Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

How Do We Seize the Obama Moment?

By Robert L. Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation. Posted August 18, 2008.


Obama will be the president we want him to be if we mobilize support on the progressive issues and ward off the influence of entrenched interests.

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:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

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

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:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

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

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg



Electric. When Barack Obama receives the Democratic presidential nomination before 75,000 people in Denver's Mile High Stadium on the forty-fifth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, new possibilities will be born. A historic candidacy, a new generation in motion, a nation yearning for change. Even the cynics running the McCain campaign might be touched, if they weren't so busy savaging Obama as a vain celebrity not up to the task of leading a nation.

No one should be blinded by the lights. It will take hard work to turn the nomination into victory in a campaign that has already turned ugly. Moreover, even if victorious, Obama will inherit the calamitous conditions wrought by conservative failures -- a sinking economy, unsustainable occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, accelerating climate change, Gilded Age inequality, a broken healthcare system and much more.




Obama will also be limited by the constricted consensus of an establishment not yet able to contemplate the changes needed to set this country right again. To be successful, his presidency will have to be bolder and more radical than now imagined.




A historic candidate, the forbidding conditions and the constricted consensus make it vital that progressives think clearly and act independently in forging a strategy over the next months. The following is a contribution to a rich and ongoing discussion. We invite others to join it at thenation.com in the weeks to come.



A Sea-Change Election





The Obama nomination sets the stage for a sea-change election, one that could not only elect a Democratic President and increased reform majorities in both houses of Congress but also mark a clear turn from the conservative ideas that have dominated our politics for three decades.





In recent weeks, the media -- primed by a Republican strategy contrasting Obama's purported doublespeak with McCain's alleged Straight Talk -- have focused on Obama's compromises and backsliding. Much of the alleged retrenchment has been exaggerated. Some of it -- like his fold on the FISA wiretap bill, mixed signals on trade, the compromise on offshore drilling -- has been clear and deplorable. Many on the left were dismayed as the Obama campaign trotted out advisers from a Democratic bench that had championed the toxic Rubinomics brew of corporate trade and financial deregulation.





These concerns should not distract us from the central reality: this election features a stark ideological contrast. Although marketed as a trustworthy maverick, McCain accurately describes himself as a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" and attests that "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." He is committed to the full Bush catastrophe: continued war in Iraq, more tax cuts for the wealthiest, more corporate trade deals, more deregulation, more hostility toward labor, more conservative social policies and reactionary judges. Indeed, he's Bush on steroids. McCain seeks not only to privatize Social Security but also to unravel employer-based healthcare, leaving people to negotiate alone with insurance companies liberated from regulation. His bellicose posturing on Iran and Iraq is as disastrous as his pledge of impossibly deep cuts in domestic programs. He embraces the corporate economic and trade agenda that has so devastated the American middle class. If he is defeated, it will mark the end of the Reagan era.





Obama clearly offers a change of course. His victory in itself will require overcoming the racial fears that have so long divided this country. He carries a reform agenda -- largely driven by progressives -- into the election: an end to the occupation of Iraq, using the money squandered there to rebuild America; affordable healthcare for all, paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy; a concerted drive for energy independence, generating jobs while investing in renewable energy and conservation. He is committed to empowering labor, to holding corporations and banks more accountable and to challenging our trade policies. A social liberal, his judicial appointees will keep the right from consolidating its hold on the federal judiciary. Obama may not be a "movement" progressive in the way that Reagan was a "movement" conservative, and he may have disappointed activists with his recent compromises, but make no mistake: his election will open a new era of reform, the scope of which will depend -- as Obama often says -- on independent progressive mobilization to keep the pressure on and overcome entrenched interests.





As this is written, an election Obama should win handily is locked in a virtual tie. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns treat the race as a referendum on Obama, with the former focused on getting Americans comfortable with trusting a young African-American with an unusual name, and the Rove minions in the McCain campaign intent on stoking the fears that enabled them to assemble a white majority party in the past.




Obama's campaign will not succeed without the independent efforts of progressive activists. One central task is winning support among wary white blue-collar workers, the core target of the Rovian poison. This will require persuasion as well as mobilization; the work of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Working America, religious groups and others with a base in these communities in swing states will be of critical importance.





Progressives generally -- and independent media and the blogosphere specifically -- can contribute by reminding voters there's a clear choice in this election, with McCain representing the same old, same old. While exposing McCain's doubletalk, his Bush-redux agenda and the money and interests behind the scurrilous right-wing independent expenditure campaigns, progressives can also help build support for reform. The new Health Care for America Now coalition, for example, has the resources to expose McCain's healthcare folly, thereby building a mandate for universal coverage. The antiwar movement should be challenging McCain's saber-rattling on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, helping to strengthen US support for a change in course. With gas prices at the center of American concerns, the environmental alliance around jobs and energy can consolidate support for a concerted drive toward energy independence, while challenging absurd claims that we can drill our way out of the crisis.




Driving Reform





While focusing on what is certain to be a difficult campaign, progressives should start thinking now about strategy for an Obama presidency. Clearly his election and inauguration would mark an exciting moment. At home, a new sense of energy and idealism will be unleashed. Across the world, his election will begin the process of restoring America's ravaged reputation. Not only will Obama usher a new generation into politics, but for the first time a President with experience as a community organizer will have the ability to mobilize directly a dedicated following larger than any other in politics [see our roundtable forum of community organizers].





In the first months of an Obama administration, progressives should be pursuing an inside-outside strategy in relation to the administration. For example, in the transition, we should push to place allies in strategic positions, particularly in the areas of economic policy and national security. The AFL-CIO and other groups are preparing lists of potential candidates. These inside efforts should be complemented by watchdog monitoring and reporting on potential nominees. No free pass should be given to those who drove the financial and trade policies that led to the current economic debacles or supported the invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy fiasco in recent history.




For Obama to achieve his core promises, he will have to push significant reforms early. As Dan Lazare has argued, our entire political system is designed to block reform, not facilitate it. Periods of significant change in American politics are rare, but they feature spasms of furious activity: Roosevelt's first 100 days, Johnson's push in 1964-65, Reagan's reaction in 1981-82. Inevitably, these spasms don't last long before reaction sets in. So it is vital to move rapidly and boldly and across many areas to have any chance at success.




Obama's first decision -- to be made, no doubt, during the transition -- will be the most telling. He has pledged that he will instruct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a sensible plan for ending the Iraq occupation. Already, Democratic security advisers who initially supported the war are calling for "conditional engagement," arguing that the United States can't afford simply to set a timetable to get out. Thus it is vital that the peace movement organize aggressively during the campaign, and mobilize independently and visibly immediately after the election. The Obama White House must have no doubt about the firestorm in Congress, in the streets and within the Democratic Party that would be caused by a retreat from this pledge.




