Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama’s Failing Emails: Where Did the President’s Mojo Go?
For connoisseurs, Barack Obama’s fundraising emails for the 2012 election campaign seem just a tad forlorn -- slightly limp reminders of the last time ‘round.
Four years ago at this time, the early adopters among us were just starting to get used to the regular flow of email from the Obama campaign. The missives were actually exciting to get, because they seemed less like appeals for money than a chance to join a movement.
Sometimes they came with inspirational videos from Camp Obama, especially the volunteer training sessions staged by organizing guru Marshall Ganz. Here’s a favorite of mine, where a woman invokes Bobby Kennedy and Cesar Chavez and says that, as the weekend went on, she “felt her heart softening,” her cynicism “melting,” her determination building. I remember that feeling, and I remember clicking time and again to send another $50 off to fund that people-powered mission. (And I recall knocking on a lot of New Hampshire doors, too, with my 14-year-old daughter.)
It’s no wonder, then, that I’m still on the email list. But I haven’t been clicking through this time. Not even when Barack Obama himself asked me to “donate $75 or more today to be automatically entered for a chance to join me for dinner.” Not even when campaign manager Jim Messina pointed out that, though “the president has very little time to spend on anything related to the campaign… this is how he chooses to spend it -- having real, substantive conversations with people like you” over the dinner you might just win. (And if you do win, you’ll be put on a plane to “Washington, or Chicago, or wherever he might be that day.”)
Not even when deputy campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon offered to let me “take ownership of this campaign” by donating to it and, as an “added bonus,” possibly find myself “across the table from the president.” Not even when Michelle lowered the entry price from $75 to $25 and offered this bit of reassurance: “Just relax. Barack wants this dinner to be fun, and he really loves getting to know supporters like you.” Not even when, hours before an end-of-September fundraising “deadline,” Barack himself dropped the asking price to three dollars. God, have a little self-respect man! Three dollars?
Here’s the thing I’m starting to think Obama never understood: yes, for most of us the 2008 campaign was partly about him, but it was more about the campaign itself -- about the sudden feeling of power that gripped a web-enabled populace, who felt themselves able to really, truly hope. Hope that maybe they’d found a candidate who would escape the tried-and-true money corruption of Washington.
None of us gave $50 hoping for a favor. Quite the opposite. You gave $50 hoping that, for the first time in a long while in American politics, no one would get a favor. And the candidate, it must be said, led us on. His rhetorical flights were dazzling -- to environmentalists like me, he promised to “free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all,” and pledged that his administration would mark the moment when “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
Once in office, it was inevitable that he’d disappoint us to some degree. In fact, we knew the disappointment would come and braced ourselves for it. After all, our movement was up against the staggering power of vested corporate and financial interests. It’s hard to beat big money. Still, we didn’t mind thinking: Yes, we can. We’ll work hard. We’ve got your back. Let’s go!
What we completely missed was that Obama didn’t want us at his back -- that the minute the campaign was over he would cut us adrift, jettison the movement that had brought him to power. Instead of using all those millions of people to force through ambitious health-care proposals or serious climate legislation or [fill in the blank yourself here], he governed as the opposite of a movement candidate.
He clearly had not the slightest interest in keeping that network activated and engaged. Though we had brought him to the party, it was as if he didn’t really want to dance with us. Instead -- however painful the image may be -- he wanted to dance with Larry Summers. (Fundraising idea: I’d pay $75 to be assured I never had to have dinner with Summers.)
As the months of his administration rolled into years, he only seemed to grow less interested in movements of any sort. Before long, people like Tom Donahue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were topping the list of the most frequent visitors to the White House. And that was before this winter when -- after they’d been the biggest contributors to GOP congressional candidates -- Obama went on bended knee to Chamber headquarters, apologizing that he hadn’t brought a fruitcake along as a gift. (What is it with this guy and food? At any rate, he soon gave them a far better present, hiring former Chamber insider Bill Daley as his chief of staff.)
Now, his popularity tanking, Obama and his advisors talk about “tacking left” for the election. A nice thought, but maybe just a little late.
Increasingly, it seems to me, those of us who were ready to move with him four years ago are deciding to leave normal channels and find new forms of action. Here's an example: by year's end the president has said he will make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. The nation's top climate scientists sent the administration a letter indicating that such a development would be disastrous for the climate. NASA's James Hansen, the government's top climate researcher, said heavily tapping tar-sands oil, a particularly “dirty” form of fossil fuel, would mean “game over for the climate.” Ten of the president's fellow recent Nobel Peace Prize laureates pointed out in a letter that blocking the prospective pipeline would offer him a real leadership moment, a “tremendous opportunity to begin transition away from our dependence on oil, coal, and gas.”
But every indication from this administration suggests that it is prepared to grant the necessary permission for a project that has the enthusiastic backing of the Chamber of Commerce, and in which the Koch Brothers have a “direct and substantial interest.” And not just backing. To use the words of a recent New York Times story, they are willing to "flout the intent of federal law" to get it done. Check this out as well: the State Department, at the recommendation of Keystone XL pipeline builder TransCanada, hired a second company to carry out the environmental review. That company already considered itself a "major client" of TransCanada. This is simply corrupt, potentially the biggest scandal of the Obama years. And here's the thing: it's a crime still in progress. Watching the president do nothing to stop it is endlessly depressing.
For many of us, it’s been an overdue wake-up call, a sharp reminder of just who the president was really listening to. In mid-summer, several leaders of the environmental movement, myself included, put out a call for nonviolent civil disobedience at the White House over the upcoming Keystone pipeline decision. And more people -- 1,253 in total -- showed up to be arrested than at anytime in the last 40 years. (One reason Obama’s emails stink this time around: the guy who used to write many of them, Elijah Zarlin, not only isn’t working for the campaign any more, but got hauled off in a paddy wagon.)
Bare months have past and already that arrest record is being threatened, thank heavens, by the forces of #OccupyWallStreet, a movement that includes plenty more of the kind of people who rallied so enthusiastically behind Obama back in 2008.
Obama had mojo when he knew it wasn’t about him, that it was about change. But when you promise change, you have to deliver. His last best opportunity may come with that Keystone Pipeline decision, which he can make entirely by himself, without our inane Congress being able to get in the way. So on November 6th, exactly one year before the election, we’re planning to circle the White House with people. And the signs we’ll be carrying will simply be quotes from his last campaign -- all that stuff about the tyranny of big oil and the healing of the planet.
Our message will be simple: If you didn’t mean it, you shouldn’t have said it. If you did, here’s the chance to prove it. Nix the pipeline.
We don’t want dinner. We want action.
To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
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...


75 Comments so far
Show AllMcKibben must be one of the slowest when it comes to waking up from the fairy dust Obama sprinkled over his supporters in '07-'08. Following his writing over the past two years on Obama's many slights to his "base" and his eager embrace of Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street values over those empty campaign promises McKibben seems still nostalgic for, has been an amazing illustration of how long it can take for consciousness to raise. Maybe when Obama gives the green light to Keystone XL, McKibben will finally get the picture. He never was that into you, Bill.
I could agree with "once in offfice it was inevitable Obama would disappoint us" if the content of Obama's campaign speeches (from June 2008 onward ) hadn't been so blatantly pro-corporate. It was apparent from the start that Obama would be more than disappointing.
Too many fans were concentrating on "hope and change" soundbites and sending Obama money, rather than actually listening to his speeches.
Exactly, and I never could understand then why so many refused to actually listen to his pro-corporate rhetoric, or his promises to expand the war in Afghanistan. Only the hopey-changey stuff seemed to filter through. And it was shallow stuff. I could see how it might appeal to the very young and inexperienced, but for educated liberals like McKibben to have fallen for Obama's allegedly soaring speeches (he never inspired me for a moment) still mystifies me.
Particularly when they had such a large field of losers to choose from. Gee, maybe they should have put another GS Clinton back in the White House. You can deny it all you want, but Obama ran to the left of Hillary. If change doesn't mean change... If not giving the keys back to the guys who drove the car into the ditch doesn't mean NOT giving the keys back to the guys who drove the car into the ditch.... that is hardly the voters fault. You can call Obama a liar, but you can't call the people who supported him stupid. The only mistake they made was believing him. The day after he got elected, he uncloaked and became the worst of Bill and Bush rolled into one. Why would anyone send him money when he's blown his credibility. We'll be lucky if he doesn't destroy the Democratic Party and put those clinically insane Republicans in charge of the country like they took charge of the states.
Sorry Bill but you were Punked by the oilybomber.
A few words of wisdom from Robert Hunter: "You who choose to lead must follow - but if you fall you fall alone"
Obama won by Expanding the Electorate - millions of 1st time voters actually believed his PR campaign that this time a politician was Different. It's now beyond obvious that was Bullshit -
I beleive those voters won't vote again as they see it was just a scam - they also got Punked- hence lower turnout for the 2010 elections and even in Wisconsin -
Obama blew his chance - he had the country behind him after 2008 and proceedd to prove he was just another corrupt politician bought off by the kleptocrats and predators -
It's too late for obummer - his time has passed.
Change you can bereave in is the obummer motto for 2012.
with all due respect, you should've seen this coming the first time around; who else could've bought the establishment more time than a black man, a campaign that preyed on people's racist assumptions that the dude must be like MLK. His congressional record was obvious enough.
With all due respect, I wish you guys would quit saying I told you so.
The Green party never had a chance. When the Debate Committee won't even let them go to the debates, that should tell you they have no chance at winning.
The choices were the Idiot and the Ding Bat or the war monger Hillary.
Yes, people heard what they wanted to hear, but Obama did promise to do some great things. Having a shot at getting decent health care and all the other things he said he was going to do was worth voting for.
It was not our fault he was lying thru his teeth.
So please, get off your high horses and quit saying these things.
He offered hope. We took the bait. We see things now, ok?
"The Green party never had a chance."
Baloney - if that is so it is because folks like you kept saying it was so and were able to convince too many others ....
You cannot achieve what you cannot conceive and, for whatever reason, you refuse to conceive of the possibility. You allowed the MSM to define the "acceptable" range of your choices, a media that most, here at least, is roundly condemned for its complicity with, and facilitation of, the system. Why would you believe them when they insist the Dem/Rep duopoly is the only choice when you realize they are lying about so much else?
I have my own practical frustrations with the Greens, but their platforms and causes are right in sync with OWS and the 99%ers , they were/are a choice; will you make such a choice?
So, now that you "see things", what is your next step?
You know what joe? The people who saw through Obama were subjected to endless abuse by his starry eyed supporters, including accusations of racism.
So if you have to take a few rhetorical lumps for your foolishness, don't whine about it.
You were wrong about Obama. We were right. The reasons why you were fooled don't excuse your foolishness.
No, joecool9, it was not your fault Obama was lying, or that the choices available were so bad. It was your fault, however, for not heeding the warnings from us old folks - who, BTW, also wished we could believe him but had learned from past mistakes to be cautious. (All the while, everyone was aware the other options were so forbidding it couldn't have been done right, anyway.) It was also your fault that you threatened to toss us aging cynics off a cliff. You just wanted us to die and stay out of your way because you knew better. I guess we're still waiting for an apology (likely never to arrive). Obama hurt everyone, young and old, worse, even, than the Smirking Chimp did. That, we share; we're in the mess together. Your generation is bogged down in debt and out of work and the old folks have lost everything they've worked for all their lives. We should end the generational war. Strength in solidarity.
Barry is just not creative enough. Few will pay to have a chance to have dinner with him, but many would pay for a chance to dunk him in a dunking booth, especially if the tank is filled with water straight from the Gulf, containing the BP special additives, and maybe with a little trickle down mixed in from the little people who have been trickled on, all in good fun.
Or Obama turning on the tap to get some flaming fracked water so he can serve it to Biden, Clinton, Holder, and the rest of his cabinet.
Perhaps a Dunk-A-Bama stand at OWS 's to raise some needed funds. Everybody, and I mean everybody ('cept old Bill here) wants a part of his ass. At a buck a pop it could be a real moneymaker.
Dinner with President Zero, all of the canned cat food you can stomach!
...and peas.
"And more people -- 1,253 in total -- showed up to be arrested than at anytime in the last 40 years.'
That is indeed impressive, but McKibben's claim is actually not completely true.
"From 1986 through 1994, two years after the United States put a hold on full-scale nuclear weapons testing, 536 demonstrations were held at the Nevada Test Site involving 37,488 participants and 15,740 arrests, according to government records.[7]"
"In March 1988, APT [American Peace Test] held an event where more than 8,000 people attended a ten-day action to "Reclaim the Test Site", where nearly 3,000 people were arrested with more than 1,200 in one day. This set a record for most civil disobedience arrests in a single protest." -- wikipedia
Incidentally, the government estimates for the numbers attending the test site protests are almost certainly extremely conservative 9as were the media estimates of the time). Same as i t ever was.
"Now, his popularity tanking, Obama and his advisors talk about “tacking left” for the election. A nice thought, but maybe just a little late."
Deconstruction is so easy! The one word "maybe" says it all. McKibben is a nice guy, a decent guy, but still a hopey-changey zombie. He's still waiting for Oblahblah to turn into the guy he still thinks Oblahblah is.
Tacking left or 'talking' left where obama simly says a few nice things but ignores them completely - like his.
1. Put on comfortable shoes and walk with the protesters
2. Obama proising to renegotiate NAFTA but once in office pushing more job killing free trade agreements where only capital and corporations are free but labor and the environment as collateral damage.
3. Promising to support a public option all the while killing it behimd closed doors
4. Promising to support the volker rule while personally killing it behnd closed doors.
All talk. No action.
Obama is stuck in the past as the rest of the country gets moving again on the change they believe in -- this time without ties to any politicians.
McKibben comes across as a decent human being and he's done extraordinary work getting the word out on the threat of climate chaos ... still he is a bit like your naive cousin from Montana ... you know, the one who keeps investing in perpetual motion machines, anti-aging fruit bars, and swamp land in Panama.
If Obama did cancel the Keystone pipeline -- or delay it for further 'study' (until after the election) -- it will be because someone on his team convinces him that he can use it as a sop to fool some of his original supporters into voting for him again--without losing too much corporate payola.
What is more chilling -- a knucklehead like Rick Perry who is probably sincere in his dismissal of global warming -- or a Machiavellian fraud like Obama who accepts the science but refuses to act because he does not want to upset his corporate paymasters?
Obama is a fascinating politician -- the absolute triumph of style over principle in Amerikan politics. Think of it: a half Kenyan Harvard grad with a Muslim name who ran on soaring liberal rhetoric and then delivered a third term for Bush-Cheney.
As the plot of a novel it would strain credulity.
Unfortunately, Obama came along at a time when Amerika was desperate for a dollop of authentic leadership. The world needed another FDR or Gorbachev-- and instead it got a Madison Avenue flim flam man.
In montana it's bibles, guns, camo and 50 gal barrels of freeze dried food not land in panama - point taken though.
Excellent post, RG.
Randy G. -- really well said!
I think what bothers me most about this article is the implication that if only Obama will nix the pipeline, McKibbon will jump back on board and send in his cash and work for him again even if we are still at war, even if healthcare coverage continues to suck, even if corps still pay no taxes, even if, even if, even if ....
McKibbon, it seems to me, is a poster child for what is wrong with the left - the silo mentality that afflicts it; do something for my cause and the hell with the rest - the mentality that has allowed the Dems for too long to divide and splinter any real movement toward fundamental change.
I hope the OWS movement, to the extent it really is a movement, is, indeed, a sign that we have finally woken up to the self destructiveness of this mentality, a sign that we really, finally, understand that injustice to one, whether it is injustice re war, lousy healthcare, lousy wages and working conditions, lousy food and water, lousy environment, etc. is, indeed, injustice for all ....
I have been advocating and waiting for a long time for this to happen ....
"I think what bothers me most about this article is the implication that if only Obama will nix the pipeline, McKibbon will jump back on board.."
Yep. The Generic Liberal.
Yes identity politics is dead thank dog! Inclusive dIrect democracy processes and co-ops are the future.
"-- having real, substantive conversations with people like you” over the dinner you might just win. (And if you do win, you’ll be put on a plane to “Washington, or Chicago, or wherever he might be that day.”)"
Wouldn't it be perfect if the dinner-winner were not allowed to board the plane by Obama's TSA for being on one of Obama's no-fly lists?
To find out you'd have to cough up at least three bucks. Not worth it.
Obama lowered it to $3 so that he can trot out the 50 millon people supported and donated to my cause - when it's 49.99 millon giving less minimal amounts and then the actual obama controllers donating the vast majority.
And of coure the True Predators will be right at the top of the Donor List.
I suspect the "winner" will be selected on other than just "the luck of the draw" considerations ....
Anyone who thinks this "contest" will truly be "open to all", at this point, is asking to be screwed again.
It will make for good PR and another photo op ....
I agree especially with mtdon, Randy G, corvo, Ephraim, kivals, Aquifer, and raydelcamino who among others too numerous to mention have already made excellent, accurate comments here. (And then there will be many others who will comment after this comment.) Common Dreams is generally one of a tiny number of places you can go to where you do not have to sift through a lot of comments that are just not right or accurate. Common Dreams commentators are especially accurate regarding Obama.
At this point (short of a total personal transformation that realistically will not happen) all Obama can do is ensure that the Republican wins in 2012. Obama ensures that the far right Republican wins by refusing to decline to run for reelection. True, it matters little because if he declined to run the Democratic Party would replace Obama with another Corporate-sponsored flim-flam man who would be only marginally better than Romney.
But for the record, if Romney, as currently very strongly expected, wins in 2012 it will be mostly Obama’s fault, not only because of his poor performance and because he has kicked most of his 2008 supporters to the curb (both figuratively and literally) but also because he refused to decline to run for reelection despite seeing the writing on the wall more than a year before the election that he isn’t going to be able to win in 2012. It has become fairly obvious recently that Obama himself is aware that his odds for winning in 2012 are extremely low yet he refuses to allow someone else to try to beat the extreme right Romney (or some other Republican.)
With regard to voting mathematics, as mtdon wisely pointed out, Obama won in 2008 because people who would vote only if flim flammed were in fact flim flammed, so they did in fact vote (for Obama). Then as they wised up, many of these people did not vote in 2010 and will not be voting in 2012 either. (Some of them will vote for third parties.)
Separately, there will be some really desperate people who are generally non-voters (and who generally did not vote in either 2008 or 2010) who will in 2012 register and vote against Obama (most likely for Romney) because out of sheer desperation they are willing to try anything to move the odds that they can get a job above zero percent.
"I think what bothers me most about this article is the implication that if only Obama will nix the pipeline, McKibbon will jump back on board and send in his cash and work for him again even if we are still at war, even if healthcare coverage continues to suck, even if corps still pay no taxes, even if, even if, even if ...." -- Aquifer (1:07pm)
_____________________
To begin with a disclaimer of sorts, I resist openly disparaging or condemning McKibben; I appreciate his expertise, astuteness, commitment, determination, and hard work. And besides, I hate to rile up the Attitude Police.
However, his personality and demeanor remind me of classic teevee Clean-Cut Amerikan Boys like Opie Taylor from "The Andy Griffith Show" and Wally Cleaver from "Leave It to Beaver". I don't mean Ron Howard and Tony Dow-- although Howard seems like that in real life, too. I'm referring to their white, bright, and polite juvenile sitcom personae.
Apart from my idiosyncratic aversion to his personality, though, it's obvious that McKibben's a hell of a Tryer; it's easy to see why those who credit "trying"-- i.e. give out those big "E"s for effort and "F"s to fat-assed, sedentary skeptics-- enthusiastically root for him.
As I commented in August when the Keystone XL protest was launched: one characteristic of McKibben's "trying" is that he does seem to espouse an approach of trying anything in hopes that something will stick, without considering or getting hung up on conflicting logic or incompatible standards in his methods.
For example, protest based on explicit, intentional civil disobedience is fundamentally predicated on a moral or ethical argument explicitly outside of "realpolitik", aka practical politics or political expedience.
So the message to Obama and other responsible authorities is that the Keystone XL pipeline is WRONG for any number of reasons, ergo opposing it is the RIGHT thing to do for any number of extra-political reasons.
Of course, "right" doesn't come down from heaven or arise in a vacuum; it's "right" for rational, practical, common-sense GOOD reasons. But the point is that Obama et al ought to be coming out against the pipeline independently of the diabolical political calculus, dignified as "pragmatism", that governs "politics as usual".
So it always bothered me that McKibben can't help but try to sweeten the pot by throwing in that besides, Doing the Right Thing will be politically helpful to Obama! It will charm and cheer his disillusioned, abused "progressive base"!
See, we're still wearing our Obama '08 buttons above our creased trousers and on our suit jacket lapels next to our ties! If you "come back to us" on this one, we'll be your Best Friend Forever!
I know that McKibben rationalizes this by asserting that he's trying to rouse Obama's MORAL sensibilities-- hoping that Team Obama will remember The Way We Were and be moved by a hybrid moral and political epiphany.
But it's just fatuous or delusional to deny that this isn't also an implicit political quid pro quo: do what we're asking and those Obama '08 buttons will be updated to Obama '12 buttons!
It's well and good to observe that real life is in fact a mix of the ideal and the pragmatic, and to applaud McKibben for often resorting to this mixed-signal, two-tier logic.
But I think that trying to "work" Obama et al By Any Means Necessary relies on a misguided calculation that the end justifies the means. And the mixed signals may seem superficially coherent, but they're fundamentally inconsistent and incompatible.
To me, the "tease" of dangling a political dividend in front of Obama is too clever by half, and handicaps and undermines the potential impact of the civil disobedience component of McKibben's protests.
All this as an elaborate way to agree that McKibben at least comes across as capable of being "bought" by any ruse Obama might offer that appears to oppose (if only delay) greenlighting the XL pipeline.
Alas! The wise Ward Cleavers or Andy Taylors that might save young Bill from himself are no more.
OS wrote: "McKibben at least comes across as capable of being 'bought' by any ruse Obama might offer that appears to oppose (if only delay) greenlighting the XL pipeline."
There are capital-investment matters evident in details of the collusion between the State Department and TransCanada (a collaboration McKibben appropriately describes as "a crime still in progress"). TransCanada has gone ahead with the purchase of the pipe necessary to build this thing. That being the case, it's unlikely Obama would create even the appearance of any delay.
I'm still angry with Bill for excluding voices critical of Obama from the Tarsands Action demonstrations. The aversion to the 2012 Obama campaign McKibben expresses here is more like it - if a day late and three dollars shy. Soon it will be time for McKibben to articulate how Tarsands Action is going to continue opposing this project after Obama's approval. Or are they just going to fold their tents and fade away?
When they start building the pipeline, a virtual inevitability given Obama's record, I expect to see a branching out of the OWS movement into stopping this insane project. There are a lot of people in the west and midwest who can't make the OWS event but will step up to thie pipeline fiasco. Obama needs to have his face rubbed into every one of these capitulations to corporatism and Big Ass Oil. I see no way he can expect to win in '12 after these brazen betrayals. It's as if he's actually working for Romney. What a tool.
Given the timid performance McKibben has delivered as a "leader" of Tarsands Action, the OWS "we have no leaders" model is exactly what's called for.
The contrast between Tarsands Action and OWS is striking. On the one hand you have working within the system, begging The Man on bended knee to do the right thing, whining "He shouldn't have said it if he didn't mean it." On the other hand you have the genuine spirit of rebellion, rejecting the system wholesale - not asking for symbolic concessions or other crumbs off the rich man's table.
OWS is an impossibly unlikely, inextinguishable confluence of collective inspiration. All we require of so-called leaders is that they get the hell out of the way.
hey, OS!
appreciating your opening remarks regarding criticising McKibben, I shall take the darker role:
Bill is a shill...
if he were sincere, he would never imply the pipeline is a thing to be fought...
he would wish to fight the product, and use...
he would advise widespread reductions in energy use...
please note NONE of the prominent writers we are offered on this excellent site recommend such...
no one talks of meaningfully reducing anything, except, apparently, how much money the uber-rich have...this particular 'reduction' is perceived as one that would translate into a 'gain' for the receiver, which is why the cry is so popular...
it is not a cry for shared sacrifice, it is a cry for specific sacrifice on the part of others, in the name of fairer reallocation...
'Less for you, more for me'...no good...
if Bill wants to stop the planet's destruction, focusing on the pipeline is tangential, at best, and I accuse him of knowing it...
the guy isn't confused or dismayed by Obama, or still hoping Obama will come around...
he's shilling for Obama by distracting attention away from anything meaningful at this critical time...
all this said, I don't believe in the political process, at all, so don't have any comment on Bill's potential influence on the upcoming pretend elections...
so many of society's ills are akin to the cigarette:
the rely on hooking the young, as the old are either wise enough to see through them, or dead...
Bill plays to the young...I don't know how, but the young must wise up, and fast...
if we could close the churches and schools, they young might have a chance...
"Obedient Servant"
The title asks, "Where did the president's mojo go?",
but the article has me wondering why McKibben seems to think that Obama is McKibben's mojo.
I'm guessing McKibben's strategy is fatuous AND delusional. A combination with which I am very familiar.
"No day can be evaluated untill all the days are in". The Universe of the Obama Administration is not complete. Wisdom would suggest that "Holding your Peace" might be relevant here. That's a little hard to do if you are a cowboy with an itchy finger. These cowboys, they are not all in the Tea Party.
I agree with Paul Street: Obama must resign, but won't. Like the millions now involved with the OWSTR movement, McKibben needs to realize that the Duopoly rejects supporting what's best for the 99% until its election time. All one needs to read to decide whether to support Obama is today's Glenn Greenwald essay asking a similar question: "Can OWS Be Turned Into a Democratic Party Movement?" that documents the massive ties Obama and his administration have with the Money Power Enemy. Personally, I don't understand how anyone can back Obama after reading/reviewing those many links, unless you're a 1%er. Is it time for OWSTR supporters to tell Democrat Party stalwarts that they are idiots, that they are just digging their own personal hole deeper by supporting someone who will gladly fill that hole in on top of them?
No, Oblahblah should not resign. Rather, he must be impeached in the House, convicted in the Senate, and sent to The Hague for good measure. Like any of that will happen, of course.
Well, certainly. I endorsed Ron Paul's call for Obama's impeachment. But versus the level of excitement for BushCo's impeachment, there is very little; thus, Boehner isn't forced into saying impeachment's off the table as his pedecesor did. Same crimes. Why not?
mckibben and far too many sincere individuals can't seem to grasp the fact that presidential politics is theatre - comedy-like in many respects, but more closely resembling tragedy. illusion of the highest order. not to say that presidents are not capable of having significant effect on the nation's affairs. but who it actually is matters little.
more important by far are the millions of little "close encounters" we all have that help shape our own environment and the mindset reflected in it. when enough of us disengage from the illusion ("all-important" partisan debates, candidates of the corporate state, purveyors of narrow agendas) we become free, or at least freer of its influence. unburdened by trancelike submission to nebulous archaic structures, our power to create positive, healthy futures for ourselves and our children is vastly increased.
it's difficult at first, but with time and practice it becomes easier to resist paying so much attention, and thus giving so much legitimacy to the fairy tale of mainstream politics - at all levels. but especially at the national level.
Indeed.
I killed my television over a decade ago.
After a few months, an alternate reality emerges.
Sometimes I get the feeling I inhabit a different planet than that of people who watch TV.
We do. That's what scares me.
You can't even make a dent in their thinking.
Far and away the most effective mind control device ever.
I've tried to kill the TV, but occasioanlly I will watch at another's home
Often years will go by with no TV, and it's shocking how much more corrupt, vile and violent the TV is compared to my last major viewing.
While I am dimly aware of the vileness, violence and banality that comes over the TV, there is ample evidence--conclusive evidence--that the actual content of TV is secondary to the primary goal of having humans accept it as a primary arbiter of reality.
TV induces the same brainwave pattern seen in the hypnotized--this is literally true--and critical thinking is quelled.
Check Gerry Mander's seminal works: "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television" and "In the Absence of the Sacred."
Peace.
"the actual content of TV is secondary to the primary goal of having humans accept it as a primary arbiter of reality.
TV induces the same brainwave pattern seen in the hypnotized--"
Right, so the habitiual watchers are all being hypnotized into accepting an increasingly vile and violent reality.
I think that's its own problem and not at all "secondary."
hey, starkraving!
you are voicing one of my favorite truths, and doing it very well...
thank you for your contribution...
I disconnected from tv in 2000...it has never been regretted for a moment...I probably really can't even take credit...it irritated me so, that it, literally, forced me to disconnect it...
once done, however...one breathes again...one's brain begins to refamiliarize with determining one's own mental landscape...
this plays to my current pet theme:
authority...
we must reclaim the inherent authority, and the conjoined responsibility, of incarnation, and cease delegating this authority, and responsibility, to others...
thanks, again...
Bill McKibben, whatever his good works and intentions, shows himself as a fool, or a shill-apologist for Obama.
When O refused to prosecute war criminals (becoming one himself) I knew it was over.
McKibben acts as though he isn't aware Obama is a torturer and a War Criminal, never mind liar and despot-in-waiting. But then, a professional environmentalist has a stake in this duopooly: Lobbying duopolists--
Mr. McKibben, you must realize that you have become, for all OWS purposes, the establishment that must be swept aside with the oligarchs. If you can't contribute, stfu and get out of the way.
Trampling is unpleasant, I'm told.