Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiYou're Scaring Me, Obama: Let the Bush Years Die
Don't even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.
So, if your transition team really wants feedback on "where President-Elect Obama should lead this country," here's a Top Five list:
1. Dump the Bush Doctrine and don't start more wars
You've made it clear that the US has to "take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights" and you've argued for "more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11."
What exactly does that mean?
Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan? Further destabilize Pakistan?
The whole idea of preemptive war (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine) has no place in a civilized society and must be laid to rest, along with those sacrificed in Bush's military adventurism these past eight years.
Yet your approach to preemptive war, Mr. Obama, is nuanced at best.
During the January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, you said that if the US had "actionable intelligence" and Pakistan didn't "take on Al Qaida in their territory," then "I would strike." You added, " And that's the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn't that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn't."
No, the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it's just plain wrong. We've learned that the hard way.
2. Ditch the warmongers
What's with all of the hawks in your new administration?
You presented yourself as a peace candidate and then chose Joe Biden as your VP. Yes, he brought in the white male vote, but he also backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just last month Biden warned that if you were elected, there would be "an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." He said that you would make some "incredibly tough decisions" that could alienate the Democratic base, because if decisions are "popular, they're probably not sound."
In other words, a popular decision, one that the majority of the people wants, is probably not a good decision. Democracy to Biden…
And then there's Robert Gates, widely rumored to be staying on as your Defense Secretary. Questions about Gates' role in Iran-Contra, not to mention his skewing of intelligence about Russia, still linger.
But especially disturbing is his recent push for beefing up the US nuclear arsenal: "As long as other nations have or seek nuclear weapons – and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena, or with weapons of mass destruction, could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response."
Let's get this straight: if other nations are even imagined to "seek" nuclear weapons, that "could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response" from the US.
Obama, you've often insisted on taking "no options off the table" in dealing with Iran. How does Gates' proposal for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons factor in there?
While we're on the topic of warmongers in your midst… Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff? Yet another hawk, hell-bent on Iran and enamored with nuclear weapons.
And now we've got Clinton as Secretary of State.
Why is it that none of the 23 senators and 133 House Reps who voted against the war in Iraq are even on a short-list for these critical posts?
3. Close Guantanamo – and the whole system of secret prisons
Shutting down Gitmo is said to be a priority for your new administration. Terrific.
But what about Bagram? What about the other CIA "black site" secret prisons set up in Afghanistan, Thailand, Eastern Europe and elsewhere? What about the CIA torture flights? Will those end too?
Closing Gitmo also raises questions over how "high value" defendants will be handled. Your administration is reportedly considering setting up an alternative court system to deal with sensitive cases. But what safeguards will be in place to be sure that this new system won't degenerate into kangaroo courts, like Bush's military commissions?
It's a disturbing signal that you've appointed John Brennan, who has supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, to help review intelligence agencies for your administration. As former CIA and State Department analyst Mel Goodman noted, Brennan "sat there at [former CIA Director George] Tenet's knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making."
And this is who will help lead us out of this mess?
You've criticized the use of torture, yet reportedly will not bring criminal charges against those who authorized or conducted torture during the Bush years. Your administration doesn't see it as politically expedient, and Bush might give "preemptive" pardons anyway.
But can we really end this dark chapter in our nation's history without even an investigation? A Truth Commission, perhaps? Providing blanket immunity to all low-level and senior government officials won't prevent possible war crimes from happening again. Quite the opposite.
4. Expose Bush & Co., and ditch the national surveillance state
Speaking of war crimes, how about Bush, Cheney and the rest? You'll soon be given access to Bush-era secret orders and opinions authorizing everything from surveillance to detention. You'll no doubt rescind many, to great fanfare, but what about sharing this evidence of Bush-year excesses with the public?
Yes, Bush could file a lawsuit and invoke executive privilege, but it's worth the fight. The only other option is shielding Bush & Co., similar to how you will reportedly shield those government officials involved in torture. But the public deserves to know. And if Bush administration officials violated the law, they should be prosecuted.
Now, back to your vote for both the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment in 2008. These and other rollbacks in domestic civil liberties under Bush are inexcusable and must be addressed. We'll be waiting for you to do that.
5. Choose Main Street (not Wall Street)
Just this month you promised Americans that they can "turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street."
Yet, as Bloomberg notes, "almost half the people" on your Transition Economic Advisory Board "have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both."
This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Ditto for another of your team members, William Daley.
Mulcahy and Parsons additionally held executive posts when their companies (Xerox Corp. and Time Warner Inc., respectively) got busted for accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also on your team is Richard Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was "chairman of Citigroup Inc.'s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash."
The list of questionable appointees to your Transitional Economic Advisory Board goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best you could come up with? How about Joseph Stiglitz, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini or James K. Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labor?
Meanwhile, we're stuck with this nasty bailout bill – which you voted for.
Others, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), realized the bill's problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation, "fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn't do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess."
Feingold was right.
In short, Mr. President-elect, you promised "Change we can believe in," but across the board it's looking a lot more like "Business as usual."
202 Comments so far
Show AllIf Heather Wokusch really wanted all these things, she would NOT have voted for Obama.
Heather, do me a favor? Either support what you vote for, or vote for someone you support. Don't vote for Hitler and then complain to me that he doesn't act like Martin Luther King. You have only yourself to blame, sucker.
Otherwise, don't vote. You're not qualified to do it.
Good call. If you voted for Obama you are part of the problem.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
carla waters, 11.22.08, 12:15 pm: i only read the first three words of your post. okay, you're insane.
I can't believe that obamass would seek the counsel of the
same murdering, lying caitiffs, Jamie Miscek and John Bren-
nan to his transition team concerning intelligence.
Miscik was the same bitch who drafted Colin Powell's pack
of lies before the UN in 03. That bastard Brennan was the
lapdog for extraordinary rendition, black sites, secret
prisons and anything else the current murderer and chief
wanted to satisfy the greed and bloodlust of these corpor-
ate and military crimminals.
If theses miscreants aren't prosecuted for their obvious
crimes against humanity, their assualt on our civil liber-
ties, and the blatant disregard for a fair model of rule
of law, then it just proves obamass has a merry band of cut-
throats just like that murdering son of a bastard bush.
These piles of bile can't give anyone any lectures or commands
on propriety, decency, or playing by the rules. We should be
tired of cowering before these corrupt and illegitimate props
who only motto is "Mine! Give It to Me, It's Mine". Why? be-
cause these slimdewellers want all of the money and power, then
they vilify and lie about the truly needy and praise the truly
greedy.
If you have to do everything on the sneak, your cause or jus-
tification is spurious and weak, If not crimminal.
Tonyo writes: I can't believe that obamas would seek the counsel of the
same murdering, lying caitiffs...
Believe it. Yes, progressives who voted for Obama ate the whole thing, BS and all, but it had whipped cream and a hope cherry on top so it seemed okay (went well with the koolade).
so it goes
The commenters here sure sound whipped. The guy hasn't even been sworn in yet, and they're already throwing in the towel to corporate America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w12edTq2v7A
No, actually some of us are lamenting the fact that our new Pres. gives so many indications that HE has thrown in the towel. Many of us who did not support him did not precisely for that reason.
Heather Wokusch wrote a good article. It digs for facts and shows honesty.
Having read through the comments below though, I find there are some common dreamers here who didn't appreciate it. They think the article is all just negatism.
Actually, if a guy appoints militarists to his cabinet, that really does mean something. If Obama votes for war funding, that says something - more than any feel-good campaign speech.
