Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Barack Obama's Democratic Insurgency: Poised for an SC Victory?

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 26, 2008.


If the state's pundits, pollsters and politicians are right, Obama's message of hope and change will draw people from across the usual dividing lines.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

As the afternoon sun slipped behind a cold grey sky, Samantha Wilson, a university educator from Anderson, a small town in South Carolina's upstate region, leaned on a fence at the Clemson University Amphitheatre and waited for her choice in Saturday's Democratic Primary to arrive. Earlier in the day, she said her doctor told her that his mother, an 80-year-old white woman, didn't like Hillary Clinton and would not vote for Barack Obama "because he was black." Wilson, who is dark-skinned, said they shrugged. But that got her thinking about Obama's background and upbringing.

"If she can be excused for not voting for him because he's black, then why shouldn't people vote for him because he's black, or because he's bi-racial," she said. "Let's not forget about that. He is the best of both worlds, black and white. I think he is the most transcendental person we have ever had to run for president."

Transcendental is not an adjective usually associated with presidential candidates. But it is an apt description for the Obama campaign's view of itself and its message of being the only Democratic candidacy that can bring real and dramatic change to Washington's entrenched ways of governing. Obama said he could do that, unlike his chief rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, because political ties and legacies would not burden him.

"Everywhere I go, people are ready for something new; that they are ready to write a new chapter in American history," Obama told a crowd of several thousand students at South Carolina's Clemson University, his first of three stops on the day before the primary. "I tell people, if you are ready for change, then change will happen."

The Clemson rally was a fitting finale for a true grassroots insurgency. The Obama campaign looks like every insurgent presidential campaign -- except it won the Iowa Caucuses and is poised, if polls are to be believed, to win South Carolina on Saturday. The headquarters in the state capital is overrun with volunteers, particularly young people and people of color, who enthusiastically were deployed on Friday with door hangings, lawn signs, stickers, flyers and google maps with destinations across the state.

Obama is benefiting from a Democratic Party electorate that, in South Carolina, is half African-American. But his campaign also draws people who don't merely seek good government or acquiesce to the art of the possible on Washington's terms. Instead, it attracts people who have heard a moral calling in a message of moving past partisan divisions and creating a true populist storm that demands results on major issues.

"Change in America does not happen from the top down," Obama told the Clemson University audience, elicting cheers. "It happens from the bottom up. ... If we could join our voices together, I place my faith in the American people."

Like Corazon Aquino, who became president of the Philippines in 1985 after leading a "people power" revolution, he tells audiences that he did not dream of running for the White House. But the once-reluctant candidate said he was propelled by what the Rev. Martin Luther King called the "fierce urgency of now." Now, almost a year after he announced his bid on the Illinois Statehouse steps where Abraham Lincoln lingered, Obama has fine-tuned his pitch, telling voters, "If you are ready for change, we can" reform Washington's ways and policies on a long liberal to-do list, from expanding childcare to funding education to ending the war in Iraq to achieving energy independence to forcing Detroit to build cars that get 40 miles per gallon.

"I proposed this in Detroit, in front of the automakers," he said. "When I said it to them, the room was very quiet. Nobody clapped. Part of what we need in the next president is somebody who will say the truth, not say what you want to hear..."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: presidential primary, south carolina primary, barack obama, obama

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at AlterNet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

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


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:
Temperament is Important
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jan 26, 2008 12:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now the Clinton apologists, including the NY Times editors, are claiming that there is no difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues. This is patently untrue, most notably on the Iraq war, but there is another issue they don't address. Hillary Clinton is divisive, abrasive and has very high negative ratings. The Republicans are smacking their lips thinking of running against her, and with her high negatives they are correct in doing so. But if she is elected, we will certainly have another four years of partisan bickering, hardball, triangulation and gridlock. At a time when we face an unprecedented combination of military, economic, foreign policy, social, constitutional and environmental catastrophes, we can ill afford the contentious governance she would bring. Temperament does matter, and Obama's smooth, conciliatory, upbeat style is very much what we need now. While many of us regret that there are not enough women in high office, that is not a reason to vote for people such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

