Obama's SOTU Played to Media, Not Human Needs
To understand President Obama's state of the union speech, you have to understand his political strategy. From the beginning of his 2008 campaign, his main constituency has always been the major media. His calculation has always been that he can win without the energy companies and even some other big campaign donors, but not if the mainstream media doesn't like him. So, a little bit of populism on the tax issues - for example, the Buffet Rule - is now acceptable, especially in the context of deficit reduction and Republicans' pro-1% extremism.

The other key constituency is the swing voters - he is taking Democrats for granted - who, for the last four decades, have been composed largely of white working-class voters. According to the leading Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, the speech was effective with swing voters. So, overall, a success for Obama.
And the people? There were a lot of specific proposals around energy, education, skills training, infrastructure, etc. But with the President committed to the silly goal of deficit reduction, with Republican obstructionism, and Obama's general lack of willingness to fight for human needs - remember his promises of a public option in health care reform? Or labor law reform? - I'm not holding my breath. Especially employment - can't do much about that without federal spending. And seniors, hold on to your wallet when he mentions "strengthening social security".
His foreign policy is much worse: "all options on the table" for Iran, which is code for the threat of yet another war. No commitment to get out of Afghanistan. When he talks about how "America is back" with "the enduring power of our moral example", I see images of US soldiers pissing on corpses, drones slaughtering civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, massacres like Haditha (with impunity).
"Above all," he tells us, "our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it." This could hardly be more false. America has lost more freedoms in the last decade, including Obama's presidency, than any other developed democracy in the world; and nobody fighting these unnecessary wars is defending our freedom.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
To understand President Obama's state of the union speech, you have to understand his political strategy. From the beginning of his 2008 campaign, his main constituency has always been the major media. His calculation has always been that he can win without the energy companies and even some other big campaign donors, but not if the mainstream media doesn't like him. So, a little bit of populism on the tax issues - for example, the Buffet Rule - is now acceptable, especially in the context of deficit reduction and Republicans' pro-1% extremism.

The other key constituency is the swing voters - he is taking Democrats for granted - who, for the last four decades, have been composed largely of white working-class voters. According to the leading Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, the speech was effective with swing voters. So, overall, a success for Obama.
And the people? There were a lot of specific proposals around energy, education, skills training, infrastructure, etc. But with the President committed to the silly goal of deficit reduction, with Republican obstructionism, and Obama's general lack of willingness to fight for human needs - remember his promises of a public option in health care reform? Or labor law reform? - I'm not holding my breath. Especially employment - can't do much about that without federal spending. And seniors, hold on to your wallet when he mentions "strengthening social security".
His foreign policy is much worse: "all options on the table" for Iran, which is code for the threat of yet another war. No commitment to get out of Afghanistan. When he talks about how "America is back" with "the enduring power of our moral example", I see images of US soldiers pissing on corpses, drones slaughtering civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, massacres like Haditha (with impunity).
"Above all," he tells us, "our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it." This could hardly be more false. America has lost more freedoms in the last decade, including Obama's presidency, than any other developed democracy in the world; and nobody fighting these unnecessary wars is defending our freedom.
To understand President Obama's state of the union speech, you have to understand his political strategy. From the beginning of his 2008 campaign, his main constituency has always been the major media. His calculation has always been that he can win without the energy companies and even some other big campaign donors, but not if the mainstream media doesn't like him. So, a little bit of populism on the tax issues - for example, the Buffet Rule - is now acceptable, especially in the context of deficit reduction and Republicans' pro-1% extremism.

The other key constituency is the swing voters - he is taking Democrats for granted - who, for the last four decades, have been composed largely of white working-class voters. According to the leading Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, the speech was effective with swing voters. So, overall, a success for Obama.
And the people? There were a lot of specific proposals around energy, education, skills training, infrastructure, etc. But with the President committed to the silly goal of deficit reduction, with Republican obstructionism, and Obama's general lack of willingness to fight for human needs - remember his promises of a public option in health care reform? Or labor law reform? - I'm not holding my breath. Especially employment - can't do much about that without federal spending. And seniors, hold on to your wallet when he mentions "strengthening social security".
His foreign policy is much worse: "all options on the table" for Iran, which is code for the threat of yet another war. No commitment to get out of Afghanistan. When he talks about how "America is back" with "the enduring power of our moral example", I see images of US soldiers pissing on corpses, drones slaughtering civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan, massacres like Haditha (with impunity).
"Above all," he tells us, "our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it." This could hardly be more false. America has lost more freedoms in the last decade, including Obama's presidency, than any other developed democracy in the world; and nobody fighting these unnecessary wars is defending our freedom.

