EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Europe's Post-Copenhagen View of Obama
The Copenhagen summit on climate change taught Europe a hard lesson about its trans-Atlantic partner. Great hope had greeted President Obama when he replaced George W. Bush at the American helm, but a year later Europeans are realizing that Mr. Obama is going to have a very difficult time delivering on his agenda.
During the Copenhagen summit, the American media portrayed President Obama as a global dealmaker, shuttling from leader to leader trying to broker various compromises. What Mr. Obama was really doing was a lot of fence-mending, because the United States was seen as the principal obstacle - and Mr. Obama as the footdragger-in-chief - that prevented any ambitious agreements from being signed.
Certainly the developing countries, led by China and India, were behaving stubbornly, but for good reason. The United States is by far the largest per-capita polluter in the world. Each American generates about 45,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, twice as much as the average European or Japanese, and 4 to 10 times more than someone living in China, India or any other developing country. China is close to the U.S. in terms of total carbon emissions - each emits about 25 percent of the world's total - but it has four times more people.
The U.S. demanded that the developing world join in making drastic cuts, but the poorer countries cried foul. As one Indian official said, "First you do virtually nothing to cut your emissions, and then you threaten us [the developing world] with drowning from global warming sea level rise if we don't cut ours. It won't wash."
So it was known all along that the U.S. had to offer something ambitious to start off the bargaining. In a real sense, the success of Copenhagen depended on the United States - that is, on President Obama.
Instead, what Mr. Obama offered was a bait-and-switch. Leading up to Copenhagen, Europe already had committed itself to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and offered to go to 30 percent if the U.S. matched it.
That was a generous offer, especially considering that Europe already has an "ecological footprint" that is half that of the United States because it has done far more than the U.S. to implement conservation and renewable technologies.
American negotiators countered by offering to reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent - but stipulated that it would be 17 percent of 2005 levels, whereas most other countries used the benchmark of 1990 levels. The difference is substantial: In effect, America was agreeing to reduce carbon emissions by only about 4 percent of 1990 levels.
When the U.S. negotiators made this offer, the shock that echoed around Copenhagen was palpable. Everyone knew its ramifications - mainly that China, India and the developing nations would walk away from any significant agreement. So when Mr. Obama finally arrived in Copenhagen, he was in complete face-saving mode.
Another sticking point at Copenhagen was that the developing world insisted, quite rightly, that the developed world should pay for much of the poor nations' carbon mitigations, since the developed world had caused most of the pollution to begin with.
Here again, Europe stepped up with an initial offering of up to $15 billion a year for the next decade to help developing nations cope with climate warming. Yet the Obama administration didn't offer anything close to that amount.
A consistent pattern has emerged, where the world has seen more symbolic gestures than accomplishments from the Obama administration.
Even the White House's biggest achievement has been a disappointment. President Obama signed an executive order to increase U.S. motor vehicle mileage standards to 32 miles per gallon - but not until 2020. That's a level that European and Japanese cars, which already average 40 m.p.g., have long surpassed, and even China will soon achieve.
Why has President Obama been so unwilling to match his lofty words with concrete deeds?
One major reason is the U.S. Senate. Mr. Obama needs 60 of the 100 Senate votes to get climate policy - or any other measure, like health care. This means that the 40 Republican senators joined by a single Democrat or independent can block any measure.
Mr. Obama isn't delivering because he can't deliver. The majorities needed for major policy changes are too high a threshold, even for someone with Mr. Obama's political gifts.
Following Copenhagen, Germany's environment minister, Norbert Röttgen, had some stinging criticisms for President Obama, as well as for China's leadership. "We are experiencing a lack of results and an inability to act, triggered mainly by the United States which, in the case of climate protection, is no longer capable of leading," he said. "China doesn't want to lead, and the U.S. cannot lead."
Europe, on the other hand, presented itself as a unified bloc at the summit, with clear goals and a solid strategy. It already has done much to reduce its own carbon footprint. But Europe cannot solve the problem alone. Since its share of global carbon emissions is only about 14 percent, Europe could stop emitting CO2 tomorrow and global warming would still be catastrophic. Said Mr. Röttgen, "On this issue those who emit the most have the greatest power."
So one of the unfortunate lessons from Copenhagen is that even an Obama-led United States cannot be counted on as a reliable partner. Europe is trying to step into the leadership vacuum, but without the world's largest national economy and per capita polluter making greater efforts, success is in jeopardy.
- Posted in
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...
57 Comments so far
Show All"Instead, what Obama offered was a bait and switch" can be applied to Obama's financial industry strategy, Obamacare and other issues, in addition to climate change.
And yet, Ray, the article dutifully includes a paragraph that explains how Brand O has his hands tied because he doesn't have a filibuster-proof Senate to advance progressive policies.
(Personally, I'm tired of this excuse.)
Oh, we had caught onto the sham of Obama long before Copenhagen--while Europe was still awarding him peace prizes...
Regarding China...someone needs to point out that when we talk about China it is American "interests", as in American corporations off-shored there--so it isn't purely China's interests at stake.
and please don't grant Obama any excuses or apologize for him by blaming the Senate. If the whitehouse wanted to line up votes they would exert "discipline", via arm-twisting, and threats. They certainly proved that by ordering the "progressives" around. The excuse serves the Democrats--they deflect responsibility by claiming it was the best they could deliver when it was what they wanted all along. We won't be the largest economy for much longer--most of it is a propped-up sham.
Jesus, wise up!
- We won't be the largest economy for much longer -
You're a bit late, Vern.
from Wikip. - The economy of the European Union...according to the IMF...the largest economy in the world.
Got me there.
I recall some pompous Libertarian, who spent part of the year in Germany,claim that the Euro would never be worth more than the dollar. Bet he can't afford those overseas vacations anymore. I know I can't. The standard of living in Southern Italy is more than I can afford with US money.
Just wait until East Asia coalesces.
The bigger the danger, the bigger the agglomeration of powers necessary to defend against the danger.
Watch! as the EU and East Asia form stronger unions in response to the danger from - guess who? -
The Senate's absurd, obstructionist, non-constitutional 60-vote "requirement" is only part of the problem.
If Obama truly cared about any part of the agenda which progressives care about, he would use his rhetorical "gifts" on the bully pulpit of national TV to inspire citizens to pressure those obstructionist Republican and Blue Dog Senators.
But it's obvious that Obama, like most of Congress and the Supreme Court, is a Corporate Tool. As long as we have government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, our "democracy" is dead, as are our chances for ending unnecessary (but profitable) wars, restoring the middle class, and slowing climate chaos.
"he would use his rhetorical "gifts" on the bully pulpit of national TV"
Great point ED. We all know the bias of the main stream media. A president is the only person that can get all the airtime he/she wants. If he believed in Universal Health Care, then he would have been speaking every day and night to the masses.
Instead, well, you know.
Actually, the press has started to complain about his sparse press conferences.
Sound familiar?
Very Bushian of him, I would say -- and only one year in, too. And notice how the State the Union has been pushed off tentatively into February, I think. I assume he's waiting for his "stars" to align -- i.e. the health insurance deform, for one. On the other hand, maybe the speechwriters are just having a lot of trouble finding a giant tub of lipstick.
"Europeans are realizing that Mr. Obama is going to have a very difficult time delivering on his agenda. "
damn - I'd say that Europe is as blind as the Democratic apologists of Obama who always say - "he's only one man - he can't really do anything"
what a bunch of BS!
I'd argue Obama is deleivering on his true agenda...... enriching the wealthy, completing the corporate takeover of the federal government, destroying the leftwing of American politics, and making sure the system stays the same.....besides delivering Congress back to the rethugs and the White House back to the Bushes - this time Jeb (you know the smart one- that's how they'll sell it.
anyone who thinks differently show me one thing Obama has done to actually help WE THE PEOPLE that doesn't 1st enrich the corporate powers that be?
Just one?
and thinking that the corporate powers will unilaterally clean up their own mess on their own dime is like thinking a herion addict will one day clean up all on their own while they still have a big bag of smack on the coffee table in front of them!
ain't gonna happen ... no way no how....
WAKE UP EUROPE..... you've been PUNKED!
just for the record, I'm about to have dinner with some people who are high up on the editorial board of The New York Times, I've been warned not to talk politics or I will be ejected. Something about this country reminds me of a real life deadly version of Get Smart.
Do it anyway, and see what happens.
Really you need the one issue of health care to understand Obama on just about everything -- his MO. Savvy voters understood that vital importance of real health care reform on all fronts -- it affects every aspect of the economy. Obama had the majority of the people solidly behind him on this issue -- solidly, in poll after poll. All he really had to do was use the bully pulpit. It's very possible that he could have pulled off that Medicare for All bill -- particularly the one that Bernie Sanders' recently advocated. Forceful, passionate rhetoric action on this, plus the players at the table, yes, I believe there was a good possibility for this -- at the very least a very strong Medicare public option open to anyone.
At least these are my feelings on the subject. The point is that Obama didn't try. Europeans seem puzzled by the health care debate -- why it's so difficult. Well, Obama's behavior regarding health care reform is no different from anything else he has done -- half-hearted BS and the mantra of "no, we can't."
But he does seem quite the passionate warmonger! Yep, our military is leaving a large carbon footprint wherever it goes!
- show me one thing Obama has done to actually help WE THE PEOPLE -
locust would like to say something here. locust hopes you can put down your anger long enough to listen.
locust has for months suggested that people stop talking about separate wars for Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, etc.
It is all the DAFT war, an insane trap that America is stuck in. It was started by Congress, who enacted Public Law 107-40 - a law that declared war against enemies to be named later - a law that set as the US military's mission the 'preventing of future terrorism'.
This law is the source of the insanity that we now suffer and the mechanism that drives it forever onward.
I suggested for months that Progressives cease their ridiculous writing campaigns to Santa Obama (begging him to withdraw troops from the battlefield), because they were in the wrong language.
What language does Mr. Obama hear? He is a Constitutional lawyer.
"Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them -- an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1."
Mr. Obama points out the same law that locust points out.
Mr. Obama points out that almost all of Congress (except for Barbara Lee, my hero) went along with Bush/Cheney's traveling horror show of lies and deceits and political blackmail.
locust suggests that we hold others responsible, not just Mr. Obama.
Congress, for instance. After all, they're up for election this year, and Mr. Obama not for another 2 years.
Mr. Obama has shown us where to look for the true path to peace. It is the path that locust shows.
- show me one thing - well?
Perhaps each political unit should attempt zero pollution emissions alone. Determination and correction for market price differentials from outside competitors with hidden environmental and health costs will be an admirable career choice in future sustainable cultures.
We'll never really know if Obama can't deliver--because he refuses to try. This has become his MO, and bait-and-switch is the theme of this administration. We've seen it on health care, on finance reform, and now on the environment. Obama has betrayed the people on every campaign promise.
Obama is an elite, effete narcissist who will simply not get down in the trenches and fight for the people. He's enslaved to big corporations and banks, and he will do anything to keep their contributions filling his coffers. Added to his own dereliction of duty is that evil shadow hanging over his shoulder--named Rahm Emanuel--who firmly believes that the left and progressives will keep swallowing this deception and betrayal because we simply have no where else to go.
Well Rahm, I'll be washing my hair on election day--and night. Good luck turning out the voters for more of the same garbage.
They have the house, the senate and the Presidency and still search for an excuse to cover their complicity.
was reading this drivel, wondering who is making excuses for our new Neocon-in-chief, when I suddenly realized the source. NY Times... The elitist version of the National Enquirer. Should be sold next to the candy rack at the check out counter.
When the Dems won the election in 2006 they "took impeachment off the table", which their moral compass should have demanded, so they could win the election in 2008. The Repubs now refuse to go along with anything the Dems propose not because it causes any injury to their native and traditional constituency, but rather because it is part of their strategy to win the election in 2010&12. Government is merely a strategy for the next election. Anything for the good of the country and compromise are relects of the distant past.
Just imagine a world where the Dems had attempted impeachment. A bold stand for the rule of law would have made morally repugnant and hypocritical all of the Obama=Bush'isms', Guantanamo, the war on Islam, and the failure to embrace and advance the Bush rejected Kyoto accords. All of the things that frustrate the progressive constituency. 'Hope' for 'Change' has shriveled away. Everyone in the world now can bear witness.
re "Mr. Obama isn't delivering because he can't deliver. The majorities needed for major policy changes are too high a threshold, even for someone with Mr. Obama's political gifts."
Mr. Obama's "political gifts" are quite overrated. He does have oratorical gifts, but real leadership involves sticking to one's convictions forcefully, as well as wielding power using arm-twisting, persuasion, and shaming your opponents who don't have the moral high ground. Obama lacks all of these gifts.
I don't even think he has "oratorical gifts" but that perception of him will likely be the last to die. I've never understood where this myth originates. It can't be from actually paying attention to his speaking style, and certainly not to what he says. The guy is full of platitude after platitude, only speaks from a teleprompter and is a complete mediocrity when he's not scripted. Something about that way he has of turning to his left, then his right, chin raised, looking superficially confident in his clipped phrasing, lacking any emotion AT ALL in his every boring utterance, just illustrates to me how easily fooled Americans are. If this is a great speaker exhibiting marvelous rhetorical skills, then our standards have fallen dramatically. Compare Obama to MLK or JFK and he's a middling high school debater who clearly doesn't really have any point of view or passionate opinion about anything. Just what Americans need these days?
Obviously a big part of the reason he is overrated is that he is compared to W rather than to MLK or JFK.
I agree completely, Ephraim, and especially applaud your succinct and accurate description of Obama's actual, literal POSE and body language. I can only conclude that this is an episode of "The Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome. And even the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Somehow a meme... arose: Everybody Knows that Obama is an Oratorical Prodigy. Or Genius. Or Virtuoso. It just worked its way into Received Wisdom; naturally the cry was promptly taken up and repeated by Obama's pep squads and cheerleaders, then amplified and reified by sympathetic infotainwhore parrots and stenographers.
To my ear, Obama has always substituted diction for passion, and emphasis for conviction. How anyone can be thrilled or inspired by such a weirdly bloodless, soulless, and mechanical style is beyond me.
Good enough for the Nobel Institute and liberal-lite rubes-- and to send an electric thrill up Tweety Matthews' leg-- but cheesy by big-city audience standards.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Ephraim and OS,You two have said it!
'The soft bigotry of low expectations' -- good line, O.S. And all too true. After all, one wouldn't want to appear racist by criticizing too severely.
I've said this before in this forum, but it bears repeating: political correctness not only passes itself off as progressivism, but it knowingly and cynically takes its place to serve reactionary agendas. This is how the Bushes and Obamas can embrace "feminism" for the women of Islam while slaughtering men, women and children to their hearts' content. This is why Obama can appoint a transsexual to a political office while pursuing a radically imperialist agenda. It is smoke and mirrors, it is wool pulled over our eyes, it is a way to make people look at narrow single issues instead of the big picture. Most black radicals are hip to the fact that the plight of African-Americans is henceforth far more an economic one than a racial issue. Obama is the sop the elites have tossed to the lethargic multitudes at once to placate and divide them.
clovis
"I've said this before in this forum, but it bears repeating: political correctness not only passes itself off as progressivism, but it knowingly and cynically takes its place to serve reactionary agendas."
And I fervently hope you keep saying it. It is the truth so many simply don't understand.
"Most black radicals are hip to the fact that the plight of African-Americans is henceforth far more an economic one than a racial issue."
Most blacks, radical or not, fully understand things are exactly that, economic not racial.
Great post.
Obd't S'v't and clovis, it's good to know I'm not the only one, because at times I've thought I was. The "meme" you mention is definitely a strong one and seemingly refuses to die. Even during that everlasting campaign I kept thinking, Where is this great oratory I keep hearing about Obama? He seemed robotic, uninspiring and completely conventional in the CONTENT of his speeches, but of course we all know content counts for nearly nothing these days. But even as an actor, which all politicians must be first and foremost, Obama seemed a total mediocrity. I think you're absolutely right: "Everybody Knows that Obama is an Oratorical Prodigy. Or Genius. Or Virtuoso." Demurring from this received wisdom instantly threw one into the curmudgeon camp, or made others pity one's failure to recognize such obvious genius in our very midst. How long will it take most progressives to wake up to this little inconvenient truth? Our president is not only a fake and a fraud, but everyone should have seen this from the beginning. He's a soporific speaker and wouldn't hold the attention of a gathering of political science graduate students if he weren't reading from a teleprompter.
To Ephraim: Your description of Obama's delivery is quite good. To answer the question you posed in your initial post: Obama's undeserved reputation as oratorically gifted originates in the corporate mass media. The corporate capitalist/imperialist elite like Nine Dollar Barry (Obama). They did the same for Ronald Reagan, an arrant dunce, who was blessed as the Great Communicator. The most stunning phenomenon is not just the currency of this "myth"; but what it says about the powers of political judgment wielded by what's left of the Left in this country. Specifically, any literate adult with a middling share of public virtue would be able to peg Obama as a nauseating phony after less than five minutes of one of his typical performances; yet the Left, or great portions of it, fell for Obama's con artistry.
You got that right.
Obama lacks all of these gifts because he has no convictions.
"One major reason is the U.S. Senate. Mr. Obama needs 60 of the 100 Senate votes to get climate policy - or any other measure, like health care. This means that the 40 Republican senators joined by a single Democrat or independent can block any measure.
Mr. Obama isn't delivering because he can't deliver. The majorities needed for major policy changes are too high a threshold, even for someone with Mr. Obama's political gifts."
I don't buy this argument at all. Notice how Bush Jr. never had close to 60 votes in the senate. Most of the time the D's controlled congress. And yet he got most of his regressive policies enacted. He used reconciliation and got it done with 50+ votes. Obama could do that too if he was serious about change. He's using the filibuster excuse as cover. He's getting just what he wants--- corporate domination of every aspect of our lives.
The New York Time writes "Mr. Obama isn't delivering because he can't deliver."
Maybe, maybe not; more to the point is how little Mr. Obama has bothered to try to deliver.
"Instead, what Mr. Obama offered was a bait-and-switch."
The entire presidency of Obama summed up in a short sentence.
Indeed.
kw
In my personal opinion you are mixing pears and apples. True, Europe has got a problem with its elites, similar to the States. If you look closely, you see a similar gap between incomes of the poor and the wealthy as in the US, but the effect of it is much smaller due to a powerful social system and higher taxes. The EU itself, while also being a real peace project (and a successful one) is also a project of the elites and for them, becoming more powerful than the previously so arrogant Americans has always been an appealing idea. You have Wall Street, we have the London City and Credit Suisse. Quite difficult to say what's better or worse. So what you say about getting a bigger slice, I would agree. On the other side I personally believe (and this seems to me to be the mainstream view in Europe) that the Nobel Price Committee had sincerely tried to do do something genuinely good. Problem is, the decision was months before the price was handed out and I am sure, everybody felt a bit embarrassed about the whole thing.
One reason why Europeans loved Obama is that he came across as being so different to the faceless European bureaucrats, who move from small little compromise to the next small little compromise, 3 steps forward, 2 back. And then you got "politicians" like Berlusconi.
What makes Europe a bit different is the overall political climate. The average European knows more about politicis and engages more in politics (no wonder after bashing each other for hundreds of years out of all sorts of reasons, the last one being ideologies). Outlandish beliefs like Christian fundamentalism have no chance whatsoever to be more than a sectist belief. Rightwing extremism is watched very closely (no wonder) and there are some real tough laws. You would not be able to run a hate radio/TV station/programme at all in Europe
Europe is definitely disenchanted with Obama. There is the feeling that he has given away his chance because he did not take the opposition serious enough and that he believed his rethorics will also win him the after it won him the election battle. He might have been a notch too idealistic, but unfrotunately you do not get beauty prices as president of the US. you win or you lose. It's a bit like the emperor without clothes
I could not listen to Bush speak (he hardly did anway) because I could not bear this stupidity and lack of intelligence. I loved listening to Clinton before he gave all his speaking power and gift away to get through the Lewinski affair and I realized that I have stopped listening to Obama a few months ago (I switch to another channel) because the discrepancy between reality and rethorics is just too embarrassing and painful.
kw 12:41 pm - I haven't been able to listen to a "President" 'speak' without nausea and vomiting since LBJ announced the Gulf of Tonkin lie. I have had the same response watching and listening to sociopaths lie. My body doesn't seem to be able to recognize the difference between sociopaths and "Presidents". Is there one? Help me on this. Please don't tell me about 1-term Carter - the Dims castrated him 90 days into his administration and collaborated with the Repugs to destroy him, just like the Dims are collaborating with the richfilth animals today to fuck us to death.
I share the same visceral repugnance towards presidents-- and for that matter, Elected Misrepresentatives in general.
My crap detectors start complaining like arthritic knees when wet weather approaches.
Because a close relative with political views similar to mine unexpectedly jumped on the Obama bandwagon last year, I really tried to hit the snooze button on my crap detectors. He wasn't even president then, but I couldn't just suppress the gag reflex.
That said, I also want to tip my hat over your point about the Democratic establishment in DC sandbagging the Carter administration.
I'm aware of opinions that Carter's "Georgia Mafia" team brought it on themselves by letting the "Washington (DC) outsider" dynamic go to their heads, i.e. that they were so haughty and obnoxious that they pissed off the locals. But then, the same thing has been said about the Clintons.
Regardless of how the blame is apportioned, Clan Kennedy ally Tip O'Neill apparently detested the ascendancy of the Southern Democrats and ruthlessly undermined Carter all the way.
The trite and flabby clichés that Carter's presidency was a failure because he was "too weak", "too nice", politically inept or timid, etc. remain alive and afloat in the small and shallow fishbowls of conventional political discourse.
It's always seemed odd to me that the Democratic internecine warfare during Carter's term remains a well-kept secret. That's why I'm glad you pointed it out.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Are you actually trying to say that Carter was a good president, that he was somehow different? Carter may be trying to make amends since leaving office but when he was in power, he ran with the worst of them.
Anyone who could claim that the Shah of Iran was a dear friend, as Carter did, and who strongly supported Marcos and Suharto, as Carter did, and who certainly didn't actively oppose any of the American dictators, including Somosa and "Baby Doc" Duvalier can't hold the mantle of justice without leaving it seriously tarnished. Additionally, If it weren't for that treaty (Camp David) between Egypt and Israel, the people of Gaza would probably not be so completely boxed in today.
As governor of Georgia, he signed into law a bill re-establishing the death penalty. Does it really matter that he "didn't believe in it" personally, as he claimed? I'd much rather have someone abolish the death penalty even though they believed in it, like Bill Richardson did recently in New Mexico, the second time a New Mexico governor has acted against the death penalty (Anaya commuted all death sentences in 1986.) Let's never forget it was Carter's justice department that obtained the conviction against Leonard Peltier.
So please, don't try to rewrite history by rehabilitating Carter's presidency.
kw
I believe you give Mr. Obama too much credit. I believe he is simply naive when it comes to world affairs and he belives our elites version of diplomacy which has left you Europeans laughing all over the place and rightly so. He is certainly a fool when it comes to domestic politics.
You are correct, Europe has its own set of problems arising and your own set of elites to deal with.
We'd be happy to send you Obama if you'd like. And Pelosi N/C.
What exactly are Obama's politics that he finds so difficult to deliver? I don't think he really has any, apart from his belief in himself, which is normal for someone with his educational background. At the same time they learn to identify their own self-interest with that of the nation as a whole. But what they really learn as they advance through the system, upwards and onwards, is to become one with the world view of the powerful ruling elite and make themselves useful to the "ruling class."
Obama could, if he was serious about reform, have mobilized his supporters, remember the heady and intoxicated multitude in Chicago on election night? Those millions of young and black voters, represented, if he wanted to, real power. A power base that could, with real leadership, have evolved into a movement for change that Congress would have been very unwise to ignore. Yet Obama chose not to deal the hand he'd been dealt by the US electorate, and literally he betrayed their hopes and desire for change, why? Because he isn't the candidate of change at all. He is the candidate of continuity, continuity of elite rule. An elite he always wanted to become part of rather than challenge.
This is the tragedy of American politics. No president can really challenge the interests of the ruling elite and get away with it, even when the elite is confused and split, which they rarely are. The selection process before on gets to the election is so controlled that real reform candidates don't stand a chance. The same twin party dictatorship has monopolized political power in the United States for two centuries, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
"He is the candidate of continuity, continuity of elite rule. An elite he always wanted to become part of rather than challenge."
Yes. He's living his dream.
"The selection process before one gets to the election is so controlled that real reform candidates don't stand a chance."
Yes. Obama was vetted years ago.
How do you measure the "carbon footprint" of 10,000 nuclear warheads?
What would be the average American's "carbon footprint" if the War Department were excluded from the calculation?
Has anyone done an "externalities study" on the "carbon footprint" of the "Cash for Clunkers" program that got so many people into monthly payments for new cars to replace the ones they had paid off? (Roughly equivalent to dairymen dumping their milk in the streets during The Great Depression...)
Stop overproduction and start equitable redistribution of wealth. Create an economy no longer reliant on "planned obsolescence." That would go far to reduce our "carbon footprint." (If I had saved all the burnt out light bulbs in my life, they'd fill a room... If they can design a light bulb to fail after X hours of operation, they can do the same to you. Hell, they are probably doing it right now, you high-fructose-corn-syrup-guzzling sorry excuse for a human being! Is that RealTM cheese on that pizza, Buster?)
Fascism Sucks!
-30-
Dear Mr. NYTs, you wrote, "Mr. Obama is going to have a very difficult time delivering on his agenda." No he isn't.
His agenda is exactly the same as the Bush Crime family, with frilly lace around the edges -
1) Fuck us to death;
2) Give all the wealth of America to the top 1/4 of 1%;
3) No Health Care of any kind for any working class people (80%) (see: no Jobs)
4) All war all the time (see #2);
5) Elimination of majority home ownership;
6) Demographic Collapse (see #1) with Die-Back (we're the Die-Back);
7) Total locked down with Domestic Torture as the Law of the Land - for our "Security"
He's not going to have a difficult time with this "agenda" at all - it's baked in the cake and Europe should take note - they're next. No prisoners, no mercy.
The New York Times spread lies, on purpose, in order to get the American people to accept an illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq. Over a million people died, the majority of them children. It ruined Iraq, it severely damaged America.
Author Thomas Friedman is allowed to promote war crimes on the pages of the New York Times* (see below), yet Paul Krugman is banned from using the word "lies" to describe the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had WMD and was about to use them on Americans.
Comments on the progressive Common Dreams website are banned because their author used capital letters, yet the editors seem fine with printing articles from the mouth of a monster.
What's up with Americans? Is something in the water?
*Friedman on the illegal killing of civilians in Lebanon:
" ... to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical." And he goes on to say he hoped it taught them a lesson.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html
This is how terrorism operates, by teaching lessons.
BAN THE NEW YORK TIMES, NOT CAPITAL LETTERS!
Why doesn't Oblah blah blahma just declare a "War Against Climate Change" (WACC) and launch a pre-emptice strike against polluters?
Then he apperantly wouldn't need Congress to support it, as it would fall under national security.
Europeans are realizing that Mr. Obama is going to have a very difficult time delivering on his agenda.
Which agenda would that be? The Agenda of Gargantuan Lies during the campaign of '08? No sweat, Daddy Long Legs never had any intention of carrying out any of that. Or is it The Post January 21st '09 Agenda which walks and talks not like a duck but like a Bush. In that, he is a success. What does Europe think now?
this place sounds like FOX news or a bunch of right wing racists. Or can ONLY progressives dissent against the Messiah?
Poor Barack Obama!
Those mean people in Congress (misnomer) are keeping him from doing great things!
So, Steven Hill, has Obama ever farted while you were kissing his ass?
Putting the war machine to work on domestic green projects would be a win-win. Swords to plowshares. High speed trains, windmills, green infrastructure, etc.
But then we got all them tersts goin aroun terrizin everbody so we gotta spend trillions checkin fer box cutters and underwear lest dem al qaidas terrize everbody.