeps us mired in Iraq, Afghanistan and which has expanded to Somalia, Syria, Pakistan, and will continue to expand across the globe since it is a 'global war' and the victory goal is to prevent future terrorism, an unreachable goal.
Indeed so, it is now an Illegal Occupation, prior an Illegal Invasion of a Sovereign Nation, absent a Declaration from Congress, Article.I.Section.8., cl 11, now to become a withdrawal from an Illegal Occupation and a redeployment of said Stop Loss'ed Troops into a sectarian clash in Afghanistan, NO END.
Insofar as Progressives yadda blah, I am a Far Left Leaning Liberal Commie Pinko Red as I was referred to in prior decades, shall remain as such, president ELECT obama, says "Change is what HE does", shit I'm moving to Germany he can do THIS! forget about it............
BillofRights
Discerning anti-war folk understood that Obama was never anti-war, except in a most qualified, hesitant way, after which he funded it with his Senate vote at every turn. We never had faith to lose.
Good point about the Iraq War.
It is easy to fall into slogans, especially ones that are only 2 syllables.
IT IS NOT A GD WAR!!!!!!
BillofRights
Faith? None to lose, but I am stunned. Mostly because he is so much worse than I predicted.
The online NY Times article reporting Obama's decision to retain Gates as Secretary of Defense began with this sentence:
“President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post, a show of bipartisan continuity in a time of war that will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party, Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.”
____________________________________
I quickly scanned the article, which quotes various sources supporting this premise, but I didn’t see a direct quote explicitly citing “bipartisan continuity in a time of war”.
We’re at “war”? The only “war” I’m aware of is the mythical, fictitious “Global War on Terror” declared by outgoing President Unitard and his moribund criminal maladministration.
Oh, that’s right-- Obama piously latched on to this concept and affirmed it during his campaign. It was evidence of his “pragmatic” brilliance, because of the received wisdom that the lizard-brained troglodytic masses, fka the Silent Majority, must be fully reassured and comforted by the certainty that our President is, first and foremost, a competent and enthusiastic Warlord who will Protect Us from enemies-- even, maybe especially, ephemeral and imaginary foes. Not to mention the foes that US foreign policy creates and manufactures for the purpose of sustaining the martial mood.
Surely the erudite and intellectual new Commander-in-Chief is perfectly aware that this Orwellian “we have always been at war with Eastasia” subterfuge is just that. I guess Obama has "shrewdly" decided that it’s best to wait until he’s safely elected to his second term before stepping out from behind the curtain and revealing the truth to the troubled and fearful masses. Until then, it's, "Yes, Virginia, there IS a Global War on Terror."
Pragmatism! Is there anything it CAN’T solve?
That said-- Happy Thanksgiving, My Fellow Amerikans.
• just my 2¢
Yes, Obama has forced Bush to end the war. But the war is not over. Go tell our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that "we're not at war". What do you think their reaction would be?
I consider myself part of the peace wing of the Democratic Party and I still have faith in Obama. In fact, I think this is all just much ado about nothing. Everyday there's a new article talking about Obama's "perceived" shift to the right. They have to say "perceived" because this is no evidence of any actual change in his policies. Sure, you can point to certain bipartisan maneuvers like keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense. But that doesn't represent a change. Obama hinted that he might keep Gates BEFORE the election. Same with Obama and Telecom immunity (he voted for it BEFORE the election) or the Wall Street bailout (he voted for it BEFORE the election and signaled the need for further bailouts BEFORE the election). I really take offense that people are getting away with calling Obama a liar or two-faced politician, yet there is no evidence to support this.
When I voted for Obama I knew compromise would be necessary. Indeed, that is what I voted for. If I wanted hopelessly ineffective idealism I could have voted for Nader. Instead, I investigated Obama, liked what I found, and voted for the best candidate. Can any of you faithless, hopeless, Obama-haters tell me specifically what campaign promises Obama is breaking? Or how he has moved to the right, in any way that he didn't tell us he would BEFORE the election?
If anything, we are ignoring his two most recent accomplishments, freeing the prisoners of Guantanamo and bringing an end to the Iraq war.
Joe Hope I voted for Obama when my heart was with Cynthia McKinney and I have to say so far I am very disappointed with "lesser of two evils," appointing Hilary "obliterate Iran" Clinton as Secretary of State does not bode for ending the U.S.'s destructive and expensive empire overseas. Nor does his recycled Clinton era cabinet and kowtowing to an 8 billion bailout for the banksters. FDR must be spinning in his grave. :(
Okay, one question:
Why didn't you vote for Cynthia McKinney?
