Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Wins and Redefines Real America
So who's a real American now?
With his decisive triumph over Senator John McCain, Senate Barack Obama made obvious history: he is the first black (or biracial) man to win the presidency. But the meaning of his victory--in which Obama splashed blue across previously red states--extends far beyond its racial significance. Obama, a former community organizer and law professor, won the White House as one of the most progressive (or liberal) nominees in the Democratic Party's recent history. Mounting one of the best run presidential bids in decades, Obama tied his support for progressive positions (taxing the wealthy to pay for tax cuts for working Americans, addressing global warming, expanding affordable health insurance, withdrawing troops from Iraq) to calls for cleaning up Washington and for crafting a new type of politics. Charismatic, steady, and confident, he melded substance and style into a winning mix that could be summed up in simple and basic terms: hope and change.
After nearly eight years of George W. Bush's presidency, Obama was the non-Bush: intelligent, curious, thoughtful, deliberate, and competent. His personal narrative--he was the product of an unconventional family and worked his way into the nation's governing class--fueled his campaign narrative. His story was the American Dream v2.0. He was change, at least at skin level. But he also championed the end of Bushism. He had opposed the Iraq war. He had opposed Bush's tax cuts for the rich. He was no advocate of let-'er-rip, free market capitalism or American unilateralism. In policy terms, Obama represents a serious course correction.
And more. In the general election campaign, McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, turned the fight for the presidency into a culture clash. They accused Obama of being a socialist. They assailed him for having associated with William Ayers, a former, bomb-throwing Weather Underground radical,who has since become an education expert. Palin indirectly referred to Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who once preached fiery sermons denouncing the United States government for certain policies. On the campaign trail, Palin suggested there were "real" parts of America and fake parts. At campaign events, she promoted a combative, black-helicopter version of conservatism: if you're for government expansion, you're against freedom. During her one debate with Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, she hinted that if her opponents won the White House there might come a day when kids would ask their grandparents what it had been like to live in a free country. At McCain-Palin rallies, supporters shouted out, "Communist!" and "terrorist!" and "Muslim!" when the Republican candidates referred to Obama. And McCain and Palin hurled the standard charges at Obama: he will raise your taxes and he is weak on national security.
Put it all together and the message was clear: there are two types of Americans. Those who are true Americans--who love their nation and cherish freedom--and those who are not. The other Americans do not put their country first; they blame it first. The other Americans do not believe in opportunity; they want to take what you have and give it to someone else. The other Americans do not care about Joe the Plumber; they are out-of-touch elitists who look down on (and laugh at) hard-working, church-going folks. The other Americans do not get the idea of America. They are not patriots. And it just so happens that the other America is full of blacks, Latinos, gays, lesbians, and non-Christians.
McCain, Palin and their compatriots did what they could to depict Obama as the rebel chief of this other un-American America. (Hillary Clinton helped set up their effort during the primaries by beating the Ayers drum.) Remember the stories of Obama's supposed refusal to wear a flag pin or place his hand over his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance? The emails about Obama being a secret Muslim? The goal was to delegitimize Obama, as well as the Americans who were moved by his biography, his rhetoric, and his ideas. It was back to the 1960s--drawing a harsh line between the squares (the real Americans) and the freaks (those redistribution-loving, terrorist-coddling faux Americans).
It didn't work.
With the nation mired in two wars and beset by a financial crisis, Obama mobilized a diverse coalition that included committed Democratic liberals turned on by his policy stands (unabashed redistributionists, no doubt) and less ideologically-minded voters jazzed by his temperament, meta-themes, and come-together message. He showed that the old Republican attack tactics do not always draw blood. A candidate could advocate raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations and withstand being called a socialist. A candidate could advocate talking to the nation's enemies and withstand being tagged weak and dangerous. A candidate could be non-white, have an odd name, boast a less-than-usual ancestry, be an unrepentant Ivy Leaguer, profess a quiet and thoughtful patriotism (that encompasses both love and criticism of country), and still be a real American. And become president.
How He Did It -- The Primaries
From the start of the campaign, Obama and his advisers--notably campaign manager David Plouffe and chief strategist David Axelrod--shared a vision of how a freshman senator with relatively little national experience could reach the White House. Obama presented himself as an agent of change leading a movement for change. Given that a large majority of the voters believed the nation was heading in the wrong direction after two terms of George W. Bush, this was not the most brilliant of strategic strokes. But Obama had the chops to pull it off. He spoke well, he conveyed intelligence and energy, and he advocated policies that seemed like an antidote to the Bush years. And he effectively matched his own personal story (a best-selling book!) to this message of renewal.
Throughout the primaries, Obama addressed the sense of disenfranchisement Democrats and independents (and even some Republicans) had experienced during the W years. As these citizens watched Bush and Dick Cheney dole out tax cuts to the wealthy, do nothing about global warming, launch an optional war in Iraq, and expand secrecy and executive power, many felt locked out. It didn't help that Bush and his crowd appeared dismissive of those who disagreed with them, decrying elitism and playing to conservative know-nothingism. Obama came along and invited primary voters to join a crusade for change--which meant a crusade against them. It was a chance to strike back against the empire. Obama understood the need of many to reclaim their country. The right has often exploited such a sentiment. Think of the rise of the Moral Majority. But Obama was not playing the resentment card.
Crucial to his success was Obama's decision to keep anger (at least his own) out of the equation. For him and his supporters, there was cause to be damn mad. From their perspective, the country had been hijacked by Bush, Cheney and a small band of neocons. (A view they could hold with much justification.) But Obama appeared to have made a calculation: an angry black man could not win over a majority of the voters. He offered voters not fury, but hope. And considering his "improbable"--as he put it--rise, he was a natural pitchman for hope. Fixating on hope allowed him to talk about the problems of the United States (past and present) while remaining an optimist. Americans tend not to elect purveyors of doom and gloom to the presidency. Usually the candidate with the sunnier disposition wins. It's not hard to fathom why. When Americans select a president, many are voting for the person who they believe best reflects their own idea of America. Voting for president has a strong psychological component. It's how Americans define their nation. So personal attributes--character, strength, biography, personality--are important.
Obama described his presidential bid not as a campaign of outrage but as a cause of hope--a continuation of the grand and successful progressive movements of the past. For Democratic voters, he had the appropriate liberal policy stances. He had a record as a reformer in the Illinois state senate and the US Senate. But he provided more than resumé; he served up inspiration. Obama could advocate these policies--policies that often stir sharp partisan fights in Washington and beyond--and at the same time convincingly call for a new politics of productivity (not partisanship) in Washington. This took some talent. Mark Schmitt credits what he calls Obama's "communitarian populism"--a quiet, inclusive populism. Leave your pitchforks at the door. This message and his manner of delivering it led many Democratic voters to conclude that he was the right man for the post-Bush cleanup.