What Wokusch had done is called "critical thinking." Now, don't get confused. Critical thinking doesn't mean you do criticism for the sake of it. No, it means you attempt to be objective and look for evidence before coming to a conclusion. I think some readers don't understand this distinction.
People don't write critical comments here to spoil the party. What they point to is that many of Obama's decisions do not square with his hopeful rhetoric - that is, unless you are hopeful that continued aggression will solve problems.
Wokusch makes this point in rejecting a continuation of Bush's preemptive war strategy, saying Obama should just drop it. She's not alone. It was the Nuremberg Court that declared preemptive war to be "the supreme crime," just before the court passed judgment and hanged the Nazis for invading countries that didn't attack them. Back then, the United States was on the side of rejecting Hitler's argument that it is right to invade countries just because they could threaten you (equivalent to the Bush doctrine).
Obama has made statements about escalating attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are indistiguishable from Bush policies.
Please, be united in joy, if you will. But be objective. How can you act to push Obama if you don't know where his policies are heading? Are there Obama actions that diverge from his rhetoric? Many writers here point to those contradictions - not to be negative for its own sake, but to initiate proper action.
Celebrate. Fire up your brain cells with endorphins. But don't get drunk on personality. You've won. Progressives have lost. The question we pose for Obama Dem liberals is what do you stand for? Do you really think Obama will do all of those positive things? If he revs up the bombings, will you join us in the streets?
Progressives are a smaller group than liberal Democratic voters. I, for one, have been pushing when it matters (before the election). I don't think much can be done now that Obama is elected, but I've been told that you all feel differently - that you feel pushing Obama will end the wars, nationalize healthcare, repeal the constrictions on civil liberties, etc.
Rather than attack people who point out problems, why don't you thank them? Why don't you take the issue and run with it?
As long as we are being honest here, I suspect that many don't want to know the facts, such as are described in Wokusch's article. If you know them, then you have to act or live with the contradictions. It's time for liberal Democrats to take responsibility. We've been telling you a lot about the people you vote for. It's not pretty, but you continue to vote for Democrats that support the horrible things that Republicans gleefully embrace. This is a real problem in a democracy that can only thrive on informed opinion, not on hopes and feel-good vibes.
So, if you think Wokusch is wrong, then point it out, and give reasons. Don't blame the messenger for bringing unhopeful information. Stop whining, roll up your sleeves and start pushing. That's what you all supposedly believe, so do it. Progressives are right behind you, all of the way, and we wish you success.
-TIA
Sioux Rose
THOUGHTS INTO ACTION: Thank you for the calm, wise delivery of what's truly going on. You, sir, are a patient born-diplomat!
Excellent! Thank you for that!
Addressing the last few posts here, just remember, except for McCain, it wouldn't have mattered who was elected. Nader, Barr, whoever, our troops would not be coming home any sooner.
And why do you say that?
Thomas you are abolutely right.
Thomas since you are way down there in Texas I thought that perhaps it might help if I were to contact the Dallas Stars's (NHL) oganization to see if they would lend you some goaltending gear. You seem to be stopping more shots here in one day than the Dallas Star's goaltenders do all season. If the gear works for hockey pucks surely it would work just fine stopping all these rocks that are flying around. I am always thinking safety first.
"I am always thinking safety first."
Good idea! Thanks for the thought!! Though the Stars goalie's mitt seems to have holes in it.
Aquifer and I have been having an ongoing discussion as he is strictly opposed to Obama. He's a third party Nader guy and I'm an Independent so we have a lot of room for discussion. He's gotten me to focus on some things as we bat the ball back and forth that tighten up my thinking which is really helpful.
And I'm sure I'm about to convert him into a moderate liberal pragmatist that regrets not voting for Obama! (LOL)
Why, Thomas, I'm flattered that you seem to give me a modicum of credit for helping you to "tighten up (your) thinking".
As for being "strictly opposed to Obama", might I have the temerity to dare to correct you. I am not "opposed to Obama", per se. I am opposed to a person with his policy prescriptions being Pres. As for being "a third party Nader guy", I only picked Nader after Kucinich dropped out. Sorry, it's principle, policy, philosophy and political prescription that determine my choices, not party or personality. And I prefer fresh Ps to frozen ones. As for being a pragmatist - I am one to the core. There is a difference between pragmatism and collaboration.
Ok, so let's see, you've described yourself as an "independent" (so is Nader) and as a "liberal". Any other descriptives apply?
"And I'm sure I'm about to convert him into a moderate liberal pragmatist that regrets not voting for Obama"
If you can do that perhaps President-elect Obama should consider you for the position of Secretary of State. The hell with Senator Clinton. (LOL)
If I could convert Aquifer from his antipathy to Obama, Obama SHOULD make me Secretary of State! (LOL)...Hillary, take a back seat!
Simply for the fact that you can withdraw only as fast as you can. Disengagement takes some time, unless you want to abandon all your equipment and expose your troops to great danger. Starting in January, I'd think it could be done in less than a year. If the Iraqi are ready for handover...and I think they are as ready as they will ever be.
I don't believe any President would do that, it would be a dereliction of his duty. I do believe the selection of Gen. Jones as his NSA will help speed things along. I know he along with Petreaus are soft power advocates.
"I'd think it could be done in less than a year." You should tell Obama - he's talking 16 months, and that's only for "combat troops"!
"Petreaus .... soft power advocate." Yessir, ole' General "Soft Surge" Petreaus.
A person in a local community activist mag. put it this way:
Candidate A will kill 20,000 people.
Candidate B will kill 100,000 people.
(This is a fairly realistic situation considering the history of US foreign policy)
If you voted for Candidate A, are you helping to save 80,000 lives, or are you helping to kill 20,000?
So, instead of getting upset that all you did was support a slightly less murderous head of state, work at street-level to change things. Remember that the politically powerful will only submit to popular pressure when the people make it clear that consequences to their economic interests of resisting popular change are worse than submitting to popular change.
And never, ever submit to their agenda, which most of the time runs counter to poll-tested popular will anyway. Large majorities of US citizens want free universal health care, slashing the bloated military budget, and a real livable minimum wage, among other things. These are not radical, unrealistic objectives, but our politicians lie to us that they are. The people, organized in every congressional district, must set the agenda. Everyone, right now, should be joining a issues group in their area - healthcare, peace, or worker issues, I also would hope that everyone knows where exactly where their Congressperson's local office is.
Obama won the "Brand of the Year" award from Advertising Age Magazine (really - not kidding). He has studied the theories of Bernays and Lippman and his handlers will be pulling every psychological and emotional trick in the advertisers handbook to get the populace to put their brains away and join the march for his corporate agenda while deriding those who keep some of their senses about them.
As many young people wake up from their Obama dreams, they will be an enormous source of activism - in exactly the way the awakened Camelot youth became the movement of the 1960's, and those disillusioned with Clinton became the movements that sprung from Seattle. So Obama WILL be an agent of change, but not in the way we, or Obama, thinks he will.
Let's get ready now - starting with planning to be on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20 with signs and banners stating out demands that will be visible in that sinster-looking blacked-out glass armored limousine*. We should be planning a more polite, but equally vocal version of the gauntlet that Bush ran through on January 20, 2001.
* The fact that Presidents no longer ride standing in open-top cars, or (like Carter) walk down Penna. Ave., speaks volumes about the distance between the head of state and the poeple in the US.
