Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Liberals Voice Concerns About Obama
WASHINGTON - Liberals are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
US President-elect Barack Obama is seen during a press conference in Chicago, Illinios. (AFP/Jim Watson) Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the
wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown
in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts
of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
"He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment," said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: "Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?"
Even supporters make clear they're on the lookout for backsliding. "There's a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him," said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America's Future.
Obama insists he hasn't abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left's bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won't enact the tax.
Obama's pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he's struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he'll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obama's post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama's says that on his first day in office he will begin to "design a plan for a responsible drawdown," as he told NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the left's criticism is direct - don't bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
"There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet," writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. "What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?"
"Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives," Aravosis continues. "Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone' approach in the transition team."
This isn't the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
Now it's Obama's Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It's not just that he's picked Clinton and Gates. It's that liberal Democrats say they're hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama's team so far - particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.
"At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don't think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause," said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. "The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The "card check" bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say - but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
"It's complicated," said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. "On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this."
That's a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it's just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there's really anything to complain about just yet.
Case in point: One of the Campaign for America's Future blogs commented on Obama's decision not to tax oil companies' windfall profits saying, "Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy."
Yet Campaign for America's Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
"I've heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs," Hickey said. "The old argument was, here's how we afford to make these investments - we tax the oil companies' windfall profits. ... The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don't."
Obama is asking for patience - saying he's only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.
"My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?" Obama said on "Meet the Press." "We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be."
On Iraq, he says he's just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn't ignite "any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests."
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
"I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way," Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.
The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.
"He hasn't had a first day in office," said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. "To me it's not as important as who's there, than what kind of policies they carry out."
"These aren't out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is," Isaacs added. "We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments."
Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and "belligerent" toward Iran. "But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack," Cole said.
Other voices of the left don't like what they're seeing so far and aren't waiting for more before they speak up.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama's economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy's "best and the brightest" team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that he is "not yet reaching for a pitchfork."
But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama's Cabinet appointments so far: "This Wasn't Quite the Change We Envisioned."
- Posted in
154 Comments so far
Show AllObama is now The Emperor. There are lots of people who are winking at him, grinning, telling him to dip his hand into the cookie jar or go into the walk-in closet and try on the fancy uniform with all the gold braid, the shiny black knee-high riding boots and the high peaked cap, then posture in front of the mirror. "Try it out, Barack." Having read his first book, all I can hope for is that he truly doesn't forget where he came from.
Can't say you weren't warned! To even qualify as a candidate for president one has to be so thoroughly indebted to the status quo that, by the time he or she is elected, there is no choice: Do as you are told or be removed. The whole electoral system is rotten to the core - we should've all boycotted the election.
Wait until he takes office, then "hold his feet to the fire"? Put him on the hot seat now! And crank up the pressure with a national strike. We shouldn't hesitate to shut the economy down, since it isn't working for us anyway.
Though he is not yet president, Obama is making clear how he intends to act as president by his appointments, which are in line with his previous rhetoric when he was running in the primaries.
If anything, he was truthful in many ways when he said he wanted to increase the military budget (his supporters hoped he wouldn't increase military spending), not support universal health care (his supporters hoped he would enact universal health care), said that he would only remove combat forces from Iraq (his supporters hoped he would remove all military forces).
So it seems that Obama supporters did all the deceiving to themselves, not plaving weight in what Obama said, but hoping that he would do things that he never said he would do.
Just like his supporters are deceiving themselves that all these appointments don't really reflect Obama's policies. They justify it by saying he just has to position himself thus so he doesn't get criticism from the conservatives.
Of course, it was obvious 2 elections ago that the democratic party would rather have a republican elected than bend to the progressive left.
"The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all." ~Tacitus
Srike is good idea - like Chicago - traveling road show about to begin - very colorful - very real - status quo of pyramid bottom trickle up - feet to the fire? The President elect is introducing the roastie toe line up. Blink twice and remember who these people are because it is our job to make THEIR lives so IMPOSSIBLE with vocal and informed dissent, documented statistics, mass letter writing campaigns THAT WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY as the sinking of American fascism, that President Obama will be seen as a kinder, gentler, alternative to the righteous wrath that becomes the informed consent of the governed (don't think they're familiar with that flavor...quite yet).
