Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGet Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance
With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in Afghanistan, history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of Vietnam with an escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.
There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.
It was 16 years ago this month when Clinton assembled his coalition with the GOP to bulldoze public skepticism about the trade treaty and overpower a stop-NAFTA movement led by unions, environmentalists and consumer rights groups. How did Clinton win his majority in Congress? With the votes of almost 80 percent of GOP senators and nearly 70 percent of House Republicans. Democrats in the House voted against NAFTA by more than 3 to 2, with fierce opponents including the Democratic majority leader and majority whip.
To get a majority today in Congress on Afghanistan, the Obama White House is apparently bent on a strategy replicating the tragic farce that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place.
"Deather" conspiracists are not new to the Grand Old Party. Clinton engendered a similar loathing on the right despite his centrist, corporate-friendly policies. When conservative Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey delivered to Clinton (and corporate elites) the NAFTA victory, it didn't slow down rightwing operatives who circulated wacky videos accusing Clinton death squads of murdering reporters and others.
For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember the downward spiral that was accelerated by Clinton's GOP alliance to pass NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on Afghanistan.
NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of Clinton healthcare "reform" largely drafted by giant insurance companies, which was followed by a stunning election defeat for Congressional Democrats in November 1994, as progressive and labor activists were lethargic while rightwing activists in overdrive put Gingrich into the Speaker's chair.
A year later, advised by his chief political strategist Dick Morris (yes, the Obama-basher now at Fox), Clinton declared: "The era of big government is over." In the coming years, Clinton proved that the era of big business was far from over - working with Republican leaders to grant corporate welfare to media conglomerates (1996 Telecom Act) and investment banks (1999 abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act).
Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans. Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.
As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.
Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, but President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like "compromiser-in-chief."
When you start in the center (on, say, healthcare or Afghanistan) and readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.
It's been a gradual descent from the elation and hope for real change many Americans felt on election night, November 2008. For some of us who'd scrutinized the Clinton White House in the early 1990s, the buzz was killed days after Obama's election when he chose his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, a top Clinton strategist and architect of the alliance that pushed NAFTA through Congress.
If Obama stands tough on more troops to Afghanistan (as Clinton fought ferociously for NAFTA), only an unprecedented mobilization of progressives - including many who worked tirelessly to elect Obama - will be able to stop him. Trust me: The Republicans who yell and scream about Obama budget deficits when they're obstructing public healthcare will become deficit doves in spending the estimated $1 million per year per new soldier (not to mention private contractors) headed off to Asia.
The only good news I can see: Maybe it will take a White House/GOP alliance over Afghanistan to wake up the base of liberal groups (like MoveOn) to take a closer and more critical look at President Obama's policies.
157 Comments so far
Show AllI think there is far too much complaining and whinging going on in America. People in East Germany didn't whine and complain about how bad it was. They taught each other, met secretly all across the country, created a non-centralized movement based on a common ideology. Then they carried out actions, independent of other groups but in concert with them nonetheless. If you are aware of the sham that is your "Democracy", then you need to agitate for real Democracy. That means teaching your fellows, locally, secretly, in churches, homes, and non corporate places, about the movement you want to build and adding to your numbers. Don't use the internet for planning, as that is watched and is under corporate control. Study what other successful, people's movements have accomplished and how they did it, adapt your strategies from theirs, and get out there and Do it!
The left/right Republicrat duopoly is a farce. I voted for Ron Paul.
Troops home by now.
Border secured.
FED brought up on charges.
Tax code revamped or minimized.
And on and on...
Nice going Republicrats.
The operative phrase in this article (and the sad reality) with reference to our compromiser-in-Chief: "you are governing as a conservative"...
again, who will have the courage to come forth now and oppose obama in the 2012 new hampshire presidential primary?
.
I'm in my early 40s and I'm starting to understand why my father stopped voting. I'll keep voting locally, but I'm about done at this point. I've been letting my democratic senators know that if I see nothing from the party in terms of disciplining Lieberman, et all, and if I don't hear Dems attacking Obama for his selling out that I'm just not going to vote for them anymore. I have a feeling that a lot of dems are going to follow suit and this next election will go heavily repub, although it's also going to start going heavily isolationist as well, although maybe not as bad in 2010, depending just how much worse things get in that time.
The elites are arrogantly presuming that A. their rigged ship will stay afloat, and B. there won't be a mass abandonment of Obama, Congress, and politics in general, that will leave them with far less control than they think. REAL CHANGE is coming, unplanned real change raw and hard. Maniacs like Palin may get in power, but also very competent, tough, and possibly violent new faces of ALL persuasions.
However, what was true under GW is still true. It makes more sense to have this ship run more horribly aground than to deal with this kind of distortion and putting off the reckoning. Obama could have had many independents and right-wingers, but instead he has stained the democratic party name beyond recognition, and he's doen it in months, not years. Think of a generation of young people radicalized by this lying.
The old are not gonna get a whiff of sympathy anywhere.
Since the repubs are also stained, there might be something else available, but its not gonna come until after all hell breaks loose, so maybe there is no answer. I dont think martial law is feasible, which means areas stop obeying federal law, especially taxation. Then what? Now that the dems have made lefty solutions look unworkable, all that's left is rightist dictatorship, but that's not viable either, even with our jails and police, it just can't be done, without drafting youth. Of course, there will be many stupid to go to 'preserve the (corporate) union'.
The only thing that prevents this is a miraculous recovery within two years, but that's not coming. If anything, it will be worse. Obama could have met the challenge head on, and claimed obstruction, but he cant do that now that he bought in on so many levels. And now more soldiers will burn up in afghanistan, and that's gonna be daily death for years. The man AND his wife AND Biden are complete idiots and cowards. Fate help us all.
I agree. Especially with Obama's lying turning young people against the Dems and wrecking the party. (Or perhaps, as Jeff Cohen says, transforming it into a DLC/GOP allied, all-corporate party.)
I appreciate that you are contacting your Senators and informing them of your wishes and intentions.
Too often I read posts advising leftists to stop being politically active. Stop voting, stop calling your representatives, stop writing letters to editors, stop calling talk radio shows, stop attending meetings and protests, stop organizing.
I don't have proof, but I suspect some of these advisers are right-wing operatives who are simultaneously advising the right just the opposite: DON'T stop organizing, calling, writing, attending meetings, protesting and most importantly, voting! Work hard and we (the right) will win.
There's a lesson there.
"stop calling your representatives, stop writing letters to editors, stop calling talk radio shows, stop attending meetings and protests"
Some of it can be done but at a certain point, one has to ask themselves if the efforts are actually paying off or if a new course of action and replacements are needed. None of us on this site have ever said to stop doing any of it. There is no harm in doing all that and being courageous enough for it but instead of chastising people by saying "well, you're not doing enough of it", try giving them credit for doing their level best and figure out the next recourse. You can write, email, call, etc... your representatives and senators day and night but at some point, it has to be realized that all this effort isn't going anywhere and that those pols are puppets. Maybe I'm doing the wrong thing but I generally prefer to keep fighting for true progressives and liberals in local, state, and federal elections along with trying my level best to get my existing representation to pay attention. As for calling talk radio shows, what makes you think that all the progressives calling people like Limbaugh and Beck will change a thing? Instead of listening to their talk shows, why not encourage people some of whom may be your own best friends or loved ones away from them and convince them to think and act progressively? By doing that, they can be immune from rightwing hate talk.
I don't know about you but I prefer to help third party progressive independents win by helping them think non-politically and focusing more on getting people to view elections without the politics to poison them every time rather than trying to repair puppet pols and begging staunch rightwing talk show hosts to go liberal.
Cohen is missing a big point in his Clinton NAFTA-push lesson. Clinton ignored his political base and objections from progressives to pass NAFTA. Did voters remember it? No, they reelected him.
Cohen's observation that Obama is a Clinton-style corporate Democrat is clear and obvious. Obama makes inspiring speeches and pushes horrible policies. Meanwhile, the base gets fucked while he smiles.
Given all of that, why does Cohen feel that pressure tactics will work? We saw Obama quickly dismiss single-payer healthcare financing when he got some pressure on that issue.
People just aren't represented by the Dems/Repugs. Period. It's no coincidence that we'e seeing a repeat here. This is the ugly nature of today's Democratic Party.
Given the last Presidential election, where third parties got so few votes, I expect little public resistance to Obama's ugly policies. Any such resistance would be ignored anyway. Let's be clear about the Dems, please. They didn't reverse the Bush policies when they gained power, and they're working to continue them under Obama. You can't appeal to that, short of open revolt in the streets, or third-party support.
-TIA
It's a waste of time to argue whether Clinton would have been worse than Obama. It's a waste of time to argue the merits of Nader or Kucinich or Feingold or McKinney, of Democrats versus Green Party or some new party. Is it not obvious by now that there is a power elite that controls both major parties, that the two parties do indeed play a bad cop/good cop routine to disguise their collusion, that this collusion includes seeing to it that no third party candidate can be taken seriously, and that what we have on our hands is a corporate-government-media complex, in which each element protects the interests of the others? Thus Ron Paul and Kucinich were allowed to run, to perpetuate the illusion of actual choice, because the parties could keep them out of debates and the media could see to it that they were always presented in the light of a laughable, silly sideshow that nobody in their right mind would take seriously. Wellstone apparently was harder to cast in this light, and so the threat he represented was dealt with in a more secure way. Chomsky was right--since third party candidates are excluded from any chance at office, it was worth voting for Obama because McCain and Palin would have been more immediately dangerous--as long as you don't imagine your vote is likely to make any real difference. We desperately need a revolution, and it clearly will NOT come via the ballot box. That game is quite thoroughly rigged. But we can't get a revolution as long as a majority of the people in this country are walking around in a world of illusion.
So what is worth putting these frustrated energies into? I would say, setting up your personal situation to survive the coming crash, whatever form it may take (owning your home, getting out of debt, setting up your own renewable energy system, getting a garden going, making connections with a community) and working to create an alternative economy where you live--and trying to do some kind of public education.
I'd disagree that it can't come by the ballot box (I know the word you used was "won't", so do please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you meant by it).
It won't come *easily* by the ballot, that's for sure! But we must start there, because if we think it's hard to create solidarity for voting, how much harder would it be to create it for blood in the gutters? Most people don't even begin to think it's bad enough for that because killing neighbors during ordinary times is the act of a madman.
The only way people might be willing to go for a bullets revolutions is to first go through the steps of getting everyone together at the ballot box so that a certain outcome (single payer and an end to adventurism, for example) is patently, plainly, inarguably the Will Of The People -- but then have that will thwarted. If people vote in solidarity only to have the ruling class say We don't care what you want, then and only then would the position be clear.
Would the ruling class do something so stupid? A number of people including Galbraith thought they would. Alinsky didn't, he saw most of the ruling class as at least somewhat practical and willing to give a little in order not to lose everything. So I don't know how it would all play out. But if they did give in, then that's the best outcome and we move forward to the next thing. Whereas if Galbraith was correct, and they'd sooner risk the lot, then at least most people would be of one mind through having done their damnedest to play it straight, and would correctly feel that natural law is on their side.
I can see one possibility and that is if women take a much more active part in the political process. Barbara Ehrenreich's article yesterday points out so many things that should bind women (and men who are not complete ass-----) together in a political movement to further the wellbeing of the nation.
"it was worth voting for Obama ..." Guess what. That makes you part of the problem.
I think your comment is absolutely on point. I would in fact, like to chat some with you. I set out some time back to accomplish the things you list in your last paragraph and have done 5 of the 7 and have the other two in process, but I watch my children and all but despair at their almost willful ignorance as to what is happening to their and their children's future. Thinkersixty@aol.com Collaboration is needed. Almost all of my time goes to making a living, but I see a future that is not pretty. dh
Common Dreams is a playground for the pampered pusillanimous
patrons of the so called avant-garde faux progressives.
The neocons, both Dem and Pub must be cowering in fear when they see how organized and positive people on the left are.
I know there is always alot to complain about but it is surprising that it is what at least 90% of these posts are doing.
Whatever!
You are not political if you just complain! You are not avant-garde if you are hipper than than a yuppie! Do something or come up with new ideas!
Oh yeah, sorry to offend anyone. Goddam pussycakes!
jasondylan
jasondylan
Just because people are complaining here doesn't mean we aren't also doing things to improve the world. I gave up my car, live in a co-op and am very politically active. I continue to write letters to the US government even though I moved the hell away from the US during the Bush years.
You talk a lot but you don't seem to be saying anything.
I hope people will not be misled by Obama's apparent moderation of McChrystal's demands to think that he is not acceding to a prolonged war, devastating to both us & them. What is not being brought to the table is the massive deployment of mercenaries in every aspect of the conflict which has gone on & will go on & will not be accounted for. The extent of our involvement can be totally hidden from public scrutiny.
The second time I've replied to one of your comments -- and,given the succinct wisdom in what you write, undoubtedly not the last time I do so.
The key to perpetuating the criminal cabal we refer to as "government", is to somehow reach out to all Americans to reject any candidate who is a corporate choice. Until we can actually place candidates in office whose first allegiance is to the public interest, corporate policy will continue to be government policy. The rest of the world sees America as a product of corporate ideology via a corporate media, yet the American public in general still doesn't get it!
Of course the corporate media sets the agenda based for the most part on ideas the Rand corporation think tank comes up with for the corporate media to pass along. Another big problem is the public really believes it is truly informed about what's actually going on - HAH! Media infotainment facilitates the dummy down syndrome which is aided by the fact the media knows Americans have historical amnesia. So what goes down comes round - again and again. The costs of Vietnam pushed the health care reform ideas inherent in LBJ's "Great Society" off the table. The costs of pursuing an escalated Afghanistan policy will also push whatever steps might have been taken for true health care reform into oblivion as well. Both parties serve corporate interests first and foremost. Then if barricades are erected the power elite shares a few crumbs to the masses to diffuse the possibility of true overhaul of the system.
Obama is the best Republican president that we have had lately - not that it would have made much difference if another dem candidate had won. Voters need to remember that during his campaign, Obama said that he would INCREASE the military budget. That's the one campaign promise he is keeping.
About Move 0n...they are just another part of the military/political complex. They are pro-war, pro-capitalism, pro-insurance companies.
You're right. He also said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and unilaterally attack Pakistan. And, don't forget his praise for Ronald Reagan, whom he said advanced "noninterference with the marketplace [as] an article of faith."
But, it would have made a difference if another Dem had won. Hillary Clinton would have been much better than Obama. Of course, Dennis Kucinich would have been better still.
Hillary Clinton openly advocated doing all of the same things as Obama.
Absolutely false. That's the kind of smear that helped get Obama elected. Way to go.
Hillary was for both wars, she was for the Patriot Act, she was for the bailout. It's not a smear if it's the truth.
Please explain how Hillary's approach on any significant issue was different. Furthermore, her campaign was as shameful as Obama's presidency has been. Dodging sniper fire? Puh-lease.
CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED — January 2005 through 2008 (while all three were Senators)
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
I get the sense that we are all children in the audience watching a puppet show and yelling at how the puppets have no will of their own.
Who are the puppeteers? How can we cut our strings and go after them? Yelling at the puppets isn't going to do it. Actually, it's part of the show that the puppeteers staged.
Sad but true, Barack Obama is turning out to be the worst of LBJ and the worst of Bill Clinton all rolled into one.
You left out Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter, for his faults was the best of the unremarkable president in my lifetime. Please give his so-called "malaise" speech a read (featured on Moore's latest movie) Could any president give such a frank and truthful address to the whole nation today?
We wouldn't be worrying about peak oil, and maybe AGW, today if we had carried his domestic energy policies forward. But yes, there also was the Carter doctrine...
Bring America Back !!!!
****If Jeff Cohen can't already visualize the alliance of Team Obama to the Right Wingers, then he has been too busy building snowmen up in Ithica--the snow belt.
****You do NOT campaign on Change to Believe In then:
======Keep as Sec of Def the same radical Neocon warmonger, as was appointed by King George the Bush, Robert Gates.
======Appoint as Sec of the Army another Neocon Repubby.
======Keep the same boots on the ground Gen Betrayus and MCChrystle, and expect a different military analysis.
======Appoint an incompetent Sec of State who lied about coming under enemy fire at Baghdad, and whose best diplomacy on Iran is recorded as: "We will just obliterate them" !!!! Sure Hillary, sure !!
***Vote for Immunity for Felonious Wiretapping crimes ! Cave In to Big Telecons.
***Throw Single Payer Healthcare under the campaign bus !
***Refuse to investigate Busch/Cheney war crimes, and various constitutional law violations.
***Join the DC Culture of Corruption instead of thwarting it as promised, as promised, as promised !!!!!!!
***Fail to admonish Zion Israel for Genocide at Gaza !
***Make your first speech after becoming the Nominee of your party, before AIPAC--the radical right wing Zion organizational Lobby which controls US policy in MidEast!
If Cohen has not yet observed, suffered through, and
witnessed Team Obama giving us the Third Term of King George, then he has no concept of what an Alliance really is !!!! And, IT STINKS !!!!!! We do not need another 40,000 Troops to Afghan to tell us that ! Wise up!
TruthKnoller, why don't you get your facts straight? You're repeating right-wing and corporate-Democrat smears of Hillary Clinton that are preposterous and unconscionable. These are the same smears that helped get Obama elected, and you should stop making them.
Hillary Clinton did not "lie" about "coming under enemy fire at Baghdad."
First Lady Clinton visited Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996 (not Baghdad). At that time, Sharyl Atkisson of CBS News (who was along for the trip) reported "This is one of the most dangerous places where U.S. forces are operating. The President himself never made it this far inside Bosnia when he visited in January."
In her subsequent book, Clinton remembered a "hair-raising flight into Bosnia [that] ended in a corkscrew landing" and "landing under sniper fire."
Of course, in 2008 corporate media was backing corporate Obama and wanted to swiftboat Hillary. CBS's Atkisson claimed that Hillary's recollections of the Tuzla trip weren't true, reporting "Problem is, that's not what happened," and provided about twenty seconds of video showing Hillary on the tarmac at Tuzla greeting a little girl to "prove" it.
Problem is, Atkisson was lying. Numerous others (including CBS News staff) who were on that flight contradicted her, saying the armored C-17 that flew the First Lady's party into Bosnia did indeed make a corkscrew landing to avoid sniper fire. Clinton was moved into the better-protected cockpit for the landing and all others were instructed to sit on their bulletproof vests. A greeting ceremony planned for the tarmac was moved indoors, also due to threat of snipers. Clinton stopped just long enough to exchange kisses with a little girl who was waiting to meet her.
Your claim that Hillary's "best diplomacy on Iran is recorded as: 'We will just obliterate them'" is also bunk. Taken in context, her remarks were simply a re-statement of long-standing U.S. policy on nuclear deterrence, and her meaning was quite the opposite of the one you suggest. Here is what she actually said.
[Hillary Clinton interview with Chris Cuomo of ABC News, April 22, 2008]
Cuomo: "Iran. Some language recently. You said 'if Iran were to strike Israel there would be massive retaliation.' Scarey words. Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that's supposed to suggest?"
Clinton: "Well, the question was 'if Iran were to launch a NUCLEAR ATTACK on Israel, what would our response be?' And, I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And, I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic."
Naturally,
First, so you don't think I have an axe to grind:
1. I "wrote in" Kucinich, so I did not vote for Obambi.
2. Obambi has been an MUCH worse disappointment, (from a progressive standpoint) than even I anticipated, and I do think Billary's got more balls than Obambi.
However, Hillary, like you, IS A LIAR.
So, instead of attacking TruthKnoller for not having his "facts straight," why don't YOU get your "facts straight."
Watch the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfaxA9Q-9AQ
Watch between 1:22 and 1:25, where Hillary LIES (just like you!):
"We basically were told to run to our cars--now that is what happened."
Except, as the above video shows, HILLARY WAS NOT TOLD THIS!!!!!!!!! Nor anything REMOTELY resembling this--BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SNIPER FIRE, BUT THERE WAS AN EXTENDED WELCOMING CEREMONY!
An 8 y.o. girl read a poem to Billary, gave her a rose, and formed part of a RECEIVING LINE!
And what kind of a (Palinesque?) mother would Billary be to take IT's 16 y.o. Chelsea into a "LIVE FIRE ZONE"? C'mon! Use your brain! The SS would never allow that, even if BILLARY would!!
As shown in the above video, and in the longer video (below), in MUCH greater detail, there was ALL KIND OF WELCOMING CEREMONIES and milling about, with dozens of people, including 16 year old Chelsea, and the 8 y.o. Bosnian "flower girl."
Longer video showing a casual, NON-SNIPER-PLAGUED welcoming ceremony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXbtwq8atkw&feature=PlayList&p=77F8482A94FCF8F7&index=1
To quote you, Naturally November, "Problem is..." YOU'RE A LIAR! Or VERY ignorant of the facts--which is it?
So, before you go accusing TruthKnoller (or anyone else) of not having their "facts straight" you should do a little fact-checking yourself.
Now, go collect your check from the DLC (with the special "consulting fee" you get from the Clintons, to be a PAID SHILL), and pipe down--uhm 'kay?
Because thoughtful adults are trying to have a serious discussion here, and we don't need the likes of you (either a PAID SCHILL or a VERY ignorant, confused, unfortunate rube) to force the sentient on this board to RE-EDUCATE AND REFUTE your LIES.
True Patriot
I've seen both those videos before. Neither shows a "welcoming ceremony" on the tarmac, as you falsely claim. Shaking hands with soldiers and exchanging kisses with an 8-year-old is not a welcoming ceremony. The welcoming ceremony was moved indoors.
As I previously said, there is no question that the plane took evasive action to avoid sniper fire. That is not in dispute. The occupants were told to wear their bullet-proof vests because of the possibility of sniper fire. That is not in dispute. Hillary Clinton was moved into the cockpit because it was better-armored. That is not in dispute.
Unless, of course, you choose to believe corporate media's twisted half-truths. The CBS reports neglect to mention any of these facts because they intended to smear Hillary. Face it. If CBS had wanted to tell the truth, they would not have left out the facts that corroborated her recollection.
Now, was there actually sniper fire directed at the landing C-17? We don't know. There's no way to videotape bullets fired at a landing plane from hillsides a thousand yards away. What we do know is the military took appropriate precautions because of the threat of sniper fire, and worse.
On a CBS News blog, Francois Bringer, the CBS News pool producer on the trip, recalled the C-17 "banking nose down towards the Tuzla air strip while dropping decoys to deter heat seeking missiles."
So yes, Hilary did put herself and Chelsea in harms way. That's what happens when you visit war zones. You don't think Americans were killed in Tuzla? Check out CBS's 1996 report of the trip, which called Tuzla "one of the most dangerous places where U.S. forces are operating." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic
There's a huge difference in the tone and emphasis of the 1996 report, compared to the 2008 reports. That's because in 1996 CBS saw Hillary as a courageous First Lady, and in 2008 they saw her as a threat to their corporate empire.
Bottom line, it would have been more accurate if Hillary had said the plane landed under THREAT of sniper fire, and the tarmac greetings were cut short due to THREAT of sniper fire. But, that's kind of a "distinction without a difference" when the first shot from a sniper could mean your death.
Now, as to Hillary's recollection that "we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles," the 2008 CBS reports claim that didn't happen. But, since CBS maliciously left out other pertinent facts I don't know why we should believe them. They shot and edited the videotape, after all.
Here is what Hillary said when the CBS smears came out, in reply to questions from the Philadelphia Daily News:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac, but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I made a -- I took her stuff and then I left. Now that's my memory of it... Now, I went to eighty countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a mistatement."
I think this statement is more than generous. By the way, as First Lady she visited eighty countries!!? When she said that in 2008, Obama had never once visited Europe ... not even as a tourist.
What's most important here is corporate media's control over a gullible electorate. They wanted corporate Obama, and Hillary was the only real obstacle to his corporate presidency so she had to get smeared.
It's like their treatment of Howard Dean's "scream" during the 2004 election campaign. They take a video clip and maliciously misinterpret it, and they do it repeatedly until finally the smear becomes the reality. In Dean's case, his enthusiasm at a campaign rally was transformed into a "mental illness." Guess what, corporate media didn't like Howard Dean either.
I don't see how progressives can ever win if we can't properly distinguish between candidates. Sucking up corporate media's pablum isn't getting us there. Repeating and even embellishing their lies isn't getting us there.
I've posted here many times a comparison of the Senate voting records of Hillary, Obama and McCain. Obama's voting record was closer to McCain's than to Hillary's. That's just the fact of the matter.
I think that covers anything you said of substance. I voted for Nader the last three times, by the way.
Furthermore, the video footage shows her calmly exiting the plane before meeting with the girl you mention and kissing her, and her description of it, I quote: "We ran with our heads down to get cover."
Here is Hillary Clinton's own words about the lie about sniper fire:
"I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently," Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a "different memory" about the landing.
"So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation."
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2540811420080326
Yes, as it turns out Obama was a liar too. But your contention that Hillary would be better is ludicrous. What exactly are you trying to point out with your quotation about attacking Iran? Are we supposed to be impressed that Clinton says "if I'm the president, we will attack Iran" ?
Oh yeah, now you've convinced me: Hillary is great!
Hillary Clinton is a 'Friend of The Family' a right wing religious sect with whom she often prays with. She is a cold warrior and is pushing hard for a war with Iran. She is not progressive at all.
More smears that helped elect Obama. Way to go.
You JUST POSTED a quote from Hillary saying that she will attack Iran, and now when someone else points out that she will attack Iran you call it a smear.
That's NOT what she said. Can't you read?
C'mon, Naturally, you are sounding like some gender politicking dead-ender here. HRC is pro-NAFTA, pro-war and pro-Wall Street. You can cherry-pick her voting record, but she would have been if anything worse than Obama if she had been elected. If your idea of a "smear" is calling someone out about their record, then you might as well vote for Sarah Palin in '12.
My idea of a smear is misrepresenting someone's record. That's what these posters did, and I proved it with the facts. Lying about someone is not "calling them out on their record."
Now, you continue the smears. For example, I informed (below) that Hillary voted for the Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, which would have PREVENTED any NAFTA-like trade deals in the future, while both Obama and McCain voted against the amendment. Yet you stupidly claim she is "pro-NAFTA."
I informed (below) that Hillary voted for the Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, which would have REQUIRED withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by June 2008--the only bill to require withdrawal from Iraq that Congress ever voted on. (McCain voted against it and Obama declined to cast a vote.) Yet you stupidly claim she is "pro-war."
Pro-Wall Street? Who could possibly be more pro-Wall Street than Obama? You must be blind and deaf not to know what Obama has given to Wall Street. Yet you stupidly claim, without a shred of evidence or reason, that Hillary would be "worse than Obama."
"Cherry-pick her voting record" my ass! The votes I chose to compare were the most important votes of the time. If you don't think those issues are important you're not a progressive.
Thanks again for putting Obama in the White House so he can form an alliance with the GOP. Nice going.
Bill Clinton comparisons aside, Obama increasingly appears to be a one term failure. He was elected on progressive hope and has gone about the business of implementing Bush Lite. This is not what we had in mind when we pulled the lever for him. I expect a mass exodus of disenchanted progressive voters in 2012. Turn your back on your progressive base and you are left to bootlick the GOP. I don't think this strategy will work in the next election. Our only hope is that someone in the democratic party or a progressive independent can challenge him. Otherwise, be prepared for president palin or president jeb. His goose is pretty much cooked and he's less than one year in. One only look at healthcare reform and his Afghani run up to realize his presidency was stillborn. Bad times, getting worse.
It's time for a very noisy Dump Obama in 2012 movement among Progressive Democrats. Let's not wait until 2011 and risk dividing the party and electing a Republican. Let's loudly proclaim the civil liberties record of someone like Russ Feingold who has stood up for the reform Obama promised but lied about. And let's do all we can NOW to let Obama know there is no way we can support someone with his civil liberties record.
Bring America Back !!!!
****Yes lady.....we need to get Dennis Kucinich to declare himself prime challenger from inside the party==then we need to fiercely support and back him for the next three years==so the networks can't possibly close him out of the Debates.
**Russ Feingold is a mighty good Democrat but only raises issues when it suits him rather when it suits the Nation !! Much weaker than Kucinich ! Plus, you recall Feingold stopped his campaign for Pres. last election , for some unknown reason !
