Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- Not Guilty By Virtue of Videotape, Which, Unlike the Police, Doesn't Lie
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Manning: Before Wikileaks, Leaked Docs Offered to NYT, WaPo
- Bob Woodward Embodies US Political Culture in a Single Outburst
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?
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...
322 Comments so far
Show All>>Give me a break. All revolutions, rebellions, freedom fighters, et al, if they were to take your advice would still be oppressed today
You are simply incorrect. The Overthrow of Communism in Poland was a non violent uprising by the people. While violence was visited upon Solidarity, the workers did not resort to the use of arms against the Government.
The fall of the Berlin wall was not accomplished with violence nor was the reunification of Germany.
It was people power that got rid of Marcos in the Philippines. Canada did not need a Washington and Guns to gain independence from the British Empire. They simply went and asked for it.
Norway , Sweden and Finland were all once countries where the masses of people poor while a small handful held all the countries wealth and power. This is why so many peoples from those countries migrated from those countries to the New World.
Those that remained behind managed to transform their countries into social democracies that are much more egalitarian through dialogue and the political process without engaging in violence.
We can see what advocating violence to effect changes results in with Norway's recent tragedy.
That man wanted to EFFECT change as well and used violence to achieve such, Given Norway's history and transformation into a Social democracy it my opinion that the non violent means far more effective.
Countries born of violence tend to become violent countries when their new governments take over.
The History of the United States of America, one of the most violent and war loving nations on this Earth since its birth is an example of that.
>>his is just starry-eyed idealism. Violence has thoroughly infused the histories, and in most cases the relatively recent histories, of the nations you give as examples of peace-lovin
Your embrace of violence as a means to effecting change is noted. You missed the point completely. I did not claim those countries listed did not have violent pasts. I pointed out that the POSITIVE changes in the same were gained via non violent means.
They began to evolve as countries because they set aside violence as the means to change which is something the United States of America will not do.
It will not do it because people such as yourself are convinced it the only means by which change can be effected.
I stand by the points I made.
GW NORTH: The argument for violence could be used here as a ruse specifically to incite it, or see who's game. At least one of the principals making this case is also an adamant defender of the official 911 story. That's a VERY odd disconnect, presuming his cries in the way of "Revolution!" are sincere.
A most interesting point. I would note that in many of the protest movements that have occurred in Canada, those in the crowd inciting the same to violence turned out to be members of the Police forces.
GW NORTH: Although, given their budget, I fully expect that the covert policing forces HAVE used scripts (or story lines) direct from Hollywood script-writers... left to their own devices, authoritarians LACK imagination and therefore follow the same patterns, ad nauseum. Hence, in response to your post: Exactamente!
Usually when I get too close to the uncomfortable truths, several from their ilk show up and attempt to decimate my reputation, name, character, work, or otherwise twist my positions into the antithesis of their stated intentions. Perhaps they've become too obvious in using those tactics and I can relax for a week? Nothing like a paycheck in lean times.
Right.. which is why You/Scribe and the recent surge of SiouxHarry and other "Sioux" names hit this forum, added to news from one from your litlte group that you even started up another rival Siouxrose website. That'll show em, right?
I answer to a higher authority that a goon like you. So you can shove it where the sun don't shine. For all I know, the same people who ROUTINELY show up on this site to try to discredit and/or harass me (for revealing truths they find inconvenient), and have gone so far as to create a faux Sioux Rose website, are the ones who put this thing together, too.
I've had direct contact with Sun Bear who is well aware of my work, and never mentioned this issue. I work with higher guides and they're from a variety of backgrounds. Of course an angry, authoritarian, earthbound mind like yours could never understand that, so you'll do your best to belittle the messenger. You've tried these tactics for more than 2 years... and I'm still standing. What makes you think you'll bother me now?
I'm not in the mood to mud wrestle with you, Yoho. I know your bonafides. Creeps like you have FAR more to answer to than anything I could say or do... hope I get to be on the front lines when your "Just following orders" rings hollow.
So "Leftist" that you swallow the 911 official narrative and berate those who are smart enough (and aware enough) not to.
CD has published for 10 years, but as far as I know, the comment section opened up just a few years ago... so check your dates, Mr. Data Control.
wow these comment threads are boring and juvenile today. Isn't the point of sites like CD to bring those of us who are like minded together? If we're arguing like 10 year olds, why should we be surprised when our country as a whole can't agree on anything? Seriously, the leftier than thou game is zero sum
If I want mindless squabbling I'll read Yahoo News
You make a very good point. Let me make a couple of comments about the article, and also a specific line of commentary on this thread, and then circle back to address your comment at the end.
>
First off, I generally like Jeff Cohen. For example, he co-authored an excellent book more than a decade ago, "The Global Class War", that very effectively indicted Clinton and his economic and trade team members for the corporate whores that they are/were regarding international trade policy. He's not afraid to at times hit quite hard with a critique of his own favored party, the Democratic Party, and their representatives, when he feels the situation calls for it. Unfortunately, however, even at this late stage in the corruption of the two-party system, and even though he rightly criticizes Obama for being too "corporate friendly" in this article, he still obviously feels the need to come up with some wacky way for the "Democrats" to improve their positioning for 2012 while also trying to save the "safety net" benefits that liberals/Democrats are so famous for defending come hell or high water, regardless of the long-term fiscal sustainability of the programs. Yes, Jeff, like many other intelligent progressives, just won't let go of the disastrous ideology of the "lesser of two evilism".
>
As well, the specific "solution" to the Obama/safety-net issue that Jeff offers for the Democrats is downright silly. No "credible" Democrat is going to challenge Obama in the primaries just to try and get him to back off from his willingness to cut the safety net programs. That's completely unrealistic. And then, Bernie Sanders is a credible option? Look, I love Bernie Sanders probably better than anyone in the entire Congress, but he has NO prayer of threatening Obama for the Democratic nomination. NONE. ZERO. NADA.
>
Now, a little earlier on this thread a line of discussion danced around the edges of representing a useful debate. Several commentators were discussing the prospects of taking more serious grassroots actions to try and make more of an impact on the direction of our nation, which many on here agree is heading down a very dangerous and unjust path. This entire area is very ripe for debate because it's a recognition that many of us (CD authors and those commenting in response to the articles) seem to be either relentlessly "spinning our wheels", or are tiring of expressing "good" ideas that never seem to go anywhere in the actual results of public policy. Thus we're starting to show some small signs of desperation by wondering what can be done to get results that haven't been really been tried or tested in quite some time. So, some commentators expressed some thoughts about a number of different forms of political resistance at the grassroots level. The disappointment I had with this line of discussion was that it quickly devolved into the most volatile and controversial aspect of resistance: whether resistance should be "nonviolent" or "violent". It would be much more useful in the early stages of any discussion of resistance to stick with fleshing out in some detail the myriad of "nonviolent" modes of resistance at our disposal. There's no harm in discussing "violence" (particularly strategic targets of property) versus "non-violence" in the context of ideas regarding building a serious "movement of resistance", but most of us are not prepared to confront such decisions without often having sufficient background or education in even areas of "nonviolent direct actions", such as those used in 1960's Birmingham to considerable success during the civil rights movement.
>
I just hope we can see more focused and cooperative debates on these threads in the future about how it could be possible for us (and others like us scattered around the nation), as passionate progressives seriously worried about the direction we're headed as a nation, to effectively begin to organize together in our communities. What are our options to force change along the lines of "nonviolent" actions, including the more aggressive forms, like engaging in mass civil disobedience and/or direct action campaigns?
>
I do recommend Derrick Jensen et. al.'s new book, "Deep Green Resistance" for all those interested in upgrading their knowledge of what it might take to build a true movement of resistance. I don't agree with all of their strategies, but it's a very engaging and well-written book.
>
Now, in reply to Foster, I will close this comment by briefly addressing the important point you made in your post. For whatever it's worth, my view is that many of the comments on these threads are fairly intelligent, indicate a relatively significant breadth of knowledge, and for the most part display a serious and sincere passion about many of the important issues of the day.
>
As you say though, Foster, I do think that it is not uncommon to see commentators appear almost compelled to express division instead of looking to forge common ground with other commentators. This is a tragic mistake, one that has plagued the Left, and has been effectively exploited by "elites" for decades. As progressives, the Left must learn to establish solidarity with each other around the fundamental and broad issues that we for the most part agree are an affront to our values, and a threat to this country. We must look for avenues to engage each other in this fashion in all that we do, including in our commentaries here on Common Dreams.
Good points.
Information is the key today. The corporate elite depends on a critical mass of ignorance among the voters. Therefore the video camera can be more powerful than the sword.
If you want the same result keep doing the same thing. Really, the SAME result? That's what we want? Then it's not Common Dreams, it's common chaos.
"Norway , Sweden and Finland were all once countries where the masses of people poor while a small handful held all the countries wealth and power. "
GW, that rightwing Christo-fascist terrorist in Norway, based on his ideological leanings, is hell bent on making it that way. The rightwing media will exploit this tragedy and frame Norway as not doing enough on curbing terrorism and then there's the US government that will capitalize on that and possibly turn the Norwegian government into another pro-austerity force against its own people like it happened in France and Greece. I hope it doesn't come to that but one poster who mentioned that he was from Sweden proved that those 3 countries are nowhere as Left as they used to be 50 years ago.
About the US being "born" from violence and war, the same could be said of the rest of the entire western hemisphere but that much of South America chose to correct its ways after suffering the consequences of war and economic libertarianism that was rigged for the ruling elites while even Mexico and Canada never caught on. Don't take this personally but there's too much right-leaning in Mexico, in part due to US meddling, and the race issue still lingers in Canada although everything else about those two countries is great. By the way, I hope that something can be done to reverse the right-leaning tide in Canada so that your country won't have to bear the impact of the collapse of the US Empire.
>>Don't take this personally but there's too much right-leaning in Mexico, in part due to US meddling, and the race issue still lingers in Canada although everything else about those two countries is great.
I do not take it the wrong way. I am fully aware that our nations leaders seek to follow the course of the United States of America. Stephen Harper in particular wants to see Canada play a larger more aggressive role in NATO wherein Canadian Military forces are deployed the world over "To defend freedom and rights" through violence.
This alone will drag our to the right and towards Corporatism and the "Security state". This alone will help to divide Canadian against Canadian and will lead to a rise in racism and people identifying themselves by ethnic grouping rather then as a community of peoples.
We must as a nation turn from that and look to our pasts wherein we rectify the wrong and harm we have done to our own peoples and in particular the true founders of our country, our First nations peoples. If we can accept where we came from, rather then mythologize our past, we can better shape our future to create a truly egalitarian nation.
If we claim we MUST do that through violence then all we do is replace one type of oppression with another. The tyranny of the majority (there are more of us with GUNS then them) is still a tyranny.
GWNorth, You're correct. Violence will only result in more violence and won't solve anything. BTW, you forgot to mention that Gandhi won independence for India through his non violent movement. It may take more time but if there are massive sit down strikes and take over of the Congress and other government buildings like we did in Madison, Wisconsin, we will eventually win and throw the scoundrels out.
You need to do yourself a favor and read about Solidarity ... and Gandhi ... and MLK ... and Nelson Mandela ... and Thoreau.
.
Thanks.
We're a long, long way away from Warsaw in 1944. That was a society that had been occupied by a murderous fascist army for 5 years. The Polish people were so desperate at that point that little children fought and died in their underground army. They put up a tough fight for about two months against the collapsing Nazis in 1944 ... but lost the battle anyway. The Nazis were so enraged over the Uprising that they murdered a quarter million Warsaw civilians. And as a result the Poles were completely weakened when the Russians entered the city a few weeks later, and in no position to bargain for their own self-determination.
.
We do not live in Warsaw in 1944 .... No where even close to that nightmare.
"All revolutions, rebellions, freedom fighters, et al, if they were to take your advice would still be oppressed today."
Huh. What about the second wave feminist movement in the 60's? A lot of the inequality and double standards are gone. I don't think anyone got killed while a lot has changed because of the protests.
All revolutions, rebellions, freedom fighters, et al, if they were to take your advice would still be oppressed today. I can just hear it now. Hey George Washington, put down the gun. Fighting the British, you, know, "one cannot be sure who's going to get hurt when VIOLENCE erupts."
And how did all that violence to end taxation without representation work out? It didn't. But a very violent and warring empire nation was born.
"All I have seen are a couple petitions and empty threats to withhold votes in 2012."
They aren't even threatening to withhold votes. They're threatening only to withhold money. They're still pledging to vote for him. Some threat!
Politicians care about money more than talk and at this early stage who anyone will vote for or if they will even vote is up to the person, not you.
Only you can tell us who you will vote for.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I agree with you in every respect except for the nonviolence. NOTHING could discredit a progressive revolution more than violence.
In my view, nothing could discredit progressives more than by what they are currently doing -- which is nothing.
In the streets, yes!
Well, what a relief, our president has some integrity after all. He didn't actually "cave" and give up his principles, he was actually always for cutting the big three, he just didn't let us know it when he ws running for president. How stupid of me not to have discerned the truth of this in 2008 when, as Jeff points out, he left signs of it everywhere and how unreasonable for me to expect him to defend my "entitlements" now. When speaking to Rev. Warren about this yesterday Obama said that defending services for the most vulnerable, "the least among us" (he knew enough to use the biblical phrase) was "in principle the right thing" but then qualified it by saying, "However in actuality the devil is in the details." (Just like he told us last year that in theory SinglePayer was the best option for health care.) Hey I get it-- now that we know Obama haa really been a conservative all along we shouldn't be angered by this double talk, we should just know that Obama is smart enough to give himself an out if he really had to defend a progressive principle. Message recieved loud and clear Jeff--we won't get mad and say that Obama has betrayed us again or that he caved, we will simply know that whenever he utters a decent humanitarian sentiment he is just pandering to the "f--king retards" who weren't smart enough to smoke him out in 2008 and who will still probably vote for him again in 2012 if he just feeds them a few ambiguous crumbs..
You voted your heart. You wanted to believe that Obama was a "good guy" looking out for the little people.
He was and is a millionaire. His economic interests are opposed to the wage slave, and dependent people.
He is a liar and a lawyer, which is pretty much the same thing.
Well, in defense of the "f--king retards" who weren't smart enough to smoke him out in 2008 (myself include among them) - Candidate Barry did in fact explicitly say that he would not cut cost of living increases, or raise the retirement age. He stated that to the AARP only 2 months before the election....
.
A year earlier he also stated that the best idea to make social security solvent past 2036 was to "lift the cap on the payroll tax and to make sure the wealthy are paying more of their fair share."
.
It's clear after two years of his presidency who he really is ... but it wasn't necessarily so clear in 2007 - 2008 (though I will definfitely agree that there were some troublesome signs...)
The oilybomber also said he was going to tax the rich, end reaganomics and renegotiate NAFTA - instead he's pushed 5 more 'free trade' ( corporate welfare) policies, pushed his trickle down all the pain for the little guy - all the gain for the vampire predators and now wants to cut benefits that we PAID FOR thru a separate from the general budget -
Those policies he is continously pushing have led to deaths On His Watch - so the obummer is also a complicit MURDERER.
Very similar to Obama's peace prize acceptance speech, where he damned Martin Luther King Jr. with faint praise, and then said that in order to have peace we must have war. Amazing that the Obama threw the Reverend Wright under the bus, but now joins hands with the obese Warren, whose version of Christianity satisfies the corporate class.
I like Bernie alot, but feel he can do more in the Senate than elsewhere.
If not Bernie, how about Russ Feingold? If not Bernie, how about Dennis Kucinich?
Re: dennis and rus- they'd have to put ideals over party politics and I've seen both of those guys talk a good game and then follow the DLC party line when push came to shove.
Kucinich has tried. Kucinich is always marginalized by the media, who after all RULE. He's the best candidate we've had in a long time. People don't WANT the best. They want someone handsome and "smooth." Plus Dennis tells the truth, and that is "out of place" in American politics.
Right you are! The american electorate wants them to lie to us, because they are unable to handle the truth.
Jesse Ventura just filed suit agains the TSA. Jesse is a Democrat.
If not Kucinich, why not Ventura?
After his stint as governor, Jesse probably does not want the job, and I don't blame him.
Yes, Ventura's the man! he could protect himself from the jfk,king,malX factor. Possibly long enough for us to fix everything. Now to find more good candidates for the rest of the positions, along with people power org and campainging...maybe we could save our democracy for our children!!!
Peace!
Right, even when Dennis voted for the ACA he still was honest (unless we believe something horrible happened on Air Force One) and said it was a bad bill but he was voting for the lesser of two evils, that voting against the President would destroy his presidency and that seemed to him at the time to be a worse choice.
Everyone else who caved after opposing it started talking about how great and good it was: even Bernie Sanders justified it with his amendment, which I understand isn't really accomplishing anything.
Alan Grayson. Has the fire. Doesn't give two shits for the machine.
My initial reaction to the article's title made me think the guy was going to whitewash this prez., spin him to make us believe...oh was I wrong.
And OH WAS I wrong when I supported Obummer. I, like too many, found truth in his words and NEVER bothered to check his actions. My own conservative brother tried telling me. And I dint listen damn it...............
So the truth is out and here wee go again. One commenter said let the creepy ones win so it goes down the drain sooner. We went down the drain with George Bush actually. We've been swirling around in the cesspool ever since.
The cesspool consists of lies, lack of integrity, chaotic stories mixed with truth and lies, truth that never gets told,all the politicians and their corporate puppeteers, and the 300 million people in the US who will win or lose accordingly...but in the end,it all rots and deteriorates and becomes moldy dry dust.
So how does one clean a cesspool? It is NOT one ingredient, not a sole person who will lead the good bacteria out to survive as clean water. Every peice of crap that sits at the tv sucking on the Fox lie line, or doesn't ever bother to see what there might be for them to DO, like march or write or speak up.
I had a discussion last night with a friend. I asked "How many did it take to end the VietNam war? get women's vote? civil rights issues ? And then I said, hmm, must be a percentage of people who care and do something, something being, in the streets.
IN THE STREETS...means to them who are watching us flounder now...that once we are all IN THE STREETS, we aren't working, aren't paying taxes, aren't buying goods from China or Israel, aren't watching Fux anymore, because IN THE STREETS means we are mad as hell and pretty soon....we'll have the numbers that is required to change a thing, whatever thing you most care about.
IN THE STREETS should be EVERYONE who's mad about the war, taxes, bailouts, foreclosure, nuclear weapons, seniors rights, drug war, priders, bikers, and soldiers who have found their voices-meaning support the VVAW and the IVAW as well as Veterans for Peace.
We have to work together. Yesterday there was an altercation in the parking lot of a library where a meeting had just been held regarding an issue. Despite the fact that these two people were on the same side, their ego's and their ignorance made them fight with each other. This kind of ignoramous stupidity is exactly what the Rep/Dem party rulers like to see.
The ruling class, and it is, don't kid yourself, has us over a barrel as long as we continue to fight with each other. If you sat down with a tea party person, or a gay person, or an immigrant, or a politician, and didn't talk politics, but shared your own human stories and desires for your family and the world, you might be surprised. My problem is I'm too arrogant to talk to stupid people, but what I do know about that is, it means I am not honoring my humanity, nor their's. All of us can find enough common ground to bring together and get IN THE STREETS.
You forgot to mention Clinton who activated George Bush Sr.s illegal use of thought reading technology on Americans and others. Who stoled Wallstreet $ when these "trusted Gov officials" know everyones secrets. Tinfoil Hat references-OK IF you apologize when the truth gets out finally. Katheen Heckman victim since 1994.
wtf?
I will agree with Jeff on one point. Obama didn't "Cave". To cave he would have had to have had honorable intent in the first place. He never did. Obama is a narcissistic technocrat and a fascist. He was sold to the American people as a brand, a more telegenic pitch man for the same new world order fascism promoted by the same corportocracy that has been the real power in America since Camelot. Obama never intended to honor his campaign promises and has said so. He sold us out with the FISA exclusion. He sold us old with the endless wars and imperial occupations. He sold us out with the patriot acts. He sold us out when he refused to hold anybody accountable for the crimes of Bush Co. He sold us out when he refused to support a more transparent government. He sold us out with the bank bailouts and refusing to even investigate the CDO fraud that collapsed the economy. He sold us out by refusing to regulate the banks. He sold us out refusing to hold the banks accountable for the MERS fraud, still going on BTW. He sold us out with Health-care. Turns out he had already cut a deal with the Insurance companies for campaign support if he handed them a complete private monopoly once he was elected, which he did.
He sold us out when he protected the pirates when the IDF murdered an unarmed US aid worker in international waters last year. He sold us out when he refused to even support the union workers in Wisconsin when he promised to "march with unions as long as he had a comfortable pair of shoes" while he was campaigning. He is selling us out right now with this debt ceiling nonsense. Obama has the constitutional authority to create debt free money, he doesn't need to "borrow" it at usury from a private bank. Washington did it with his "Continentals", Lincoln did it with his "Greenbacks" and Kennedy started to do it with his "silver certificates", WHY WON'T OBAMA DO IT???????? He won't do it because of his final sell out. This phony debt ceiling "crisis" isn't about cash flow, it's about privatizing Social Security and handing it to Wall St. so they can loot it and handing Medicare and Medicaid to the insurance companies along with Obama-care so they can make vast profits while Americans have no choice and no hope of getting the basic medical care they have worked a lifetime for.....
I hear your pain and feel it too. It is tough being betrayed.
FRED: Thank you for spelling it out, and speaking all "my" sentiments... along with those, no doubt, of countless others, especially any who are paying attention. What's on view sickens the soul and slays the imagination. It is terrible and terrifying. Standing before U.S. with the Nobel Peace Prize, is the poster child for Disaster Capitalism; and there's no Disaster, engineered or occurring naturally, that this Pretender (and those he represents) will not capitalize upon.
It is a SAD day not only for our nation, but for much of the world. Perhaps the sole caveat is that as our nation comes to experience growing poverty, and thus on the whole consumes less, our carbon footprint will ease off the gas pedal and give climate change a moment to "catch its breath."
Voting doesn't work when winning is dependent on corporate run media and corporate donation and the Supreme Court doesn't step in to stop the counting of votes.
Sorry we are far beyond voting as a means to undo an evil system of greed and corruption.
"Sorry we are far beyond voting as a means to undo an evil system of greed and corruption."
Well, that only leaves you the Egyptian Option.
And the PTB are all ready for that kind of democracy...
Jeff Cohen is right on the mark about the current US president. I however, don't see a challenge within the party as being the one which will do the job for now. I see us infiltratiing the GOP starting in Iowa, the first state to vote and right on through to get Ron Paul in as the GOP candidate, then electing him in suhc a landslide that it would be clear that progressive votes put him in.
In 1968 it would be easy to contiend as did Jame Gavin a dove of that time and Second World War paratroop combat vet that the best way to get in a dove was to push for one on the GOP side, as a sitting president couldn't be beat in his own party. He said this well in advance of the actual contest, and it turned out he was right. Had we concentrated on George Romney he might well have been the GOP candidate and defeated the Democrat, then gone on to end the war and give us a peace dividend.
Obviously Cohen is a great progressive and is saying something he sincerely believes. I jus happen to think for now the in party challenge won't work. For 2016 Bernie Sanders or Dennis J Kucinich or both would be solid choices, and would add by then they should be ready to take the presidency back. In the meantime, we would do well to put an end to endless war as a foreign policy and rsstore civil liberties with Ron Paul. The economy won't come around for another 10 years. This will mean either Sanders or Kucinich will have it made then.
This I see as a strategy to get some really great results.
I agree, AD. A lot of "progressives" don't like Paul for some obvious reasons -- he is a not so closet racist and has some loony tunes ideas -- but on the one big issue -- WAR -- Paul has got it right. Decent people need to focus on the true evils of war. Most of the "progressives" I know have shown their colors by continuing to support Obama despite his ever increasing wars. If people can't draw the line at the slaughter of innocent children, women, and men, then they have no real moral center. If Paul won the GOP nomination, I would vote for him because I support peace and believe that the killing of other beings is always wrong.
Me too. One thing at a time if that is the only choice.
Paul isn't against war. He's against the Federal government doing ANYTHING except run the courts and defend us if we're invaded.
That means he'd unleash the corporations and they'd privatize war. WE'D HAVE MORE EMPIRE in Paul's idiotic Randian utopia.
(double post deleted)
AD: These alleged "Civil Liberties" would set women's reproductive rights back centuries, thereby qualifying Ron Paul--who so many in this forum mysteriously manage to champion--as moral competition for the Talbian; but then he's part of Amerika's own Christian Taliban, anyway. Civil liberties? Nor would this guy be able to stand up against the MIC, even if his politics aligns more compatibly with that of its bigshots.Anyone who thinks the Prez is Superman has obviously read too many comic books.