Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?

simply a criminal conspiracy. There is no force in the USA that can derail. redirect, or even impede the rush to fascism. American citizens are too misinformed, stupid, or scared to be guardians of their own liberty. Obama is the greatest illustration possible.

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

I wouldn't have voted for Obama, so I don't feel cheated or disappointed for myself. What I do feel is profound anger at his cynical betrayal of those millions of young, idealistic, Americans who actually believed his clever campaign rhetoric and capacity for lying with style. People like Obama, and those around him, have, like Clinton, no shame. They believe that their own narrow self-interest, ambition, and lust for power and glory, is comparable to the interests of the United States and the American people as a whole.

Obama is a classic case of an old, worn out, product, receiving a new, flashy, and apparently successful, make-over or rebranding. In this case, the Presidency. Let's face it, after Bush this was hardly a gargantuan task. Though to be fair to Bush, the last couple of years of his regime, after his wings were clipped definitively, were actually not that bad compared to what Obama has in store for us.

It's important to understand that Obama, when he talks about 'finishing the job' in Afghanistan, is essentially talking about finishing the 'job' George Bush started but was constrained from 'finishing' because he'd used up his quota of foreign policy 'disasters' with the American people; Obama, on the other hand, still has a lot of capital to waste on gigantic, military, crimes, far from America's shores. So, Obama is actually attempting to finish Bush's job! This from a leader who subtly and cleverly possitioned himself as the peace candidate and an alternative to raw imperialism, is a betrayal on a truly historic scale.

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

To Hell with the Clinton comparison. Just look at Obama's record so far on just about any issue ... an extension of Dubya's policies but with better PR.

~ Even more trillions for Banksters ..

~ More troops and trillions for War

~ Less privacy ... more domestic spying

~ Industry appointments in every important position ...

~ Back room deals on health care despite promises of transparency. Then undercutting any real reform by constantly sending mixed messages from the White House.

And the list of Obama's betrayals goes on and on. At least with Bush you knew what you were getting. With Obama it is a pack of lies, a program of deceit.

The "Community Organizer" sold the "audacity of hope" to an adoring following and gave them a bitter betrayal ...

Clinton triangulated behind our backs. Obama just sticks the knife in deep.

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

Obama talked the talk but I have no idea what walk he's walking.The financial system has been sold out to the banks and Wall street and the health care bill has progressives like Dennis Kucinich voting no.The public option has become just that,an option.

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

Good one, Jeff. Not a day goes by when I'm not frothing at the mouth about the sucker punch we took after Bambi's election. I mean, I thought I voted against a Clinton redux, but that's what we got. WTF???????

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

If Kuchinich had won, would he have been visited by an economic hit man? If so, his choice would be doing the bidding of corporate bosses or assassination.

To gain a more realistic understanding of what Obama is up against, you must read Memoirs of an Economic Hitman written by a man who was recruited by corporate interests to threaten newly elected leaders.

Perhaps someone with more e-skills will post a link!

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

Gee, it took less than a year for more of you to come around to understanding what I saw early on in the campaign - that Obama was too weak to be his own man, and would be owned by the traditional Democratic special interests that brought you the ruinous administration of Bill Clinton. This is why I championed Dennis Kucinich in the Primaries and Cynthia McKinney in the Fall. I have a clear conscious for what I did in the campaign and my vote.

I am sick and tired of being told to be "realistic" in my political expectations. Yes it was a great thing to elect the first black President, but not one so "owned" by corporate interests of all kinds. We are so screwed as a country and a World it leads me to despair. We need to quit being an over-consuming empire, stealing the rest of the World's resources, and taking a collective dump in the ecosystem. We must greatly reduce our population, can consumerism, and live a more simple, sustainable life. None of of the political leadership to do that is ever going to come from Obama, or anyone else in the establishment.

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

C'mon, guys. Can't you see Barack Obama is not fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots? ;)

The article misses an important distinction between Clinton's alleged alliance with the Republicans and Obama's sell-out.

Clinton forged his alliance at the height of the Republican Revolution. Goofy neocon ideas like free trade had swept through the Democratic Party like a nasty flu.

They were all doing it. Remember how Al Gore embarrassed the hapless Ross Perot in their Vice-Presidential debate? How funny it was that this upstart third-party candidate should dare to question the gospel of free trade!