We had such high hopes when Mr. Obama was elected. Now we have a very guarded attitude as those hopes are being dashed slowly, perhaps inexorably, by our new president's choices. I fear there will be little change for the better once he takes office.
Dont bite the hand that feeds you?
lol
Nader said power concedes nothing.
The left groups demanded nothing from Obama.
He threw them crumbs and they scrambled for the rotten ones.
Did the right settle for crumbs?
Nope, they wanted a religious fanatic and if it wasnt for the economy we'd have McCain and Palin.
I feel bad for him. He has way to many people to please. And the left continue to forget how Government works. We are raising hell over Obama and he hasn't served a single day, yet, we let GWB serve 8 years.
"It's the government stupid", unless we change the entire system don't expect Obama to make it with out playing the Government Game. No Liberal's have a chance at accomplishing anything because we have so many centrist and right-wingers in congress. So appointing a liberal won't have much effect at all. Matter of fact an entire liberal Cabinet wouldn't have much effect. Because our country is actually run by centrist and right-wingers. From the media, to big business, to most of the 535 in congress. We can't expect a liberal to win the game playing with conservative rules. Of course Obama is no liberal but even if he was, I don't think he would have even been nominated. So that's my 2 cents I guess.
O Rei de Reis, the problem is that the left ALWAYS has to deal with being left out. We should stop to think what that means. The "left" is just the group of people who are conciusly on the left. The public, according to polls, is left of center on almost every issue, to Obama's left. So the "left" and the left are being left out. What you care saying is that since entrenched interests don't want to change we shouldn't try, first by appointing people who will respond to popular pressure (which the neo-liberals never are, they hate a well functioning and working democracy since no one wants what they're offering) and then by people applying that pressure. You can't win until you fight, and you shouldn't make excuses for people put into office to fight, who said they would (with voting records and comments that prove otherwise, but that is another issue) and who chicken out because of CURRENT institutional barriers. Obama is not superman, and he is not a man of the left. He is, however, part of a democratic system and should listen to the opinions of the people who put him in office, not appoint people who are in favor of the same failed policies that got us here, and have stances on the issues opposite that of the public. The media and government is right wing, popular opinion isn't. If we have a functioning democracy Obama will respond, if we have a hollow democracy and rule by elites he'll continue with this crap.
Great point! I see where you are coming from
In other countries the presidential candidate informs voters beforehand about who he will be hiring. Not so in the "democratic" United States. We get to know AFTER we (suckers) vote.
Obomber bowed down to AIPAC and went to the Wailing Wall in Israel and hired Zionists and right-wing warmongers. I should have voted for Nader or McKinney as I really wanted to. I learn the hard way, I guess. I'm changing my party affiliation. Rethuglicans and Dempublicans are two sides of the same war-party, imperialist coin. This was the last time I will vote for one of the two major parties.
Greenlis, I understand your disillusion with the two party system and I made the same decision starting with voting for Kerry in 04 and then for Democrats in the 06 congressional elections; but very happily voted for McKinney this time. "This was the last time I will vote for one of the two major parties." Unfortunately I have many many good and dear friends who said exactly the same and then "reluctantly" (or even enthusiastically) voted for Obama as an apparent exception to their resolution, usually because they convinced themeselves that McCain and Palin were ABSOLUTE evils and that they just had to support Obama and Biden as the LESSER ones. In my view, lesser evilism as a mode of political thought is the REAL political evil about which we need to be concerned. How can we learn to break ourselves of that "bad habit?" Maybe the answer lies in the consequences of a successful lesser evil candidacy (the "lesser" guy won this time) and the backlash that's already setting in with disillusionment with cabinet selections and back-tracks of campaign promises. Put another way, the next time the snake oil salesman comes to town, you'll remember how that last bottle of the stuff you bought from him made you sick, and you literally won't "ever do it again." (aversive therapy?)
Jerry,
Voting for someone outside the system does not change the system. The winner take all two party (one government with a left and right wing) is ingrained into every federal state and local government and is the main thing of our culture... winner take all.
In our system "lesser evil" is a survival strategy because... count the votes what all the outsiders got altogether and they don't make a dent. it takes a landslide to win these days because they can't steal a landslide.
Your intentions are fine but reality trumps in politics.
Obama will disappoint ..that is a given just as anyone on Common Dreams would disappoint with the massive Debt growing exponentially every second.
It is great to complain about the obvious.. but that does not change the reality and no one can know how much worse McCain would be. But lets keep the pressure on Obama and try to organize a real alternative... lots of good ideas but arguing about which outsider to vote your conscience to feel good will not change the system.
All we hear is "I told you so"... but what to do to unify for real change to solve the Debt system seems too hard to talk about.
I believe for real change of the system most of the left and the right must somehow work together on some common goal.
Ownership of The Federal Reserve system would be the best way for the people to own the pyramid. Reality can not be ignored if we want real change.
.Jim, one might conjecture that your riposte shows a rather limited imagination and a failure to learn from history. The only way to change something is to work towards that change, and the more folks voting third party or independent the stronger will become that alternative.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
I would suggest that you read about the growth of the Green Party in Germany for one such example. Or, closer to home , the suffragette movement, or the union movement or any such as Ms. Mead so sagely noted.
Certainly try to keep pressure on our newly elected President, but that , in and of itself , will not change the system that allows that man to lie to the voters and sell himself to the corporate money that got him elected in the first place. In the two year period that Barack Obama campaigned for that office he raised in excess of 700 million dollars, mostly from corporate sources. That tells me, and hopefully a growing number of my fellow Americans, that he owes his soul to the company store. But that is not the real issue here.
Voting and supporting the two party system is to support a sick and undemocratic entity, one that owes nothing to the people and everything to the money that is its life blood. You seem to resent any criticisms of our new President and, while loyalty is nice, realism is much more productive.
"Each time you stand up for an ideal you start a little ripple." Robert Kennedy
Rather than be critical of those who see our system rather differently than do you, perhaps you might try and understand why we have arrived at that conclusion. You might be surprised to find that you agree with much of what we believe. I find those who see no solution other than support for a two party system that is little more than a one party rule on far too many fronts to be little more than obstacles to progress, sorry. Both parties answer , not to the electorate, but to the money.
"The death of Democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment." Robert Maynard Hutchins
Would it, I wonder, surprise you to learn that Hamilton, late in life, rued his decision to have only two parties?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The idea that a pullout (of Iraq) might result in " resurgence of terrorism that would be against our interests" is scarey in two ways for me. One is the myth of "leaving might make violence worse" silliness (so when would we ever leave as occupiers?). The other scarey concept is "our (American)interests" and military in Iraq, in the same sentence.
You illuminate the very excuse for remaining that many have voiced for several years now. On almost evry issue, Obama--like BushCo--must be FORCED to follow/enact the best policy for the PEOPLE, not the Elite. He is an avdersary, as he proves in his own words in his books, and must be dealt with in that light.
The noise of "Liberals Voice(ing) Concerns About Obama" is getting painful. My advice is to close mouths and open ears and eyes.
For me, Obama's performance on Meet The Press was cathartic. For the first time in a very long time, we will have a man in office whose good words and sound ideas seem to be coming from his own brain. That, of and by itself, is enough for me right now.
Now, perhaps a bit of wishful thinking. Is anyone aware of the basics of the martial art of Aikido? Confronting ones enemy head on with force is often counterproductive - a better way is to turn, and match your opponents force and speed - join with it, become one with it, and then take control of it, so that it can be turned and used to accomplish your own ends.
Obama may indeed be as smart as we hope he is. Clinton came into office and charged head first into a failed health care reform and the "gays in the military" debacle. Obama's so-called "Team of Rivals" strategy could be a work of art - martial art, that is. Today he has zero power - will have no power at all for a bit more than one month and ten days still. I'm watching him match speed and force right now - with smarts and grace - I can wait until January 21st, when he actually has the power, to see him turn and throw.
Clinton undermined his own proposed "Healhcare" program, toyed with the vision of Hope and employed "Mandate For Change" rhetoric to become elected, and served to provide continuity to the whole Reagan/Bush neoliberal agenda. He was called Slick Willy with good reason, and he's every much the War Criminal as Bush/Cheney. People who forget history invite it to be revisited upon them.
After Jan. 20, Obama will still have no power--only the illusion of power. He decides nothing that doesn't concur with the central committee of the MIC. His "seamless transition" will be just another progression on the path of globalist fascism. The hijacking of the U.S. government by the neocons and the subsequent enabling by the vast majority of the Congress should have been a clue that the people of the U.S. have been excluded from representation. Whether Obama is able to move the scale one iota from right to left is immaterial. We have a whole list of throw-away presidents who have served their functions for the masters. The MACHINE is poised to roll over all of us in the push for global control. Biden, Colin Powell, and other servants of the MIC have warned us to be prepared to support Obama in soon to occur actions, in spite of the fact that the large majority of the people will find these actions to be quite loathesome.
The inexperienced fighter says that he will wait until the other guy hits him, and then he will get angry and fight with all his might.
The experienced fighter knows that often the fight is over after the first blow.
People think that Obama is just getting his wind, moving his feet around in a shuffle, but Obama has already landed the knockout punch against the progressive movement. The progressive left will not recover after these appointments.
If you liked Clinton, you'll love Obama.
But neither was for the progressive left. And what does it mean to be 'left'? It may be that the 'left' are people who are to the left of the mainstream. I prefer the term progressive. But the more important question is where does the solution lie?
The problem is a military imperialistic government and economy that depends on over-consumption without regard to human and environmental costs; and needless deaths and suffering of innocents while the corporate elite reap the profits.
The solution lies outside of what mainstream USA has been doing since 1492.
so it goes,
www.NotOneMore.US
The inexperienced fighter thinks the fight is about "blows".
The experienced fighter knows the fight is won or lost before the first blow is thrown.
I still think Obama may surprise many - he's being handed the largest flaming bag of crap since FDR - I agree completely that "The problem is a military imperialistic government . . . over consumption . . . . and . . the corporate elite"; but I'm NOT going to write off Obama because he's not doing what you and other "progressives" would do in his place. He may be smarter than you. Then again, he may be a total shill for the "corporate elite" and be smarter than me (not that hard). But if I wanted to get a firm hold on this "military imperialist government" to then turn it in an increasingly progressive direction, WHILE it's a flaming bag of crap, Obama's choices so far make sense. The President's cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire and hire any time he likes.
I know a lot of you make a living by speculating but can't you give a bit of a rest. how can anyone be disappointed with the policy and actions of a President who has not taken office yet???
To those of you who want to predict the future from the actions of appointees made in the past - if the past always predicts the future - how did Boston ever finally win the world series, or any athlete work themselves out of a slump.
Maybe political writers never change themselves, learn or are 100% predictable.
I'll wait until at least January 22, before I start complaining - grin.
Come on, people. Consider the alternative ! Go to the TeamSarah website if you really want to find something to gripe about. And cast your mind for a moment into the alternative universe where the Palin/McCain ticket actually won. What would things look like right now ? Because i can guarantee you that McCain had not thought past election night at all.
Obama is a creole (an honorable word). By nature he understands the necessity of playing to more than one faction. He is in this on many different levels already. Why don't you all go to change.gov and voice your concerns there ? I have and have gotten responses from his internet staff.
He is also an accomplished poker player. Who is holding two hands -- the visible, establishment hand which given the current state of affairs is probably necessary in order to slow down the coming inevitable implosion, and also the mostly invisible, foundational hand of the populace. This is the hand which you can access at change.gov.
When the chips are down, which hand do you think he is going to play ? I am betting on the one he is not showing yet.
copperiverkid, what you said proves that you are ignoring everything he has said specifically about his philosophy and stances on the issues, his voting record and his appointments and are going almost entirely on faith.
Do you know what these advisors do? When an event happens, like now with the economy and the war, the people around him give him an assessment of the situation. They tell him of the possible solutions, the policy options (as they see them) and the consequences. Look at WHO is giving him this information, look at what they've said in the past and what policies they've forwarded. Look at the justifications given.
They do, like all human beings, have biases. When these events happen, there are endless facts and endless ways of looking at the event. A person's bias, or ideology, will pay attention to or emphasize some facts and or ignore & downplay others. The person, if they are ideologically driven (and every one of his appointments are), they'll ignore facts and logic simply because they disagree with them. Concisely or not, it doesn't matter.
The people giving him the information that he will use think, roughly, exactly the same. When they give him economic advice, do you think for a second that they'll articulate a well thought out critique of liberalized finance? When they’ve fought tooth and nail to liberalize finance and have personally profited from it? Will they be honest about the way that it undermines democracy and has been a disaster in practice (for countries, not investors)? Will they articulate the fundamental problems of "free trade"? How could you expect this when everyone one of his appointments has argued on BEHALF of these policies in the past?
The fact is that no one is there to fill in the holes, to tell Obama the things the others won't, to focus attention to facts and issues that result from a fundamentally different outlook, and a different ideology. At best, he’ll have a person or two surrounded by others. If you want an example on how that will turn out, look to Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank. The man has been one of the most articulate critics of “free trade” within the establishment, he was the CHIEF economist at the WB, but was surrounded by supporters of the status quo, “free trade” and he was largely ignored.
These appointments reveal what Obama thinks as far as what he views as acceptable opinion and it also shows how little will really change. What will change is competence in continuing to enrich the already rich, with just enough going to the rest to stem off calls for more radical change, and a foreign policy that is fundamentally immoral and, frankly, idiotic. It's one thing to have faith, it's another to expect the unlikely and to not prepare for being very disappointed.
.Creole
3 entries found.
1. creole
2. Creole
3. Haitian Creole
Main Entry:
Cre·ole Listen to the pronunciation of Creole
Pronunciation:
\ˈkrē-ˌōl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French créole, from Spanish criollo, from Portuguese crioulo white person born in the colonies
Date:
1737
1: a person of European descent born especially in the West Indies or Spanish America
2: a white person descended from early French or Spanish settlers of the United States Gulf states and preserving their speech and culture
3: a person of mixed French or Spanish and black descent speaking a dialect of French or Spanish
4 a: a language evolved from pidginized French that is spoken by blacks in southern Louisiana
b: haitian cnot capitalized : a language that has evolved from a pidgin but serves as the native language of a speech community
It would seem that Obama fails to find a category here. Now my wife, sadly dead these past 28 years, was indeed a creole. Words matter, accuracy counts.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
We elected one puppet to replace another.
Obama can still turn it around:
Nader for Car Czar
Kucinich-Peace Czar
Bill Ayers --Education Czar
Micheal Moore- Media Czar
Me-chief of staff
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
Sorry, Wu, but Rahm Emanuel got the call for Chief of Staff. How about Emperor of the World? Woops, hold on...phone's ringing...
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
That Obama was touted by the Propaganda System should be all one needs to know about how he will govern and his team's creds and positions--It's all about Continuity, not Change. A very large segment of the populace is alienated and voted for Obama on the premise he would mitigate the reasons for their alienation. Instead, he is providing the reasons for that segment to grow and become even more alienated. 10% of the populace now uses Food Stamps--the most EVER. REAL unemployment is well over 15%, with underemployment now well over 25%. With the ACTUAL labor force being somewhat over 210 Millon, over 50 Million are underemployed; over 30 Million have NO jobs, which is about equal to the total populace needing Food Stamps: 31 Million. Together, that's over 80 Million within 310 Million--well OVER 25% of US poplulation with no or not enough work to survive in our dysfunctional economy. These REAL numbers are not lost on those mounting sit-in strikes and the soon-to-occur worker takeovers of factories a la Argentina's experience. The Revolution looks like it will start in the Rust Belt, even if Big Auto gets a bailout. On this Obama's attempt to diffuse this rise is forcing him to be honest when he says the economy will get worse. But the Class War has been going on too long for such rhetoric to have any force. The country demands that actions be equal to words as the crisis deepens, which of course isn't happening; rather, it's just the same old posturing and spin that no longer is capable of convincing people that things are really different than they seem. It seems the only people in the USA incapable of understanding this reside in DC--Depravity Central.
Obama must be treated as a politico with NO capital--much like BushCo. I think ObamaInc is an appropriate parallel. And the Pelosites and Riedsters are NO different from the Neocons, as they've proven on many occasions. Mordechai is correct; Obama is the new Emperor. And like EVERY Emperor, he must be fought by those who love Freedom and Liberty, and be treated as the enemy until proven otherwise.
Trance-Phat~Cat'$ MeOW?
http://flickr.com/photos/your_waitress/2631184401/
Gee, all I can say is:
SUCKERS
Way before the election, you were rationally told, and irrationally screamed at to look at the facts of Come-From-Nowhere Mr. Obama and see that he was just another war candidate.
You were delusional and could not be reach, but you voted.
Now it is time for you to just Shut Up and Row.
Amen!
Anybody who does prison reform or death penalty abolition work in Arizona can tell you about Homeland Security appointee Janet Napolitano. Although infinitely more responsible than the parade of mental and moral defectives who have held gubernatorial office in our fair state, she nevertheless presides over one of the most brutal and entrenched prison systems in the country. As a former prosecutor she is an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty. Her colleagues have been investigated for illegal and aggressive prosecutions which have railroaded suspects onto death row. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, another popular native son, outright tortures and kills people in Maricopa County (Harpers 2001 article titled The Toughest Sheriff in America). From the high profile police presence one notices driving into the state from any direction to the surreal paranoia of our militarized southern border, where a menagerie of vigilantes, guardsmen and border patrol thugs with police dogs set up roadblocks to intercept impoverished Mexican women sneaking into the US to change our motel sheets, you know you are not in Kansas any more.
Napolitano has a likable manner, and is admired by many liberals for being an improvement over Ev Meacham, Fife Symington and Dracula. But I've always had the disturbing feeling that her decisive style really does go through to her core - that she does not examine her convictions or think things through very carefully. This shoot-from-the-hip morality, coupled with a real belief in "bad guys" and the simplistic idea that rounding them up and getting rid of them is the solution to complex social problems, is something she has in common with George Bush. It works well when she is right, but when she is wrong (as in her draconian and ham fisted approach to undocumented immigration) she legitimizes a culture of racism and militancy that is growing dangerously ugly across our country.
DAMN! The VERY same people who kept telling me and like-minded progressives to shut up, quit dreaming pipe dreams, get on the bandwagon, etc. are now beginning to see the light! Well, too little too late.
And to copperiverkid and hamson et.al. who bitch about any negativity uttered in the same sentence with Saint Obama's name, I'd like to point out that your (D) party talking point has morphed from "do you really wanna see McCain/Palin in office?" to "Can't you at least wait until the man is in office?" with an occasional "Wait and see. He's just holding his cards close to his chest cuz he's a good poker player." I can see it now: Obama's last day in office and you'll be spouting: "Well, he tried, but yadda yadda yadda. And now, in 2016, with this being the most important election in our lifetime, is NOT the time to be playing wishful thinking with 3d or 4th party candidates or "fringe" candidates like Kucinich." Just the same old tired DNC-written refrain.
I'm thinking of starting a 12-step group for recovering Democrats, except I happen to believe 12-step groups are just as much a cult as any church (and that includes the (D) party); but trust me, folks. There IS life after the DNC. Try a (D)-free life. You'll like it. Just say "No."
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I am not a democrat. I am a green. I voted for Obama because the chances of a black woman living in the white house were much better for Michelle Obama than for Cynthia McKinney. Also because I live in Alaska and believe me some of us are TRULY horrified at what our governor represents (and for those of you who think she is a has-been joke, I implore you to think again).
We are living out the legend of the Firebird (the Phoenix) right now. Everything is literally and figuratively going up in flames.
Obama understands this. I cannot think of another politician who does.
Several years ago, our very nice cabin burned up in a forest fire. Completely. Nothing left. BUT on the same property, less than fifty feet away, stood an old and neglected small cabin which was totally untouched. Go figure. So we went to work and fixed it up. And you know what, it is just perfect for us. With the kids grown and gone, we didn't need the big cabin any longer. It was there for us the whole time they were growing up. The minute they were gone, so was it. Uncanny. That is how I see our current society. Going going gone. What replaces it will be very different. But it will be right for us. If we do the work. Obama groks that. But he has to play the game. By the way, I don't get the Saint Obama thing at all. Seems the one campaigning for sainthood is Scary Sister Sarah, if we don't do the necessary work and things really implode, guess what, the Dominionists are all set to move in and take over. Is that what you all want ?
Oh, and after the forest fire (and a lot of hard work clearing dead trees), the view was very much improved ! A bigger picture altogether ! (Hard to see I know through all the smoke and flames of the current meltdown.)
.Calling oneself a Green and then voting like a Democrat......Your idyllic wilderness life sounds grand, your politics sounds rather like you havent really committed to change.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ANAIS NIN! You're quoting an HEAVY HITTER here.....waiting for your Hugh Hefner quotes.
.and I ,in turn, am awaiting something from you....something I can understand would be nice...Hugh Hefner???
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The green party to which i ascribe (which i admit is still gestating) understands that pragmatism has its place and can be necessary. This will be the party of the future Circumpolar Consortium which will be a major player in the 21st century.
.You are ,of course, free to vote the way you wish, I would not take that from you. But, to call yourself a Green, with everything that means ( I am a registered Green by the way) and then to vote for the status quo,well, no comprende.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Cynthia McKinney could PUNCH her way into the Whitehouse..and she has a left hook.
Sounds like a nuanced approach, copperiverkid. However, you have to understand that as with our current deep-thinking president, some people don't do nuance.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
.Sometimes, Ted, nuance is an excuse for cowardice, or worse, complicity.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
All this was so incredibly predictable.
Z-zzzzzzzz
But still incredibly disappointing.
I fricking agree. Dosing off here....tired of drug store quarterbacks.
Dosing (or dozing, depending on your drug) is your choice, and you'll have plenty of self-righteous company who are well suited for it.
Now, if you want to roll up your sleeves and help despite the fact that the fricking system sucks, we can talk.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
.Look Ted, rose colored glasses certainly have their place but, if you can note the people chosen to fill this administration, understand their history, place that along side the changing words of our President Elect, and still believe he is going to listen to anyone but the usual gang, well, you are in for a bitter and disappointing four years.
Perhaps you might enlighten me as to how you rolled up sleeves are going to help you get past this screen of centrism or worse that screens Obama from the wishes of the people?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The real "left" has had any illusions about Obama... ever.
Progressives, PDA , forever support the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is fully controlled by the corporate and capitalist elite. That is, full support of the Project for the New American Century. That is unending wars, unending support for tax breaks for the wealthy, destruction of living standards for working people. etc. ad nauseum.
The delusions of the "Progressives" forever perpetrate the rule of corporate capitalist interests to loot the economy, the government and the people to forever maximize their wealth and profit.
Delusions of Progressives:
1. It is delusional o run single individual (Nader, Obama, Kucinich,etc.) to reform an entire corrupt system of economics and politics based on maintaining bankrupt capitalism. Now it must be considered "insane" as it has been tried several times now, and each time this PDA agenda FAILS TO BRING ABOUT CHANGE.
A political party independent of the Democrats, corporate control, that involves a labor movement free of "business partner" ideology is essential.
2. The capitalist economy cannot be "reformed". Vast profits are reaped from war, from polluting the planet, for maintaining total control of mass media.
The corruption of the food supply, destruction of the health care and educational systems, destruction of essential public services will continue under corporate capitalism.
The "Left" is anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-global warming, and for a socialist economic system the fills the survival needs of the vast majority of humanity - working people - and not the few billionaires.
FYI read http://www.wsws.org
I hear what you are saying, Jerry. There's a whole lot of lying going on, and this is two-party politics, so progressive values are first to be sacrificed.
The establishment can't ignore a crisis of suffering. Hats off to the sit-in at the Imperial Windows in Chicago going on as we speak, as well as to Congressman Gutierrez, who shows progressives are working within our system. When people actually get up and do something to show their support of progressive values--gay rights, fair wages, environmental protections, access to equal health care, the progressive values work. Popular support for these issues has never been higher.
It's unfortunate that the pain of going on has to be greater than the pain of change in order to change. But since the days of Haymaker, it's clear sacrifices must be made and no, going to the voting booth is critically important, but not the extent of required participation.
Atomized as we are, desperate to maintain our standard of living, fighting for whatever scraps the rich choose to leave for us, is no way to unify and project the energy necessary for change. Many interests have conspired against positive change, and they're not going away now that Obama has been elected. I'm proud of the way organizations like wsws.org tell it like it is. As long as the average people stay ignorant about the nature of the system that exploits them, they will only have their rights truncated and social mobility restricted...
"Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts."
So if a windfall profits tax is passed now, no one gets hurt. And when oil goes unnecessarily high because of speculation, the tax will work to soften the damage to the working guy.
But, you must know by now that Mr. Obama is as war hawk and corporate shill who has made suckers out of all the progressives.