Obama had one big obstacle in the primaries: Hillary Clinton. She had a brand name that attracted and repulsed voters. She ran a conventional campaign. She uttered no talk of any movement. She relied on her resumé, and said she was ready to roll up her sleeves and work for you. Will you hire me as your advocate-in-chief? she asked. Obama was offering music; she was offering math. It was virtually a toss-up for the Democratic electorate. What made the difference was that Obama, the heady candidate, managed his campaign more effectively than Clinton, the down-to-earth candidate, managed hers. Clinton and her crew, after losing in Iowa and then fighting back in New Hampshire, botched the middle stretch and allowed Obama to rack up a series of wins that did give him--oh, that dreadful word--momentum. More important, her campaign seemed to bounce from one strategy to the next, as infighting roiled Clintonland. Not until the end of the primaries did Clinton get her groove back, winning over blue-collar voters in once-industrial states as the scrappy working-class hero. But it was too late. The delegate math became undeniable.
In beating Clinton, Obama showed that he had assembled a disciplined and skilled campaign staff. Not once was his campaign rocked by internal dissension. It never went through a staff shakeup. There were no media stories, relying on unnamed sources, revealing major disputes or fundamental disagreements at Obama HQ. ("We had our disagreements," says one top Obama aide. "But they were always within the confines of getting to the best decision. I was stunned by how well it all worked.") Consensus, smooth operations, no signs of turf fights or ego battles--this is virtually unheard of in a major modern presidential campaigns. Obama even handled his flip-flops--voting for the telecom immunity bill after vowing not to and opting out of public financing system after indicating he would remain within it--relatively well. The operation of his campaign sent a signal: Obama was a serious person who could ably handle pressure. Obama preached hope and at the same time he was the CEO of a well-managed enterprise that would raise and spend (in record amounts) hundreds of millions of dollars.
How He Did It --The General Election
Once it became clear that Obama and McCain would each be the presidential nominee of their respective parties, they faced two big tests--selecting a running mate and addressing the financial meltdown. Obama passed both; McCain failed both.
Obama's choice of Biden was not inspiring. It was, in a way, a conventional pick, a safe bet (relatively safe, given Biden's penchant for verbal slip-ups). Obama's campaign was predicated on the promise he would shake up Washington. Biden, a three-decade veteran of the Senate, was not known as a rebel. But he had deep foreign policy experience and had spent years courting the working-class voters of Delaware. He could reassure voters worried that Obama had not spent enough years toiling on national security matters. And Biden certainly would not compete with Obama for headlines and screen time. Obama was the inspiration on the ticket. Biden was the insurance policy.
By going with Biden, Obama dared to be boring and indicated he was willing to play it straight when necessary. He abided by the first rule of veep selection: do no harm. McCain took another route. He gambled. He picked a governor little-known on the national stage--a woman whom even McCain barely knew. It gave his campaign a shot of excitement and surprise. Her performance at the Republican convention was dazzling. But this high did not last, as Palin did miserably in media interviews. Several conservative columnists had to admit she was not ready for prime time. Within weeks, McCain's act of daring was widely perceived as an act of recklessness. Her approval ratings plummeted. Polls indicated she was a drag on a ticket and a prominent reason why some voters were not favoring McCain.
Palin was strike one. Strike two was McCain's erratic response to the financial crisis--saying different things, deciding to suspend his campaign but then suspending the suspension. His actions reinforced the impression created by the Palin misstep: he likes to shoot from the hip. But with the economy and Wall Street in a free fall, many voters were probably not eager for another cowboy president. Meanwhile, Obama, who met with establishment advisers and calmly backed the $700 billion bailout (which McCain also endorsed), looked like the adult in the room that crucial week, which culminated in the first debate. That face-off, according to the insta-polls, was a win for Obama, as were the next two confrontations.
Weeks into the general election, Obama had made a pivot--but so smoothly that most of the politerati did not even see it. He had gone from the inspiring movement leader calling for wholesale change in Washington to a reassuring figure who demonstrated that he could play well with the establishment. The younger and less experienced of the two nominees seemed better suited to handle a crisis. Iraq and national security were no longer the issues; the economy was. And Obama showed he possessed the steadier hand. At the final debate, as McCain jabbed with punches that packed not much punch, Obama came across as confident if not so dynamic. But when the world is cracking up, who wants pizzazz?
Losing on the economy front--and in the temperament contest--McCain, with Palin acting like his gun moll, stepped up his use of the standard GOP attack lines. He went back to basics. Obama, he contended, yearned to raise taxes not just on the rich but on everybody. Even though independent experts had concluded that middle-class voters would receive a bigger tax cut under Obama's proposal than McCain's, the McCain camp kept issuing charges about Obama's tax aims that were not true. They found a mascot in Joe the Plumber (who was not really named Joe and not really a plumber). And they whipped up the old tax-and-spend fear about Democrats.
"Now is no the time to experiment with socialism," Palin exclaimed at rallies, ignoring the fact that she presides over the socialistic state of Alaska (which redistributes tax revenues collected from oil companies to the state's citizens). She dubbed Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader." At a McCain rally near St. Louis, Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) said, "This campaign in the next couple of weeks is about one thing. It's a referendum on socialism." Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) weighed in on Obama: "With all due respect, the man is a socialist." McCain repeatedly referred to Obama as the "redistributionist-in-chief," often stumbling over the phrase. He must have forgotten that during a 2000 campaign event, he was asked, "Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism," and McCain replied, "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."
It was an anti-intellectual attack--taxes equals socialism--ignoring basic facts and the personal history of McCain (who was roundly accused by conservatives of engaging in "class warfare" in 2000 when he opposed George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich). The point was to strike fear into the hearts of voters who make far less money than Obama's proposed threshold for tax hikes. McCain was not appealing to the better nature of voters.
Putting up a fierce fight, Obama did not make it personal. He paid tribute to McCain's military service. But he slammed McCain for standing with Bush on economic issues. "If you want to know where Senator McCain will drive this economy, just look in the rearview mirror," Obama told campaign audiences. And he challenged the Big Idea of the Republican Party:
The last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. The last thing we can afford is four more years where no one in Washington is watching anyone on Wall Street because politicians and lobbyists killed common-sense regulations. Those are the theories that got us into this mess. They haven't worked, and it's time for change.
Obama wasn't just taking on Bushism. He was taking on Reaganism.
McCain, Palin, and their supporters did make it personal. They claimed that Obama was misleading the voters, that he was not what he seemed. They argued that he was not up to the job. The McCain-Palin campaign ran a series of ads--one falsely asserted that Obama had supported teaching kindergartners "comprehensive sex education"--that various MSM outlets pronounced untruthful and unfair. The Straight Talk Express was derided as a cavalcade of misrepresentation. The McCain-Palin campaign revived the Bill Ayers attack. It tried to brand Obama an associate of anti-Semites, pointing to his relationship with a Palestinian scholar--without producing evidence that this Palestinian was anti-Semitic. (The International Republican Institute, a group chaired by McCain, had given over $400,000 to a group co-founded by this scholar.)
It was an ugly assault. Speaking in support of McCain and Palin, Representative Robin Hayes (R-NC) declared, "Liberals hate real Americans that work, and accomplish, and achieve, and believe in God." McCain supporters referred to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." At a Palin rally, Representative Steve King (R-IA) said that an Obama victory would cause the United States to turn into a "totalitarian dictatorship." Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) declared that Obama was "anti-American." While she was at it, she urged the media to investigate and root out anti-Americanism within the US Congress.
This mud did not stick. Perhaps worse for McCain, his camp never presented a coherent strategic argument for its candidate. Obama had change and hope. McCain had no real case for McCain--other than he was a POW who put his country first. What did he want to do as president? Serve his country again. He essentially asked to be rewarded for his past service and sacrifice. He didn't feel the voters' pain; he wanted them to feel his. And his campaign ended up being defined mostly by its retro attack on Obama: he's an untested and untrustworthy liberal.
Most of the voters disagreed.
With his victory, Obama has ended the Bush II era with an exclamation point. (The Democratic gains in Congress seconded the point.) Now Obama faces a restoration project of unprecedented proportions. It may take years for him and the rest of Washington to remedy the ills neglected, exacerbated or caused by the Bush presidency. And he will have a tough time matching progress to promise. At his victory celebration in Chicago before tens of thousands, he lowered expectations: "the road ahead will be long. The climb ahead will be steep." And he noted that his electoral victory merely provided "only the chance for us to make that change."
But his barrier-breaking victory was indeed change in itself. Consider this: Obama ended his campaign at a rally on Monday night in Manassas, Virginia, the site of Battle of Bull Run, the opening land battle of the Civil War, in which Union troops were routed and forced to retreat back to Washington, DC There before a crowd of 90,000--young, old, black, white, affluent, working-class--Obama summed up his case:
Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that have put greed and irresponsibility before hard work and sacrifice. Tomorrow, you can choose policies that invest in our middle class and create new jobs, grow this economy so everybody has a chance to succeed, not just the CEO but the secretary and the janitor, not just the factory owner but the men and women who work the factory floors. And tomorrow, you can end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election, that pits region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat, that asks us to fear at a time when we need to hope.
A black man on the verge of being elected president said that.
But race is just one part of the tale. Obama has done more than become a first. He has redrawn the electoral map (take that, Karl Rove) and reshaped the political culture of the United States. He has transformed the image of the United States--abroad and at home. (He vowed in Chicago that "a new dawn of American leadership is at hand.") Above all, after eight troubling years and after decades of ideological civil war, Obama has redefined what is real America. "Who knew that we were the Silent Majority?" his press secretary Linda Douglass said moments after Obama left the stage in Grant Park.
The voters who see President-elect Obama as the embodiment of their America can trade the Yes We Can motto for a new one: Yes We Are.
131 Comments so far
Show AllARRY-
Great post.
While I do think that our culture and our government is "corporate dominated" I still think we can work within the framework of the capitalist system and pressure our leaders to listen to more grassroots and alternative solutions to some of the problems we face.
I believe there are people and checks and balances within the system that if pressured would look for alternatives to the corporations and their lobbyists. I guess 'global warming' is a good example of what seems to be the corporations and system waking up to the idea that taking part in the destruction of the planet and it's citizens may mean their own demise.
The corporations cannot run without us. If we were to show them with might or right that 'greener' alternatives were the way to go then I believe they would capitulate. Of course they would then try and dominate that market but that is the nature of "laissez faire" capitalism. We need to take back control of our natural resources and regulate industry and business so it serves the needs of production and labor and not just the investors.
I think Obama and his administration will be pliable. I think of course they are going to dodge and delay but even with 'corporate people' in high levels we could effect change. Maybe it is not a bad idea to appoint people with corporate ties and tongue to these positions. Maybe that could be used to our advantage. Maybe there will be real progressives in the administration who will be keeping watch and influencing cabinet officials. I think the Bush administration has really forced progressive people to become stronger and more organized.
Hippie and progressive values are now becoming chic. I know it sounds superficial but it is easier to get someone to do something if they also think it is cool. Be the change you seek to make.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!!" MARIO SAVIO
emaho and highkarate -- I agree with most of what you say but would go further (and maybe this is implicit in your post) that not only will Obama be listening to corporate advisers, but the position of president (due to the nature of corporate power and its natural preemption of the political system) has evolved into a job the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the corporate "story" continues and the power structure remains intact. A consequence of this is that vital and urgent matters such as climate change may be discussed and even acted upon in a fashion but only within the context of a corporate "solution" which (beyond the fact that it may not really constitute a solution) will compete with the rest of the corporate agenda which will always be irrational and limited and prodigal of resources.
The corporate media and corporatists in power will be incessantly using all their sophisticated tools of persuasion to counter any anti-corporatist action, but we do have a few cards. Many citizens (most, in my opinion) find corporations distasteful and vaguely ominous, but think they are inevitable. (Even Palin's "real Americans" are basically anti-corporate.)
If we stay focused on the root causes of our systemic problems and nurture the flowers of non-corporate community wherever we find them (although they may be prickly, quite unconscious, and not always to our liking) we will have a chance. If we rely on the upholders of corporate culture and the recipients of its largess to come around willingly, or if we stay within the limits of our ideologies or wallow in contempt for others (which is a way of ending the need to right a wrong), we're in for deep disappointment (except, possibly, for the pleasure of sharing our contempt with others of a like mind).
So...is it time to hold Obama's and other Democrat's feet to the fire? Yes, in my opinion. Obama is currently considering egregiously corporate people to be his chief advisors. Corporate globalists, people with histories of advocating deregulation. They will be formulating policies. There are many other people he could consider. The party's over...by necessity. No reason to put off what so many Obama people on CD have promised.
EMAHO-
Nice post.
This might be a little ironic but here it is,
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."
Frederick Douglass
One man cannot effect major change but he can allow for it. We have to be the ones to demand it from him though. When Obama is confronted with lobbyists and others in his administration he must deal with them. He is surrounded by them. They are the policy "experts" and will sway him on almost every issue. We, as a people, must find a better way to be heard and to influence more and more of the political process.
In order to do this we must organize. We must again make the public arena a political arena. We have become too distracted and complacent. The propaganda machine is too powerful right now but we are wising up and catching on.
In order to really be heard we need to not be perceived as the unruly and unorganized horde that needs to be subjugated. As long as we allow ourselves to be divided then we will be controlled. Informed and organized we will be reckoned with.
McCain got almost 50% of the vote but in a real and informed political process that was not dominated by a corporate owned media he would get maybe 30% in a two way contest. In a run off election with open and real debates he would not even be in the running. Throw in public financing and a public more interested in the issues and unswayed by negative advertising and titillation and you would have Kucinich, Nader, McKinney, Paul and a more lefty Obama vying for El Presidente.
Progressives need to organize and fast. We must influence the Dems while they are in power and let them know we mean business. Our government has been taken over by the corporations and although the neocons and the religious right were given a good slap in the face we must not stop there. Now we should focus on how to stop the corporatization of the US and the world.
Call, email, hold your local officials accountable. Talk to your neighbors if you can. Now is the time. In eight years we can really get some stuff done. We know what needs to be done. Now we need to do it.
Thanks to all for some thoughtful dialogue! This post has inspired a genuinely bipartisan exchange of ideas...and we need more of the same.
I voted Democrat this year, not because I necessarily like or trust any or all of the candidates. I admit my vote was more an expression of my horror regarding the crimes of the Bush/Cheny cabal. So, I'm willing to give Obama and the newly Democratic Congress a chance...holding my breath.
What I'm waiting for (and what I didn't any candidates talking about) is for Obama to stand up and tell folks the REAL truth about global warming/climate change and the precipitous decline in fossil fuel availablity we're facing. He might also try to wake up America to its role in generating and enabling these catastrophes (we have no business trying to be anyone's role model when we live as we do). Climate change and peak oil will, in the not too distant future, trump all other issues and concerns. Take that to the bank (sic).
Because of our oi-addicted lifestyles, we've backed ourselves and future generations into a very tight corner. I used to wonder why no politicians were able to see the truth, much less talk to the people about it. I think I know, now. It's because they, as well as the rest of us, find denial a much easier proposition to maintain than facing the truth.
It's all well and good to be concerned about, and work against, corruption, militarism, poverty, etc. I hope to see some of the energy expressed in this post directed toward the real elephants in the room. Soon, the option turning off lights or driving less or buying less crap (made from oil) will be taken from us as we plunge headlong, and blind, into the "long emergency".
When I see Obama, and government as a whole, being honest about the climate and energy crises, maybe I'll exhale and breath easier.
emaho:thanks for your vote. Now we all have to get to work to make change happen. Don't wait for Obama to start the dialogue.
Why don't you just suppress every dissenting view with an edge or a truth you don't want to look at? Isn't that the formula, defeating the Republicans by becoming more like the Republicans?
And some of you all look down your nose at Lenin, who at the very least, never pretended to be anything but Lenin.
Rahm Emmanuel? Joseph Biden? Change we can believe in? Don't make me laugh.
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." REVOLUTION by The Beatles
wait, wait, wait. all you obama bashers should at least give him, say, a couple of weeks to be president. we all endured eight years of bush and everyone should be giving thanks that it's almost over. of course, as jesse jackson wrote, we might want to keep an eye on his last 100 days in office, rather than worrying about obama's first 100 days. i will conceed, however, that bringing rahm emanuel into the picture doesn't look like a good start. still, i'm waiting to see what develops. and hopefully, all the hysteria will continue when obama does indeed screw up.
to all you nader supporters, see you again in four years. this one's over.
lino:I think we should form coalitions to work on issues we each care about or join existing or new groups, as much as can do while surviving. I would include Nader supporters,too and they can also be working on what they want to achieve in the interim. There's room for multiparties. Ignore the verbal
"Obama-bashers".
I heard a little while ago on C-SPAN that Rahm Emanuel hasn't accepted the position, but said he needed time to consider it. My immediate thought was he needed time to go through his life with a fine tooth comb to find anything that could nail him should anyone else do so. Don't those top positions have to be okayed by Congress?
Rahm Emanuel has been asked to be the White House Chief of Staff. This is not a Cabinet position. It does not need to be approved by Congress. And if I were Obama, that is the ONE position I'd make sure I had some hard-ass, loyal, trusted person in.
My numero uno reason for supporting Barack Obama was justified the moment he was declared the winner. The whole world rejoiced, and is welcoming us back to the brotherhood of humanity. I hope that the joyful feeling will be sustained as he settles into the job. I believe that even if he does not withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, and builds up the war in Afghanistan, he will still retain a mostly positive image in the eyes of the rest of the world, simply because he is not Bush or McCain.
He is not a savior, he represents hope. But, to manifest hope for a better world into a reality, we all must contribute. Support him when he is right. Criticize him when he is wrong. I, for one, will not be condemning or congratulating him for every action he takes, such as cabinet appointments. Rather, I will wait and see what the big picture develops into, how his administration functions as a whole. And while I agree that there will only be a small honeymoon (or none at all), I'll be patient as he develops his presidential leadership style and begins making important decisions Though, in reality, all decisions at that level are important.
All I'm doing right now is having the warm fuzzies with the rest of humanity. It feels good.
I don't blame America. I blame the Republicans.
Bipartisanship.
Now there is, and will continue to be, much talk about "working together" and bipartisanship between Dems and Pugs. The concept is even extended by some to "far left" and "center left" - the far lefties have to give up their unrealistic idealism and "work with" Obama in order to make "change" happen.
What utterly hypocritical bullshit.
The Democrats have been trying to arrange the outcome of the election all along precisely so they have to "work with" the Republicans as little as possible - that's what "filibuster-proof majority" is all about. That's what pouring money and effort into elections so as to maximize winning majorities is all about. And why wouldn't they try to achieve this? Why wouldn't an individual or group try to influence events so the outcome is conducive to action being taken in harmony with their ideological framework, with what they think is correct and true about the world?
So why now all the noise about working together? Because it serves the controlling bloc's interest to moralize about it, to try to get "cooperation" and "progress" intertwined in the psyche and persuade everyone that cooperation is righteous and American - because whoever is in power has the upper hand in the moment, in defining what efforts are worthy of cooperating over.
This is almost self-evident, of course, but in this time of huge enthusiasm over Obama, his limitations and boundaries need to be revealed, and the rhetoric needs to be ignored as rhetoric. The real progressive left needs to keep pressing for its values to be made law - NOT cooperate for watered down partial measures which mainly serve to legitimize a corporate politician's administration and which do NOT enact real, significant change.
Same battle as before the election, always goes on. Vision diluted and half-measures rationalized as the best we can get for now, OR meaningful change stridently and consistently fought for.
"Cooperation" in politics is usually not just, nor essentially American.
Real America? What's that? Am I mistaken or what, but hasn't it been Obama precisely who urged that a distinction between pro-America and anti-America, and thus between real and unreal America not be made, owing to its divisiveness?
I think we all want the same thing, a leader who will represent the majority of the people and not cave in to special interests. But the dialogue I see here is centered on IDEAS, not facts. Fact is, Obama has approved and adopted almost every single action Bush has asked for. He says one thing today and changes his mind in a week or a month. He has voted to keep the illegal war in Iraq going. He plans to continue Bush's activities: making military strikes across the borders of sovereign states. It seems to me that all this discussion about liberalism vs. conservatism is wasted effort, when it's the FACTS we have to live by. Bush's appointees have given hundreds of billions to his friends and left the rest of us to whistle. I don't see Obama saying what it is he's going to do different. What Obama is is a carbon copy of Bush with a silver tongue. You don't like Nader but he's worth a hundred Obamas or Mckainney, worth a thousand Obamas. Obama TELLS you he's going to stab you in the back and you don't hear him.
frederick johnson,
you are correct, george prescott bush (they all have such original names) is jeb's oldest son. and jebby (the youngest son, with an already growing rap sheet, but, hey, that didn't stop his uncle from rising to the pinnacle of buffoondom) worked with/for giuliani - not mcsame, as i previously posted - this past spring. sadly, any of the on-line articles i read from then have mysteriously disappeared.
still, even sadder, the fact is that by the time either of the two youngsters are ready for a serious bid at dynastic continuation, most of america will have forgotten these past eight disgusting years, or '88-'92, for that matter.
I wish to take a moment to express concern is for the impractical idealism of some who suggest that Obama must radically speak out and stand overtly against the current military hegemony and corporate stranglehold on America. Do you really believe that any person could do so and successfully gain a foothold in the American power structure, let alone become President? Really?
Politics is the art of the doable, of compromise and the ability to be effective. Certainly no one can argue that Obama hasn't demonstrated that, at least up to this point.
What we need is exactly what Obama has given us. We need a man who can unite and ignite the much needed critical mass required for building new hope and creating change. A man whose heart and soul aligns with the American Ideal, who relates to the common man while yet being able to play hardball within the current power structure. A man who believes in us as much as we believe in him.
As many in this thread have said, it is now time to work and strive together, to be as much the instrument of change as we would ask of Obama. He cannot succeed without us. It will not be easy, and we can all agree how it will be a long and difficult uphill battle. Obama's election has but opened the door, which is the most we could have realistically expected at this juncture.
It will be easy to set back and blame Obama for not succeeding, and then say "I told you so." It will be much harder to keep the current momentum building. But the upside of doing so is that we will be regaining the power we had given up, regardless of what Obama eventually does - if it is to be it is up to we - yes we can!
cosmobilly wrote,
"Do you really believe that any person could do so and successfully gain a foothold in the American power structure, let alone become President? Really?"
Well, he is President-elect now, so his "acting" can stop and he can now be the real Obama. Right?
Yea, right.
You own your own company? Or just work for someone? You never compromise with anyone to get what you want, or just to get by? How's that work for you?
Yes, although the momentum is meaningful only when our vision is quite specific.
I hope we can come up with an alternative to "Yes we can!" It sounds like something some low level Madison Avenue flunky produced on the fly. (But it may be that I have a special distaste for it because it was used by Louisiana-Pacific employees when they were fighting the efforts to save the redwoods in northern California back in the '70's. They were all wearing little buttons saying "Yes we can!". It drove me nuts. "Yes we can...what?" I always asked and always got some shit-eating smile in return.)
If you knew anything about the history of activism, you would know that "Yes we can" is a English semi-translation for "Si se puede!", the motto of the United Farm Workers of America. Nothing Madison Avenue about it.
But I agree it is a lousy slogan in the context of Obama.
And sorry to say, but we better get out of out mind that we will be helping Obama to do anything. He won the election, yet his victory speech still was uncomfortably militaristic and US-exceptionalist. We better be prepared for Obama to actively resist everything we get in the streets for, just as Clinton did.
We make ourselves heard in the Congress, and they have the power to make a difference with the president. So let's make darned sure Congress knows where we stand, and where they'll be in two or six years if they don't listen to us.
Oh, I get it. UFW moles at Louisiana-Pacific were making a statement. :-)
Absolutely agree! "Yes we can" is definitely hokey without a specific vision and clear objectives.
Realistically, we must understand the pressures that now influence Obama. He will be pulled in different directions and constantly struggling to balance opposing forces. That is why we must help provide clarity and give substance to the specific issues we seek to have addressed. If we sit back and just let things happen, then we will be disappointed. To successfully counter corporate, military and conservative social influences we will need to become the louder more reasoned and powerful voice, well beyond this election.
I will listen if you will stop chanting...deal?? Yes we can shoudl be answered with "go do it!"
I would like to know what issues it is that we should coalese around. I dont really see any "progersive aganda" anyplace that Dems will touch with a ten foot pole.
Are they deluded enought to think that moderates put them where they are??
I need an issue--maybe just one--to work on. Not just any--one I believe in.
Give me one progerssive in the cabinet to look to...
Of course, who is "prog" could be debated. But al these centrists give me the creeps.
Point taken, although my effort was not to lay out a progressive agenda but rather to say how it is not realistic to expect a dramatic lasting political change all at once, especially from any single man, and especially given how deeply problems have become ingrained. We cannot undo decades (or even 8 years) of crap instantaneously. We must be pragmatic in our expectations and our approach.
You're absolutely right, we need to coalesce around specific issues, of which I've seen plenty mentioned on this site, even within this thread. And that is the real focus required of us now - rather than looking for salvation from Obama or expecting our elected representatives to automagically reverse and replace decades of conservative momentum we should be working together to more positively identify, define and implement the game plan for building our own momentum. And use the opening that Obama has given us to further that effort in the meantime.
Of course, there is also plenty of room for interpretation with normative terms such as "progressive." As the societal pendulum swings and momentum shifts more toward center and then further left over the next several years we risk the same extreme irrationality we have seen with conservative momentum. A balanced objective may not be as "progressive" as some of us may wish, but it may be the best solution for ALL to accept and embrace. I don't think we should make the mistake of equating "centrist" with a milquetoast or dispassionate posture, but I do absolutely agree that today's centrists are more to the right than not.
"but I do absolutely agree that today's centrists are more to the right than not."
Actually I'd like to suggest to you that's not true, at least for now. Most of the center has moved center left, if they hadn't, Obama could not have won. Center left on social issues, center right on economic issues perhaps?
How about, "Vive Amerika Libre!"
Also, I said ONE issue--ONE I can agree with.
You've got to be kidding, right? I'm not seeking your approval on a single thing. if you have issues you care about, put them forth and seek out your own consensus. My point stands - it is not realistic to expect Obama to accomplish YOUR progressive agenda when you aren't willing to get up and pursue it yourself. It's easy for you to be derisive toward others and their causes, but how is that helping you?
There are lots of important issues and related efforts to rally behind. Find the one you actually believe in and get involved. I agree that Obama is not likely to effect real change, but I know nothing will or can with meaningless posturing.
cosmobilly - "Find the one you actually believe in and get involved. I agree that Obama is not likely to effect real change, but I know nothing will or can with meaningless posturing."
I say AMEN TO THAT!