---USAn---
The problem, of course, will be how long will it take for disillusionment to set in? And when it does will it be energizing or debilitating? You must admit, too often disillusionment results in dropping out. This is the truly potentially devastating aspect of an Obama "win" - his disillusioned followers may well reason "If a guy like Obama can't/won't/doesn't come through, then there is no hope for the political process." I have read many comments already on CD by folks who have NO faith at all in the process, no matter who's running.
My theory is that disillusioned people who nominally support Democrats tend to drop-out under Republican rule, but will organize under a Democrat's rule, because with democrats in place, the electoral route has reached it's dead-end. And this is supported by the historical examples I noted.
---USAn---
Not to pick bones, but I don't have the concern that 'if Obama doesn't come through, who will?' He already told you he wasn't going to come through when he said he wanted to increase the military budget, a new 'surge' in Afghanistan, didn't support universal health care, and exemplified by his cabinet choices. The corporate agenda must stay the course.
What causes disillusionment in me is that the people who support Obama, like posters on this website, who still continue to hold forth on their view that things will get better because only 20,000 will die as opposed to 100,000. What they don't understand is that is is the same principle of injustice that will cause those deaths is the same injustice that causes the 100,000 deaths. The 'wrongness' of it doesn't change because you are applying it to less numbers of innocent people.
Obama will be a war criminal if he continues the war in Afghanistan, just like Bush was. Unless you think that those deaths are acceptable because we are fighting terrorism. It is not acceptable to me.
"Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic? Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But conscience asks the question - is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right."-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
I think you may have misunderstood me. My "if Obama doesn't come through ..." concern was aimed at those who supported and voted for him in a belief that he will do things that, as you point out, he has never said he would, or, conversely, that he wouldn't do things that he, in fact, said he would (e.g. beef up military use). You, obviously, do not fall into that category. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I think you have that I am an Obama supporter. I have been, and remain, a fierce critic of his politics and his policy pronouncements. I voted 3rd party based on my answer to the same question you posed - "is it right?" And have been doing so since '96, at least. If my postings have led you to believe otherwise, I'd better figure out why.
Mr. Aquifer,
I'm on the same page with you regarding Obama so there is no confusion on your position. I guess I wasn't clear regarding 'disillusionment.'
I voted third party, feel that many of the Obama supporters care more about feeling good than doing good. It doesn't mean that they aren't good people, or that the way I do things have any more of a chance to accomplish the necessary change.
But I get disillusioned when election after election people continue to fall for the 'lesser of two evils' propaganda. I fault the political parties, the mainstream media, and ultimately, the people themselves. Fool my once, and you'll fool me again and again.
I guess at this point I would describe my own reaction to this perpetual "lesser evil" bit more as sheer exasperation than disillusionment. I like your "fool me once" variation, but I guess, personally, I'm better off sticking to the original " ...... fool me twice, shame on me". I can't help wondering how many folks are really "fooled" and how many actually like what he's actually saying, but don't want to admit it.
"I have been, and remain, a fierce critic of his politics and his policy pronouncements."
And here I thought you loved Obama! (LOL)
Your post will awaken few people because many will continue to drink the koolade that Obama offers. They have gotten used to the taste. Marketing works, and so do lies.
People didn't have honest discourse even on this site (nor were the articles that were published honest). They just adopted the narrative that was offered, lock, stock and barrel. No need for dissenting points of view. Maybe you can't suppress the truth forever, but you can suppress it for a long long time.
The 20,000 dead are the reason why I couldn't support Obama, each of those deaths were lives with families, pets, dreams. All are going to be squashed for the worse possible reason, money. And we are all going along with it for the worse possible reason, just to get along.
Electing a third party candidate is more possible than changing Obama's pro corporate policies. And you see how little chance there is of electing third parties with the majority of this crowd looking through rose colored glasses, election after election while voting for the lesser of two evils, hoping against reality that things will change.
The comments on this website certainly are a barometer, and it seems that the American people (even on the supposedly 'progressive' side) aren't ready mentally to really commit to the changes that are necessary. There is false comfort in staying the course, and people will either learn the lesson, or are doomed to repeat it over and over.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein
Well put. As I have said before, Obama will not be the FDR of today because "we" are not the Left of the '30's.
I don't know how you two guys know what his policies are? I don't. He hasn't taken office yet, he hasn't done anything yet.
Wait, do I have this correct - you don't know what his policies are, he hasn't done anything yet, but you voted for him? On what basis? Sounds like you were willing to buy a pig (with or without the lipstick) in a poke. That can't be true, can it?
Do the words "compassionate conservative" ring a bell???? I know what he says his policies are. So I know just as much about him as you do about Nader at this point. So far he is doing well.
Aha! So you would call yourself a "compassionate conservative"? Oh yes indeed those words ring a bell.
Finally, it seems, after all this dancing around, I think we have arrived at our real differences here, and it's not about age or "can't win" or any of that other stuff - in a nutshell, you agree with Obama and think he was the best of ALL the candidates and I don't, I agree with Nader and think he was the best candidate and you don't. That's pretty simple, isn't it?
"Aha! So you would call yourself a "compassionate conservative"? Oh yes indeed those words ring a bell." I'm not calling myself a CC. If I were a conservative, I sure wouldn't be here.
Sometimes I wonder about you! No, I meant that Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative" and you see what we got. Any candidate can say anything, but till they actually do something, you don't know who they truly are.
"in a nutshell, you agree with Obama and think he was the best of ALL the candidates and I don't, I agree with Nader and think he was the best candidate and you don't. That's pretty simple, isn't it?"
I thought I made that clear. Nader was not the best candidate in my view. I agree with some things Obama says and disagree heartily with some other things he says. But thats why I voted for him of course, I thought he was the best candidate availiable. In fact there is no doubt of it.
"Obama and think he was the best of ALL the candidates and I don't, I agree with Nader and think he was the best candidate and you don't. That's pretty simple, isn't it?"
Absolutely that simple. I thought I made that clear by voting for Obama. He gives us the best chance. But he didn't convince me till the last month. I could never have voted for McCain, Nader would have been my default vote.
I pulled this from another string so you wouldn't have to go back....
"Interesting that you use the phrase "no hoper" with reference to Nader. I think of Obama the same way."
I sure hope you are wrong.
The real problem I have is somehow I'm cast as defending Obama and I don't know what he is going to do. You and others may very well be right about him. So far his cabinet choices have been fairly good with some exceptions, but that still doesn't tell me a lot.
As to how to build a viable third party and the parameters....LARGE question. Needss thought. I'm not even sure it can be "built"
Thomas,
"Sometimes I wonder about you! No, I meant that Bush called himself a "Compassionate Conservative" and you see what we got. Any candidate can say anything, but till they actually do something, you don't know who they truly are." I really had no handle on what you politics were in general when I wrote the above - that was before I saw your response to a post further up in which you identified yourself as "a liberal". As far as actually doing something, Obama as Pres-elect is not like Venus, fully formed springing from the head of Zeus. He has "done things", relevant things, the "fruits", if you will, by which we "know" him. We both know that as well. Because you are an intelligent human being and know these fruits and know that, to a great, if not determinative, extent, past is, indeed, prologue, I can only conclude that you voted for him on the basis of what he has actually said and actually done and did so hoping for more of the same.
If a third party is not "built" how does it come into being? (or are we back to Venus again? And if so, I guess that's better than Mars, symbolically, although Venus, so I understand, is the poster child for global warming.)
"If a third party is not "built" how does it come into being?"
On considering it carefully and thinking back over history, I'd probablty say that it isn't built, it comes from a groundswell of the citizens dissatisfaction with other choices. And so far there is nothing like that visible.