You may be "disappointed" with Obama, but he's the same as when you voted for him.
.Was he the same when running for the nomination as he was when running for the Presidency? I do not believe one might say that with a straight face. From the mantra "I was against this war when I was a nobody in Chicago" to "I will expand this war into Pakistan and increase the number of our troops in Afghanistan".
The liberal voter saw Obama through the lens of their own desires, and certainly not with any degree of honest perception. Obviously, after the abomination of eight years of Bush, even a Chicago political hack like Barack Obama, with a track record of voting "present" rather than showing the moral courage to take a stance, would look good by comparison. I do understand the reasons so many supposed progressives stood up for our first minority President. I still applaud that facet of this election, but I have no illusions about the direction of this coming Presidency, and every new appointment solidifies that opinion.
I do not blame those who voted for him,instead of McKinney or Nader, but that is now moot and it is time to assess his speeches and his emerging administration in terms of how that aligns with the direction each of us wishes for this nation.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
"I do not blame those who voted for him,instead of McKinney or Nader, but that is now moot and it is time to assess his speeches and his emerging administration in terms of how that aligns with the direction each of us wishes for this nation."
Exactly. How Obama got there is now moot. Time to look ahead and do the best you can with what you have.
And I'm glad you heartily approve of his cabinet choices. (ducking)
Clap, clap, clap, Ardee, thanks for saving me some typing.
"I do not blame those who voted for him..."
I'm glad that you've changed some and softened your rhetoric, ardee - you used to sound more strident and accusatory.
And honestly, I didn't like feeling as an oppositional force to you (which I've never been). We may see things through different lenses (we all do), but I think we still see the forest for the trees.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
!0's of thousands will sit at your damn door step that just put boots to ground X 5 X6 X7 and tell you IRAQ IS NOT A WAR!!! Want a list? They will tell YOU SNAP
BillofRights
Best damn 2 cents I've had in years my friend, I Thank You.
[meant for 2 cents]
BillofRights
Thanks for saying so. I was pleased to see that others "get it" when I read your comments!
• just my 2¢
I'm hoping as hard as I can.
All politicians are opportunists. Whether they are totally corrupt, moronic, murdering hacks like George Wanker Bush, or possess some measure of decency, they are all opportunists. Let's hope that Obama is going to attempt to redefine the political center so it will now include those things that for the last thirty years were considered poison. Let's hope that his selection of these yuppie Democrats and bureaucratic Wizards of Oz from the Bill Clinton era are a way of accomplishing this. Let's hope.
you know we are going to have to find a new lexicon, suddenly the word 'hope' has been debased by it's overuse and incorrect application.
Nope, Elite trumped that. Truly IRAQ WAR wins hand over fist, Wins Uh HUH.
BillofRights
Obama has indicated that he MAY (rather than WILL) revoke Bush’s ban on stem cell research; which not only deprived hope from thousands of victims with incurable or terminal disorders, but also defied the will of the majorities of the populace and congress.
In view of urgent needs to reverse the immeasurable destruction from so many of Bush’s unprecedented environmental and social abuses, such ambiguity is not a good sign and cannot be tolerated. Obama was propelled to the presidency because of the gravity of these abuses--and his promises to nullify them. He must be made to understand that his voters will rebel against him if this is a prelude to his mode of operation
"Yet most leaders on the left are keeping to themselves any criticisms of the centrist quartet that will help shape and implement Obama's foreign policy. "
There's nothing "Centrist" about who Obama is appointing to his administration. What's called the center in the United States would be right-of-center anywhere else in the world.
"He asserted his own position in contradiction to [the] anti-war movement," she said. "He wasn't us. He didn't pander to the crowd."
But Katz, a well-connected Chicago public-relations executive, said that some liberals chose to ignore the part of the speech where Obama stressed that he was not against military force and actually urged more aggressive pursuit of al Qaeda.
"A lot of people took his position on Iraq and projected our politics onto him," she said. "And that was never him. It was never true."
This is something that I've noticed over and over again. Progressives are projecting their own ideals onto Obama, who of course doesn't share their beliefs. Obama is PRO-EMPIRE. He's not going to shut down the MIC, he's not going to reign in Israel... He's not going to pursue a progressive agenda in Washington. To think otherwise is naive. Those on the left that thought Obama was one of them were sadly mistaken. The whole "Change we can believe in" is a crock of shit designed to dupe progressives into supporting Obama.
So right Crock 'o shit, progressive, whatever you want to label yourself as flavor of the year. I am still Far Left Liberal, so screw me, that is what I am got F$$Ked the same way, yeah? Dog Day Afternoon, "I like to get KISSED when I'm gettin' F&&KED!"
BillofRights
I would have more confidence if Obama:
Successfully investigates and prosecutes the perpetrators of the events of 911.
Ends the war against the Iraqi people.
Ends the war against the Afghan people.
Stops sucking up to Israel.
Gives the Palestinians their lands back.
Returns to the descendants of the indigenous First Nation Peoples that which was taken from them. Return their lands, their spirit and their pride.
Pay it's UN debt.
But I fear the poster above may well be closer to the truth of the matter.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
It is an Illegal Occupation, now in Iraq, if you cannot even properly term it how do you expect the Occupation of Gaza and the Genociding of Palestinians to be ended by HOPE.
If you cannot comprehend it is a Sectarian "war" in Afghanistan, Taliban, Pashtun, Tribal wars, Drug clashes over $$$, then how can you think it will be ended by President ELECT HOPE????
BillofRights
obama said this then did that. he needs to support Israel and defend american interests in the world. otherwise i agree with commondreams posters. obama is no good. arizonaforever.
Michael Hudson's article at www.counterpunch.com/hudson11262008.html yesterday points out that Obama is moving initially to placate the top 1% wealthy class. Summers for example, according to Hudson, was responsible for helping the Russian kleptocrats (the top 1% wealthy) gain control of the Russian economy after the Soviet collapse. It seems Obama's primary concern is to stabilize and preserve the Corporate Banking industry, the MIC, and to ensure that the wealthy class can sit back on their leather recliners and continue sipping their brandy's, secure in the knowledge that THEIR man in charge is well heeled and with the program.
Only then can Obama start to throw some bread crumbs to the truly hungry, just enough though to keep them alive so they can "go shopping", and just enough so that they stay distracted and busy trying to pay bills and not question their overlords.
Yep - I agree.
Joe
The Press does not seem to Understand the benefits of "The Carlyle Group", the
corporation that includes among it's investors, the likes of Rumsfeld, Bush the Daddy, Cheney, and of course Robert Gates, the new appointment by Obama.
Who is Gates? simply an active member of the Carlyle Machine.
This same machine is invested in Military Contracts. Take for example that
mysterious Airplane that is suppose to take off vertically, and then go on
horizontally. This plane, {F-22Raptor} is still not considered safe to fly, yet the Military Machine, ruled by the Bushco, has ordered into play the F-22 Raptor, and
has put it into play in Iraq. Why does Obama feel that he needs this purveyor
of Military contracts to the Carlyle Group? The buble has to burst before it's
to late..looks like the Clintons are in power again..The F-22 Raptor is being
built by a Calyle Group owned factory, and is owned by the Calyle Group. Where is the press and he Peace crowd?
Correction:
The Vertical-Take-Off_&_Landing (VTOL) airplane is the V-22.
The F-22 is a stealth fighter that requires a conventional runway.
Your statement that "(t)he F-22 Raptor is being built by a Calyle Group owned factory, and is owned by the Calyle Group" is incorrect.
One after another, this nation's recent presidents have been turned out to be flim flammers and wastrels of one kind or another. The one who is about to shuffle out the back door of the White House turned out to be a cross between Gomer Pyle, Willie Sutton and Heinrich Himmler. At this point, we need a great president, truly a person of wisdom. We all hope Obama is it but . . .
LOL......Thanks, Mordechai for another excellent post, and Happy Thanksgiving.
If Obama dosen't work out for us then there is always Plan B!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.
19:31 | 24/ 11/ 2008
MOSCOW, November 24 (RIA Novosti) - A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the respected daily Izvestia published on Monday: "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events.
When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."
When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."
Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup", "lack of unified national laws", and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts - the Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South, with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality; five of the poorer central states with their large Native American populations; and the northern states, where the influence from Canada is strong.
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all."
On the fate of the U.S. dollar, he said: "In 2006 a secret agreement was reached between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on a common Amero currency as a new monetary unit. This could signal preparations to replace the dollar. The one-hundred dollar bills that have flooded the world could be simply frozen. Under the pretext, let's say, that terrorists are forging them and they need to be checked."
When asked how Russia should react to his vision of the future, Panarin said: "Develop the ruble as a regional currency. Create a fully functioning oil exchange, trading in rubles... We must break the strings tying us to the financial Titanic, which in my view will soon sink."
Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html
This man also stated that Russia and China would become the financial regulators of the world, which is one more ridiculous things I've ever read.
Maybe you could use a little more information to help you understand those appointed by President-Elect Obama.......I have been reading about Club Bilderberg for years, go to the list of invitees to the 2008 Bilderberg Club Meeting (I found it in an American Free Press Site), you will find some interesting names that attended.
I look at my hands and I see nothing.....but, I, like many people, have "Hope" that he will bring change and that is in my heart.....I will listen to his innaugural address.....
You would think 1,2 million Iraqis Dead is enough........You would think that over 4 million Iraqi refugees is enough.....You would think that over 4,000 American soldiers dead is enough. You would think that over 3 trillion dollars spent invading and occupying another country is enough(Don´t forget Donald Rumsfeld said in a press conference in 2002, "The Department of Defense can not account for over 2.3 trillion dollars worth of expenditures.")
You would think that the transfer of funds from the U.S Treasury to Wall Street to the tune of possibly 2 trillion dollars is enough.(Huffington Post thinks it will go to 7.8 trillion dollars)
All we have is "HOPE".
I supported him because he was better and smarter than McCain...
If the Russians try to take back Alaska, Palin will win the next election and I don't think that will make them happy..
But seriously, it is about the Feds War economy based on Debt that has failed and The Left and the Right are beginning to see the light... learning to add is our real hope. War is expensive and the USA is broke...not much of a future for War profiteers in America.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/klein
If you think things are crazy now, Keep your seat.
busterkikki
I feel for you "turkeys" ( this IS Thanksgiving isn't it?) who show strong fears about Obama, giving up on him before he can even take over the Oval Office. The People elected this man on his terms, with great hope. In my opinion he has not failed anyone to this point, which will surely disappoint some you annointed ones who know all the answers but not really very many of the questions.
Obama has been elected. He takes the Presidency in January. Why don't we give him a fair and reasonable chance to perform before we enscribe lofty thoughts about how he has already failed? He wants and needs our support. So, let's give to him.
Plenty of time to criticize and make profound pronouncements after his inauguration and some months thereafter.
Hope (or denial) springs eternal.
Hi b. it is imperate for those who worship the unattainable to desecrate that which is. thus the miniscule imputus for their sadnesses. a function of voids. arizona.
busterkikki
Hi, Azjoe. If you were referring to me when you said hello to Mr. B., I would ask you to interpret for me what you said. It sounded good, but not intelligible. Hoping to hear from you!
busterkikki
Hi, Azjoe! I am a former Phoenix resident who had to give it up after watching the city self-destruct over 40 years. You should have seen it 50 years ago. Great!!
I'm living in Iowa now, and in the part we live we have a super abundance of Republicans, which I used to be for forty years (my wife worked for Barry Goldwater), but I don't understand why people continue to harass Obama in such destructive ways. Our local paper had a letter to the editor bemoaning the fact that Obama hadn't made the changes he promised. Well, duh, he doesn't take office until January.
I think many people are tired and some bitter after a long dog-fight that never addressed some of the real issues we wanted to hear about. But since Obama has been elected, I believe we should give him a fair chance to live up to his promises. If he does, great. If he doesn't, than the disappointment will be widespread and he will deserve all the hiss-boos that he hears coming his way. Until then.......?
Reasonable post.
.He was elected on his words not his terms, and his words changed rather importantly as the campaign unwound. One must understand that a rather large portion of the nations electorate voted for other than Barack Obama so these folks are not very happy right this minute.
I must state that your remarks are far from conciliatory and even further from any rational attempt to bring folks together. Folks who criticize the dichotomies of the Barack Obama campaign or his appointments, which dramatically illustrate his rightward leaning and his obeisance to both Wall Street and the Military Industrial folks who perpetuate war because it is good for business, are by no means deserving of your snide and rather silly words. You really betray yourself in fact with such as those, "annointed ones" indeed, what portion of dissent do you allow in your narrow little world?
It is far, far easier to turn a ship from its course as it leaves the dock than it is to alter that course once it has built up a full head of steam. It is never time to cease criticism as long as it is honestly intended and rationally delivered, something you yourself may be incapable of understanding or achieving.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Hope is the life blood of democracy, even a dying democracy. Democracy is the only hope for the whole world.
CommonDreams readers, this is your chance, keep your eyes on Camp Hope in Hyde Park, Chicago (http://camphope2009.org/) and find a way to participate.
Knowing some of its' brazen hard core activists, it may be just the beginning. It just may lead to an Obama "FDR moment" and if not, then millions of Americans in the streets. It is the only message the rich 1% fear and it can succeed. We must believe that.
Stephen, there should've been millions in the streets during the reign of Mad King George but there weren't!
What makes you think that apathetic Americans can change?
www.dangerouscreation.com
Our soup kitchens and food banks are now running out of food. Wait till it really hits the middle class. Such a movement starts in the belly.
Wow DavidG, impressive website.