Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Obama and McCain Offer Two Very Different Americas

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted June 9, 2008.


The general election is an epic showdown between two wildly different visions of the country.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

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

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

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

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

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

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Frank Rich

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


When Barack Obama achieved his historic victory on Tuesday night, the battle was joined between two Americas. Not John Edwards’s two Americas, divided between rich and poor. Not the Americas split by race, gender, party or ideology. What looms instead is an epic showdown between two wildly different visions of the country, from the ground up.



On one side stands Mr. Obama’s resolutely cheerful embrace of the future. His vision is inseparable from his identity, both as a rookie with a slim Washington résumé and as a black American whose triumph was regarded as improbable by voters of all races only months ago. On the other is John McCain’s promise of a wise warrior’s vigilant conservation of the past. His vision, too, is inseparable from his identity — as a government lifer who has spent his entire career in service, whether in the Navy or Washington.

Given the dividing line separating the two Americas of 2008, a ticket uniting Mr. McCain and Hillary Clinton might actually be a better fit than the Obama-Clinton “dream ticket,” despite their differences on the issues. Never was this more evident than Tuesday night, when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain both completely misread a one-of-a-kind historical moment as they tried to cling to the prerogatives of the 20th century’s old guard.

All presidential candidates, Mr. Obama certainly included, are egomaniacs. But Washington’s faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long. Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times in his. Mr. Obama settled for 30.



Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend.

Yet even as the two establishment candidates huffed and puffed to assert their authority, they seemed terrified by Mr. Obama’s insurgency, as if it were the plague in Edgar Allan Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death.” Mrs. Clinton held her nonconcession speech in a Manhattan bunker, banishing cellphone reception and television monitors carrying the news of Mr. Obama’s clinching of the nomination. Mr. McCain, laboring under the misapprehension that he was wittily skewering his opponent, compulsively invoked the Obama-patented mantra of “change” 33 times in his speech.



Mr. McCain only reminded voters that he, like Mrs. Clinton, thinks that change is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. He has no idea what it means. “No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically,” he said on Tuesday. He then grimly regurgitated Goldwater and Reagan government-bashing talking points from the 1960s and ’70s even as he presumed to accuse Mr. Obama of looking “to the 1960s and ’70s for answers.”

Mr. Obama is a liberal, but it’s not your boomer parents’ liberalism that is at the heart of his appeal. He never rattles off a Clinton laundry list of big federal programs; he supports abortion rights and gay civil rights with a sunny bonhomie that makes the right’s cultural scolds look like rabid mastodons. He is not refighting either side of the domestic civil war over Vietnam that exploded in his hometown of Chicago 40 years ago this summer, long before he arrived there.

He has never deviated from his much-quoted formulation in “The Audacity of Hope,” where he described himself as aloof from “the psychodrama of the baby boom generation” with its “old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago.” His vocabulary is so different from that of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain that they often find it as baffling as a foreign language, even as they try to rip it off.



The selling point of Mr. Obama’s vision of change is not doctrinaire liberalism or Bush-bashing but an inclusiveness that he believes can start to relieve Washington’s gridlock much as it animated his campaign. Some of that inclusiveness is racial, ethnic and generational, in the casual, what’s-the-big-deal manner of post-boomer Americans already swimming in our country’s rapidly expanding demographic pool. Some of it is post-partisan: he acknowledges that Republicans, Ronald Reagan included, can have ideas.

Opponents who dismiss this as wussy naïveté do so at their own risk. They at once call attention to the expiring shelf life of their own Clinton-Bush-vintage panaceas and lull themselves into underestimating Mr. Obama’s political killer instincts.

The Obama forces out-organized the most ruthless machine in Democratic politics because the medium of their campaign mirrored its inclusive message. They empowered adherents in every state rather than depending on a Beltway campaign hierarchy whose mercenary chief strategist kept his day job as chief executive for a corporate P.R. giant. Such viral organization and fund-raising is a seamless fit with bottom-up democracy as it is increasingly practiced in the Facebook-YouTube era, not merely by Americans and not merely by the young.



You could learn a ton about the Clinton campaign’s cultural tone-deafness from its stodgy generic Web site. A similar torpor afflicts JohnMcCain.com, which last week gave its graphics a face-lift that unabashedly mimics BarackObama.com and devoted prime home page real estate to hawking “McCain Golf Gear.” (No joke.) The blogs, video and social networking are static and sparse, the apt reflection of a candidate who repeatedly invokes “I” as he boasts of his humility.



Mr. Obama’s deep-rooted worldliness — in philosophy as well as itinerant background — is his other crucial departure from the McCain template. As more and more Americans feel the pain of spiraling gas prices and lost jobs, they are also coming to recognize, as Mr. Obama does, that the globally reviled American image forged by an endless war in Iraq and its accompanying torture scandals is inflicting economic as well as foreign-policy havoc.

Six out of 10 Americans do want their president to talk to Iran’s president, according to the most-recent Gallup poll. Americans are sick of a national identity defined by arrogant saber-rattling abroad and manipulative fear-mongering at home. Mr. Obama closed his speech on Tuesday by telling Americans they “don’t deserve” another election “that’s governed by fear.” Of the three candidates, he was the only one who did not mention 9/11 that night.



Mr. Obama isn’t flawless. But it’s hard to see him hitching up with Mrs. Clinton, who would contradict his message, unite the right, and pass along her husband’s still unpacked post-presidency baggage. A larger trap for Mr. Obama is his cockiness. His own tendency to preen and to coast could be encouraged by recent events rocking the Straight Talk Express: Mr. McCain is so far proving an exceptionally clumsy candidate prone to accentuating everything that’s out-of-touch about his American vision.

Mr. McCain’s speech in a New Orleans suburb on Tuesday night spawned a cottage industry of ridicule, even among Republicans. The halting delivery, sickly green backdrop and spastic, inappropriate smiles, presumably mandated by some consultant hoping to mask his anger, left the impression that Mr. McCain isn’t yet ready for prime-time radio.

But the substance was even worse than the theatrics. Incredibly, Mr. McCain attacked Mr. Obama for being insufficiently bipartisan while speaking to the most conspicuously partisan audience you can assemble in today’s America: a small, nearly all-white crowd that seconded his attack lines with boorish choruses of boos. On TV, the audience came across as a country-club membership riled by a change in the Sunday brunch menu.



Equally curious was Mr. McCain’s decision to stage this event in Louisiana, a state that is truly safe for the G.O.P. and that he’d last visited less than six weeks earlier. Perhaps he did so because Louisiana’s governor, the 36-year-old Indian-American Bobby Jindal, is the only highly placed nonwhite Republican he could find to lend his campaign an ersatz dash of diversity and youth.

Or perhaps he thought that if he once more returned to the scene of President Bush’s Katrina crime to (belatedly) slam that federal failure, it would fool voters into forgetting his cheerleading for Mr. Bush’s Iraq obsession and economic policies. This time it proved a levee too far. The day after his speech Mr. McCain was caught on the stump misstating and exaggerating his own do-little record after Katrina. Soon the Internet was alight with documentation of what he actually did on the day the hurricane hit land: a let-us-eat-cake photo op with Mr. Bush celebrating his birthday in Arizona.



Anything can happen in politics, and there are five months to go. But Tuesday night’s McCain pratfall — three weeks in the planning by his campaign, according to Fox News — should be a clear indication that Mr. Obama must accept Mr. McCain’s invitation to weekly debates at once. Tomorrow if possible, and, yes, bring on the green!

Mr. Obama must also heed Mr. McCain’s directive that he visit Iraq — as long as he avoids Baghdad markets and hits other foreign capitals on route. When the world gets a firsthand look at the new America Mr. Obama offers as an alternative to Mr. McCain’s truculent stay-the-course, the public pandemonium may make J.F.K.’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” visit to the Berlin Wall look like a warm-up act.


© 2007 The New York Times

AlterNet is making this New York Times material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

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

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, john mccain

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:
Very different Americas?
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 9, 2008 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh really?

Will either of them end the war in Iraq? No.

Will either of them do anything to fundamentally change our fiat currency backed economic system? No.

Will either of them challenge the Federal Reserve? No.

Will either of them shake things up in any meaningful way? No.

So what do they differ on? Gay rights, gun rights, abortion rights, and other pointless "moral issues" that the elite allow us peasants to squabble over while they live a fabulously opulent life style that kings and emperors of old would envy.

Change? No, more of the same. Obama wouldn't be where he is if he didn't have the stamp of approval from the real powers in the U.S. (big money interests, i.e. the wealthy and the corporations through which they control us all).

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

» RE: Very different Americas? Posted by: nochicagoboys
» I hope you're right, Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Very different Americas? Posted by: impeachbushandcheneynow
» McCain is NOT WISE Posted by: Smackback
The Art of the Possible
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jun 9, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's basic orientation is far more progressive than McCain's. Sure, he's tacking to the center for the general election, but there's no question that his temperament, his positions on the issues and his philosophy better match those of the American people than McCain's. Politics is the art of the possible, and Obama is the best we can hope for, by far. Cynicism and nitpicking from progressives will decrease turnout and, combined with Nader, could put McCain into office. We cannot afford such a disaster.

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

gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Jun 9, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Clinton gave a generous and eloquent concession speech on Saturday that firmly endorsed Senator Obama and exhorted her supporters to do the same. Mr Rich-you seem unable to let go of your relentless hostility and anger at her for daring to run at all. An Obama Clinton ticket would not be better than a McCain Obama ticket. It would be absurb. At least you acknowledged that Obama had some faults, although you continue to write as though none were particularly important. His inexperience, as witnessed by making a poorly-thought out statement on Israel one day and then reversing it the next is a real problem that he and his handlers have to deal with. Why don't you write about that instead of constantly harping on the faults of Senator Clinton? The primary is over. Both democratic contenders are politicians who did what they had to do to win. Obama is not a saint and Clinton is not a sinner. Your point of view prevailed. How about a little generosity in your victory.

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

looking good
Posted by: grmartin on Jun 9, 2008 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama looks good because the others, and the system, are so incredibly bad. Since it would probably take a civil war to produce any real change, Obmama may be like Jack Kennedy - nice image and speeches, and that's all.

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

» RE: looking good Posted by: nochicagoboys
What changes?
Posted by: jedson on Jun 9, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems to me that there are two issues of overriding importance in the US today:

1. Should the US continue to conduct itself as the head of a world empire?

2. Are the basics of our national and international economic system -- the one the is destroying the ecological balance of the world and creating a widening gap between the rich and the poor -- OK?

If Obama is not singing a different tune on these issues, then what significant changes is he proposing, and why should progressives spend valuable time and energy working for him? Perhaps I missed it, but where is the evidence that he is doing anything more than arranging the furniture in this sinking ship in a more attractive way?

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

» RE: What changes? Posted by: roscogre
Life goes on, within you and without you
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 9, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After careful examination, I would have to say that the change Mr. Obama keeps talking about is really an illusion. His recent remarks at the AIPAC conference reveal that when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he is to the right of Dick Cheney. He is certainly a master of rhetoric and equivocation.

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

» A question of who has access Posted by: Last Chance
Backwards vs Forward
Posted by: bc430 on Jun 9, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forward wins because it just makes sense. It's kinda like choosing between vision and no clue, bathing and changing clothes or not, or life over death. In America's case the first Tuesday of November '08 will be like a resurrection, for a nation victimized by the culture of deception and death for the past so many years. This article takes us out of spinville and puts the mediocre, all military all the time, ex prisoner, Mr. McCain in true prospective. I'm an ex Airborne Infantryman and I respect heroes. I have special admiration for heroes that wage peace. However, overplacing the unqualified minimizes all concerned. Hiring and promoting men like McCain just 'cause, when men and women like Obama were present has been old clueless America's great minimizer. Do you wish to prove the Cheney/Bush stay - the - course, case? According to the RNC, Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman - John McCain epitomizes right wing deception and death better than any candidate the republicans can field in this "environment." Oh well.

"Anything can happen in politics, and there are five months to go. But Tuesday night’s McCain pratfall — three weeks in the planning by his campaign, according to Fox News — should be a clear indication that Mr. Obama must accept Mr. McCain’s invitation to weekly debates at once. Tomorrow if possible, and, yes, bring on the green!"

"Mr. Obama must also heed Mr. McCain’s directive that he visit Iraq — as long as he avoids Baghdad markets and hits other foreign capitals on route. When the world gets a firsthand look at the new America Mr. Obama offers as an alternative to Mr. McCain’s truculent stay-the-course, the public pandemonium may make J.F.K.’s “Ich bin ein Berliner” visit to the Berlin Wall look like a warm-up act."

Frank Rich captures in this article sufficient intelligent facts and motivating reasons for us to move quickly away from the grasping tentacles and sticky tongues of right wing media and junk theology's fear, fatalism and plain ole dumbness. The next five months must mark the end of sanitizing silliness that delights in state sponsored deadly consequences. From unnecessary poverty, sickness, disease and homelessness, in the name of free market economics, to irrational fear, hatred and war in the name of spreading democracy.

John McCain, the antique replica of ill equipped mean spirit parent on the outskirts of dementia and obsessed with huge impotent desire to overpower President Barack Obama by stealing his winning ways and chop shopping them and then painting his stolen goods with multiple layers of "my friends." Who in their right mind does not see the youth vote and every other progressive, energized and thinking vote running fast and hard away from Capt. Creepy?

No John, you will not be made to look good at the expense of a man who so represents life and the forward direction so well. There are not that many town hall, city halls or village idiots in the world. No help my friend. Your Barack attacks are tired, coming out of the gate.

As to Iraq visits to meet with a subordinate, that is way so 'not' and such an ill proposal. You have to wonder how these guys kept the wheels on their chariots as long as they did.

No John, the order is to get Americans out of Iraq, not send more there. Not even one, especially not Barack Obama.

Thanks FR for a sensible article in a climate of serious nonsense.

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

» FR . . . ? Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Backwards vs Forward Posted by: AlexLawyer
Change is Good
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Jun 9, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt about it. Obama WILL bring change. What change exactly? that is any ones guess. But ANY change at all from the road Dictator Bush has us on will be welcome change. McBush on the other hand, LOL, surely no body is taking McBush seriously, right? LOL

JT
Online Privacy when it Counts

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

» RE: Change is Good Posted by: roscogre
» RE: Change is Good Posted by: roscogre
Danger for Obama Grows
Posted by: john2007 on Jun 9, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As read Mr. Rich's fine analysis I had the feeling that America and the world are on the cusp of something really wonderful, but then I got scared. I remembered what happened to so many other inspirational leaders.

Of course the neocon pigs would never pull the trigger themselves but you can bet their degenerate souls are already praying for it to happen.

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

Well said
Posted by: j downs on Jun 9, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the salient points are here. This is a transcendent time and Barack almost always raises the level of discourse; he has a much broader view of the world. He has done his homework and does not fall into the trap of framing the issues in a fear-based partisan mode.
I was working for Bobby in LA 40 years ago. I have not felt this hopeful since then.
A new page is turning, a new generation is coming out of the woodwork.

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

» RE: Well said Posted by: VZEQICVA
This neocon piggy went to market
Posted by: PGR88 on Jun 9, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's vision of the future is to go back to a failed 19th century force-people-to-do-what-is-good-for-them soft marxism. He and his lackey's in the corporate media are using reverse-racism and trumping up class-envy where none exists.

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

Paid for by the Friends of Obama
Posted by: robbie.seal on Jun 9, 2008 1:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! And folks say Fox News is bad. Why didn't the Times just endorse him, or did I miss that in all of the love-in slobber? Holy Smoke, The author saw all of that "Hope" and "Promise" for change? I am still waiting to see it in what Obama tells us. All I get is the promise of hope and change, but then he goes and mimicks the same story line when he needs to get voters like he did at AIPAC.

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

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ANYONE'S MOMMY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 9, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't expect to be pampered and led to some la-la-land by Obama or anyone else. There are people allover this country forming all kinds of action groups for every conceivable reason. They are not a secret. Waiting around for some miracle worker is crazy. People thought Bush was a 'leader'. And they followed. Didn't quite work out. But he had NO opposition until recently. It's our country to run. It's our responsibility. Thanks, ANNA

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

THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ANYONE'S MOMMY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 9, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can't expect to be pampered and led to some la-la-land by Obama or anyone else. There are people allover this country forming all kinds of action groups for every conceivable reason. They are not a secret. Waiting around for some miracle worker is crazy. People thought Bush was a 'leader'. And they followed. Didn't quite work out. But he had NO opposition until recently. It's our country to run. It's our responsibility. Thanks, ANNA

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

I know how Obama will CHANGE America
Posted by: Ky Lake Dave on Jun 9, 2008 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to INCREASE the amount of INCOME that currently is TAXED to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
USA TODAY
*******************************************
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.

Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.

Americans for Tax Reform gives him a lifetime rating of 7.5, compared with 82.7 for John McCain. Indeed, the National Journal has ranked Obama the most liberal senator for 2007.

“He’s a bleeding heart liberal, but he’s smart enough not to put it in people's face right now,” says Republican Illinois State Sen. Bill Brady, who worked with Obama in the Illinois State Senate and calls him that body’s most liberal member.
Newsmax
*********************************************
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday he will push for higher Social Security taxes if elected, viewing it as the best option for improving the retirement program's finances.

Obama and several other Democratic presidential candidates previously have signaled support for lifting the cap on the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security checks.

But during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said taxing more of a person's income was the option he would push for if elected president.
CNN
**********************************************
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama flatly promised to raise taxes in a television interview Thursday afternoon.

“I will raise CEO taxes,” Obama told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.”

“If you’re a CEO in this country you’ll probably pay more taxes,” Obama said. Obama speculated his CEO tax rates “won’t be prohibitively high, you’ll pay roughly what you did in the 90’s when they were doing fine.”

Obama also said he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts and install what he called a “middle class tax cut.”

Blitzer asked Obama to define “middle class.”

Obama replied, “You know, I think the definitions are always a little bit rough” and said “if you’re making $100,000 a year or less, then you’re pretty solidly middle class…On the other hand, if you’re making more than $100,000 and certainly if you’re making more than $200,000 or $250,000, you’re doing pretty well.”
Townhall.com
***********************************************

The theme is easy to follow. OBAMA will raise taxes. Like the hikes in food and products from the increase in fuel costs over the last couple of months, Tax hikes will also increase costs of everyday items as CEO's and Corporations recoup the loss of revenue from TAX HIKES.

Here is my question;
With the coming recession, will it be smart for Obama raise taxes to pay for his Socialist programs?

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

» RE: I know how Obama will CHANGE America Posted by: impeachbushandcheneynow
» RE: I know how Obama will CHANGE America Posted by: impeachbushandcheneynow
» When in the history of mankind Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Liberal goo
Posted by: chlamor on Jun 9, 2008 6:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We get to vote for McAIPAC who wants Africom or we can vote for Obomber who not only wants Africom but wants to occupy Sudan, the largest nation in Africa. Take your pick and validate the agenda.

The American political system is thoroughly corrupted and woryhless and is of no value to clear thinking people.

I doubt there’s any point to this. It will simply be read as the keyboard warrior wailing for bloody revolution but as my views are consistently mischaracterized by people who are either too stupid to appreciate nuance, too ignorant to understand history or deliberately distorting what I say because it does not fit into their uninspired insipid political outlook.


One of the very few times in American history where the government made some effort to govern for the majority was during the time of FDR’s New Deal.

The Democrats ONLY instituted the extremely limited (and watered down in intervening years by Democrats and Republican administrations) social compact we currently have because there was a demand from below and a burgeoning alternative.

It was the rapid growth of Socialist and Communist Parties, the organization of the unemployed and the increasingly far left control of unions that forced the Democrats to take a small detour down democracy lane. It was strikers physically defending their picket lines that saw Democrats pay attention to workplace justice. It was the unemployed organizing that meant politicians gave a hoot what happened to them.

You don’t need to get the Socialist Party elected; you just need to get their vote high enough to scare the shit out of Democrats. They do NOT respond to working within the party as has been evidence by the rapid lurch to the right since FDR’s days. Or in other words since the scaling down of DIRECT COMMUNITY ACTION.

All the insistence here that one has to work within the two-party system as the only way to drag them to the left (or even the best/most effective way) is ridiculous and completely arse about tit.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel how about looking to what has actually worked in the past.

Change the attitudes of the people around you and eventually a critical mass forms that politicians must pay more than simple lip service to if they wish to remain in power.

Without that critical mass there is absolutely NO incentive for the ruling class to hand over some of their power. Democrats know that no matter how many foreigners they kill to advance the wealth of the already obscenely rich, no matter how many NAFTA type deals they strike, no matter how they “reform welfare” that left leaning people will STILL vote for them. They know they have NOTHING to fear because you are all simply too frightened to take any real action. After all they reason, “what are they gonna do, vote Republican”

Organize your workplace, your church, etc. – it’s FAR more effective than campaigning for politicians. Even as the mass is building you’ll find you’ll get “wins” faster with direct action than with campaigning for stuffed suits.

Stop begging politicians to listen to you – they work for you – demand they start governing for the majority (hardly a radical socialist idea) and if they don’t SACK THEM.

Or you know, just keep insisting that everyone else other than those wedded to the Obama train is a loon.

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

Only difference is Obama lies and McCain tells the truth as he insanely sees it
Posted by: xbj on Jun 10, 2008 12:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why McCain has already won... America is insane.

Has been insane for quite awhile now. One look at the DNC tells the story.

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

» Cute. Posted by: Scientz
» READ IT and weep Posted by: xbj
Morning in America but in the opposite direction!
Posted by: foreverhope on Jun 10, 2008 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's strategy of poaching Republican votes is smarter than pounding your head against a wall every four years and making no progress. Reagan stole Democrats and won huge. Then he had the power to reshape American politics as he wanted. He had a mandate. Obama wants to win big, and he will. Then HE will have the power to actually do, instead of just waiving his fist.

Obama doesn't talk about policy much when he's giving speeches. The purpose of those speeches is not to show that he's a wonk--they're intended to rally the troops. But this notion that he has no substantive positions on the issues is just pure nonsense. They're all prominently displayed and clearly laid out on his website. His tone may be concilliatory, but his policies would be great for the country. If only they had a big mandate to put them into effect. As you may have noticed, the typical Democratic playbook of warfare against Republicans hasn't been working for decades.

Two things. One, Obama often talks about, not just his legislative successes, but his regrets. And these regrets were partly what propelled his candidacy, because he recognized in himself the potential for becoming a transformational leader who could reshape the playing field.

I am not saying he never behaves like a politician. If you want someone who entirely shuns political thinking, then support Kucinich or someone (and say goodbye to the White House). This is precisely what's so exciting about Obama. Yes, he understands politics. But he also understands leadership. Therefore he has a significant chance to actually move the location of "the middle of the road" (similarly to the way Reagan did with his "Morning in America" -- but in the other direction).

It's important to stress that his "teflonness" is not ALL that Obama has going for him, but it's substantive -- in a pragmatic sense -- because it'll help him a great deal in not just "fighting" for a progressive agenda, but actually passing it. Progressives hate the Reagan analogy, but it's fitting, because Reagan actually changed the political and cultural landscape in a substantive way; that is, he changed the way Americans thought about themselves.

For the first time in about 50 years we have a progressive poised to do the same -- but he also happens to be extremely intelligent, curious, dignified, honest, etc. As has been pointed out, he's not perfect (and he's not pretending to be). But he's the right person in the right place at the right time. I'm just thankful he had the wisdom and courage to recognize this and to step up to the plate. Of course, he's got to do a better job of translating these huge throngs from rallies to the polls. But I think that we are really witnessing a very special sort of fellow who may come along in politics only once every generation of two.

I'm afraid there are those that find it more emotionally satisfying "fighting" for a progressive agenda, rather than actually creating a mandate to make it happen. OBAMA IS NOT ABOUT COMPROMISING AWAY OUR AGENDA! He is about finding new ways to communicate this agenda that, because we've had no visionary leadership, has been bogged down for decades! These are exciting times!

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

Mr
Posted by: roscogre on Jun 14, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As you can see, people aren't believing your lies and distractions from the issues. There is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between Obama and McCain. WARMONGERS! MURDERERS! And it's the job of shills like this author to tell us we have a choice. LIAR! Take your damn lies and propaganda and shove it. I hope you burn in hell with the rest of the neo-cons!

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

patriot
Posted by: roscogre on Jun 14, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frank Rich, shill for the new world order!

[« 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