Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama's Promise of Change Comes Wrapped in Red, White and Blue

By Ira Chernus, AlterNet. Posted January 21, 2009.


Obama's speech shows that there's no reason to let the right monopolize the powerful language of traditional American values.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Ira Chernus

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Like any important speech, Barack Obama's inaugural address was actually several speeches rolled into one. Each string of rhetoric the new president wove on this historic occasion holds different meaning for American progressives, a weary group following eight disastrous years of conservative war and plunder and hungry for a brand of change that goes far beyond a slogan. Ultimately, it was a mixed bag -- hopeful signs, but of a distinctly conventional sort of change. A dramatic move from the far reaches of the right, but with threads that conservatives might have found attractive.

Let's start with the inaugural address as a message to the nation's governing elite. The Beltway pundits saw it as "a stark repudiation of the era of George W. Bush," in the words of New York Times columnist David Sanger. When Obama said, "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some"; when he observed that, "Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. … A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous"; when he promised to "restore science to its rightful place" and warned that the "ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet" ; when he promised to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories" -- these were all subtle digs at Bush-era policies and signs that the new administration would turn in directions that progressives could applaud.

On foreign policy, too, there were a few shots at Bush's era -- some promise of a more-progressive approach: "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said. "Power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. … Our power grows through its prudent use." He promised "to work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet."

There were other lines that might gladden progressive hearts. He said there was a role of government in creating "jobs at a decent wage" with "health care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." He was inclusive, reminding the country that "our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers" (that last word a daring one in a nation that will elect a president of any color, but not an atheist).

But that was about it. Enough to strike D.C. insiders as a sharp break with the Bush administration -- surely good reason to celebrate after eight long years in the darkness. But not enough, perhaps, to impress those who want the heralded "change" to bring a deep and far-reaching transformation of our government's key institutions and power structures.

Of course, most of us progressives who put in long hours working for the Obama campaign had no such illusions. We knew from that start that our candidate was never really a progressive by our standards. Whatever his deepest inclinations might be, he is, above all, a pragmatic politician who aims to win. He picks his battles carefully, never takes on a fight unless he thinks he'll be victorious, piles up political capital by helping others with their own winnable battles, and calls in those chips to score victories on issues he really cares about. As a cautious politician, it's up to us to keep up the pressure, creating the political winds that might push him to the left.

The administration Obama put together shows his approach. He will let the foreign policy and Wall Street establishments keep charge of their bailiwicks. He'll fight no major contests on those fronts. Then when the crunch comes on the domestic issues that matter most to him -- health care, energy and the environment, help for the unemployed -- those elites will back him, or at least stand aside, making it far harder for the conservative movement to defeat him.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, inauguration

Ira Chernus is professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Barack Oabam: The Promise of We We ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 21, 2009 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us,..."

Don't be humbled, get bold !

~~~

"I thank President Bush for his service ... "

Why?

~~~

"Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real."

Duh!

~~~

Barack invoked himself 3 times in his speech in the "I" form ... The rest was us, we, we, we, us ... I didn't realize that "we" were on the committee to run the country, that it was up to "us" to set policy and enact legislation. Talk about the ultimate disclaimer!

I see no leadership here, none, just political posturing ...

~~

" He will let the foreign policy and Wall Street establishments keep charge of their bailiwicks." Ira Chernus ... Jesus Ira, who the Hell do you think got us into the mess we are in with an economic crisis and two wars !

What an f-ing circus ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama
Posted by: Don Quixote on Jan 21, 2009 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I stand here humbled by the magnitude of the task"... and also probably humbled by the way Olmert can give orders to the President of the US, thus proving his power... and by the way Olmert can publicly boast about it... proving Olmert's stupidity. What will Obama do about it? Will he refuse to take orders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does the left really get the message?
Posted by: 2thepoint on Jan 21, 2009 2:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How nice it was to see a democratic president show support for the military... After 8 years of insane military bashing by the left (wait - Obama isn't "left" is he?) maybe they will finally get the message.. Our military is on our side.

BTW, Harry Reid, we didn't "lose" the war as much as you wanted us to! Oh and John Murtha, our military are not murderers, they are our sons and daughters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» Someone needs to say thanks Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Someone needs to say NO thanks Posted by: americansheep
» RE: Someone needs to say thanks Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Someone needs to say thanks Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Someone needs to say thanks Posted by: 2thepoint
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Telling Fortunes by Text and Context
Posted by: lorenbliss on Jan 21, 2009 3:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the United States is the one nation on earth -- indeed the one nation in human history -- that has made a shibboleth of despising its intellectuals, it is a genuine triumph to again have at our national helm (for the first time since 1963), a President whose mind has survived the viciousness meted out to those who resist Moron Nation’s relentless moronation. But not only did Barack Obama survive; he transcended, and he is justifiably proud -- perhaps even fiercely proud -- of his stature as an intellectual. Indeed he is every bit as (defiantly) comfortable in his mental selfhood as his predecessor George Bush was (defiantly) smug in his inexcusable ignorance: a juxtaposition of opposites the major media has thus far ignored.

Nor is this newfound unapologetic eloquence -- which Mr. Obama has resurrected from the lost eras of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy -- limited to the President alone. More likely it will be an underlying theme of the entire Obama administration. Note for example Hillary Clinton’s defense of herself as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state: she spoke her real mind -- spoke it in the sense of rejecting the duncehood (genuine or pseudo), that has characterized every U.S. administration since 22 November 1963. And she did so with haughty (and to my thinking infinitely laudable) indifference to the fact that for nearly all of the Republicans (and far too many of the Democrats), she was literally casting pearls before swine: the first time I have ever used this metaphor and the first time I ever saw it so vividly displayed. And no: I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton -- neither of her fascist foreign-policy notions nor her social-Dawrinist (and thus ultimately Republican) visions of domestic policy.

But make no mistake: a purge of our psycholinguistic dictionary is already well underway, and its chief objective is implicit restoration of the term “intellectual” to the honorific it once was. Indeed this may turn out to be the Obama Administration’s greatest and most revolutionary achievement -- not the least because it will make scholarship again a respected activity, whether professionally or for recreation. Which, in turn, resurrects the radical potential our capitalist overlords -- who know that objective consciousness always turns Left -- have spent the last 60-odd years suppressing. Long term, this breathtaking departure from the Moron Nation norm could signal the eventual success of revolutionary imperatives -- for example, single-payer health care -- that we can now scarcely imagine.

But the short-term prospects are far less optimistic. The economic collapse will continue unabated unless the world turns suddenly to socialism, something Mr. Obama has no intention of doing (even though his resurrection of the intelligentsia promises such a result perhaps 25 years hence). And again our continued oppression is signaled by the fact that not once -- not even in an inaugural address filled with pontifications about potentialities -- has the President acknowledged our desperate national need for mass rail transit and the unprecedented extent to which building it could put us all back to work. Clearly mass transit has no part in his economic recovery program, which -- overwhelmingly favoring automobiles and their vindictive one-person-per-car moral imbecility as it does -- will therefore leave us as enslaved as ever by Big Automotive and Big Oil: absolute proof that in terms of the near future -- the next four or eight years -- nothing whatsoever has changed. Anything the Left hand has offered, the Right hand is already pushing far out of reach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boilerplate
Posted by: Blink on Jan 21, 2009 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama blew it big time with his typical boilerplate, cliche-ridden speech delivered in his typical preacher-style cadence. Even those on the Left may tire of this before the year is up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boilerplate Posted by: sampedrano
besides the part where we had prez Joe for 4 minutes...
Posted by: ellie on Jan 21, 2009 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was when the oath of office stopped dead in it's tracks when Obama refused to repeat the wrong words to the oath that according to the constitution has to be repeated exactly to be in effect... a slip up from one of the supremes or something else??? nah, just professor Obama nudging a student to correct a statement...

finally, after 8 years of the dark ages, our constitution is no longer a damn piece of paper... it is back in force along with the bill of rights...

lots more, but that moment is on the top of my list... an incoming president correcting a supreme court justice right out of the gate!!! YAY!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ba
Posted by: mnstra on Jan 21, 2009 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes i think that no matter what happens with the next 4 years, Obama will bring back literacy again to America.In order for our brains to work and learn, make informed judgments/choices that produce logical and natural consequences to our actions/If we are moronic like the Bush crowd, then we learn nothing and continue down the path of destruction,Such is the case with the Wall street crowd., They are the epitome of criminal greed with out the intellectual know how to learn from mistakes--thus take the rest of us down with them.I would give the new president some leeway to fix things , but not too much,we grow impatient.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ba Posted by: Beck
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Read Around the Topic
Posted by: Lilly on Jan 21, 2009 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) This morning AlterNet and Daily Kos (liberal) are full of people screaming that Obama did not come on strong enough. This morning townhall.co (conservative) is full of people screaming that Obama is acting like an anointed king.

2) This morning I am full of urging everybody on both sides to read an article that is online and easy to find: google "The Founders' Great Mistake" by Garrett Epps, (January-February issue of The Atlantic). This article explores the historic role of Alexander Hamilton in designing the US presidency, with special focus on the concept of "unitary executive"---how much solo power the president has, and how much the American people want to allow him to have. Epps also suggests what needs to be done to prevent another Bush-type presidency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has the left lost its mind this quickly in?
Posted by: pdecarlo on Jan 21, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Traditional American values?

Would that be military occupation as a way to salvation or bombing a threat who grows every time there is an air strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Perhaps we're talking about unwavering support for Israel?

Or are we talking self-hatred and "collective responsibility" for an economic collapse not based on crooked banks?

I'm not proud of those traditional values, nor do I think they are correct narratives to monopolize.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huey Long said when facism comes to America
Posted by: Scottk on Jan 21, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it will be wrapped in a flag carrying a cross.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The speech may be all 3 colors but substance so far is red only.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 21, 2009 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry blue and white but you don't get high priority. "Conservatives" first, liberals and moderates/independents last !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolute nonsense. Posted by: Beck
» RE: Beck, the idiot liar.... Posted by: Feltixx
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
A CLEAR BREAK WITH BUSH AND THE LAST 8 YEARS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 21, 2009 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama made that very clear. I was relieved because most incoming presidents have a need to show some 'respect' for the outgoing prez. Obama did'nt do that. If nothing else the speech was honest. No promises that can't be kept. He ain't the tooth fairy. He already stopped all legal military proceedings at Guantanamo. And looking around the web, the rest of the world is ecstatic. He's off to a good start and I wish him well. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Traditional American Values? When Was That?
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 21, 2009 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot stop living the lie until you stop telling it.

What gets to me is people thinking America was once a great country with a moral compass? When was that? I must have missed that part of history. From the massacres of Indians, to slavery, to Hiroshima, Vietnam, to its policies in Latin America, to its support for the creation of the terrorist state of Israel, to supporting the Shah of Iran, to supporting Saddam with intelligence and chemical weapons against the Iranian people, to these modern day Middle East massacres, America has by far the worst track record. They just have a very powerful propaganda machine to show they are the land of the free.

"We" stole half of Mexico by armed force -- the nice parts with rich deposits of gold and silver (and, as it turned out, oil -- though "we" didn't actually recognize that at the time.)

"We" made sure that "our" influence over Latin America was such that wealth would be steadily transferred from their countries to ours. "We" sent the Marines to Nicaragua, Haiti, & Guatemala often enough to insure that life in those countries would be a permanent living hell for most of the inhabitants. "We" imposed military dictatorships in almost every Central & South American country, stunting the aspirations of their people, & imposing conditions from which some of those countries will never recover. (So if some of the people want to escape from the living conditions in those countries, "we" had very much to do with creating those conditions.)

Interestingly, "we" started doing all this at the same time that "we" were exterminating the indigenous people here, AND using black slaves from Africa. What a loveable, righteous people "we" are, here in the "Land of the Free"!!

"We" came here somewhere in the early 1600s. "We" found this Promised Land, rich beyond imagination with fresh water and fertile earth and abundant game and timber for the felling. And to "our" further delight, it was largely uninhabited--if "we" didn't count the Red Ones.

"We" didn't see too many of them at first; they avoided our noise and the smoke from our fires, which were always too big. But soon enough, "we" were here in such numbers that they couldn't go around us anymore.

"We" were shocked--SHOCKED, I tell ya--that there were Savages in "our" Promised Land! So "we" set about exterminating them. "We" killed them whenever "we" saw them, "we" drove them from their land and their homes, "we" slaughtered their food supply and left the buffalo bodies to rot in the sun by the hundreds of acres. "We" gave them blankets full of smallpox, murdered their children and raped their women before "we" murdered them as well. "We" rounded them up into concentration camps and ate their food while they starved. "We" made them cut their hair, wear britches and beat them to death if they wouldn't speak "our" language.

"We" stole a whole continent from them and paid them in Genocide.

LINK

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Grammatologies"
Posted by: talkville on Jan 21, 2009 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In our own language usage, as in all other language usages, words -- most especially Nouns -- have ever been Fields of Struggle.

They will continue to be.

Watch out for the Enclosers!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama has a great image.
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Jan 21, 2009 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What could be more important than image? Exuding confidence and duty - he does it much better than Bush, who never could master his speech impediment.

It's all about image. Reality doesn't matter; we just have to put a good face on unpleasant truths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supporting Democrats is a serious political disorder
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 21, 2009 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supporting Democrats is a serious political disorder, like alcoholism or returning again & again to an abusive spouse who repeatedly lies to you. It's easy to fall off the wagon, to make excuses & rationalizations for it.

Even many whose views are developed enough to recognize such truths as the fundamental rottenness of the 2-party system & the complicity of Democrats in all of the Republicans' major crimes, are still unable to draw the logical consequences of these insights. (Those so naive that they still conceive of Democrats as being the "opponents" of Republicans are another case altogether.)

The central point is this: capitalist society permits the Democrats to be one of the 2 allowed parties for a very definite reason. It's not because the Democrats "serve the people." It's because in a subtle but effective way, they help the capitalists keep the populace under control by providing them with the illusion of possible change. TPTB don't want the people "served." They want them managed, or controlled.

It is the job, the central social function of the Democrats to always be dangling before the people's noses vague pseudo-hints of possible change, so as to keep them from bolting from bourgeois politics altogether. It is the Democrats' intention to never deliver meaningful change, but rather to keep dangling hints of it alluringly forever. This produces control -- a populace habituated to remain safely within the lines required by ruling class interests.

This is why the Democrats NEVER paint a picture of US history that's the slightest bit accurate -- they want a brainwashed population every bit as much as the Republicans do. This is why they NEVER are willing to set forth an honest socioeconomic analysis of why things are as they are -- they much prefer that people not understand such things.

As long as a large chunk of voters can be deceived by the seemingly "nicer guy" act of the Democrats, there is no hope whatever of coming to grips with the core problems of our society. The most dangerous trends -- a wasteful consumer society, environmental destruction, grotesque social inequality, and an uncontrollable propaganda/war machine -- cannot even be approached within the framework of bourgeois politics, because they all serve ruling class interests. This is what is really being protected, when people opt to support Democrats just because they seem less blatantly cruel on TV.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What change? An end to aggressive militarism, and a return to covert aggression?
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Jan 21, 2009 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at this speech, and what it really says:

"Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

"Eyes fixed on the horizon" - but not on the stinking mess under your shoes. Don't look at all the corpses in Iraq; don't look at the U.S. actions in Africa today; don't look at Afghanistan and heroin traffiking and gross military failures in 2002 brought on by Bush's desire to invade Iraq, as evidenced in the Cheney Energy Task Force Report, Feb 2001, well before 9/11 and the anthrax attacks - and recall Powell waving the anthrax vial around at the UN while claiming that he had certain proof of Saddam's WMDs? Powell and Obama are birds of a feather.

Carry forth that greatness... what springs to mind is Conrad's Heart of Darkness...

"...In the course of these confidences it became quite plain to me I had been represented to the wife of the high dignitary, and goodness knows to how many more people besides, as an exceptional and gifted creature -- a piece of good fortune for the Company -- a man you don't get hold of every day. Good heavens! and I was going to take charge of a two-penny-half-penny river-steamboat with a penny whistle attached!

It appeared, however, I was also one of the Workers, with a capital -- you know. Something like an emissary of light, something like a lower sort of apostle. There had been a lot of such rot let loose in print and talk just about that time, and the excellent woman, living right in the rush of all that humbug, got carried off her feet. She talked about 'weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways,' till, upon my word, she made me quite uncomfortable. I ventured to hint that the Company was run for profit...


And yes, it is run for profit... nothing wrong with that, as long as you admit it and don't engage in gross hypocrisy & ruthless manipulation - which is what U.S. foreign policy is really all about. "It's why we win" - ever see Syriana?

Deception & propaganda - welcome to the real world. As in , "Today the G8 endorsed an American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East." - yes, that was the Iraq invasion. A do-gooder exercise, dontcha know it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Let it be said.... Posted by: chance garden
We lowers read the code he embedded in the speech...
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 21, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and it pretty much translated to us as "Don't worry we'll shit on you too, but we promise to smile while we do it."

And this gem: We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers" (that last word a daring one in a nation that will elect a president of any color, but not an atheist).

"daring" maybe, but I flinched when I heard it. As a Jew who's also an atheist "nonbelievers" was a direct slap in the face.

That's okay, I can take a punch... been taking a beating for the past decade. But I remember every one and who threw it. Blowback's a real bitch who makes her own rules.... 1789, baby. 1789.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

workers cut their hours?
Posted by: INTJ Mom on Jan 21, 2009 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only part of the speech that really bothered me was when Obama spoke of workers voluntarily cutting their hours so a friend doesn't lose a job. What about the business owners or upper management? How about they do with less profit and bonuses before they resort to laying people off? As business owners, our family couldn't in good conscience lay workers off or cut workers hours without first making significant sacrifices ourselves. To do otherwise - we would feel unethical, greedy, callous and frankly un-American. Or are we just really naive?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Let Right Monopolize Progressive Criticism Either!
Posted by: tony12000 on Jan 21, 2009 1:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, the lovefest continues. But as we move into the Change Age, we need to remember that progressive values are not loyal to any political party. Apparently a lot of us have lost sight of this notion, as we allow other liberals to bash Bush and welcome the change brigade, without criticizing Dems for endorsing many of Bush's bad policies.
Hold Them Accountable Too: Many Democrats Supported Policies of the "Worst President" (Part I)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Without a watchful eye...
Posted by: chance garden on Jan 21, 2009 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..who do you suppose the Keepers of that "watchful eye" are?

"Without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. … A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous"; when he promised to "restore science to its rightful place" and warned that the "ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet" ; when he promised to "harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories" -- these were all subtle digs at Bush-era policies and signs that the new administration would turn in directions that progressives could applaud.'

Not only is this a subtle dig at the former regime....but it is probably the MOST ACCURATE description of what WILL be the future...a return to the status quo ante...Hell, did we ever leave the status quo? ALL gods must go, even masonic ones...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clinton ver. 2.0
Posted by: GuitarBill on Jan 21, 2009 1:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Obama promised to bring "change" to Washington, DC.

Unfortunately, Obama appointed Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State, and, as a result, set the new administration on the same course Hillary Clinton would choose--immediately return the Clinton administration to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This assertion is not as far fetched as one would think, because virtually every major appointment to the Obama administration is a former Clinton associate. All the appointments, moreover, are Beltway insiders.

For example, Rahm Emanuel, a former Clinton advisor, is Obama's Chief of Staff.

Obama’s National Economic Council, Lawrence Summers, was Clinton's Treasury Secretary.

Bill Richardson, Clinton’s UN ambassador and energy secretary, is Obama's commerce secretary.

Bill Clinton's lawyer, Eric Holder, is Obama’s choice for attorney general.

Rounding out the list of former Clinton officials who are members of the Obama administration we find former State Department official Wendy Sherman; former Deputy Secretary of Defense John White; Defense Secretary William Perry; Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In addition, we also find Michael Froman, who served as Rubin’s chief of staff; Peter Orszag is director of the Office of Budget of the White House and Christopher Edley, who served the Clinton administration and is married to a former Clinton deputy chief of staff.

Now, normally I don't care to quote the New York Post; however, the NY Post hit the nail on the head with the following observation:

"Congratulations to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton--who seem to have won the presidential election, despite the official results on November 4."

I suppose it's a real shame that Hillary Clinton didn't become the 44th president of the United States.

She didn't...did she?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous"
Posted by: chance garden on Jan 21, 2009 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This statement is simply false and pure rhetoric...

Why do you think the prosperous idealize their poor and send their sons to fight and die?

To maintain their nation? Or their prosperity?

A nation is a coin in a Plutocrats purse...will you help them spend it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the use of *superiority nationalism* rhetoric
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jan 25, 2009 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
creates MORE OF THE SAME CRAP

that causes Americans to -without the benefit of travel!- conclude that the Rest of the World is beneath them.

NORMALCY IS NOT AMERICAN.

*surprise*

stop acting as if America defines anything except the culture which drove the World into this ditch of environmental, ethical & economic crisis.

stop acting as if America is the only consequence of bad behaviour.

its not as if the Rest of the World is inferior: you simply think so & enjoy telling yourselves that story in every political discussion.

Political Rhetoric is PROPAGANDA & bends your brains.

join the billions who have a bigger World View: think of yourselves as mere members of a much bigger interconnected social structure with equal rights to the Resources & Human Rights pies.

learn to take responsibility, not merely chant, "we're NUMBER ONE!"... its rather distressing that you've apparently learned nothing except how to change the curtains on the crackhouse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement