

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
KEVIN GRAY
Gray is author of Waiting for Lightning to Strike: The Fundamentals of Black Politics and the forthcoming The Decline of Black Politics: From Malcolm X to Barack Obama.
Gray said today: "Obama is slipping in the polls and I think it's
because he's seen as going with the flow. He's not taking on the
crucial issues -- instead he frequently sounds like he's reading the
lines from [the book] 'Primary Colors.' ... Many people seem to think
that just getting Obama into the White House would be a great victory
because of the symbolism, but do we really know that policies that
affect people's lives will really change? That will only happen if
movements propel that change."
More Information
GWENDOLYN MINK
Co-editor of the two-volume Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics and Policy and author of Welfare's End, Mink is scrutinizing various portions of the Democratic Party platform on her blog.
She said today: "The mystery to me is the widespread assumption that
Obama is a progressive. That assumption arose from and rested on
Obama's stated opposition to the Iraq invasion before he was in the
Senate. But that does not feed automatically into a progressive
position on other issues; and it shouldn't buy Obama a pass on the
broader social justice agenda. Folks who now see Obama shifting to the
center are only partly right. Obama has abandoned strong progressive
positions on the FISA bill, NAFTA, the D.C. gun ban, abortion rights
... But just as important, his starting positions on many other issues
are actually centrist or even a little conservative.
"That these positions are now coming into view is not evidence of a
centrist shift; it is evidence that Obama's bare record contains many
longstanding issue commitments that should be -- and should have been
-- alarming to progressives. For example: Obama's instructions to
African Americans about paternity and fatherhood are not new; he
introduced 'responsible fatherhood' legislation very soon after
entering the U.S. Senate. Obama's related paeans to 'personal
responsibility' pre-date his entry onto the national stage; as he says
in his TV ads, he 'passed welfare to work.' Similarly, Obama's call to
church-state partnerships in social policy -- similar to George Bush's
'faith-based initiative' -- repeats his view that 'faith' has a role in
politics and policy, a view articulated long before the presidential
campaign. The list of Obama's centrist and/or conservative positions
goes on: he voted to limit corporate tort liability; he voted to
reauthorize the Patriot Act; he supports expanding the death penalty;
he defends states' rights against universal liberty; he opposes
marriage equality for same-sex unions; he's for patchwork health care
reform rather than comprehensive provisions.
"In many respects, Obama promises a re-run of the Clinton presidency,
which in some ways was the last Republican presidency of the 20th
century. Clinton, too, pushed a fatherhood agenda; he initiated the
welfare-to-work policy; he expanded the death penalty; he signed the
Defense of Marriage Act; he secured NAFTA. As a re-run of Bill Clinton,
Obama's candidacy and possible presidency may not be surprising: it's
more a comment on the present state of the Democratic Party than a
revelation about individual leaders. But progressives endured Bill
Clinton without posing strong and broad critiques, in the name of
supporting a Democrat after those long, harsh years in the Reagan
wilderness. And look where it got us. So, instead of apologizing and
parsing for Obama, we should stake out our differences and mobilize our
critique."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
"We see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives."
A environmental advocacy group is warning about the potential "corporate capture" of the COP30 climate summit being held this week in Belém, Brazil.
In a report released on Friday, the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition said it tallied the “largest ever attendance share” for fossil fuel lobbyists, dimming hopes of reaching a breakthrough agreement to curb emissions.
In fact, KBPO found that fossil fuel lobbyists at the conference outnumber the delegations of every nation attending, with the lone exception being Brazil, which is hosting COP30.
In total, KBPO counted 1,602 fossil fuel lobbyists at the climate summit.
The number of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP30 increased by 12% from last year's COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan, and lobbyists represent one out every 25 participants at this year's conference.
The KBPO report puts this into perspective by contrasting the number of lobbyists in attendance with the number of delegates from nations that have suffered the most from extreme weather brought about by human-induced climate change.
"Fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official delegates from the Philippines by nearly 50 to 1—even while the country is being hit by devastating typhoons as the UN climate talks are underway," the report notes. "Fossil fuel lobbyists sent more than 40 times the number of people than Jamaica, which is still reeling from Hurricane Melissa."
Jax Bongon, climate justice policy officer at the sustainable development advocacy organization International IBON and a member of the KBPO coalition, said the heavy presence of lobbyists is "making a mockery of the process" of trying to negotiate a deal to reduce global carbon emissions.
"Just days after devastating floods and supertyphoons in the Philippines, and amid worsening droughts, heatwaves, and displacement across the Global South," Bongon said, "we see the very corporations driving this crisis being given a platform to foist the same false ‘solutions’ that sustain their profit motives and undermine any hope of truly addressing the climate emergency."
The report also called out several wealthy nations for including fossil fuel lobbyists in their delegations.
" France brought 22 fossil fuel delegates, with five from TotalEnergies, including CEO Patrick Pouyanné," KBPO noted. "Japan’s delegation contained 33 fossil fuel lobbyists, among them Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Osaka Gas; and Norway snuck 17 into the talks, including six senior executives from its national oil and gas giant Equinor."
Although the US under President Donald Trump is not taking part in this year's negotiations, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is attending COP30 as the lone federal representative of the US government.
According to Politico, Whitehouse intends to hammer the Trump administration for continuing to focus exclusively on fossil fuel production at a time when the rest of the world is moving on to producing renewable energy sources.
"Amidst sinking approvals and a shellacking in the most recent elections, it’s no surprise the Trump administration is unwilling to defend the fossil fuel industry’s unpopular and corrupt climate denial lies on the global stage," Whitehouse told Politico.
"HUD's current path risks causing a dangerous spike in street homelessness," warned a group of Senate Democrats.
Democratic lawmakers and advocates are voicing grave warnings after the Trump administration on Thursday unveiled its plan to slash funding for long-term housing programs, cuts that could leave nearly 200,000 people at risk of becoming homeless.
The New York Times reported that the administration's new proposal for Continuum of Care (CoC) funding "shifts billions to short-term programs that impose work rules, help the police dismantle encampments, and require the homeless to accept treatment for mental illness or addiction."
"By cutting aid for permanent housing by two-thirds next year, the plan risks a sudden end of support for most of the people the Continuum places in such housing nationwide, beginning as soon as January," the Times added. "All are disabled—a condition of the aid—and many are 50 or older. The document does not explain how they would find housing."
Shortly before the administration released its plan, which was first detailed by Politico in late September, a group of more than 40 Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner that the administration "must immediately reconsider these harmful and potentially illegal changes that could result in nearly 200,000 older adults, chronically homeless Americans with disabilities, veterans, and families being forced back onto the streets."
"HUD's current path risks causing a dangerous spike in street homelessness," the lawmakers wrote. "We implore you to make the better choice and expeditiously renew current CoC grants for fiscal year 2025 as authorized by Congress to protect communities and avoid displacing thousands of our nation’s most vulnerable individuals."
A HUD spokesperson responded dismissively to the letter, telling Politico in a statement that "Senate Democrats are doing the bidding of the homeless industrial complex."
The Trump administration's cuts come after more than 771,000 people across the US experienced homelessness on a given night in 2024, an 18% increase compared to 2023 and the highest level ever recorded.
Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said in response to the Trump administration's plan that "people all over this nation have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs."
"Many are just beginning that process and getting a shot at a new life,” said Oliva. "HUD's new funding priorities slam the door on them, their providers, and their communities. Make no mistake: Homelessness will only increase because of this reckless and irresponsible decision."
"No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan. Long live peace," said the president of Venezuela.
Just as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced new branding for the US military campaign in Latin America, now known as "Operation Souther Spear," the president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, on Thursday offered a message of peace directly to the people of the United States as he warned against further conflict.
In an exchange with a CNN correspondent during a rally for the nation's youth in Caracas, Maduro urged President Donald Trump not to prolong the region's military engagement. Asked if he had a message for the people of the United States, Maduro said in Spanish: “To unite for the peace of the continent. No more endless wars. No more unjust wars. No more Libya. No more Afghanistan.”
Asked if he had anything to say directly to Trump, Maduro replied in English: “Yes peace, yes peace.”
CNN: What is your message to the people of the United States?
Maduro: No more endless wars, no more unjust wars, no more Libya, no more Afghanistan.
CNN: Do you have a message for President Trump?
Maduro: My message is yes, peace. Yes, peace. pic.twitter.com/GpuRU2hqSG
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 14, 2025
Hegseth's rebranding of operations in Latin America, which has included a series of extrajudicial murders against alleged drug runners both in the Caribbean and in the Pacific, also arrived on Thursday.
He said that attacks on boats, which have now claimed the lives of at least 80 people, are part of President Donald Trump's targeting of "narco-terrorists." However, the administration has produced no evidence proving the allegations against these individuals nor shared with the American people the legal basis for the extrajudicial killings that deprive victims of due process.
With a significant military buildup that includes the world's largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R.Ford, fears have grown that Trump is considering a wider military attack on targets inside Venezuelan territory, despite having no congressional authorization for such use of force against a nation with which the US is not at war.
CBS News reports that Trump has been briefed on possible military "options" for an assault on Venezuela, while anti-war voices continue to warn against any such moves.