Yup, ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing kill a lot more sheep before the flock catches on. It may now be too late for most. We've been fleeced by pros.

The ruling elite found a winning formula in Obama. He successfully neutralized the growing left opposition to the Bush/Cheney regime while legitimating the Bush policies of unending wars, torture, illegal surveillance and detentions, ecological devastation and tax breaks for the rich. Obama has indeed been "carefully developed and designed" to fit their needs and he is performing flawlessly.

He also lends himself to the phony drama referred to in Cohen's article: Republican batterers pressuring a good, but weak President into submitting to their threats to "harm the hostages." If he had ever really stood up for any of his supposed "progressive principles", there might be a smidgen of truth in this drama, but he hasn't. He has consistently acted the part of the ineffectual liberal whose progressivism is a purely a matter of rhetorical flourish and who always acts in accordance with right-wing ideology. The purpose of this drama, which is heavily promoted in this and other liberal publications, is to foster the illusion that "Obama can be changed if only we hold his feet to the fire." Strangely, the fire never gets hot enough to get those feet moving anywhere but to more capitulations to the wealthy.

IP 10:46 exactomismo

Spot on! And yet CD will still carry articles of the type "Why doesn't Obama..." and "What the Democrats should do..." and "why don't the Dems show more backbone..." etc.
These writers obviously don't get it. You do. Thanks.

iowapinko: I agree with your post. Anyone who thinks Obama stood on the side of the people -- well, they weren't really listening, and they certainly weren't paying close attention, during the campaign!

I have countless friends who fell for his rhetoric, and some of them are completely disillusioned. Other friends are still waiting to hear him say what they thought they heard him say during the campaign. And, they wait, and they wait!

Thanks for your post!

IOWA: Great post. It ought to automatically pop up every time another Obama shill shows up in these threads. That would save a lot of time, and the need for redundant point by point explanations of the magnitude of the sell-out that's been perpetrated on the American citizenry, after the battering of the Bush years. Stockholm Syndrome is a more apt characterization of the populace, than its figurehead.

Obamabots and Stockholm Syndrome -- there is no doubt, unless they make above a certain income and then they are solidly behind the Obama, the diehard cultists. The ones most likely to wake up next, I would hope, often are identified in this manner: "I still support President Obama, but ..." It get it depends on how many more "buts" their psyche can tolerate before it all explodes.

"Obamabots and their continued support of the prez despite almost 2 years of unmitigated disloyalty, lies and abuse? That might qualify" as ignorance and stupidity?

Sorry, the references to race don't seem so 'obvious' in the article. Can you elaborate?

One of the most vocal critics of Obama's actions (inactions) as President
is none other than Cornel West. You don't suppose he's Irish, do you?

Having grown up in slums that were mostly black/Mexican, don't believe most ever started. For 50% of voters did not go to the polls.

Glenn Ford:
Slow down pardner, "Judas Goat"?. What Americans have grown accustomed to, is an executive dominated Government. In my Civics class, the way Mr. Obama handled the Health Care Legislation was the way my 7th grade teacher drew it up on the Black Board. The President presented the grand vision and guiding principles to congress. Congress though its research and debating process crafted the legislation, the Prseident weighed in where needed and the Congress presented him with a bill to veto or sign. The process is again underway in the present tax cut bill.

Public opinion is 2-1 in favor of the Democratic Tax Bill. The House does not even have to bring the President's "framework" to the floor. So, why don't they just sit on it? Take some concrete action instead of this name calling and handwringing. How do the Democrats find themselves in such and enviable position and what are they going to do about it? Call YOUR Congressman and tell him to let it die. Mr. Sanders is a brave man, filibuster the damm thing again and again, be a junk yard dog Republican about it, fight with all your might within the framework of this Democracy, the public is with you.

Or, keep feeding the frenzy and ginning up the faithful. The far left is a mirror reflection of the far right, the crazy uncle in the family. Kin but crazy, filling out the special places.

Don’t forget sales taxes, which never are imposed on stocks, bonds or real estate. Also the reality that most business taxes get passed on to consumers.

"If more folks had seen through Clinton during his time, they would have been more prepared to see through Obama." -- Aquifer

Well stated! Last week, I received an e-mail from a friend of mine who -- out of the blue, BTW -- was bemoaning, poor Bill Clinton, who was surrounded by Republicans and was forced to do their bidding. She and I have gone round and round on this issue -- with me offering up a list of bills, etc., that greased the wheels for Gee Dubya. I thought she had moved past the Clinton years, and understood, but she's back in them, and in fact, she's still mired in them. "Poor Bill!!" This is an educated woman, who is married to an educated man, both of whom lost their jobs during the dot-com crisis, when that bubble burst. They have never recovered financially. She, and he, both blame Bush -- whereas, the bubble burst on Clinton's watch. They simply don't want to see the truth.

Both of them voted for Obama -- and bought into his brand completely. I thought of this couple immediately, when I read your post. I have other friends, too, who can't seem to come to grips with the Clintons, and you are right -- all of them bought into the Obama brand without much real analysis.

"He's Baaack!"
Wasn't one of Clinton's old nicknames "The Comeback kid?"
Well he sure isn't such a kid anymore but I'll be darned, he's back on the spotlight. Uppity Obama feels betrayed? His reaction: Take off the gloves and go full-fleged Clintonista. After all, the Clinton people only make up at least 50% of Obama's administration with almost the other 50% made up of Bush holdovers. Yikes! So it's really more of the "change" the Chump Changer-in-Chief has delivered all along: NONE!

PAID TO LOOSE -- 95% OF POLITICIANS WHO DO LOSE

Be above poser sincere or no -- His post is an illusion, and the effect of it is the pretense of a good knowledge that will help you decide who best to vote for. It being all bad fiction and the fairy tale that most politicians have getting reelected as their highest priority.

Reality is, with 95% of those in Congress paid actors, 95% of those who do not get reelected -- were paid quite handsomely to act in a way guaranteed to not get reelected.

"With Obama's brand of rhetoric wearing thin with his base, he decided he had to employ good ole BC to reintroduce his good ole schmooze back into the process of putting lipstick on this pig of a bill"

BC was the perfect choice for the job. He is, after all, an expert on pigs wearing lipstick.

Well put, Aquifer. It should be noted that Obama is an honorary member of the DLC. He's considered one of them (like Clinton) without formally being a part of that corporate-cash bundling cartel.

I would argue that that's all the Democratic Party is - a corporate cash aggregator that represents business interests, much like the Repug Party. The Dem Party can't, by charter, represent the people, but Dem politicians are successful with delivering warm fuzzy speeches to fool the plebs. I'm not sure why this works. I guess people who accept their spectator status just enjoy being lied too, as long as they go away with some good feelings about it.

We should also be aware that many mainstream Dem voters still like Bill and Barack, even though they've done them real harm - think NAFTA/GATT (Bill) and bankster bailout (Barack), to name a few. Truly, Bill showed himself to be a master of the dark arts in killing welfare, an extaordinary act of barbaric cruely. The coven is now gathering its dark forces again to similarly kill Social Security under Barack, as noted.

-TIA

Revolution tends to be a constant question and possibility in the face of tremendous injustice, Mark. I wouldn't downplay it, but rather hope for its potential to flower, given our present circumstances. However, you don't have to worry about the American people being suddenly moved to revolt, even by Ma77thew's short but rousing call.

Dem voters tend to be channeled into tepid corporate waters, especially through the two-party system. Your conventional proposal about winning loyal Democratic voters seems to overlook the fact that most of those voters have no idea that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." They continue to vote for the same corporate party again and again, even though the Dem Party does not represent their interests (nor does the Repug Party).

One aim of the American republic, born itself of revolution organized by landed gentry against the British crown, was to make future revolts unnecessary. Mostly, it was a military pact againt the king, but it included vague mechanisms that could make it seem as if the public voice was being addressed, while ensuring elite control. Some things, like the vote being assigned only to propertied men, were too transparent, so things like that were loosened up and changed. But control over the popular mind was ensured through a fragmented representative system, such as the bicameral Congress. As an insurance policy, the Supreme Court has veto over all laws, according to the will of unelected judges.

The duopoly of Dem-Repug control has emerged as one way to ensure elite and corporate control. Its casino-like charms continue to beguile and sap the energies of people with good will. Under this system, candidates with the most money tend to win - and that suggests that grassroots support is less necessary than corporate cash to succeed, which is rather astounding. If you got a Democrat elected in the way you suggest (if that's what you want), would that person not capitulate on the important issues down the road, while making great-sounding speeches in the mean time? I think so, and it's because the Dem Party is a corporate-funded party. Reelection takes corporate cash.

So, you need to be specific about your proposal. Grassroots support of candidates has to happen outside the Dem/Repug Party framework. It's worthy to put the effort in there, but know that this two-party duoploy system is geared to exclude such participation, and the money involved in elections tends to drownd out or even exclude the grassroots voice.

So, while election efforts on behalf of third parties are worth a stab, you probably can't ask people who work to survive to put 100 percent more of their lives toward working to promote a candidate against these odds.

The really important work is getting people's minds at the point in which winning elections is easy. That comes first. Whether that mindset will lead to electoral change or revolution is difficult to say. The fact that we don't have change of any sort signifies that people just don't get how bad things are, with more oppression to come. Maybe physical depravatoin has to hit them first. I'm not sure I really understand it.

I say cultivate your minds first. When we're ready to revolt, we'll be there. But I dare say, backing Dem candidates is just a backward-thinking idea. Let's not go there. It doesn't work and it wastes time and energies.

-TIA

I hope you realize that if your suggestion is adopted, Washington will become a ghost town.