EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Thursday, February 4, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
We Wanted a Nelson Mandela; We Got a Clarence Thomas
President Barack Obama is an enigma. No one quite seems to know what
he actually stands for.
Most progressives saw in the election of Obama, a Nelson Mandela figure. Based on his first year in office, many are understandably disillusioned.
Conversely, much of the right wing of this country demonize(d) him as a Joseph Stalin figure, this in a “right-center” country.
The context of the 2008 election is important in making sense of these views; it was a landslide. Obama garnered 54% of the electorate compared to 46% for McCain (Apparently, someone forgot to tell the electorate that we live in a “right-center” country).
Understanding this, the 2010 analyses of McCain/Palin and their supporters matter little because it is their views that were thoroughly repudiated in the 2008 elections. And their hostile opinions of the president have not actually changed. If anything, they’ve been emboldened by now having 41 votes in the senate – compared to 59 for the Democrats (Apparently neither party can count as Bush never needed 59 votes to govern forcefully, albeit for the wrong causes). They would be quite happy with a Torquemada figure, someone who governs from a place of fear, with an iron fist, who is not afraid to employ torture.
The Obama enigma has more to do with the expectations of those who swept him into office. In truth, those who thought they had gotten Mandela – a liberator – were few because most understood that Obama was elected head of an empire, not head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Many more Democrats and Independents thought they had elected a Martin Luther King figure – someone who would fight for the rights and dignity of all human beings. Unquestionably, Obama indeed can speak like MLK, but his actions, especially on matters of war and peace and human rights, have been much closer to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Obama/Biden administration is clearly different than a McCain/Palin administration would have been. Obama has set a different tone worldwide, but he has not substantively altered the Bush-Cheney doctrine. And rather than investigate former administration officials for their roles in carrying out an illegal war, Obama unilaterally has given them “get-out-of-jail free” cards. Worse, he’s embraced most of Bush’s extra-legal policies in court. The only substantive difference has come in relation to Guantanamo. For conservatives, Guantanamo is Nirvana – a place outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. While he has moved swiftly to close it down, he has not repudiated its most reprehensible feature: indefinite detention of suspects without charges.
The context of the 2008 election was a clear repudiation of all things Bush-Cheney. Bush argued that September 11, 2001 had given him the right to ignore the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, and international law. Beyond that, he crafted a circular argument for his assertion and exercise of dictatorial powers; we were a nation at war. That assertion depended upon a condition of permanent worldwide war.
That’s why people had hoped for an MLK figure. That instead we got a Clarence Thomas is not hyperbole. Time and again, the Obama administration has upheld virtually every Bush war policy in and out of court, including the notion of an all-powerful unitary executive, the right to permanent worldwide war, the right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges and to rendition them and to illegally spy on Americans.
At home, Obama has bungled his electoral mandate, especially on health care, the economy and immigration. Rather than govern with a clear moral authority, he has instead governed weakly from “the middle,” as a naïve politician, appeasing the same right wing opponents that detest his every move. Ironically, Bush did not receive a decisive electoral mandate, yet he governed decisively. Contrarily, Obama was given a massive electoral mandate, only to govern timidly as though he owes his victory to the sore losers Tea Party Movement.
There are several precedents for governing from the middle. One came in the early 20th century in Mexico after the ouster of dictator Porfirio Diaz. The naïve new president, Francisco Madero, thought he could reconcile the nation by ignoring his own supporters while appeasing Diaz’s allies. He left them in power where they soon deposed him.
Hopefully Obama will not suffer the same fate. However, unless and until he begins to act upon his stated convictions, he will continue to find himself proverbially in the middle of the political highway as roadkill. He doesn’t have to be Mandela; the 2008 Obama will suffice.
Most progressives saw in the election of Obama, a Nelson Mandela figure. Based on his first year in office, many are understandably disillusioned.
Conversely, much of the right wing of this country demonize(d) him as a Joseph Stalin figure, this in a “right-center” country.
The context of the 2008 election is important in making sense of these views; it was a landslide. Obama garnered 54% of the electorate compared to 46% for McCain (Apparently, someone forgot to tell the electorate that we live in a “right-center” country).
Understanding this, the 2010 analyses of McCain/Palin and their supporters matter little because it is their views that were thoroughly repudiated in the 2008 elections. And their hostile opinions of the president have not actually changed. If anything, they’ve been emboldened by now having 41 votes in the senate – compared to 59 for the Democrats (Apparently neither party can count as Bush never needed 59 votes to govern forcefully, albeit for the wrong causes). They would be quite happy with a Torquemada figure, someone who governs from a place of fear, with an iron fist, who is not afraid to employ torture.
The Obama enigma has more to do with the expectations of those who swept him into office. In truth, those who thought they had gotten Mandela – a liberator – were few because most understood that Obama was elected head of an empire, not head of the UN Human Rights Commission. Many more Democrats and Independents thought they had elected a Martin Luther King figure – someone who would fight for the rights and dignity of all human beings. Unquestionably, Obama indeed can speak like MLK, but his actions, especially on matters of war and peace and human rights, have been much closer to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Obama/Biden administration is clearly different than a McCain/Palin administration would have been. Obama has set a different tone worldwide, but he has not substantively altered the Bush-Cheney doctrine. And rather than investigate former administration officials for their roles in carrying out an illegal war, Obama unilaterally has given them “get-out-of-jail free” cards. Worse, he’s embraced most of Bush’s extra-legal policies in court. The only substantive difference has come in relation to Guantanamo. For conservatives, Guantanamo is Nirvana – a place outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. While he has moved swiftly to close it down, he has not repudiated its most reprehensible feature: indefinite detention of suspects without charges.
The context of the 2008 election was a clear repudiation of all things Bush-Cheney. Bush argued that September 11, 2001 had given him the right to ignore the U.S. Constitution, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court, and international law. Beyond that, he crafted a circular argument for his assertion and exercise of dictatorial powers; we were a nation at war. That assertion depended upon a condition of permanent worldwide war.
That’s why people had hoped for an MLK figure. That instead we got a Clarence Thomas is not hyperbole. Time and again, the Obama administration has upheld virtually every Bush war policy in and out of court, including the notion of an all-powerful unitary executive, the right to permanent worldwide war, the right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges and to rendition them and to illegally spy on Americans.
At home, Obama has bungled his electoral mandate, especially on health care, the economy and immigration. Rather than govern with a clear moral authority, he has instead governed weakly from “the middle,” as a naïve politician, appeasing the same right wing opponents that detest his every move. Ironically, Bush did not receive a decisive electoral mandate, yet he governed decisively. Contrarily, Obama was given a massive electoral mandate, only to govern timidly as though he owes his victory to the sore losers Tea Party Movement.
There are several precedents for governing from the middle. One came in the early 20th century in Mexico after the ouster of dictator Porfirio Diaz. The naïve new president, Francisco Madero, thought he could reconcile the nation by ignoring his own supporters while appeasing Diaz’s allies. He left them in power where they soon deposed him.
Hopefully Obama will not suffer the same fate. However, unless and until he begins to act upon his stated convictions, he will continue to find himself proverbially in the middle of the political highway as roadkill. He doesn’t have to be Mandela; the 2008 Obama will suffice.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
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...
105 Comments so far
Show AllI'm not too thrilled with Obama so far, but much of these sorts of reactions are way over the top.
Clarence Thomas?!
Get a grip!
Way over the top? How many people is Thomas responsible for having killed in acts of war? The comparison may be too kind, actually.
Anyway, I have a better metaphor for Obama, something his progressive former base might say to him, by way of Jagger-Richards: "I gave you diamonds / You gave me disease."
Have you not been looking at the body counts in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Gaza? The children who have been shot, point blank? the innocents bombed to smithereens by Obama's drones? Where have you been? Obama's pile of dead innocents is far higher than Thomas'.
Obama is a Republican with a D in front of his name. He is even protecting his right to assassinate American citizens if he - alone, without a court warrent or review - deems it "necessary." Just imagine how, if not Obama, future presidents might use this. Is Obama trying to maintain this right to assassinate citizens? Yes, he is.
Guantanamo: "While he (Obama)has moved swiftly to close it down"???? Huh?
Has Guantanamo been closed down swiftly, or otherwise?
Last I heard, we just learned of a new "Guantanamo inside Guantanamo", a "camp no", where (at least) three prisoners were tortured to death in 2006...and the Democrats don't want to investigate.
...apart from that, what is this article about? Yet another take on when Americans should expect Obama to morph into Nelson Mandela? What universe are these people living in? Check out the video that was put on CD yesterday, the one that shows Obama being the first senator to speak to the corporate "Hamilton Group" that runs the Democratic party.
Has anyone seen one decent positive article written about Barry????
(BARRY) = Thomas...it won't take much to balance this equation!
There is plenty to be disappointed with Obama on but calling him Clarance Thomas because he isn't being idealistic is just as looney as the right winger republicans. The presidential election of 2008 is long over and 2012 is still a long way's off. We should be focusing on what to do with what we got. We're all disappointed but Obama is getting more pressure from the right wingers than he is from the left. Obama used to be liberal until he was pressured by the right wingers when he went to Washington and the same thing would have happened to Nader and Mckinney. Doesn't Professor Rodriguez have better things to do such as help his students think left so that AZ can go blue?
Nader and McKinney have proven courage and strength. Mr. Obama has always been a queen or poser.
I respect their courage but this is outside. What happens when they are inside? Obama used to be like them when he was state senator. What happened when he entered Washington and what makes you think that the same thing can't happen to Nader and Mckinney? FDR faced tremendous opposition from Congress and the media even with strong popular support. Where is that same strong public support Nader and Mckinney need?
Clarence Thomas is a narcissistic, uncle tom jurist with no history of legal brilliance. He ascended to the supreme court because he was willing to carry water for the empire. He has consistently sided with he oppressors and against the oppressed. He is, in every sense, a clasic "sell out."
Obama's success has followed a similar trajectory, but to me, it has been even more co-opted. Thomas never presented himself as the savior of the oppressed. He has been a consistent collaborator with the status quo.
Obama has time after time presented himself as a systemic change agent, gained the trust of the people, and then gone on to represent the interests of the elite. The view of Obama as the people';s candidate was a complete fabrication, an example of the most cynical and manipulative political marketing to date.
Roberto's analogy is right on.
I voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primary because I thought that Obama was a manchurian candidate but the media helped him win. Obama has been a huge letdown and I wished he were a bold progressive but he needs the same public progressive support FDR had to turn around and beat the status quo.
Sioux Rose
IOWA: Very apt assessment. We see that often for a minority candidate to make it to "the top," s/he must sell out on the very principles that resonate with a racially (or morally) just society. The powerbrokers will have it no other way.
This is often the case for women. Females like Hillary who can identify with the status quo, who are not bothered by the monster of militarism, readily advance. The old elite see them as useful minority figures who give the ILLUSION that progress, in the form of a greater representative population pool, is underway, when really, it's just adding a new costume to the old chorus. Same music. Same song. Same Shit.
So those who like to tell ME that the "Mars rules" thing is seen in women who abuse power misunderstand that it is THE SYSTEM that has led BOTH genders to this ecological, economical, and all too militaristic abyss, that must be deconstructed. The foundations of any society are built as much through ideas/ideology as substance/economics. Therefore the transition that is inevitable and already entering into beginning stages must tear down both. An eventual phoenix with qualities we cannot fully imagine will rise.
And his campaign won a top Advertising Award for the year 2008.
If they can sell sugar coated corn cereal to mothers, making them "feel," "imagine," "believe," that they're actually providing healthy nutrition to their kids, they can just as easily sell an agent of empire and make you think he's MLK incarnate. It's shameful to admit that we can be taken in so easily. So easily, given a lot of money and a complicit media.
People! Look into your cupboards! Read the labels!
When Obama was state Senator in IL, he was known as a champion among progressives and his speeches calling for an end to the Iraq war and for Congress to put single payer on the table made him a rising star. Despite that, I chose Kucinich over Obama for progressive experience.
You asked
"Do you see the difference between opposing an invasion because it won't work out well for the invaders; and opposing it because it's a fundamentally criminal action?"
Yes I do and I thought Obama would oppose it for the latter reason but I was wrong.
I have plenty of respect for Nader and Mckinney and I wished that we could watch them succeed but I don't think they have a chance to push for their progressive agenda even if they were to win. They would have to face a conservative Congress, a conservative media, and possible rightwing militants. They don't even have the same strong public support FDR enjoyed. FDR was very popular and there was strong public support and pressure to make him pass that New Deal. He faced tremendous opposition in Congress, the media, and he was almost removed from a rightwing militant coup in 1934. Nader was great but he spoiled the election in 2000 for Bush and moved the country to the right. Mckinney is good too but she got into trouble with the Capitol police at one time and later with Israel. Even without those flaws, Nader and Mckinney have nowhere close to the same public support FDR had and opposition to progressive reform from Congress, the media, and half of the nation makes impossible for them to get the job done. I would vote for Nader or Mckinney if either one had a chance to win at least 20% of the vote. I don't think third parties will ever have a chance to win.
See my response to jlocke on Mckinney and third parties winning.
I'll see what I can find on a speech or bug my wife to look it up if I'm too busy finishing the rest of my remaining repairwork assignments tonight.
-"When Obama was state Senator in IL, he was known as a champion among progressives ..."
How so?
-"They (Nader,McKinney) would have to face a conservative Congress, a conservative media, and possible rightwing militants."
So you don't support progressives because conservatives will have an easier time of it in politics?
-"Nader was great but he spoiled the election in 2000 for Bush and moved the country to the right"
Nader did all that, without getting elected, but you still maintain, he couldn't achieve anything if he did get elected, interesting.
-"Mckinney is good too but she got into trouble with the Capitol police at one time and later with Israel."
...So, to hell with peace and universal healthcare, your main priority is that politicians don't ruffle Israel?
-"I would vote for Nader or Mckinney if either one had a chance to win at least 20% of the vote."
Hmmmm, Palin could get more than that, vote for her, why don't you? Israel likes her, she would get along with the conservative media and congress, she wouldn't "spoil" the election for Bush,...
What you are saying, of course, is that you will vote for the Democratic party candidate, even if the Democratic party candidate is Beelzebub. I get it. You are not alone in that regard. And it shows in the state of your country. Your healthcare system sucks. Your journalism is a joke. You are in a permanent state of pseudo-war against a tactic. Your poorer are getting poorer, the rich, richer. Your rule of law is crumbling. Your democracy is a farce.
So naturally, you are sitting there, waiting to see who the Democratic leadership tells you to vote for in '10? Because with only two corporate parties, each one will surely achieve your threshhold of 20 percent of the vote. Or have I mischaracterized your position?
Hey man. I love my country to death so don't joke it ! It's Bush and the GOP who messed it up and Obama's trying to repair it even with his letdowns. Nader and Mckinney have a great progressive vision but their mistakes put them in the damaged goods junkyard. It costs too much to erase their bad mark. I'm open to voting Green Party but whoever it is they better not make a stupid mistake or they won't win and I'll just have to forget them and stick to the Democrats like it or hate it. Third are nice and very idealistic but if they can't make it to 10% in the polls, then they're just running as spoilers. I'm used to repairing the Democratic Party just like repairing broken appliances.
Sioux Rose
RICH M: I was waiting, and frankly hoping you'd show up to take the hot air out of this arrogant balloon... dwelling on thread after thread with its superficial opinions and "keep the children quiet" methods for "marginalizing dissent." More posters need to call these imposters on their glib arguments that have the substance of cotton candy. Thanks. Your debate skills are as toned as those of a trained marks man.
Old rumpled Ralph will never be POTUS.
Oh come now. We had rumpled skinned Republicans and Democrats win a presidential term. Ronald Reagan was close to 70 when he got a term and Bush I and II were rumpled skinned. Skin has nothing to do with why Ralph never became president. The reason he never got there was the voters fell for the two party duopoly repeatedly and denied Nader a chance. The Joe the Plumber Republicans and the Shawn the Repairman Democrats are the reason Ralph was never given the chance to be the president.
Want to tell us how there is supposed to be any pressure on Obama from the Left if they keep giving him a pass?
Simple. Everyone who voted for Obama should pressure him and Congress. He won 70 million votes. We trusted that he might do his part and we were wrong so we have to make him do it right like whipping a malfunctioning machine back to normal.
"disappointed with Obama on but calling him Clarance Thomas because he isn't being idealistic"
Yes, some of these "idealistic" purist who get all twitchy just because little children are being blown to smithereens, they need to get a grip! Obama used to be a nice guy. (I take it you didn't look at his record.)
Now, as you say, "what to do with what we got." I'm confused. What to do with the dead and maimed children, the innocent people who are victims of US empire and Obama's votes and now policies? hmmm. good question. Get the gold out of their teeth, perhaps? Use them for fuel?
Sorry, but I really hate it when people like you dismiss brutal killings because you willingly became brainwashed. You're not even physically held captive, for heaven's sake. You should be screaming: He's bombing kids! He's sending arms to Israel so they can murder innocent people! Instead, you are oh so calm. Calmer than I am, for sure.
Would you dismiss killings of your next door neighbors by someone who said they were terrorists? Then why do you dismiss Obama's crimes? Do you have double standards favoring those men and women the empire shoves down your throat? as opposed to ordinary criminals and killers of children?
You're the looney one here.
I'm not satisfied that Obama is sending troops into Afghanistan and I want out of Afghanistan too. It was Bush's war and I don't want Obama continuing it. As I said before, Afghanistan is just like Wall Street. They'll suck up all the resources we throw at them, do nothing about it, and then beg for more. I don't like it that Obama is letting Bush's crimes continue but he didn't commit any new crimes. If the death count rises high in Afghanistan by 2012, then you're on. I'm already a registered independent and I'm ready to draft Kucinich to replace Obama should it get worse. I don't know what progressive third party is ready for 2012. When it shows up, I'll see if they have any chance and see what to do. It's still to early and maybe he'll turn around but I'll wait and see.
Shawn, the guy you're "not satisfied" with is a criminal psychopath. In a healthy nation he would be in a locked ward somewhere. That all you can say is that you're "not satisfied" should make you wonder about yourself. "Not satisfied" with an unindicted mass murderer? That's all you are, "not satisfied"?
Ask yourself this: what's so important about "if the death count rises high"? Are you saying to yourself "he's president, it's okay if he kills 5,000 [or 7000 or whatever your number is]. But not if he goes to 5001! 5000 is okay, but 5001 is too many!"? Is that your idea? If so, what makes it okay for him to order the death of even *ONE* innocent person?
If he were to walk down your street, personally machine-gunning the houses as he passes by, would you still only be "not satisfied"? If you think you might feel a mix of terror, rage, and hatred instead, ask yourself why you don't have those same feelings now.
...You can't "speak like MLK" unless you're telling courageous profound truths about society...
Exactly. And someone in the oligarchy decided that MLK must be silenced. A plan was adopted and implemented and it worked. And no one has been able to replace him. The prescient knew in 1968 after the MLK assassination, and certainly after the RFK assassination, that the path of the US was set and there was only one direction it could go.
RichM, elainem and kivals: I agree with your comments.
When I hear Obama quote Martin Luther King, Jr., I feel sick to my stomach!
RichM, you have been so right lately with your comments, and you have succinctly captured Obama as a "slick liar". My feelings exactly. Wasn't it you who called him a "paid actor" on another thread? He's got the sympathy of guys like this author who are still fooled by his "trying to get something done but thwarted by ___" act.
I completely agree with your comment except I thought the title of the article was ridiculous. Anyone who expected Obama to be anything remotely like Nelson Mandela is seriously mentally impaired.
"However, unless and until he begins to act upon his stated convictions,..."
Mr. Obama has no convictions. He is a cypher, a zero, and place holder.
He only wanted to be the first man of color to be president of the USA.
Some were not fooled. But, the hysterical mob voted to put this shill into the White House.
I dinna thunk the voters were "hysterical ," at all. They calmly but desperately voted for real change (yeah I know you are tired of that word but facts iz facts). They got a puppet of the plutocracy instead. Some expected it. Most did not. Most wanted a real leader, but as you say, they got a shill.
Gary
“There is something to be said for government by a great aristocracy which has furnished leaders to the nation in peace and war for generations; even a democrat like myself must admit this. But there is absolutely nothing to be said for government by a plutocracy, for government by men very powerful in certain lines and gifted with the ''money touch',' but with ideals which in their essence are merely those of so many glorified pawnbrokers.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
On President Obama:
We can only hope that he grows in the job. America yearns for better. However, placeholders have their place. These are turbulent times and perhaps he's trying to "do no harm". We hope for the best and give him the benefit of the doubt.
The answer does not lie in one man but in many. Ralph Nader's "Citizen Role" will be the force that changes America, if it is to be changed. After all, it is the "Citizen" who benefits from a Democracy.
His rational solution regarding rulemaking in the Senate is an answer to the partisan log jam in Congress. The solution deserves resonance, because it is in keeping with the principle of "marjority rule". Failure to act on this straight forward idea exposes the Democrat's position. They are beholden to the same forces as Republicans, selling off public will for personal gain.
"....perhaps he's trying to "do no harm".
Try telling that to the civilians he's bombing in the three countries that we invaded illegally. Try telling that to any citizen of this planet who is aware of how he bungled Copenhagen, perhaps our last chance to save civilization and numerous fellow species.
No one, including Nader, could have straightened out the rotten mess that Bush-Cheney left behind, We will be fortunate if we ever recover from their disastrous actions. Our country has been hijacked by greedy individuals who will do anything to keep their power and money and they even have the tea-baggers out working for them. It is no problem to get your way when you control all broadcast or print media.
Nader sounds stronger than Obama and has years of accomplishments compared to Obama's but I'm afraid Nader would have suffered the same fate that the once progressive of champion State Senator Obama suffered when he came to Washington. He didn't sound too bad in the senate but he had to sacrifice to win the White House. It was stupid but would he have won if he had been a Nader or a Kucinich who I voted for in the primaries? I know you mean well and I wished we could have progressives like Nader but the system is too strong for Nader to be able to push through I'm afraid.
I know this is off-topic, but why the hell won't Nader run for congress in Connecticut? I wrote him a letter a few months ago expressing my hope that he would run; that I would support him if he did. Weeks later I got a postcard from him advertising his new book and telling me to hurry up and get my copy.
I think he has become more of a hindrance than a help to the progressive movement. Yes he has done great things in the past. But for ten years he has not been allowed to testify before congress on consumer (or any other) issues. If he was IN congress he could WRITE legislation, not just hope he gets invited to weigh in on it. Neither he nor Obama has morphed into a leader of the people. They both sold me the false hope that they were interested in helping ordinary people rise up and be respected.
Nader has been forced out of being given any chance to lead. Obama has been handed a golden opportunity on a silver platter and he blew it. Nader has taken on the corporate giants. Obama has only done some small "community organizing" and even that has been questioned. Both went to great schools but Nader used his education to help the working class while Obama used it to help the big monied class. Big difference there.
As for you question on why Nader won't run for Congress, maybe he wants to take tougher challenges and he's been doing it all his life and what credit has he gotten for it?
I feel that Nader also blew a silver-plated opportunity when he failed to use his influence to build up a progressive third party, or at least a progressive force in politics. When he first started out he had a lot of goodwill and support, mine included. If he had taken that and gotten elected to the house of representatives or the senate he may have been able to build a stronger coalition of progressives. He at least would have had the bully pulpit of an elected official. He would have had an opportunity to join with people like Kucinich and McKinney (when she was in congress) to lend support and force to their arguments for progressive reforms.
He could have done it then, he could be doing it now, but he won't and I don't understand that. I personally cannot see what he hopes to gain by running for president every four years. That's where the false hope comes in: we play the "If Nader were president" game, just as though that were an actual possibility. (I think RichM would make just about as good a president as Nader, and he has just as much of a chance of getting elected.) While we still have Nader to play this game with, no one else will stand up to represent progressives, to take up where Nader left off. We need good people to represent us in Congress. What challenge could be tougher or more important than that?
Believe me, I'm not going to defend Obama, except maybe to thank him for making it so clear so early on that he is nothing but a stooge. I have no hope left that he will be any kind of force for progressive change. Unfortunately I have no hope left that Nader will be a force for progressive change either. That postcard promoting his work of fiction felt like a "fuck you very much" to me.
I also need to disagree that Harvard is a great school. From my point of view it is nothing but an incubator for arrogant elitist criminals.
I would have to disagree that Nader blew the opportunity to build a progressive third party. Nader tried to improve the Green Party but the party kept conceding to the Democratic Party and got marginalized to near irrelevancy. Nader left for that reason. In 2004, David Cobb purposely conceded to the Democratic Party. Nader was still brave that same year. The Democratic Party did the worst anti-democratic act of forcing Nader off the ballot out of fear and cowardice while they didn't do anything to the Green Party that same year knowing that they would stay silent unlike 2000.
That would explain why he was unable to get progressive indies elected to house or senate. I say Green Party since that is the only progressive independent party that I know of. JenniferB knows the details on Nader vs Green Party breakup better since she's the expert on this for having been a great fan of Nader. I am sure that there are others here who could also explain if she is not around by any chance. I will agree with you about Harvard in general. Nader is a rare exception on that too.
What I remember is the Green party's position in 2004: vote for us ONLY if you're not in a 'swing state' where your Democratic vote might be important.
That's why I voted instead for Nader that year (for the first time: I was still willing to give Gore a chance back in 2000, though never bought into the bilge that Bush's selection reflected badly on Nader).
Sioux Rose
RICH M: Bravo! These words should be printed at the top of every CD thread like a mantra, thereby pre-empting the empty rhetoric of all the Obama apologists who pull out whatever scant iota of anecdotal information they can find to seek to salvage the reputation of "their leader, while loyally attempting to wipe off the filth that's damaged this living statuette's former gloss.
Thank you for your tireless efforts in promoting Truth, a Jedi's commitment to wielding its powers to expose the convenient (and impossibly dangerous) political fictions of our times.
Please spare us. Did you even read the article before your well-rehearsed knee-jerk response?
Obama isn't even making an effort to improve or reverse the damage. He is continuing it and shooting down real efforts to improve things behind the scenes. It would be different if he was at least trying--but he isn't he is continuing and accomodating while paying lip service for a shift in priorities and outlook.
And that deception is worse than claiming you are anything other than what you truly are.
What more is it going to take to convince some people?
People keep demanding that progressives hold Obama accountable and push for a movement--but there are all these muddled messages not only apologizing for Obama but also stating that even trying to fix anything is futile.
"Time and again, the Obama administration has upheld virtually every Bush war policy in and out of court, including the notion of an all-powerful unitary executive, the right to permanent worldwide war, the right to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges and to rendition them and to illegally spy on Americans."
Just that alone should outrage anyone with a modicum of decency. This writer treads closer to the emerging indisputible, only retreating to the manufactured perception that Obama will close Gitmo. Even if he eventually does, he will just move it to one of the various other black sites. Scheer, however still clings to a fraying and desperate hope against hope that the real Obama has finally turned the corner and will regulate Wall St. We know that it will be like closing Gitmo or pulling out of Iraq--or health care reform. He will talk, or rather have the nerve to lecture us while he lies through his teeth and inacts McCain's plan.
It is like Obama appealed to the slaves to let him lead, but once the door closed behind him in the Master's house he scorned, blamed and lectured the slaves to please the Master.
President Barack Obama is an enigma. No one quite seems to know what he actually stands for.
There is nothing enigmatic about Obama. What does he actually stand for? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's what he stands for. Period. 30. Over and out. The apologists are still out there, furtively rubbing one index finger over the other and pleading, please be nice, Mein Fuhrer. Pathetic! Unbelievable! Maddening!
Nicely stated. The only people this is not apparent to, are most of the voices writing articles for CD (exceptions obvious); the grass roots gets it while those standing on top of their ivory towers are out of touch with Obama's corporate owned legislative agenda.
Permanent worldwide war? This means that eventually bombs will be dropping everywhere? Sounds like the end of the world is in the offing, i.e., when we're all dead there will be peace, worldwide and permanent.
I don't see the point in comparing Obama with Clarence Thomas. Is it because Thomas is black? (Of course it is.) How about comparing him with Bush or some other sleazy friend of the plutocrats?
Same in regard to MLK. Is there any earthly reason to mention Obama and King in the same sentence? (I was going to mention the "Obama indeed can speak like MLK..." quote, but RichM has already taken that apart in his usual incisive manner.)
To me the essence of Obama is: He is a statement to U.S. citizens and inhabitants of the world that the plutocrats are not joking around. (The Bush administration wasn't an aberration, silly people.) "The privatization, flow of wealth to ourselves, naked militarism, use of media for heavy and enveloping propaganda, assassinations, genocide...are not negotiable. We are an authoritarian society. The "law" is what we say it is and we will bully you until you know your place. But...if you are susceptible to childish platitudes, we will allow you to live in a fool's paradise."
Arry - Your last paragraph above nails our situation right on the head. We all thought Bush was an aberration because we had not seen the likes of his administration and their way of ruling before. We all thought his 8 years was a nightmare and he was a stupid idiot. During Obama's first days in office, I remeber feeling how everything was going to return to "normal" again. I supported and campainged for Kucinich and ultimately voted for Obama in the general election in the hopes for "anyone but another Repug". I now live in a state of dispair over the Bush/Cheney/Obama business-as-usual way of doing things. This is the new way of life folks. It's ugly.
I can't think of ANYONE I'd compare to Clarence Thomas, the creepy guy George H. W. Bush thought was a great replacement for Thurgood Marshall .......GOOD GRIEF !!!!!!
Obama has been in office long enough already so please stop apologizing for him. This article doesn't sound like it was written by an objective professor. How much do Obama PRs get paid to write this crap?
Kernelz and Shawn Berry, stop apologizing for Obama and stop saying that Nader wouldn't have done anything. The least he would have done is force Congress to answer to the public. Obama is just sitting there letting Congress do what it wants or what the corporations want it to do and then saying that he'll accept whatever bull makes it to his desk. That ain't leadership. It's dereliction of duty and grounds for impeachment.
A special request to Shawn. All you do is lecture others here about not doing anything but what have you done besides your irrelevant efforts? If you really have respect for Nader and Mckinney, then why don't you spend some time talking to voters in your place and tell them to give such people a chance? No party is perfect but if all you want to do is have stupid fears about third parties, then you can't really expect anyone to believe that you believe in change. Go away to huffpost where you belong and leave it to us grownups to enlighten. Thank you.
Nader and Mckinney ruined their reputation so they're damaged goods and cost too much to get rid of their reputation scars. How do I know that third parties won't malfunction any differently from the Democratic and Republican parties. Fixing an existing party costs less than risking a new one unless it's damaged beyond repair. The damage is heavy but doesn't look bad enough for me to switch to third party yet. Wouldn't we be seeing third parties running for midterm by now and preparing for 2012?