"I can only conclude that you voted for him on the basis of what he has actually said and actually done and did so hoping for more of the same."
How you reach that conclusion is beyond me, but if thats your conclusion, what can I say. Though your reference to "more of the same" about someone that hasn't taken office yet, has yet to make a move except for some cabinet appointments, most of which show his grasp of what is going to be required, seem odd.
"Obama as Pres-elect is not like Venus, fully formed springing from the head of Zeus. He has "done things", relevant things, the "fruits", if you will, by which we "know" him."
I understand what you are saying here, but consider the difference between a Captain and a commanding General. You will do one thing as a Captain but quite another if you are the commanding General. Thats just the quality of leadership. A President is much different than a junior Senator.
Ok, Thomas - if you didn't vote for him on the basis of what he has actually said and actually done, then on what basis did you vote for him?
"A President is much different than a junior Senator." True, which is why his "experience" as a Senator isn't much of a qualification for the Pres., n'est pas?
Thomas More --
Third Party candidates don't stand much of a chance in today's America, given the state of election laws. (There are some local exceptions.) We need to change the laws to allow instant run-off voting and/or preferential balloting so people can vote their hearts. (Dennis Kucinich might have won.) Also, for presidential races, we need to get the League of Women Voters or some non-partisan group organizing the "debates" and maybe actually make them debates, with access to more of the candidates. ELECTION REFORM and CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM are part of MY vision for America, including paper ballots because electronic machines can be hacked. Much to do!!!
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Couldn't agree more. Ron Paul wasn't allowed on our Texas ballots and thats shameful.
I wish the League of Women voters would get involved again and we could dump these sham "debates"
I'm still not sure exactly what direction election reform should take (paper ballots or a paper trail for sure) yet. I've seen a number of good suggestions here.
Thanks very much.
Gee, maybe you should check out some of the recent decisions Nader has won for 3rd parties to obtain ballot access. Maybe you could use them. Now there would be a good way to help the 3rd party cause, for anyone who really wants to.
My understanding of the League's issues, though I do not know for sure, is that it dropped out when the 2 major parties made unreasonable demands, like "no 3rd parties"? Why don't you ask Obama, as head of the Party, to champion the cause, for the sake of REAL democracy?
Kate Anne, - And, precisely, who has the power to change those laws? The lawmakers. And why, precisely, would these lawmakers change a law to allow more competition for their positions? I can't help wondering if all those people who keep talking about the necessity of changing the voting laws before thinking it worthwhile to promote indy candidates live in states where the possibility of initiative/referendum on such issues exists. In case you are not aware, there are many states, my own included, where such power does not exist - we, the people, couldn't put an IRV proposal on the ballot if we wanted to. The only way to do it is to elect folks, within the current framework, who would support that and the only folks who would do that are 3rd party people. So, if you want 3rd parties, you must VOTE for them, period. If you want to change the laws you must vote for the people who would change them. Is this not clear? The same applies to campaign finance reform.
Wow ! A hell of a lot of discussion than I expected on this one. Seriously people, do any of you ever bother to try fixing this system from the bottom up? The president is just one person. What about reforming Congress? And what about paying attention to you all's local and state level elections and improving that abysmal turnout from a low of 5% to at least 60%? There are plenty of Independent local/state pols out there who you all can help elect so that maybe in time, they can make it to Washington and in time we won't be stuck with the crap in Washington.
Carla, here's the problem. I did work on a campaign for a 3rd party candidate in a regional (Congress) race. Other than the idiosyncracies that accompany any individual candidate's, in any particular locale's, campaign, the most deadening blows came from the same level of thinking that I see here re the Pres. level; to whit - "he can't win", accompanied, of course, by the perpetual "we have to beat the Rep."
That is why, when I keep hearing this mantra over and over again here about indy candidates I have come to the conclusion that these folk making these statements fall primarily into one of 2 camps. Either they have never worked locally on such a campaign and do not realize that this same debilitating and destructive concept (or political WMD) is operative and just as effective locally as it is nationally, or they do know this and, as I mentioned above, employ it to assure the perpetuation of the corporate duopoly. One cannot tout the necessity for "grassroots" 3rd party building and at the same time continue to parrot the "can't win" argument at any level and expect anyone who understands the devastation of this "strategy" (and make no mistake, this "can't win" crap, so "reasonably" and "rationally" advanced is used, unfortunately quite effectively, deliberately by many to sabotage 3rd parties) to believe in one's sincerity and/or understanding.
So, for all of you out there, who SINCERELY want true progressive politics to succeed - expunge the "can't win" phrase from your dialogue and your thinking processes, no matter how "reasonable" it's proponents make it sound. They know how destructive it is, and if they don't, they are hereby informed.
That's no excuse to keep trying. If you give up, you're conceding. Figure out your mistakes and try to reframe the issues and debates. You can learn from GEORGE LAKOFF. Either you keep working from the bottom up or you go nowhere. Sorry but it's true.
Carla (hard to tell if this is a response to my 3rd party post?) I think you are missing the point - the point being that if the "common wisdom" as determined by the MSM and, sadly too much of the "progressive media" determines a candidate "can't win", it wouldn't matter if it were JC himself, too many folks wouldn't vote for him on that basis alone. Any candidate CAN win if enough people vote for him/her. But if people won't vote for that person FOR NO OTHER REASON than that (s)he has had a "can't win" tattoo placed on his/her forehead, that person WON'T win. If you don't vote for a person because you don't like him, that's one thing. If you like him but don't vote for him because you've decided he "can't win" then you are part of the reason he won't. I really don't understand why people don't seem to understand this.
Third party doesn't mean these third parties. The point I was trying to make earlier is that these third party candidates (at the Presidential level ) have no broad based appeal, therfore they have no chance of winning a national election. Consider each of their campaigns and what were they offering?
I have certainly worked on campaigns locally, statewide and national and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that not one of the "third party" candidates could have won if every progressive in the world voted for them.
And the reality is that if they had won, do you really believe they could govern sucessfully? Serious question.
Had another thought....I believe you preferred Nader, but I'm puzzled about what you saw in these candidates that made you think they would be attractive to the public at large? Remember progressives even adding in the hard left is a very small group of folks, so you must have broader appeal in my opinion.
"Third party doesn't mean these third parties." So, if not these, then precisely what third parties do you have in mind? Ones that haven't formed yet? What, precisely, would they look like, these imaginary wonderful 3rd parties?
"these third party candidates (at the Presidential level ) have no broad based appeal", - The candidates, or their platforms? Their platforms have broad based appeal indeed. The duopoly knows this which is why it is necessary for them to denigrate the candidates, which is what you, and so many others, seem to be doing. The "reasonable" argument that you must have an "appealing" candidate to win is simply another way of sabotaging the advancement of the platform by advancing the politics of personality.
So, considering their platforms and positions, what elements did you, Thomas, find "unappealing"?
What were the platforms of the campaigns you worked on? What "party" affiliation did they hold?
"I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that not one of the "third party" candidates could have won if every progressive in the world voted for them" - This suggests not so much that the candidates were unacceptable but that there are very few progressives in the world. So why bother with politics at all, if progressive candidates "can't" get elected?
As to governing "successfully" - ah, yes. Well if governing "successfully", as opposed to governing "well" is your major criterion, then you must be quite pleased with Bush, after all he has been very "successful" indeed in governing toward his own ends.
"then you must be quite pleased with Bush, after all he has been very "successful" indeed in governing toward his own ends."
Now you really are kidding!
I am surprised you believe I'm denigrating these candidates. Saying they can't win, they have no broad based appeal is just the truth. Its backed up by their vote totals. Nader got .58 of 1% this year which is certainly better than 2004 (.34..I believe, not sure .3 something of 1%. The rest lagging behind Ralph.
They have some good ideas, some good policies. For me Ralph was too old, I would never vote for a libetarian candidate, they go to extreme for me in personal responsibility, which I believe in but not their kind, McKinney lost me with her story of the 2000 headsot victims in Katrina.
"What were the platforms of the campaigns you worked on? What "party" affiliation did they hold?"
Mostly Democrats, Kennedy, Clinton, ...locals Gov. Ann Richardson, other than that mostly Democrats again with a few Republicans till about, Independent since Bush's election.
"This suggests not so much that the candidates were unacceptable but that there are very few progressives in the world. So why bother with politics at all, if progressive candidates "can't" get elected?"
Progressive candidates can be elected, but we cannot garner the votes of the Independents, socially leaning conservatives or left leaning Democrats with a third party that doesn't address their concerns but addresses ideology instead. I suggest the vote totals bear me out. And the "duopoly" pays little attention to them as far as I can tell.
My point is the way things are presented makes a difference.
I think you are reading my posts as saying don't vote for these candidates? I certeainly am not saying that. If I'd had to decide a month before the election I would have voted for Nader...but knowing full well he couldn't win and would get around or less than one half of one per cent of the vote.
In the last month Obama convinced me to take a chance on him. His racist church worried me immensely, I hate racists, Ayers somewhat, but Ardee allayed my fears on that score. I believe he was the best candidate that could be President, thats as simple as I can make it.
Thomas,
1) I think you have answered one of my questions. I have concluded, from your answer, that it was the candidates, and not their positions that have no broad based appeal. Is that correct?
2) What concerns, exactly, did Nader, for example, not address? He was too old? Was that really why you didn't vote for him?
3) you are correct that presentation matters, but what I don't understand is why a person obviously as intelligent as yourself can't get by that surface veneer and cut to the chase.
4) the vote totals - ah yes, which include those, apparently like yourself, who will only vote for someone who "can win". Just for a thought experiment, now, to tease out this concept and NOT because I am comparing any real life candidate to either of my 3 hypothetical candidates - if the 2 "major" choices were Hitler and Stalin with, let's say, Buddha (no, not Bubba) running as an indy, and the "wisdom' was that Buddha "couldn't win", for whom would you vote? Seriously. You still don't seem to want to fully engage with my argument about the "can't win" fallacy.
5) as far as "successful governing" - I was very serious. Can you think of someone who has more "successful" than Bush in carrying out his own agenda for "governing"? I think you have the cart before the horse. My first priority is to pick someone I think would govern well and then work to provide the support (s)he needed to govern successfully.
6) your post was a little unclear - have you ever worked for or supported indy candidates? If not, why not? If so, why?
" What concerns, exactly, did Nader, for example, not address? He was too old? Was that really why you didn't vote for him?"
Partially it was, just as McCain would have concerned me. Their two VP's a heartbeat away from President? No thanks. Also Nader has absolutely no governmental or business experience. He has a plus for Public Citizen and a number of other org.'s he started and a minus for the Corvair. He's a good man with a good heart, but at 74 and no experience...no.
"Seriously. You still don't seem to want to fully engage with my argument about the "can't win" fallacy."
Its not falacious if its true. Can you envision any circumstance where Nader or McKinney or Barr, Paul and Kucinich could possibly win. Even given equitable monies. I cannot. Nader has done better than anyone as the Green candidate a few years ago, I think he got around 3 million votes. Our Texas nut got about 19% of the vote before he imploded, but he is a bit off and Perot could never have run the government. I did work some for him...oops!
I've worked for 4 independent candidates locally, 3 lost...1 WIN! 2 statewide, both losses.
"if the 2 "major" choices were Hitler and Stalin with, let's say, Buddha (no, not Bubba) running as an indy, and the "wisdom' was that Buddha "couldn't win", for whom would you vote? Seriously."
Depends....now or before they were known for what they were?
(no, not Bubba) running as an indy) Damn, I'm glad you made that clear, that was the first thing I thought of.
"Can you think of someone who has more "successful" than Bush in carrying out his own agenda for "governing"? I think you have the cart before the horse. My first priority is to pick someone I think would govern well and then work to provide the support (s)he needed to govern successfully."
I don't believe Bush governed at all. Governing entails managing a sucessful government that serves as many of the citizens as well as it can and its agencies protect the average citizen.
Cheney and his Neocons using Bush tore down, understaffed and starved every agency they could. Their plan was to make government disfunctional to permit exactly what they did. Nation buiolding, looting the financial syatem and rewarding their cronies with lucrative contracts.
I think Obama has a chance to govern well, most of his appointments are pragmatic people and you need pragmitists to carry out your policies. Richardson is the only one I wouldn't hire so far (if he hires him)
Let me see if I can summarize what I get from you - your "acceptable" (national) candidate would be between 30 and ?60 (how old is too old?) though 30 might be too young (not enough "experience"?), and would have to have gov't and/or business experience (elected? appointed? paid? voluntary?) Well that right there takes a lot of potentially good people out of the running, now doesn't it? And I have a sneaking suspicion that your requirements don't end there. I still don't know what policies your preferred candidates would support, or doesn't it matter as long as they fall into the above parameters and are running for office?
"Its not falacious if its true." Thomas, any of these people COULD win if enough people pulled their lever at the polls. Your argument really is they WOULDN'T win, because you think most people wouldn't vote for them and you use your statistics to "prove" it. All your statistics only prove in fact is that not many people pulled their levers, but it says nothing about WHY they didn't. This is not being "cute", this is making a distinction with an enormous difference. If large numbers of people who agreed with these candidates refused to allow this "can't win" mantra to control their actions, those statistics would be considerably different and I think you know that.
Your answers are very clever, but nevertheless evasive. Are you yourself a politician?
"Governing entails managing a sucessful government that serves as many of the citizens as well as it can and its agencies protect the average citizen." - sounds like something Nader would be very good at, considering that a good many rules for protecting the average citizen came about as a result of his activities in front and outside of Congress - he has served the cause of good governing well. Kucinich and Paul have years of gov't experience and are not "too old", why "can't" they win?
Ok, back to Hitler/Stalin/Buddha - now (assuming they hadn't aged since their heydays, lest they fall into your "too old" category.)
"Can you envision any circumstance where Nader or McKinney or Barr, Paul and Kucinich could possibly win." - Sure, when folks like you stop telling us they can't!
I don't believe your 30 year old is going to be able to run for office. We havce a bit of age descrimination in the requirements for President.
"Its not falacious if its true." Thomas, any of these people COULD win if enough people pulled their lever at the polls. Your argument really is they WOULDN'T win, because you think most people wouldn't vote for them and you use your statistics to "prove" it. All your statistics only prove in fact is that not many people pulled their levers, but it says nothing about WHY they didn't."
Of course the could win if enough people voted for them. They won't because of various reasons associated with each candidate. None of the third party candidates were any more qualified to be President than Palin as far as I can tell. You can break down each candidate if you like or I'll be happy to discuss them one by one and tell you why I don't think they could ever win. Nader has run time after time and been rejected, that should tell you something.
I don't have any thing against third party candidates, I just view them realistically. Large numbers of people don't agree with some of the third party agendas. Global warming for instance. I don't think the majority buy it. And probably won't till its scientifically proven.