This was Al Gore--not Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter was also doing it. Virtually the whole damn party was doing it. The Republican Revolution was approaching its zenith. Milton Friedman was a genius and life was an Ayn Rand novel.

I'm not saying this justifies Democrats acting like neocons. But it's useful to remember how utterly BURIED in neocon memes we were back then--and with no internet to help us. Most people honest-to-God believed the United States had turned into a nation of guys in pick-up trucks. Bill Clinton was a Democratic fish swimming in an ocean of conservative memes. It made a certain amount of sense that he might have to adapt to the circumstances.

But Obama has no such excuse. Everything is different now. The Republican Revolution has crashed and burned beyond all belief. The Republican Party was on its knees, broken and bleeding and utterly disgraced, when Obama came along.

And yet the Bammer has gone on to do things that make Bill Clinton seem like Dennis Kucinich. Handing trillions to the banksters, for example. Or continuing war crimes and fascist policies. Or refusing to sign the treaty against land mines, which I just heard about this morning. It's just one big gross-out after another--from a man who posed as a progressive, no less.

Republican alliances should be especially easy for Obama, because Obama is basically a neocon.

As Senator, he voted for the Cheney energy bill, which no Democrat would do.

In fact, no Democrat in history has done such far-right things as Barack Obama--and all this AFTER the Republican Revolution had been disgraced. In everyone's eyes but the President's, it would seem. Obama says great things; but he's a flaming neocon.

As for Obama hiring Clinton holdovers: isn't it odd that Clinton had such success with the same people who are ruining things now? How did Clinton turn the biggest deficit in history into the biggest surplus and preside over the longest sustained period of economic growth in U.S. history, with higher income at all levels, etc., with these nincompoops working for him?

It's clear Obama will accomplish none of the things Clinton did. Did the Clinton advisers lose their mojo, or is Obama just a bad leader? Don't ask me; I voted for Cynthia McKinney.

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

...have the political resources to identify and implement the kind of reforms the country needs to enact in order to master the crises of the moment.

Had the American middle class taken the reform path in 1972 instead of the reactionary path....

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

First, a large segment of the population is ignorant and uneducated to begin with - not exactly what you want voting in a democracy. Second, much of the information they receive is nothing more than corporate propaganda (Faux News). Third, no matter who they vote into Congress or the White House, corporations still call the shots on what gets done so the first two don't even matter that much anyway.
That is not a democracy. It's a fraud. It's fake. Without true representation, the masses are powerless. The bottom line is the men who run our large corporations are running the country for their benefit. Why else would wars continue and a health care option be close to impossible? Can we change it? Public uprising? Watch the business/government plutocracy turn our own military against us. I don't know how we can get the change we voted for but aren't getting.

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

And Clinton was the president of the rich and escalated the class war on the working class and the poor. It was not only NAFTA but related treaties and agreements which turned the trickle of jobs to impoverished, slave labor, totalitarian ruled, nations into a tsunami.

It was Clinton and his cabal of sudkers-up to the rich and their corporations who presided over one of the most draconian changes in welfare legislation in the history of the USA. He was more of an enemy of the people than even that murderous thug, Regan.

It was under his watch that tens of thousands of children in Iraq suffered starvation and inadequate medical care; radioacive poinioning from the use of depleted uranium in weapons. He was responsible for the slaughter of Serbs to save the sorry asses of a bunch of Muslim terrorists.

Now we have someone following the same policies as Clinton. Why? Because unless you are prepared to do what the bankers and the big business criminal class of kleptocrats demand, you can't get elected to begin with.

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

Come on people--at some point we have to stop being shocked, shocked, to discover that anyone elected to the most powerful positions in our society will demonstrate allegiance to corporations only. Yes, assassination is quite likely the alternative Obama would have faced had he chosen to try to govern as a progressive, but just when do you think he made his choices? He's no idiot; he knew the game when he began running for the presidency. Just because he has a pretty family and can talk a good line doesn't mean he isn't another sociopath--anyone who is not a sociopath will not be allowed near the presidency. Sure, Kucinich is allowed to remain in Congress, and he and Ron Paul were allowed to run, but they were almost never allowed into the debates or given access to unbiased media attention--they function to disguise the rigged nature of the game. Had the public somehow awakened and begun supporting Kucinish in high numbers, he would have had himself a little plane crash, or died of a heart attack.
I'm not sure what we can do about this but it begins with recognizing reality: we will never pull our country or the world out of the deep crises into which they're sinking by "electing good people to office"--that game is THOROUGHLY controlled.

