Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- Fukushima Meltdown Driving Increased Abnormalities Among US Infants
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Growing Campaign to Revoke Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Chemical Disasters, Agent Orange, and GMOs: Monsanto's Legacy Traced in Exposé
Popular content
Today's Top News
Oh, The Pain of The Believer: Barack’s Betrayals Offer Lessons We Can’t Deny
Journalists are not supposed to have political opinions, and yet we all do. Our “biases” are usually disguised, not blatant or overtly partisan, and can be divined in what stories we cover and how we cover them,
Even ‘just the facts, ma'am,’ journos for big Media have to decide which facts to include and which to ignore.
Our outlooks are always shaped by our worldviews, values and experience, not to mention the outlets we work for.
Which brings me to the challenge of seeking truth and recognizing it when you see it.
I have to admit that I was seduced by the idea of Barack Obama.
I wanted to believe because I needed to believe, needed to believe it was possible to change the American behemoth, to believe that, as he kept saying, “it could be different this time.” (photo: Celeste Hodges)
The idea of a black President, the idea of a young President, the idea of an articulate President, and the idea of a man married to such a stand up woman from a working class family was hard to resist.
Here’s a guy who seemed really smart, not just because he went to Harvard but because professors there I liked were impressed with him. (I taught at Harvard, and know very well how not so smart many students there can be!)
In the end, it doesn’t mean much, but in that period he lived about a block away from the house I once shared on Dartmouth Street in Somerville.
Was that a degree of separation?
He had also been a community organizer, starting in politics at the grassroots in Chicago. I also worked at Saul Alinsky-style organizing and even knew the iconic organizer personally.
Was that another degree?
He’s invoked the spirit of the civil rights movement but was not part of it. He treated Dr. King as a monument before the new memorial was conceived, embracing him as a symbol of the past, not a guide to the future.
He took an anti-war stance on pragmatic grounds only, preferring Afghanistan to Iraq. He hasn’t extricated us from either battlefield.
His strategy borrowed heavily from the Bush Doctrine. What’s the difference, really, as US troops now intervene worldwide and Guantanamo remains open for business?
There was a lot I didn’t know. I didn’t know the backgrounds of those that groomed him and funded him. His relationship with the centrist DLC was murky as were the details on the services he performed for a shadowy firm, Business International, said to have CIA links.
There were those who warned, but I guess I didn’t want to listen.
Why? I didn’t want to reinforce my own skepticism and sense of despair. I feigned at being hopeful even as I took quite a few critical whacks at his positions in my blog. His deviations from a liberal agenda and his paens to the “free market” were considered necessary for his “electability.”
I was also influenced by the euphoria for him overseas that had become infectious but has since soured.
To be honest, I was so disgusted with eight years of George Bush for all the right reasons that I wanted him gone full stop, as did millions of Americans.
Hillary didn’t appeal to me, not because she’s a woman but because of her slavish affinity for the Israel lobby and middle of the road Democrats. (Yes, Obama, did his mea-culpa to AIPAC too!)
I was denounced as a super sexist by a few for not buying into her centrist Clintonista crusade.
She had gone from a student advocate to part of a ruling family; he went from bottom-up activism to top-down elitism.
When she joined his “team,” you knew they were always in the same league.
When the right bashed him for associating with radical Bill Ayers, who I knew, it made me suspect he might even be cooler than I thought, even as he raced to distance himself. His membership in Reverend Wright’s church hinted at a deeper consciousness until he buckled in the media heat and threw the man that married him under the bus.
And yet, I wanted to believe because I needed to believe, needed to believe it was possible to change the American behemoth, to believe that, as he kept saying, “it could be different this time.”
As the late writer David Foster Wallace put it, “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life…there is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship… else (what) you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things - if they are where you tap real meaning in life - then you will never have enough. Never feel you have enough.”
So, in a sense, I became a worshiper like so many, not of the man or the dance he was doing in an infected political environment, but because I convinced myself that I worshiped possibility, that there are times when the unexpected, even the unbelievable occurs. I had seen Mandela go from prison to the presidency of South Africa.
After all, how does a progressive blast a candidate who has Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger singing the uncensored version of “This Land Is Your Land” at his inaugural?