Now that we've gotten the neo-cons out of the White House, we need to continue working for the changes we've all been hoping for these past eight years. Obama has a general idea of what areas we want to see change in, but we need to make sure he knows the specifics as well. He's not going to be coming here to read our posts, so we need to let him know in other ways - and the way to let him know is through the Congress.
tminsd,
regarding future bush politics, check out jeb''s son, jebbie i think he's called. already being groomed. he was an important part of mccain's early primary doings in fla.
also, re: texas being red. have been unable to find final county by county results, but obama did well in the city centers and rio grande valley. mccain carried the affluent suburbs, christian hypocrites, and most all rural areas. however, with the growing hispanic population, we could hopefully see a change in four years. especially if the man does a good job.
I believe Jeb Bush's son is George P. Bush. After enough damage from the Bush cabal these past 8 years alone, not to mention 1981-1992, I really hope the Republicans get some fucking brains and quit relying on the Bush dynasty for stealing elections.
I believe TMinSD was referring to Tarrant county or something like that. I'm not so sure that when it comes to Texas, increasing the urban vote turnout alone will turn the state blue unlike CA, NY, and to some degree FL. Don't you have to visit more rural counties to even come close? Also, isn't TX still heavily Republican even on most state and local level offices?
"Also, isn't TX still heavily Republican even on most state and local level offices?"
Yes, but not nearly as much as it was after this election...give us a few more elections.
There's still plenty of hate, narrow-mindedness, racism and ignorance around my area. My WV county had the same final election percentages as the state of Wyoming.
Someone on TD told me to go to FOX to renew my thoughts that I voted for the right person.
I went to liberal forum.org--believe it or not.
I have seen pics of war and police blotters and drawings by rapists, and these are worse. YOu cant disable them.
Class act. I have to go throw up.And cry.
This is only half the battle. Obama won because we sent him lots of small contributions. As corporations have shown, that's what pols will best respond to. If we don't continue to send him money, corporations will, so together we must all exceed corporate political "contributions".
Send whatever you can every month to progressive Dems so they will grow in number and influence.
Money talks. BS walks.
Most of Obama's campaign funding ($700M) came from rich $2300-limit donors, corporate bundlers and PACs, not small donors.
Your notion that we must send money to politicians to make them responsive to the people is vile. Out of all the democracies in the world only in the USA (if you can call it a democracy) would someone ever entertain such a disgusting notion.
Support your first statement, as it completely contradicts the data I've seen.
Emphatically agree with the second statement.
Oh O
Who are the real O world men?
trading in their 'yes we cans'
for 'yes we will' tomorrows?
Will they leave it for some one else
will they loose their point of view
or lend a hand to someone new
Who are the real O world men?
are they eight characters ahead of W?
will they redeem the dreams of MLK?
for yes we will..... needs more than a point of view
it will take some action too
O world men
like 'Oh so sorry awe'
Oh a shock.....perhaps
a better world means less command...O.
for nowhere is like no one's land
and an upper empire hand
is nowhere land.
Oh.
IT IS TIME TO PARTY, EAT AND DRINK FOLKS !!
CONGRATULATION OBAMA !! MAY THE LORD BLESS YOU !!
I would've liked that a Socialist Party would win this elections. Or the Green Party. Green Party and no Party in this world is perfect (Nothing is perfect). However the Green Party has a welfare-economic-nationalist model, like the economic model that Hugo Chavez used in Venezuela when he became president in 1998. Which was not a socialist-model but a welfare-humanist economic program. And that's what this country needs. We need nationalization of key elements of the American Industry under democratic workers ownership, US constitutional reform. To turn the US constitution from a plutocratic, oligarchic, imperialist constitution toward a participative-democratic socialist constitution which would shift power from corporations and government to the people. Just like Cynthia Mckinney said: "Power to the people." But the US government cannot give power to the people by magic, in order to do that, the US government would need to do constitutional, economic, political, social reforms (A total radical reform of the whole US govenrment). Just like Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.
In any case, there is hope with Obama. What the US-Socialists have to do, is to pressure the Obama government to do socialist-reforms that the USA needs, to turn USA into a modern, democratic-socialist humanist nation of the XXI Century.
take care all !!
AND AGAIN: IT IS TIME TO CELEBRATE THE END OF 8 YEARS OF FASCISM, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM AND ZIONIST IMPERIALISM !!
.
.You are celebrating nothing. You are deluding yourself that this nation has elected someone free of the ties to that sector of our nation that has and continues to control our governance. Obama has accepted the money and now is under obligation. Your post is a paeon to a continuation fo the status quo by leading folks to believe the job is done, it is not.
I also wonder at the oddity of a self proclaimed marxist referencing a god, do you know what you are?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Oh dear, dear..where to start. The Communist Patty backed him . MOst Socialist parties did not. I did not expect a socialist to win. But,I took the rights fear of him as a good sign. I shouldve realized it was a sign of how backward the US is
For those that have the money--eat and drink and party. Or give some to those that dont.
"Lord bless you" from a Marxist?? Odd...
Actually, when they asked Chavez if he would talk to Obama, he said he woudl talk to either candidate and , basically, "viva to all the Af Ams in US that wil gain some joy if Obam wins". After winning , when asked Obama replied, "Chavez was not democatically elected" and pretty much said he would rather not talk to him.YOu can get the Venezuela News Daily by email --google it.
Chavez is very much a socialist. A democraticaly elected socialist. That is what the uS needs. Not by "magic"--by legislation and a constitutional convention--is ever possible. Most countries dont continue to rule by charter passed 250 yars ago.
Where would you get the idea that "fre mkt " is gone? Goolsbee of the Chicago School? Heard of it?
Zionism is gone? With Biden andEmanuel?
His cabinet is shaping up to be very conservative
You guys gonna lay off of Ohio now??
I voted Obama cause it looked close...
It might be hard to "work and organize" with people with such diparate views of what they think the "Left" is.
I do not think that tinkering with our present system of economy, war, heatlh care energy, etc. --will result in much change. I hope I am wrong
Who is real america? Well I can tell you with first hand experience who it's not.
My husband and I are proud to have helped turn Virginia into a blue state!
2 Democratic Senators, 1 Democratic Govenor, and voting for a Dem for Prez. Hurray for Virginia for rejoining humanity!
Hi there. Thanks. Neither your state nor mine had voted Democrat since 1964. However, congratulations for the effort and by the way, even though Obama didn't win my state, my wife and I helped weaken Mccain's lead. Maybe in 2012 we'll push it closer to blue as soon as we can end the culture madness that's keeping us in the guilded ages.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Hey ! We pay our taxes and we expect some good in return. It's not a bad idea to discuss plans and help each other out. If you have a problem with that, then get lost.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
.TMinSD November 5th, 2008 8:01 pm
I'm trying not to insult anyone.
TMinSD November 5th, 2008 7:44 pm
If you have a problem with that, then get lost
What a difference 17 minutes can make, huh?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ok, my apologies since I guess I sounded a bit too rough on this one.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
You and Margaret Thatcher. Go read some Ayn Rand trash, or about Pinochet or somebody.
Bloggers are set to blog for peace November 6, 2008. Don't miss it!
BlogBlast For Peace ~ How To Participate!
We are entering the light in a dark, black night. God bless Michelle and Barack. God bless the voters.
Phrrhon:Not all of us real Americans who voted for Obama believe in a god.
Any democratic system needs leaders, good strong leaders, good info about what is going on, and an active, informed membership/citizenship.
Basic.
Obama.
A Beginning and an End.
To Faith, Hope and Love.
To Nightmares Ending,
Iraq being First.
Obama. Yes.
Obama Euphoria, or in other words, are "You-For-Real"?
Give Obama a chance and get over your upset feeling. So your dude Nader didn't win even though he had a lot of cool ideas. Obama isn't perfect but it sure beats the hell out of having another Bush/Cheney term in the disguise of Mccain/Palin. Learn to be patient and understanding. If Obama does indeed screw up in 4 years, then you're on. Until then, grow up.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Terrance Mitchell: please let's not insult each other. I voted for Obama and we all have a lot of coalition building to do. I'd like to see a new version of The New Deal. Like the Obama button says: "Obama 2008 Let's Get To Work"
I'm trying not to insult anyone. I just wished the folks complaining about Obama like crazy would get a grip on themselves and quit being restless. FDR and Kennedy were both senators and centrists and yet both of them paved the way for long term progressive success. And contrary to what people say about Obama doing nothing, he actually bridged some of the divide even in his 4 years in the US Senate. Name me one other Democrat co-sponsoring a bill with Tom Coburn on an issue such as dealing with no-bid contracts.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
.Insult so seldom wins converts, though it is useful to drive folks away....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The election is over so now what?
I agree with 99% of the facts and opinions that people put forward here but somehow there seems to be a disconnect.
I just wish there was more of an emphasis put on organizing and building a real progressive movement.
For instance HANK FURS list of what we would like to see happen is supported by Progressive Democrats of America and by most of the Progressive Democratic Caucus which is the largest Caucus in the House and just got larger due to the efforts of the PDA under the banner of "Healthcare not Warfare".
Their advisory board is full of real progressives and it 's goal is to establish local chapters and work to reform the Democratic Party and support issues outside it as well. I just think although many people here want to portray those who still want to work with Dems as "Kool aid drinkers", I think it is a giant TACTICAL mistake to rule out engaging people and organizations that are sympathetic to the Progressive cause just because they voted for Obama or still want to work with Dems.
JACOB FREEZE, LITTLE BROTHER, DEMONSTORM-
You are right. The Dems are beholden to the Corporations and they are not our friends for the most part. But the corporations are our real enemy. It is them we have to fight. We need all the help we can get. There are undeniably some true progressives in the Democratic Party, especially the House. Now that they no longer have the excuse of a Republican majority or a Bush we can find out once and for all if they are on our side.
Someone made a point here about now that the Dems are in power, if there is not real significant change in the next four to eight years then it will eliminate the reason for progressives to support the Democrats ever again and we can get really serious about starting a vibrant third party. I agree with this. This is an ideal time for the Dems to go left and if they don't, screw em, but it is we who have to make them do it.
I hear complaining about this but it is true. Nobody in power is just going to do what you want without being forced to do it. The system is fixed, the lobbyists are too powerful and the media is on their side.
Third parties are are going to be very lonely if they think their message of "Obama sucks" is going to build a movement. He is a moving and "transformational" figure. Whether you agree with him or not is not the point. The point is how to build a movement with things the way they are utilizing the little beacons of hope that are out there.
To do anything else is betraying your cause and putting your disappointment and anger ahead of enacting change.
It would be great to have somebody who could organize a third party movement, but wierd, egotistical, authoritarian gadfly Nader ain't it. Everything Nader says about the political system makes sense, and any intelligent progressive understands that. But he's no more a leader than I'm a ballet dancer (you ought to see me dance to understand the power of that metaphor).
There could be no better example of how to ORGANIZE than to study....Barack Obama.
highkarate:some people just want to get your dander up. CD could be good place to start organizing.
Thanks. How is NYC by the way? Used to live there, 94-97.
highkarate:NYC is NYC, prices for rents are going sky high, but the new NYS all Dem. control State Legislature may save us renters. NYC is great. Why did you come here and why did you leave us? I was born here, went away for a total of 3 l o n g years and couln't wait to get back. What part of the country are you in?
I am in Austin, TX right now but I left NYC to take care of my grandma and never moved back. Love the people. Loved the art and music but hated the air and lack of sky.
Hope it is treating you well. I lived on Bleeker in a sixth floor walkup above The Bitter End. Those were the days. I worked for a really bad show on E! Entertainment network and didn't get much sleep.
.Gee NYCa, I was born there, in the Bronx, raised in Queens, my folks lived in Great Neck until they died. My sister lives in Manhattan, her apartment overlooks Gracie Mansion in fact, and my eldest son just bought a house in Freeport,L.I. I went to school at Michigan and , once seeing life outide of NY I never went back!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I cannot explain just how tired I am of all of this talk about how great Obama is, when he has hardly DONE anything yet but talk a good game, so to speak. We'll see whether or not he can actually lead.
At least I don't feel sick like I did in 2000 and 2004, especially 2004. I was depressed for days.
"...he has hardly DONE anything yet but talk a good game..." What simplistic idiocy. Obama was very wise in preparing himself to be a candidate with impeccable intellectual preparation, and down-to-earth experience as a community organizer to make him as close with real people's lives and concerns as possible. And with all that he ran an unbelievably incredible campaign. He beat the piss out of the biggest, nastiest machine ever assembled (the Clinton/Dem machine) and then made the Repugnantins and McCain look like amateurs.
We all know that he faces new and huge challenges but judging by how he ran a superb campaign against all odds, we have a pretty good indicator that he knows how to plan, organize, manage, etc. He's proven without a doubt that he's a superb leader, compared to that weird, egotistical, authoritarian gadfly Nader.
atheist: Obama doesn't lead in a vacuum. Neither did FDR. Remember Zinn's article on how the New Deal came to be:FDR got pushed. (Bill Clinton got pushed, but to the Right.)
We will see. And it is a far, far better feeling than those misbegotten elections. For the folks that are still unwilling to give Obama a chance, I thought of saying to them....Bush has just won a third term. That will make them feel much better about Obama.
"For the folks that are still unwilling to give Obama a chance, I thought of saying to them....Bush has just won a third term."
Obama's not Bush all the way. Anyone who wanted a real Bush third term should have voted for Mccain/Palin. I thought that in this forum, the people who are upset about Obama are just begging for puritanical progressive/liberal ideology. I may be a recovering conservative Republican turned Democrat but even I knew where to draw the line. Now is not the time to be partisan. Obama has shown his calm and cool in his quest to unite we the people of all stripes and backgrounds. Montana and the Dakotas wouldn't have been so close otherwise without a new feeling of hope to get us people the hell out of 20 years of partisan politics.
"That will make them feel much better about Obama."
You lost me there. How will that make them feel better?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"You lost me there. How will that make them feel better?"
Because we don't have a third Bush term and then they would appreciate anyone else!
That was my weak attempt at satire, quite lame and I now retire from it!
Good idea.
I PROMISE!
.No, no, no...You'll get better with practice.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Shortly after his taking office a reporter asked JFK what his biggest surprise had been. He replied "We found that things really were as bad as we had said they were"
I'm afraid Barack Obama will find things are even worse than he has said they were. There is a certain amount of irony in this. For many years of our history one of the few jobs open to African-Americans was cleaning up after white people. Barack Obama will be trying to clean up the biggest mess ever left by a white person.
We must wish him well.
Also, thanks to Karl Rove. He came in in 2001 vowing to change the face of American Politics by the time Bush left office. Did he ever!
formerlytruthteller,you've covered most of the basics and even with the greatest of hope I don't envy Obamas challenge in Afghanistan or Pakistan which is a hell of a lot more difficult and dangerous than Iraq. One can't even pretend to declare victory and leave that part of the Empire without being exposed as a complete charlatan
After a gut wrenching and soul searching week, I voted for Obama. If Nader had been building something instead of a one shot election run, I would have stayed with him for yet another election.
As far as democratic candidates go, its probably not going get much better than this.
I do not have high expectations. I am vert wary. I have huge doubts. I'm not a believer. I am extremely concerned that the hopes and enthusiasm of millions of young citizens will be trampled, discarded and abused. I also fear a new draft. It would be a lot easier for that to happen now. A lot easier.
Given what I've heard from Obama, I don't expect the warmongering to stop. I don't expect the treasury to be protected. I don't expect to get my privacy back from AT&T and Verizon. I don't expect them to do anything different, except in style only.
I'm also fearful of the David Corns, the Michael Moores, the Rachel Maddows and other "progressive" celebrities who will gladly add more fuel to the fires of divisiveness and their own brand of fear.
If anyone can do what needs to be done, its him. I'm willing to give the man a chance.
I would point out that if the hard lefters and progressives were happy with everything Obama did or will do then he would be as bad a President as GWB.
He was elected to be President of all the people. He should represent more liberal principles as that is what he is. But as President of a center right country that for now is a bit more center left than right, he must addresss the concerns of the vast majority of Americans.
If the Hard left is mostly unhappy with Obama, the left 1/4 happy and liberals 1/2 happy, neocons completely unhappy, hard right miserable and conservatives 1/2 happy he will be an excellent President.
Center between which two poles? The corporate left and the corporate right? The left/right thing hold no more meaning. We'll find out within 3-4 months probably whether Obama's victory will issue in a new era of progressive inroads in DC, or whether it'll stifle it -- and we'll see that we're still a nation governed by DC insiders, wealthy/connected Ivy League, the financial industry, etc.
This country is not "center right". That is a nonsensicly babbled description that holds no weight at all.
You separate the "hard left", the "left" and "liberals" into 3 different categories? That makes no sense.
I mean, I agree that he has to govern all Americans, but this whole assertion that he has to be "centrist" and watered-down to be effective, is ridiculous.
I didn't say he had to govern as a centrist nor watered down, but I'll assure you this is a center right country. What would you call it? The vast majority of folks are in the center...are you disputing that? If you disagree this is a cener right country, I'm most interested in how you would describe us.
I seperate it because the hard left bears little resemblence to liberals per se and I believe there is another group that is closer to the hard left than liberals, so for convience I use progressives.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thomas More, virtually any survey that's been done in the last five years that asks people about their positions on issues without labeling those positions has shown that most people support liberal positions - from health care to education, to regulation, etc. (Eric Alterman on Altercation has cited them numerous times.)
People call themselves moderate or conservative because the right - abetted by the media - has been on a decades-long compaign to demonize the term. But drop the labels and the majority hold liberal views.
That is quite true. And I believe a lot more people hold liberal social views than before. But they are certainly economically conservative. And even with the liberal social views, most will question how to pay for them.
I would suggest to you that Obama was elected by the center, the independents. They could swing back just as easily. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a liberal country yet. But labels are a pain and can be misleading.
Thanks for your thoughts.
.I am sooo glad our navy is keeping those pirates at bay...oh wait that was 1860.....
Sorry, humor is my shtick.....
When polled, people want money spent for education, for infrastructure, for health care, for social services, as long as the questions are put correctly. The monies we spend on a bloated beyond belief military could conceivably pay for much if not the whole agenda, just add a .01 cent tax on derivative trades for the rest of the dough ( thanks Ralph).
Obama was elected by spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars over a two year period. He was elected by never saying anything in any speech, by never voting for anything controversial in his fifteen minutes in the Senate, by never voting for much besides "present" in fact, more time by far than any other Senator. His short time as President Elect has shown him to be assembling a team that is far too close to the current administration,ideologically than any of us should feel comfortable with. He differs from Georgie in several ways of course, having an actual brain chief among them, but he is no great ( half) white hope..sorry, humor again....
I think, Thomas, that you fall into the trap most folks find themselves in, you believe the nation mirrors your own views, politically speaking. We all of us think of ourselves as centrist after all, what we believe is no different from what everyone believes and that it is good for the nation too...Excepting for us hard left types of course, we understand that we are standing out in the cold and rain....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Hi Thomas,
You speak the truth my man. Like Texas, America can never be a wholly liberal country but turning it moderate can be a comforting idea.
P.S.: Your state of TX was so close to call at first and Obama even came ahead. Then the red poured in. I hear Obama did rather well in most heavily populated areas of the state. Do you think Obama could make TX a swing state in 2012 and maybe even win it?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I'm happy to say our vote was a lot closer than anyone thought it would be. Texas changes like everything else. I absolutely think Texas could be turned in 2012. We are a conservative state, but there are many conservative liberals here, if thaty makes sense.
"We are a conservative state, but there are many conservative liberals here, if thaty makes sense."
Are you kidding? I used to be a die-hard conservative Republican until I cost my wife and children everything from losing my jobs to losing my home. After my wife reformed me mentally, I learned to put down my guns and think first. You can say I'm a recovering conservative Republican turned Democrat. I assume that your state is filled with those kinds or at least the kind that are conservative on some issues, liberal on some, and moderate/libertartian/green/independent on others, yes? My wife's sister who lives in San Antonio was excited at first to see TX so close but broke down in tears when the red filled in. She did cheer up when Obama gave the speech though. I guess that TX is too huge of a state and the population is more spread out unlike CA and NY although I hear that the suburbs in most states are a bit more open to Democrats these days given the economic collapse hurting the suburban areas in this country the most. I just get angry when people say that Texas is a backwards state despite the fact that it's just as diverse as CA, FL, and NY. I hope that like FL shrugging off Jeb's control, TX will do the same on the entire Bush family and I hope to God that not another in the Bush family run for the White House forever.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota