Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2008.


A who's who guide to the people poised to shape Obama's foreign policy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Click here to view this guide as a single page.

U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."

Amid the euphoria over Obama's election and the end of the Bush era, it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually looked like. Bill Clinton's  boiled down to a one-two punch from the hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S. militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq (ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.

Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what Noam Chomsky described as the "New Military Humanism." Sudan and Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and "free trade" deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations, giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors. Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.

The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances. Among them:

-- His plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;

-- An Iraq plan that could turn into a downsized and rebranded occupation that keeps U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future;

-- His labeling of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization;"

-- His pledge to use unilateral force inside of Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;

-- His position, presented before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;

-- His plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;

-- His refusal to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.

Obama did not arrive at these positions in a vacuum. They were carefully crafted in consultation with his foreign policy team. While the verdict is still out on a few people, many members of his inner foreign policy circle -- including some who have received or are bound to receive Cabinet posts -- supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some promoted the myth that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. A few have worked with the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, whose radical agenda was adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration. And most have proven track records of supporting or implementing militaristic, offensive U.S. foreign policy. "After a masterful campaign, Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in,'" notes veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s.


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

See more stories tagged with: iraq, afghanistan, robert gates, barack obama, hillary clinton, bill clinton, rahm emanuel, joe biden, madeleine albright, richard holbrooke, dennis ross, anthony lake, martin indyk, susan rice, john brennan, jami miscik, sarah sewall, lee hamilton, yugoslavia

Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies. He is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army and is a frequent contributor to The Nation and Democracy Now! He is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
Why did the author conveniently forget to mention......
Posted by: Prophit on Nov 20, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. many of these appointees are ROCKEFELLERS CFR, AIPAC dual Israeli citizens and the similarity to the Bush administration as far as where they come from?? Some are ex Goldman Sachs people or affiliated. Why solely pick on the Clinton administration?

Is it to take attention away from the real danger here? Just wondering? And if your going to do something like that, why not just put Hillary in there anyway. Why get a front person?

The danger is how much these people are heavily involved in the CFR and the Fascist agenda it has of world domination and governance by private industry and banking while losing SOVEREIGNTY without out going through the appropriate processes for doing so. That is the danger here.



http://www.cfr.org/publication

/9903/sovereigntyandglobalisation.html

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

» RE: My name describes my feelings. Posted by: HillbillyBob
» Abomination Posted by: Teller
» REvolution, anyone? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: volution, anyone? Posted by: Dboy
» RE: volution, anyone? Posted by: HillbillyBob
» Face it we're fucked... Posted by: TJColatrella
corporate neoliberals vs. militaristic neoconservatives
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 20, 2008 1:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both share the same basic agenda of maintaining the U.S. global superpower status, and both support the global network of U.S. military bases that provide the U.S. with that "superpower" status.

Some described the difference as that between "the world's policeman" and "the world's vigilante". That was the opinion of at least one British law lord, Lord Bingham who has described the invasion of Iraq as illegal under widely recognized international law:

"He referred to a written parliamentary statement made by Lord Goldsmith on 17 March 2003 in which he confirmed that war on Iraq would be legal on the grounds of existing UN resolutions.

Lord Bingham said: "This statement was flawed in two fundamental respects.

"It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had."

"Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months."


So, that's the neocon legacy: illegal invasions based on lies, which the media parroted. This includes people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, John Ashcroft, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Negroponte, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, etc: www.ruckus.org/warprofiteers

As far as military adventurism, yes, the Clintons played that game in Yugoslavia with the complete backing of the establishment - and as a result, there's now a giant and permanent U.S. military base in the region, the KBR-constructed-and-operated Camp Bondsteel, in Kosovo.

The best way to send a strong signal to the Obama administration that such behavior won't be tolerated is to keep the focus on the neoliberal agenda, which is pro-NAFTA, anti-U.S. labor, and only serves the interests of international corporations, not of the U.S. public.

Another necessary step is to be sure that the crimes of the Bush Administration aren't allowed to vanish quietly into the history books. If they are prosecuted for their lies about Iraqi WMDs, that will send a signal to other politicians, and will make them think twice before trying to start wars on false pretenses.

Notice also that Obama isn't Dennis Kucinich, as was obvious from the very first days of the campaigns - recall when Kucinich was excluded from the debates? It was right after he brought up the issue of the war in Iraq and oil, which Stephanopolous really didn't want to talk about.

So, don't act all shocked if you find that Obama pursues a center-right, pro-corporate, pro-coal and pro-nuclear agenda that puts the interests of the American citizen last. Based on the behavior of every single U.S. president since FDR, that's what he'll do: be just another slave to the military-industrial complex. At least, that's what I think in my more cynical moments - so maybe not. Maybe he really is a phenomenal leader who recognizes the need for truly fundamental change in how the U.S. does business globally - we'll see.

Also, this article seems to be a bit cherrypicked - and if this is "the worst of the worst", then they're still a hundred times better than BushCo.

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

» it's all a part of the plan... Posted by: Elmowilcox
Read for yourself what Obama is planning to do...
Posted by: Physiocrat on Nov 20, 2008 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep an eye on, but give a chance
Posted by: MarshallB in Seattle on Nov 20, 2008 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would the author propose for Obama's inner circle on foreign policy, or any policy? Since 1980, Democrats have sat in the W.H. for 8 years; those people are the current Democratic braintrust. As for having neo-cons around, it is a definite change that all POV's be listened to. For Obama to assume a dogmatic, my (Your?) way or the highway would be more of the same. Barack Obama has more brainpower in his pinkie than Bush (and Cheney?)had in two entire bodies. We need to see what he does with advice he gets. As for Afghanistan, his position has been very constant. Why do you seem surprised?

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

Chess Master vrs Checker Crackers
Posted by: Ashoka911 on Nov 20, 2008 1:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As has been said....the McCain AND PALIN administration would have really spun some heads, don't you think?

There are powerful forces at work....and A LOT at stake! What is clear to me is that Obama is a master chess player and we have yet to see what will be done with the Chess pieces and the cards that he feels he has to deal with. It is no small task to have to electorate identify themselves as "left of center". I don't see Ralph Nader or any particular "revolutionary guard" saving the day either.

And what I am sure about is that it is not in anybodies interest (even Isreal's) to go unleash a de facto third front in our already messy little situation that we created. Maybe that is a partial explanation of his choices.

Lets let Obama pull every "moderating and moderate" force out of all quarters and then try to redirect them. The rest of us need to consolidate and make the left agenda a real part of the consituancy that needs to be an equilizing force.

In the meantime, GW could not even play checkers. I like Chess...

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

The new order
Posted by: georgiaorwell on Nov 20, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, a progressive's worst night nightmare begins to unfold:

Obama's the frontman, all right. The centrists, Repubs and Dems, are merging into one party, primarily populated and dominated by the Clintonites. The progressive left and the conservative right are left hanging out to dry. No Dennis, no Patrick, no Russ, no anyone who really wanted "change you can believe in."

Obama is really putting together the power, the money, the corporate party - not the netroots hope and change Americans believed they were voting for. We're totally screwed, no, the world is totally screwed unless a truly independent or progressive party begins organizing right now, using the Obama model for a movement that must organize immediately for 2010 and 2012.

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

» RE: The new order Posted by: realmuzik
» Prophit Posted by: Von
» I'm waiting to see... Posted by: americansheep
» RE: The new order Posted by: ElRoi
But he made Oprah CRY !
Posted by: Kahoneez on Nov 20, 2008 2:07 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know there is no way in hELL , the military industrial complex , the Rockefellers , CFR are going to allow a REAL progressive make it the the presidency. The system is powerful, locked in, exclusive and there's hell to pay if you decide to rock the boat .
I.E. Howard Dean , had the NERVE to suggest the Palestinians should be treated equally as Israelis and the Telecoms should be busted up , signed his political fate . Bada-bing .
Kucinich , people are hooked on looks and fake machismo and you'll get marginalized and labeled a kook, by getting questions by Russert about UFOs .
Ron Paul , if your lucky you'll any attention or a question and damn if you try to bring up that Constitution .
So what are you left with, a guy who gets more money from Bankers than anybody and who makes Oprah CRY !

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

» RE: But he made Oprah CRY ! Posted by: Romantic Violence
Don Quixote
Posted by: Don Quixote on Nov 20, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big change. There is a black Bush in the White House.

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

» That's funny....... Posted by: gellero1
Clinton Re-tread?
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 20, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sight of so many Clintonistas entering the new administration doesn't fill me with any degree of hope, that's for sure. Is Barack going to turn nto a dud like Bubbah? We shall see.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense??? That's not change I can believe in, Buster!

Then again, I'm cautiously willing to give President-elect Obama the benefit of the doubt. He must know what he's doing, I hope.

It's the Most wonderful Time of the Year

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

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

» RE: Clinton Re-tread? Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: Clinton Re-tread? Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: uncontrollable? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: uncontrollable? Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: Clinton Re-tread? Posted by: marygold
» Perhaps you're right, marygold Posted by: Tom Degan
» RE: Thank you marygold Posted by: Sushi
» I agree. Posted by: 2thepoint
I'm willing to stay tuned (and active)--this has to be one of the most crucial periods
Posted by: Suzon on Nov 20, 2008 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in American history.

The elites have had their way using deception and concealment. Their desire to consolidate and increase their ill-gotten gains has resulted in immense human suffering and the planet's degradation.

Their belief in their superiority may continue despite the facts, but we don't have to go along with them. Obama is piggy-in-the-middle.

Obama seems to be a very subtle player and to appear to be another Clinton isn't a bad tactic considering the cards that people like Murdoch are holding.

I never saw Tony Blair as anything other than a front man for vested interests--it was clear in what he said, what he did and how hyper he always appeared. And taking a job with JP Morgan?!

We may not be sure what Obama is, but he's not Tony Blair.

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

» gotcha, charles Posted by: Suzon
Making the Govt Work for the People
Posted by: jbpaz on Nov 20, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the four millions government employees started their careers after 1968. Many of them have been forever tainted by the system. It is not a set-up that rewards noble sentiments or whistle blowing.
Surely, Obama could assemble a team of idealistic young people fresh with new ideas. It is possible that some of these notions could work to bring fruitful change to the country. It took WWII to end the Great Depression under FDR, so nothing's perfect.
Although many of the new appointees have checkered backgrounds, they represent a quantum leap over the Bush crowd. They may know how to inspire the bureaucracy to get productive output from them.

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

» Ha Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
One sided rant
Posted by: Shey on Nov 20, 2008 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I took the time to read this entire article, very carefully. It's one sided at best, naming not only people who haven't yet been confirmed to any official position, as if they have some sort of "mind cotrol' over Obama, but neglecting to mention virtually any positives.
Such as the fact that Obama reiterated his pledge to close down Gitmo just a a few days ago, on 60 minutes, and in the same interview re-stated that we "will not torture".

Almost any Democrat with any foreign policy experience, was connected to the Clinton administration, in some way. It's the only Democratic administration we've had in almost thirty years, where else is Obama expected to find people with foreign policy experience? It doesn't mean he's going to adopt any and all their ideas - and this article was so heavily slanted toward the negatives, you'd think that not a single Democrat since Kennedy - maybe since FDR - had anything positive to offer.

How about an article about the probable choice of Dick Gephart for Health and Human Services? Gephart has the real goods, for a genuine universal health care plan. I'm not holding my breath, considering the nay-saying tone on AlterNet right now.
I'm just switching to The Huffngton Post for my online news and sticking with Keith Olberman and Rachael maddow, on TV.

AlterNet, in case you haven't noticed, your articles' "Comments" are now attracting more Trolls than supporters of anything you supposedly stand for. I'm not suggesting you rubber stamp every move Obama makes, but it's been all chicken-little, all the time, around here lately. Get a grip and give it a chance to unfold.

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

» RE: One sided rant Posted by: Frank J. Burris
» RE: One sided rant Posted by: ericab
» RE: One sided rant Posted by: zepher
Obama-the Ascension of Obama as the Savior
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 20, 2008 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the election, I have posted a good number of articles about Obama on my website which is www.911insidejob.net about whether he will really make a difference in this country's foreign policy. I really think he was groomed by the "powers that be" to become president and to further their agenda. On the surface, he is such a welcome change from George Bush and Dick Cheney that people around the world are looking to him as being a savior. But there is no way that Obama came from first being elected to the United States Senate in 2004 and four years later being elected president without the strong support and help of the "powers that be" including of course the mainstream media. To come so far so quickly seems to indicate clearly that he is beholding to the power elite in this country.
I am a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud established right after the 2004 election in Massachusetts. About 15 of us met with about 15 different United States senators on January 5, 2005 In Washington DC. The purpose was to present them with election fraud evidence so that they would not certify the electoral College vote in Ohio.
Here is my experience with Obama's office when we knocked on their door in the United States Senate building asking to be heard about this very important issue. They would not even let us in the door. Electronic voting machine fraud was not even talked about by him during the election.
I do not think he will make much of the difference since he is already obliged to the power elites

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

» RE: Obama-the Ascension of Obama as the Savior Posted by: christianslayer1955
Oops ....
Posted by: Shey on Nov 20, 2008 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously meant Tom Daschel (for HHS), not Gephart, pulled that out of the wrong corner of my brain.

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

Damn! I coulda had a V-8!
Posted by: PJAW on Nov 20, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, you're thinking maybe things would have been better with Dennis Kucinich? I do. But "they" will never allow that to happen.

Barack Obama has maybe evolved into a corporatist, and maybe not, time will tell. Our only strategy now is to simply let him hear from us and hope for the best. All the speculative fiction surrounding his cabinet and transition team appontments may keep the pundits employed, but it does nothing to create real progress. They're simply staking out their territory now for their eventual chance to say, "See, I told you so!". Most of them are offering a subtle blend of praise and skepticism so they'll have that chance no matter how things unfold.

Send Obama a note, tell him what you want and expect. I still think he's an intelligent, caring man who will listen, but we need to speak up because you know the bad guys are going to be shouting for all they're worth.

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

» Write him. It's worth a shot Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» RE: Write him. It's worth a shot Posted by: georgiaorwell
Best 9/11 debunking sites
Posted by: Perry Logan on Nov 20, 2008 4:04 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have joined the fray, I thought I'd point out that every claim made by the 9/11 Truthers has been completely debunked.

The 9/11 conspiracy people simply ignore the debunkings and carry on.

Here are my favorite 9/11 conspiracy debunking sites. These sites will cure most normal people in a few minutes:

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

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

» Let the myths continue! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Let the myths continue! Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Let the myths continue! Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Let the myths continue! Posted by: brunowe
» There is no myth Posted by: weathered
» How are you doing, weathered? Posted by: LeftWright
» Peace to you as well, Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Best 9/11 debunking sites Posted by: 2thepoint
» STUPID! Posted by: pierrot
» RE: Best 9/11 debunking sites Posted by: 2thepoint
» Really fast dogs. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: eally fast dogs. Posted by: EncinoM
» DID YOU READ THE REPORT Posted by: EncinoM
» Did YOU read the report? Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Did YOU read the report? Posted by: EncinoM
Sit Tight for Few Minutes People
Posted by: bluesmanjohnson on Nov 20, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What? Obama isn't the Tooth Fairy? C'mon people, take a "wait and see" approach.

Where is Obama going to get Democrats with either White House and/or foreign policy experience, other than to rely on some Clinton re-treads? News flash: he needs people with experience. Would you rather he gets them from team Bush?

As for all these dire policy predictions: let's see how much of the militant campaign rhetoric (which was, unfortunately, necessary for Obama to win), actually translates to policy. I believe (or placated myself by believing) that Obama was simply lying so he wouldn't be outflanked by Hillary's b.s. tough talk.

This article is another example of Democrats eating their young. Give the man a chance.

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

» Exactly NO appointments made yet Posted by: bluesmanjohnson
» Again, a Little Patience, Grasshopper Posted by: bluesmanjohnson
Warlike
Posted by: rafamon on Nov 20, 2008 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again american people surprise me. You are so naive.
Frankly speaking, you are warlike people. You love wars, you believe in for solving "problems" as well as the so-called virtuous of them. Besides, you have the biggest militar industry worlwide and you need to feed it...there are so much money and jobs involved in it that any new White House tenant will never change the smaller thing in the american foreign policy. Every election is just a make-up operation but the face under the make-up is always the same.

Don't you have already realised that any real change entails, first of all, renouncing deep down roots in the american society?.

Historically, these kind of changes only happens provoked by huge internal or external shocks. Internally, surely it will not occur because the system will avoide it (the system has just solved few weeks ago such a shock scaring people with losing houses...and you let them scare you)). Externally neither.

Things will not change.

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

» Sadly, you're right Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Warlike Posted by: gigantor21
» RE: Warlike Posted by: GollyGee
» RE: Warlike Posted by: pest
Maybe if people would give 3rd parties and local/state level elections more attention,
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 20, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we wouldn't be stuck with two parties in shitpot status giving us all the MIDDLE FINGER. I know I went through all that trouble of trying to bail all you sorry ass Obama/Mccain worshippers to give 3rd parties a look but I gave it up. I'll survive no matter who the hell runs the White House but it's you blind worshippers out there who are the REAL LOSERS but since you all wanted to shoot yourselves in the feet so badly, you fell for it. I'm one of those economic vigilantes out there and if I could survive the Bush/Cheney gang, I'll rip through the Obama/Biden schmucks but you fools who went through all that trouble to silence 3rd party support are the ones who are gonna get your asses sold out yet again.

And speaking of elections, I can see that the power of the tv, radio, and the internet have done a rather POWERFUL job of hypnotizing us all to get sucker punched on presidential elections and perhaps select Congressional races. But when it comes to electing local and state pols along with getting the chance to vote for people who will hold very influential positions that cover a community, city, town, or county such as judges, sheriffs, teachers, etc ... no attention is ever given. In fact, most of the time, voter turnout is an abysmal low even as low as 5% !! Now what does this have to do with the incoming Obama administration? Think about it. If you all would take some of the blind lopsided attention you give to national elections and apply it towards local and state level elections, the monied elites would be forced to expend all their money, time, and other valuable resources big time thereby putting them on the defensive and we wouldn't be stuck with lofty idiots in Washington that we've been stuck with for nearly 50 years.