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

First, progressives are not a force to be concerned with as they are a small voting block - they entire self described "liberal" voting block is only about 22%.

Second democrats seem to be all over the place regarding what they support. Far left types haven't taken over the entire party as many would seem. Many democrats are still concerned about the welfare of those that got them into office.

The fact that unions were against NAFTA should tell you something, they are not the most popular group in many parts of the nation and Clinton had no use for them - (Reagan just broke their criminal grip on the nation).

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

To reprise an old joke: "What do Barak Obama and Ronald Reagan have in common? Both had once been Democrats"

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

M-III expansion came through the Clinton Administration giving us relatively good years even as we sacrificed manufacturing capacity.

The problem was that wages need to rise to maintain consumption and that wasn't happening for anyone but those at the top...so even with productivity increases there was no longer a funded market in the US...it was tapped out... more money going to pay for housing, education and health care and, without trade deficits, consumer money was leaving the country and any 'reinvestment' was happening abroad--any multiplier effect from consumer purchases in the States was mitigated by the foreign sourcing--and profits were kept offshore through transfer pricing and other schemes so tax receipts did not rise as much as they should have.

As the years went by, dollars pumped into the econmy had less and less of an effect till finally, the bubble burst and the implosion is occurring.

We are paying for the Clinton--and even the Reagan/Bush-- financial profligacy today. Of course, people only remember the good times under Clinton and Bush--not the fall they were being set up for .

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

Clinton came on the heels of the first wild swing to the Right.
Granted there is shit he did that came right out of the Orwellian DLC's BS euphanism of a Plateform of the 'Third Way'.(There is only One way in a Democracy, We the Peoples, not the Corps even dolled up in a Blue pantsuit).
The Reagan years was a radical swing to the Right.
Beyond that, We have 3 branches of Gov't.Two of which handle and haggle domestic and foreign policy. Clinton only had 2 yrs with a Dem Congress. So placing unilateral glory or blame on Clinton is a falsehood to begin with.
Remember 'Contract with America', apparently the small print read- The Corps are free to steal everything we have and sink US several Trillion in Debt.
But the Neo Cons had begun breaking ground on this founation excavation before Clinton ever took office. Sen McCains S&L Scandals involving the Keating 5?
Obama is in a similar position, but with far more shit on his plate. Clinton was handed a mild recession and some ex bedfellows of the CIA from the '80s, gone bad.
Obama Doemstic and international economic collapse. Two clusterfucks for Wars. Uneployment rates close to the Great depression in some areas (Flint, MI 28%?). Not to mention all the burned our International Bridges he need to reconstitute.Add on the Racist, delusional zealots and various othe rsociopaths, and Obama has faced more than Clinton did in his 8 yrs. You have to go back to FDR to even begin an true comparison.
The Far Left need a reality check as desperately as the Far Right. There is no magic wands, no teleporters (to the future or the past). There is no Easy Button. We need all hands on deck, so throwing people overboard is counterproductive to eliciting their help. I hate Wall Street and would love to see them all prosecuted for economic treason. But right now we need all the help we can get, even from those who crashed the ship to begin with. Hang 'em from the yardarm later.
The Obama admin not only has to walk back about 40 yrs of how business has been done, but what people have been lead to believe.
How many people still are unable to comprehend the fact that the nouns Labor, Taxpayer and consumers are the same person. So by cutting labors pay, you only succeed in having less people to pay taxes, and derail consumerism.
consumers don't drive an economy- The amount of Disposable income drives the economy. FYI Repugs Taxes pay for our national defense. Tax cuts does Not support the troops.
This country was given HGB in the Reagan era, and we were jolted Awake when the markets collapsed. This is why so many are swinging wildly like startled sleepwalkers. They literally have no idea where they are because they have no idea about how they got here.
Obama I hope will lead the way to a succession of Liberally minded Presidencies or public servants. Patience has always been a Progressives strength, lets not blow it now.

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

Helen Thomas said it best, Obama lacks "courage." He was elected on the basis of a strong response to Bush/Cheney and the promise of "reform." What we got is Bush/Cheney III. So much for term limits. Is it too early to think impeachment? I hope not or this freefall will take an already corrupt and feckless nation to its inevitable demise! Maybe it is so ordained, but I would have preferred a more informed end.

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

I know Bill Clinton risked re-election to save Medicaid/Medicare from GOP cuts. Now the Dems are wanting cuts
check out my Bill Clinton blog
http://adugan-billclintonblog.blogspot.com/

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

He lied during the campaign, he lied during his inauguration, he is lying to us right now. He is owned by Wall Street and Corporate Forces. The only "change" he delivered was changing from his campaign promises. The President is a fraud and is destroying the middle class base the Democrats will need during next year's mid-term elections.

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

Obama needs to realize who elected him.
His constituency wants the end to all the illegal wars NOW! They want an end to Wall Street. They want an end to The Health Insurance industry. End the ethnic cleansing war on drugs.
They want clean, renewable energy.
BUT, for some reason he still feels a need to make Massa happy.
It's like the junkie who likes cops. It's like the a Gay republican. It's like the woman who loves that man who beats her...get a clue and quit acting like a dumb houseboy!!

Some people have this need to be accepted by the very bully who picks on them etc. etc. etc.
Hey Obama! Quit acting like a slave nigga!
Massa didn't elect you. We did!
When Massa'a house burned down the field nigga said, "We free now!" while the house nigga said "What we gon do, where we gon live."
So Obama, what's it going to be? A proud Black man elected by a vast majority of intelligent progressives who understand that this country is circling the drain or are you just another step'n'fetch it slave boy doing Massa's dirty work?
Make up your mind and choose a side so WE the electorate knows how to treat you. Man or Boy?

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

...and that's how I really feel.

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

When Alternet articles make my point.

In reality, of course, the Obama administration is the Bush II admin with a smiley face.

But in many ways, so was Clinton. Clinton made me a Green (and many thousands of others), when I realized he was really a Republican in a donkey suit.

Jeff Cohen may not realize it yet, but he just jumped ship. There will be more. At this point, millions of progressives are having their "Oh, Shit" moment. They are realizing they've been had, and they're wondering what comes next.

As Cohen points out, what usually comes next is a swing back to the Republicans. That's when we all accept that there are only 2 options. As long as we accept that, the giant corporations and their political flunkies have us where they want us.

So there's the challenge: how do we keep this Conservadem government from handing us back to the OPEN Republicans, who feel free to do even worse? No more smiley face for you!

We have 2 choices: we can watch the Republican juggernaut bear down on us, or we can swing our efforts to real progressive alternatives and take advantage of the anti-incumbency sentiment surging around us.

Let me put it this way: even Democrat loyalists better HOPE the Greens do well next year, rather than the Republicans. Yes, it could throw some elections to Republicans; but it also throws things open. Under plurality voting, in a 3-way race you can potentially win with only 34% of the vote - even less,as the number of candidates goes up. That's what Tony Blair got, the last time around. In Mexico, it was 38% - only they both got that, so with no runoff they nearly had a war over it.

We have less than a year now.

www.gp.org

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

so large it may as well be a lie.

NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of Clinton healthcare “reform” largely drafted by giant insurance companies,...

Hillary Clinton's task force on health care in 1993 was held without benefit of input from any concerned industry. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons along with other groups brought suit against Clinton and Donna Shalala to learn the names of the people who were meeting behind closed doors to turn the health care system upside down. They won that suit, along with damages to pay their legal fees, but the award was overturned on appeal.

I recall Hillary being asked if she or the President were at all concerned that the health insurance companies, who employ very many people in the country, would effectively go out of business. She snapped, "Well, they'll just have to find another line of work!"

When the naive, coercive plan was unveiled, it was the health insurance industry that campaigned against it the hardest. Those "Harry and Louise" ads? They were paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America.

So please don't try to tell us that the bill was drafted by huge insurance companies. We are not stupid.

The Obama Administration is going about things in a more sophisticated way, is not naive enough to think that they should end an entire industry with a wave of its hand, and are determined not to repeat the Clintons' mistakes.

I know this annoys all the CORPORATIONS--BAD!! people, but knee-jerkers are just jerks anyway.

And I personally DO NOT APPRECIATE the LOUSY RESEARCH that produced this article. Do you people think you can say whatever you want, regardless of the facts?? Talk about dumbing down!

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

You might want to note the comfort being given to the "deather" crowd in the vast majority of the comments under your worthless screed.

And you called someone else an "Obama Basher". Right. Well I guess that title can be shared across the lines of whatever party or group you subscribe to.

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, my ass.

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

...given what happened to JFK when he was weary of a massive escalation of troops in Vietnam?

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

so far it links like and Bill Clinton.
He could have bought all the mortgages at a reduced price and the banks went and lost their shirts but he didn't. He could slap a big terrace on all goods coming in to the country even if it was made by American company but I don't think he will.
Hatred of pullout of NAFTA and all free-trade agreements which is killing the country but I don't think you will. So all the jobs will continue to leave the country. He's probably a Bill Clinton I hope our.

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

I quit the Democrats and started voting third party and Independent because the Democrats in 1996, under the Clinton's, no longer reflected or respected my social justice, civil liberties and human rights constitutional values.

As much as it pained me to NOT vote for the person who obviously was about to become America's first black president it also was obvious that Obama was following in the footsteps of the right-wing of the Democratic Party.

It is more important, to me, that I vote my values than to vote for any individual or cult. Obama is a cult of personality. An empty suit. The Obama promise of "change" was obviously only skin deep.

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

This is not off topic.

The real purpose of the War on Drugs of Richard Nixon, in collusion with the Dixie-crats in congress in 1970, was to undermine, subvert and neutralize the electoral and political empowerment provided to poor and minority communities by 1.) the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and 2.) the 26st Amendment of 1971.

The fact that the only Democrats electable today are right-wing pandering Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is a testament to the only real success of the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs has economically and electorally dis-empowered the disaffected in minority and poor communities with criminal disenfranchisement and the easy tax free opportunity of the drug markets.

I need to digress here.

Jim Crow, until 1965, stood on two legs. 1.) Direct denial of access to elections and polling with unfair restrictions. The VRA effectively ended most such practices. 2.) The more insidious practice of criminal disenfranchisement based on trumped up morals laws. Including drug laws. Social justice advocates were effectively neutralized from advocating against this practice because they would be demonized as defending criminals and addicts. Ignoring the fact that 90% of intoxicant drug users are neither criminals nor are they addicts. Demonization is good at inaccurately stereotyping large populations of people.

Drug convictions have disenfranchised tens of millions of Americans in the past forty years. Not only minorities but disaffected young people of all races are targeted. Anyone willing to question the drug laws by smoking a joint may be willing to question other dogma and dictates of the right-wing status quo. The use of an intoxicant drug then becomes a litmus test for social conformity.

As generations of criminally disenfranchised take their disaffection back to their communities family, friends and children are exposed to their lack of faith in the rule of law, justice and the social justice promise of America.

Economically the War on Drugs floods poverty oppressed economic and education deprived populations with easy money. Tax free money. Money that entices under-advantaged children and adults alike in crime and addiction. This easy opportunity is a 'fish-in-a-barrel' opportunity for drug warriors to sweep large groups of youth from the streets and criminalize them. Sending them into the political nether-world of criminal disenfranchisement.

So many minority and nonconformist Americans have been electorally and socially dis-empowered over the past forty years of the War on Drugs that Democrats have lost their base. There are no more large and growing urban populations with good union jobs. What jobs there are are reserved to those who can pass criminal background and urine tests.

The result of all of this is that, starting in the early 1990's, the Democrats gave up on the poor, minorities and the political left that traditionally gave Democrats their activist foot soldiers during elections. These were the groups that had gotten out in the streets against Jim Crow and the unjust Vietnam War. These were the groups that the nation responded to with the Voting Rights Act and the 26st Amendment. And these were the groups targeted for dis-empowerment by Richard Nixon and the Dixie-crats under the guise of the War on Drugs.

Today no Democrat can get elected who is not a right-wing pandering conservative such as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. while they talk a great social justice line in the elections in the end they get their campaign finances from the right-wing corporate and Jim Crow dictators of America.

PLEASE SEE THE CONCLUSION COMMENT

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

Yes he is, and like Clinton, he'll gain personally but lose politically. Not one right wing vote will come his way from his movement right. It is up to progressives to pick, select and vote for representatives who'll push him back.

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

In a one party system it's quite all-right to choose the lesser of two evils (it could mean life or death for some). Obama was that choice in 2008. It will be very difficult to make a similar choice in 2012 to unseat a sitting President who has moved to the right. Perhaps the only real choice is to select and support progressives at every level of government who will oppose Obama and the right at every turn.

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

....or more specifically, somebody.

We, the people are the only, fading but still living hope for this country and for this world if we do not want the human race to disappear soon.

I'm not offering any great "plan", that's what all politicians do. They offer a "plan" to "do it all for you" They are not there for you and me.

Unless the people put pressure on this administration, it and the world will continue to be ruled by the Big Boys. They will never willingly give up their power - never.

If we, the people, unite right where we are, whatever our situation may be and whatever our condition, and organize and pressure these people who supposedly represent us, there is hope for true democracy, true socialism, a truly libertarian way of life. If we don't, this country, the world, the human race is heading where you and I know it is heading now: utter destruction. It's up to us.

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

This may be what he tries to do but events may destroy the utility of it. Our economy is in such bad shape there are going to be consequences for a business as usual approach to our problems and the world's problems as well. This is a time of US dominance diminishing and if we insist on maintaining it at all costs it will cost us all. And it won't work either, this time neither time nor morality is on our super powered side in foreign affairs or in world business corruption. Making a living and holding power by virtue of the suffering of others is a self-defeating strategy.

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

As Obama moves further and further to the right what should progressives who voted for him do? Stop supporting him, vote third party? I for one still believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. Although the differences are becoming very microscopic, even the smallest difference could mean life or death. Think of the tens of thousands who may have lived another day if Al Gore had won the election. Michael Moore's and Ralph Nadar's droning on about the sameness of GW and Gore didn't give any of those lives a decent hearing.

So I hold my nose and still support right wing Obama. My only hope in this one party system is that a lesser evil may do less harm. My support remains, but tepid. I will though with passion and dollars help those who run in primaries against those on the right, both bare and cloaked.

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

Why do you think Hillary is running the State Department? Same for the Treasury, CIA, Defense, Interior, etc. etc. An Establishment redux.

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

Obama and his entourage - utilizing historical actors and personages is following in the footsteps of Reagan, of Bush I, of Clinton, of Bush II... . As will the next "democratically elected President regardless of Faction.

At work nowadays it is not Republicans vs Democrats that are vying and jockeying for power, but rather Liberals and Conservatives -- in the strictest meaning of those 18th century political-economic formations. Democracy is not inherent to either one -- it is merely expedient, useful and disposable as circumstances dictate.

We've been importing and integrating British cultural capital for about 15 to 20 years now in all aspects of life, art and literature and film. This is evident in Liberal as well as Conservative media from the popular and vulgar to the refined and mannerly. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years or so we're not "voting" for an Americanized form of Constitutional Monarchy or something right along with its State Religion.!!

Our democratic procedures are exclusively formal -- all they do is legitimize this 25-year long project of privatization and imperial expansion that hasn't missed a step since those days.

One thing's for sure: a privatized Public Space is most certainly a direct and blatant contradiction to any rational concept of the term "Republic"! Obama is no exception to the trend.

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

following in the steps of G.W. Bush.

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

Sending troops to Adghanistan will break us and this bullshit about winning hearts and minds means nothing to these military fanatic junkies - its war for profit at any coat to us and anyone who gets in their way. Obama is just another puppet for these guys who are just too retarded and mentally ill to be in charge.

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

The media aired brushed out Ewards - They knew Obama would divide the country and offer grist for the mill for the racist retards down south and he lied because the first people he chose to be his bag men were on the wrong side. We were all desperate after Bush's criminal rampage. Obama made a deal with the devil to be president and like Michelle said " You wanted the job." And now he's hoping he gets out alive. He's in WAY over his head - being smart and being wise are two different things. All I can say is we are so profoundly screwed and we have lost all our power as a people. Now tens of millions of us will go hungry, lose jobs, homes and our lives cause big power & money equates us with toilet paper. We are expendable and disposalable but we atill have to pay taxes while they suck us dry for their own profit while we go down the the great "RECESSION"

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