If the Iraq promise is kept, progressives will sensibly work to help define Obama's agenda from the inside and support key parts from the outside. He will lay out a major initiative on jobs and energy. He has said that he'll try to push through healthcare reform quickly -- although that is likely to trigger trench warfare in Congress (and progressives will have to overcome deep internal divisions to ensure that fundamental reform succeeds). Obama will reverse many of the reactionary Bush executive orders, from the global gag rule to secrecy excesses stemming from the "war on terror." His first budget decisions most likely will have to deal directly with a broader stimulus plan to get the economy going. He has pledged to support passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, enabling workers to organize unions without employer harassment.




But Obama will encounter formidable obstacles. He'll face a business lobby girded for battle. Corporations have already begun moving more of their money to Democratic incumbents and are snapping up former Democratic legislators and staffers for their lobbies [see "Dollars for Donkeys" on page 28]. They will do everything they can to stall healthcare and drug-pricing reform, empowerment of workers and re-regulation of Wall Street. Moreover, while Democrats are likely to enjoy larger majorities in both houses, their caucuses are likely to be less progressive as they pick up seats in very conservative, formerly Republican districts.





Progressives will enjoy their greatest strength mobilizing independently to support Obama's promises. We can organize constituent pressure on politicians who are blocking the way, something even a President with Obama's activist network would be loath to do. We can expose the lobbies and interests and backstage maneuvers designed to limit reforms. Now that newspapers increasingly lack the resources for investigation, progressive media, online and off, and the independent progressive media infrastructure -- from The Nation to Media Matters to Brave New Films to The Huffington Post -- must assume a greater role in monitoring the opposition, even as we mobilize activists in targeted districts across the country.





In doing this, we can help give backbone to the Obama agenda, even as we supply muscle and energy to help pass it. The best way to achieve this is to generate large-scale independent-issue campaigns. A clear example is the Healthcare for Americans Now Coalition, which is ready to take on the insurance companies and support the White House's commitment to universal care. The new Half in Ten Campaign, spearheaded by ACORN and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, will help ensure that poverty does not disappear from the agenda. Progressives generally should join the AFL-CIO and Change to Win in their drive to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. The Apollo Alliance and a range of environmental efforts will support the initiative on jobs and energy.




Acting in support of Obama will require challenging legislators in both parties who stand in the way, a task progressives should undertake aggressively. The Service Employees International Union has already taken the lead in announcing a $10 million "accountability program," designed to force politicians to heed the will of their voters, with a new plan -- Justice for All -- as the core vehicle. This should be complemented by other independent efforts, despite likely objections from the Democratic Congressional leadership and possibly the White House. Democrats should be on notice from their own constituents that they will be expected to help move reform, not stand in its way.



The Constricted Consensus





The great challenge for progressives is whether the energy and idealism unleashed by the Obama candidacy -- and the collapse of conservatism -- can expand the limits of the current debate. McCain promises merely more of the same bankrupt policies, but Obama's reform agenda is itself limited by a very constricted establishment consensus that is an obstacle to real change.





On national security, both candidates have pledged to increase the size of the military, adding billions to a bloated budget that already represents nearly half the world's military spending. Both assume America's role as globocop; neither suggests unraveling the US empire of military bases. Both seem intent on deepening the occupation of Afghanistan. Neither has dared to embrace the conservative RAND Corporation's conclusion that the very notion of a "war on terror" is counterproductive, and that aggressive intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy.




Obama has called for a second stimulus plan focused on new energy and rebuilding America, but he hasn't suggested anything like the major public initiatives -- the combination of public investment, revised global economic strategy, industrial policy and financial regulation -- that would be essential to get the real economy moving again while responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change.




Obama has made affordable healthcare for all a centerpiece of his agenda, but he has not addressed the unraveling of the private social contract once delivered through corporations and unions. It will take independent efforts to drive an economic bill of rights, from healthcare to pensions to Social Security to guaranteed paid vacation, in addition to paid sick days and family leave.





Obama laid out promising principles for financial reform in his Cooper Union speech in March, but he hasn't challenged the Wall Street bailout, nor has he mobilized support for policing the shadow banking system that has proved so destructive in its greed.





Obama defends liberal social reforms, but a serious war on poverty -- or an initiative to transform our brutal criminal system of injustice that is devastating the lives of young minority men -- is not yet on the agenda.





And while Obama is a former professor of constitutional law, he hasn't called for dismantling the imperial presidency. It will take independent efforts to reclaim for the Congress and the people the powers Bush has arrogated to the presidency.





This corrosive consensus reflects the entrenched power of the established order. It is enforced by aggressive lobbies -- the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate interests -- and rationalized by well-upholstered house scholars. The establishment's strength is its ability to simply exclude alternatives from serious consideration.





After the first flurry of activity, an Obama administration may well realize that the dire condition of the country demands a far bolder agenda than what is now on the table. Progressives should recognize that an Obama administration would have no alternative but to be one of constant experimentation. We should embrace the best of the public-policy proposals that scholars are developing in our universities and think tanks. These ideas challenge limited assumptions about government and call for everything from dismantling our empire of military bases to curbing the imperial presidency, from passing progressive tax reforms to strengthening the public commons. Again, independent campaigning -- particularly regarding concerns not high on the national agenda -- will help lift issues into the mainstream.




Here it will be vital to sustain a reform infrastructure independent of the administration or the Democratic leadership in Congress. Progressives in the Senate and House, many grouped around the Progressive Caucus, can provide both leadership and a public forum for new ideas. Independent research institutes -- like the Institute for America's Future, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Policy Institute and others -- can help think outside the establishment box. Progressive bloggers can track the limits of the debate and give new ideas greater visibility. Reform leaders at the state and local levels, coordinated by centers like the Progressive States Network, can champion legislation -- like paid sick days, mandated vacation minimums, early childhood education, tighter regulation of insurance companies, creative financing for energy conservation projects -- that will be a model for the national agenda. Grassroots organizing -- neighbor to neighbor, supported by the energy of the young, linked to national concerns -- will be essential if Obama's election is to generate thoroughgoing reform.




When John F. Kennedy was elected President, he too summoned a new generation into politics. While Kennedy's agenda was limited, the energy he unleashed helped build the civilizing movements of the following decades -- the antiwar, civil rights, women's, environmental and gay rights movements.





America now is very different from the America of the 1960s. Those movements, nurtured in the cradle of postwar prosperity, assumed the country could afford to be more just. This generation has grown up with much greater economic insecurity, is laden with debt and is struggling to find decent jobs. It faces an economy that cannot be sustained -- and must be transformed.





But once more a young and exciting candidate, seeking the presidency after a long and failed conservative era, can spark the hope and sense of possibility that carry far beyond his campaign platform. Progressives should be focusing less on the limits of the Obama agenda and more on the possibilities that a successful candidacy opens up.




As a former community organizer, Obama has taught that "real change comes from the bottom up." It comes about by "imagining and then fighting for and then working for -- struggling for -- what did not seem possible before." As President, he will face conflicting pressures, and undoubtedly he will carefully pick his fights. The movement that he has called into being will have little choice but to embrace his charge and mobilize across the country to achieve what "did not seem possible before."



AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.