It's time to start publishing more articles on local and regional elections in all 50 states so more people who visit this site can know what's happening locally and even help their family and friends in their local elections without doing it in a meddlesome manner.

Ok, sorry if this sounds like too much for you people out there.

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

Obama needs more firends!
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 20, 2008 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We already had Bill and Hillary in the white house. I wasn't expecting to se them and their administration again!

Maybe a little time on facebook might get him some new friends!

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

» RE: Obama needs more firends! Posted by: 2thepoint
New corrupt bastard, same as the old corrupt bastard...
Posted by: Farasien on Nov 20, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really shouldn't be much of a surprise that Obama is already looking to torpedo his promises now that he fooled tons of people into voting for him. This is the old politician dance, and if anyone bothered to pay a moment's attention to history, you might see it never changes. The bastards lie to the public to get elected, and once in, immediately get to work building their personal power bases while only occasionally throwing the morons who elected them the occasional (and virtually always symbolic, at best) bone. I didn't vote for Obama, and I haven't voted for either one of the frontrunners in the ONE party system we all enjoy in this formerly-decent country. As voters, we get what we deserve, and it looks like instead of buSh the third, we're getting Clinton the third. Yay us...

If Obama was really serious about making any real change, he wouldn't have even considered Hillary for his cabinet, much less Emmanuel or any of the other oil-war boosting, civil rights destroying, anti-worker assholes who Clinton loved so much.

Thanks for nothing, America.

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

Too early to tell
Posted by: taxidriver on Nov 20, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" and became a passionate militarist.

Obama had to campaign on a broadly centrist platform or else he wouldn't have won. Sorry, Nader and Kucinich never had a chance, and it's not because of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

The question is whether Obama will turn to the right or follow a more reformist platform. I'm betting on the latter.

As one reader commented, Obama seems to play political chess quite well. For the moment, let's trust him--but verify.

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

» Not really! Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: Not really! Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Kucinich: The Man Posted by: americansheep
» RE: Kucinich: The Man Posted by: taxidriver
Obama-the Ascension of Obama as the Savior
Posted by: 911FalseFlag on Nov 20, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the election, I have posted a good number of articles about Obama on my website which is www.911insidejob.net about whether he will really make a difference in this country's foreign policy. I really think he was groomed by the "powers that be" to become president and to further their agenda. On the surface, he is such a welcome change from George Bush and Dick Cheney that people around the world are looking to him as being a savior. But there is no way that Obama came from first being elected to the United States Senate in 2004 and four years later being elected president without the strong support and help of the "powers that be" including of course the mainstream media. To come so far so quickly seems to indicate clearly that he is beholding to the power elite in this country.
I am a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud established right after the 2004 election in Massachusetts. About 15 of us met with about 15 different United States senators on January 5, 2005 In Washington DC. The purpose was to present them with election fraud evidence so that they would not certify the electoral College vote in Ohio.
Here is my experience with Obama's office when we knocked on their door in the United States Senate building asking to be heard about this very important issue. They would not even let us in the door. Electronic voting machine fraud was not even talked about by him during the election.
I do not think he will make much of the difference since he is already obliged to the power elites

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

RE: Nice
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 20, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
blah blah blah blah bush bad blah blah blah blah.

Jeff
Is your ISP watching you masturbate?

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

» RE: Nice Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Nice Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Nice Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Nice Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Nice Posted by: Crazy H
I agree, unless its a continuation of his administration!!!!!
Posted by: Prophit on Nov 20, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then its like trading in a 20 year old horse for another 20 year old horse, why bother. Same horse different markings.

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

The new Obama administration
Posted by: ArchiesBoy on Nov 20, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scahill has written a really stupid piece. Obama is picking the best of the best: smarts and experience. Who ELSE IS THERE for Obama to select? Perhaps Scahill would like him to pick Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.

Articles like this -- written by totally unthinking self-appointed "experts" -- is the reason I hardly ever look at AlterNet anymore.

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

bw
Posted by: marygold on Nov 20, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jeremy et al....Calm down
Barack Obama will be most successful at bringing about the change we want....BY surrounding himself with those who will provide all the strongest arguments AGAINST his proposed changes. You could worry if he were a weaker leader but this man has the strength of will and mind to actually want the brightest of his opposition to engage him...No doubt some of their arguments will cause him to adjust his change incrementally but in the final analysis it will result in change which is designed to succeed EXACTLY because of the "traditional approach focus group" Obama will have at his disposal.
If he picked your "dream team" we end up with high likelihood of divisive stalemated potential for positive change. By including strong members of the change "resistance"...he involves those representing the obstacles to change...thus they wind up "owning" the change and supporting rather than obstructing.
This is thinking big...this is creating solutions involving thinking unlike that which created our problems and divisive stalemated culture
"the solution to our problems will not be found using the same kind of thinking that created them" A. Einstein

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

» RE: bw Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: bw Posted by: douglashoyt
» RE: bw... what a gamble Posted by: americansheep
So Rahm Emmanuel controls which Democrats get funded . . .
Posted by: dustdevil on Nov 20, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only the pro-war Democrats. Only the Democrats who support Israel. No wonder the two parties have become much the same. With Rahm gaining more power, Israel gains more power. Is war with Iran now inevitable?

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

Stop Crying
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 20, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama could morph himself into Bush/Cheney/Nixon and 98% of you will be voting for him and whomever (D) that is in your area
This is why Democrat do
at least we just dont show up (R)

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

» RE: Stop Crying Posted by: robert.noll
» sad to day Democrats have battered spouse syndrome Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» sad to say* damm it Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Same as it ever was
Posted by: remoran on Nov 20, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's proving to be the same ol same ol guy. The appointments thus far are really disappointing. We are in such trouble and the pols don't get it. Not a good thing at all.

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

What did you expect?
Posted by: agronomo on Nov 20, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real."
So, who's surprised? I held my nose and voted for him anyway, but I didn't expect anything different. He flat out told us that we were wrong to think that he is a "progressive". The hope was that enough liberal candidates could grab his coat tails and then force him to the left after he was elected. Fat chance.
Two good things you can say about him: he is preferable to the alternative, not because he will follow a radically different course, but because he might hurt fewer innocents abroad in his attempt to preserve US hegemony, and because we have finally elected an African American, albeit one without the street credentials.
I think that 2012 should be a good year for a 3rd party candidate.

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

Do ya kinda feel like a victim of a "bait-and-switch" con?
Posted by: sausage on Nov 20, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, didn't we all vote for the Barack Obama/Joe Biden ticket because they promised "change?" Not just incremental change but big, profound epic-making change. But it looks like we're getting baby steps, doesn't it? Or maybe, worse, a could of steps backward.

Just the other day David Sirota wrote:Seems to me that House and Senate leaders have declared an all-out war on "the Left." In fact, "seems" is the wrong word. It doesn't "seem" like that. They are actually saying it explicitly.

And it seems to me that I remember hearing some "liberal pundit" or other election night saying that if president-elect Obama truly wants to make his mark on American history he should not fill his administration with Clinton-era retreads. It seems when it comes to foreign policy, not to mention chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel, at the very least, Obama is quite content to shop at Clinton's Discount Retreads, rather than purchasing new tires for the State Department. Too bad, the MSM disqualified Samantha Power from a position in an Obama cabinet for telling the truth about Hillary Clinton, she would have made a great Secretary of State!

Yet so focused on constructing a Lincoln-esque "team of rivals," by picking through the blems down at Clinton's Discount Retreads, president-elect Obama seems to have forgotten what motivated those young, mostly white, families to come out on a frigid January Iowa night to caucus for him. They were not caucusing for a third Clinton administration. If they had, Hillary Clinton may now be the president-elect, or worse, we could be talking about president-elect McCain.

It is said president-elect Obama is tech and Internet savvy, so I hope he reads some of what is posted here and on other Web sites which are critical of his rumored cabinet choices so far.

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

Obama seems to realize that he is completely unprepared for the gig
Posted by: eeezzz on Nov 20, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that he has conned himself into. Looks like his his idea of "change" is an attempt to replicate Bill Clinton's relative successes, regarding the economy, employment, peace and prosperity. But a lot of that stuff was predicated on bubbles that have either already popped or are in the process of doing so. Lets us hope that Obama really does walk on water....

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

Change We Can't Believe In
Posted by: lorenbliss on Nov 20, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I voted for Obama as an economic protest against the elevation of the corporate plutocracy to a new Tsarist-Russian type aristocracy and the concurrent reduction of U.S. workers to what amounts to neo-serfdom. But given Obama's cabinet choices so far -- not to mention the Washington Post's stunning disclosure that the real Obama health plan is the same as McCain's -- it appears the new president has no intention of caging the tyrannosaur of capitalism. Which will make the next four years a very interesting time indeed: watching the electorate react to the fact it's been scammed again, that the only "change" Obama is bringing is a change of names and faces, not policies. In Europe a betrayal of the magnitude that is already obvious (especially in the realm of health care) would generate the sort of electoral anger out of which new parties are born. Here in Moron Nation -- because the spirit of the working class is already broken (which is precisely why the proposed Employee Free Choice Act will surely be neutralized if it is indeed passed at all) -- the permanent obliteration of working-class consciousness guarantees we'll just continue our mindless shuffle toward the slave pens.

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

» RE: Change We Can't Believe In Posted by: georgiaorwell
» RE: Change We Can't Believe In Posted by: lorenbliss
» RE: Change We Can't Believe In Posted by: lorenbliss
Citing Allan Nairn,yes, but Maureen Dowd?/why not Robert Parry on Gates?
Posted by: NYCartist on Nov 20, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this after hearing Jeremy Scahill on DemocracyNow this morning. I agree with J. Scahill's comment that now is the time to make noise about people being involved and possibly being appointed because it's harder to get rid of them once they are in positions in the new Administration. I'm not sure that Gates should be where he is on the list, but in a separate section:labelled "rumor". Robert Parry has been following Robert Gates' career for decades. As well as being head of Consortium News online, he has been on DemocracyNow several times speaking about Gates and his record (not pretty), Parry was a guest yesterday (or previous day) on WBAI, on Hugh Hamilton's "Talk Back" show www.wbai.org where the show will be archived for 90 days, available free, from day of interview. Transcripts of DemocracyNow are online www.democracynow.org

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

Um, did anyone forget that the cabinet is there to serve the President?
Posted by: Jamsterfilms on Nov 20, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how everyone's going apes**t already when Obama is not even in office yet. Furthermore, unless you haven't been paying attention, you need a little something called votes to pass laws in this country and all of our elected officials aren't just going to hop on the liberal bandwagon.

As far as Obama's cabinet, what other administration could he possibly pull from? There aren't many officials who are still alive that aren't convicted felons. Where would the best and brightest come from if not from the Clinton administration? You can't just pull folks names out of a hat.

Now, I'm a proponent of fair trade and anti-globalization as much as the next guy but we can't wag our finger at the president elect when he picks people from the world power pot. We're a world power, if we want to change globalization, we need to start buying fair trade, non-sweatshop products only.

So stop moaning everyone, you only have a couple weeks left before you can b***t and moan all you like.

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

HERE WE GO AGAIN?!
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 20, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Obama won, I was nearly brought to tears by the euphoria that the nightmare was finally going to be over – so this article scares the _ _ _ _ out of me.

If the Obama administration turns out to be nothing more than a "prettier" extension of the 20-year, corporate-run Bush-Clinton-Bush double dynasty ... THEN WHAT??!!

My cynicism will be complete.

And the PNAC-Fascist takeover will be complete as well.

All pray that we haven't been fooled again.

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

» RE: HERE WE GO AGAIN?! Posted by: georgiaorwell
Significant Key Cabinet Candidate Left Out By Scahill
Posted by: rebeccaphb on Nov 20, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that Jeremy Scahill has a significant omission from his article; this seems strange, given his usual thoroughness.

Although, thankfully, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona was yesterday chosen by the Obama team as Secretary of Homeland Security, they had been considering another, more insidious candidate who may be still under consideration for other posts, including that of CIA director.

That candidate is Southern California Congresswoman Jane Harman, the Senate's second-richest member and chief sponsor of The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007.

This act was deliberately blacked out by the corporate-controlled media and passed 404-6 in the House on October 23, 2007. It authorizes, among other things, any nonviolent dissent from the federal government during time of war to be regarded as "terrorism" and citizens so deemed to be liable for possible indefinite detention, torture and execution. It presently lurks in the Lieberman's Senate Homeland Security Committee, and could be brought out on the floor of the Senate at any time deemed suitable by those who stand to profit from it for passage -- both of it, and of our freedom as a people.

The fact that this woman would be considered a viable cabinet candidate by Obama telegraphs "strange" rather than "change", and Scahill's egregious omission of her as such in this article is even stranger.

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

If Obama pushes too hard, they will "shove back" like they did with JFK
Posted by: Zimbly on Nov 20, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama knows by now, full well that he is walking into a vipers nest.
If he rocks the boat too hard and deviates too far astray from the "expected performances'...Obama will get shot by some "Lone gunman"
The corporate fascist agenda has been progressing exactly as planned and maybe better than planned.
Call me cynical, I think the Obama thing was "allowed to happen" to put some "opiates of delusion" back into the public consciousness.
By getting people to drift back into complacency and inactivity, into the myth that some super hero is going to "save the day", people will drift back into a narcotic state of indifference.
This is exactly what those "higher up" want to happen, people were getting and asking too many legitimate questions.

Now if Obama makes the same mistake that Nixon , Clinton or JFK did..they will show him quite clearly "who" has the power and "who " makes the real decisions.
I don't envy Obama one bit, he must know...he can't "not know"
If any changes happen , it will be because of his courage, intelligence and tenacity.

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

» no the three dont fit together. Posted by: rafaeltoral
» JFK and Oswald Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Oh, puhleeeze... Posted by: Artemis3
Told you So!
Posted by: Godzilla1916 on Nov 20, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, well, looks like the Hollywood Democrat veneer is finally starting to show some cracks.

The unfolding and the organization of this moderate and corporate beholden administration should come as no surprise to us voters. However, with the serious celebrity worshipping of Mr. Obama that has been going on for months, I am angry that voters, who act for change, vote for the same old party, time and time again.

I suspected from the moment Mr. Obama pandered his ass to the conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that he was truly another Democrat talking change but walking the same old corporate line.

Yes, his administration has yet to even take office, but as the rush of Clintonistas suggest, we are in for a rude awakening. How can you expect change when you invite the old guard back for a replay? Do we so easily forget the Clinton's support of the WTO and US militarism?

Listen people, if you truly wanted change, you would have had the balls to vote for NADER or McKINNEY. You reap what you sow!

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

» RE: Told you So! Posted by: jshubbub
» They were after that 5%. Posted by: -matti
» RE: Told you So! Posted by: Dboy
So you think we will have change?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 20, 2008 8:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance.

Those are the psychological stages you will go through until you accept that Mr. Obama and neoliberals/neocons have snookered you again.

So many of us explained to you that he was just like the "old boss." We implored you to vote for Nader. But you voted again for the ruling elite candidate.

What else can I say except it once again proves that the public are childlike fools.

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

» we fear what we don't understand Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» atleast a few of you have a clue. Posted by: rafaeltoral
Why do you expect a progressive when you voted for a Democrat?????
Posted by: DCostello2 on Nov 20, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed and confused. Did all of you people who voted for O-blah-blah REALLY think you were voting for a progressive? Really???? Why? Just because he blah-blahed a good story. I'm sorry if you're just finding out you voted for a Democrat but that's what you did. If you wanted someone progressive, the only choice from the big D's would have been Dennis and even Dennis is a capitulator for the Dems. You really need to walk away from the D's if you want someone progressive.

The really sad thing is that all of the information you needed to know who you were really voting for was right there for you - if you just walked away from the bright light, put down the Kool Aid and did a little reading, research and thinking. O-blah-blah left clues for those who wanted to see.

The good news - you should all be a bit brighter now. Maybe next time you won't get fooled again.

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

IF Stone's Son
Posted by: steveconn on Nov 20, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't know I F Stone had an illegiatmate son, but Jeremy, your mama lied. Now expect to be dissed by the people who loved you when you concentrated on Blackwater.
The Ghostbusters argument- "who ya gonna call?"-
illustrates the essential corporate nature of the Democrats.
Ralph Nader can give you some tips on handling the abuse. David Corn and the others want to dance at the Inaugural Ball. Let them.

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

Big O has no Balls...
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 20, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can there be change when you're dragging in the old dogs? These folks didn't help anything. They were part of the clan that kept the bombings up in Iraq,sent troops to Bosnia,
bombed bridges along Eastern Europe's main oil transport rivers and gave prosperity to a chosen few. Not to mention Capt. Hummer. Big O,
do you really want to be hanging out with 'Mr.
Hey baby Wanna Blow me in the Closet?"????

There really are good people in this country that can help you get that change you amped us all up on. Sure they have no connection to DC or Government in general but they're damn good Economists,Peacemakers and Environmentalists.
Good strong folks that can put an end to war.

You won't find them on any 'A' list of candidates because they aren't politicians they're just folks with clean records and great ideas and because they aren't asskissers for the wealthy,they're never heard of.

Maybe we should encourage Big O to look outside the beltway.

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

» RE: Big O has no Balls... Posted by: jshubbub
» RE: Big O has no Balls... Posted by: jeffrey7
Stock Market is Up.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Nov 20, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quick, all you who voted for Mr. Obama, go buy stock in this suckers rally.

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

» LOL! ROTFLMAO! Posted by: GuitarBill
wait and see
Posted by: hopefilled on Nov 20, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite the obvious energy for change that so many of us have after the challenging last 8 years, most of our political, social and evironmental systems are already very out of balance and a period of transition that is thoughtful and gradual might very well be the best thing for our country and the world.
Right now there are not very many clear paths for change. We await leadership that will show those paths.

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

That Didn't Take Long
Posted by: jshubbub on Nov 20, 2008 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this article, along with those of you joining in on the hyperventilation, sure hasn't wasted time in turning on Obama. I can't believe how shocked and dismayed some of the comments on this story are. What did you people expect? Didn't you listen to Obama during the campaign? Everything he's doing now is exactly what he said he would do. Did you think he was George McGovern--a lefty who is unstoppable in a Democratic primary but unelectable in the general?

I know it may come as a shock to all the progressives here, but Obama ran as a centrist. He's liberal about most social issues, but he's more center-right on foreign policy. Nothing he's doing now should come as a surprise. One of the reasons he and Hillary went at it for so long in the primary is because their policies are so similar. The choice for Democrats really came down to temperament, and Obama won on that issue.

All of that said, those of you who are panicking right now about Obama's picks should remember that there isn't exactly an infinite pool of Democrats who are experienced in these matters (as evidenced by the fact that Obama is only our third Democratic president in forty years), and whether you want to admit it to yourselves or not experience is crucial in foreign policy. You can't just send out a bunch of untested neophytes to conduct your business or they get rolled over by every foreign head of state out there. And you certainly don't want to send out a bunch of hard-core ideologues to conduct your business or you end up with what W wrought. Obama is not Bill Clinton, and he definitely is not George W. Bush. Change starts at the top.

The people Obama is picking are tested but willing to buy in to a different approach. Obama is going to set the tone for our foreign policy and those who agree to work for him are going to carry it out or they'll be shown the door. At the very least, give Obama the chance to screw up before you start predicting the end of civilization. The man hasn't even taken office yet.

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

» hazah! Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: hazah! Posted by: jshubbub
» A few points . . . Posted by: 6399
» RE: A few points . . . Posted by: jshubbub
» RE: A few points . . . Posted by: 6399
» RE: A few points . . . Posted by: jshubbub
» RE: A few points . . . Posted by: jshubbub
» RE: A few points . . . Posted by: jshubbub
We need real solutions, meaning real representation
Posted by: PaulC on Nov 20, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read these posts gloating that we drank the kool-aid voting for Obama, that things would be different if we had voted Nader or Kucinich. What nonsense!

Obama, a studiously centrist candidate talking about pragmatism leading to change in a time of extreme unprecedented discontent with the opposing party, barely beat a senile far right neocon zombie and his moronic religious fundamentalist zealot side-kick! Barely!

Does anyone seriously think a Nader or Kucinich could have beaten McCain/Palin?? Good grief!

Don't get me wrong, I love those guys, but even Kucinich must have understood he was hanging on in the race in order to say the things that would not otherwise be said. You don't win national elections without a powerful grassroots machine, which neither Kucinich nor Nader had.

If people are serious about having Progressive ideas heard and represented then there is no substitute for organization at the grassroots level. Period.

Now, that can be organized via the internet these days, which is a very empowering tool, but we haven't seen Progressives and their third party candidates working together as a cohesive Progressive Party to challenge the status quo.

Sure we hear a lot of bitching from alleged Third Party adherents that sounds indistinguishable from Troll slandering to me. But again, nothing constructive - just pissing-in-the-wind bitching.

Why not organize by getting all of the Progressive leaders/thinkers/activists to commit to build a united Progressive Party and then use the internet to build a base? That seems like something that is very doable in light of the extreme discontent with the way things are going.

Progressives must put aside their egos just long enough to organize. Is that possible?

peace,
Paul

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

» hazah again Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» Kucinich would be great Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Good Suggestion Posted by: oregoncharles
» Hopeful, But Limited Posted by: pdxjoe
Hard times and Liberals.
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 20, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lyndon Johnson (whom I remember all too well) was the most liberal President we've ever had. If you look up his role in the Vietnam War, this tells you a lot. There's a reason the New Left rejected liberals: they're unblinking imperialists.

I don't think we WILL "get used to it," as a previous poster suggested. The Vietnam War caused serious civil strife because it violated people's expectations. Obama has run on "change" and sown the wind:

If he doesn't come through, he'll reap the whirlwind. Unfortunately, he's a charismatic, quite capable of dividing the opposition with pure personal charm, as Slick Willy did for a while. Charismatics are dangerous.

A while back, Alternet posted a piece on the prerequisites to revolution, or at least serious unrest: severe political disillusionment in a time of hardship. Obamania may have set us up for just that, and I'm not looking forward to it. I'm getting too old, and the Right has all the guns.

If we're lucky, it'll be one Battle of Seattle after another, followed by the wild and woolly election we should have had this year.

That's if we're lucky.

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

» violence is not the answer Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
Is Larry Summers Really the Best We Can Do?
Posted by: orftc on Nov 20, 2008 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People on Facebook should check out and post info to the group "Is Larry Summers Really the Best We Can Do?"

It's still not to late to stop Summers' appointment as Treasury Secretary -- and causing a stink with him may help us pick up a couple additional appointments for progressives.

Search for the group name on Facebook and it pops right up.

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

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» alot of work to do Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: 876 Posted by: jshubbub
He is not even President yet...
Posted by: EncinoM on Nov 20, 2008 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the naysayers are out in full force.

I expect truthiness movement to spill their bile. They have nothing better to do all day the you for scientific answers in videos college students post on Youtube. The Naderites,face it your candidates prime was 30 years in the past. He is becoming a joke and destroying his legacy.

For the rest, of course he is looking to the Clinton staffers, they are the only democrates with any experience. After years of Bush, to many have gotten accustom to expecting the worse from government that they can't imagine what change would look like. Others set there expectations to high, and demand perfection and nothing less.

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

» WTF? Posted by: 6399
» RE: WTF? Posted by: EncinoM
Scahill is a Puffin' Something
Posted by: timjofred on Nov 20, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a little more than two weeks after one of the most transformational and historical elections in US history and Obama has just not done enough for Mr. Scahill.
His comments are as snippy and as self-servingly selective as it gets.
The difference dear sir is that the man in charge is no longer an amalgam of Bush/Cheney/Rove it is someone that actually has a moral compass. Do us all a favor. Why don't you wait until the man is actually in the Whitehouse and has the authority to make change before you start with your impatient, petulant criticism?

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

» RE: "Why don't you wait ..." Posted by: oregoncharles
Jeremy Scahill and Kevin Drum of Mother Jones on DemocracyNow! this morning
Posted by: ElRoi on Nov 20, 2008 11:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.democracynow.org


Kevin Drum recently wrote a much more "optimistic" piece on the same subject for Mother Jones titled:

The Agents of Change on Obama's Transition Team

www.motherjones.com

Read both articles and watch the debate at Democracy Now with an open mind and make your own decisions. Both authors make compelling cases. Sadly, I find Mr. Scahill a bit more compelling in his arguments.

If you do nothing else PLEASE watch the wonderful interview with Dr. Cornel West from yesterdays DemocracyNow! broadcast. Dr. West sums up the pros and cons better than just about anyone else:

www.democracynow.org

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

Only One
Posted by: robert.noll on Nov 20, 2008 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one political party in the United States: The Corporate Party.

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

» RE: Only One Posted by: slugsucker
» RE: Only One... Posted by: oregoncharles
better clintons' 3rd term than bushs...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 20, 2008 11:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
on a more serious note...president obama has to start somewhere..and at this point he faces a precarious political environment ..despite obamas' (relative) landslide victory..the country remains overwhelmingly repugnican ..

2008 election results by county...

obama won by a fairly large margin simply because smaller repugnican majorities in 90% of the country (even in new york state) were crushed by huge democratic majorities in the other 10%...

that doesnt matter in a presidential election..where an island of blue in a sea-of-red state can still turn the state blue...

but in the congressional elections..its the sea of red that matters..and obama has only a thin layer of ice to skate on top of it...and that ice will only get thinner as the 2010 census moves even more congressional districts into that red area...

as such..anything more than baby steps at this point would prolly be political suicide...right now we have to wish obama luck that those baby steps are the right ones...

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

Well there's just no pleasing you
Posted by: Sakkara on Nov 20, 2008 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Um, hello... why are you complaining? About ANYTHING right now? We just elected the smartest man in politics to run our country! Obama will surround himself with the best and brightest our government has to offer, and that's the most he can do for now. Why don't you stop armchair quarterbacking and let the man do his job. Sheesh. We narrowly avoided a fascist Chistian regime, and you're complaining about Obama's support staff??

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

» Agreed! Posted by: zooeyhall
» ditto - Posted by: grammasanity
obama will change nothing.
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You dont get elected president unless you play ball. If you do get elected and you dont play ball you get assasinated.

I suspect Bush was just laying the foundation for the real dictator. This is not a democracy.
You have no say. Your vote meant nothing.

Welcome to the New World Order.

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

You elected no one.
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Nov 20, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You had the choice between two evils. If McCain would have gotten elected it would be the same deal. Do you really think picking between two people is a choice?

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

» RE: You elected no one. Posted by: grammasanity
can someone define 'progressive' please
Posted by: sg on Nov 20, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we should hold Obama's feet to the fire like our lives depended on it, this "true progressive" credential contest where only a few "real progressives" see the truth while all the rest of us are just Obama-kool-aid sippin' fools is getting a little tired.

A few simple questions: what about the numbers? The cold-harsh reality is: there ain't enough of "us" to raise the social costs to the point where progressives can force "real change." And I'm not talking about polls that indicate most Americans actually agree with progressives on most major policy issues. I'm talking about committed ACTION; people willing to immerse themselves into and engage the project. At the moment, there's simply not enough of "us." And if you think about it, it makes sense. Why would some ordinary Joe want to join the progressive movement? Too many progressives exude an air of hopelessness (nothing will ever work cuz the man will beat us) mentality; not to mention the fact that many Progressives speak in language that is mostly incomprehensible to ordinary folks, especially the downtrodden we say we care so much about. I don't know how to put this but the relative handful of progressive/leftists who "get it" are so far away from the uninitiated, as it were, that its seems impossible to envision how to even begin building the bridge from "here" to "there." And I'm a big fan of starting where people ARE. Not arguing with them until the magical, mystical day when they see the light and meet us over 'here.'

Another question: if you had a button to destroy capitalism overnight would you push it, no matter the immediate, real-life consequences it would have in terms of literally crushing millions of the very people progressive/leftists claim to be fighting for? Or to put the question another way: do you have to be a marxist or socialist or revolutionary anti-capitalist to be a true progressive? Is the litmus test really: thou must desire the utter and total overnight destruction of the current economic system to be considered a real progressive?

Were Malcolm X and/or Marcus Garvey not true progressives b/c they believed in "black capitalism?"

And finally (actually I have more but I'll stop after this), where the hell are "the masses" supposed to get the time or the resources to actually commit to the struggle?

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

» Yes. Posted by: pdxjoe
» thank you Posted by: sg
!!! IMPEACH OBAMA !!!
Posted by: Crazy H on Nov 20, 2008 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT'S BEEN OVER TWO WEEKS SINCE HE WAS ELECTED!!! WE'RE STILL IN IRAQ!!! THE ECONOMY STILL SUCKS!!! THE GLOBE IS STILL WARMING!!! THE DOGCATCHER IS STILL ON THE TAKE!!! HE STILL WON'T ANSWER MY EMAIL!!! MY TUMMY STILL HURTS!!! WEH!!! WEH!!! WEH!!! !!! !! !

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

Indyk is a turkey!
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 20, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I couldn't resist that one:

Indyk (Polish) = turkey (English)

http://www.poltran.com/

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

when are the americans going to take up arms-?to protect their jobs!and their true freedom!!
Posted by: avatar_singh on Nov 20, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or is it because they are very very selfish so much when others in iraq were being killed for the profit of the americans oils the american masses kept quiet-now when their own pocket is hurting they are sqeaking but still have lost the pwoer or guts to protest?
afterall the 700 billion dolalr rescue for the walls treer shiums of paulson was okeyd within 3 days by the democractic congressmen including that raeid , the same reid who is asking the gm and ford chairmen to come up with detailed busines plan so that they can sit down in december to think of giving laon of 25 billion.
that paltry sum compared to wall street loot will be for sake of american industrial productiona nd for saving 3 million jobs.
but the stupid american masses are quiet and are not in the street up in the arms shaouting and killing those bqastrds who helped the financiards with 700 billions but are reluctant to give 25 billions to auto industry!
what sort of people the americans are?

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

Told them all so
Posted by: thomasjeffersonrocks on Nov 20, 2008 3:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't vote for Obama. I guess I just don't like kool-aid. I voted Constitution party. No one knows much about Obama except the promises he made during the campaign. He has been in the senate, what, four years. Two of those four he has been campaigning. He voted "present" 24 times (or something like that number) because he didn't want to vote the "wrong" way on controversial issues. They tell us to hold our nose when we go in the voting booth yet some congress people refrain from voting just because they don't want to get in trouble with some of their constituents. Well, now we see the real Obama. I never trusted him and of course we don't know much about him. He is bi-racial but chose to be black for the campaign. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no way he will be able to carry out even half of what he has promised to do. All told I realize we must give him a chance, but so far I am not liking what I am seeing. Gates should go. I like Hillary. I voted for her. At least we knew what we would get with her. I just have to chuckle now that people that voted for his "change" are beginning to worry about some of his choices for his cabinet.

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

» RE: Told them all so Posted by: sg
» Biracial? Posted by: sg
Let's Vote On It!
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Nov 20, 2008 4:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THIS is change.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

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

What did you guys expect?
Posted by: slugsucker on Nov 20, 2008 4:34 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get the fairy dust out of your eyes already! If you believed that radical change was going to occur with Obama, you need to stop bogarting that joint, and wake up to Realpolitik 101. The only way someone of any color or background could succeed and rise to the top like B.O. was by playing the game the way it's always been played. If you wanted real revolution, sh*t!, take to the streets, burn some cars or buildings, organize mass protests/strikes/demonstrations, stop paying your taxes, get militant if you are all as fired up as you say you are! Otherwise, shut the fudge up, enjoy your comfy middle-class lifestyle, your gas-guzzling SUV, your 400 cable channels (50 in HD) on your 60" plasma, your pleasant 3 bedroom 2 bath suburban home with a pool on a nice-sized lot, and cry about your horrible Wall St. losses while sipping on your 20-year-old single-malt Scotch or your grande mocha latte! What a bunch of whiny, snivelling, naive idealists!

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

This article scared the hell outta me...
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Nov 20, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article scared the hell outta me...but Obama does deserve a chance to prove he's not THE ONE who will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. The DIE-OFF has begun and Obama can't save us. It is too late. Seriously, did y'all think he was gonna appoint Julia Butterfly Hill for Sec. of the Interior, the Dalai Lama for Sec. of Defense, Ingrid Newkirk of PETA for Sec. of Agriculture, and Yoko Ono for Dept. of Peace?
All the politicians are completely controlled by the powers that be. Those folks got Clintobama...Barack O'Clinton... I loved Obama's campaign/speeches/sense of integrity and the hope for change "rush." But bigger and more sinister forces are at work-

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

Uninspiring - So Far
Posted by: radical53 on Nov 20, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to admit I'm a little disappointed in the appointments to date. I can see what he appears to be doing, but I would take a different approach.

Obama appears to be assembling people who can get things done. Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Hillary (with any assistance she needs from Bill), Eric Holder all know the inner workings of various parts of the Government. Daschle and Emanuel know how to work with Congress.

In my opinion Obama also needs to have people sitting around the table with fresh ideas that support his own. If he's proposing something new and everyone else is trying to mold it into some bland, Clinton-esque mush, it's not going to produce lasting change.

Hillary doesn't bother me too much as Sec'y of State. I'm really hoping he moves beyond Gates, even if it's a year after he takes office. Napolitano is the first sign of new blood, but I was hoping for Deval Patrick in the Justice Dept.

So what's left - Treasury, Energy, Education, Transportation? Who's going to implement the universal service initiative? Do any of these folks support Obama's health care plan? Who's going to lead the green jobs initiative and the infrastructure revitalization projects?

Gephart would have been a better "insider" with a fresher perspective. Sebelius could be an asset in a couple of positions. Maybe Philip Sharp is still a possibility for Energy. There are several good choices for Education, including a Republican, Lisa Graham-Keegan. What happened to the ideas of using Hagel and/or Kerry? Jennifer Granholm might be a good choice, but she was a Clinton supporter, too.

Obama apparently wants to get off to a solid, if not dramatic, start. I just hope his major initiatives don't get neutered in the process.

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

» RE: Uninspiring - So Far Posted by: flake47
» RE: Uninspiring - So Far -- Something new? Posted by: photon's feather
Interesting...but Biased
Posted by: flake47 on Nov 20, 2008 6:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article just feeds into all of the corporate control conspiracy theories that people have been talking about lately, and fans the flames before anythings has even happened yet. Not only has Obama not served out his first day as president but he has also only officially made one appointment to his cabinet. Before anyone throws Obama under the bus with the rest of our recent presidents, wait for him to actually make the appointments that this article accuses him of being about to make. Also keep in mind that the "backgrounds" of the people listed in this article makes it seem like each and every one of them is a warmongering or corrupt politician. Look up these people's backgrounds so you can find one positive fact about their records because this article didn't bother addressing any of those facts, or what kind of appointments we would be getting from McCain.

And for those saying "I told you we should have supported third party candidates": Unfortunately in this country there is little chance that supporting a third party candidate will do anything other than detract votes from candidates that are more centrist but can actually win. Maybe if 527 of you had voted for Gore instead of Nadar in Florida in 2000, we might have avoided this mess in the first place.

At this point I may seem like an Obama supporter but really I think I'm being more rational than some, by keeping myself from jumping to conclusions.

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

Here's the way real leaders works
Posted by: master09 on Nov 20, 2008 7:38 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You get your people to tell you everything they know; those things that are in line with what you are already know are the thing that use and make them think it was their ideas. This man beat the democrate and republician political machines, if you think it was luck just you watch. He already know where he wants to take this country. Obama will be one of the greatest president this country has ever had.

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

How is Jeremy Scahill wrong?
Posted by: Quannah on Nov 20, 2008 7:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sent this article to my sister. She read it and called me. She said, "If I wanted a Hillary Clinton cabinet, I would have voted for her!"

Funny... I thought she lost?

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

I guess the patriot act
Posted by: Juven on Nov 20, 2008 8:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't going anywhere. Looks like business as usual; just with different, yet somehow, familar faces...

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

There is reason to hope!
Posted by: PaulC on Nov 20, 2008 9:30 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anyone paid attention to the fact that Henry Waxman, one of the few Dems with a spine, is the new Chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee? That is extremely important news, since the largest issues of this century are global warming and our own brief window to rebuild our industrial base around the green revolution.

None of this could happen with Dingell in there, a slave to the corrupt auto CEO's.

This had to be Obama's work. Pelosi put Dingell back in his Chair when she assumed power without even hesitating. Removing a 28 year Chairman from one of the most powerful committees in the House is extremely rare and takes huge, um, courage!

What this means is that Obama meant what he said when he said that he would put climate change and the coming green revolution, as well as his intention to break our dependence on oil, at the very top of his agenda.

What this tells me is that he is deadly serious about the platform he ran on; that he will act decisively when he sees that his agenda is threatened, even if that means taking on the most powerful Dems in Congress.

This is a very encouraging sign that there is indeed substance to the man.

peace,
Paul

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

» RE: There is reason to hope! Posted by: photon's feather
L love the ass...umption
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Nov 20, 2008 9:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that Obama will be led around by the nose by these people. Hahahahahahaha...zzzzzzzzz....

#@!

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

Another Clintinista
Posted by: like on Nov 20, 2008 10:05 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've just learned that Janet Napolitano's DNA has been traced back to an early Hominid link that just coincidently happens to have included Bill Clinton as its one of its future progeny. Connect the dots people!

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

Obama & Chicago
Posted by: bessie on Nov 20, 2008 10:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is supported by the munchkins from Chicago primarily the Daley group. Been to Chicago recently? For the most part, it is a highly efficient place that is rapidly developing. The trademark, here, is outstanding governance. Let's hope for all of us that this group of Midwesterns can bring some sanity to our political and economic system. At the very least, to compare Bush as one in the same as the Clintons, is really delusional. FEMA worked under Clinton. As our economy tanks, let's get back to the basics. We are in the same boat, either way, so let's not forget this fact.

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

Dismantling of Yugoslavia
Posted by: Phelipoide on Nov 20, 2008 11:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Scahill calls Madeleine Albright "one of the key architects in the dismantling of Yugoslavia during the 1990s".

Wasn't Yugoslavian "unity" a construct imposed by Tito and kept in place by his secret police?

Who started the dismantling? Wasn't it the Serbs under Milosevic and Karadzic?

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

Didn't you see it coming ??
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 20, 2008 11:41 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Messiah used all the money he got to pull voters in with his handlers' classic 'Rope a Dope' campaign message strategy. Everyone got their own little speech.

Wait until the Federal money spigot starts flowing this spring and you'll see exactly what the Democratic Party is about.

Didn't anyone notice that the Democratic Party pushed 'Bailout' only was passed after a BILLION in bribes....aka 'earmarks' were doled out by Nancy Pelosi?? Are you posters here truly in the ozone?

The Democratic Party is not what you think it is. It gets your support by throwing you bones for your favorite special interest. And because of your uncritical support, they get to dole out the MONEY to THEIR favored interests.

Guys like Tony Rezko don't get into this stuff because they are emulating Mother Theresa, or for the love of fellow man.

Remember how Obama bought his house, and the lot next door?? Is that ethically different from the behavior of Sen. Steven of Alaska??

Did you forget about the $$$ scandal about the Clinton fundraiser in California?? How about Al Gore's scandal of accepting money from the Buddhist Monastery?? Are these things any different from what you find loathsome about the Bush administration? Did you close your eyes voluntarily, or can you just admit that you're politically naive.

It's about the money. Open your eyes.

And when do you think they will explore the foreign money that possibly flowed to the Obama Campaign.

Or do you think the true American way is to not think about that. after all, it's your side. Why not tolerate just a wee bit of corruption.

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

Clinton Pt 3
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Nov 20, 2008 11:47 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So change you can believe in is a change back to a clinton 3rd term. Wouldn't people have voted clinton in the primaries if that is who they wanted. Bait n switch indeed.

Clinton was the first black president, and I am wondering if Obama is the first black clinton?

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

Well Darnit
Posted by: VW Bug on Nov 21, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here I thought Alternet was for those who thought for themselves. Now I am finding more and more rightwingers coming on this site and bashing. Looks like I am going to have to find another site to go to without reading all this blasted rhetoric. It is those same comments that I hear on FauxNews and O'Really...

There are so many blogs out there that you can find anything you want. Those same conspiracy theories I am reading in the comments, have been used and can be used against any president. And all of the sudden now, Obama is in on EVERYTHING, yep... he is... didn't you know he is part of the New World Order...funny just a while ago, he had no experience, no ties no nothing and now look at him...he has been involved with everything!!! He wants to be a dictator (Ah GWB do we remember those wonderful words you murmured not to long ago? It would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship, yet now it is Obama who wants to be a dictator). Just because it is written, doesn't mean it is so! Opinion pieces (such as blogs) are just that, opinions...when you get your facts and I don't mean a website that has "facts" then we can have a rational discussion. But as with most rightwingers (especially those who come to the "left side" to rant and rave)they don't listen, won't listen. They say we drink Kool-aid, well I don't know what they are drinking but it is a heck of a lot stronger than Kool-aid.

It is so sad that America has come to this division, but I guess, that is exactly what our "friends" in Iraq wanted. At least those on the "left side" were and are willing to work with the rightwingers, but the right will never have us. Yet, we are the idiots...

The difference between ignorance and intolerance? I don't know and I don't care. The rightwingers motto!

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

» Rightwingers? Posted by: ceti
Serious Paranoia Problem?
Posted by: grammasanity on Nov 21, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What happened? Before the election, it was Obama all the way. Now people are tearing into him like he was the anti-christ, for hiring advisers with some experience. Let's give the man a chance!
Paranoid postings are a waste of my time and yours. 240 comments, and only Prophit and a couple of others have a clue what a complex process politics is. 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer' is the watchword of astute politicians everywhere. How much of this negativity is just y'all's egos clamoring for attention? Use your heads to come up with some good positive ideas, and stop tearing down everyone all the time!
Did you listen to Lou Holtz's 'sermon' last night on ESPN? He told a story about a building that took ten years and the labor of many people to build. Then decades later, a guy with a bulldozer was hired to tear it down. Asked if he needed any help to destroy such a solid old building, he said, ' no, I can do it myself, and in just one day.'
If you love america, if you love your fellow humans, if you love peace and progress, don't be like the guy with the bulldozer. PLEASE?

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

» RE: Serious Paranoia Problem? Posted by: slugsucker
The Long Revolution
Posted by: boing007 on Nov 21, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read Raymond Williams book The Long Revolution around 30 years ago. Obama might be just a step in the right direction but dismantling the whole ball of wax that is US Inc will take decades of hard work.

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

This is change that there is no change
Posted by: A Khokar on Nov 21, 2008 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In US Presidential elections Mr Barack Obama got a splendid slide victory not on the bases of giving out his new foreign policies or the miasma of Iraq war or for that matter his purported resolve toward war on terror but the results show that 67% people voted him for his given promise of change and bring about the socio economic reforms that people were fed up with the out going Bush administration who are leaving them and their country in such a mess. Vote counted toward foreign policy or the War against terror is about 7% each only.

This is an era of people having the controls on the taps of energy resources and people with ability to innovate. America has got the both. One may curse George W Bush to any extent; that mad man was a tyrant; a criminal and oppressor. But he was tyrant, criminal or oppressor for whom? Not for American. He proved to be oppressor of the oppressors where he flexed his muscles to expand the American hegemony; primarily in the lands with economic resources and other control points and venues. These people may say they have been subjugated and victimised by George W Bush. But for American he is the hero for his nation.

However he and his party; conservatives in any case have not been rejected by American masses in this elections for their foreign policy or the war against terrorism. The American masses they very well know that Iraq war or the war against terrorism are just the phoney wars; basing on lies and deception. This war called as Global war against terrorism is just an enabling tool to push forward the U.S planned hegemony in the light of neoconservative Project for the New American Century, whose radical agenda was adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration. The subject project is American national project which has the due support of Barack Obama and the Democrats. Goals of this policy and achievements there of, are as sacred for Democrats, as are for Conservatives.

So; we may see a change or say reforms in the American socio-economic fields with in the country but there may not be any change in the policy of the set American national goals in the field of foreign policy where huge achievements of George W Bush are being relished and haled truly and duly. There entire Middle East and central Asia are practically in U.S. fold; it is meeting both aforesaid ends of ‘control of economic resources’ as well as ‘Innovation ability’; and the king makers and proxy countries found in the area of U.S. operations like; Pakistan are ready to serve her majesty U.S…. so willingly.

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

» Hegemony Posted by: gellero1
What Is Really Funny
Posted by: MHolt on Nov 21, 2008 7:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While at the campus today, an instructor and another instructor {in Graphic Design}, passed down the hallway and I overheard her say, "I am really concerned that this country is going to socialism!"

BBAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWahaahhaha!

"Socialism" for the CORPORATIONS YEAH! CAPITALISM for the Masses!

The one barrier we all face in trying to educate the massively dim American public is I G N O R A N C E!

M. Holt

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

Obama: A Smooth Talking Imperialist
Posted by: left_libertarian on Nov 21, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His only 'change' is givin' you a penny after you hand him a dollar.

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

The Next 4 Years
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 22, 2008 2:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are going to be soooo much fun on this board.

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

You gotta "love" it - impeach Obama
Posted by: we_need_Abe on Nov 22, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An earlier poster had an impeach Obama title. I laughed my ass off but it is really only partly funny. The ruling elite (call them the illuminati, the international banking cabal or whomever) always makes sure that our choices are only choices that are palatable to them and so it should be no surprise that Obama is an "uncle tom" to Wall Street, banking, big business etc. The key here is to raise bloddy hell and galvanize the masses to complain. In theory we already have 48% of the population that didn't vote for him, so it shouldn't be too hard. Watch out for internet censorship coming to an IP near you! This medium is the only when with a free flow of comments and opinions. If we lose this we are sunk - more sunk than we already are.

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

Define Change
Posted by: Lilly on Nov 22, 2008 2:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember that Bush, in Obama's place, would have appointed loyal political hacks who had raised a lot of money for him and were due a payback. Would? What am I saying? Did. So this sounds like change to me. I discern a high level of education, experience, and competence among Obama's appointees.

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

True 'change' would mean Ron Paul or Ralph Nader
Posted by: gellero1 on Nov 22, 2008 8:56 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]


The Messiah was a political animal since law school. Does he have hobbies?? Passions?? Specialized knowledge?

No...of course not, at least as far as the specialized knowledge goes. A Celebrity. But a good motivational speaker. Feel good stuff.

But look a the reality......the same power structure as before. No challenge whatsoever to the flaws of each bureaucratic reality.

Income tax, Federal Reserve, hegemony, increasing Federal control over every aspect of life, a Department of Education that should be shut down...............no basic changes in anything.

I'm sure Pres. Obama will be ( or at least think he is ) his own man.
But it really is the same entrenched power structure that will tell him what to do. And if he has no expertise, what is he to do??

This is a guy who never heard the difference between the ting of a silver coin of the United States of America................and the thud of the debased zinc we use today.

He doesn't know what sound money was. He will do what the Federal Reserve tells him to do. They run the Treasury now.

Are you changelings surprised??

Nope....never enters the stream of consciousness............much easier on the psyche to worship a new Messiah.

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

THE RADICAL RIGHT IS PULLING OUT ALL STOPS TO DESTROY OBAMA AND THE
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Nov 22, 2008 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mandate we gave him. We must remember that the right has several think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, and others, that have budgets of 200 million plus. These guys surely have available 1,000 million each year to expend hiring clever people to lie to us. It almost makes you feel important.

This much money hires really good liars. One of the lies that they are currently pushing is that Obama shouild make up his government their way. They, of course, would destroy him.
If they can't destroy him, they will seek to weaken him. They are trying to stop him from using the most experienced persons he can find.

Stop and think. How far can he go back to find people? Is he going to go back to the Johnson administration? Those still surviving are in their 70s and eighties. Is he going to go to the Carter administration? The only thing left is the Clinton administration.

The scary part of the Clinton administration is that he had a republican congress for 6 years. During that 6 years everything he did was infected with compromise with the devil. Every deal he made with congress had that republican compromise in it. His people became used to that impure form of doing business. It is true that Obama doesn't want to import this into his government.

The strongest and best thing he can do up front is to simply make all campaign contributions illegal and see that all political campaign money comes from the public coffers. If the legislative branch can't attract campaign money, they are out of work. It's that simple. If he can't fix this, his presidency is bound for mediocrity.

How will we know when we are gaining on it? That will be when the big contributors call up and nobody answers the phone. We won't be listened to until we pay for the elections. At that point they will really start trying to calculate what the voter is going to do.

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

Once Again, the Left is Expecting Far More Than Is Realistic. . .
Posted by: SkeeterVT1 on Nov 23, 2008 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell does Jeremy Scahill and other hard-core "progressives" expect of Barack Obama?

They've clearly forgotten that it was MODERATE INDEPENDENTS who put Obama into the White House. And it's from the center that Obama will govern.

Bush moved too far to the Right, not only for progressives, but also for moderates. But moderates outnumber progressives -- something that progressives are going to have to accept.

ANYTHING is better than Bush, by a country mile. But if progressives are expecting a sharp left turn in governance, then they're in for a disappointment.

Of course, it's no accident that progressive voters tend to be younger than 40, while moderates tend to be older than 40 and conservatives older than 60. And guess what? the over-60 voters went for McCain by a wide margin.

Like it or not, progressives, you're going to have to face the fact that at the ballot box, moderates rule.

So why should progressives be so surprised that Obama is surrounding himself with Clintonites? Clinton's presidency was far more successful than Jimmy Carter's -- the only other Democratic president in the last 30 years -- and Clinton had little choice but to govern from the center after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

The Republican brand is mud precisely because its white, male-dominated, conservative evangelical base is a shrinking minority of the electorate. If the GOP is to survive in the face of a demographically changing electorate, it has no choice but to move back to the center; otherwise, it will remain a minority party for a generation or longer.

Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have a much broader constituency to answer to than they had under both Carter and Clinton, so they, too, must govern from the center.

Did you think Obama was merely spewing campaign rhetoric when he said that he wanted an end to the left-right polarization that has dominated our politics for the last 30 years?

Remember that Obama is a Generation X-er. After two Baby Boomer presidents in Clinton and Bush -- and knowing that the Boomers, having grown up during Vietnam and Watergate, are a permanently polarized generation -- this election marks the first time that the Boomers were out-voted by their elders on one side and their youngers on the other.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Progressives are a minority of the electorate, certainly a smaller minority than conservatives. So it's foolish for progressives to expect to get everything they want from the Obama administration. But, thank God, none of us have to worry about a neo-fascist regime taking over with McCain and Palin.

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

GOT A QUESTION
Posted by: MobileSucks on Nov 23, 2008 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can somebody offer up some good realistic alternatives to those listed above?

Got some names a progressive could feel good about? If you do I'd LOVE to hear them. Really would. Also, reasons how or why they'd make good picks would be great. (I've been attacked for not having a whole list of alternatives.)

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

Don't forget biodefense industry and patriot act
Posted by: di13 on Nov 25, 2008 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't forget we continue to build numberous bioterrorism labs handling aerosal germs with even unknown antidotes supposedly for "defense". And this industry has been given exclusive secrecy, tax incentives (think Lieberman), etc. Not to mention the Patriot Act. All this will take more definitive shape under Obama and his administration. Unbelievable.

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

joef1
Posted by: joef1 on Nov 26, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember my grandma reading me a story when I was young..it had to with a monkey who was inticed to walk out on a limb for a bananna...the monkey got so intense about the bananna he forgot to look to see if the limb which he was walking on was long enough for him to reach the bananna!....it wasn't!....I still think of that story..especially now!

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

Now it's done --- the NYTimes covers-up the 'new team'
Posted by: amacd on Dec 1, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Foreign Policy Rollout”, indeed.

But to be more accurate the Times should have titled this “Foreign Policy Rollover” — since Obama, by appointing this establishment neo-liberal ‘team’, —- is rolling-over to the entrenched ‘corporate financial Empire’ that currently controls our country behind the facade of its bipartisan, ‘Vichy’ government .

While the Times’s David E. Sanger revealing reports, “Mr. Obama’s best political cover may come from Mr. Gates…”, the true peek-hole into this supposedly ‘new team’ comes by looking into General James L. Jones (Ret. USMC), who Sanger’s, perhaps too thorough reporting style (and web link) shows us that the retired General happens to currently be the “president and chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy”

Chamber of Commerce? Aren’t they the rabid right-wing corporatist group that lobbies against regulations?

By following the trail, one quickly finds this ‘message’ by Gen Jones (aka Pres. Jones) of COCI 21st Century Energy:

http://energyxxi.org/pages/Message_from_the_President.aspx

“But wait, there’s more!” — as the TV cheapo ads say.

Not surprisingly, the gist of Jones’s message has also been expanded and endorsed by the whole ruling-elite establishment board of COCI, including; Spencer ‘oily’ Abraham, George ‘racist’ Allen, Frank ‘Carlyle Group’ Carlucci, Thomas ‘no regulations’ Donohue, Dr. Henry ‘war criminal’. Kissinger, Dr. George ‘I gave you dubya’ Shultz, and other assorted corporate/government crooks, in an Open Letter to the ‘hopeful’ and ‘change-oriented’ new President Elect —- which advocates, what George Bush has infamously termed, “whatever it takes”, to keep their ruling-elite energy Empire:

http://www.uschamber.com/xxi/open_letter.html

Well, as the NY Times reports, they sure “have embraced a sweeping shift of priorities and resources in the national security arena.”

This is nothing like that old-elite’s PNAC agenda to control the world by controlling oil as a global empire — even if you have to use military force to prevent “any other country or group of countries from ever challenging U.S. world hegemony”.

Heavens no! This sounds like a much ‘changed’ and ‘hopeful’ strategy of using supposed ’soft-power’ to more gently rule the world with energy — instead of oil.

— Alan MacDonald

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

Mannnnnn....
Posted by: Artemis3 on Dec 14, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe this is such a big surprise for all the starry-eyed Koolaid-drinking Obamabots! I didn't vote for him, but I do hope for the best. But I don't have much hope.

*keep the change*

[« 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