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

» RE: Temperament is Important Posted by: carbon-based
» Obama NOT Muslim Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Obama NOT Muslim Posted by: Kipper
» RE: Temperament is Important Posted by: lenioui
» RE: Temperament is Important Posted by: richieb
» But Obama want to sing kumbaya Posted by: bthespoon
Republican vs Republican-Lite
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 26, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
November is shaping up to be a very depressing time, come election day.
Here is what a real Democrat sounds like- not Billary or Obama.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer,
but they are willing to help him go broke.
They stand four-square for the American home--
but not for housing. They are strong for labor--
but they are stronger for restricting labor's
rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the
minimum wage the better. They endorse educational
opportunity for all--but they won't spend
money for teachers or for schools. They think
modern medical care and hospitals are fine--
for people who can afford them. They consider
electrical power a great blessing--but only when
the private power companies get their rake-off.
They think American standard of living is a fine
thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the
people. And they admire of Government of the
United States so much that they would like to
buy it. "

Harry S. Truman

Didn't that feel good. The truth is a wonderful thing.

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

» RE: Republican vs Republican-Lite Posted by: nobody4prez
Another speech by a real Democrat - FDR on his New Deal
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 26, 2008 1:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here you go - enjoy the deja vu - Roosevelt in 1933

. . .Then came the part of the problem that concerned the credit of the individual citizens themselves. You and I know of the banking crisis and of the great danger to the savings of our people. . .

The problem of the credit of the individual was made more difficult because of another fact. The dollar was a different dollar from the one with which the average debt had been incurred. For this reason large numbers of people were actually losing possession of and title to their farms and homes. All of you know the financial steps which have been taken to correct this inequality. In addition the Home Loan Act, the Farm Loan Act and the Bankruptcy Act were passed.

It was a vital necessity to restore purchasing power by reducing the debt and interest charges upon our people, but while we were helping people to save their credit it was at the same time absolutely essential to do something about the physical needs of hundreds of thousands who were in dire straits at that very moment. Municipal and State aid were being stretched to the limit. We appropriated half a billion dollars to supplement their efforts and in addition, as you know, we have put 300,000 young men into practical and useful work in our forests and to prevent flood and soil erosion. The wages they earn are going in greater part to the support of the nearly one million people who constitute their families.

In this same classification we can properly place the great public works program running to a total of over Three Billion Dollars -- to be used for highways and ships and flood prevention and inland navigation and thousands of self-sustaining state and municipal improvements. Two points should be made clear in the allotting and administration of these projects -- first, we are using the utmost care to choose labor creating quick-acting, useful projects, avoiding the smell of the pork barrel; and secondly, we are hoping that at least half of the money will come back to the government from projects which will pay for themselves over a period of years.

Thus far I have spoken primarily of the foundation stones -- the measures that were necessary to re-establish credit and to head people in the opposite direction by preventing distress and providing as much work as possible through governmental agencies. Now I come to the links which will build us a more lasting prosperity. I have said that we cannot attain that in a nation half boom and half broke. If all of our people have work and fair wages and fair profits, they can buy the products of their neighbors and business is good. But if you take away the wages and the profits of half of them, business is only half as good. It doesn't help much if the fortunate half is very prosperous -- the best way is for everybody to be reasonably prosperous.


Ah... fresh air. Take a deep breath - you'll need it.

Compare that speech to the simpering corporate pandering of Hillary and Obama and Romney and McCain - who are, let us not forget, involved in the most expensive election campaign in U.S. history - one which is largely bankrolled by financial and corporate interests who exert tight control over the TV and press coverage of the election - and who still curse the name of Roosevelt.

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

» RE: What's A Candidate To Do? Posted by: NoPCZone
Obama the "Audacity of False Hope"
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 26, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Obama nor Clinton will fix health care. They're not even pointed in the right direction (which happens to be left). Clinton put real reform back 16 years already and will do so another 4-8 if elected, and Barak helped gut real health care reform here in Illinois by changing one word in the "Health Care Justice Act" from "shall" to "may". (Notice Dems have been in full control here in Illinois for 7 years now and have offered at best "smoke and mirrors" health care non-solutions of more corporate welfare for the health insurance industry, just like Mitt.) Would we have fixed Civil Rights had we insisted on giving the KKK a voice in the solution? Or National Security by inviting Al Qaeda to the table? The health insurers ARE the problem, so I'm not counting big-time on their helping out much with any real solution.

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

» I know. I agree. Posted by: bthespoon
the old either/or fallacy, only slightly more subtle - Edwards did get a mention
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 26, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big question is who's going to win: Clinton or Obama?

The right answer is Karl Rove.

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

Two links worth looking at...
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 26, 2008 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first shows Obama saying one thing then another on health care. (He also says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq, but then keeps voting to fund it. I also heard him say now that we're there, we can't just leave. But I've heard both Clinton and Obama contradict themselves on lots of things, not just Iraq.) The second maintains that polls show Edwards is truly the most electable in the general election even though he's trailing in Democratic primaries.

Sorry, I guess alternet doesn't want me to post the links...

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

» how to post links: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: how to post links: Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: how to post links: Posted by: bthespoon
» Sorry my linkage doesn't work Posted by: bthespoon
Economic change?
Posted by: lproyect on Jan 26, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's Economic Advisers

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

Putrid and Pathetic
Posted by: jmooney on Jan 26, 2008 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clinton campaign is putrid and pathetic and should be repudiated at the polls.

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

» RE: Putrid and Pathetic Posted by: gazooks
» Methinks Obama's pot Posted by: bthespoon
Sharpening their knives
Posted by: K_for_Kansas on Jan 26, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Barak gets elected, can he govern? No one will have an easy time of it, given the entrenched interests that own, and want to continue running, the show. But I think the knives will be especially sharp for Sen. Obama. It's a battle that has to be fought by someone to bring some sort of balance back to the ownership of this country (people vs. corporate), but it truly will be a battle -- relentless, treacherous and gory.

I think he has the fortitude to do it -- although Edwards is, at this point, my candidate. But the intrigue and hostility (some veiled, much outright) that will greet either a Hilary or Barak presidency will redefine "political intrigue."

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

» RE: Sharpening their knives Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Sharpening their knives Posted by: Kipper
Why Not Hope?
Posted by: bluesmanjohnson on Jan 26, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have spent years - election after election - parsing policy statements, reading between the lines, scientificatin' and pontificatin' on which Democrat has the best combinations of policy and, more importantly, electability. Where has it gotten me in the last 8 years? Nowhere. We ended up with establishment idiot Gore instead of my scientifically preferred Bill Bradley (don't we all wish we had that one back now?). Gore then proceeded to blow it completely (I know he kinda' won and all, but it should have been a blowout). I scientifically determined that Democratic hopes were best placed in Clark in 04, and instead, we pick a New England windbag that was such a poor candidate, he couldn't beat the worst and most dangerous treason artist ever to occupy the white house - ever. This time, I first thought Richardson would mop the floor with any Republican in a general election, but he fizzed out almost immediately. Then I started listening to Obama's wonderful rhetoric, and watched the believers line up. His Iowa speech (and others), in turn, kinda' choked me up. He has many qualities that inspire, if you let him. I think (believe?) he's a lot more liberal and progressive than he's letting on, so I (admittedly) project onto him. THat worked nicely for Reagan, so don't discount it. Obama also seems poised to deliver and inspire enough of the "great unwashed" 50% of people in this country that don't vote. This improves his (and our) chances in the fall. Thus, I have become a believer. He's the Bobby Kennedy of our time. If my head has proved so useless in picking candidates over the years, why not try going with my heart for a change? It feels pretty good. Try it.

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

» RE: Why Not Hope? Posted by: lynned2002
» RE: Why Not Hope? Posted by: primalscream
The Audacity Of Hype- Part One
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An Audacious Deference To Power

If the Democrats’ candidate in 2008 is Obama, we can be sure that the right-wing Republican noise machine will denounce the nation’s potential first non-white male president as a dangerous “leftist.” The charge will be absurd, something that will hardly stop numerous people on the portside of the narrow U.S. political spectrum from claiming Obama as a fellow “progressive.” Certain to be encouraged by Obama and his handlers, this confusion will reflect the desperation and myopia that shaky thinking and the limited choices of the U.S. electoral system regularly instill in liberals and some squishy near leftists.

So what sorts of policies and values could one expect from an imagined Obama presidency? There is quite a bit already in Obama’s short national career that has to be placed in the “never mind” category if one is to seriously believe his claim (cautiously advanced in The Audacity of Hope) to be a “progressive” concerned with “social and economic justice” and global peace.