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

See more stories tagged with: progressives, barack obama

Robert Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.

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:
Obma is right, real change comes from the bottom up
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 18, 2008 4:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former community organizer, Obama has taught that "real change comes from the bottom up." It comes about by "imagining and then fighting for and then working for -- struggling for -- what did not seem possible before."

As a long-time community organizer I can whole-heartedly agree the real change comes from the bottom up.

This is a great article in my opinion, good game plan. I would like to begin a group on Yahoo to circulate petitions respectfully requesting our next president restore the position of special council, and, using Kucinich's articles of impreachment, ask for a complete investigation into our wars and the GWB/CHENEY administration, FISA, torture etc. It's not too late for accountability. After GW leaves office he becomes more vulnerable to laws he could previously ignore claiming executive priviledge. No longer in office, no more executive priviledge. Any one interested in helping with this please let me know. No way can I do it alone. But I absolutely believe the miracles of modern technology and the kindness of the human heart can accomplish some pretty amazing things. I would love to help make this happen, and I think it really might be important.

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

» What Real Change? Posted by: hagwind
» RE: What Real Change? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: What Real Change? Posted by: mmckinl
» Keep hope alive! Posted by: JakobFabian01
» Illiterate much, Plopped it? Posted by: brunowe
» Misreading again Plopped it Posted by: brunowe
» Wrong again Plopped it Posted by: brunowe
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present
Posted by: foreverhope on Aug 18, 2008 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.

~Abraham Lincoln~


*********

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

Really?
Posted by: writerman on Aug 19, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real change can come from lots of places. This idea that it comes from the bottom up is debatable. It's really Marxist wishful thinking and highly debatable. Power brings change, not wishing. Wishing is the Disney ideology. Where power comes from and how it's used and for whose benefit is a vast and complex subject.

Though in a democracy it's supposedly quite simple. The people have power and rule. Yet, surely no one really believes this anymore? Has this ever been an accurate description of the American Republic? It certainly isn't now as we enter the twenty-first century.

I really don't want to sound like a pessimistic cynic, and my family tell me I'm anything but. However, I would caution against imagining that Obama's victory will usher in some kind of "golden age". I'd like it too, but I really doubt it.

That is not the way the American system works. It was built, from the very beginning, for safety not speed. I really wish it was different... but.

Obama is severely constrained not only by the structure and nature of our political system and institutions, but by the character of American capitalism, where wealth and power are so deeply entrenched and disproportionate.

Furthermore he'll inherit something close to an economic slump, the like of which hasn't been seen for a generation, a massive debt mountain, a failing economy, and vastly costly military campaigns. Then there's this war on terror thing, and what to do about Russia and China...

Realistically the best one can hope for is a return to something resembling "sanity" in foreign policy and stabilization of the economy domestically. That'll take up the first term at least, but then he'll be ready for a "let's finish the job we started" second term. And that's if he wins. This, despite it all, isn't certain. President MCain may be are real destiny.

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

Has America Hit Bottom ?
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 19, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just seeing McCain within striking distance tells me no.

" Obama will also be limited by the constricted consensus of an establishment not yet able to contemplate the changes needed to set this country right again. To be successful, his presidency will have to be bolder and more radical than now imagined."

Nothing in Obama's history or current campaign leads me to believe that Obama will pass this test ... in every case his instinct has told him to move right in his positions, his campaign advisors are pure DLC and his major contributors are a "whose who" of what is wrong with this country.

What I am seeing is a sanctimonious people pleaser that doesn't have what it will take to turn this country around. What I am seeing is a bridge to nowhere. McCain is far worse but maybe America hasn't hit bottom yet.

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

I know three things for certain about the upcoming election...
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 19, 2008 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. As a registered Republican since 1956 with a military background, I have never seen a more inspirational leader than Barack Obama.

2. Conversely, no presidential candidate has scared me more than John McCain.

3. This is the most important election of my lifetime -- maybe since our nation was founded.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran (for the benefit of new AlterNet visitors)
Seven reasons to vote against Unfit McCain

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

Meet - and work together.
Posted by: chorton on Aug 19, 2008 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am joining with others in my neighborhood under Move-on.org's sponsorship to watch Obama's acceptance speech, talk and organize. Many of us are distressed by Obama's corporate connections and compromises, and aren't ready to jump on his bandwagon; but we know we can't afford to sit this one out. Either way it goes, this election will mark a turning point.

Borosage and vanden Heuvel point to some areas where we can make a vital contribution: taking the focus off of Obama and onto the issues, possibilities and dangers of the moment; agressively going after Bush/McCain; and starting the talk now about the struggle for a peoples' agenda after the election.

I might add: we also need to start planning now for - and warning of - our actions on the day after the election if and when it becomes apparent that once again it has been stolen. See my comments on this under the "Velvet Revolution" article elsewhere in today's AlterNet.

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

» Good for you! Posted by: Tom Degan
Keep dreaming
Posted by: Blink on Aug 19, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think Obama's only problem is winning the trust of people who think he has a funny name and are hesitant to turn the reins of leadership over to him, you're in a serious state of denial. The guy is a complete empty suit...a naif...worse, a dissembling liar, weakling and puppet who, when he doesn't have his teleprompter in front of him, makes GWB sound like Shakespeare. Anyone who thinks he stands a chance after two of the worst unscripted performances in the history of running for the Presidency (the most recent debate he had with Hillary and now this most recent interview by Rick Warren) has their head stuck so far in the ground they can see the other side of the Earth. After an ostentatious nomination acceptance speech (assuming Hillary doesn't get the nomination after all) that turns the average American off like so much of the O-man's over-the-top performances, followed by what are likely to be three terrible debates against McCain, the O-man is going to lose, and lose big. Nominating this unvetted Big Fraud is the most irresponsible act the Dimwits have done in years -- and that's saying a lot.

