EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- NSA Whistleblower Revealed: Q&A with Edward Snowden
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- 'Reprehensible, Reckless, Illegal': Washington Officials Slam Heroic NSA Surveillance Leaker
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Royal Scam and The Iron Fist Of Rahm
Audacity To HopeChange We Can Believe In
Rule of Law
Accountability
Freedom From Lobbyists and Special Interests
Privacy
Harm From Illegal Surveillance
Constitutional Scholar
Transparency
Predatory Business Practices
Closing Guantanamo
Withdrawing From Iraq and Afghanistan
These are but some of the major buzzwords, issues and concepts Barack Obama based his candidacy and campaign on to convince the American electorate to sweep him in to office. Mr. Obama, however, has gone significantly in the opposite direction on each and every one since taking office. As Frank Rich noted, there is a growing "suspicion that Obama's brilliant presidential campaign was as hollow as Tiger's public image - a marketing scam...".
Is there support for this allegation other than anecdotal evidence? Yes, and Micah Sifry has an excellent piece out detailing the basis:
After all, the image of Barack Obama as the candidate of "change", community organizer, and "hope-monger" (his word), was sold intensively during the campaign. Even after the fact, we were told that his victory represented the empowerment of a bottom-up movement, powered by millions of small donors, grassroots volunteers, local field organizers and the internet. .... The truth is that Obama was never nearly as free of dependence on big money donors as the reporting suggested, nor was his movement as bottom-up or people-centric as his marketing implied. And this is the big story of 2009, if you ask me, the meta-story of what did, and didn't happen, in the first year of Obama's administration. The people who voted for him weren't organized in any kind of new or powerful way, and the special interests-banks, energy companies, health interests, car-makers, the military-industrial complex-sat first at the table and wrote the menu. Myth met reality, and came up wanting. .... Should we really surprised that someone with so much early support from Wall Street and wealthy elites overall might not be inclined to throw the money-changers out of the temple? .... When it came to planning for being in government, it turns out that Plouffe, along with David Axelrod, was a chief advocate for bringing in then Rep. Rahm Emanuel as Obama's chief of staff. He writes, using a baseball analogy: "Rahm was a five-tool political player: a strategist with deep policy expertise, considerable experience in both the legislative and executive branches, and a demeanor best described as relentless." (p. 372) Note that nowhere in that vital skill-set is any sense of how to work with the largest volunteer base any presidential campaign has developed in history. Rahm Emanuel came up in politics the old-fashioned way; organizing and empowering ordinary people are the least of his skills.
It is an extremely interesting piece by Sifry, and I recommend a read of the entirety. For those that have not read David Plouffe's book on the campaign, The Audacity To Win, or one of the other long form reports of the Obama 2008 campaign, Sifry lays open the hollowness of Obama's "grass roots". Use em and lose em appears to have been the Obama modus operandi. The American people were desperate for something to latch onto, and Obama and Plouffe gave them a slickly tailored package.
As Digby notes, this line by Sifry really sums it up:
Now, there is a new enthusiasm gap, but it's no longer in Obama's favor. That's because you can't order volunteers to do anything-you have to motivate them, and Obama's compromises to almost every powers-that-be are tremendously demotivating.
I think that is exactly right, and the needle in much of the activist base is moving from "demotivated" to downright demoralized and antagonistic. Yet Obama and his administration, notably Rahm Emanuel, indignantly continue to poke sticks in the eyes of the activist base and boast about it; and it is not from necessity, it is from design and pleasure.
Quite frankly, the seeds of this should have been seen coming. I have never forgotten the shudders I felt when I read two interrelated articles by Matt Stoller and David Dayen discussing how, heading into the 2008 general election, Obama was not just benefitting from, but devouring and commandeering broad swaths of Democratic base activist groups and their power, and actively working to marginalize and cripple those that didn't assimilate into his Borg.
From Stoller:
This isn't a criticism; again, Obama made his bet that the country isn't into ideological combat and wants a politics of unity and hope, and he has won at internally. In terms of the ‘Iron Law of Institutions', the Obama campaign is masterful. From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change. ... All I'll add is that it's time to think through the consequences of a party where there is a new chief with massive amounts of power. I've been in the wilderness all my political life, as have most of us. The Clintonistas haven't, and they know what it's like to be part of the inside crew. We have a leader, and he's not a partisan and he can now end fractious intraparty fights with a word and/or a nod. His opinion really matters in a way that even Nancy Pelosi's just did not. He has control of the party apparatus, the grassroots, the money, and the messaging environment. He is also, and this is fundamental, someone that millions of people believe in as a moral force. When you disagree with Obama, you are saying to these people ‘your favorite band sucks'.
And DDay:
There's nothing shadowy about this - it's an extension of what the Obama campaign has been doing since he entered the race. He's building a new Democratic infrastructure, regimenting it under his brand, and enlisting new technologies and more sophisticated voter contacting techniques to turn it from a normal GOTV effort into a lasting movement. The short-term goal is to increase voter turnout by such a degree that Republicans will wither in November, not just from a swamp of cash but a flood of numbers. The long-term goal is to subvert the traditional structures of the Democratic Party since the early 1990s, subvert the nascent structures that the progressive movement has been building since the late 1990s, and build a parallel structure, under his brand, that will become the new power center in American politics. This is tremendous news.
However, despite his calls that change always occurs from the bottom up, these structures are very much being created and controlled from the top down.
Stoller and DDay, although both seemed to have a nagging question or two, both thought that the gathering "Obama Nation" was a good thing and that once he took office the immense consolidated power and organization would, in fact, as Obama was jawing, be used to end the age old grip of corporate money and influence and propel good new and different policies into action. This pie in the sky was directly defied by passages in their own articles though. Not only was Obama consolidating Democratic power to serve only him from the top down, he was taking out people and groups that didn't step in to his line.
I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend's Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes. The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women's Voices Women's Vote, implying voter suppression. ... He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data. ... The campaign has also, despite thousands of interviews with a huge number of outlets, refused to have Obama interact on progressive blogs. ... I'm also told, though I can't confirm, that Obama campaign has also subtly encouraged donors to not fund groups like VoteVets and Progressive Media. These groups fall under the 'same old Washington politics' which he wants to avoid, a partisan gunslinging contest he explicitly advocates against.
DDay:
But wresting away ALL the power and consolidating it is I think a misunderstanding of how inside and outside groups can be mutually reinforcing and part of a more vibrant cultural and political movement, and how the culture is moving toward more decentralized, more viral, looser networks to organize. Obama's movement, based on unity and hope, is working because politics is of the moment, a fad, Paris Hilton. To sustain that, you must institutionalize engagement, civic participation, awareness and action, even in a non-horse race year, as a necessary facet of citizenship. And there's no reason to shut down reinforcing progressive structures that can keep it fun and interesting and vital.
Shutting down Democratic and progressive structures that do not toe his line is exactly what Obama and his right hand man, Rahm Emanuel, have done since the election. As Stoller and DDay noted, they actually started even before the election and accelerated after it. The deal was sealed when, immediately after the election, Obama chose the iron fist of DLC strongman Rahm Emanuel to lead his administration, immediately dumped Howard Dean and began shuttering Dean's wildly successful fifty state apparatus.
There was only one reason to do that, and it was not to germinate a new grass roots policy force; it was to consolidate power and kill off any other voices and/or authority within the party. As Micah Sifry demonstrated, consolidation and exclusion were always a part of the Obama plan. Almost more disconcerting than Obama's singular cornering of all the power and movement is his refusal to use it to propel new policies. Not even on healthcare did Obama even attempt to truly energize and mobilize the vaunted Obama network, preferring instead to leave it up to the lobbyists, in the bag Congressmen like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and corporate interests.
This is exactly what has made the progressive campaign and voice of Jane Hamsher, Cenk Uygur, Firedoglake and other awakening progressive movements so critical. It is crystal clear the Obama Presidency is less than it was advertised to be; the only route to correction is through power and action; assertion of independent power is the only thing they will respect and acknowledge. The change will not come through old school Washington politicians beholden to corrupt financial institutions, the insurance lobby and corporate interests. Politicians like Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
150 Comments so far
Show AllThe truth is that Obama was never nearly as free of dependence on big money donors as the reporting suggested . . .
Obama is not just a case of political enslavement to money. Far from it. Obama is the proud and chest puffing continuation of the rotten cynicism of George Wanker Bush and Cheesedick Cheney. His bald-faced lies and expectation that even now we will easily swallow those lies are like a giant and garish neon sign that you can see clearly even through the thickest blackout curtains. The sign keeps you awake. It gives you a headache. It's on 24/7 and even dynamite won't destroy it. Have you had enough? Do you, like me, feel humiliated for supporting this MoFo? Do not support the Democrats any longer! Give them the finger with both hands, turn around and walk away! Don't look back! But, you say, the Republicans will take over. So what? Like it makes any difference any longer.
Well put. USA Democracy(TM) is only the world's most sophisticated and expensive public relations stunt.
"So what? Like it makes any difference any longer."
I agree with everything you write here. However, just to punish those of us who have "had enough," the two-party in their collusion efforts, will make sure the administration that follows - probably a Republican one - will again go way over the top, making us wish we had GW back in office. Progressives have only enough power to prevent a Democrat from winning, but the agenda goes on no matter which party is in the white house. This is the beauty of the two party system.
How about something entirely different? Where can we find and build our own power, beyond electoral politics. At the same time I advocate playing their silly game just in order to punish Democrats for abandoning us, and for their obsequiousness to power while ignore the suffering of people. I would be quite happy to ruin a few careers.
Well, yes, we all want a third party with teeth, have wanted one for decades, and we're no closer to getting one than we were 20 years ago. Nothing happens, even when there is unending frenetic activity to make something happen. The duopoly cuts off at the knees every last attempt to create a third party, because they have all the fucking money. Corporate media does their dirty work by ignoring all third parties to the point that they effectively cease to exist, because if it's not on TV it isn't happening. Period.
That's the hellish reality third party efforts must live in, thanks to our high-tech, financial-system driven, political system. Voices for real change can't get anywhere because phonies like Obama, the Clintons, the Bushes, own the whole goddamn ball game. Those of us with other ideas are left to squabble amongst ourselves on the sidelines forever. This is how they've beaten us to a pulp.
Frank Rich: " There is a growing suspicion that Obama's brilliant Presidential campaign was a marketing scam".What is this term "growing suspicion" Frank? That has to be one of the dumbest statements I have heard in a long time. A lot of us progressives and third party supporters saw his con a long time ago!
It odd how people perceive things is it not? This very much like "The WMDS IN Iraq" arguement.
I did not believe the Powell speech whatsoever. Within a day of it being made I was posting links all over the internet to all that evidence that it was fabricated. Yet the media and the MAJORITY of the people (Especially in the USA) believed it verbatim.
It took several years for many of these people to have "A Growing suspicion" that The US GOvernment was lying.
Yet in all that time it took them to realize this, people like myself were labled as conspiracy theorists and nuts. In their minds it seems that the Government was telling the truth only up until THEY believed the Government lying.
That is "They are not lying UNTIL you can prove it and UNTIL you can prove it I will believe them (even if they are lying)"
The perception is the reality. Truth is immaterial. Obama was perceived as this visonary Messiah that would save the world when in FACT he never WAS such. The fault here, was just as much the peoples who bought the "Marketing".
Yet in all that time it took them to realize this, people like myself were labled as conspiracy theorists and nuts. In their minds it seems that the Government was telling the truth only up until THEY believed the Government lying.
That is "They are not lying UNTIL you can prove it and UNTIL you can prove it I will believe them (even if they are lying)"
The perception is the reality. Truth is immaterial. Obama was perceived as this visonary Messiah that would save the world when in FACT he never WAS such. The fault here, was just as much the peoples who bought the "Marketing".
---------------------------------------
Hitler pegged it: healthy, well-socialised people tell only small, "social grease" lies, and simply can't bring themselves to believe anyone would be such a monster as to tell monsterous lies -- especially the ones in power whom we must trust. So when it comes out that those in power are monsters, people stay in denial until they've absolutely no other choice but to accept the truth.
Good analysis, but context is everything.
The vast coalition that lifted Obama and the dems to victory in 2008 was built by Bush and Cheney.
One might think the resulting extension of the Cheneybush Unitary under O'Rahma would spur "voters" to reject the status quo, but ...
Come 2012, the Republicans will hoist another candidate for the presidency, thereby sparing Team O'Rahma from having to run against its own record.
Time to Rahm it to Emanuel, instead; and bankrupt DEM SNAFUBARack, as well!
Right on! President Emanuel should be folding towels in a prison laundry along with his sidekick, Obama.
The Iron Fist of Rahm.
Sounds like a great name for a metal band!
Historically, it's interesting who knew or suspected what when, but we are here, now, and what's important is building the numbers of Americans who are aware of what's really going on. We don't have the power and money, 'they' do, but what we do have, or could have, is the numbers. It's called People Power.
An added benefit is that the more who become aware, the fewer who will contribute cash (and other support) to the Establishment.
We got played by Obama et al. They think the game is over and that they won. I say, not so fast, boys. There's a sleeping giant out here. If we cooperate and pursue unity across the political socio-economic spectrum, we ourselves can effect massive change that we CAN believe in.
Yes, we must begin to build bridges. Most Americans are more progressive than they think they are.
Get out into your communities and form alliances.
Proud Cynthia McKinney voter here. :)
Progressives have forgotten--or are pretending to have forgotten--that millions of us saw through Obama from the get-go and made heroic attempts to warn our fellow progressives the man was a fraud. We were polite and used words of less than three syllables...
The Obama supporters' response to this was to call anyone who criticized The Whistling One a racist. They also thought it was cool to call Hillary and her female supporters the C word, over and over again.
Now the same people who just showed their poor political judgement by voting for The Worst Democrat Ever™ are blogging merrily away, telling us what went wrong and what we should do, when they should damn well shut up and listen to the people who weren't fooled by the ad campaign.
Pull down thy vanity, fellow progs. We have another neocon in the White House--very much thanks to you.
Since the same people who voted for Obama are going to go out and vote for someone else, it behooves us to try to educate them. So here are some voting tips from one who wasn't fooled:
1) Don't vote for anyone who is fawned over by the corporate media. The media hates Democrats and it loved Obama. This should have been a dead giveaway.
2) Don't vote for any candidate recommended by a raging Clinton-hater. The progressives who hate the Clintons are the very same pr*cks who thought Obama was great. The rule is simple to apply: if a Clintophobe likes a candidate, he/she is a rotten candidate.
3) Don't vote for someone if his/her fans are foul-mouthed Philistines. Despite what you might think, calling your fellow Democrats racists is not a great party builder. (Try calling me a racist to my face and see what happens.) Bad fans = bad candidate.
4) Vet your goddam candidates! A 20-second Google search would have revealed Obama is a fraud, and we wouldn't have a party traitor in the White House today.
Inside Obama's Brain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r9mr29aLgA
1) Don't vote for anyone who is fawned over by the corporate media. The media hates Democrats and it loved Obama. This should have been a dead giveaway.
This speaks volumes. We can all remember Howard getting blackballed for nothing but a little exuberance. The problem being the lemmings will still believe the corporate stooge media.
I remember the media fawning over KERRY in 2004 following the Iowa caucus because he was so 'electable™'.
Hotrod sez: "We can all remember Howard getting blackballed for nothing but a little exuberance."
***
Actually Dean's "exuberance" after his Iowa loss was nothing more than a death rattle. The blackballing happened earlier, following this exchange with Chris Matthews on Hardball on Dec. 1, 2003:
MATTHEWS: Are you going to break up the giant media enterprises in this country?
DEAN: Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises. That doesn't mean we're going to break up all of GE.
What we're going to do is say that media enterprises can't be as big as they are today.
Before that exchange Dean was the Democratic Party frontrunner, its top fund-raiser through grass-roots contributions, and actually a bit of a media darling. Afterward, he was "unhinged" and a corporate media persona non grata.
I'm one of the people who didn't listen to people like you. At least I can truthfully it won't ever happen again.
Amen!
I can tell you a real quick way to see beneath a wannabe's lies and that is giving any indication that he will give U.S. support to corporate america and aipac; june 5, 2008 o did so to the american izraeli public affair committee and somewhere in early 2008 he did the same for corporate america and that is why I knew not to vote for o as he was an acknowledged lap dog for both so I voted nader.
Alas I sort of figured anyone that Faux News hated that much must be okay. Should have smelled a rat with the sweet ride the MSM gave Barak but I thought that was White Liberal Guilt speaking.
Boy is my face red!
Gary
From a fellow Cynthia McKinney voter:
I agree with most of your post. I endured many slings and arrows as I tried to warn people that they needed to follow Obama's money trail.
I disagree with your implicit endorsement of Hillary. Her money trail, voting record, circle of advisors and confidants, involvement with Doug Coe's "Family," etc. indicate that she would have followed an identical, or worse, neo-con path.
The only 2008 Democratic candidate that I would have trusted was Kucinich. Edwards had a bad voting record. Gravel and Richardson aren't quite sharp enough.
2) Don't vote for any candidate recommended by a raging Clinton-hater. The progressives who hate the Clintons are the very same pr*cks who thought Obama was great. The rule is simple to apply: if a Clintophobe likes a candidate, he/she is a rotten candidate.
-----------------------------------------
I'd urge you to re-think this. I'm a "Clinton-hater", abominate Obummer, and voted for Cynthia this time.
If you review the Clintons' actual records, you'll see that they're *far* from progressive.
I have learned the hard way to see through those empty suits. It is so very easy.
Just see where they get their money. See who works in their higher administrative ranks. And pay close attention to what the ruling elite say. For example, The PNACers said years before the attack on the WTC that fascistic change would only happen with a "new Pearl Harbor."
So you can understand: If a man talks in the bar about killing his wife, night after night, then she is murdered, who is the first suspect? The man.
A so called former CIA operational asset, Mr. Bin Laden, is supposed to have organized and attacked the WTC. A "former" military intelligence asset Mr. Lee Harvery Osward was supposed to have murder Mr. Kennedy as the lone gunman. Remember what Lee said, "I am a patsy." Where is the bullet hole in the front of the vehicle after it pasted through Mr. Kennedy's head? The trajectory of the bullet would have had to have left a bullet hole in the front driver seat or the dash board. Where is the bullet hole? Or is the magic bullet theory correct?
No one has heard from Mr. Bin Laden for years and years. Is he still alive? Maybe he was killed at Tora Bora. But, if we knew that, the wars would not have been justifiable.
The Gulf of Tonken attack on the Turner Joy and Maddocks never happened. But, it was cause enough to afford the reason for open war against North Vietnam. Opland 64 had US and South Vietnamese commandos committing sabotage in North Vietnma 6 months before the above attacks on the destroyers.
If you ask "Qui bono?" "Who benefits" on everything the ruling elite does, you can never be fooled.
Actually there was a Bay of Tonken incident but it was planned to be one USA patrol boat shelling the other in the Fog as testfied by a gunner who refused to fire his turret gun when he realized his coordinates were his sister ships location in the morning fog.
Interesting.
Perry your correct ........ except is there a GOOD Clinton?
No, there is NOT!!! And what is it that people cannot comprehend about reagan, reagan, bush sr., clinton, clinton, w, w and the current mess this country and the world is in, other than starting with reagan the jobs started every so quickly moving off shore until slick willie clinton opened wide the flood gates of our jobs going 'over there' by signing nafta. So does that help with the contemplation of another clinton maybe?
Perry,
Well said.
From the article:
"It is crystal clear the Obama Presidency is less than it was advertised to be"
Such daintiness amid fraud, duplicity and betrayal is amazing. Less?!!! Diametrically opposite is rather different from "less". These people belong in prison, not the White House.
"The progressives who hate the Clintons are the very same pr*cks who thought Obama was great."
Very simplistic formulation, but you're always eager to pump up the greatness of the Clintons. There are many here among us who never "thought Obama was great" and were similarly never deceived about Clinton, as you were and continue to be. There is simply no correlation between never having trusted or believed in the integrity of the Clintons, and cheerleading for Obama. I never fell for either one of their transparent deceptions.
Flush both of the self serving parties that have reamed the hand that feeds them so many times that we don't even know that we've been screwed. We need an alternative or two or three. Reregister independant, green, socialist or any other alternative or don't affiliate at all. If we bail out of the dumbocratic & depublicon party they might notice that they are losing their base (if they even care). As far as being able to vote in the primary, after the Clintons & the Bush dynasty & Obummer, does it even matter?
We must take the power from the corporations & their influence on our corrupt legislators. If we are fortunate enough to have any accounts left and pay interest or fees with or to the "too big to fail" banks we must move them to small local institutions or credit unions. Shop locally or online from small businesses whenever possible, or grow or make what you need yourselves. 12 & 1/2% of us have time to do that because we are no longer working.
Because we can't change the corporate driven campaign reform beast, we must try to starve it. Without large corporate contributors, read bribes, we may have a chance for a responsive government.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I also believe our hope is to starve the beast. Your suggestions are a great beginning, and it is actually fun and challenging to see how little corporate junk one has to buy into. I used to belong to a food club in a rural area-- we would place bulk orders for things we all used, and then someone with a pickup truck would drive into the city and pick it up. We'd have a potluck and divvy everything up-- meanwhile building a community as we shared information, helped with kids, and shared or borrowed things we or others needed. Such communities could have some clout if they were able to agree on something big like a targeted boycott.
hmmm targeted boycotts. Now there's an idea. HOwever, boycotts can be quite counter productive if there aren't sufficient numbers to make it successful.
rvrwalk, that's true. In my lifetime, I think the Grape Boycott and the boycott that helped end apartheid in South Africa were extremely effective boycotts. But maybe a more positive style of would-be consumer action might be forming a network of groups that pledge to buy whatever brand of product (cell phone network, e.g.) that lived up to the demands of the group (social, environmental, etc). We need a more direct way than the corrupt and compromised political system to influence the forces that are shaping the conditions on this planet!
The writer of this article is spot on.
The following statement by a conservative blogger calls to mind a fundamental political axiom of politics--the law of fear. Forget the messenger and consider the message.
*Time for some unsolicited advice to the netroots: I understand that none of you want to hear this, but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to start punishing your would-be representatives when they tell you one thing and do another. Bluntly? A particular senate candidate broke her word when she fell into line with Senate Democrats on abortion language. You know this. But you will go nowhere until your legislators fear you and yours more than they fear me and mine. In fact, I’ll tell you right now: they don’t fear you at all.”
>>I’ll tell you right now: they don’t fear you at all.<<
Too true. They've seen how money boys elections so they go where the money is.
Farr us, no, they hold us and our true wishes in comtempt(just compare polls of the people with what actually happens in our legistures). They ignore our e-mails, letters and even delegates. They vote their pockets not anything like a consense(sp).
Gary
Unfortunately, until American voters wake up and actually follow what their particular elected official does and has done in the past (in lieu of what they *SAY* they will do in campaign ads that they buy with money given them to do exactly the opposite of what their constituents want them to do), lobbyists and their employers will continue to rule this country. Alas, Dancing with the Stars and the weekend football games still rule the American conscience and nobody gives a damn what their elected official does until it's too late.
Keep in mind a few indicators of where the real power lies:
1. George H.W. Bush held such contempt for Bill Clinton that, on Clinton's Inaugration Day, he would hardly speak to him. Yet, today, they are golfing buddies. Perhaps they have more in common than one might think. The Carlyle (sic) Group perhaps? Big money does like to hobnob with big money.
2. It was the Clinton Administration that deregulated the financial industries, aided and abetted by the likes of Phil Gramm, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers (now in the Obama Cabinet).
3. Just carefully count the number of former Clinton Staffers now in the Obama Administration. Just too many for it to be coincidental, Rahm Emanuel being the super star.
4. Obama has all the symptoms of being an elitist, a patsy for big corporations, Wall Street, Health Insurance Companies. Drug Companies, etc. He is about as much a Progressive Democrat as Vladimir Putin.
5. Why was Hillary given the most prestigious and powerful post in the Obama Cabinet? Continuity, perhaps?
6. What were Obama and Hillary doing together at a meeting of an obscure group in Virginia called the Bilderbergs? Although little seems to be known about that group, are they more sinister than we might think?
7. So long as the Republicans trot out a bunch of lunatics and losers, our attention is diverted from the secret meetings and political intercourse going on between the White House, Congress, lobbyists and the oligarchs, all keeping our eyes off the ball of reality. Meanwhile, the "progressive" pundits in the media do all they can to avoid ignorning reality and calling Obama for what he is. He is still their darling, for sure! I think he is as transparent as a window pane.
Time for a new political party. If you haven't already done so, you might want to Google "A NEW FEDERALIST PARTY" and read about it. It has merit to me.
We may be down, folks, but we sure as hell aren't out yet. Don't let the bastards get you down!
I heard candidate Obama in a small ballpark in Florida along with 5,000 other very enthusiastic supporters.
After eight years of Bush-Cheney, who could blame anyone for hoping for real change?
Have we seen it?
Not a whit.
"In the first Gulf War, Emanuel served with the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian volunteer helping to maintain equipment.[15]"
The above quote is from the Wikipedia page for Emanuel. I find it amazing that someone who worked for the military of a foreign country is now Chief of Staff for the President of the U.S. One has to wonder how the entire Muslim world "reads" that. Can you imagine how AIPAC and JINSA would explode if someone who had worked for, say, the military in Jordan or Egypt or Yemen or any Muslim country had taken such a position of power?
What is this hold that Israel has over the U.S.?
"What is this hold that Israel has over the U.S.?"
It's called money.
And location, location, location!
Sorry y'all, but whoever bought the campaign 'marketing scam' is either an idiot, or is a willfully deluded idiot.
ALL political campaigns are marketing scams, as is most politics in general. Bailout the Banksters or we all die? Health care system 'reform' that will never happen? Compassionate Conservative? Contract with America? Etc.
We tried to warn you all along - vote for Nader, vote for Paul - and you didn't listen. Now it's time to stop writing about how you didn't listen and start doing something that might actually make a difference.
If we continue to ignore the massive ballot fraud in all the primaries as well as general elections, how will any new party succeed?
Existing = Winning
the good thing about the apparatus that he shuttered is
still intact and can be used by third party candidates
for their campaign in 2012. the beautiful part of this is that all the people he and rahm emanuel screwed over are all primed for a candidate other than obomba . its a beautiful
thing and maybe dean will have the balls to help that candidate as well!
Yes, the apparatus could be used but probably will not be.
I'm old enough to have seen third party attempts at grassroots die. For a third party to spring to life and stay alive would require a big segment of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (and maybe some from the Congressional Black Caucus) to, en masse, bail on this Democratic Party which has failed not only the citizens but also progressive members of Congress.
THAT is the only way a progressive party can emerge.
It looks like Firedoglake is just catching up with old news. Bully for them. However, no one should be surprised. Obama is just the latest Clinton, promising "real change" and delivering the status quo goods for the corporate interests that funded the campaign.
One would think that Firedoglake, an organization that shovels campaign contributions to Democratic candidates, should have figured out the DLC Democrats a long time ago. It's not just the DLC, though. The Democratic Party in general runs off corporate cash just like the Republicans, which is why the two parties are indistinguishable in terms of policies.
Dem "reformists" like Firedoglake are part of the game and part of the problem because they will not explain in plain English why the Dems betray their voter base year after year. It's simply a matter of political economy or the obvious fact that Dem leaders owe more to their corporate benefactors than they do to the general public.
Please don't read this posted article from Firedoglake and think that such reform will take place based on the mild lobbying of fake grassroots organizations like Firedoglake It won't. Don't vote Dem/Repug - that is the simple solution. If you still think public lobbying will change the direction of Dem leaders, you haven't been paying attention to all of the anti-war protests, all of the bailout resistance - all of which was ignored. It's not just O'Bombya; it's your Congressional Dem representative who is the problem, too. The Democratic Party is the party of corporations, the second half of the business party. Dem rhetoric sounds good, but it's never realized in policy.
-TIA
TIA - YES. Shut it down. Shut it down. No more "marches". FILL every street and sing and chant your message to the world until the windows shatter from the sound of your voices. Shut it down. Left unchecked, Mr. BHO, Mr. 'I'm slicker than Willy' is on track and on course to sell us into Slavery, Forever, to his Masters.
That's the short version. Shut it down. Terrify him. Terrify the Masters. Take from them everything they hold dear: Their wealth, their power over us, and their privilege over us.
HAPPY NEW REVOLUTION TO YOU ALL...make it happen - REVOLT.
We must realize, that both parties are the same. Thier funded by great wealth, for thier benifit.They retain the lobbiests to tell the Rep. or Senator,( We made sure little Bobbie got into Yale,and we;ll make sure he stays there.Just vote the way we want on this bill,or we will fund your opponent.) He votes there way. it;s that simple.