Last August, Obama audaciously told thousands of labor union members at Chicago's Soldier Field that he was "running for president...because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks." He made a big point of the fact that he "does not take money from corporate lobbyists," unlike business-friendly Hillary Clinton.

He uttered his worker-pleasing words even as his campaign was bending with fierce plutocratic winds fanned by giant global investment firms and corporations that were helping him join leading corporate Democrat Clinton in setting new electoral fundraising records.

Ever wonder why the "progressive" (as he repeatedly describes himself) Obama dances for Wall Street on the (fake) Social Security "crisis" and sounds like Mitt Romney and Rudy Guliani in decrying the specter of "government mandated" universal health care? Curious about why the avowed environmentalist thinks that nuclear power should be considered part of the solution to America's energy crisis and has recently joined Hillary in voting for the extension of the corporate-neoliberal North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (#2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates.

Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007. Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006. His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006.

And Obama's sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth.

Go figure.

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

» RE: The Audacity Of Hype- Part One Posted by: mnascimento
The Audacity Of Hype- Part Two
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for his "lobbyist ban," last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observed that this raised troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama's much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from "federal lobbyists."

Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability has in fact depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money.

To give one example, Obama received $33,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird, which maintains a large lobbying division in Washington. Obama's $33,000 came bundled from a number of "consultants" employed by the firm.

Also deleted from Obama's "ban" are state lobbyists. Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $160,000 directly to Obama.

An especially big dent in the armor of Obama's effort to sell himself as the noble repudiator of lobbyist, PAC, and special interest money generally was inflicted in early August of 2007. That's when the Boston Globe published a widely circulated article titled "PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise: Data Contrast With His Theme." Globe reporter Scott Helman reviewed campaign finance records to find that a "more complicated truth" lurked "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric." Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money, including large sums from "defense contractors, law firms and the securities and insurance industries" to his own powerful PAC "Hopefund." Of special interest was Helman's determination that Obama was retaining close and lucrative funding relationships with leading Washington-based lobbyists and lobbying firms while technically avoiding direct contributions from those key campaign finance players.



"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq.”
- Barack Obama

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

As always; it all depends.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 26, 2008 7:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the comments on this thread are not cynical, but the peanut gallery still loves to boo as if politics were Wide World of Wrestling.

It is providential that BHO has excited a wider audience of the American electorate. Participation in elections has been sinking ever lower. Perhaps even the scrapping in the Demo primary that the miss manners commentators want to shame is attracting interest.

Obama will win in SC; that's a given. What's interesting will be by how much? If HRC can keep his edge to less than 10%, she will have scored a noticeable victory.

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

The Audacity Of Hype- Part Three
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NEVER MIND

When politicians offer nothing, and the people demand nothing, then the powers-that-be are free to continue doing whatever they choose. The death knell of participatory politics can often be a very noisy, celebratory affair - such as we have witnessed in the call-and-response ritual of "Change!" "Hope!" and other exuberant but insubstantial campaign exercises.

After more than four years of observing Obama's descent from vaguely progressive rhetoric to shameless pandering and vapid "Change!" mantra nonsense are we to ignore the facts on the ground stick our heads in the sand and say never mind?

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator.

Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races. Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Never mind that Obama opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.

Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations. Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry—at places like Kaiser and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Does Obama support the American scourge of racially disparate mass incarceration on the grounds that it provides work for tens of thousands of prison guards? Should the U.S. maintain the illegal operation of Iraq and pour half its federal budget into “defense” because of all the soldiers and other workers that find employment in imperial wars and the military-industrial complex? Does the “progressive” senator really need to be reminded of the large number of socially useful and healthy alternatives that exist for the investment of human labor power at home and abroad—wetlands preservation, urban ecological retrofitting, drug counseling, teaching, infrastructure building and repair, safe and affordable housing construction, the building of windmills and solar power facilities, etc.?

Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State.

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

The Audacity Of Hype
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is much more to this and all props must go to Paul Street and Glen Ford (some others too) for presenting material for us all to examine if we wish to get beyond the silly platitudes that pass for rhetoric in the American Political Charade.

To suggest that Obama is an agent of CHANGE when his advisers are the very embodiment of the status quo is quite shallow and divorced from reality.

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

» I think you're losing this argument Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Top Advisers To Obama
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Top advisers to Obama

Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser

Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor.

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser

W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser

Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser

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

» RE: Top Advisers To Obama Posted by: Kipper
We the People
Posted by: JohnJlws on Jan 26, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the vast, vast majority of the comments here to be so incredibly refreshing. As I bop around to the various blogs, most are vacuous assaults on intelligence. These, generally, are not.

I do have to take exception to a prevailing thought. This country is "We the people." When we say things like "neither Barack or Hillary" will fix healthcare," it's because they cannot; it's not their responsibility. It is ours. We, the people, can. We have a healthcare crisis in America, but, more importantly, we have a wellness crisis. We're eating ourselves into oblivion and into healthcare bankruptcy. A third-party provider of insurance cannot fix our eating and exercise habits, but there's not a person around who can succesfuly argue that eating right and exercise, over generations, would fix much of the "healthcare" crisis.

The Supreme Court did not elect GW. We the people did. We failed to look beyond the slick lies of the swift boats and failed to look beyond the "boredom" of Gore and we turned the channel and disengaged and elected GW. We the people are responsible.

We complain about campaign finance reform, too much money influencing elections, too little attention given to viable candidates' and their opinions, too much lobbyist influence.

Churchill, I believe, said something to the effect "we always get the government we deserve." I don't know that anyone deserves the type of gross incompetence and neglect we have had these last eight years, but make no mistake we're responsible.

I personally support Obama. I want someone who at least can put a complete sentence together and be engaging without being shrill and mean, but I also like his ideas and his vision.

Our country does not, in my opinion, need a "CEO." It's business is people and the majority of CEOs I know aren't really all that great at "the business of people" (they're very good at the business of return to shareholder and profit). It needs someone who inspires, not unlike Ronald Reagan, who I believe raised the hopes and heads of Americans and for that I give him great accolades, although I disagreed with virtually everything else he, and his Karl Roves, stood for. This country needs someone that can inspire her; of all the candidates Obama does that for me.

We the people decide. So, for those who are not engaged, or think their selecting "the lesser of two evils" again (a truly ludicrous statement, if you look at the incredible capacity all our presidents and virtually every candidate brings to this debate), I'd recommend getting engaged, getting involved and not flipping the channel this time. Do it this time and we may not get another chance--that's truly how important this election is.

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

» RE: We the People Posted by: Lauren
» RE: We the People Posted by: JohnJlws
» RE: We the People Posted by: Kipper
Yawn -- naivete
Posted by: fifthworld on Jan 26, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See through the spineless, raceless, cosmically appeasing war-ho, people! False hope, short change. No better than Clinton. And a jumbo serving of cliches that's already sent me to the toilet 12 times.

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

A few points
Posted by: willymack on Jan 26, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quite a few negative buzz words and phrases are being bandied about, describing the Democratic candidates as "rethug light", "cynical", etc. Keep in mind these descriptions are in a comparative nature and not really absolutes. Now, take a look at the losers posing as legitimate presidential aspirants on the rethug side. Rod Serling could not have painted a more surrealistic picture than the sorry spectacle on that side, what with two religious crazies and a brain-dead zombie whose visage of himself hugging bush is forever etched on my mind as an instant transformation from a "maverick" to a compliant bush ass-kisser. What can be said about the three rethug "front runners", all of whom are FOR the Iraq tragedy and AGAINST women's rights? My opinion of them is that if I see any of them anywhere near me, I'll RUN- not walk just as fast as my aged legs will propel me. The WORST of the Demos is so far superior to the BEST of the rethugs, a decision come November should be a no-brainer.

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

interesting to note
Posted by: dismayed on Jan 26, 2008 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the giant cut and paste posts- broadcast from the campaigns perhaps? if so fair enough, and i am going to keep that in mind as i read this stuff.

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

Obama Rejects MLK's Legacy, The Poor Will Even Have Been Better Off Under Bush
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 26, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Martin Luther King's legacy is best represented, today, by people like Rev. Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Even though Sharpton, for instance, can be decisive, at least he is not afraid to take a stand. Now, what stand does Obama really take? Because he wants to be so "conciliatory" he takes only middle of the road stands on anything controversial, such as national health care, and touts the generally popular stand of opposition to the Iraq war. Now, what would Obama do for the poor and downtrodden? In fact, what experience does he really have that even shows he understands or cares about this sector of American society, that is composed of tens of millions of people? The bottom line, Obama does not care about the legacy of MLK, he is just positioning himself where he thinks he needs to be to win. As for who he is beholden towards, look at his big contributors. The banks and Wall Street firms. They certainly expect, and will no doubt receive, a big pay-day (in favorable tax and regulatory treatment) should Obama win. Meanwhile the poor, those with no medical care, and those payed just minimum wage, will get nothing. In fact, perhaps they will even find they were better off under Bush. That is, as Obama reduces the taxes on the uber rich who helped get him elected and guts services for the poor while spouting fancy sounding rhetoric.

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

Thank you very much
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 26, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.politico.com/blogs/
bensmith/0108/Arguing_about_singlepayer.html



http://current.com/items/88825357_polls_show_
john_edwards_is_most_electable_democrat_in_
the_key_match_up_states_of_ohio_and_
florida#88825374

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

Who's left to support?
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 26, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich have been chased from the race, who is a progressive voter going to support? Hillary Clinton is one of the "money" Democrats, she whose husband has become buddies with George H.W. Bush. Although smart and capable, she carries the baggage of continuing to vote to fund the war, along with the baggage of Bill Clinton, who caved in to the Gringrich Republicans while at the same time saying he was doing no such thing. (Remember his support of the death penalty, his slamming the unions, and his war on welfare recipients.)

Then there is Barack Obama whose message is one of hope and change, but whose corporate backers see another Bill Clinton, but someone who hasn't yet tarnished his image with the American people. Which Obama would we get as president? The one who worked in Chicago's inner city to help poor people, or the one who continues to fund the war in the Senate and has various corporate types on his list of sponsors? He's not so tied to the "money" Democrats as Clinton is, but he seems to be getting there.

Finally, there is John Edwards, the only true populist left. Forget about his millions and how he chooses to spend them. He earned that money by fighting the corporations on behalf of those who were injured by them. Would he cave in to the blandishments of corporate and military power as Bill Clinton did? It doesn't seem likely. Nevertheless, Edwards needs a win in South Carolina, his home state, but it doesn't look as if he'll get it. Edwards is the only one who would easily beat any of the sorry lot of Republicans this year, but next fall the chances are that he will not be on the ballot.

Should Edwards fail, then Obama seems the next best choice. Forget about his being a "black" candidate. Is Tiger Woods black? Is James Blake black? Is the new tennis phemom, Jo-Friedel Tsonga black? The answer is "no." They are multi-racial, and they are all excellent representatives of their respective sports. I'm hoping that Barack Obama will also be a good leader of our own multi-racial society. But "multi-racial" really isn't the right term. There is really no such thing as "race," just arbitrary classifications. We're all descended from the "Seven Sisters of Eve," and so we're all related by our DNA. Is my hope misplaced, and will I be proved wrong? Maybe. But right now we could all use a large helping of hope.

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

Who would the Republicans choose to run against in the fall?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 26, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what everyone here should be thinking about. Would they rather face Edwards, Clinton or Obama?

The close ties between the Republican Party and the corporate press should not be forgotten. The corporate press is running a tar-and-feather campaign against ALL the Democratic candidates, in a deliberate effort to hurt their chances, while at the same time glossing over the truly ridiculous Repugnant candidates. This is pre-positioning for the fall - you can count on that.

The real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans can be seen in their Supreme Court appointments - and I'd sure take Hillary of Obama or Edwards over any possible Republican candidate for that reason alone.

However, the last person the Republicans and Karl Rove want to face in the fall is Edwards. That's a fact, and that's why the corporate press (you know, the people who did all they could to get Clinton impeached, and who have refused to even discuss impeachment of Bush and Cheney) have worked as hard as they can to keep Edwards sidelined.

Anyone who seriously believes "there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats" is living in a dream world. The Republicans want to overthrow democracy and institute totalitarian rule - that was Karl Rove's plan. Remember "The Project for a New American Century" and the "permanent Republican majority"? How about Cheney's adoration of the "Fuherprinzip" as demonstrated by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin?

That's what we're up against - that and a corrupt, politicized U.S. Supreme Court.

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

This Article Disgusts Me
Posted by: hellofriends on Jan 26, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lately, I read this website like i watch foxnews.

Why not just write: "go to Obama's homepage! Gee wiz he's great!"

he's not, and it should be well known by now: Why I Will Not Vote For Obama

I'm writing in Kucinich.

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

» The rule is very simple Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The rule is very simple Posted by: johnclark
» RE: The rule is very simple Posted by: Joshua Holland
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: The rule is very simple Posted by: hellofriends
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE CONSTITUTON
Posted by: outrider on Jan 26, 2008 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE CONSTITUTION!

Which of the presidential candidates would put his/her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and commitment to the rule of law over and above his religious beliefs or other loyalities or commitments? It is not the President's job to ad lib. Any and all changes are to be made within the purview of the Constitution. The President, Bush notwithstanding, has no power to amend the Constituition. Neither will Obama if he is elected.

Obama has promised the electorate everything except total commitment to the Constitution. When it comes to politicians, one does not want to accept anything on faith. The most sacred thing in a President's life should be the Constitution which he/she has sworn to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. The Bible is not the law of the land. A religious commitment is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be the President.

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

The Audacity Of Hype- Part Four
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 6:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never mind that he joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty (Obama, The Audacity of Hope)—not the multiple, well-documented, and interrelated structures, practices and consequences of externally imposed white dominance and corporate-state capitalism. Or that he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar.

Never mind Obama’s power-worshipping campaign book “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” (2006) – the book to which Obama refers reporters asking him for policy specifics behind his often vague statements – refers to the United States’ rapacious, savagely unequal and fundamentally “materialist” capitalist economy as the nation’s “greatest asset.” “Audacity” absurdly praises the “American system of social organization” and “business culture” on the grounds that U.S. capitalism “has encouraged constant innovation, individual initiative and efficient allocation of resources.” It commends “the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections” for “prevent[ing] Democrats...from straying too far from the center” and for marginalizing “those within the Democratic Party who tend toward zealotry” and “radical ideas” (like peace and justice). It praises fellow centrist Senator and presidential rival Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for embracing “the virtues of capitalism” and applauds her “recognizably progressive” husband Bill Clinton for showing that “markets and fiscal discipline” and “personal responsibility are needed to combat poverty”– an interesting reflection on the militantly corporate-neoliberal Clinton administration’s efforts to increase poverty by eliminating poor families’ entitlement to public cash assistance and privileging deficit reduction over social spending.

Never mind that “Audacity” also advances a model of health care reform that mocks his claim to support "universal" insurance. Like the [corporatist] Democratic Leadership Council Obama advocates retaining the for-profit nature of American health care, and mandating that poor people pay for it, somehow. His plan is only ‘universal’ in the sense that mandatory auto insurance is universal.

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

The Audacity Of Hype- Part Five
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 26, 2008 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s handlers and supporters place considerable emphasis on the claim that the junior senator from Illinois has voiced a “consistent position against the war” and (by extension) the Middle East. The assertion has some technical accuracy; Obama has publicly questioned the Bush administration’s case for war since the fall of 2002. But serious scrutiny of his “antiwar position” shows that the supposedly “pragmatic” and “non-ideological” Obama speaks in deferential accord with the doctrine of empire. In Obama’s carefully crafted rhetoric, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) has been a “strategic blunder” on the part of an essentially benevolent nation state. Given his presidential ambitions, it is unthinkable for him to acknowledge the invasion’s status as a great international transgression that is consistent with the United States’ long record of imperial criminality. It is equally unimaginable for him to acknowledge that the war expressed Washington’s drive to deepen its control of strategic petroleum resources—an ambition in direct opposition to the alleged U.S. goals of encouraging Iraqi freedom and exporting democracy.

In a recent address designed to display his foreign policy bona fides, Obama showed his continuing willingness to take seriously the claim that OIL was an effort to “impose democracy” on Iraq, even faulting the Bush administration for acting in Iraq on the basis of unrealistic “dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government” (Obama, “A Way Forward in Iraq,” speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs [CCGA], November 22, 2006).

Consistent with his denial and embrace of Washington’s imperial ambitions, Obama has refused to join genuinely anti-war forces in calling for a rapid and thorough withdrawal of troops and an end to the occupation of Iraq. In a critical November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama’s call for