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

» Yes, YOU Keep dreaming Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Keep dreaming Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: Keep dreaming Posted by: Blink
» RE: Keep dreaming - Blink! Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Keep dreaming Posted by: edgar1
Say Hallalujuah! By George You got it!
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 19, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If W did anything for this country - he pushed US to the brink of ending this Non-Democracy. they played their hand out too far and now the change we have been waiting decades for can get a second chance!
But Obama is not our 'savior'- WE must take this opportunity to set this country back on it's feet- economically and ethically
The conquering of America did not happen during the last 7 yrs, nor the last 30, it began about a century ago, and has been a low steady free fall.
We must demand the Federal Gov't take back the responsiblities it has sub contracted out
A De- Privatization of essential services and duties for the citizenship.
End the contract with the Private Banking firm "The Federal Reserve"- their allegience to Corps has overridden any obligation to 'Federal' interests, nor has it worked to 'Reserve' anything for the citizens for 'Rainy Days'(US Treasury Dept).They have taken out loans WE never Co signed, putting US and our children in debt to foreign countries for decades to come.
Revoke all US owned land/shore leases to the Oil/Energy corps. Return our resources back to our ownership and control (Dept of Energy)."Energy Independence' means We are beholden to NO ONE!They may continue their companies on property they Own (which we will sell no more too).WE are afford energy needed all excess is then sold to add to our national treasury
Remove all food Items from the Stock market. Set pricing to afford & encourage small farmers. Agribusiness has also proven that it is unable to manage our food supply in a cost effective, safe & humane way.(Dept of agriculture)
End Insurance corps abilitiy to offer minimal healthcare coverage at skyrocketing prices. Support Universal healthcare Conyers HR 676. A health economy begins with a health workforce (current & future).We also owe the elderly proper care and Dignity as they live out their 'golden years'(Dept of health & human services)
End ALL military sub contractors- Halliburton,KBR,Blackwater...We can not assure allegience to US if they are Privately owned, for profit entities- they will work for the highest bidder- a serious conflict of interest and potentially a national security threat- AQ funded and given a safe haven within our own borders.(Dept of Defense)
Return the Free Market to the People and end the Corporationism. corporationism hates and destroys the Free market system- either devours the competition or kills it's innovations (electric Car). Allow workers to become shareholders as a controlling interest.Worker morale, production and quality goes up when there is a sense of Ownership.(US Commerce dept)
Return all constitutional Rights and Freedoms to 'THE PEOPLE' for which it was written for- end corps being allowed to act as Human. They are nothing more than institutions- the Constitution and Bill of rights was NOT written for Brick & Mortar, not even for Gov't agencies.(SCOTUS/Dept of Justice)
The Corps have become the Monarchies which our forefathers escaped and built the guidelines for this Gov't to avoid..It's time we stop acting like 'serfs' and end the Corp fifedoms.
"Rome was not built in a Day", nor can it be toppled. it's taken the Profiteers nearly a century to put US in this position, it will take more than One Presidency to Return Our Country to being 'For the People & by the People'.WE Owe this Effort, the sacrifics we will face, to our Descendants.

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

» RE: Say Hallalujuah! By George You got it! Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
wrensis
Posted by: wrensis on Aug 19, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has failed to endorse his own call for change, his reverses on policy issues has made it clear we are back to politics as usual. Unless you have the money to get in and play dirty in DC you are not about to change anything. Remeber how excited we were to get a majority in the house and new leadership??? If you liked Nancy Pelosi's agenda in the house you are gonna love Obama.

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

» RE: wrensis Posted by: Lauren
» YOU GO CINDY!!! Posted by: edgeofnowhere
The Trouble with the Left
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 19, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was almost floored last month with the infantile reaction of so many members of the Democratic party's base - the left - as they had an absolute hissy fit when Barack Obama repositioned his stand on a lot of issues. What these silly people failed to remembered is Political Rule Number One:

When a Democrat runs in the presidential primaries, the general rule of thumb is to campaign from the left. Once the nomination is securely in hand - you move decidedly to the center. That's just not my personal opinion, folks! That is what is known as POLITICS 101.

Let's all just take a deep breath here, okay?

Barack Obama, like Franklin D. Roosevelt three quarters of a century ago, will ultimately prove to be a very different kind of chief-executive. This is not your father's Democratic politician. Senator Obama is not Jimmy Carter. He's nott Bill Clinton. Relax.

Maybe four years from today, I'll be back on this very site with an omlet on my face, complaining how Barack let us down. But until then, let's give the poor bugger the benefit of the doubt. We might even be pleasantly surprised.

Cheerio! Pip! Pip!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

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

» RE: The Trouble with the Left Posted by: setterwoman
» settlerwoman Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: The Trouble with the Left Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
» RE: The Trouble with the Left Posted by: Southern Gal
» RE: The Trouble with the Left Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: I hope you like your omelets... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
How dare we challenge
Posted by: anothername on Aug 19, 2008 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Katrina v.H.'s unabashed promoting of Obama during the primary, both in The Nation and on National Public Radio's "On Point," where she let every inaccuracy and slam against Clinton by a caller slip by without challenge but sang the generic praises of Obama without any critical inquiries by the host, has left me with zero respect for The Nation and a radio dial that is no longer tuned into "On Point."

When I attended an event where both Obama and his former organizing mentor were, I realized Obama doesn't really have the organizing experience he wants people to believe he acquired while in his job. (As for an earlier poster's comment about non-profits and change, all the non-profits for which I've worked, sat on the board, volunteered, and have otherwise been involved have one thing in common, the people with the money and the people who can devote enormous amounts of time, are the people who control the agenda and the goals.)

There are many Americans who would entertain voting for Obama, had media, such as The Nation, fellow citizens, such as those on AlterNet, and others had only bothered to give us specific policy, history, and other reasons to vote for Obama (as opposed to McCain), instead of merely teling us how wrong we are for considering any other candidate, for not falling at Obama's feet in awe, and for daring to ask about his qualifications, not just his credentials.

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

» More of the same......... Posted by: LionHeart
One more thought:
Posted by: Tom Degan on Aug 19, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must remember that this is a country packed to the rafters with people who in 2000, seriously believed that sending a murderous, half-witted little thug like George W. Bush to the White House was just a dandy idea! As if that weren't bad enough, four years later, they compounded that mistake be repeating it.

To put it a diferent way: Barack Obama has the unenviable task of appealing to a nation of idiots. The next two and a half months will find the good senator saying a lot of nutty and stupid things in order to appease a nation chock full o' nutty and stupid people. That is the only way one can get elected president in this country!

Let's face some serious facts here, campers: These are people who must be pandered to. We're talkin' lowest common denominater here!

Think about it.

Tom Degan
Jerome Corsi is a Liar and a Pervert

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

» RE: One more thought: Posted by: Lauren
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: jstepp590
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: CatDad
» RE: CatDad Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: One more thought: Posted by: Charley2u
bluesman
Posted by: Bob Horn on Aug 19, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media is part of the coming swift-boating of Obama. It is like playing a football game vs a time that has the refs on their payroll. The other team (the Republicans) don't believe in having ruls, only power, so the refs will call you for offsides when you are still in your hudle. They will call you for intentional grounding while you are on defence. They will call you for clipping when you are clipped. We are in a situation like Germany in 1929 when the Social Democrats were trying to talk to and negotiate with Hitler and Hitler had no intention of negotiating. We have to all know 10 people we can trust to speak with politically and build the underground resistence movement that can bring democracy back someday. In the meantime, voting for Obama is a good idea in order to educate the world around the fact that the Republicans are in fact, Nazi's.

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

» RE: bluesman Posted by: Tom Degan
GREAT JOB!! Borosage and VanDen Heuvel are batting almost 1000!
Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H on Aug 19, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the double-play ball:
"Although marketed as a trustworthy maverick, McCain accurately describes himself as a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution"....If he is defeated, it will mark the end of the Reagan era."

I suspect that it will not be that easy. If we succeed gloriously for two years, four years, or a hundred, greed will still be there in the hearts of the money addicts. If we can hold them off for a century, we will not eliminate Reaganitis: There will always be a corps of enablers ready to take out another Contract On America.

As Bill Moyers has said, we are in the fight of our lives, but don't think we'll crush our opponents now or ever: The real "change we need" must be in ourselves and how we raise our children. Generations will fight this battle. Will we arm them with Reason, Respect for Truth, and a grasp of History, or will we let the American Dream sing them songs of submission and blissful ignorance?

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

The two-party system, and checks and balances
Posted by: Hans B on Aug 19, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really an excellent argument for working to influence the Dems rather than mount a third-party challenge which can only benefit the Repubs. As a European, I always used to vote Green until I realized that I was being had: no matter how many parties there are, only two have a real chance of gaining power. And when one side is split, the other side walks off with the bone.

There is just one point on which I think this article is mistaken: where it says that Obama won't dismantle the imperial presidency. I really am astonished that the Supreme Court's Boumedienne decision, and the two candidates' reaction to it, is so little discussed in the US. To summarize: five Justices (the majority) ruled that the president cannot do away with habeas corpus, that is, that the president cannot imprison anyone he likes for as long as he likes without any challenge being possible. Habeas corpus is the foundation of freedom and the cornerstone of the US Constitution; but four Justices voted against it. And McCain promised to nominate Justices who'd join those four, while Obama promised the opposite. This shows very clearly that Obama believes in checks and balances while McCain wants to reinforce the imperial presidency - whether for himself or for some other Republican president to come (they'd have plenty of time to create a fascist state: the SCOTUS majority created by the next president will be in place for decades).

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

Re: Freedom of Choice Act
Posted by: Bob H. on Aug 19, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you heard the opposition on this?

Re: no more secret ballots = no choice, no freedom. Please investigate!!

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

Seize the moment by letting go of the past
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 19, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is NOT Reagan or anybody else. History is
important but sometimes we sound like a nation of very old ladies still talking about labor pains they had 50 years ago. We are living in unprecedented times. We need a far above average leader and we have a man who can meet that need.The past matters, but can't be allowed to stall every debate. We can't just burn down all the banks & Wall St. That's not the cure. What we had for 8 yrs. didn't work. Now we have to work with someone who has a plan that will. A lttle perspective! Thanks, ANNA

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

Pick
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 19, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In all honesty, I am not crazy about Obama but, considering the only other choice is "McBush", Obama is clearly the lesser of the two evils.

RD
Ultimate Anonymity

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

Obama and false progressive dogmas will maintain corporate wars.
Posted by: jcrw on Aug 19, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Obama will be the president we want him to be if we mobilize support on the progressive issues and ward off the influence of entrenched interests."

This first sentence encapsulates the unending fallacy of progressive politics that supports Obama and the Democratic Party.

No one individual can overthrow the "influence of entrenched interests" of the military-industrial complex, the corporate controlled mass media, the privatization of the federal government.

Obama has reached the tentative position he now holds only by becoming completely subsurvient to these "entrenched interests". Obama wants to continue the war and redeploy troops. Obama wants to maintain corporate profit in his health-care proposals. He has not temporarily watered-down "progressive" views because he never had them.

Kucinich was kicked out of the primary debates because he dared to question the unending war agenda supported by both Democratic and Republican parties.

There are several important alternatives to voting in November for "lesser evil" Obama, including the Greens (McKinney) or anti-corporate Ralph Nader.

A massive vote for McKinney over 5% will secure the Greens a place on the national ballot in future federal elections. A national party to challenge the corporate bi-partisan foreign and domestic would be the greatest change possible out of this election.

The day after the election we need to build this party. We need to inform and educate millions of people, run candidates at every level of government, to represent the economic and social needs of working people and not continue the plunder of the global economy by the corporations.

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

» The 5% rule Posted by: Hans B
» You can't be trusted. Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: You can't be trusted. Posted by: GuitarBill
You Don't Get It.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Aug 19, 2008 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Much of the alleged retrenchment has been exaggerated. Some of it -- like his fold on the FISA wiretap bill, mixed signals on trade, the compromise on offshore drilling -- has been clear and deplorable. Many on the left were dismayed as the Obama campaign trotted out advisers from a Democratic bench that had championed the toxic Rubinomics brew of corporate trade and financial deregulation."

You just don't get it.

New boss just like the old boss. Obama is a corporate shill like McCain.

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

» RE: You Don't Get It. Posted by: hrayovac2
» RE: You Don't Get It. Posted by: douglashoyt
The High Road and Low Road. Who is on Which?
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Aug 19, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Traditionally, candidates seem to have two ways to travel during an election: the high road and the low road. Obviously this is oversimplified drivel but it is true that a candidate and his campaign team will choose the general direction of their strategy. It is becoming very transparent that McCain has chosen neither but has opted for some subterranean, miasmic nether world where he can spew out his calumnies about Obama.

There are several underlying themes to these egregious, craven attacks. One of these themes originated in a transgressive, patently outrageous book written by Jerome Corsi of swift boat notoriety titled The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. Setting the tone for the campaign, Corsi defines Obama as a dangerous radical liberal who is subversively trying to ingratiate himself with the voters in order to win the election so that he can implement his real and nefarious agenda. This claim is unadulterated, inane, and pernicious nonsense. Progressive democrats are imploring Obama to return to the progressive policies that he espoused during the primaries. As well, I am a Canadian where the so-called ruling party, the Liberals, are far more left than Obama in that they created a single-payer, government-run healthcare system and believe in subsidized housing and daycare. The only people to whom these policies are a danger are corporations and the wealthy that might have to pay their fair share of taxes. We even have a party further to the left of the liberals, the New Democratic Party, who has governed in four provinces none of whom went neither bankrupt nor organized collectives.

The second major theme for attacking Obama is his lack of courage and leadership qualities which are needed to protect the security of the United States. It’s the swift boat attacks all over again which were partly responsible for sinking John Kerry. While McCain thumps his chest with knuckles that drag on the ground over the Russian attacks on Georgia, even Bush becomes overshadowed by the deafening roar emanating from McCain’s lips. McCain is hoping that the public will swallow these blatantly meretricious images. Examining Obama’s record, he has supported all the funding bills for the Iraq occupation in the Senate, has taken a tough stand on Pakistan and Iran, and has proposed sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obviously to weak as far as McCain is concerned.

Unfortunately, these kinds of attacks, exploiting people’s fears, frequently resonate with voters. It is important that the Obama campaign actively and aggressively prove these malicious attacks are pure bull****.

http://www.stateofdarkness.com

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

Focus and fight against the tactics of Rove and Davis's, not Obama
Posted by: hrayovac2 on Aug 19, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The task is not to hold Obama's feet to the fire. You will lose everything if you waste time and energy on that. Obama is very aware already and doesn't need the "focus group" mentality that Clinton or Kerry warranted. He is not a corrupt individual isolated from the real world, though that fact may surprise some on the left. Focus energy on attacking back against the fabrications coming from right wing and media about Obama. This is the most effective way to bring about the presidency you want. We must attack in ways that Obama is not allowed to do..such as pointing out that McCain filmed propaganda for the N Viet Cong while imprisoned. Attack on character..Keating five. His first marriage. These are legitimate issues that Obama wisely must not pursue himself, but we can.

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

Too little too late ! The damage is already FUCKING done !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 19, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife got a kick out of reading this silly article and asked this question, "Why in the world would anyone trust a guy who allows his campaign to consult Faux Noise for 'permission slips'?" Face it people. Obama has DISGRACED himself by pulling a "John Mccain" flip flop of his own. If all you want is another flip-flopper, Mccain and Obama are your best choices. Otherwise, try 3rd party independent progressives/liberals such as Ralph Nader, Cynthia Mckinney, etc ...

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

Close but no cigar
Posted by: libertybill on Aug 19, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were asked, ‘How do we seize the moment?’ of the 72 comments there was some spit and fire but pissing on a forest fire just won‘t get it! Obama wants to win the hearts of slavering McCanites with beautiful rhetoric and pure logic along with a crablike sidle to their camp but appeasement isn’t going to tame the implacable boneheads. Playing nice while the enemy (is that description too harsh?) is aiming for your jugular is the wrong assessment of your opponent. Obama, just like Pelosi, is completely ignoring the 80% of the VOTERS that are demanding a full and complete accounting of the crimes the Bush/Cheney administration committed against the American people. CHANGE doesn’t mean ‘go along to get along’ and it doesn’t mean a glacial move to nowhere. WE don’t need the audacity of band aids that Obama thinks will work what we need is a complete catharsis by IMPEACHING Bush/Cheney thugs and resuscitate the United States Constitution!

I hope you have heard the before because I’ve said it so often:

Nothing will be accomplished; absolutely nothing of any value will be passed, until George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are held accountable for all of their illegal acts and crimes against the American people!!!

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

» RE: Close but no cigar Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Close but no cigar Posted by: Charley2u
There'll be no leverage on Obama after election
Posted by: gorthaur on Aug 19, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article's description of a 'constricted consensus' makes sense to me -- but I see Obama as part of the constriction. The article cites numerous egregious shortcomings in Obama's positions, but then holds out the hope that somehow post-election he will change his mind or be pressured to do so.

If he goes along with illegal wiretapping and illegal wars now, when he is in the spotlight trying to distinguish himself from the Republicans, what makes anyone think he will be different after the election? What pressure could anyone bring to bear then more than they can now, when his nomination is at stake?

I'm tired of attempts to frighten me into voting for center-right Democrats because the evil Republican will be worse. That makes some short-term sense, but is a recipe for irrelevance of the left. The Democratic party has been moving steadily to the right the past 30 years, and they will continue to do so as long as they can take progressives' votes for granted, rather than being forced to earn them by espousing progressive positions.

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

» THANK YOU! Posted by: CatDad
No he won't!
Posted by: logansafi on Aug 19, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Obama will be the president we want him to be if we mobilize support on the progressive issues and ward off the influence of entrenched interests.'

When an opinion piece starts off from such an obviously ridiculous assumption as the one above, it really is hardly worth the read. What is alternet trying to do with putting this fluff on its site? Trying to be another MoveOn?

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

» RE: No he won't! Posted by: Dboy
The Fantasy of War Crimes Tribunals
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Aug 19, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BushCo has managed to elude every single authority including the Constitution, with respect to every single decision that admin has made.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that ANYONE in that admin will be punished for ANYTHING they've done in the last 8 years.

Indeed, you will watch this take place: without exception, every single Bush crony will be granted a pardon. That will seal it. No one can be prosecuted for ANYTHING once that happens.

No one. Stop living in your fantasyland about charging Bushco with war crimes. It will never happen. You all must live in the present tense. They won. THEY BEAT YOU already.

Now we have to play a different game out of the wreckage they left behind. And Obama knows it.

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

» The cool approach Posted by: edgar1
All these sad and deluded people
Posted by: vangogh69 on Aug 19, 2008 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel for the writer of the article and the many you see today wearing their "OBAMA" shirts or bumper-stickers endorsing "change." Only in a nation full of intellectual depravity and degradation could people expect so much from a candidate who really promises so little. The latest theocratic debate not only endorses the thoroughly unconstitutional concept of "church AND state" but affirms that Obama is an equivocator, and one who barely disguises his moves to the right.

Obama is also on record as supporting the so-called "War on Terror"; the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; Israel; the blockade of Cuba; and anti-women's rights (see Warren discussion). Oh, and for those who think what the Democrats in Congress need is a majority, let them and Obama show you the light: they are all a part of the plutocratic party and quite unwilling to change the status quo.

What the US needs at this point, really, is a revolution, not a candidate with whom they can believe in "hope" and "change", whatever it is.

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

Anti-imperialism is not anti-American.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 19, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I realize that imperialism, in general, is not a specific policy or program. But I am weary of opposition to American imperialism being attacked as anti-American.

Opposition to American imperialism is pro-American. Only those who have delusions of grandeur mixed with napoleonic fantasies (add to that investments in the arms and munitions businesses) buy into imperialism.

I realize also that it will take decades to confront the imperial delusions that now are fomented in the US. But with Vietnam and with Iraq and now with Georgia, etc., the evidence is in. Had we put one tenth the support into the UN as we put into the pentagonization of the US, we'd be far ahead of where we find ourselves now.

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

If your going to support any candidate, better do the research....
Posted by: Prophit on Aug 19, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... before you bow down in awe of that candidate.

Obama has Zbig Brzsinski on his campaign staff, one of 6 CFR advisors. Here are some quotes from Zbig's book called "The Grand Chessboard: American primacy with a geopolitical imperative". This is the man who is guiding Obama on foreign affairs. Once you get into his book, you begin to understand what Iraq and Iran are really all about... they are part of the efforts to surround Eurasia and to dominate the region for control of that subcontinents natural and human resources. Read his quotes that I give you here very carefully. You will get the picture and Russia is the big one that has to fall first.

Will Obama be implimenting that agenda as Cheney and Bush are now doing by aiding Georgia in a small local conflict using US troops sent there in July 2007??? Cheney worked with Zbig under bush Sr in the 80's. Isreal has sent $1 billion dollars to this little podunk MUSLIM country (I thought all muslims wanted to destroy Israel, isn't that why we invaded Iraq in part, and threatening Iran as well???) and Israel also sent 1000, count them 1000 advisors to Georgia.

There is a map in the book that shows where Zbig felt the launching point for this domination would have to be and guess where it showed???? YOU GUESSED IT, ITS IN GEORGIA.

Another problem, Plum Island under USDA has just stated on their website they are giving Georgia a potent virus called "The African SWINE flu" Virus. That is a "pig" virus.

Now what country is the largest importer and consumer of pork??? You guessed it again....RUSSIA. So, why??? Why did we give Georgia the African Swine flu virus....???

Will this crap continue under Obama with Zbig as his advisor??? That is what I want an answer to and soon. Does anyone have any idea the ramifications of this to us if Russia figures out what we are doing??? Already they are sending a fleet to Venezuela and that fleet includes nuke subs. That means this could end up on our soil and we will have first hand experience in what the Iraqi civilians have gone through.

The quotes from Zbig show his complete lack of caring for the humanitarian considerations involved in his grand scheme for world domination. These quotes I have given you show he knows that in a democracy primacy/empirebuilding is not supported due to the cost in human lives and expense, thus he mentions that if defensive, then the democracy will come along.... sounds like Goebbels.

Add this together with Obama's world tour and his speaking of "world order" and "new world" and it appears he is buying into the grand scheme.

Here is the website for the Plum Island facility of the USDA regarding that swine flu. Check out the dates for this operation... begins now and ends in 2010. Remember the New American Century think tank paper called Pax Americana? Well, there was a phrase in there that scared me...... 'use of bioweapons BY GENOTYPE for political purposes'.

USDA project with Georgia


Now read these quotes from Zbig in his book and they each have the page number it was taken from. Spend the 9 or 10 dollars to buy this book if you want to know what Obama is going to be doing in foreign affairs. You will have been warned if you read it and can confront him on it. Make him sign a contract with us that he will not advance Zbigs agenda.

(QUOTES CON'T ON NEXT POST)

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

» My response........... Posted by: Prophit
» Zbig the Impaler Posted by: edgar1
so why Obama?
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 19, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors correctly state:

" The establishment's strength is its ability to simply exclude alternatives from serious consideration."

That is exactly what Obama has done. Exclude real alternatives to the stranglehold the investment banks and international currency speculators have over practically every nation on earth, except for Fascist China which is in effect a Nazi-like investment bank posing as a nation.

These very intelligent authors write an odd article. They diagnose the disease, and then urge the patient to choose the disease, instead of the long-term, if difficult therapy necessary to make sure the real powers behind Obama and McCain are eventually vanquished.

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

» RE: so why Obama? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: so why Obama? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: so why Obama? Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: so why Obama? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: so why Obama? Posted by: foius
A Simple Choice
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Aug 19, 2008 2:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of conspiracy theories are abounding here. The extreme leftists want Obama to be their Marxist candidate, while the trolls excoriate him for being even one nanometer off the extreme right.

Good god, people. It's really a choice between two simple ideas.

Do you want a 20th century candidate, who relates to 20th century voters and ideas, and who won't make it very far into this century

OR

Do you want a candidate that represents the 21st century, who is looking forward to the 21st century playing field, and who is adding 21st century voters to his roster in DROVES.

It's pretty obvious who represents those two centuries. And really, they're light years apart with respect to their approach to problem solving.

It's really down to those two simple choices. Everything else is a matter of who they're funded by and who they will muster when it comes to solving problems.

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

This is not rocket science
Posted by: radical53 on Aug 19, 2008 3:08 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How do we seize the Obama moment? Elect him!

Don't stay at home on election day, even if you preferred Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich. Don't stay at home on election day, even if you think both candidates are supported by special interests.
Don't stay at home on election day, even if you think both parties are bought and paid for.
Don't stay at home on election day, even if you think we need more radical change than either candidate can provide.
Don't stay at home on election day, even if you think it isn't cool.

There is a big difference between Obama and McCain. It will affect issues of war and peace and jobs and the economy.

Get off your ass and vote!

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

» RE: This is not rocket science Posted by: cmaciain
dreams and hope... don't go far
Posted by: grkjr on Aug 19, 2008 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you gotta be kidding.. i am left to conclude that we are a bunch of "dreamers"... the bottom up strategy has never worked in this country.. bush isn't in power because we wanted to loose our freedoms out of fear of terrorists...he did not give the wealthy lower taxes because the people willed it....and congress doesn't keep us in iraq out of a popular vote.... and the "new deal" was not the product of a ground bottom up movement... you must be observing a different country...Most all movements in this country (certainly those that count) come from the top down and it worked as long as we had statesmen at the helm. Todays problems are the result of our elected leaders, at the top, who think entirely different than the common man..and we WE keep sending them back. A 3rd party is the only way out of this mess as obama has already shown his dedication to the status quo.. 3rd party now or watch us bury ourselves and our future.

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

Obama is no progressive
Posted by: cmaciain on Aug 19, 2008 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is anyone on the left even seriously thinking of him? His performance at Saddleback was nauseating and his religious lovey dovey crap with the right wing was vile. How can anyone support this man who doesn't give damn one about civil rights (nice throwing gays under the bus, Obama), couldn't care less about the Constitution (FISA, anyone?), and while squalling about the Iraq war never ONCE stood up and said "Hey, no more war funding'? The only reason I keep hearing is "he's not McCain." He's still war mongering, still playing patty cake with the corporations and doing everything McCain is! Offshore drilling, anyone?

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

» RE: Obama is no progressive Posted by: Hans B
» RE: Obama is no progressive Posted by: cmaciain
This nation is obviously disgustingly racist
Posted by: blogbooks on Aug 19, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hence the fact that the vast majority of blacks will be voting for Obama strictly on racial grounds.

I am not black.

Ergo, I will be choosing to join America's racist blacks in voting along racial lines.

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

"He's not McCain"
Posted by: chlamor on Aug 19, 2008 5:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"He's not McCain"

Repeat after me, "He's not McCain."

Hope(TM) does funny things to the mind. For example people might think they can somehow affect Obama, a self-proclaimed lover of the free market and centrist Democrat, and centralized capital by political influence from within a system that is fully corrupted a system that completely ignores their every wish.

"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history,sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal,by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal". That's basically it,plain and simple.The problem is that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers,the original Progressives were a bunch of Bolsheviks compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.

Many of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism and conservatism. If you understood this history you would not waste all your time and effort into trying to make "liberals", "progressives"and The Democratic Party in particular into the socialists they might want them to be.

All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what. It's all bullshit.

Obama is a company man. He knows the language, the subtle and overt signals, and emits them like a beacon. Ruling circles have gotten the message, and that is why corporate media have made him a contender, and corporate billfolds have financed him.

The scam of this still-new century enthralls and envelopes the nation, a narrowly-packaged farce in which political twin parties pretend they are not joined at the hip on every public policy issue that has been allowed to enter the corporate media-vetted discourse: health care, Iraq, trade. Even these points of (non)contention disappear in the din of purely commercial marketing mantras with infinitely malleable meanings: "Change," "Hope," "Reform."

When no real change is offered - when both frontrunners are wedded to a lingering presence in Iraq and to reestablishing U.S. hegemony in the world; when insurance and drug companies are left virtually untouched by duos' tepid forays into broadening health care coverage; and when neither offers a whisper of an idea on halting the corporate-engineered global Race to the Bottom, then it is certain that, although "change" may come, it will be at the direction of the rich who have brought the nation and planet to the very brink of catastrophe.

But then, Obama would never have risen so quickly and remarkably to his current position of dominant media favor and national prominence if he was anything like the egalitarian and democratic “progressive” that some liberals and leftists imagine. In the corporate-crafted and money-dominated swamp that passes for “representative democracy” in the U.S., concentrated economic and imperial power open and close doors in ways that preemptively suffocate populist potential. Big money is not in the business of promoting genuine social justice or democracy activists.

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

» RE: "He's not McCain" Posted by: GuitarBill
Business As Usual
Posted by: Sparks56 on Aug 19, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was/am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I will support Obama, but I get the feeling he rode the progressive band wagon to get past Hillary, and now it's business as usual. I still don't believe Obama has the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done. He certainly hasn't demonstrated any up to now.
I hope I'm wrong.

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

the o'bumble moment has passed...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Aug 19, 2008 6:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
at this point..the only hope for keeping john mccain out of the oval office is for the sups to hand the nomination back to hillary...how ironic..that hillary has become the "hope" candidate all of a sudden...

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

mike Munk
Posted by: lastmarx1 on Aug 19, 2008 8:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why wait to organize influence on Obama until after after the election? Right now, we should be protesting his "me too" position on Georgia and ask him to stop relying on Stephen Sestanovich, his foreign policy advisor who has hosted dinner parties for Mr. Saakashvili in Washington.

And we should push for labor's single payer HR 636 NOT the private insurance protecting "Health care for America Now" group touted by Mr. Brossage.

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

Obama Bad (McCain Worse) -- It's Good Cop / Bad Cop
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Aug 19, 2008 10:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call the creature McBama O'Cain for the Kool-Aid State as others have done.

This article is another in an endless line of nonsense put out by the phony "left".

The Good Cop / Bad Cop show is obviously in service of a de facto FASCIST state that rules DC and the media like the prostitute paymaster it resembles.

Anyone that can't see this is living a fantasy for profit or delusion. Like the "candidates" themselves, the 1st option is despicable and the second is hardly better.

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

» Yep Posted by: GuitarBill
Really...?
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Aug 20, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you think about it McInSane should not have a snowballs chance in Hades after the Shrub-Cheney show. Democraps should be able to even run the wimps Gore-Kerry again and win...or even someone dumber.

But the polls show otherwise.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press today released the latest national poll that shows a nip-and-tuck presidential race.
Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain 46 percent to 43 percent among registered voters, barely outside the poll's margin of error.

Obama's edge is down from 48 percent to 40 percent in the same poll in June and 47 percent to 42 percent last month.

"Two factors appear to be at play in shifting voter sentiment," the pollsters say. "First, McCain is garnering more support from his base - including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants - than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period.

Secondly and more generally, the Arizona senator has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done."

Obama, meanwhile, has made little headway in increasing support among core Democrats, the pollsters say. And he's having trouble solidifying the backing of former rival Hillary Clinton's loyalists. About 72 percent say they will vote for Obama, while McCain is getting 88 percent support among those who favored his GOP rivals.

Obama has severed ties with his base and is sliding to the Repuke side on most issues. So what do you think people are going to do? Vote for a Republican-like candidate or the real thing? Most will go for the real thing if they want a Repuke.

For me its a choice between Shrub-lite or Shrub-like (McInsane). I will choose neither and be voting my conscience for a third party this year.

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

» Damn it, good for you!!!! Posted by: Prophit
Not inspired by your argument...
Posted by: Charley2u on Aug 23, 2008 7:59 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. You show the weakness of pouring so much energy into electing a president when only the Congress has the power to deliver on his promises.

2. Even on those things you do not agree with Obama, it is Congress, not Obama, who will make them happen or not happen.

3. The only restraint on the imperial delusions of the Presidency is Congress.

Your argument is weak at best, and probably dangerous, since it focuses the efforts of so many on an office of little real constitutional power outside the area of military affairs.

Had you considered this, you would be calling on your forces to drive out every congress person who voted to support the war, fund it, and who did not stand to impeach the president for his war and domestic crimes.

It is just astonishing that after all these years of the Bush II presidency, so many get it so wrong on so much.

It is depressing.

http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/

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

Slick Willie Move Over, Here Comes Obama
Posted by: Rainfish on Aug 24, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama sells out the GLBT community again at so-called “Faith Forum“ Aug. 16,2008.

Obama begins: "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

He is interrupted by the crowd's thunderous applause and pig-like squeals.

Obama continues: “For me as a Christian it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

He should have taken the opportunity to add: “...oh, and by the way, I am not a Muslim and I did not sleep with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”

Wow! So Obama thinks that “God’s in the mix” at the “sacred union” of every hetero multiple-divorced and remarried wedding farce, but God must be out to lunch at same-sex nuptial ceremonies. Or maybe God just passed out in the punch bowl there and forgot about us, or lost track of the time so He couldn’t make our wedding.

God's apology might read: “Oops! I missed your unholy wedding. Sorry, I couldn’t be in the “mix” at your non-sacred union. I got “mixed” up. Was it at two o’clock or three o’clock? My bad. Me damn me.”

So, in other words (Obama’s that is), God likes Straights. God not so fond of Homosexuals. Our nuptials are not “sacred“, therefore they must be pagan or something. Hmmm…where’s a Wiccan priest when you need one?

Hard to believe Obama went to law school and doesn’t grasp the concept of Religious Marriages versus Civil Marriages -- oh, and by the way, Obama’s own church supports the “sacred union” of same-sex marriages. So how does that jive with Obama’s “deeply held religious beliefs”? It certainly doesn’t come from his own denomination, the very liberal United Church of Christ. Gosh, I smell another slick Willie here.

Obama then says: "I am not someone who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. . . . I don't think [they] inhibit in any way what my core beliefs are." He says he can afford (some) civil rights to gay couples without compromising his faith.

I never thought I'd live to see the day that a formerly oppressed minority would get all "Jim Crow" on another minority, and then be so proud about it. "Separate but equal(?)" indeed -- how shameful.

Oddly, the Christian Right overwhelmingly supports McCain over Obama (imagine that) and yet here Obama is throwing raw meat to the very same wolves who would have our bones (and his) for breakfast. And there are still so-called "Liberals" who would support this hypocrite because Obama doesn’t have a problem with members of the GLBT community sitting at the back of the bus -- as long as the GLBT community knows their place. Jeeez!

And some "liberals" call us selfish for wanting the same rights they take so easily for granted. Selfish like Martin Luthern King who fought for the civil rights of his people when there was an even bigger war going on in the 60s. Remember Vietnam anyone?

President Johnson sacrificed the Southern vote in order to support civil rights for Blacks. What would Obama sacrifice for us?

No, Obama is not the great Messiah. Just remember, Ronald Regan nominated U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion in the pro-gay ruling in Romer -v- Evans and wrote the majority decision in striking down the ignorant so-called "sodomy" laws nationwide in Lawrence -v- Texas. And a Republican Chief Justice on the California Supreme Court wrote the deciding opinion decreeing same-sex marriage in that state.

I have generally voted with the Democrats in most elections -- although I am an Independent. But I will not allow my vote to be taken for granted and neither should any of you. If you demand to be heard, you just might be -- if you don’t, then you make yourself even more irrelevant than you are now. That’s the real choice.

(c) Bud Evans

[« 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