Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHow to Push Obama
On November 4, the American people by a popular majority of more than eight million votes selected as their new President a Democratic contender who had been attacked by his Republican foe as a radical who "began his campaign in the liberal left lane of politics and has never left it."
If only. In truth, Barack Obama was never the Che Guevara in pinstripes that the rightwing attack machine conjured up. His record on Capitol Hill was never "more liberal than a Senator who calls himself a socialist [Vermont's Bernie Sanders]," as John McCain wheezed at the last stops of a dying campaign. And he has never even been in competition for the title bestowed upon him by former Senator Fred Thompson during last summer's Republican National Convention: "the most liberal . . . nominee to ever run for President."
Thompson had apparently forgotten not just George McGovern but Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, all of whom sought the Presidency as more left-leaning contenders than did Obama in 2008. And, as McGovern, an able historian, himself reminds us: Franklin Roosevelt put contemporary Democrats to shame when it came to embracing and advancing radical notions.
For today's liberals and progressives, who find themselves moving from the comfortably predictable opposition stance of the Bush-Cheney interregnum to the more challenging position of dealing with the first Democratic President elected with something akin to a mandate since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, it is important to see Barack Obama for who he is and his admini-stration for what it can be. The best way to do this is not by listening to Obama's Republican detractors-or to the lite-Republicans of the Washington Democratic establishment-but by hearing the President- elect in his own words.
After he secured the delegates required to claim the Democratic nomination, Obama found himself at a town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta, where he was grilled about whether-having run as a primary-season progressive-he was now shifting to the center.
The Senator was clearly offended by the suggestion. "Let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center or that I'm flip-flopping or this or that or the other," he began. "You know, the people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me."
Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
Those were not casually chosen words. Barack Obama knows exactly what it means to say he is a "progressive." When he does so, he is not merely avoiding the word "liberal," as the sillier of his rightwing critics like to claim. Obama actually understands the subtle nuances of the American left. This is a man who moved to Chicago to be part of the political moment that began with the 1983 election of leftie Congressman Harold Washington as the city's first African American mayor, who studied the organizing techniques of Saul "Rules for Radicals" Alinsky, who worked with proudly radical labor leaders to defend basic industries and avert layoffs, who used his Harvard-minted legal skills to fight for expanded voting rights, who was mentored by civil libertarian legislator and federal judge Abner Mikva, who discussed the intricacies of Middle East policy with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, and who learned about single-payer health care from his old friend and neighbor Dr. Quentin Young, the longtime coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. And, famously, Obama did not just make anti-war sounds before Iraq was invaded, he appeared at an anti-war rally in downtown Chicago with a "War Is Not an Option" sign waving at his side.
Obama knows not just the rough outlines of the left-labor-liberal-progressive agenda, but the specifics. He does not need to be presented with progressive ideas for responding appropriately to an economic downturn, to environmental and energy challenges, to global crises and democratic dysfunctions. He has, over the better part of a quarter century, spoken of, written about, and campaigned for them.
I first covered Obama a dozen years ago, when he was running for the Illinois state senate as a candidate endorsed by the New Party, the labor-left movement of the mid-1990s that declared "the social, economic, and political progress of the United States requires a democratic revolution in America-the return of power to the people." When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it. And when we spoke in the years that followed, as he positioned himself for a 2004 U.S. Senate run, Obama told me that he saw Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold-the lone dissenter against the Patriot Act-as the best role model in the chamber.
So why not pop the champagne corks and celebrate Obama's nomination and election as a victory for what the late Paul Wellstone described as "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"? Because knowing the ideals and values of the left is not the same as practicing them. As a Senator, Obama did not take Feingold as a role model. In fact, they differed on essential constitutional, trade, and Presidential accountability issues, with Obama consistently taking more cautiously centrist positions. One of Obama's first votes in the Senate was to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. Dr. Young wrote to his friend. "I told him I was disappointed in him," the veteran campaigner for peace and social and economic justice recalled. "Rice was the embodiment of everything that was wrong with this Administration. So, he called me back and he said: ‘Why didn't you pick up the phone and call me? Do you think Bush would ever send to the Senate a nominee for Secretary of State who I could vote for? I said: ‘You ara the constitutional lawyer. It's about advice and consent, right? You should have denied him your consent.' "
Young was, of course, right. But the lesson that should be taken away from the Rice vote, and from the many disappointments that have followed it, ought not be that Obama is a hopeless case. In fact, quite the opposite. In that conversation with Young, the Senator outlined the relationship that the left ought to develop with a powerful but as yet ill-defined President.
Obama was nominated and elected in 2008 by progressives, both younger tech-savvy activists who made his candidacy an early favorite of the blogosphere and old-school liberal precinct walkers who saw in his candidacy an extension of the frustrating work of opposing all that was Bush and Cheney. The Senator won the Democratic nomination because he was the only first-tier contender who could say that he had opposed authorizing Bush to take the country to war with Iraq. In the Iowa caucuses that would define the 2008 race, those anti-war credentials, above all other factors, made the young Senator from Illinois a contender.
Similarly, as he campaigned in key states such as Wisconsin, Obama's call for a new approach to free trade agreements and for massive infrastructure investments allowed him to secure backing from labor and liberal farm activists at critical stages in the process. The progressives who committed to Obama early on were the essential foot soldiers of his long march through the caucuses, the primaries, and the fall campaign. These activists formed a base within the campaign and the Democratic Party, centered on but not limited to the Obama team's quasi-open website and blog, ww.MyBarackObama.com, which did not always cheerlead for the candidate. In June, when Obama broke with Feingold and other Senate progressives to support Bush's rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Senator felt enough heat from his own and independent netroots sites that he was compelled to explain himself, making what Obama described as a "firm pledge" that he would revisit the issue as President to shore up privacy protections.
What Internet activists such as OpenLeft.com's Matt Stoller and Firedoglake.com's Jane Hamsher did during the FISA fight was roughly equivalent to what Obama told Dr. Young to do back in 2005: "Pick up the phone and call me." They were undermined by a rally-round-the-candidate mentality that protected Obama during the campaign season. Yet netroots activists made themselves heard and earned a response from candidate Obama. And they can do much more with respect to President Obama. As Hamsher notes, "We can get the public engaged."
And so they must, especially with that portion of the public that took seriously the candidate's promise of "change we can believe in." But to do this effectively, activists cannot wait for Obama to define the playing field. They must assume that he knows what they know. And this requires a radically different approach than the left took to Southern centrist Democratic Presidents such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
The way to influence Obama and his Administration is to speak not so much to him as to America. Get out ahead of the new President, and of his spin-drive communications team. Highlight the right appointees and the right responses to deal with the challenges that matter most. Don't just critique, but rather propose. Advance big ideas and organize on their behalf; identify allies in federal agencies, especially in Congress, and work with them to dial up the pressure for progress. Don't expect Obama or his aides to do the left thing. Indeed, take a lesson from rightwing pressure groups in their dealings with Republican administrations and recognize that it is always better to build the bandwagon than to jump on board one that is crafted with the tools of compromise.
Smart groups and individuals are already at it. The United Steelworkers union has been way ahead of the curve in critiquing the financial services bailout and in working with Congressional allies such as Ohioans Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich to challenge the basic assumptions of a top-down bailout. The Laborers union has been promoting a fully developed infrastructure-investment plan that represents a smart stimulus. The American Civil Liberties Union is already prodding Obama to keep a series of promises he made during the campaign with regard to civil liberties and abuses of executive power, and providing concrete examples of how he can do so. The ACLU and other groups will be working with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee such as Feingold to assure that Obama's Justice Department nominees are asked the right questions.
Perhaps most impressive are the moves made by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, Physicians for a National Health Program, and Progressive Democrats of America to ensure that the option of single-payer is not forgotten as Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi establish their domestic policy priorities. To that end, sixty activists from these and allied groups met one week after Election Day at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington with Michigan Congressman John Conyers, an early Obama backer and the chief House proponent of real reform, to forge a Single-Payer Healthcare Alliance and plot specific strategies for influencing the new Administration and Congress.
The point won't be to teach Obama about single-payer. Less than six years ago, he told the Illinois AFLCIO: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody . . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
Since then, Democrats have taken back the House, the Senate, and the White House. The man who set those prerequisites in 2003 will sit in the Oval Office in 2009. But change didn't just come to Washington. It came to Barack Obama. His statements, his strategies, and his appointments evidence a caution born of the political and structural pressures faced by Presidential contenders and Presidents-elect. Whether the previous, more progressive Obama still exists within the man who will take the oath of office on January 20 remains to be seen. But the only way to determine if Obama really is the progressive he claimed as recently as last summer to be is to push not just Obama but the public.
Franklin Roosevelt's example is useful here. After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
It is reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama agrees with them on many funda-mental issues. He has said as much.
It is equally reasonable for progressives to assume that Barack Obama wants to do the right thing. But it is necessary for progressives to understand that, as with Roosevelt, they will have to make Obama do it.
180 Comments so far
Show Allals
from B.C.
RHETORIC
He who masters rhetoric
Serves ego to a fault.
He feeds on gullibility
And leads his prey about.
Beware of those
Who use their prose
In devious endeavor,
For if they knew
Of Simple Truths
They'd needn't wax so clever.
by Johnny Hart
12/08/89
I was just reading something by Glenn Greenwald called "Criticisms, political pressure and Barack Obama" which seems to deal with the same sort of issues that Nichols brings up here.
But the interesting thing about comparing the two articles is that while they both emphasize the kind of accountability which could be summed up in Greenwald's words here:
"Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those [voters] who decide that it's best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/13/obama/index.html
But Nichols goes further in a way or a style that seems more defensive of Obama than anything else.
If his intention was the same and as straight-forward as Greenwald's, Nichols should have left it where Greenwald did. The point--their point--was made.
But Nichols' more defensive approach goes on--most noticeably by the use of the Roosevelt story--to imply or give an excuse for Obama's inaction in certain areas which seems designed ultimately to shift the blame or the onus of responsibility.
That's the interesting part.
(I just also noticed Greenwald's update section contains the same Roosevelt quote--so go figure)
On the other hand, the difference may well be that while both articles share the same objective, Nichols' might be geared to appeal more effectively to those who uncritically support Obama.
Which may explain why so many at this site, like me, seem to prefer a more Greenwaldian type of approach.
Nice observations. Nichols caters to the left while upholding an apologetic. Some people refer to it as hedging your bets. Bottom line is if Obama fails to bring home the bacon for the left, no sweat off nichols brow since he is part of the white inside the beltway elite. His pay check will continue to be deposited in his bank account.
Nichols presents his usual twisted version of events here. While Obama has sometimes claimed to be a progressive, and sometimes made promises to progressives, he has made similar promises and claims to right-wingers and Wall Street. Most often he presents himself and acts as a centrist. Nichols ignores the fact that Obama's voting record, both in the Senate and the Illinois legislature, was never progressive at all.
I have little stomach for Nichols, who worked during the primary to smear the more-progressive Hillary Clinton and saddle us with this double-talking centrist.
That's the bad news. The good news is: we will soon be rid of the Bush gang.
If you want to (try to) make your voice heard, you can start by opposing Obama's nomination of Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary. Despite Obama's campaign promises to support organic agriculture and environmental protection, he's appointed Vilsack who promotes anti-health, anti-environment, anti-sustainable agricultural practices like factory farming and genetically engineered crops. One of our best public interest organizations, Organic Consumers Association, says:
"Over the past month, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has been alerting our nationwide network about Obama's proposed appointment of Monsanto ally and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to the position of Secretary of Agriculture. Far from representing the "Change" which Obama has promised, Vilsack has a disappointing record of promoting controversial genetically engineered foods, biopharm crops, and animal cloning, as well as cheerleading for unsustainable biofuels derived from corn and soybeans. In addition Vilsack has come under fire for aiding and abetting chemical and energy-intensive industrial agriculture, including Iowa's infamous Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)."
Learn more and sign their petition here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/vilsack.cfm
als
Good info, thanks. However, I do not see how you can call Hillary "more progressive". They are ALL politicians who have been BOUGHT with Corporate Funds. It is the only way to get to the Whitehouse, so far.
I could call Hillary more progressive because she campaigned on health "coverage" for everyone, not just children. True, it was insurance she was seeking, but even single-payer is insurance. Mr. Obama also wanted "coverage" for children.
als
My understanding is that Hillary was intending to FORCE all of us to BUY insurance from Corporate Cow Potty Insurance companies (who helped fund her campaign). For me this would endanger my life because I need that money to eat well so that I can avoid getting sick.
I do not believe in allopathic meds/practices except as a last resort nor do I believe in Big Pharma's DANGEROUS AND SOMETIMES LETHAL DRUGS for health care. The War On Drugs should be aimed at the real culprits, the number one of which is Big Pharma, in my opinion. To be FORCED to buy insurance that I do not want and that does not cover the things I really need (dental and optical insurance) or the kinds of alternative practices that I believe in, is an infringement of my freedom of CHOICE as to how I take care of my body and mind. It is also a RIP-OFF!
Check out:
"Practices in Health Care & Disability Insurance: Delay, Diminish, Deny & Blame" By Peter Phillips & Bridget Thornton; ucsaction@ucsusa.org
CORPORATE INSURANCE IS NOT THE ANSWER and Hillary is as BOUGHT as any self-proclaimed "progressive".
CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED — January 2005 through 2008
Fourteen of the most significant, most prominent, and/or most revealing votes taken during this period. NV means "not voting."
(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State
Vote taken: 1/26/2005
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Vote taken: 2/10/2005
Analysis: Opposed by more than 68 consumer, civil rights, environmental and labor groups, it was described as the "final [Republican] payback to the tobacco, asbestos, oil and chemical industries, at the expense of ordinary families whose health has been compromised."
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(3) Dayton Amendment (S.Amdt. 31) to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act
Vote taken: 3/3/2005
Analysis: Would cap credit card interest rates at 30%. Senator Dayton provided examples of predatory lenders charging vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: No
McCain: No
(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005
Vote taken: 7/29/2005
Analysis: Often referred to as the Dick Cheney Energy Bill (industry lobbyists wrote it in secret in his White House office), this corporate-welfare bill was called "bad policy" by Public Citizen because it gives "billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries," rolls back environmental regulations for the oil and gas industry, and "repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(5) Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill
Vote taken: 9/15/2005
Analysis: Would prevent future NAFTA-like trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers), by prohibiting the Commerce Department from weakening current countervailing duties and antidumping laws.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: No
McCain: No
(6) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court
Vote taken: 9/29/2005
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No
Obama: No
McCain: Yes
(7) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court
Vote taken: 1/31/2006
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No
Obama: No
McCain: Yes
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
Vote taken: 3/1/2006
Analysis: Allows the government to spy on citizens in "fishing expeditions" without probable cause or a court order, including listening to telephone calls, intercepting emails, accessing private medical records, library records and bank records, and searching homes and businesses without permission or knowledge.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(9) Nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior
Vote taken: 5/26/2006
Analysis: Hard right-winger who received an overall score of zero from the League of Conservation Voters during his six years in the Senate.
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: Yes
(Hillary and just seven other Democrats voted to block Kempthorne's nomination.)
(10) Feinstein Amendment (S.Amdt. 4882) to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Vote taken: 9/06/2006
Analysis: Outlaws use of cluster bombs in most cases, in order to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(11) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal (2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act)
Vote taken: 3/29/2007
Analysis: Provides that, "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq."
Clinton: Yes
Obama: Yes
McCain: No
(12) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran
Vote taken: 9/26/2007
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy).
Clinton: Yes
Obama: NV
McCain: NV
(13) Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
Vote taken: 10/3/2007
Analysis: Requires the President to safely redeploy all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, except for those needed for al Qaeda operations, security and training.
Clinton: Yes
Obama: NV
McCain: No
(14) Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment (H.R. 6304)
Vote taken: 7/9/2008
Analysis: Legalizes warrantless wiretapping of, and spying on, Americans by the federal government in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Covers up and excuses more than 30 felony crimes committed by President Bush when he authorized the illegal wiretaps. Provides retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecom companies and terminates all pending lawsuits against them.
Clinton: No
Obama: Yes
McCain: NV
A good progressive would have voted as follows:
(1) Condoleeza Rice: NO
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) Prevent unfair trade deals: YES
(6) John Roberts: NO
(7) Samuel Alito: NO
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization: NO
(9) Dirk Kempthorne: NO
(10) Outlaw cluster bombs: YES
(11) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal: YES
(12) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NO
(13) Iraq withdrawal timeline requirement: YES
(14) Illegal wiretapping: NO
Here are the candidates' progressive vote totals:
Clinton score: 10 of 14
Obama score: 4 of 14
McCain score: 1 of 14
Hey good homework! I will copy it and paste it for my record. Thanks!
It's amazing that on these big, important issues Obama is closer to McCain than to Hillary Clinton. Yet, so-called progressives like Nichols (also The Nation and our own Common Dreams) worked hard during the Democratic primary to smear Clinton and promote Obama.
I still haven't heard or read a clear explanation for that. It's certainly not ignorance. The voting record is there for all to see, and many of these votes were very high-profile, highly contested issues. Hillary certainly would have trounced McCain in the general, and by an even higher margin than Obama (I think) . . . so that's not it.
Of course, as Nichols said, the voters perceived Obama as the anti-war candidate, and perceived Clinton as pro-war because she voted for the Iraq War authorization in 2002. But the voters' perceptions were wrong, and yet our progressive opinion-leaders chose to enhance the misperception rather than correct it.
People who are uninformed could have been swayed by Obama's speech making, but not informed people like Nichols. Perhaps the answer is found in Nichols' statement about Obama: "When we spoke together at New Party events [in Illinois] in those days . . ." Nichols knew Obama from Illinois? Did he think spinning for Obama could lead to a job in his administration? Spin-to-play?
I agree with your thoughts on health and health insurance. Healthy food and a clean environment should be emphasized, while treating symptoms with drugs should be minimized. I too was troubled with the idea of mandatory insurance purchases. On the other hand, I favor single-payer universal health care. The devil is in the details.
My statement that Hillary is "more progressive" than Obama is based on a head to head comparison of their voting records in the Senate from 2005 (when Obama became a Senator) through 2008. I left campaign promises out of the comparison entirely, since -- as we have now seen with Obama's appointments -- any candidate can promise anything during a campaign. Campaign promises stand for nothing compared to voting record.
Also, I don't mean that Hillary is a pure progressive. She's certainly no Dennis Kucinich. But, her voting record over the past four years was surprisingly progressive, while Obama's was surprisingly right wing.
I posted this vote comparison in these forums several times in 2008. See it again in my next post.
I don't mind John Nichols' writings, generally, but he has proposed the FDR story as an explanation for Obama's behavior, which seems schitzophrenic at best. This FDR story is a propaganda device constructed by Obama's campaign managers. It's not a satisfying explanation at all.
The idea is that Obama has a progressive heart, but he needs to be pushed to carry out all of those progressive ideas. Why? What stops him from implementing those progressive ideas? After all, George W. Bush committed horrible crimes without constituent support, and nothing happened to him.
Obama got elected with a lot of corporate cash. Investment firm Goldman Sachs was just his biggest campaign funder. Could it be that Obama owes more to Goldman Sachs than to progressive voters?
The majority of people wrote to their senators advising against the Wall Street bailout. Obama leapt into action and voted to give $850 billion to the fraudsters, no strings attached. Your pressure failed in that case. What's wrong with you that you failed? Did Obama fail to read your letter? Make him read your letter!
FDR spoke out against many ills in society, but Obama could not even muster one fireside chat when the Gaza Strip was burning with white phosphorus. What's wrong with you, voters? You wrote to Obama condemning Israel's attack, but Obama told you that George Bush is the president and did nothing.
Can Nichols or anyone else who describes this FDR pressure meme explain how this thing actually works? Is there some sort of elaborate dance? Would it help to call Obama, "Your excellency"? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but Nichols and others seem to have a mystical explanation for how politics works. Most organized efforts so far seem to have failed to move Obama even when he was a senator, so how does that work when he's president?
The only vision I get out of this is hundreds of thousands of people marching on Washington, D.C., and occupying the Capitol for months. But if it comes to that, why stop with a mere demand? At that point, it would be more appropriate to trash the whole dysfunctional thing and start anew.
Naw, representatives are supposed to listen to the people. They haven't. Obama hasn't. There is no next step, except dissolving the system.
What Nichols fails to realize is that the best campaigners are on everyone's side before the election. Nichols' wrote, "Those were not casually chosen words" about Obama saying he's a progressive. Well, they were. Obama also said late in the campaign that some people think he's a liberal, but he doesn't know how they got that idea. So, which is he? Forget what he says and look at his actions. He acts like a paid shill for Goldman Sachs, quite frankly.
-TIA
als
"Why? What stops him from implementing those progressive ideas? After all, George W. Bush committed horrible crimes without constituent support, and nothing happened to him."
Nothing happens to MR.Bushit because his "horrible crimes" are SANCTIONED by the Corporatocracy (AKA the GDG). This is exactly what stops Obama from "implementing those progressive ideas", because "progressive ideas" are NOT allowed, verboten!!!! (Don't know if I spelled that correctly but I imagine the innuendo is clear.)
In light of this situation, I do not think any of us can truly know anything about Obama's "Inner Truth" except that he has caved-in to Corporate pressures ... 'whatever it takes' ...
"What's wrong with you that you failed? Did Obama fail to read your letter? Make him read your letter!"
Oh, man that's got it all--hilarity and insight. The whole thing is a masterpiece.
Sioux
THOUGHTS INTO ACTION: Excellent posting! The only thing I'd add is that as per the sit-in at the capital, protestors are now up against the world's largest military state. It may call itself a democratic republic, but increasingly is the blurring of laws designed to protect citizens' rights furthered to produce no discernible "line in the sand" between terrorist/dangerous person and conscientious objector to the reign of Mammon-Mars.
Added to the collossal weapons at the disposal of said military state, are its network of underground surveillance apparati, ostensibly aimed at citizens' groups that are themselves prepared to galvanize public interest in topics of massive concern. The protests of the 60's and 70's were tame in comparison with what citizens would be up against if they took up those same means now. The cops with tasers, the many persons employed by some policing agency or another that answer to the "top cop," the files on citizens and illegal spying "made legal." It's an Orwellian nightmare and its ours; so those outside this nation who tend to be glib in telling US what to do, need to recognize what we're up against. I think the same exact analogy holds for the conscientious objectors in Israel who not only abhor violence to their Palestinian neighbors, but recognize that this dis-eased policy of aggression will inevitably boomerang. War is NOT good business for anyone; and it's laying so much to waste so rapidly.
I would add, Sioux, the rumored 600 detention camps being constructed by Halliburton.
Yes Sioux and Vinny - we think we are free, and we have more leeway than many, but control is just below the surface. Even if the camps don't exist, the fact that we believe they MIGHT EXIST is proof of how insecure we feel. Something is controlling the pols. How could all of them look at the facts and then almost all of them endorse what Israel is doing? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or the disbursing of hundreds of billions of our tax money with no accounting?
It is bizarre.
Joe
It is obvious even to the blind that Obama is a fraud and he is not what
he pretended to be in the election campaign.
He was helped by senile opponent running a disoraganised campaign but his REAL
policies are not different from Bush or McCain but he is covering them with
skillfull oratory, charismatic personality and political skill.
Ouch. He actually forgot to mention that Obama is for continuing the war, redeploying all to Afghanistan as he has stated multiple times. He also wants to increase the "defense" budget.
He wants to increase the defense budget, partly to cover the costs of adding many tens of thousands of troops to the army and the marines. He has also recently stated that "Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon" in spite of the fact that 16 U.S. intelligence agencies have stated otherwise. Sounds like little more than an articulate George Bush to me. He is as much a wholly owned subsidiary of the MIC as was George Bush.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
It ain't so. How does that grab you? All you are doing, a fortiori before he's actually President, is fear mongering. We used to honor a "honeymoon" period, and I'm quite concerned about the growing tendency for immediate dramatic action with a lot of zeroes.
als
"honeymoon" period??? This is not a marriage 'to death do us part' etc ... (thank heaven!)
There is a difference between "fear mongering" and exposing/disseminating info. Fear mongering generally MIS-represents the facts (i.e., "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" repeated ad infinitum on Big Media) ... We need to continue to wade thru all the garbage and hash it out amongst all of us who can and will and do to differentiate fact from 'fiction' (euphemism).
Solutions cannot be found or effectively implemented if all available facts are not dragged out into the light of day or if 'fictions' remain clouding the issues.
Whether one reacts with fear or not is an INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Is Obama a blank slate? How far does he need pushing? And won't plenty of centrists and arch conservatives be pushing him just as hard? Who wins this tug of war? Could it be the lobbies that have all the money? And curiously those are NEVER the progressive lobbies. Will he be moved by moral argument alone, or will he be like every other president and tend to listen more closely to interests that are pushing him toward the money end of the argument spectrum?
He may have spoken to a number of progressive positions in his early political career, but he's savvy and has learned where the bread's buttered. He's loyally devoted to capitalism, unless he's a rank liar, and therefore he simply cannot listen very intently to those who wield no economic power, who instead declaim against it and insist on what many naive sorts call economic democracy. Will Obama listen to Van Jones at the expense of Warren Buffett, Donald Trump and that obnoxious ilk? Even if he listens to the disenfranchised interests, will he follow their lead and DO anything to annoy the capitalist elite? I'm not holding my breath.
So please tell me...what e-mail address can I send a message to Barack ?
als
I would also like to know a DIRECT email address to Obama. It seems the combo of slow dial-up and Mr.Minibrains (my feeble-minded laptop) makes it impossible for me to sign-in to change.gov ... a disturbing message in itself. [Or else I am being censored??? or blocked???, who knows...]
The best I have found so far is to take advantage of the links provided by various orgs. OCA Web Forum is the most recent link I received. There is a message above from "Naturally" that may help you link up with OCA when you sign their petition about GMO foods and Monsanto reps in the Whithehouse.
I save these emails with links and use them to send messages, in addition to the messages requested from the orgs. If you are willing to risk posting your email here, I will be happy to forward you the most recent link I have received as well as other orgs you can join and/or subscribe to that can help you confront Obama's Whitehouse.
Many orgs can provide email access but I do not remember which ones they are since I subscribe to so many I cannot keep track of them all.
.You might consider emailing your senators and congressperson as well. If early indicators are correct it is going to be a contentious relationship between Legislature and Executive.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
als
I agree and I do ... however, my congressmen (reps and senators) are WITH US ... which is unusual and fortunate. We can also hope that Obama is sane enough and honorable enough to not resort to "signing statements"!
ardee
The truth is out!
But consider this, if you had to deal with Pelosi and Reid (throwing in a McConnel here or there....you'd have a contentious relationship too.
In 2 weeks Guantanamo Bay will no longer be a detention center. It's coming down the pike immediatedly. President Obama will be the one who'll make the decision. When it happens, I'll feel something I'm not sure I've felt in my lifetime: Pride in my President. We will soon be jettisoning torture as a viable policy in our government.
That's pretty fucking huge to me. What say you, bitter Obama haters?
What will you all write here when this happens?..
And no, don't come back and tell me I'm trying to silence your right to dissent. By all means, go right ahead. He'll even deserve some it, I'm sure. But how about we also resolve to back him when he does do the right thing?
Could we do that?
Sioux Rose
DRIFT: Taking off the bandage does not itself heal the wound. That too many of both parties went along with this torture thing when the trigger for 911 is itself suspect, when so much has been managed like a Hollywood spectacle down to a "theater" of war... unfortunately Obama is a consummate politician, and as another poster related, has learned which side his bread is buttered on. Although I think America's president is firmly a puppet these days to more insidious covert interests, if this individual truly had the power of the "highest office in the land," then it will be his moral struggle between The Light and Mephistopheles, when SOOOO much is at stake, enormous stakes thus resting on his wisdom, or lack of same.
Read the NYT article posted on Common Dreams where Obama hedges on closing Guantanamo. And if you have a problem with that, then make Obama close it.
-TIA
So silly. The School of the Americas was supposedly shut down and guess what? It reopened with a new name with the same instructors. Change you can believe in right?
The US operates 1,000s of black sites around the world so they can render people. I am sure Obama will stop that too and the torture. You don't suppose they can remove them from Guantanamo and torture them somewhere else? Nah. I am sure Obama will make it all better. Right?
I once had a marvelous teacher in an "Interpersonal Communication" class who said that if someone says "whatever" sarcastically in response to something someone has said, it's really as good as just saying "fuck you."
May I add to that drift? When they say " get over it dude, move on!" It also means, "I can't be bothered because it doesn't affect me."
als Further addition to "I can't be bothered because it doesn't affect me."
MOUSE TALE
A mouse looked through a crack in the wall to see a farmer and his wife open a package. "What food might this contain?" the mouse wondered. He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"
The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it." The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The pig sympathized, but said, "I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured you are in my prayers." The mouse turned to the cow and said "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!" The cow said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin off my nose."
So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomous snake whose tail was caught in the trap. The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever.
Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbours came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. The farmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for her funeral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with great sadness.
So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think it doesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourage one another. EACH OF US IS A VITAL THREAD IN ANOTHER PERSON'S TAPESTRY; OUR LIVES ARE WOVEN TOGETHER FOR A REASON. TRULY, one of the best things to hang onto in this world is a FRIEND.
als:Mouse Tale is a little shaggy, but it got there. You told it well.
als
"shaggy"??? what does that mean?
als:sorry. Shaggy as in shaggy dog story, long but has a punchline. It was a good story.
als
Yep ... and by doing 'whatever it takes' is 'really as good as just saying "fuck you." ' to the rest of us. That is why I still have multiple KUCINICH '08 signs on my car, along with multiple NADER-GONZALES signs that I added later after Kucinich was squeezed out. If DK had had more "damned resources" he could have gone further, but the only way to get ENOUGH "damned resources" to go all the way to the Whitehouse requires doing 'whatever it takes' and 'just saying "fuck you" ' to the rest of us, thereby compromising principles.
I campaigned for Nader in 2000, and for Dennis in 04. I had been volunteering again for Dennis last year out of the Manchester, NH office until it became clear to me by January that his campaign was in serious disarray (His House seat was under serious threat in the Dem. primary in Cleveland by a Rethug stealth campaign). And as much as I personally LOVE this man, I jumped ship to Edwards because he was talking alot about poverty and looked like he had a chance. Yea, I know. I got duped, along with a few million other people who genuinely vote about economic justice issues. Politics is a dirty business...
Anyway, that's me shoring up my progressive credentials lest anyone here think I'm trolling. It took me until late October to decide I was going to vote for Obama--with eyes wide open. I KNOW he's no Kucinich or Nader. But a 3rd Party had no traction this year, and the stakes were too high to let McPalin in. And as Nichols points out here, Obama's got serious progressive roots, and I'm cautiously hopeful. I'm prepared to criticize him when necessary, but also congratulate him when he makes the right decisions. And I think he will make some, and I also think the more we push him, the more he'll make decisions that appeal to progressives. And the more that happens, I genuinely believe the more things will change for the better for the average American citizen, because I believe our ideas REALLY will work. The more that happens, the more the average "Joe" will see it's in his best interest to move progressively, and then everything will begin to shift. Obama will have the latitude to move left. But it will start with us, and the opportunity now exists. And I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness.
And as Forrest Gump might say, "That's all I have to say about that."
I want to know more about how Kucinich got elected. In particular, what made his constituents stick with him despite all the attacks he suffered including a hit that was ordered by the Mafia. He must know something we can learn from.
Hey Dennis - how about a book for independendents about how to get elected? Practical ideas only, nothing involving a tall beautiful red-headed wife.
Joe
Obama listening to his grassroots: FISA.
Forrest Gump was the story of an incredibly lucky moron.
Actually, the story is about a man of limited intellectual ability, but who possesses something far more rare: wisdom. He has wisdom because he has heart. You might say Forrest Gump's Emotional IQ was off the charts.
I was disappointed in Obama's vote on FISA as well.
Read the last paragraph of my post: Ric Abreu January 13th, 2009 1:15 am.
Thanks for making my point.
als
I agree that WE need to back him up in any change for the better that he can accomplish in the face of a gnarly system and the load of cleaning up the Bush Decade messes. The end of Gitmo and torture is huge and I think we can all heave a huge sigh of relief for that. It is a sign of Obama's sanity.
However, I also think that your interpretation of anxiety, disgust, anger as "hatred" is rather harsh and does not ring true to me with respect to the comments of those of us who are upset when we see signs of continuation of certain major factors that have contributed to the messes we are in today.
Gitmo is not the only kind of torture being inflicted on the People of the US and of the world. The messes themselves are a kind of torture and create many other kinds of torture. People have a right to get mad when they are tortured. Anger is not the same as hatred, tho they often come in a pkg together.
OK, fair enough. But consider this: he hasn't even taken office yet, and already his name elicits torrents of anger on this site.
als
Yep ... and it is easily understandable to me (tho not necessarily the most important consideration) a sign that many are hurting more than some of the more fortunate realize.
Repeat a lie long enough and it's bound to catch on... Obama is the "anti-war" candidate. Obama made a speech against the war....Never mind that when asked point blank if he would have voted to authorize the war with Iraq if he had been a Senator at the time he responded that he didn't know. Never mind his "withdrawal" plan will keep many, many tens of thousands of "non-combat" troops stranded in Iraq for years if not decades while he "consults" with the generals on the ground that apparently now make policy, not the other way around. Never mind that the troops leaving Iraq will soon be entering Afghanistan. Never mind. Obama made a speech against the war....Never mind his Defense Secretary is George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary. Never mind that doesn't matter, Obama is the "anti-war" candidate. Never mind. Keep repeating it. Obama made a speech against the war. Keep repeating it... Repeat....Keep repeating it.......Keep repeating it.... Keep repeating. ... Repeat.....Keep repeating....Obama is the "anti-war" candidate.... Repeat....Keep repeating it.... Keep repeating... Keep.... K...
Never mind that the mentor he sought out as a Senator was the darling of the Republicans, Sen. Joe Lieberman. Never mind...... Never mind... Never... Voted for the FISA capitulation. Never mind...... Never… Never mind his VP, Biden actively cheered the Iraq war on....Never mind...... Always voted to fund the war....Never mind.... Voted for Bush's first Wall Street Fat Cat bailout with no strings attached.... Never mind.... Never mind his centrist picks for his Cabinet.... Never mind he chose Hillary War Hawk Clinton for Secretary of State.... Never mind...... Never mind.… Never mind... Never mind........ Never mind....Never mind.... Never mind... Never..... Never..... N
Sioux Rose
RIC A: Just as movie theaters don't pass out "calorie exemption" cards when people load up on fake-buttered popcorn, candy & soda, no president gets an "accountability-free" card, or "president-elect. Thanks for calling him on the twists and turns of language, nice verbal gymnastics intended to disown responsibility for firm, committed PRINCIPLES!
.Bravo, sir, bravo, well stated....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
als
Yeah. Sickening, isn't it. The $LICKE$T Corporate Cow Potty Mind Pollution I've ever seen.
Mind if I quote you?
But part of him sees more than many previous so-called "leaders" lost in the desert. I think he truly wants to do the right thing but is caught in the system ... follow the money ... FDR was right ... WE have to MAKE him do what he knows he believes in. In my opinion, the Corporate system is the biggest obstruction WE face. That is rather a different situation from Beating Around the Bushit (sic) King of Denial.
The last election shows that Obama did 'whatever it takes' to become Pres. [Back to FAUST???]
Dennis Kucinich was CENSORED out of the 'race' coming out of the starting gate because he is not willing to do 'whatever it takes'.
Nope. Dennis was censored because his principles are not tolerated by the powers that be and the majority of Democrats are really just slightly left of center Republicans and would never support a real progressive. Tell me this, on what issue was Obama more progressive than Kucinich that DK should have loss to the lesser Obama?
What is a "progressive" Democrat President Elect? It's a candidate that made a lot of "progressive noises" during the primaries, less after them and none now almost in office. How progressive is his cabinet?
Another name for it is marketing. After all Obama won the award for the best marketing campaign in 2008.
Lastly, I enjoy being called an "Obama Hater" because it is a desperate tactic used by an Obama supporter that cannot refute anything I say, therefore they resort to ad hominem attacks and ignore the substance of my argument. It is a sign of weakness that is the hallmark of Democrats. That and cowardice. The best defense Democrats have against Republicans is to become just like them. And they do.
als
Yep, yep, same thing in my opinion: DK's principles do not allow him to do 'whatever it takes' and therefore they are not acceptable because he won't compromise his principles, which is exactly 'what it takes'. I do not see that we are in disagreement about this, just saying the same thing in different words. What I meant by 'whatever it takes' is very concisely described here by you; I totally agree.
I doubt if I could find ANY issue where Obama is more progressive than DK nor even close! I have to assume that is a rhetorical question ... but there is also an ironic rhetorical answer ... Obama is more progressive than Kucinich with respect to marketing (lol)
I don't really care if someone calls me an "Obama Hater" except that it is a waste of energy that could be used more constructively. All I know is that "He's not MY President."
als you're right on the mark and there is no disagreement between us.
Why stop Obama? Why not the rest of Congress? Obama won't be going anywhere without Congress doing its job right. And if you think Congress is actually spineless, trust me, they aren't. They have a spine alright but they don't show their might where it counts. Remember back in 1998 when even some Democrats quickly voted with the GOP to impeach Clinton in the House of Representative? Those are the same Democrats along with others who chose to go along with Bush on just about everything. I know Obama's a flip flopper and I'm disgusted alright but we have 4 years to try hard enough, don't we?
Poor old Obama, he hasn't flipped or flopped yet. He hasn't done anything. With the leadership in this Congress I don't know that you Are right. Pelosi and Reid are the worst I have ever seen. Ever.
.Thomas, Thomas, Thomas.....Use this vast internet to go over the campaign of Barack Obama ( not easily done I know, spanning two full years as it did). You will rather quickly disabuse yourself of this notion that Obama hasnt altered his positions....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Ardee my friend........
Two VERY LONG years.
Since he has not done anything yet....I don't know what he has really changed. Statements are not actions.
Aside from that I expect him to change, only a fool doesn't change his opinion or tactics to fit circumstances.
Also I'd suggest that all the folks here (and I exclude you from this because I know you know better) that expected any liberal candidate that won was going to go into office with a sweeping liberal agenda and bring "Progressive Nirvana" were going to be severely disappointed. No matter who it is.
You know good and well that our country won't stand for things that they don't agree with. The center keeps being mentioned because thats where the vast majority of our citizens are...more on the left side now I believe.
I also want to remind you that I don't speak up for Obama because I "believe" or he is the "savior" I came to the table late and I had to overlook his rasict associations which was very difficult for me. Overlook questions about his performance as a legislator. He was better than McCain and I couldn't vote for McCain.
So...when I say anything about this guy, its not because I believe in him, its because I don't know what he is going to do. I'm "hoping"
als
"There Is Nothing In The Middle Of The Road But Yellow Stripes And Dead Armadillos"
~JIm HIghtower
als:One of my favorite quotes ( and book title). I use it a lot.
Sioux Rose
THOMAS: Come out, come out from Pisces/Neptune nirvana land? Have you ever heard of "guilt by association"? Sure gets some starry-eyed women actual convictions in courts of US law when they happen to be waiting outside and their boyfriends cop some drugs. The analogy as per Obama rests on his choices thus far of high-placed associates, the vast majority re-runs from prior administrations. And as to the caveat of "experience," the evidence is compelling that they represent PRECISELY the type of experience this nation cannot afford an iota more of. Your tendency to "try to be nice" and "give everyone a chance" is fine for ballroom manners, but inappropos to the actual conditions of the kingdom.
Sioux Rose
"Have you ever heard of "guilt by association"?
That I have, but I overlooked his associations with Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger, etc...I did not judge him guilty by association and assume he was a racist also. Nor do I think you would have me do so.
I think that most of his picks are fairly good, a few excellent. I know Jim Jones was an excellent choice. I believe Hillary will prove a good one. Rham Emanuel should. A lot are reruns, but who would you get? Inexperience can kill you quickly. Staff that don't know what they are doing will defeat you before you start. And he will maske more than enough rookie mistakes.
Frankly who would you get better?
I simply try not to judge someone before they act. Before they give me a criteria to judge them on. But it won't take long to find out about him.
Consider the need to change strategies and tactics for both liberals and leftist's and what would you do? Thats the real problem.
edit...by the way, even though you regard some of my opinions as from la-la land, it was nice of you to say I have a tendency to give everyone a chance....
.His economic advisors are all free market guys, which bodes ill for the regulation crowd.
His Secretary of Defense is one hideous choice. You are familiar with the history of Bobby Gates are you not?
Holder at Justice is the guy who pushed the pardon of a fleeing felon...Mark Rich. Justice?
Campaign statements that gradually change as the election does bodes ill for honesty and intent. Causing folks to vote for you because you promise to end a war, and then, after the votes are cast noting you will actually escalate that war seems rather disengenuous....
Lets not even mention the way he pimped for the financial bailout, and just urged Bush to throw another 350 Billion after the now disappeared without a trace first 350. But maybe you are right, Thomas, Texan and Irish.....nope cant be right !
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee
"His economic advisors are all free market guys, which bodes ill for the regulation crowd."
If he continues down that road he will quickly lose support. WE MUST have a change in our trade policies and our tax laws regarding manufacturing and jobs.
"But maybe you are right, Thomas, Texan and Irish.....nope cant be right !"
Damn...I was hoping you wouldn't put those two facts together. I'll bet from now on we won't continue to be in 100% agreement.
Gates won't be staying, he's an interim and I felt a good decision for the moment. I know his history, but he works for the President.
Holder at Justice I checked up on at your suggestion, you are right. Bad choice I believe.
The bailout/stimulas monies are bothering me. They appear useless.
Obama, like the rest of our government, pledges allegence to AIPAC. I expect nothing.
als
I don't expect anything of Obama or our currently twisted gov ... but I do expect to see this Global People's Movement continue growing and there are a few individuals like Kucinich and Sanders and Tom Udall, etc who stand up with us and for us. WE must continue to do the same for each other and for all leaders in the world who know that they belong WITH the 'WE', AKA, WITH LIFE.
Why stop Obama? Why not the rest of Congress? Obama won't be going anywhere without Congress doing its job right. And if you think Congress is actually spineless, trust me, they aren't. They have a spine alright but they don't show their might where it counts. Remember back in 1998 when even some Democrats quickly voted with the GOP to impeach Clinton in the House of Representative? Those are the same Democrats along with others who chose to go along with Bush on just about everything. I know Obama's a flip flopper and I'm disgusted alright but we have 4 years to try hard enough, don't we?
Which reminds me, how do we delete a comment that we accidentally posted twice ... just go to edit and delete???
Yes, replace the message with "Double posted" or something similar so people can quickly move on. Some people just delete the message and don't include anything in the text.
I voted for Obama and worked some for his campaign knowing full well what I was doing.
Reasons:
1. We had not created an independent alternative with any sort of base behind it
2. Obama is sane, sees the value of law and is highly competent.
3. He activated the people in a way not seen recently.
4. He gave the opportunity for white people to move away from racism, which has been the most delusional bar toward seeing the realities of power here for centuries. And finally....
5. If we didn't have an Obama now, people would still be pining for one in 2012.
Now he is elected and if we don't want a Duddy Kravitz or Willy Stark we have to get busy and build the kind of movement that will obliterate reason #1 for voting for Obama. Sorry if it is tiring, but it has never been otherwise. Even the best politicians are creatures of expediency. They are rarely or never the source progressive change.
Meanwhile we should celebrate the dethroning of Dick Cheney, George Bush and company. Our country has been deflected by a few critical degrees from a totally lawless and violent path.
Joe
jclientelle:Joe, I mostly agree with you.
Naturally, because you are well reasoned, civilized, thinking woman. (I'm using woman more and more in your honor)
Thomas More:"in your honor". Have I died? (Teasing) Of all the things I'm urging upon you, all you got so far, sigh is "woman" for "lady"? OK, we'll take what we can get. How are you doing Thomas More?
NYCartist
You have me pegged...I move at glacial speed, i study all I can find about something before I make up or change my mind.
But no there have been a few other things.
I am very well as always and hope that you, my lady (a regression) are enjoying excellent health yourself. At our age the definition of good health is really the fact that we are still breathing.
Have a lovely week!
Thomas More: Egads, my one success "woman" has just gone! Lady. Are you teasing this older than you person? Today, my kid bro said something about his advanced age, and I said, I'm older than you, and he said, "OK, advanced age plus...(a number)". I do not think of myself as old in my mind. No doubt because I have the stupidist birthday on or not on the calendar, a reason to dislike Julius Caesar and Pope Gregory. (Too big a hint,so I won't admit.)
In our minds I firmly believe we all know we just turned thirty.
.Do not Leap to tell us more....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Maybe.......
Lets hope you are wrong......
It won't take that long to find out for sure will it?
Nicely put as always.
Bravo! Bravo, man!
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Just a suggestion, couldn't we just enjoy the inaugaration of the first African American president in our history? Something many of you said was not possible just a short time ago.
This is a moment in history I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. I'd really like to savor it a bit.
There will be plenty of time soon enough to rip him or praise him. And remember we'd all be a bit more unhappy if John and Sarah were about to take control.
I would have savored the inauguration of the first woman president in our history; after all, women compose greater than 50% of the population, whereas African Americans make up only 13%.
I'm taking the day off to go to an inauguration party, Thomas. No one is stopping neither you nor I from enjoying it.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
als
Nothing is stopping you from 'savoring it a bit'. Your happiness can make all the people around you happier, even those who don't even know you exist, as long as they are geographically close enough. Just think, if you can maintain your happiness in the face of so much turbulence and disappointment, you will be contributing to preventative meds for all the people around you because personal happiness is one of the best ways to stay healthy, laughter is one of the best meds the human world has ever known.
Personally, I cannot 'savor' the incredible waste of money and time it took to elect someone who SEEMS TO INTEND to continue to dump MORE BIG BUCK$ into the 'BLACK HOLE$' of military spending, wars, bail-outs without regulations, Nuclear Energy, "Clean" Coal, etc. ... ESP when my belt is already tightened to the limits of survival.
My favorite cartoon of late, by TREVER:
A sign says: "NEW! The 2009 Bailout" A man labeled "DETROIT" is holding open the trunk of a little car saying "IT'S A HYBRID!" In the trunk is a little man peddling a bicycle apparatus that drives the car; this little man is labeled "TAXPAYERS".
The only thing I 'savor' is that, by virtue (lol) of my increasing poverty, I am not paying income taxes. I cannot 'savor' it much because I am aware that those of us below the poverty line are paying in other ways, perhaps 'paying' MORE than those who do pay income taxes.
I enjoy providing words that stimulate. Savor was apparently one of my better ones. Enjoy.
.Please wipe the "savor" from your chin.....Activism is a nonstop endeavor, no holidays allowed. One's conscience can be a terrible master.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I believe a little bit of self care and fun sustains a person over the years.
Joe
I can't say that I enjoyed everything about "what's the matter with Kansas," but one thing sticks in my mind:
The author points out how the Republicans never delivered on their promises to ban abortion and other aspects of their agenda that their core base were deeply interested in implementing. However, rather than be punished at the polls, they consistently and effectively blamed it on Democrats and actually increased their own support.
I am afraid when he says things like:
". . . a singlepayer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately."
Obama may be attempting to play a large segment of the Democratic party supporters as the same type of fools. There are enough successful single payer health care models around the world that if he wanted to, he could show direct evidence to the American people that this is the only moral and cost effective way to go.
But instead, just keep dangling that carrot just out of reach...and keep voting Democrat and it will pay off! It is an extremely effective way to ensure 3rd parties never garner a significant portion of the vote.
But as one of my favorite posters ends with, "But I could be wrong."
"this whole notion that I am shifting to the center"... "You know, the people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me."
Yes we did listen to you, Mr. O'Bama. And we found that your actions as rubber stamp senator did not match your words! So now we are turning off your microphone. This is a grass roots movement! We don't need you! We're reducing our "official" dollar exchange and doing more local barter style business with our neighbors. This helps shift the political power to the local level where it belongs. Washington is becoming less and less relevant by the day. At some point soon, instead of the people submitting to the elites, the elites will submit to the people. A complete turn-around on YOUR watch Mr. O'Bama, and YOU won't have to lift a finger! Social democracy is here to stay! Self-determination for all! The decline and fall of elite rule is imminent!