Yet, there was always a nagging question: was he with us or just co-opting us?
Yes We Can?
Slowly, despite the glow and the aura, deeper truths surfaced, realities I had winked away. Its not surprising that his mantra has gone, as the Washington Post reports, from the “fierce urgency of now,” to “Be patient, democracy is big and tough and messy.”
Yes, I knew, I may have been rationalizing a false god, who was only another, if more attractive, politician who says one thing and does another in a political system where power, not personalities prevail.
Like many of his predecessors he would be “captured” by the power structures, by the military men and contractors at the Pentagon and the money men on Wall Street.
He was in office but never really in charge. Clearly, he didn’t have the votes to enact a real change agenda. But that was because his own party was long ago bought and paid for.
He never had a chance, even if as I wanted to believe, he wanted one. He said he wanted to be transformational figure but the system transformed him—and quickly.
Everyone runs “against Washington,” even a Senator, who was part of it.
And so I held my nose and voted, hoping against my wiser instincts. I even made a positive film about the campaign that showed how he used social media and texting to mobilize new voters. When I tried to get a copy to the White House, through an insider there, I found they couldn’t be less interested.
By then, he had gone from playing the “outside game” to opting into the “inside game” built around compromise in the name of “pragmatism," or "getting it done,” in his words. In the end he was a rookie who may have outsmarted himself or just served the interests who put him there.
He couldn’t dump his most passionate and issue-oriented followers fast enough.
While his backers were still hot to trot, he became cooler toward them, and, in effect, repudiated them with few progressive appointments. He put on his flag pin and relished the symbolism of the “office.” He became the master of the uplifting speech disguising a quite different policy agenda.
He spoke for the people but served the power. His wanted the other side to love him too, even as his stabs at “bi-partisanship” proved non-starters.
When you lie down with those “lambs,” (or is it snakes?) you betray not only supporters, but their hopes. FDR was soon spinning in his grave.
I am not surprised that knowledgeable critics of his economic policies not only consider him bull-headed and wrong, but actually corrupt, aligned and complicit, with the banksters who are still ripping us off. No wonder he’s "bundled” more donations from the greedsters and financiers this year than in 2008! No wonder he turned his back on consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren and is trying to kill prosecutions of bank fraud in high places.
Christopher Whalen who writes for Reuters say there will be a cost for his doing nothing: “The path of least resistance politically has been to temporize and talk. But by following the advice of Rubin and Summers, and avoiding tough decisions about banks and solvency, President Obama has only made the crisis more serious and steadily eroded public confidence. In political terms, Obama is morphing into Herbert Hoover.”
Yet, at the same time, many of us who now know how we have been used, will vote for him again, because, as he rightly calculates, there is no one else, and the alternative is even worse. Watch and weep as today’s rebels become next year’s rationalizers.
It reminds me of when activists were asked to vote for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 with the slogan “Part of the Way with LBJ.” That way ended with an endless escalation of war in Vietnam, and guns trumping butter. Sound familiar?
The search for truth and reality has hit a wall but has to continue. The lessons need to be learned. We have to say we were wrong, when we were, not in our beliefs, but in pinning our hopes on a shrewd, ambitious, and double-faced political performance artist.
While people who still back him dismiss the accusation that’s he’s a hidden socialist, Kenyan, or space alien, all too many suspect he may be a secret Republican. He is who he is, aloof, cautious, and a man in the middle. He’s staying there.
Let’s give David Foster the last word.
“The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. The alternative is unconsciousness,…
… It is about simple awareness - awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, that we have to keep reminding ourselves, over and over…”
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...


222 Comments so far
Show AllI think if Obummer was 100% black, he'd have enough soul to do the right thing like he said he'd do. But he is the epitome of an Oreo, white stuff on the inside is bad for you, pure sugar that speaks so sweetly on the tongue but burns a hole in your gut when reality hits home. I'm sorry to say, the white side of him is pure trash, white trash.
How apropos and absolutely genuinely true. And don't be sorry for saying what you said.
And I can't even abide listening to him talking his shit, the sweet syrupy sound of his rhetoric make me gag and puke.
but this makes me laugh and it disposes o's oratory prowess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap2Cg_FDRy4
Be careful - suggesting that just because one is a particular color implies that (s)he will behave in a particular way is "profiling" and this is always problematic. Clarence Thomas is "100% black" - does he have "enough soul to do the right thing"?
If most Americans believe that third party candidates are not viable, they will not vote for third party candidates, and these candidates are therefore not viable. So the belief that third party candidates are not viable is true as long as it is shared by most people, and it is shared by most people as long as it is true.
If third party candidates are viable, one of the major parties sometimes moves towards third party positions to coopt these positions. These are all questions of political tactics and strategies, questions of how to win and get things done rather than of what needs to be done.
We think the truth is on our side, and if we could get a fair discussion going, the truth would win. What we have right now is neither fair nor a discussion. Political tactics and strategies look for ways to win within our present non-fair non-discussion. What we need is ways to make our political interaction with those who disagree with us more of a fair discussion; if we can do that, the best side will win, and most of us will learn that the side we started out on was not the best side.
Our problem is not who to vote for, but how to improve the quality of our political process. This involves talking to and learning from those we disagree with rather than arguing and griping with those with whom our disagreements are minor and tactical.
I find this article frustrating because it's yet another piece criticizing Obama as somehow betraying the principles of his campaign without citing any facts to support it. (And yet at the same time he purports to be proclaiming truth and not just his political bias...)
The only "facts" he talks about are the Afghanistan & Iraq wars. Iraq is pretty much over, as Obama promised, and Afghanistan is pretty much the same hole it was when he took office except he actually accomplished the goal of why we went in - getting Osama. And his attempts to wind down the war are, surprise, criticized as too quick too soon. Regardless of your feelings about whether we should have gone in, he inherited the war and will be blamed for the consequences of how it ends. We already saw one example of what can happen when you wind down too fast... The author's generic comments about Guantanamo and intervention abroad likewise gloss over drastic differences between what Bush did and what is going on now.
It's articles like this that scare me more than anything from the right. It's the same narrow-minded and impatient attitude that got Obama elected in the first place, only now it is directed AGAINST him.
What it seems people like this author really wanted was a hard-headed democrat to beat the drum of liberal-only policies at any cost. And yet, ironically, they expect this from someone who promised to "change" the political climate in Washington. The failure to achieve any meaningful change in the overall political climate is, in my opinion, Obama's clearest failure. But that was also the goal that depended most on the collective action of others (politicians and media included), who have steadfastly opposed him on that effort at every turn.
Just out of curiosity - just what is "one example of what can happen when you wind down too fast" ? As for Iraq being "pretty much over" - Really? How much is that war still costing us? How many troops are still there? And as for "accomplish(ing) the goal of why we went in" to Afghanistan, wasn't the dude killed in Pakistan, where he had been living for some time? Even as the death toll in Afghanistan mounts ...
You are right - he failed to change the political climate - but then again, he never intended to ....
just what is "one example of what can happen when you wind down too fast" ?
-->9/11
As for Iraq being "pretty much over"...
--> Defined plan for withdrawal and turn over to Iraqi government.
And as for "accomplish(ing) the goal of why we went in" to Afghanistan
--> We went in to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, who were providing cover for Osama, who set up 9/11. Osama was there when we went in; he fled to Pakistan, and that's where we got him. The question now is what do we do? The taliban will almost certainly regain control if we were to immediately pull out. So do we pull out and leave everyone in Afghanistan to fend for themselves and hope they only let good people run things (for the honorable goal of saving our soldiers' lives)? (That didn't work so well last time in the long run...) Or perhaps try to make a more orderly and responsible slow-down that unfortunately takes time but at least has the hope of providing some lasting change for the country? I understand both sides of that issue and can't necessarily say either is unreasonable. But I don't see how Obama hasn't contradicted himself on it as the author suggests.
Whoa - what wound down too fast event produced 9/11?
The "defined" plan for withdrawal was formulated under Bush and, If I am not mistaken, is perpetually being "renegotiated" - the multiple bases will stay. Seriously, do you really think Obama will take us completely out of Iraq? Oh, my ....
Ah, so we went in to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban? I thought you said it was to get OBL. OBL was Al-Queda, not Taliban. We obviously didn't have to Overthrow the Taliban to get him .As for him being there when we went in - maybe, but after Tora Bora (sp?) it was pretty well conceded that he wasn't there anymore, ie. he left Afghanistan well before Obama.
The folks in Afghanistan WANT us gone - Have you never heard Malalai Joya, e.g.?
The warlords are reputedly as bad or worse than the Taliban, the gov't we have supported - Karzai's - is hopelessly corrupt. The longer we stay the more innocents we kill, the more we are hated, etc. etc. After 10 years if we haven't figured out how to "fix" it, how long do you want to stay? You really haven't been paying much attention as to what is going on over there, have you? Where do you get your info? The MSM?
There was a little skirmish in Afghanistan a while back (perhaps before your time?) involving the USSR and the US. We stopped the USSR invasion but then basically left the country in shambles (moreso than it was) to fend for itself. Low and behold in the vacuum the Taliban takes control and makes the country a safe haven for Osama and the like. Over the following decade or so, Osama attacked the US several times operating out of Afghanistan with the protection of (and/or coordination with) the Taliban, culminating in 9/11.
Before we went into Afghanistan, we repeatedly demanded for the Taliban to turn over Osama and it refused. After 9/11 we decided that in order to get Osama we had to take out the Taliban. As planned, we took out the Taliban but missed Osama.
That is all pre-Obama. The goals in the years since have been to get Osama and keep the Taliban from returning to control. We finally got Osama and are still working on the latter.
Yes, many (here and there) want us out, but there are also many that don't want us to leave (again, here and abroad) because of what happened last time.
I don't claim to have a solution - there isn't a good one. But Obama's position on it hasn't been inconsistent (which is the gist of the article) and given all the miserable options I can't say it's unreasonable either.
"We went in to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban..."
George Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban in May 2001 for their efforts in eradicating poppies. This was only two months after the CIA told him that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 2000 USS Cole bombing in Yemen. Four months later America invaded Afghanistan. Crazy.
Well, if you want to have a discussion about Bush being inconsistent I won't stand in anyone's way ... Also, from a broader historical perspective it's even worse because we largely helped the Taliban take power in the first instance since we backed (armed, trained, funded) their side in the USSR/US "skirmish."
But the fact remains that the basis for going into Afghanistan was to get Osama, and to do that we had to remove the government that was protecting him. Had the Taliban turned over Osama I can't imagine that even Bush would have gone in there.
And this is all pretty tangential to my point, which was that the author of the article has IMO contributed to a vague anti-Obama sentiment of disappointment without any actual detail or supporting facts. I think the real disappointment is with the country in general and Obama's inability to effect a nationwide change in politics, economics, etc.
I commend Schecter on this brave & honest article.
Jim Hightower pointed out that only 19% of voting-age Texans voted to make Rick Perry governor in the last election.
The Democrats in Texas can't get 20% of the vote?
Why call yourself a political party if you can't get 20% of the vote. Any High School class-president could go to Texas and create an organization to get 20% of the vote.
The Democrats must not want to win Texas. Why?
Without electoral votes from Texas, Republican presidential ambitions would not be possible and would expose the charade we call elections.
Got to keep the masses divided (distracted, misinformed) otherwise, they might unite on common issues like living wages, health care, education, secure jobs and secure retirements
See, here's the problem - you apparently start out with an assumption that it was a good thing for the US to get involved in Afghanistan in the first place - arming those "feedom fighters" and all, and that the mistake was in not "rebuilding" the country afterwards - I suppose in the same way that we have stayed to "rebuild" Iraq .......
I have heard that, in fact, the Taliban offered to give up bin Laden - if we would provide proof of his involvement in 9/11 - but Bush needed his war, and apparently so did Obama - he did his own "surge" there.
Look, the US is the invader - the Taliban, however crummy they are, are, in fact, the natives who are defending their country from foreigners. The invasion was a mistake from the beginning - it was a "police action" that got bin Laden, and was the only thing that should have been contemplated from the beginning. And he was summarily executed, for Pete's sake, instead of being brought to trial.
Obama's position, from the beginning, is that Afghanistan was the "good war".
"What happened last time" was a civil war among various factions - the Taliban won. If you are suggesting we stay until the Taliban loses, under the assumption that whoever "wins" will be "better" - ay, ay, ay!
You are right - you don't have a "solution" to what ails Afghanistan and neither does any American - the "solution" for Afghanistan lies with the Afghani. I want my fellow Americans to stop slaughtering them. Apparently you think there is a good reason for us to continue to do so. If you wish to applaud Obama for his "consistency" in this matter, feel free; frankly I think it is nothing for anyone to applaud ....
You're reading a lot into this and making a lot of assumptions about my views, assumptions which are in fact incorrect.
My point was that the author purports to be disappointed in Obama for being inconsistent without pointing out any actual inconsistencies. He generically refers to Afghanistan as one such area of disappointment, and I was explaining that Obama's approach on Afghanistan has not been inconsistent. If he is disappointed it is because he was not paying attention during the 2008 election, not because Obama has changed course to warrant disappointment.
As for the other matters, you chose to challenge certain historical facts regarding the nature of our involvement in Afghanistan and I believe I have provided the necessary information for you to come to your own conclusions. Personally, I don't disagree with your views and find them to be one of several reasonable responses to an unfortunate and complex situation.
Ok, i suppose you could point out which of my assumptions about your views are incorrect, but no matter; if your only point was to take the author to task, I would suggest that perhaps your statement "If he is disappointed it is because he was not paying attention during the 2008 election, not because Obama has changed course to warrant disappointment.", if made in the beginning, would have clarified it well, and if it had been your initial statement would have prompted nothing more than an "Amen!" from me. Your elaboration on the nature of the conflict and Obama's actions/intentions are what prompted my particular remarks.
As far as "challeng(ing) certain historical facts" - I would characterize it more accurately as challenging your version of/take on those "facts" ...
If your only point was to take the author to task, I would suggest that perhaps your statement "If he is disappointed it is because he was not paying attention during the 2008 election, not because Obama has changed course to warrant disappointment.", if made in the beginning, would have clarified it well, and if it had been your initial statement would have prompted nothing more than an "Amen!" from me
--> Here is the first sentence of my original post: "I find this article frustrating because it's yet another piece criticizing Obama as somehow betraying the principles of his campaign without citing any facts to support it."
Your elaboration on the nature of the conflict and Obama's actions/intentions are what prompted my particular remarks.
--> I elaborated on those facts because you asked me to. ("Just out of curiosity - just what is "one example of what can happen when you wind down too fast" ? As for Iraq being "pretty much over" - Really? How much is that war still costing us? How many troops are still there? And as for "accomplish(ing) the goal of why we went in" to Afghanistan, wasn't the dude killed in Pakistan, where he had been living for some time?")
Your first sentence in the original post is hardly the equivalent of "If he is disappointed ..."
My "just out of curiosity question" was in response to your original "elaboration" i.e. your statement of "facts", e.g. intimating that to leave now would be "winding down too fast".
C'mon man, it was clear where you were going with this. If your "only intention" was to critique the author for not exercising due diligence, then why not just concede that perhaps your "If he is disappointed ...." statement would have been a much clearer way to make your point. All the rest could quite understandably be taken as a defense, however oblique, of O's policies re our wars ....
As to our differing versions of "facts", alluded to in one of your previous posts. I refer you to Bennis' article today:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/07-5
And then there is this ...
https://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/7/headlines#4
"Report: Panetta Backs Extended U.S. Occupation
U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is reportedly backing a proposal to leave between 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the deadline for a full withdrawal at the end of the year. According to the New York Times, Panetta’s plan would see U.S. forces remaining in Iraq to train Iraqi troops. The top U.S. commander in Iraq, General Lloyd Austin, has called for leaving behind as many as 18,000 soldiers. President Obama has repeatedly vowed to withdraw all U.S. troops. The United States will still maintain a massive presence in Iraq through the CIA and private contractors working under the State Department."
The only thing that is clear is that you have no interest in responding to the actual subject of my posts and would rather pick an anonymous internet fight on matters I have not raised and in which I have no interest in discussing in this forum. Have a great day.
Hmmm - perhaps if you clarified what IS the actual subject of your post ....