You seem to keep hinting thast I have some kind of hidden agenda or something, if you want to know something, just ask. I don't have a problem saying what I think.
I think everyone here knows I'm a liberal not a leftist, don't share the hard left viewpoint of America the evil, am not a miltarist as defined here, but not a fool that thinks the world is just waitnig for us to disarm or that we shouldn't have a strong military. Haven't been in a country that I'd rather live in and I've been to quite a few.
"Kucinich and Paul have years of gov't experience and are not "too old", why "can't" they win?"
Both have narrow ideological policies that don't appeal to most people. And they don't present it any other way.
"Can you envision any circumstance where Nader or McKinney or Barr, Paul and Kucinich could possibly win." - Sure, when folks like you stop telling us they can't!"
They are the ones that can't attract the votes. Is it possible they are doing someting wrong?
"Ok, back to Hitler/Stalin/Buddha - now (assuming they hadn't aged since their heydays, lest they fall into your "too old" category.)"
Now and you don't know anything about them but what they are saying, its fairly easy. It would be Hitler. He did and said all the right things for the election he was in and the troubles Germany was experiencing. Stalin was terrible at speaking and I'nd never vote for a God/religious figure.
Thomas,
I do believe you can de a Sen. at age 30 and Pres. at age 35.
"Of course the could win if enough people voted for them." So, in fact it is NOT TRUE that they "can't win". You may think I am nitpicking but the difference between "can't" and "won't" is enormous, intentionally, operationally, psychologically, etc. If I tell you something "won't" happen, that has FAR less deterrent force on your attempting it anyway than if I tell you it "can't" happen.
"None of the third party candidates were any more qualified to be President than Palin". You've got to be kidding!
"Large numbers of people don't agree with some of the third party agendas. Global warming for instance. I don't think the majority buy it." The majority of whom? got some statistics? But even if so, that can't be why they rejected 3rd parties unless they rejected both major parties as well - which not only recognized global warming (even BUSH did, for Pete's sake) but all but conceded overuse of fossil fuels as it's eminent cause. Nope that can't be it. What else? Single payer health care? Nope, most folks want that. Ending our free trade deals like NAFTA and WTO? Most folks would like that. So what exactly are these "narrow ideological policies" that folks rejected in Kucinich or the 3rd parties? I think you are telling me more about what you reject.
"Nader has run time after time and been rejected, that should tell you something." All it tells me is that he has lost several times. It's interesting you use the word "rejected", instead of "not chosen". My contention, if I haven't made it clear by now, is that most folks, given a choice between the agendas of the parties would pick that of at least one of the indy/3rd candidates. But each of these agendas, in order to get into the halls of gov't in any meaningful fashion has to be attached to a person whose name is on the ballot. I am still not clear whether you are rejecting the person or the agenda. Most, if not all, of the criticism I have seen of Nader is ad hominem. it is not attacking his positions. What positions don't you like? The persons themselves you deem "not qualified" to run the gov't, because they lack time spent in gov't or business as if somehow such time is a sine qua non; by that criteria, McCain was ever so much more qualified than Obama.
News flash - these guys/gals don't "run" the gov't - the Dept's and agencies do. These guys pass laws and make policy, and for that, experience as a used car salesman might be more useful (is that the "business" experience you have in mind?)
"They are the ones that can't attract the votes. Is it possible they are doing someting wrong?" And what might that be? Telling the truth, maybe? Yes, I have heard that one can't tell the truth and get elected. So, if that's true, and Obama got elected, then does that mean that .....
Look you and I know that Kucinich, Nader, etc. were deliberately taken off the radar by the "liberal" MSM and even so-called "progressive" media, including many of the new-age wunderkind internet groups, when they weren't being trashed by them. And you and I both know why - not because their agenda wasn't popular with the people, but because it was. And if you can't crush an idea, you can at least crush the one who would carry it out.
What does it mean to be "a liberal"? Why pick that as an identifier as opposed to, say, "progressive" what's the difference between a liberal and a leftist?
"It would be Hitler. He did and said all the right things for the election he was in and the troubles Germany was experiencing." Did he really? Is that the same reason you picked Obama. because "He did and said all the right things for the election he was in "?
Hey, gang -- We also have to ask for, indeed DEMAND:
> Campaign Finance Reform
> Preferential balloting/instant run-off voting
Difficult yes, impossible no.
We want to be able to vote our vision and also be practical. Some of us like Heather, chose to vote for Barack and Joe with the knowledge that a glass half full is a whole heck of a lot better than a full glass of McCain and Palin Poison.
Take our half glass and find ways to fill it. Keep on MOVING FORWARD!!!!
Thanks, Dante, Joe Hope and Thomas More for your positive comments. Let's dance together, play together, and WORK TOGETHER to Make It SO. (Now that sounds like Jim Kirk :-) Now, I gotta go post the link and Heather's action message various places and go write MY vision comments THERE, with the HOPE that they may just read it. And if enough of us HERE do similarly, accentuating our vision positively, we WILL begin to be the change the world needs to see. We have to be peace, breathe peace, live peace -- and we will see it. Yes * We * CAN!!!!!
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Kate Anne, And precisely how do you go about "DEMAND(ing)" anything from guys to whom you have already given the only real ammunition you have, your vote? This I gotta hear.
If your glass is "half full", after this election, you have a mighty small glass indeed. Apparently all you need is just enough to wet your whistle.
And she voted for him, knowing all this about him? Insanity.
Call me insane but there are a lot of us reluctant voters out there and you know what? Just changing the president isn't enough. Do you ever pay attention to your local and state level elections? And what's the turnout like? Think about it. If more people turned out for their local and state level candidates, in time, they'd have people they could count on to send to Washington. Or at least let's put it this way. You live in a county where the voting age population is 100,000 whereas the state's voting age population is 10 million while the nation's is 200 million. Do you see where your vote really make's a difference? But now, consider getting more people on board and it can make a difference even on the state level. In time, the more people cooperate and find common ground, the better their chances of getting better representation in Washington and whittling down the power of the monied elites because you would have forced them to spend all their money defending themselves on the local and state levels that they wouldn't be able to save enough money to bribe and control the folks in Washington. In the end, there will be far less reluctant voters and more voters who can really be confident to vote for who they really trust and believe in. It may sound overwhelming but trust me, it's not as overwhelming as it looks.
over 4000 troops without impeachment.free ride for murder.
Heather Wokusch,
What in the world did you expect! You surrendered your vote to a candidate whose positions are opposed to yours. What will it take to break through your magical thinking? Evidence counts for something, and the evidence has always been that the "Bush years" will not end as you want, but rather continue with cosmetic differences and different actors only.
McCain supporter Joe Lieberman gets his committee chairmanship with impunity, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you have a voice. You aren't even on the map.
Please, join us in the world of reason and empiricism.
And what about local and state elections? With abysmal turnouts on those levels, how can you expect the folks in Washington to put us on the map let alone address our issues?
Nothing in my comments should havev suggested that state and local elections are unimportant. Of course they're important.
The same principle applies to those as well: voting for candidates whose policies oppose what you want is sheerest folly.
I do not agree that low turnouts in local and state elections necessitate ignoring progressives in particular.
"Nothing in my comments should havev suggested that state and local elections are unimportant. Of course they're important."
My apologies. I didn't know if you were referring only to the presidential elections or others as well. Most folks on this forum get caught up on the presidential and a few select Congressional races than they do on local and state. Thanks.
"The same principle applies to those as well: voting for candidates whose policies oppose what you want is sheerest folly."
Yeah, I know. If the election were held before November 1, 2008, I would have voted Nader without hesitation or ambivilance. Unfortunately, I fell into the reluctant trap and out of feeling guilty of being thought of as a racist and having no hope that Nader would win everything having watched helplessly as the few people I came across who were considering Nader went Obama in the end, I went against my heart and mind, pinched my nose air-tight, and voted Obama. I was already having deep regrets of thinking it's just going to be chump change but now, even that's out of reach. I wish Nader had run for Chris Shay's seat in CT or even Joe LIEberNAZI's seat in 2006. Either one of those would have made Nader a stronger candidate not to be ignored. Oh well, the damage is done and since Obama won 68 million to Mccain's 59 million, all I can say is that my vote for Ralph would have been irrelevant anyway. Sorry. :=(
"I do not agree that low turnouts in local and state elections necessitate ignoring progressives in particular."
But it does not help. There are still plenty of red areas out there that could benefit from the progressive ideology but very little attempt is being taken to introduce the ideology to these rural voters who generally are used to the "conservative" ideology. If this had been done for the past 10 years, Nader would be winning big in the rural areas all over the country but he's not even known there. I'm sorry but we need to pay attention to elections at all levels otherwise we're not going anywhere.
You're absolutely correct -- and I also did the reverse again this
Election, trying to ensure someone even scarier wasn't elected.
Sigh ...
idiot!!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I would not call you an idiot. Rather, your fears were exploited, and probably your reasoning proceeded from that.
If we take a longer view of cause-and-effect, we see that giving in to the "lesser evil" argument has brought the Democratic Party, at least, to where it is today.
An excellent analysis Heather. I agree completely.
I voted for Bob Barr, so my conscience is clear.
With his cabinet choices, Obamacain is already a huge disappointment. In several years, as the euphoria is gone along with the audacity of hope, folks will realize that the status quo has remained.
Yes, we were fooled again.
I see the left wing whining is increasing again on CD.
Who cares what you leftists think? Most of you didn't support Obama during the election, so why should he listen to you now? Get-a-clue.
You remind me of the "good Germans" who elected Mr. Hitler, then after digging them selves out of the rubble of 1945, said "I did not know (that Hilter would do this)."
You stated each and every relevant fact which you should have taken as what he does, as opposed to what he says.
People like you have real cognitive problems. You should not be allowed to vote or participate in this republican system.
That takes out most of the voting population.
actually, nader had/has no hope of winning because he only rears his head once every four years. it's difficult to take someone seriously when he in fact does not even take his own campaign seriously. but wait, i thought this article was about what a failure obama is.
The only thing that I wish to say right now is don't be disappointed if, by the end of Obama's first term, the US is still in Iraq, there is no national healthcare and millions still can not obtain or afford it, bin Laden is still uncaptured, and Haitians are still woefully impoverished.
jaberwocky123: nicely put. i remember thinking slick willy and hillarious would bring change...real change and then something--wait, many things--happened and it turned out the new boss was same as the old boss.
wokusch,
before even getting to number one in your list of demands, i'm blinded by your overreaching hypocrisy. there are few things in life more annoying than a hysterical woman. while you're stoking your hysteria with "widely rumored" comments about gates staying on in this administration, you might want to feed us the other wide rumor, you know the one that says he probably won't be staying on for long. if you're going to write articles - and one would presume being the beneficiary of some sort of compensation in exchange - that incite hatred and disrespect within the readership here, perhaps a bit of reflection or soul searching is in order before you annoy, bore, and insult the real progressives here with another article. for you, and many who are posting here, it would do you all a bit of good to remember that this man won an election just a couple of weeks ago. goddamnit, he's yet to be sworn in yet most of you are treating him as if he were worse than bush. and to the editors of cd, do you really believe this article to be of the "breaking news and views for the progressive community" fashion that your byline touts? pity.
perhaps one day we will all look back and say what a brilliant move it was to put hillarious in his cabinet. she was/is his foe, his opponent. what better way to limit her shrewd ways than to have her reporting on a daily/weekly basis? one screw up on her part, toast. he's got her by the short hairs. she can't turn down the offer (greed and the lust for power won't allow it), yet by taking it she's forced to walk his line. it does indeed have the possibility of brilliance. oh yes, wokusch, good luck with that hysteria.
Why am I seeing a lot of DLC apologists on this forum? Before the election, there was quite a lot of diversity. Sure, it kind of got a bit stale to see constant fault finding but come on people ! Nobody's saying a president will change things overnight. However, look at Obama's record and background and he's nothing different from the rest. Now, I pinched my nose air tight and voted for him against my own heart and mind as I saw no hope of Nader winning. I didn't expect Obama to do what Raygun did picking former Nixon appointees and Dubya picking the same old hacks from the Nixon, Raygun, and Papa Bush cabinets but all I saw is a stale cabinet and I was already concerned that all the change I was going to see was chump change. Now, I wonder if it will even be remote chump change. I may sound impatient to some out there but I'm actually judging by what Obama did his past 4 years in Washington and since he was "nice" to the status quo for the most part, that makes him a conservative, not a rightwing one necessarily, in my book.
Carla,
"Now, I pinched my nose air tight and voted for him against my own heart and mind as I saw no hope of Nader winning."
Might I suggest that if Nader had no hope of winning, it's precisely because too many people did exactly what you did.
Real change comes at a microscopic pace. I would like cultural change to come about rapidly but even progressive/liberal change CHANGES things. . . . changes have consequences. We can wish for a magic wand to change everything we don't like overnight . . . but if we actually received such magic and were to actually use it, all kinds of unforeseen consequences would ensue. I don't know what unforeseen consequences there would be if everything Heather angrily demands would come to pass overnight. . . me, I prefer to believe that if Heather's demands would be met that only good would ensue. . . .
but we live in an infinitely complex universe, each of us dependent on myriad details, many unseen or, even, unknowable.
Real change, lasting change, is incremental. Fast change does not tend to stick. Fast change is like someone crashing off a bunch of weight on a fad diet then quietly regaining the lost weight. Real change, to be lasting, is incremental.
I don't think Obama is a firecracker progressive. I am disturbed to see the warmongers he is placing in his Cabinet and his White House staff. Hilary the warmonger is gonna be Secretary of State! Larry Sumners is going to be White House staff. Rahm Emmanuel is going to be Obama's Chief of Staff. I don't like any of these things.
A President and an Administration addresses millions of decisions that affect many millions of citizens. I believe that with the new administration, many better decisions will be made than were made during the Bush years.
I believe that Obama can begin to restore this country to a slowly rising, positive path towards a future with more justice, more equitable distribution of the earth's bounty, less violence, more love.
Obama's administration is probably going to do a lot of things I don't like.
But things are going to gradually improve. That's all we humans have got, slow, upward progress. If someone like Bush forces our society to take three steps back, well, sooner or later, someone else might come along and allow us to retrace those lost steps and to take a step or two in new directions.
Obama is what we've got. For now. Right now, I am focusing on holding inner space for his administration to do good work. I don't exactly pray, at least not like I was taught when I was raised Catholic . . . but I guess I am praying for the gradual uplift of humanity, step by step, stone by stone.
Obama is an improvement.
I am way fed up with angry leftist rants that never allow us to pause and enjoy a moment of respite. My gosh, the Republican domination of D.C. is over for now.
I feel like I just did a triathalon and Heather is shrieking that I ought to go out and run twenty miles the very next day.
Give the angry ranting a rest.
Tree Fitz
Excellent posts! Good points and great viewpoint.
Thomas, it's interesting, I learn more about your politics and your positions from reading the comments you praise than from the content of your own posts.
Sioux Rose
TREE: It's true that positive intentions can influence events, but let's not give short shrift to the appalling lack of principles being shown in furthering business as usual, appointing neocons to key cabinet positions, and giving the Bush outlaws a free pass. Obama is TOO accommodating to the old power structure and its elite, overt and covert. Hope is a tricky thing, kind of like the last thing left in the big box after all the evils are loosed upon the world.
He might be afraid they're going to "do" him, so he has to tread carefully. Maybe he'll fire some of them after he gets rolling.
“Milton Friedman’s misfortune is that his policies have been tried.”
---John Kenneth Galbraith
"Real change comes at a microscopic pace." - I'm sure George Washington and Thomas Paine and Sam Adams, etc.etc., would have agreed with you
"A President and an Administration addresses millions of decisions that affect many millions of citizens. I believe that with the new administration, many better decisions will be made than were made during the Bush years."
Now those are some high expectations. Really you think "many better decisions will be made" with Obama. Most likely, then again one could have a donkey randomly select decisions and they would most likely turn out "many better decisions" than Bush Co. You see that is part of the problem. Things have gotten so bad under the boy-idiot president that people are willing to accept essentially nothing in return as long as more really bad decisions are not made. Is that what we want to shoot for? Lessening the number of bad decisions while Obama fills his staff with a bunch of warmongering, pro-free trade, Clintonite wonks who do nothing but further the neo-con/lib agenda of global empire. Give me a break. Get tougher skin and provide explanations/justification for at least some of the already horrific nominations the Obama Team has made. Yes, Team. Don't think for one minute Obama is calling all the shots. How do you think he raised a 1/2 billion dollars? From Joan and Joe Six Pack. Yeah, right. It's called deep-pocket Wall Street corporate interests folks. Here's a rant for you: Wake the f%$# up!
It's foolish to trust Barack Obama or his stealth neocon administration. Anyone who would let the Bush administration walk is no better than they are.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
The election of Obama is a historic occasion. He is the first African-American president. I could not stop crying tears of joy on election day. Bush will be soon be gone, McCain will not replace him, MLK's dream is finally coming true.
"The moral arc of universe is long is but it bends towards justice." — Martin Luther King
The euphoria did not last long. Like a swarm of locusts, so-called "Progressive" sought to devour my hope in an orgy of slanderous character assassinations. Nader went on national TV and called Obama an "Uncle Tom". Left-wing authors began rambling about Obama being Clinton 2.0 or even worse, Bush 2.0. No matter what Obama does, he can't win. These people are so blindly with irrational hate, or bigotry, or perhaps jealousy, that they are incapable of recognizing Obama's numerous accomplishments. Where, for example, are the "Progressives" giving him credit for ending torture? Freeing the prisoners of Guantanamo? Ending the war in Iraq? Creating universal health care? Making the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Protecting the environment? And on and on, nothing he can do is good enough.
So please people, stop being so cynical. This is a time of joy. A time for celebrating, crying, for dancing in the streets. If your heart is made of stone, fine, that's your problem, but don't spoil the party for others. Anything is possible now. A profound shift in consciousness has occurred. There is real hope that America can rejoin the international community as a multilateral leader, instead of trying to unilaterally create a global empire. Under Obama, we can once again become a beacon of hope for all the world to see.
In what other nation has a member of a historically-oppressed minority risen to the highest elected office in the land?
Hey, Joe Hope -- Keep singing our positive song and whistling while we work for peace and justice. (Don't let the turkeys get us down :-) (As my sainted mother would say, "Let the asses bray." ;-) (She also would say, "Fight nicely.") ANYWAY, Code Pink just came out with MORE positive vision along OUR lines. They are saying they were behind the wonderfully positive FAKE NEW YORK TIMES that came out last week, also available on line.
Read the online FAKE NEW YORK TIMES: http://www.nytimes-se.com/
And join Code Pink in FOLLOWING it UP WITH MORE positive words and ACTIONS -- LET'S MAKE IT SO.
One thing for sure, if positive good stuff is going to happen, we have to MAKE it happen: We work with what we got. And let's thank God we don't have McCain and Palin and WORK with Barack, and Biden, and MAKE their crazy team evolve toward true Peace and TRUE JUSTICE.
With God's help and OURS. Amen!!!
And yes, one more thought, he wouldn't have gotten elected if he would have been pushing OUR agenda any harder. Come on, you know it. He pushed ENOUGH. And perhaps these appointments we aren't thrilled about are being appointed with the understanding that they will march to a more progressive tune. And if they haven't been told that yet, let's join Code Pink and other progressive activists groups (like FOR a/k/a Fellowship of Reconciliation) in TELLING 'EM. Yes, keep on marching forward for true peace and true justice.
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
I agree. Let us have a time for joy. Let us live with a renewed sense of hope.
What does progressive mean anyway? I thought it meant progress. I am fed up with strident, putatively progressive lefties who are always angry, always demanding. Heather, why not write an appreciative column, acknowledging the positive hope made possible with Obama? Why not help us see good things?! Instead of tearing down Obama, why not just tell us what you would like to see? I challenge you to write a column in which you only make positive statements about what you would like to see, with suggestions on how to make those things happen. I challenge you to avoid making any negative, complaining statements. Tell us what you envision for the world you wish to see. I believe that offering your positive energy you can contribute to the human future in a positive way. . . but what Heather does here in this angry column dissipates energy, stealing positive energy and not changing a goddamned thing. Back off.
Let us dwell in hope and joy a little while, huh?
The so-called "progressives" have become every bit the victimized cry babies the Limaugh and his ilk are on the right. Especially on this site, I see damned few real progressives. We have the self-righteous sanhedrin of Naderites, who prefer doctrinal purity to DOING anything to make the country better. They've hated Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford and Johnson. Oh, and the ones that even think about Kennedy aren't so sure about him.
Then there are the Lenninists whiners who are disappointed that a democratic president doesn't show signs of trying to be the dictator Bush aspired to be, and IMPOSE their will on the entire country / world, ignoring that at least 45% of the country didn't vote for democrats and has to actually be dealt with politically.
Real progressives recognize two things: nothing happens overnight, and it is required that we continue to be active participant in the political process. Obama is NOT going to make anything happen on his own; and if he could I wouldn't want him to. I didn't get rid of one psuedo dictator just to elect another.
And let me point out that, while it's important to know our ideals and stand up for them, when we take the posture that it has to ALL or NOTHING, we end up in the exact same place progressives have been since Nixon's election: outside the process and ineffectual to a fault.
Now, if Nader and his Naderites want to really help the country, he'd have enough humility to stand behind the recently elected leaders and say -- Let's help them do the right thing.
Unfortunately, political discourse in this country has descended into whining yammering on both sides of the political spectrum, and us realist liberal progressives are constantly sniped at.
Patriots defend the constitution!
Naderites not getting anything done...unintentional humor is the BEST!
you make a great point about "Lenninists whiners", i consider myself right in the middle and a libertarian yet also share many values with "progressives" yet still i take a lot of criticism, i can't see much difference between the left and the right really, both are cliques that don't really tolerate other viewpoints. It's sad. we don't all share every liberal viewpoint on issues
That's a good point.
Many try to fit into a linear process. Nature is non-linear with many shades of gray.
The personalities in politics is not the problem - the problem is absolutism, also known as fundamentalism. It comes in all stripes and colors. So easy, yet so dangerous.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope