If 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.

carla waters, 11.22.08, 12:15 pm: i only read the first three words of your post. okay, you're insane.

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

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

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.

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---

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

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

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.

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

And she voted for him, knowing all this about him? Insanity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

'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.'

--Anyone not born yesterday would know that "Change we can believe in" actually translates into "Business as usual."

Also, it wasn't the President-elect who said it; it was the guy who was still trying fool everyone to get there, and who would have said anything at all.

I never had any hopes for Obama, but I did in fact have some faith in my fellow progressives. Their gleeful reverse prostration for the big sodomistic assault that is coming--is a true disappointment.

I wouldn't say "Let the Bush Years Die" -- I would say actively KILL them, with a stake thru the heart, lest they rise again come the next full moon.

One (very partial) step would be to FORBID any Bushites who get pardoned by Bush from ever ever EVER again participating in or interacting with government in any manner shape or form beyond casting their vote. No lobbying, no serving on boards or commissions, no elected or appointed office, no NOTHIN'. (The bill would be called "THE BAD PENNY PREVENTION ACT OF 2009.") The travesty of an Elliott Abrams must never be repeated.

I started to write this earlier in the day and it still has meaning, given all the negative -- way too much negative -- comments appearing here. These comments make me want to run away screaming from Common Dreams -- Don't you folks know how DRAINING negative is? Barack Obama does. He's trying to be positive and is playing reconciling games with everyone. We may not approve, but it may work. But we have our work to do, too. ..... My EARLIER unpublished comment:

Oh, come on, gang -- It is obvious that Heather is/was dealing with the two party system we have and is making the best of it. First that meant voting for Obama over McSame and the ex-beauty queen and then currently WORKING for change. That means, do what she asks, follow her link to give FEEDBACK to the transition team and FEEDBACK her ideas and/or your own ideas. They have to hear from the peaceniks and the liberals (and We CommonDreamers know Barack is NOT a liberal) and the more radical lefties, even as we remind him/them that the center has moved a lot more to the left than the corporate media would credit.

Don't let's just bitch, please, let's be positive and action-oriented. I'm forwarding Heather's well-written article to a number of listservs and suggesting that folks do similarly. As Thom Hartmann has frequently cited, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Make me do it." Let's make Barack Obama move to the left and do the bidding of We the People.

I repeat myself now: PLEASE. Don't just bitch. Do something positive to make things better. Continue the liberal/progressive/radical things you are doing to make the world a better place AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

MAKE BARACK DO IT: Work on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE. Fill out the form as Heather suggests and ask others to do similarly. CITE Heather's article.

And thank you for whatever you do for real Peace and true Justice.

Peace hugs,
Kate Anne

Me thinks there is much too much thinking inside the box. And often, it is necessary to fight fire with fire.

Let me say first how I don't make any assumptions as to what Obama will or won't do. I tend to agree with many who feel Obama is more of the same, but I also agree that his election has inspired hope and could bring some genuine change. The hope and commitment to change is what we need to focus and build upon. More fear, uncertainty and negativity is definitely NOT what we need.

The point I keep trying to make is that as President, Obama will continually be pressured by all the same forces as before. So, for anything to truly change WE MUST continue to become a growing and effective force for ourselves.

It is good though that Obama has surrounded himself with people who understand and can work effectively within the current power structure. Whether or not those people work to maintain the status quo, make things worse or actually help bring about some real change depends not so much upon their individual experiences but rather upon 1) their collective efforts, 2) Obama's direction, and 3) our persistence. Without our attention and persistence, there is no reason for the current power structure to change a single thing, and "they" will of the pure simplicity of human nature continue to answer to the same old voices and strategies of before.

It continues to amaze me that people fail to comprehend how we are the real power, not Obama, nor any person, nor any policy, nor any institution. As long as we are setting back, waiting to see, and believing that "they" not us determines what will unfold, then we will for sure be disappointed. Like I keep trying to say - Obama must answer to the forces of power that influence him - either we will be that force, or someone or something else will be. It's really no more complicated than that.

And here we come to the crux, which many have been predicting for months here on CD before Obama was elected: that all the "progressives" that have been so starry-eyed over Obama are acting JUST LIKE those brain-dead lemming Bush-supporters that continue to support him no matter what he does, how many crimes he commits, or horribly blatant Constitution-shredding he does.

Obama "progressives" are no better than those rabid blind Bush-supporters: they are so fucking enamored with their boy that no matter what he does - or doesn't do - over the next 4 years, they will steadfastly defend and stand behind their boy. So much for objectivity. Progressives are just as bad as Rethug nationalistic fascists when it comes to someone that they are totally gung-ho over. If Obama breaks every one of his campaign promises - which he will - and refuses to close Gitmo, these "progressive" Obama fans will just make up some lame-ass excuse for him. If he refuses to get the U.S. out of Iraq - which he will - they will do the same. If he refuses to reverse the worst of the Bush-era executive orders that these same progressives were bitching about for the last 7 years, they will just make more lame-ass excuses to "protect" their beautiful president.

The more shit changes, the more it stays the same. Look in the mirror Obama-fans. And in 4 years, look even HARDER. You will see that you have become the very thing you used to rail against.

Hypocrites.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935

The Nazis had plenty of prisoners to guide other prisoners into the gas chambers, all in the interest of 'getting along.'

The things about people who want to 'get along,' is that first and foremost principle one should be standing up for justice, which requires not 'getting along' with anyone that violates basic principles of justice.

http://www.wordsareimportant.com/dis-civil.htm - If you are obedient to a government that is acting in a way that is not beneficial to society (civilization), you are practicing dis-civil obedience

No actually it was not a good appointment.

ALL, IN DUE TIME - WE MUST GIVE THE MAN TIME & SUPPORT - GREAT CHOICE FOR TREASURY SECRETARY TODAY, NO ???

As for expecting Obama to suddenly disarm the US and give everybody peace posters and flowers to carry--get REAL, Ms. Wokusch. If you drive, fly, heat your house, or eat food grown and delivered with fossil energy, do you think magic rainbow-faaarting pixies put that oil at your disposal?

While I share a general desire toward de-Pentagonizing our nation, I don't have time for simplistic appeasement that assumes the world is full of fluffy vegan tie-dye bunnies.

But regardless of how one views human nature, or the need for ultimate strength to set and protect ultimate boundaries...instead of waiting for Daddy to do it for you, Ms. Wosuch, what are YOU doing to make the need for resource war less?

For example, between 2001 and 2003 I cut my fossil energy use by 95 percent, and I live at that reduced level. Bushie rednecks of my acquaintance think this is the coolest thing they've heard, many have asked for advice in doing the same. Yet my liberal/progressive acquaintances have done nothing but vilify me for it as they cling to and justify their jetsetting, Prius-driving, babymaking, military-family-bashing FIRE economy lifestyles!

Ms. Wosuch, can you take a word of advice from a woman who makes Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Kali look like Hello Kitty?

You better let yourself feel your betrayal hard and fast. You better let go of your need for saviors and your addiction to feeling good.

Otherwise you'll be fodder for anyone who comes along, promising to be your daddy and save you from the big awful nasty world.

Reclaiming a nation is hard work for hard workers at the grassroots. It's not something you can do by pulling a lever or carrying signs in a "march" or spouting on the Internet. Or hiring a black man to do it for you.

Tama Paine

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."

Heather wrote this article before we heard that Timothy Geithner, President of the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of New York, will most likely become the next SECRETARY OF TREASURY. When that news hit Wall Street, the Dow Jones immediately went up some 500 after if had been tanking all day. Unfortunately, we don't know where that money came from to increase the Dow by 500 points in a matter of probably less than a couple of hours. What we do know is that Wall Street was ecstatic over this news.

I don't know about you, but this doesn't sound like good news to me, especially when the stock market doesn't reflect the reality on Main Street with hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost almost monthly.

What some people may not know is that the Federal Reserve Bank is not only privately owned, but it is the New York Federal Reserve Bank that controls all the Fed Banks across the country.

Is it too early to ask if Obama has chosen Wall Street over Main Street???

Heather Wokusch

Why did you vote for him?

I'm quite sure you will see change, my brilliant and cynical "progressive" friends. Progress means moving forward. How about lending your smarts and passion to the project of pulling this nation out of the ditch with some positive energy, humility and SOLIDARITY? Everyone thinks they know not just what is best, but how to accomplish it. I doubt that even a tiny percentage of posters to this page have their brains around more than a fraction of what Obama knew going into this campaign, let alone what he's figured out and tapped into in the process. The man is highly intelligent and emotionally balanced - in stark contrast with the current occupant of the White House and both his Democratic and Republican rivals (with a couple notable exceptions on the Dem side) - and takes the job of uniting the country, restoring the rule of law, righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, extremely seriously. Work with him or feed the new Congress and administration with your best ideas...and maybe let go of the idea that you, or the progressive blogosphere, have all the answers. I'm a leftist, but find the sniping and second-guessing of so many disgruntled progressives to be childish, self-indulgent, negative and unproductive.

If you didn't like him so much, why did you vote for him? If he had all these problems, why did you STILL cast your vote for him? Instead of saying, "Well, he's a lesser evil, BUT HE HAS A CHANCE", vote for him, and THEN try to change him? HAHAHAHA I can't believe that anyone still thinks that strategy works.

If everyone wasn't so afraid of McCain, they would not have voted for Obama and chosen Nader or McKinney. Then, we might've gotten closer to that magic 5% instead of 1%. As the democrats were so fond of saying in 2000 that Nader stole votes from Gore, this year, I'm going to turn it around and say that Obama stole votes from Nader. He played on that fear of "Four more years of Bush III - McCain." I can't tell you how many people I talked to on the street, in my community, online, on the bus, etc said, "I'd much rather vote for Nader, but I'm so afraid of McCain." McCain is so despicable that most people would've voted for a piece of moldy cheese if it were running on the democratic ticket.

I think the greater question instead of "where do we go now?" is "How do we get people to stop being so afraid?" and "You know the lesser of two evils is still EVIL, yes?"

Hey gang,

So a quick question. Will this increase our chances of having a third party in the next 4 years? What exactly do we do next? We know that we were given the choice of evil and lesser evil. But because Obama was elected does that give us a chance in the next couple elections to have 3 choices instead of 2?

HW is a favorite, but this time... I mean, tough toenails, okay? You voted for the lesser of two corporate-approved evils, and now you're all disappointed and shit?

Boo f-ing hoo - that's what you get for not voting your conscious.

The only thing I'm remotely curious about in the Obama years is how his mass of followers will respond once the reality sets in. That's what's decisive.

The investigation of 911 has to be completed. The events on that day were obviously not an act of war, a group of criminals planned and conducted the act. There are very many unanswered questions about the events of that day and the players involved.

Sophie Scholl-The Final Days

When Obama appeased AIPAC it was very clear he wasn't going to rock the boat. His choices for his team reflect that desire not to "keep on rockin’ in the free world". And just when the window is open and the platform for a true Statesman is ready to be scaled, we get a guy who is afraid to lead. We get a guy who will be a player first. Get ready for a lot of "staying alive, staying alive" themes and more "when I'm preaching to you I'm pocking your eyes out".
Hoa binh

Yes well I too voted for Obama even though I saw nothing in him that I value. I mean it is cool that we have a racial mixed pres. The whole bit about post racial America definitely has entertainment value in it's absurdity. It's cool that the repugs were so thoroughly trounced across the board, mostly thanks to Obama. But do I hold out any hope for real change? Do I have any reason too?

I was never one of Obama's hopeful, the only change I believe in is in a mayonnaise jar on my dresser. I voted for Obama for three reasons. 1 I wanted to see my home state of Virginia go blue, just for fun. 2 I could not stand the thought that Sarah Palin might be a heart beat away form the presidency, she is one scary MILF. And 3 though the idea of a protest vote for Cynthia McKinney appealed to me, when I thought about it I decided I would not really want her in the white house if she did stand a chance, same goes for Nader and all the other 3rd party candidates out there.

Oh well at least I do not have to worry about being disappointed in Obama, have had no expectations of him as anything but a disappointment leave me nowhere to go except to be pleasantly surprised if he actually accomplishes anything worthwhile.

"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

What used to 'scare me' is how people like the writer can still vote for Obama while realizing his serious shortcomings; how she (and other supposed progressives) will give unconditional support without a demand. I have come to accept (with reluctance and regret) that the nature of the voting public will not demand the necessary proactive change, instead willing to accept the upcoming crisis that will be much more difficult to handle, with much more serious complications.

Like waiting for a cold to turn into pneumonia before dealing with it. We are heading towards an economic, environmental, and social disaster.

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress,” declared Frederick Douglass in 1857, in response to those who suggested that the great abolitionist was pushing too hard for an end to human bondage. “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.”

Well, Heather, that is what you get for voting for Obama and his "change" talk.

Gee, are "progressives" just now figuring out that a darker shade of skin does not have a thing to do with shifts in policy?

I suggest you re-call the president- elect. Big mistake. McCain/Palin was the way to go. Then you wouldn't have to waste your time speculating.(lol) You want certainty, something you can measure from your armchairs; McCain was the guy for you.

Well, what are we doing here in the house reading the comments on Common Dreams?
We should be in the STREETS!!

I am another of those persons who voted for Obama while disagreeing with just about everything he said on the campaign trail, from Iran to Healthcare. I voted for him to strike a possibly fatal blow against racism in this country. The symbol of a black President, however beholden to the plutocracy, is a powerful social change agent. Dr. Cornel West said much the same thing, emphasizing that "symbols matter."

Beyond this, I expected to engage in a four year long pressure campaign with our new Neoliberal-In-Chief to force him to make good on the hopes he stirred up in so many Americans. He must know that to carry on "business as usual," after the kind of populist charismatic campaign he mounted, would doom him to be a one-term wonder.

Paul Siemering

Great piece, Heather, thanks.
the reason many of us voted for Obama without much confidence he would become a bold progressive pres was we needed to get the repubs out of washington. the need was desperate, and we did the right thing. we are now about to experience a big let down if Obama cannot dig himself out of those war mongering holes he's dug. ok, so it was just to win the election. but everyone breaks campaign promises, and he can too. I would like for him to announce that there is no longer a "war on terror", that the whole idea was a scam from the start. "Also "the terrorists who really attacked us" died in the attack. what bush has been doing is a war on Islam. Obama can stop it as it was started- by executive order.
Heather is quite right to be alarmed at Obama's appointments, as they are sending depressing signals of continuing with endless war. He hasn't taken office yet, so we need to remind him he has a clear mandate from the people to give peace a chance.

I have been preparing some helpful suggestions about how he can do this without reneging on all of his campaign talk.
for example he told AIPAC " Israel has no better friend than me"
in his inaugural, he could repeat that line and then add ...and friends don't let friends bomb refugee camps or bulldoze olive groves or build walls against it's citizens" etc.

re: 1. "'more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.'
What exactly does that mean?" ['finish the fight']?

Exactly the right question, and one that I am trying to convince America that we need to ask and answer.

To recap: After 9-11 Congress gave the President the power to use the US military against whoever he deemed had committed and supported the attacks of 9-11, for the purpose of preventing future terrorism. Bush announced that 'al-Qaeda' was responsible and that 'the Taliban' would be treated the same way. These groups are the enemies of the US.

How can we 'prevent future terrorism' by these groups? Obviously an impossibility, as long as these groups exist. Victory can only be achieved by the President announcing that these groups no longer exist (and thus are incapable of future terrorism). It is unlikely that the President would make such an announcement and risk being the most hated person in America if a horrific terrorist act occurs and is blamed on those supposedly non-existent groups.

Defeat in this war is obviously unacceptable. The President will not announce that we are quiting ('cut and run').

No hope for victory, no appetite for defeat, the President will behave as LBJ did (in Vietnam, when he wanted to focus on domestic issues) and continue this war, trying new strategy after new tactic (surge after surge) to win an impossible war or at least hold off defeat until someone else in is charge.

Is that what we want, again?

I second the comments by Josh Miles and gr8ful1997. Although I was glad he beat Hillary in the primaries, Obama lost me for good the day after his nomination with his fawning, obsequious speech to AIPAC. All his other actions (FISA, PATRIOT, Iraq war funding, advocacy of US military incursions into Pakistan, hyping of the bogus Iranian threat, Wall Street bailout, selection of the awful pro-war Joe Biden, then the utterly odious Rahm Emanuel, then Daschle as point man for health care reform, consideration of Hillary Clinton--Hillary Clinton!--as Secretary of State, etc. etc. etc.) have just further alienated me and confirmed my initial assessment of him as a no-change candidate. And there was simply no way I was going to vote for a someone who promised to drop more 2,000 lb bombs on the mud houses of impoverished Afghani villagers. Afghanistan is not the "good" war and never has been.

But at least I never had any illusions about the candidate. It's been almost amusing to see his big "Fuck you" to the naive netroots suckers that idolized him and played a critical role in his electoral victory (Daily Kos, Firedoglake and similar) when he defended Lieberman. Well, why would they expect him to do anything different? He campaigned for the man against Lamont in 2006. I'm wondering what exactly it will take for these self-described "progressives" to coalesce into an independent social movement that will take Obama and his policies on as fiercely as they would if it were a Republican administration that served them up.

But I'm not holding my breath: they'll find excuses for him in just the same way that Republicans were able to defend Bristol Palin's unwed teen pregnancy (you can imagine how they would have reacted if a teen daughter of Obama's had got herself knocked up).

If Obama does not indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes, as his #1 priority, then in my view, it makes him an accessory to the fact and he is as guilty as they are for all the death and destruction in Iraq. It is like I have said many times: expecting a real change from the duopoly is pure insanity and if anything; the 2006 election of the Democrats that sold out the American people on Iraq and the impeachment of Bush, should have given the supporters of them a wake up call!

A NYTimes article yesterday showed that Presidents that have surrounded themselves with political opponents set themselves up for obstructionist and difficult times. Biden the demagogue, Emanuel the Zionist and now Ramstadt the Republican drug czar who is against needle exchange and would prosecute marijuana providers and users, are a bad beginning.

Obama, listen to your base. Don't betray us.

If you are justly afraid the conservatives will kill you for being too liberal, talk to Senator Gravel about the referendum. It's the way to let the people decide and take the heat off yourself.

Yes, I agree with Gr8ful1997. The Democrats and the Republicans are but two factions of the same party representing corporations and big money. Meaningful change will only come from outside of these two entrenched and corrupt political parties.

I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.

Me too. What I'm really waiting for is January 20th when I will host WANKERFEST 2009, a "gigantic" celebration marking the political demise of George Wanker Bush. I am so looking forward to that day! After that, it'll just be business as almost usual.

Don't blame me I voted to Nader.

It's slightly annoying when this country's foreign policy over the past 8 years is referred to as the "Bush Doctrine," as if wars of aggression, imperial bullying, and an obsession with global dominance wasn't a part of American foreign policy before George W. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court in 2000. The so-called Bush Doctrine has long been a staple of this country's foreign policy, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The one thing that's unique about the Bush administration's approach is that it's explicitly stated that the US will attack any country at any time for any reason it deems necessary. Past administrations have had the very same doctrine. They just didn't announce it so publicly and bluntly.

Heather, you initially "lost me" when you said you cast a vote for Obama after recognizing all of his policies that you oppose. It doesn't make sense to me to support a candidate who does not reflect your views, but I understand that you see it differently. Although my initial reaction is to say, "I told you so," regarding the issues you raised in this article, I would rather use this as learning opportunity to identify what the real causes of these political issues are, and, therefore, what the best solutions are.

I think that if you viewed the policy issues in this article only as reflections of Republican ideology or George Bush, you might logically conclude that a Democratic administration would be different. As for myself, I view the issues here as being a result of SYSTEMIC problems in our government, largely the influence of corporations on our elected leaders, which neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to change because, at best, they simply support this view of government structure, or, at worst, because they are personally benefiting from it regardless of its impact on the rest of us. Nader/Gonzales had a specific policy to reduce the influence of corporations on our leaders, which was to eliminate corporate personhood, which would then not give these companies the right to lobby Congress. Neither of the major 2 parties support this kind of systemic change, which is one reason why Obama is now seeming like "business as usual."

I read recently that the best way to approach an issue is to spend 90% of your time diagnosing the NATURE of the problem and 10% on the solution. Heather, are you starting to see the problem, now?