**They tell me Ralph Nader is too old to mount a serious campaign for Pres, but I think he just enjoys being the Bad Boy, waiting to the last minute, and puts his faux hat in the ring for the sheer fun of it. Just enough dissent to keep up public interest in his website, or whatever book he fells like writing next !
The time is NOW !!!!
Feingold's "unknown" reason was lack of funding. Not unknown at all.
Don't forget that Kucinich pledged his support to Obama after dropping out of the race in Iowa in 2007. Explain that one. Poor judgment? Moreover, despite having run for president twice now most Americans still don't recognize his name.
As to Nader, there is nothing "faux" about him. He is the genuine article, and his record of accomplishments in the public arena is second to none. He also has the highest name recognition, by far.
I don't think any of the three you list has the right stuff to make a serious bid. We need some sort of sleeper to arise from the ashes.
When your enemies have always stabbed you in the back before, making them your friends is just not going to work.
'"My gut feeling is it's worth keeping McCain out. He could turn out to be very dangerous."' -- Chomsky (as quted by Tarnopol.)
So,why didn't Chomsky just tell people to Green instead of voting for Obama or McCain?
He's basically telling people in 'unsafe' states to vote for Obama; why deny it?
Yeah, Chomsky's written good stuff (as have many others), but when he works at MIT (practically the research wing of the Miliary-industrial-complex), why make a saint of him? He is financially comfortable enough to quit, or at least make a little bit of a fuss about how his school contributes to the imperial war machine that he so righteously condemns in his book. Hell, my uncle, who worked as a lower-level engineer helping design choppers for Boeing quit his job in 1969 in protest at his company's huge involvement in the Vietnam carnage. With the loss in income, he also lost his house and wife. It's also called practicing what you preach.
If the president decides to continue and escalate the war in Afghanistan, either he should refuse to accept the Nobel Peace Prize or the Nobel Committee should withdraw it.
Has everyone forgotten that we bear a major responsibility for putting the Taliban in power in that country because we wanted the Soviets defeated? Has everyone forgotten that nasty as the Taliban subsequently were to their own people, they did not attack us? Has everyone forgotten it was Saudis that made up most of the 9/11 hijackers, not Afghans?
True, Osama had moved to that county, but has everyone forgotten it was not until AFTER we invaded that he admitted guilt in the 9/11 attack? Prior to the invasion, Bush demanded the legitimate government of Afghanistan, a sovereign government that we as well as almost everyone else in the world recognized as the sole legitimate government there, surrender Osama for trial or be invaded, as if we ourselves would ever have handed a visitor in the US over without a fight if for instance the Taliban had demanded we deliver, say, Salmon Rushdie, for punishment. They did not like his book called the Satanic Verses and considered that against their laws. What do you think our rightful response would have been without an extradition treaty?
Worst of all, has everyone forgotten that the Taliban according to news accounts offered to deliver him anyway if Bush would at least provide some minimal evidence Osama had committed the crime (which is precisely what Bush would have had to show a court in the US if they had gotten hold of Osama)? It makes one wonder if Bush did not want Osama surrendered? That was the excuse after all for the invasion.
Has everyone forgotten that Bush said "No Conditions" when the Taliban raised that very correct issue? While we don't know if they would have actually done so since Bush never gave them a chance and started war within a relative few days so later, think how different the world would have been if Bush would have been slightly more patient before making us a world class villain and invader?
Cohen is very late to the party. I've been writing these same things about Obama since February 2008.
The REAL Obama was right there for everyone to see . . . in his U.S. Senate voting record. Obama's voting record was closer to John McCain's than to Hillary Clinton's. That SHOULD have been all anyone needed to know.
Actions speak louder than words. In Obama's case, A LOT louder.
Cheers and a cup of coffee to SnoozingOn.
Jeff, "Where Obama is heading" is the $64 question, but we have a gold-plated answer already, don't we?
The man has made a year or so of decisions, not one progressive, not one has even centrist. 0bama's policies have not constituted compromise, but betrayal: in a compromise, one gets something.
Let's face it: 0bama works for his sponsors, not his voters. (If any other analysis fits his record since January, I would love love love to have it.) To move him, we have to make something that his sponsors use grind slow or stop functioning.
Until or unless we can gather the mass of people around one issue or another that might do that, I'd suggest we work towards public referenda to get the $$ out of local elections, and thus work from the edges towards the center.
But what will Beck do?
ONE PARTY GOVERNMENT ---- TWO PARTY SMOKE SCREEN
When the rich slave owners formed our Republic, there was only the
Republic party for the rich, as only they could vote or hold office.
Then later when white men of moderate wealth were allowed to vote,
to give the illusion that excessive wealth capitalism was also democratic
equality, our one party government took the name Democratic-Republican
Party.
Then in 1828 when our capitalist dictatorship decided to create
the illusion of a two party government, they had half the politicians
form the Democrat Party and the other half the Whig Party.
Then to further the smoke screen, the Whig party became the Republican
Party.
All a grand smoke screen by our rich ruling class, for now as always the
Republicans push hard toward the conservative right, and the Democrats coast
in neutral. And always do we end up with the unregulated freedom for the rich
to compete for excessive wealth, as in this excessive profit healthcare reform.
So what say we form the Social Democracy Party, and drive all those
paid actor capitalist politicians square out of government?
I like it.
Capitalism's "Business As Usual."
The two elite parties have been allied against the people for thirty years. The theater company works as a team. The people consider it a talented troupe for whatever entertainment value remains in the wake of its supercrimes: spilled blood, biosphere rape, and mass enslavement.
On Thanksgiving, the people are thanking themselves for the past year's progress in building mass awareness, local economies, worldwide peasant solidarity, and the universalist/socialist alter-establishment, including public domain knowledge.
Obama will only be a one term President.
2010 will be interesting. Am I optomistic? It won't be q total washout but our problems will be far from over. Some incumbants will be thrown/ voted out of office, but too many will still be around.
A huge problem we're about to face. "The Supreme Court"
Google- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Time for Progessive to start playing non stop heavy metal in their heads.
Representative government without bribe controls can only represent the rich
A Prediction for "Healthcare Reform":
If this proposed healthcare bill becomes law for an extended time period, most of the poorer new participants will acquire 5000 dollar (or higher) deductible policies with large copays. These will become the new standard in health "insurance".
Within a short time, the politicians will propose that the "defined benefit" Medicare system be replaced with "defined contribution" vouchers for seniors to buy policies on the insurance exchange. Most seniors will wind up with those high deductible policies because they won't be able to afford better policies with their vouchers.
In general, most people will wind up having to pay for all but their worst healthcare problems completely out-of-pocket. Since poorer people and seniors will not have that out-of-pocket money, they will neglect their healthcare. Soon, seniors will be dying much younger than now, and that may be the real underlying idea in all this, cutting entitlements. High deductible policies might have worked 50 years ago when costs were minuscule, but it's way too late for them to be adequate now.
The Republicans will probably be the party to suggest replacing Medicare with vouchers while the Democrats scream, but it's this Democrat plan now that will lay the groundwork for this. The whole routine is called, "Good cop, bad cop," and both parties are really in on it ...
Sioux Rose
RV: For years my accountant has tried to convince me to declare more income to beef up the numbers so I get medicare. I told her I don't think there will be anything left by the time I retire. Your post represented a different take on that same perception.
When we walk into any medical person's office, even some massage therapist's, we're expected to fill out a long form list of any illnesses or surgeries we've had.
If we lived in a representative republic respectful towards democratic ideals then this might be the blueprint for a hypothetical insurance form in the future. It would itemize those industries that due to dereliction of duty assume a portion of the costs of our medical needs, by relating some of the following toxic conditions & exposures:
1. Do you live downwind of a nuclear test site?
2. Do you live close to any industrial source of potentially contaminated ground water? Please state local industries ______________, the first time you noted any symptoms.
3. If you smoke, at what age did you start? Were advertisements any inducement towards this habit?
4. How often do you "dine" out on fast food? (Perfect for Diabetics and the obese)
5. Do you live within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant?
6. Has any Asbestos been used in local building materials?
7. How many vaccinations have you taken? Did you have any reaction to any of these?
8. Do you suspect that any of your food has been biogenetically altered? Were you to know of this circumstance, would you still have purchased/ingested said items?
9. Is your area in the path of any overhead insecticide spray campaigns?
10. (for gun shot victims): Do you frequently hear gun shots? How many in your neighborhood have been shot in the past 6 months?
11. Does your city list air quality? With what frequency have warnings been issued against those who suffer from Asthma?
The list could go on and on. My point is that a series of factors now work in concert to effectively break DOWN the health of citizens. Until the science catches up, I think most of us see a relationship between the rising cancers and the equally rising uses of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and other "cides" that are all quite obviously toxic. The vast majority of these chemicals build up in fatty tissues, and that's one reason for the high incidence of breast cancer.
My point is that the individual owns a SHARED liablity towards his or her health given the chemical soup we all live, respire, drink, and sleep in these days. Let the perpetrators OWN some of the costs of a generic public health care "clean" up campaign! It should run parallel to a newly muscular EPA and FDA there to regulate what's dangerous for citziens, as opposed to what's profitable to a morally bankrupt few.
Sioux Rose--Great perspective.
So right Siouxrose, they've stolen the commons and mostly ruined it. There is certainly a shared responsibility. But economics calls all these things externals. What a system to build a pyramid out of the living to support the vulture capitalists and they are all vulture captialists now. Which is actually a bad rap for vultures who provide a useful function and were sacred to the goddess.
I agree with everything you said...except I don't at all think it will be republicans who essentially put the nail in the coffin of Medicare. It will be Obama.
Between the horrific economy (made far worse than it should have been by Obama) and his proclivities to be just like george bush, he's on track, very soon I think, to decimate not only medicare but social security.
I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's what keeps me awake at night and unable to get out of bed in the morning.
Yeah, he's got the first swing at the nail.
Lysistrata convinces the women of Greece to withhold sexual privileges from their husbands as a means of forcing the men to negotiate peace
You do not know the meaning of the word PEACE. Peace cannot be negotiated by force. Peace is negotiated by understanding and trying to find things to agree on without force. Lysistrata is wrong.
We're American. Withhold sex from American men and they rape and beat women more. Apparently Greek men are far more romantic and their women are far more adored than most American women. In my next life I’ll wish to be born in Greece. Thx for the tip.
In Greece, a man can dress as he pleases and women won't raise a hell about it. In America, if I choose to wear my kilt, some women think I'm gay. I can't wear my speedos with ease without women getting touchy about it but they can show off in tights.
This thread is a perfect example of the success of "divide and conquer". The ruling class has convinced Nancy above that it's not a tiny fraction of the population (that owns everything) that is source of our problems but rather half the population - that is, all men. 1% to just under 50%, that quite an achievement! The perception that violence is the sole arena of males is exactly why the ruling class put women like Hillary Clinton (and I would add to the list Madeleine Albright, who thought that the death of 500,000 children in Iraq was "worth it" for achieving US "goals" in the Gulf war). Feminists felt so sure of themselves about this that when questioned about the ultra-conservative reactionary Margaret Thatcher they said: "well, she's not a woman!"
Obviously, we live in a sexist (and racist) society, but we need to recognize that these prejudices have a structural purpose: to reinforce the status quo. People like Hillary Clinton and, Barack Obama for that matter, put a kinder/gentler MASK on what really happening: a systemic violence against, and theft from, the overwhelming majority of the world's population, including our own.
Tom gets it right. Men or women, power breeds contempt. Another thing. Last election, most feminist voters chose between Obama and Mccain while I chose Nader who actually respects feminists. So much for feminism.
Sioux Rose
TOM: Because a few women drunk on power and capable of adapting to the macho (strong on crime/ tough on defense) posture of leadership so necessary to patriarchal societies manage to get to the top of the junk heap HARDLY dismisses the critical arguments of feminists. Rape is a prevalent war crime. A disgusting form of porn is on the rise. Youngsters (of both genders, but mostly female) are sold into sexual slavery in many parts of the world. The number 1 reason women in America go to the emergency room is based on violent assault from their male partners.
Conflating what a handful of women do and have done in history with the basic status of women worldwide--and the very real need for equal rights, is neither fair nor a legitimate argument. It lacks courage, too; for you're basically trying to negate the value of the female experience and the HORRORS many of us confront. Most of us have been attacked, raped or nearly raped. This is NOT a pleasant part of our lives! Sexism is VERY much a staple of US culture and the media has largely returned to turning women into often willing sexual objects all over again. The strides feminists made have been inverted. Now naked dancers think THAT is a feminist act! As if adapting to the power structure and its INNATE MISOGYNY connotes freedom! Let me kiss my chains!
Hold it. There are more than a few women who are macho. Try living here in Colorado Springs. You won't meet a single woman who is truly feminist. Most of them are the macho brand.
"The number 1 reason women in America go to the emergency room is based on violent assault from their male partners."
Where are the numbers to prove that?
"The strides feminists made have been inverted. Now naked dancers think THAT is a feminist act! As if adapting to the power structure and its INNATE MISOGYNY connotes freedom! Let me kiss my chains!"
This is where I draw the line on feminism. How do you expect equality when you are asking for female to dominate men. Neither sex should dominate the other. That is what a good feminist and a good masculinist would say.
Men? Gee, with war mongering crooked political leaders like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, Jane Harmon, Ellen Tauscher, Dianne Feinstein, Carly Fiorina etc. we don't need no men do we?
Well said. A crook is a crook, man or woman.
Sioux Rose
NANCY: A lot of men in this forum downplay the very real dangers women face today and the incredible levels of violence aimed against them, even in that which plays out as sick fantasies of porn. How 'bout the Republicans honoring the contract among killers (Blackwater) over the woman who was gang banged in Iraq? Nice work, fellas. You sure know how to honor the fairer sex.
The irony in citing the example of Lysastrada is that the WOMEN gave in first! Men are pretty conditioned to invent reasons to go off to war, and there they can collectively burn enormous reserves of testosterone on the battle field. Women are left to swim in the springs to assuage their own "force." Sometimes absence makes the hearts grow fonder, otherwise, the familiarity breeds contempt. Of course if religions and civilization honored the Divine feminine, the rift between the genders would never have festered into a psychic wound that's lasted for millennia. Balance, harmony, and the teachings of complementary powers would have made for a very different world than the one we all find ourselves struggling within.
While you generally write good analysis in most of your posts, your post is a very discriminating claim based on hating men for giving women their freedoms and rights. Most women don't agree with this gender biased claim. How do you know who is male or female on this forum? You don't. Goddess Venus does not approve of male-hating bias. Please grow up and stop blaming men for everything. If it weren't for the good men who helped yesterday's women out, where would your freedoms be today?
Let me guess. You voted for Obama and are upset, right? Don't blame men for your poor voting skills. I voted for Ralph Nader while nearly all macho-feminists chose between Mccain (because of Palin) and Obama (because he was a member of the party that is supposed to help women).
Learn to respect men and understand them first before complaining about misogyny.
"....if religions and civilization honored the Divine feminine, the rift between the genders would never have festered into a psychic wound that's lasted for millennia. Balance, harmony, and the teachings of complementary powers would have made for a very different world than the one we all find ourselves struggling within."
It would be the world as it should be for a healthy species, instead of one in which a species is committing suicide (and in the case of humans, taking much of the organic world with it). We are indeed a failed species, and if what happened in Iraq doesn't shake people into realizing there's something very amiss, nothing will. The Science Fiction writer Ursula Le Guin imagined societies in which the female and male principles were will balanced. I'd recommend her books to those who would like to taste what a great world it could be. My favorites are The Left Hand of Darkness, and The Lathe of Heaven.
Sioux Rose
GEORGE: I appreciate your enlightened attitude. The key IS balance... this is hardly "men hating" as a few persons lacking intelligence in this forum have accused me of. Thank you for the book referral. It's now on my list... and happy holidays.
Obama's enduring legacy will be the advent of the 'One Party' state shorn of any pretense to the contrary.
The only thing left to ponder is whether or not it will have the honesty to admit it is a fascist state?
The sartorial elegance of the lawyerly corporate 'suit and tie' will replace the prototypical 'uniformed' regalia of its historical antecedents in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere.
But the effects will remain forbiddingly and appropriately chilling.
As they already are.
–(Jill Bains)
It may be medical white coats that replace the suit and tie but you are right.
Jeff is missing that Obama is actively furthering the Bush Cheney plan to deconstruct the country for the sake of the bankers and multinational. They have a plan for a single currency and totalitarian international control here (and elsewhere).
He is missing the role of the pandemic (and it is increasingly clear it was bioengineered) in giving power to the WHO (the multinationals and Rockefeller) to control this country at will under any declaration of emergency (no criteria or stopping point) but includes suspension of the Constitution and martial law. He misses we have military on the ground now for a flu the General predicted would come out of Mexico just weeks before it happened.
Obama declared a national emergency where there was none. The left didn't even notice. That's how effectively the pandemic ruse has fooled them. But he put us under the Stafford Act which suspended the Bill of Rights.
The ironic thing is that it is people on the right who see this best and are doing all they can to hold onto the Constitution and US sovereignty.
Can you please explain more or point to links about what you're saying about the pandemic and about Obama declaring a national emergency?
So corporate-owned Obama and the corporate-owned GOP might form an 'alliance' might they? Is that f**king so?
That's like saying Comedy Central and CBS might form an 'alliance,' despite the fact they're both controlled by National Amusements.
Some still just can't accept the fundamental truth that frankly they own the place...
But Frank, the show must go on. At least, that's what they keep telling us. We are indeed a nation of sheep.
Cohen says we need a massive movement of progessives to stop escalation in Afghanistan. That would be nice, but we shouldn't leave out the strategy of allying with anti-war conservatives and libertarians (like those at antiwar.com). A left/right alliance for peace and civil liberties might not succeed, but has a slightly better chance than these rump left things we're doing now.
"The tragic farce that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place."
This is the central issue with what is wrong with Obama's administration and why so many who voted for "change" are becoming ever-more disillusioned.
After five years of trying to "play nice" with far-right extremists, the GOP turned on Clinton and tried to remove him from office under the flimsiest of pretexts. Never mind that Clinton, like Obama is doing now bent over backward to give the frothing mad-dog right 90% of what they wanted. Ninety percent is just not good enough for a crowd that thinks they are ordained by God Almighty to hold dominon ove rthe rest of us.
And when they came after CLinton, the progressives just shrugged and let the tragic farce unfold. Why? Becasue of his compromises and cave-ins to the right over NAFTA and welfare "reform." Is it any wonder why the disaffected young are so quick to turn on candidates who run "progressive" canmpagns and then immediately begin to kow-tow to the forces that they supposedly defeated?
Obama's tragedy could turn out to be even bigger than Clinton's, becasue in '08, unlike '92 there was indeed a full-throated desire to stop the GOP-sponsored policies that have pushed our nation to the brink,Obama is indeed in grave danger of being the president who let the best opportunity of a generation just slip away.
Obama may well be in danger of being lynched by the very ones who voted him into power. It's nice to have a black president, but you have to have the right black president. This one more and more resembles the liveried slave who greets you at the front door of the plantation by telling you to go around to the back door.
To just characterize it as siding with the GOP is to ignore the whole picture. Like Vietnam, there were plenty of Democrats who sided with the president on Afghanistan and still do. The Democrats have a mathematical advantage to end the war but refuse to try it. That said, perhaps it would be better if we stopped caring about who is what party. Obama could switch to the GOP but so too can most Democrats in Congress by that definition and nothing would change. Both parties have gotten out of touch to the point of no return that I don't know what either one of them want to stand for anyway. We have a golden opportunity to throw out both parties in Congress next year and make a difference. 2012 will be taken care of depending on how 2010 is taken care of first.
The 'pain' of it all is that for a while, there is only a charade of a difference in either party and it is controlled by the corporate oligarchy and the only way away from that certified corruption of leadership would be to absolutely vote the 'old' out and start electing 'new' with real ideas about fixing this country and the world because, as I have said before, the current crew is so criminally compromised that once an election is over, the newly 're-elected' turn their backs on those that elected them and open their office doors to the lobbyists with their sacks of cash and commonsense, rationality and anything not corporate(especially as in corporate welfare) are thrown out the window.
In a way, it appears that Joe Lieberman became VP after all, or maybe co-President. Nothing to the Left of Joe Lieberman is ever even allowed consideration. Nothing happens anymore without Lieberman's agreement. Except for mouthing predictably vague happy talk on one hand and scolding on the other, Obama seems to have been relegated to some kind of robotic inoperability. He has nothing to say, does nothing, solves no problem, makes no "change" and gives no "hope".
Jeff Cohen is right to call for a massive mobilization, but from where, from who? Marches, media events, rallies and sit-ins are ignored or dispersed with "War on Terror" era ferocity by the police. Letters to the editor will get printed, but ignored. Your congressional reps and senators assign young, inexperienced staff to take your calls and read your emails, but at most they tally the votes. There's no engagement, unless you come with a big check and as the unions have found out, that still isn't enough. At best, they're not listening. At worst they are brutalizing us. What do we do, Jeff?
"Nothing to the Left of Joe Lieberman is ever even allowed consideration. Nothing happens anymore without Lieberman's agreement."
Why do you think Obama campaigned for Lieberman in 2006?
As for what do we do now - get active with the Green Party. Otherwise we are just asking for our government to swing back and forth from one corporate-sponsored party to the other every 4-10 years.
They have successfully marginalized third parties also. The rules governing our elections are arcane and self-serving for the elites. Vote counting in America is chaotic and stupid. Then there are is "winner-take-all". There is no possibility that real election reform will be allowed. After the 2000 debacle, congress passed HAVA, which actually made everything worse and ushered in the era of touch-screen voting.
The House and Senate rules, and party structures also prevent third party success. Independents like Sanders cannot get a bill moved; they can't get the party "leadership" even to hear these bills in committee. Even if you miraculously put a Green in the Senate for a term or two what could he or she do, aside from vote "No" on everything (since everyting coming out of Congress for the last 30 years has been an utter disaster - how else could they vote?).
We're already in lockdown in America. For some reason, we just don't know it yet.
Gotta run now and buy beer for the big game this weekend!
Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance
Get ready for what? The Republicans and the Democrats are one and the same.
People seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room here - unlike Clinton, Obama wouldn't ever get the cooperation of 70-80% of RepubliKKKans, however far to the neocon right he moves, for the simple reason that most of them think he should be shining their shoes or picking their cotton.
Let's not forget Noam Chomsky, the "great freedom fighter" of America, told everyone to vote for Obama. Seems Chomsky is also part of the Democrat-Republican duopoly. He's now getting paid very handsomely to attack Obama. Presidential elections are win-win scenario for Chomsky.
So, what next? The Republicans will get back into power, and then what? I will let Chomsky tell you: vote for the Democratic Party - it's your best hope!
staying_sane...
You need to do more work to live up to your name. Try watching this, for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNpNzDoH1II So, voters in swing states could vote against McCain, but with no illusions about Obama, if they followed Chomsky's advice. You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not true that Chomsky "told everyone to vote for Obama." To think that Chomsky, who voted Green in 2008, is part of the D-R duopoly is a claim I'd like to see supported by a scintilla of evidence.
When asked on Znet's sustainer forum how he was approaching the election, Chomsky wrote:
"My feeling is that it's worth keeping McCain out. He could turn out to be very dangerous. So if I were in a swing state, I'd vote against Bush [sic; he obviously means McCain], hence for whatever Democrat runs. Without enthusiasm. Since I'm in a safe state, the question is unlikely to arise, and there are other choices: abstention, an effort to contribute to some independent party, maybe other choices.
The whole matter is of secondary importance, in my opinion. The real issues lie elsewhere: in creating popular movements that will influence what elected officials do whoever they are, and work for more long-term changes in the sociopolitical/economic system.
NC"
More here: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/10/noam-chomsky-if.html and here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,583454,00.html
Rather strange statements for a "part of the Democrat-Republican duopoly."
Thanks.
I am repeatedly amazed how many people criticize Chomsky and how few criticize the ideas he actually states.
Chomsky, like Gore Vidal and millions of the rest of us, was fooled. Or rather, we all fooled ourselves. After eight years of Bush/Cheney it's not so hard to understand. Fear and desperation were the Democrats' most important allies.
Man of wealth and the class that rules, why concern yourself
with such a small matter as the words of a liberal you have
never allowed to speak on your corporate media? You are kept
rich, Noam is kept silent and life kicks on down.
Chomsky also listed his reasons why it was better to vote for Obama than McCain. You don't even attempt to do so in your smear; sort of like Vulliamy's recent smearing of Chomsky.
Karlof1
I have about three or four of Chomsky's works and agree that he is very good in criticizing U.S. imperial policy. But in other matters he is not so quick to challenge the party line. When asked his opinion about those who do not believe the official government conspiracy concerning the events of 9/11/01 Chomskty famously [or infamously] replied "who cares" regarding who was responsible and thought that it was totally insane to believe that anyone in the Bush administration could have had anything to do with those attacks [despite the fact that he never bothered to look closely at the evidence which probed what had happened on that day] . Apparently Chomsky thinks that even though the Bush administration had lied about practically everything under the sun they were suddenly going to start telling the truth about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
In early 1969 Chomsky was part of a group that was asked to consider what had happened regarding the Kennedy assassination. Chomsky, along with others, looked at photos which dealt with the murder. He was part of another visit that lasted several hours. But he declined to pursue that investigation which would challenge the Warren Commission's findings that Oswald had acted alone to kill Kennedy. One has to wonder if the powers to be had gotten to Chomsky by warning him off any investigation that would question the official events of Nov. 22, 1963.
I never claimed Chomsky was infallible; he's human, so that's impossible. I think the reason he steers clear of the controversies surrounding 9/11 and Kennedy's assassination is that it's easier to do that given all the other stuff he stays on top of than to pursue what may seem to him as a waste of energy. Of course, I think it was the CIA who killed Dag Hammarskjöld in 1961. It's been proven in court that the US Government killed MLK. There's the famous Operation Northwoods plan to kill US citizens to provide the needed provocation to invade Cuba. In 1988, the World Court convicted the USA of State Terrorism. And the dancing Mossad agents tell me 9/11 wasn't carried out by muslims with box cutters, although they made great patsies.
I think that is a vast over-simplification. Chomsky has identified the huge democratic deficit in our electoral system. The winner takes all election rules are rigged to favor two parties. The corporate media does not allow favorable coverage (or simply blacklists them) of non-duopoly candidates. The largely un-regulated election campaigns are the most expensive in the world by a huge margin. Non corporate candidates cannot raise the millions required to buy the election. The system is rigged and Chomsky has described this in detail for years.
And we ignore election fraud and a chaotic elections that have different rules for every county and state in the country. The US is the only so-called democracy not to have a transparent, standardized election system.
It is naive to believe that we have genuine democratic choice in the first place.
Although I voted for McKinney, I had no irrational expectations she would win, most people never heard of her. She was effectivley censored from the MSM. That is the sad reality.
Given the corrupt phony system, Chomsky made a practical decision. However I am not sure that McCain would be any worse than Obama. Sadly that was the only choice we have. If you vote non-duopoly like me, it is only symbolic.
Capitalism is a government that protects the excessive wealth of the upper half of society as they compete against those less intelligent, enrich themselves upon the misery of the lower class, and cause starving children by hoarding wealth.
“Babylon, land of deepest shadow and deep darkness,
where even light is like darkness.”
really?
I am no where near wealthy. Yet, the system seems to work offer opportunities and to better oneself and essentailly move up in society. It is working for me and many others.Perhaps many of the "lower class" in reality don't have the ambition to move up the class ladder.And these so called upper half actually create many jobs and opportunities for lower and middle and lower class by creating jobs from the result of starting business and investing.
if the upper class just started to spread the wealth around there would not be any real new wealth change nor any real new effect of more wealth in society
Wealth can be created and destroyed. It doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics! lol
If you don't bother to define "working," this kind of comment assumes as premise what it would set out to prove - if not in your thought, at least in what gets written.
All I get from this "working" is that you like the results, and unless I am missing something, you seem to think this has to do with your earning money. Similarly, all I get from your "not wealthy" is that you do not have as much money as you would like.
I'm trying not to jump to unfair conclusions, so let me give you the one that tempts me: You have plenty of money, you want more, and for some reason that seems to you too obvious to mention, you think that the rest of us should make sure the rules of the society continue to cater to that particular fetish.
There's probably something wrong with that analysis, but if you have given me anything outside of the stereotypic to show me what, I have missed it.
Plantation owners in 1700's Virginia created jobs, too. And yes, they defended their practices that way.
Born with high intelligence and the ability to compete, you have excessive wealth compared to the 25% of children in America who suffer some form of hunger. I like the lower half of society being born slow of thought, have no ability to compete and so have no wealth.
For we are all given a different level of intelligence as a test, to see if we pass our excess down to those less intelligent where it belongs.
RE: Wealth can be created and destroyed. It doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics!
This is true only in the world of "Fictitious Capital". The whole (taxpayer) bailout of banking was needed because the banksters believed that money could be made out of nothing. At some point the bubble bursts, the speculative market collapses and we fall painfully back to reality. Wealth starts with nature and the planet/nature is finite. It is a zero sum game. It is precisely because our economic system doesn't follow the laws of nature (eg, thermodynamics) that we have global climate disruption, massive species extinction, extreme concentration of wealth, famine, resource wars - you name it. You'll not get much support for your profligate Milton Friedman-ite ideas here on CD.
Oh, is that what they are. I thought they were the ramblings of a half literate fool.
"Upper half of society"? Excuse me??? That would a be vast improvement. That would mean a strong middle-class. The reality is more like 1% or even a fraction of one percent. "Less intelligent"??? If you're born rich you don't need intelligence. Look at the GOP, no better example of a group of rich stupid people.
"Most of the world is capitalist, and most of the world is poor." - Michael Parenti
There's one important distinction.
Clinton forged his alliance at the height of the Republican Revolution. Goofy neocon ideas like free trade had swpt through the Democratic Party like a nasty flu.
They were all doing it. Remember how Al Gore embarrassed the hapless Ross Perot in their Vice-Presidential debate? How funny it was that this upstart third-party candidate should dare to question the gospel of free trade!
This was Al Gore--not Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter was also doing it. Virtually the whole damn party was doing it. The Republican Revolution was approaching its zenith. Milton Friedman was a genius and life was an Ayn Rand novel.
I'm not saying this justifies Democrats acting like neocons. But it's useful to remember how utterly BURIED in neocon memes we were back then--and with no internet to help us. Most people honest-to-God believed the United States had turned into a nation of guys in pick-up trucks. Bill Clinton was a Democratic fish swimming in an ocean of conservative memes. It made a certain amount of sense that he might have to adapt to the circumstances.
But Obama has no such excuse. Everything is different now. The Republican Revolution has crashed and burned beyond all belief. The Republican Party was on its knees, broken and bleeding and utterly disgraced, when Obama came along.
And yet the Bammer has gone on to do things that make Bill Clinton seem like Dennis Kucinich. Handing trillions to the banksters, for example. Or continuing war crimes and fascist policies. Or refusing to sign the treaty against landmines, which I just heard about this morning. It's just one big gross-out after another--from a man who posed as a progressive, no less.
Republican alliances should be especially easy for Obama, because Obama is basically a neocon.
As Senator, he voted for the Cheney energy bill, which no Democrat would do.
In fact, no Democrat in history has done such far-right things as Barack Obama--and all this AFTER the Republican Revolution had been disgraced. In everyone's eyes but the President's, it would seem. Obama says great things; but he's a flaming neocon.
As for Obama hiring Clinton holdovers: isn't it odd that Clinton had such success with the same peope who are ruining things now? How did Clinton turn the biggest deficit in history into the biggest surplus and preside over the longest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history, with higher income at all levels, etc., with these nincompoops working for him?
It'sd clear Obama will accomplish none of the things Clinton did. Did the Clinton advisers lose their mojo, or is Obama just a bad leader? Don't ask me; I voted for Cynthia McKinney.
History will show that in the Rise and Fall of Empire USA
that our high water mark in grandure were the glory years
of 1950 until 2008.
And so, as our record military budget of $1.4 trillion is
pumped into the world's largest killing machine, as it
expands to protect all the wealth and oil we have plundered,
as the purpose of this world is to prove the harm in it,
are we not doing the will of God?
Sioux Rose
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen of the cosmic jury...
Here we find a sampling of another "Mr. Smith," one programmed to countenance the premise of the Deity in combination with a rationale for war, holy war (of all oxymorons) at that!
And which of the 12 semblances of Source most resonates with this martial proposition? Why MARS, god of war, of course.
It may seem like myth, a distant abstraction to say that in America Mars rules, but there are an awful lot of Mr. Smiths cum Alabama-johns hatching from The Matrix.
God? I did not realize God was a foreign policy maker. I though God was that old white dude on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
Very recently, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein proclaimed that he was doing "God's work."
Also: the Obama admin. announced that it will recognize the upcoming sham elections held in Honduras held by the illegal military coup regime. The US never called for the legal Presdient (Zelaya) to be returned to office. The US supports dictatorship
Once again, we see democracy thwarted by the USA, which has indirectly supported a military coup. All the while the Orwellian language used to justify this BS.
We see expanding imperial military presence in Colombia as well.
Again, it seems the D administration is even more war-mongering and imperialistic than Bush Jr.
is your hope half-full or half-less?
The author is a little behind the curve here and a bit naive.
The larger picture is clear; the ruling D/R Duopoly are part of the same group of interests and provides a convenient facade of democratic choice. A "good cop, bad cop" routine.
Obama has already allied himself with right-wing Democrats and Republicans.
He re-appointed a long-time Bush family crony as Secretary of the Empire: Robert "uncle Bobby" Gates. That should have sent a clear message. The D Congress approved a record high budget for the Penatagon and imperial aggression and occupation.
On that criteria alone we can say that the Obama regime is even more imperialistic than Bush, just follow the money.
Oh, and the Obama admin is escalating the war of occupation in Afghanistan,
The Obama administration announced that the US again REFUSES T) SIGN THE CONVENTION TO BAN LAND MINES! (as did Clinton and Bush Jr.) We will be one of the only countries, (Somalia? Israel?) not to do so. How lovely.
Can someone tell me how the D Congress and Obama regime is better than Bush? (and we don't even have to talk about the health care fiasco, or Geithner/Summers/Rubin.
RE: Can someone tell me how the D Congress and Obama regime is better than Bush?
Yes. They have better diction.
Bingo! Diction won the prize.
I agree with your "larger picture". I had hoped it wasn't the case, and that Obama would not be just another cog. Unfortunately that's not the case. BUT...how do you explain people like Kucinich, Feingold, and other true progressives? I would think that if there were really "bosses" who direct the actions of the D/R duopoly someone would have the guts to speak out about it, especially Kucinich, McKinney, Feingold, etc.
McKinney has been a Green Party member for some time now. Kucinich is almost alone.
Feingold etc.? I do not consider him progressive, but rather moderate to conservative.
Would you trust any market to just two corporations? I don't.
I don't trust a collusionary two-party public relations corporation in producing democratic choice.
*** Three points need to be stated.***
1. The increased disdain from the republicans is inevitable because, as was the case with Clinton, the republicans are so greedy for every bit of power in this world that the idea of their policies of domination being implemented by someone who will not admit that he is one of them (a liar) is a constant, intolerable (the key word!), reminder of being out-manuevered. In a sense, they have been out-corrupted.
2. Mr. Cohen and the vast majority of democrats are STILL resisting the obvious. Not only was Obama blatantly working as a tool of corrupt corporations BEFORE the elections of 2008 - voting to give immunity to the telecoms which illegally (and unConstitutionally) participated in spying on us and eagerly pushing, at Bush's side, to pour HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars (which, in reality, we are borrowing from China) into the pockets of criminals from Wall Street, there is now a huge post-election record of pandering and worse (Obama's cabinet and their firm support of the worst policies from Bush and Clinton).
So, here we have Mr. Cohen, who I have no reason to think is duplicitous, using words like "Obama seems" when we need to be saying "Obama IS" and saying "it is crucial to ask where Obama is headed" when it is well past time to "ask" anything about this "pragmatist" liar.
3. The republicans are a black hole. There is only a small number of members of the democratic party who are people of integrity. You can no longer point at third party candidates and blame them because YOU are being fooled by either of the two dominating monsters of corporate greed.
I hate to seem like a broken record, but this must be emphaticly stated by many more than just myself: Obama is Public Enemy #1. As you say in point 2, Obama was grooming himself to become the new Public Enemy #1 well before the election, which is why those of us who noticed didn't vote for him. As Cohen shows, he's likely to become a worse regressive than Clinton.
Obama represents the new--Changed--Democrat Party: Now anti-people, pro-war and pro-corporate. Change co-authored with Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.
There's a very good reason the Populists of the late 1800s named their poitical association the People's Party. That moniker ought to be resurrected and attached to a new bottom-up (as opposed to top-down) formed political association that puts people and the planet first, corporations last, and Imperialist Wars never.
Karlof1
Very well said and in particular your last paragraph. It would seem that no one in the country today comes close in carrying on the legacy of that former great populist and socialist Eugene V. Debs. Dennis Kucinich comes close but unfortunately he is under the delusion that his suggestions and ideas will be welcome by his fellow Democrats. Kucinich is apparently too blind to recognize that they are corporatists and war mongers to the core. If Kucinich had a lick of sense he would bolt from the Democrats and join a third party but he refuses to become a true populist.
It looks like O'Bamba played the electorate like a piano. All those strings inside, 70 million of them who voted for O'Bamba, were played during that election campaign song and dance ehh? Those felt hammers didn't hurt those strings. The strikes and the vibes of talent, charisma and hope, they felt great! The piano strings were proud to be part of the production. They can't wait for the next show.
No, YOU is not fooled by anyone, for YOU is you of the upper 60% of society with excessive wealth, you who want a capitalist government to protect your filthy wealth and self-absorbed bodies.
Here is something for the liberals to chew on. The capitalist ruling class (primarily the financial sector of the capitalist class) rule as a dictatorship. That is to say, the content of the ruling class in the United States is finance capital. The form in which the ruling class secure there hold on state power is a limited "democracy". It is the preferred shell in which to cover the fact that we actually live under a capitalist dictatorship. But do not be deceived, it is a dictatorship, and the ruling class has no problem changing the form, should it become necessary.
There will never be a working class, or even a pro-working class US President, because the ideology of the candidates (those who have a chance to win) are greatly scrutinized by the ruling class long before one is considered for election. Dem or GOP, liberal, moderate, or conservative: what ever your cup of tea at polls, the content will always be capitalist.
Look at the health care debate as an example. The solution is as simple as single payer, Medicare for all. Yet, capitalist ruling class will never allow this solution to be considered. Why? Profits…..Insurance company profits, a primary part of the financial sector of the U.S. ruling class.
So I watch with interest, and some amusement, as you liberals tie yourself up in knots when your (liberal, moderate, conservative????) president and democratic congress kick your teeth in when the push comes to shove on one issue after another.
I watch with interest and some horror. It's nice to be above it all, but can we really afford it? We are living on the planet, not in some UFO.
That the US is a democracy is one of the most powerful illusions that Americans must overcome.
"The American political system was not born a democracy, but born with a bias against democracy. It was constructed by those who were either skeptical about democracy or hostile to it. Democratic advance proved to be slow, uphill, forever incomplete. The republic existed for three-quarters of a century before formal slavery was ended; another hundred years before black Americans were assured of their voting rights. Only, in the 20th century were women guaranteed the vote and trade unions the right to bargain collectively. In none of these instances has victory been complete: women still lack full equality, racism persists, and the destruction of the remnants of trade unions remains a goal of corporate strategies. Far from being innate, democracy in America has gone against the grain, against the very forms by which the political and economic power of the country has been and continues to be ordered."
from “Democracy Incorporated” (2008) by Sheldon Wolin (p.228)
eldean019
"There will never be a working class, or even a pro-working class US President, because the ideology of the candidates (those who have a chance to win) are greatly scrutinized by the ruling class long before one is considered for election."
eldean:
The politically correct term would be "groomed" (for election).
A liberal is one who did not vote for Bush or Obama,
and one who is not fooled by your illusion that we
liberals should feel guilty for being deceived by
your capitalist government.
In short, paid actor you are not fooling anyone.
Obama doesn't have the luxury that Clinton had - no internet groups. Although I questioned a lot of what Clinton did, there wasn't anywhere to gather with like-minded people.
The Republicans kept the heat on Clinton to keep the Dem's on defense. Dem's naturally went to his defense in the more egregious charges and didn't realize they were being had by Clinton and the Republicans.
Communication among voters is at an all-time high, and many of us are seeing the pattern unfold. Obama won't get a second term if things continue down this path. The torch will be passed back to the Republicans between now and 2012 and we will be in the grip of an ever more theocratic Republican Party. It is not a pretty picture.
I imagine Obama already has his golden parachute lined up for taking this dive, not only for the Democrats, but for the various minorities who turned out in force hoping for a better day.
As is the rule with Jeff Cohen, he's right on the mark.
AD
Obama and Pelosi's little group has already handed the country back to the GOP.
2010 is going to be a slaughter if they continue down this road. Its really quite simple, lose trust and lose elections. They have lost the trust of the majority.
Obama is a fool if he thinks he will finish the job in afghanistan. The American Empire will suffer another loss like in Vietnam. This president is worse than a bad joke and all his appointments show how right wing he really is at a time when radical change is urgently required.
its simple. he is there for the money. and power. we mean nothing!
Headed down the same wrong halfascist road as Bush and the rest of DEM in the 2 intervening years. (And some of US knew about Obama's bent [over, that is] from the day in his campaign that he first started sporting a Bushist-style flag in his lapel)!
as worn by good lapel-pinheads everywhere.
Are you talking about that $.39 flag with "made in china" stamped on the back?
Made in China by an off-shored US company?
Why does the media continue to write as though we have two parties in this country? Are they really this naive or stupid? Or are they dupes or shills for the man?
Sure, both parties can put on a nice circus and have big blustering debates over all kinds of issues that might affect main street Americans. However, the ultra-wealthy, Wall Street and the Military-Industrial complex ALWAYS win with both parties and the rest of us pay for it.
They'll keep the women nervous over the abortion issue, conservative men nervous over gun rights, while health care and other social issues pick up the stress levels in others. Then, while you're watching the circus and stressing about losing your rights, they pick your pocket clean! You've lost your economic power and freedom...something serfs and slaves don't have.
Quit giving this phony "2-party" system any more power. Start exposing it for what it really is (a servant of the ultra-wealthy, Wall Street and the Military-Industrial complex) and start voting in 3rd party candidates. The system is broken. Maintain the disdain for both parties!
Obama can't be seriously eyeing another run, considering how Clinton was hobbled by her own Corporate health INSURANCE reform. She wore it, and her warmongering vote to invade Iraq, like a ball and chain.
Either Obama's ambition ended when he won and he could care less or his intent was to win by projecting an image and upon arrival, attempt to pay lip service to the image while ramming through as much of the Military-Industrial game plan as possible while the opportunity presents itself.
Not a formula for ongoing political survival, but useful for the time allowed to accomplish certain objectives.
"wake up ...to take a closer and more critical look at President Obama's policies." Wow, really? And what then, have a hissy fit? One wonders what it takes to anger an American "liberal", infinitely pliable in world view and posessed of a ten-minute memory. Third party, anyone? Of course not, let's wait until our bowing and scraping cypher matures in office.
Tony Vodvarka
Nicely stated: yeah, the memory hole of the lip service liberals. If a con escalates war, they throw the expected "hissy fit" but when it is there own blood thirsty guy, they stick their head in the memory hole.
When you start in the center ... and readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.
-------------------
Obama didn't start in the center, he started FAR RIGHT.
Mr. Obama's Senate votes to destroy the 4th amendment via the Patriot Act and FISA along with his almost perfect record of funding the Iraq occupation is neo-con territory.
He is, and WAS, a neo-con, no matter how many times the talking heads on television call him a liberal or centrist.
Yup. Even Nixon was more liberal than Obama. (Or should we call him O-bomb-a now that he has taken "ownership" of the Afghan war?)
Obama- Real Change...
If I am a corporate lobbyist- I see real change. Whatever I do seems to work. Even as Obama berates me- I win where it counts- in the pocket book.
If I am a major corporation- automobile, banking, military, health care...whatever- I see real change. I have in fact never seen a government as supportive of my bottom-line.
If I am part of the military revolving door- alternating between working for defense contractors and the Pentagon- I see real change. Never before have I had an administration which gives me more of what I wanted with such little to work with.
If I am China or Saudi Arabia, I see real change- the ability to control the United States like a puppet with my ever increasing debt leverage.
If I am an average American small business owner or worker (union or non-union)- I see real change- increased health care costs, bankruptcy, unemployment and the loss of my home.
If I am a child- I see real change- hunger and homelessness.
If I am the environment, I see real change- runaway global warming, increased extraction of coal and much more.
If I am a human rights activist- I see real change- my pleas are ignored and I am left to stand on my own.
If I am a teacher- I see real change- more accountability to government "standards" and loss of income.
If I am in the military fighting- I see real change- even longer extended commitments and injury and death in conflicts where we don't belong.
Real people- real needs- real change- Obama.
LJG100, A poetic summary... Thanks
Bush wasn't/isn't a neo-con, rather a neo-liberal: radical change.
Obama is a conservative: stay the course.
The "alliance" was formed long ago.
In a way, the republican politicians are more honest.
They're dicks and proud of it.
The democrats are the pretenders.
The whole shabang needs changing,
not the smiling front men,
not a new party.
CAPITALISM is at the root of this problem,
the change needed.
The question is:
How to get from point C to point S.
My joke has long been that the only dissappointment left would be if Obama changed parties. Let's make him do that. Let's make it clear that he will not get the 2012 nomination and that if his center right policies persist he should change parties. Let's form a defined voting block in 2010 that votes against corporate Democrats--i.e. two thirds of them and makes it clear that if they want us back in 2012 they have to meet our terms.
Please, Obama belongs right where he is. Asking one member out of several hundreds to leave a corrupt enterprise won't make the enterprise less criminal. The party is so fundamentally corrupt that it's beyond redemption. Democrats must be destroyed and a new progressive party be created. The Right has absolutely no opposition right now.
At least LBJ threw a little butter in with the guns.
Obama is looking more like Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover...rubber stamping whatever the corporations demand while ignoring the electorate (except for the right wingnuts that would never vote for him in a million years).
Why create a new progressive party when we already have the Green Party?
Answer: Because the Green Party is unknown in most of the USA. If there are members or chapters where I live, I've never heard of them. They don't put forward candidates in either local, state or federal elections and God knows where their members or followers are.
Where do you live and I'll check. If not, think about organizing a chapter yourself.
In my city, we have a Green Candidate for US Rep. almost every election. And Pennsylvania makes it criminally (literally) difficult for "third parties" to get on the ballot.
There is a grave yard full of progressive third parties that were started with high hopes in the 1990's. Anyone remember the New Party? The Labor Party? The Working Family Party? The Greens are the only one that is at least surviving.
Both parties drink from the same poisoned Corp. well and so all we get are variations of the same policies. Why is anyone surprised?