August, 22 2008, 03:22pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Is Obama Clinton 2.0?
WASHINGTON
KEVIN GRAY
Gray is author of Waiting for Lightning to Strike: The Fundamentals of Black Politics and the forthcoming The Decline of Black Politics: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama.
Gray said today: "Obama is slipping in the polls and I think it's
because he's seen as going with the flow. He's not taking on the
crucial issues -- instead he frequently sounds like he's reading the
lines from [the book] 'Primary Colors.' ... Many people seem to think
that just getting Obama into the White House would be a great victory
because of the symbolism, but do we really know that policies that
affect people's lives will really change? That will only happen if
movements propel that change."
More Information
GWENDOLYN MINK
Co-editor of the two-volume Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy and author of Welfare's End, Mink is scrutinizing various portions of the Democratic Party platform on her blog.
She said today: "The mystery to me is the widespread assumption that
Obama is a progressive. That assumption arose from and rested on
Obama's stated opposition to the Iraq invasion before he was in the
Senate. But that does not feed automatically into a progressive
position on other issues; and it shouldn't buy Obama a pass on the
broader social justice agenda. Folks who now see Obama shifting to the
center are only partly right. Obama has abandoned strong progressive
positions on the FISA bill, NAFTA, the D.C. gun ban, abortion rights
... But just as important, his starting positions on many other issues
are actually centrist or even a little conservative.
"That these positions are now coming into view is not evidence of a
centrist shift; it is evidence that Obama's bare record contains many
longstanding issue commitments that should be -- and should have been
-- alarming to progressives. For example: Obama's instructions to
African Americans about paternity and fatherhood are not new; he
introduced 'responsible fatherhood' legislation very soon after
entering the U.S. Senate. Obama's related paeans to 'personal
responsibility' pre-date his entry onto the national stage; as he says
in his TV ads, he 'passed welfare to work.' Similarly, Obama's call to
church-state partnerships in social policy -- similar to George Bush's
'faith-based initiative' -- repeats his view that 'faith' has a role in
politics and policy, a view articulated long before the presidential
campaign. The list of Obama's centrist and/or conservative positions
goes on: he voted to limit corporate tort liability; he voted to
reauthorize the Patriot Act; he supports expanding the death penalty;
he defends states' rights against universal liberty; he opposes
marriage equality for same-sex unions; he's for patchwork health care
reform rather than comprehensive provisions.
"In many respects, Obama promises a re-run of the Clinton presidency,
which in some ways was the last Republican presidency of the 20th
century. Clinton, too, pushed a fatherhood agenda; he initiated the
welfare-to-work policy; he expanded the death penalty; he signed the
Defense of Marriage Act; he secured NAFTA. As a re-run of Bill Clinton,
Obama's candidacy and possible presidency may not be surprising: it's
more a comment on the present state of the Democratic Party than a
revelation about individual leaders. But progressives endured Bill
Clinton without posing strong and broad critiques, in the name of
supporting a Democrat after those long, harsh years in the Reagan
wilderness. And look where it got us. So, instead of apologizing and
parsing for Obama, we should stake out our differences and mobilize our
critique."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
LATEST NEWS
Republicans Funded by Arms Industry Fume Over Biden Threat to Withhold Bombs From Israel
"What did we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?" asked Sen. Lindsey Graham. "We dropped two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities."
May 09, 2024
Congressional Republicans funded by the arms industry lashed out Wednesday over U.S. President Joe Biden's belated threat to withhold American weaponry from Israel if it launches a full-scale ground invasion of the Gaza city of Rafah, which is currently facing a humanitarian nightmare.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from pro-Israel interests and the weapons industry during his 2020 reelection campaign, declared that Biden's threat "put our friends in Israel in a box."
"What did we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor?" Graham, who previously encouraged Israel to "level" Gaza, said in a Fox News appearance late Wednesday. "We dropped two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities... What is Joe Biden doing? He's making it impossible for allies throughout the world to trust us, he's making it hard on Israel to win."
Lindsey Graham: What do we do after we were attacked in Pearl Harbor? We dropped nuclear weapons on Japanese cities pic.twitter.com/kh7RU4flDw
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 9, 2024
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) echoed Graham, falsely claiming that Biden has "imposed an arms embargo on Israel" and endorsed "a Hamas victory against Israel." Lockheed Martin, one of the world's biggest weapons manufacturers and a major beneficiary of Israel's war on Gaza, was the fourth-largest contributor to Cotton's campaign committee in 2020, the last time the senator ran for reelection.
The notion that Biden's threat to withhold future weapons deliveries to Israel undercuts the country's ability to assail Gaza was contradicted by a U.S. official who toldThe Washington Post that "the Israeli military has enough weapons supplied by the U.S. and other partners to conduct the Rafah operation if it chooses to cast aside U.S. objections."
Earlier this week, numerous media outlets reported that the Biden administration opted to delay a shipment of thousands of Boeing-made bombs over concerns about Israel's impending assault on Rafah. On Tuesday, Israeli ground forces entered Rafah and seized control of the city's border crossing with Egypt, imperiling humanitarian aid operations there.
Biden, who has approved more than 100 weapons sales to Israel and billions of dollars in additional aid since the October 7 Hamas-led attack, falsely said Wednesday that Israeli forces "haven't gone in Rafah yet," raising questions over the practical implications of his threat to withhold U.S. weapons in the case of a ground invasion.
But Republicans nevertheless fumed over Biden's approach, showing no concern for the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel's military—armed to the teeth with American weapons—has inflicted on Gaza.
In a letter to the president on Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—both major recipients of arms industry cash throughout their careers—wrote that delaying weapons deliveries "risks emboldening Israel's enemies and undermining the trust that other allies and partners have in the United States."
Johnson and McConnell, along with most congressional Democrats, supported a sprawling foreign aid package last month that authorized around $17 billion in military assistance for Israel. Reutersreported that Lockheed Martin and RTX—formerly Raytheon—both "stand to profit" from the measure.
Raytheon's PAC donated $18,500 to McConnell's 2020 reelection campaign.
Contrary to the position of congressional Republicans, progressive foreign policy analysts and anti-war organizations said Biden would be adhering to U.S. law if he halts weapons deliveries to Israel. Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits U.S. military assistance to any country that is impeding the provision of American humanitarian aid—something Israel has done repeatedly.
"Enforcing our laws and making clear that the U.S. will not transfer offensive weapons to support a disastrous military operation that endangers millions of Palestinians throughout Gaza is vital," Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of Win Without War, said in a statement Wednesday.
"U.S. law gives the president ample power to ensure that no more U.S. arms go to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's brutal war in Gaza," said Haghdoosti. "With a crucial cease-fire deal within reach, added pressure from the Biden administration can help end this war and create a path to a sustainable peace for people in Israel and Palestine. We once again urge the president to use every tool available to him to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and the release of all hostages."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden 'Moving the Goal Post' With Threat to Withhold Bombs From Israel
"Now Israel has a green light to destroy Rafah in slow motion," said one critic.
May 08, 2024
While some Palestine defenders on Wednesday welcomed U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah, critics noted that an invasion is already underway and accused the American leader of walking back a previous "red line" warning against an Israeli assault on the southern Gaza city.
Biden said for the first time that he'll stop sending bombs, artillery shells, and other arms to Israel if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians forcibly displaced from other parts of the embattled Gaza Strip are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents.
Referring to Israel's use of U.S.-supplied 2,000-pound bombs—which can destroy an entire city block and have been used in some of the war's worst atrocities—Biden toldCNN's Erin Burnett that "civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers."
Even the U.S. military—which has killed more foreign civilians than any other armed force on the planet since the end of World War II—won't use 2,000-pound bombs in urban areas. But Israel does, including when it launched a strike to assassinate a single Hamas commander by dropping the munitions on the Jabalia refugee camp last October, killing more than 120 civilians.
"If they go into Rafah, I'm not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities," Biden said Wednesday.
Israeli forces have already gone into Rafah, and it was reported Tuesday that Biden was taking the unusual step of delaying shipments of two types of Boeing-made bombs to Israel to send a message to the country's far-right government. It was, however, a mixed message, as the president also earlier in the day reaffirmed his support for Israel's war on Gaza, which the International Court of Justice said is "plausibly" genocidal in a preliminary ruling in January.
Critics noted the shifting and subjective language used by Biden—who previously said that any Israeli invasion of Rafah would constitute a "red line" resulting in unspecified consequences.
"He said invading Rafah was a red line. Israel invaded Rafah anyway, bombing buildings, burning and crushing children to death," political analyst Omar Baddar said on social media. "Biden is now moving the goal post by adding a completely subjective descriptor: 'Major.' Now Israel has a green light to destroy Rafah in slow motion."
During the course of the seven-month Israeli assault on Gaza—which has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—Biden has said Israel has killed "too many civilians" with its "indiscriminate bombing," even as he's pushed for more and more military aid for the key ally.
Wednesday's interview came on the heels of Biden's approval of a $14.3 billion emergency military aid package to Israel, multiple moves to sidestep Congress to fast-track armed assistance, nearly $4 billion in previously authorized annual military aid, and diplomatic cover in the form of several United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Reporting that the Biden administration will delay a highly anticipated report on whether Israel is using U.S. military aid in compliance with international law also drew backlash Tuesday from human rights advocates.
Referring to Israel's U.S.-funded anti-missile system, Biden continued his supportive rhetoric during Wednesday's CNN interview, telling Burnett that "we're going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks."
But the president added that Israel's use of devastating weaponry against civilians is "just wrong," and that "we're not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells."
Some peace groups welcomed Biden's threat to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel, even while urging him to do more to stop his ally's genocidal onslaught.
"Biden's statement is as necessary as it is over overdue," Jewish Voice for Peace executive director Stefanie Fox said in a statement. "The U.S. already bears responsibility for months of catastrophic devastation: The nearly 40,000 Palestinians that the Israeli military has killed, the two million Palestinians being intentionally brought to the brink of famine, the decimation of all universities and almost every hospital in Gaza."
"Today's statement shows that Biden can no longer ignore the will of the majority of Americans who want a permanent cease-fire, release of all hostages, and an end to U.S. complicity in Israeli war crimes," Fox added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Save 'MAGA Mike' Johnson From Marjorie Taylor Greene Ouster
"The GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, who did not support saving the far-right leader.
May 08, 2024
The majority of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday saved far-right Speaker Mike Johnson from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's attempt to oust him after less than seven months in the leadership position.
Johnson's (R-La.) election to the role in October—following the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who then left Congress early—was seen as a signal of the MAGA flank's hold on the Republican Party. However, since then he has faced criticism from Greene (R-Ga.) and others for, among other things, not shutting down the government.
Greene delivered on her threatened motion to vacate—provoking boos from fellow lawmakers—after meeting with Johnson for hours on Monday and Tuesday. The final vote to table her resolution was 359-43, with 196 Republicans and 163 Democrats backing the far-right speaker. Seven Democrats voted present and 21 lawmakers did not vote.
Ten Republicans joined Greene in trying to give Johnson the boot: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Eli Crane (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Chip Roy (Texas), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.).
Addressing the position of most Democrats, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) said in a statement:
Our decision to stop Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from plunging the House of Representatives and the country into further chaos is rooted in our commitment to solving problems for everyday Americans in a bipartisan manner. We need more common sense and less chaos in Washington, D.C.
Marjorie Taylor Greene and the extreme MAGA Republicans are chaos agents. House Democrats are change agents. We will continue to govern in a reasonable, responsible, and results-oriented manner and to put people over politics all day and every day.
Some of the 32 Democrats who supported ousting Johnson framed the vote as proof that—in the words of Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.)—the "GOP really can't govern" and the "chaos caucus is on display."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly declared on social media that "the GOP chaos caucus continues to do nothing for the American people and instead waste time infighting."
"Speaker Johnson organized an amicus brief effort to overturn the 2020 election. He opposes abortion rights, trans rights, and voting rights," Jayapal also said. "That's why I did not vote to save his speakership."
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) also explained his vote on social media, saying: "Mike Johnson is the most ideological, right-wing speaker since the 1830s. His views and values are directly antithetical to mine. He stands for everything we, as freedom-loving Democrats, proudly stand against. I will never vote to keep him in that chair."
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) was one of the members who voted present, which does not count for or against passage.
"Did I vote with the extremist white Christian nationalist who called a motion to vacate the speakership or did I vote to save the extremist homophobic Christian nationalist speaker to keep him in office?" Pocan said. "Neither. I voted 'present' on this sideshow."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular