Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama is NOT “Caving” to Corporate Interests
In a campaign almost as frenzied as the effort to get Barack Obama into the White House, liberal groups are now mobilizing against the White House and reported deals that would cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. They accuse President Obama of being weak and willing to “cave” to corporate and conservative forces bent on cutting the social safety net while protecting the wealthy.
Those accusations are wrong.
The accusations imply that Obama is on our side. Or was on our side. And that the right wing is pushing him around.
But the evidence is clear that Obama is an often-willing servant of corporate interests -- not someone reluctantly doing their bidding, or serving their interests only because Republicans forced him to.
Since coming to Washington, Obama has allied himself with Wall Street Democrats who put corporate deregulation and greed ahead of the needs of most Americans:
- In 2006, a relatively new Senator Obama was the only senator to speak at the inaugural gathering of the Alexander Hamilton Project launched by Wall Street Democrats like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman, Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary and deputy secretary. Obama praised them as “innovative, thoughtful policymakers.” (It was Rubin’s crusade to deregulate Wall Street in the late ‘90s that led directly to the economic meltdown of 2008 and our current crisis.)
- In early 2007, way before he was a presidential frontrunner, candidate Obama was raising more money from Wall Street interests than all other candidates, including New York presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
- In June 2008, as soon as Hillary ended her campaign, Obama went on CNBC, shunned the “populist” label and announced: “Look: I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market.” He packed his economic team with Wall Street friends -- choosing one of Bill Clinton’s Wall Street deregulators, Larry Summers, as his top economic advisor.
- A year into his presidency, in a bizarre but revealing interview with Business Week, Obama was asked about huge bonuses just received by two CEOs of Wall Street firms bailed out by taxpayers. He responded that he didn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus to J.P. Mogan’s CEO or the $9 million to Goldman Sachs’ CEO: “I know both those guys, they are very savvy businessmen,” said Obama. “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”
After any review of Obama’s corporatist ties and positions, the kneejerk response is: “Yes, but Obama was a community organizer!”
He WAS a community organizer. . .decades before he became president. Back when Nelson Mandela was in prison and the U.S. government declared him the leader of a “terrorist organization” while our government funded and armed Bin Laden and his allies to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. That’s a long time ago.
It’s worth remembering that decades before Reagan became president, the great communicator was a leftwing Democrat and advocate for the working class and big federal social programs.
The sad truth, as shown by Glenn Greenwald, is that Obama had arrived at the White House looking to make cuts in benefits to the elderly. Two weeks before his inauguration, Obama echoed conservative scares about Social Security and Medicare by talking of “red ink as far as the eye can see.” He opened his doors to Social Security/Medicare cutters -- first trying to get Republican Senator Judd Gregg (“a leading voice for reining in entitlement spending,” wrote Politico) into his cabinet, and later appointing entitlement-foe Alan Simpson to co-chair his “Deficit Commission.” Obama’s top economic advisor, Larry Summers, came to the White House publicly telling Time magazine of needed Social Security cuts.
At this late date, informed activists and voters who care about economic justice realize that President Obama is NOT “on our side.”
Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- widely seen as “America’s Senator” -- is so disgusted by recent White House actions that he called Friday for a challenge to Obama in Democratic primaries: “I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”
Although Sanders has said clearly that he’s running for reelection to the senate in 2012 – not for president -- his comment led instantly to a Draft Sanders for President website.
Imagine if a credible candidate immediately threatened a primary challenge unless Obama rejects any deal cutting the safety net while maintaining tax breaks for the rich. Team Obama knows that a serious primary challenger would cost the Obama campaign millions of dollars. And it may well be a powerful movement-building opportunity for activists tired of feeling hopeless with Obama.
It’s time for progressives to talk seriously about a challenge to Obama’s corporatism. Polls show most Americans support economic justice issues, and that goes double for Democratic primary voters.
If not Bernie, who? If not now, when?




322 Comments so far
Show AllEugene Debs could be resurrected, elected president, and it wouldn't change a thing. The entire government would have to be swept clean, Pentagon shuttered, and a whole new structure of land use created.
Politicians are but middlemen, the true middle class.
Media is the new god, controlling the masses' minds.
Capitalism will fall through attrition and we mustn't let it take the planet down with it.
Fight back now or watch your children suffer.
In addition to Obama waving his pro-corporate flag in June 2008, he also announced that his campaign would not take public financing, thereby lifting the limit on how much corporate money he could accept. Corporate money has been flowing to Obama's coffers ever since.
Most of the Obamabots that I know were very excited to hear that news and they are even more excited to now hear the Obama will raise a billion from the corporations for his 2012 campaign.
well said - and finally an article that outlines the true obummer - corporate shill and nwo sock puppet
he looks like the kid no one picks in a sand lot pick up game
and i find myself wondering all the time when i look at him - what is on his mind. there seems like a chasm between him and his surroundings
i am thinking mkultra all the way
he said last week he was turning 50 in a week - well according to his fake bc it will be in three weeks aug 4
he said his uncle helped free auschwitz - that was done by the russians - so maybe bummer is a commie after all
when he signed the westminster abbey guest book he signed 2008 instead of 2011
he said he was going to be the most open administration ever - yeah right
in january he signed exec order 13575
"The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
agenda 21 is a un action plan for taking control of american land under the un itself, funded by george soros
is it any surprise that the un announced this week that they were creating an green helmet army to enforce climate confrontations
when american farmers have to give up their land to the un there could be some blowback so they have an army all set to go - right on our soil like a banana republic
martial law hmmm......
John Pilger describes obamma as a "marketing dream". Yep, he is that. But AGREE that he got there with a little help from MKULTRA.
If Obama wins you get a sane right-wing Republican.
If the GOP wins you get an insane right-wing Republican.
Nice to have real choices.
Well, it's a win - win for Wall Street. They got all bets covered.
same for the left
Obama is either a cold hearted lying killer, or
a cowering paid accomplice lying killer, and
he is but one
Insane? Hard to say. Where is the line drawn?
Murderers? For sure.
Psycho killer? impeach!
That's like asking the James Gang to impeach Jesse.
Buck: "same for the Left?" No, Democrats are not the Left. I am the Left, the Socialist Party is the Left. Please don't assign our political preferences for us, thank you in advance.
As Emanuel said...what choice do they have... (but to elect Obama and not crazy Republicans...who are almost the same corporatists).
DLC guys Emanuel and Howard Dean went state to state making sure only globalists got selected and supported for office. Progressives who were anti-war and NAFTA trade...NO. We Democrats would have controlled all in DC but they made sure we didn't. They also announced Democrats supported anmensty after the ;primaries were won. That really made sure we didn't win against Republicans in IL, etc.
Mrs. Jefferson,
Please give me references to support all the ridiculous claims you made about Howard Dean. And when you say "We Democrats..." who the heck are you talking about? I'm sorry but your comments make no sense to me.
Just do a google search on "Howard Dean" and "centrist". Here's an earlier article that proves Mrs Jefferson correct.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0425-06.htm
That was 2003 and since he became the DNC chair in 2005, he did nothing to counter-influence the party's sliding to the right. Dean gave them the spine but the spine ended up being used to defend Corporate America and the Military Complex that would make Republicans blush in private.
Max Payne,
Thanks for the link. I read it and to tell you the truth I don't think there's anything in there that would warrant the vitriol from "Mrs. Jefferson." In addition, Dean was never part of the DLC, and just because he has read their pamphlets and thinks they have some good ideas that doesn't make him anti-progressive. My idea of a balanced viewpoint is one that it is based on knowledge from all kinds of writings, ideas, viewpoints, studies, whatever. I have lived in Vermont for 36 years and I know what Dean was like as a governor. I didn't always agree with him, but I liked the fact that he called things as he saw them. His bullshit factor was very low for a politician. He wasn't afraid to express his opinions and sometimes that pissed people off. He also wasn't afraid to gain new perspectives on issues. When the struggle for gay civil unions was fought for here in Vermont back in 2000, Dean initially disagreed with gays being allowed to marry. But he ACTUALLY listened to what gays and lesbians had to say about it from their own experiences and he understood. He took a lot of heat (including death threats) for signing civil unions into law (the first such law in the nation.) But he did it and I think it took a lot of guts. Honestly, I haven't seen any courage like that in our current leaders.
Max, I respect your right to your opinion, but I didn't see any examples which supported your generalizations about Dean letting the Democratic party slide more to the right. I think as DNC chair, Dean hoped he could revive the more progressive part of the Democratic party. His job as DNC chair was pretty clear-cut -- get more Democrats elected. He succeeded in that goal. Has the Democratic party softened it liberal stance over the years? I certainly think so. I don't consider myself a democrat any more. But I don't see any evidence of Dean pushing the party in that direction. He only served one term -- so maybe he too became disenchanted with the whole political machine.
I'm not saying Dean is perfect, but I don't think he deserved the criticism he got here.
Understood and thanks. I used to have a lot of high hopes for Howard Dean and it would have been great to see him win the primaries in 2004 regardless of what may have happened to him later that year in the general election. My issue with Dean was his support last year for this awful health care bill which comes nowhere close to single payer. I could go easy on him for some of his other centrist positions. Maybe if Dean would just trying the Green Party instead of trying to hope that the Democratic Party can be reformed might I go a little easier on him.
As for Mrs. Jefferson, I happen to know her from her posts on this site and on Alternet. She used to post a lot on Alternet but her posts that I used to bookmark for reference now only show up as being written by "Guest" and I don't see her disqus profile. I hope that she didn't run into any issue with Alternet and leave by the way. She's more of an independent than just plain progressive so she may offend on a few issues such as immigration but overall, I have come to see her as a seasoned progressive.
maxpayne,
Thanks for your response. You are right about the health care bill -- I forgot that Dean supported it. Can't explain that one. And he's a doctor. Perhaps he is aware of some redeeming features of the bill, but as you said, it is nothing like what was promised. And after all the fighting over it -- what the hell was accomplished?
The ball started rolling in 68 when the Dems decided they weren't going to put up with delegates getting out of line, embarrassing the Democrats in front of the country. The Clintons in the 90s were particularly vicious in this way, going so far as to improperly seize convention credentials from delegates they thought were going to vote the wrong way. And in the past, caucus states allowed proportional voting, but by the 2000s, the Clintons made sure that every state with proportional voting had a 15% cutoff rule, which effectively prohibited caucuses from moving forward the votes for lesser-supported candidates, and they expected this to ensure a Clinton primary win. They also put in strict data rules where local organizers could no longer get voter lists for their areas, only campaigns could get them, and they had to be purchased for mucho $$. The Obama machine somehow overcame that setup, much to the chagrin of the Clinton machine. Probably due to corporate backing. Emanuel maybe, although I think he was busy elsewhere. Dean? He was the one who actually made the Dems run in every state instead of turning tail!
If the GOP nominates Romney we get the same thing as Obama except he admits he's a Republican. Only the campaign rhetoric will be different.
I still expect the GOP will nominate Romney.
If the GOP nominates Romney we get the samething as Obama except he admits he's a Republican. Only the campaign rhetoric will be different.
I still expect the GOP will nominate Romney.
How do you know Obama is sane? He behaves with the perfectly calm duplicity and treachery of a natural born sociopath.
I have a hard time seeing a narcissist like Obama sane. I've always found it interesting that crazy Paladino was the Republican candidate for Governor in New York. Cuomo supposedly had it in the bag, but maybe they wanted to make sure that nothing would go wrong. Just as there is a very good possibility that without the addition of Palin and cemented by the fall of Lehman Brothers, Obama might have squeaked out a loss. We'll never know but it's interesting.
I am not voting either Dem or Repub anymore, but if in 2012 somebody held a gun to my head and said Obama or Romney (if he's the GOP nominee), I would vote for Romney. It don't think it would be easy for Romney to do the kind of damage that Barry is doing -- and to think this is only in 2.5 years. Sometimes it feels like Barry's been there forever.
Samalabear,
"....I would vote for Romney"
I understand! Many here are thinking the same as you. I would go even further, Sister Palin.
"if in 2012 somebody held a gun to my head and said Obama or Romney (if he's the GOP nominee), I would.........." say shoot.
purrsun,
Didn't Pilger connect Obama to the cia through the Business International Corp.?
There have been articles from liberal commentators that criticize Obama for a quite a while. For example, look up some articles by David Michael Green, Professor of Political Science.
What a bunch of gibberish. Right-wing lemmings like you should be more worried about corporate consolidation of what used to be American family owned farms than the UN having the money or power to do anything even remotely like what you describe. George Soros hasn't got enough money to run such a global enforcement program. The Koch Brothers do more damage backing fanatical fascists like the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan in their onslaughts against collective bargaining rights and elected town governance that is accountable to We the People.
Although a global democratic scientific limit on environmentally unsustainable capitalism like the predatory kind most espoused by the U.S. is URGENTLY needed and may be too late to mitigate lethal global warming and the human induced 6th extinction event as it is.
That's saying it like it is!
OK, I posted previously in favor of an Elizabeth Warren ticket. But I'd be ecstatic about a Sanders/Warren ticket for president(and lend every ounce of my energy), and ask Matt Damon to run for the Mass. Senate!!
Jeff Cohen's accurate assessment of President Obama as a conservative, corporate Democrat is right on. During the 2008 campaign, Paul Street wrote a book-length assessmrent called Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics. It reveals in stunning detail what Cohen concludes here. So its not like this should be a big surprise.
Recruiting a primary challenger AND pursuing a progressive revolution to oust the two-party corporate regime should be key objectives of our progressive strategy in the current period.
Searches for "progressive revolution" and "corporate regime" provide many sources for such a strategy.
Minnesota Public Radio always posts a candidate selector during elections: enter your views on issues and it spits out the candidate most likely to reflect your views. Obama was consistently the most conservative Democrat. The rightward motion of America's "center" has been no secret. Except to Dems.
Liberal groups are mobilizing? Really? Is that what you call it? All I have seen are a couple petitions and empty threats to withhold votes in 2012. Mobilizing is what they did in Greece against austerity measures, not this posturing by the so-called American left. People should be in the streets now, and there should be no promises of nonviolence. They are robbing us of our Social Security that we have been paying into our whole lives and what do we do? Sign a petition... Sad. Even those of us who know what is happening do nothing, brainwashed by the pathological ideology of nonviolence uber alles.
Yeah, it's not exactly the kind of mobilization you see in a country with a functioning democracy in action, by for the U.S. these days it's a "mobilization".
Of course, threats of withdrawal of support for a Democratic president from liberals always ring hollow the closer we get to election day. Yeah, they're not going to vote for Obama next year. Give me a break.
Here, catch a break:
I'm not voting for Obama. I once did and now I won't. Even if you tell me Sarah or Michelle might win, I'd say, "Good. Let it all go down the drain, sooner rather than later."
BTW, was that bit about a "functioning democracy" simply missing an "LOL". I didn't know that a country where corporations are granted the rights of citizenship is considered a democracy, which I thought means rule of the people: The word "democracy" (Greek: δημοκρατια) combines the elements dêmos (δῆμος, which means "people") and krátos (κράτος, which means "force" or "power").
That's where I am today. At least I'll know what I am getting and it won't be four more years of uncle Barack.
Ok, Im a little confused here...I thought the ruling party in Greece were the Democratic Socialists: Democratic by ignoring the people and Socialists in self-imposing eu austerity rather than defaulting. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Peace!
The original NAZI party was a truly socialist organization -- concerned with
labor -- unions, workers rights -- female equality, right to abortion, health
care -- preventive health care, etal --
There is no organization which can't be turned upside down under rightwing
control!!
Was the Democratic Party once -- pre Koch Bros./DLC -- a liberal organization?
Yes, not only that but the PM is the president of the Socialist International. The best way to screw over the working class is to put the Social-Democrats, or the Democrats in the U.S., in power. Seriously, we would be better off with a right wing kook in the White House because we could mobilize an opposition to the loony.
"Social-Democrats Of The World Unite (In Robbing From The Poor And Giving To The Rich)!"
Employing violence against the gvmnt is an insane reaction to a real problem. If you think that some kind of revolutionary victory could be achieved through violence you are completely delusional. The gvmnt has a monopoly on violence that all the private gun owners in the country could never dream of matching.
How long do you think the public at large will sit quietly by while there own soldiers are shooting at and killing their own citizens? How long do you think it will take for this country’s soldiers to refuse to do as they are told? How long do you think a mercenary force will last in the towns and burrows of people who are used to being free to do as they will?
There comes a time in all history’s that blood must be cast on the fields. All nations have shed blood. It has ever been the only nourishment of a land and its people’s, and a only way a people deprived of their justice can securing for themselves by their own intervention a viable future .
NOT. F$$k U for making Progressives seem violent. It"s exactly the opposite. Work your GAME somewhere else. It don"t pass the "truthiness" test.
LOL.
Oh,by the way, are you linking potency with violence?
My "thread", no my writing is against violence. What did you miss?
The Progressive representatives aren't. They sell us out every time. They are "Red Herrings".
My point is just that the left's infatuation with "nonviolent resistance", which at this point seems to consist of little more than petition signing, is getting us nowhere. When is the last time Americans stood up for anything? They are in the final stages of implementing their fascist state and robbing us of what is ours, and the best that progressives can come up with is, "Hey let's challenge Obama in the primaries!" Rather pathetic when you think about it.
Especially, when you think about what happens to those who stand up for the people! I would never wish that on anyone, least of all Bernie.
Petiton signing may well be useless ... by why does that lead you to the apparent conclusion that all nonviolenent civil disobedience or resistance is worthless and futile? It's definitely not worthless or futile ... history proves that. Sure, it might seem impossible in the neon lights of this instant gratification culture ... and no one is saying it will be quick or easy or necessarily even successful ... it will probably take deacdes or even generations.
.
We're in it for the long haul .. why blow it all up with some nihilistic and impulsive spasm of violence?
My original comment was simply that there should be no promises of nonviolence, it was others who construed this as an advocation of violence. Personally, I think the capitalists will do whatever they want no matter what we do, which includes robbing us of our social security that we have been paying into our whole lives. By dutifully pledging nonviolence, however, we ensure that our "resistance" will be manageable, and guarantee that the grand theft continues unabated. Anyway, at this point I would be pleased to see ANY sort of protest against what they are doing in Washington. But alas, it appears everyone is already caught up in the perpetual electoral charade.
We need more people in the streets so they can't ignore us. Point in fact. I was on my way home from a vet appointment on Saturday there anti-war demonstration in East Setauket on Route 25A. A quick count showed me around 15 people. Garage sales get better attendance. Of course, maybe that's because they do extensive advertising via utility poles and such. There were also no young people.
The way we do it is don't vote for him. Violence is not the solution here. Don't forget one cannot be sure who's going to get hurt when VIOLENCE erupts.
Sorry, I disagree. But consider- there might be a time, but is NOW the time. Look at the Oslo shootings. Someone thought it was imperative to stop something he feared was an immediate threat so killed how many now-was it necessary? Creating a "Culture" where violent actions are proposed is irresponsible - no I"m not advocating restrictions on free speech. Oh, by the way I"m an American who is of French ancestry who is proud of the underground. I"m also the one who had two, my grandpa and father in WW2. Why is it that the first attack on non-violent people is a question of loyalty? It"s been so for time immortal. Oh, further bitch out here, we are working for the worst "profile" the hated rulers want to be true when welisten to these voices of violence...'I am not violent BUT... but what?