Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
The Balkan Trilogy

The Balkan Trilogy

By Olivia Manning; Rachel Cusk (Introduction by)

Kolyma Tales

Kolyma Tales

By Varlam Shalamov; John Glad (Translator)

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama’s Re-Election Campaign Begins

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 5, 2012
Paul Wicks (CC BY-SA 2.0)

An Obama poster hangs in San Francisco.

In an effort to improve upon the 2008 slogans of “Hope” and “Change,” the Obama campaign insisted before an Ohio audience Saturday that the president would take the country “Forward” if voters (and corporate sponsors) elected him to four more years in the White House. —ARK

The Guardian:

Dressed casually in a shirt, with no tie or jacket and his sleeves rolled up, Obama wanted to look ready to get down to the business, and he told the crowd to remind people of his first campaign. “You tell them it is still about hope, it is still about change,” he said.

But that task is not going to be easy. Foreign wars and a home recession now provide a very different political backdrop than 2008. Obama is now pitching himself on a first term of governing, not a promise of a new type of president. Gone is the “Hope and Change” slogan, replaced by the more serious “Forward”.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By rtb61, May 8, 2012 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

So Barack Obama new election slogan is “Forget Hope and Change” in fact ‘er’ pretend it never happened, now going “Forward”, hmm, was this guy the one who said, if you keep doing the same things over and over again, your insane if you expect any change.
Keep ignoring the primaries and don’t be surprised when all your candidates are from the same political party, the lobbyists political party.
If you can’t vote for someone better at least make the feel the pain of being fired. Keep getting rid of them and eventually just by sheer dumb luck, you’ll eventually get keepers.

Report this
THX 1133 is not in the movie...'s avatar

By THX 1133 is not in the movie..., May 8, 2012 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

By Carlo, May 6 at 8:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I support Romney more, because he’s an honest right-
winger. Obama is a con man who confuses and divides
progressives by saying what we want to hear, but then
doing something else. Anyone who says they support
Obama is simply a fool.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carlo, not a personal attack, but your post is so
typical of the shallow thinking and lack of in depth
knowledge of a candidate.
Romney is the antithesis of honesty. Your assessment
of Obama is spot on. Why?
Because you have “experienced” the real Obama over
almost 4 years and he’s truly rotten.
But you rely on Romney’s “words” to form an opinion.
This is important; Romney’s words, not his actions.
With very little research (looking) you’ll find
another devil in Romney; same as Obama.
Please do your home work; you and the country will be
far better for it, really. Cheers.

Report this

By - bill, May 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, call me a democratic party supporter.”

The amazing thing about such supporters is not that they get fooled so persistently but that they so vehemently resist all attempts to clue them in to that situation.  To me, this takes their behavior beyond mere incompetence into the realm of delusion, and while it of course is a delusion carefully cultivated by the fear-based politics of both major parties that doesn’t really change its essentially pathological character (one might consider such cultivation to be a form of ‘gaslighting’).

People inclined to quibble about whether such unshakable commitment actually rises to the level of delusion and pathology might consider Einstein’s definition of insanity:  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  While Einstein was not a psychiatrist he was an exceptionally bright man talking about the core of his area of expertise (the scientific method) - not that such factors are likely to persuade the truly faithful, which is the group under discussion here.

If it weren’t so perniciously destructive to our country’s (and in fact the world’s) well-being the fact that so large a portion of a generally well-meaning and otherwise at least apparently competent population can be so effectively manipulated would simply be an extremely interesting phenomenon to study.  Comparisons with delusions of comparable magnitude and significance fostered in 1930s Germany come to mind, though I think we’ve broken somewhat new ground in terms of using internal polarization rather than the perception of external threats to achieve similar levels of control.

Given the importance of the problem, however, my own primary interest in it is in how to fix it.  Rational argument is clearly ineffective in most cases - even when applied very persistently (fear turns out to be an extremely effective obstacle to rational thought).  Hoping for a ‘savior’ to appear has not so far produced results (Obama sounded a lot like one, and look what we got; Dean might have been closer to the real thing, and look how effectively his support was derailed).  The Green party seems to be politically incompetent (though it does help its supporters feel good).  And inspiring though things like the Occupy and Wisconsin movements have been I don’t see the kind of mass reaction required to change things in any fundamental way (rather than just beat back a few of the most egregious usurpations of our democracy) on the immediate horizon.

Other ideas?

Report this

By Maani, May 6, 2012 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

Carlo:

“I support Romney more, because he’s an honest right-winger.”

Apparently, your definition of “honest” is a great deal broader than most.  LOL.  Romney has taken completely opposite positions on almost every single issue both domestic and foreign, depending on which way the political wind is blowing.  And he has even taken a position, reversed it, and reversed it again at least three or four times.  Even his own aide noted that his positions can change “like Etch-A Sketch”; erase them and come out with an entirely different position.

Obama has indeed been a disappointment.  He has drifted too far to the right, and he has betrayed the left in many ways, not least re civil liberties.  But he and his team unquestionably kept this country from an even greater economic catastrophe than the one we got (which, you will remember, was the result of Bush policies…), he turned around the auto industry from one that was about to fail to one that is completely recovered and booming, and he just recently (finally!) stood up to the GOP and got a pretty good (if not as good as it might have been) economic deal re unemployment and other things, without giving the GOP almost anything.

As for foreign policy, while he can be faulted for his Afghanistan policy and his Israel policy, he did finally end the war in Iraq, fully supported the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt, played a role in the toppling of Qaddafi in Libya, and at least played to a stalemate with Iran, neither giving in to the drumbeat for war nor allowing them any quarter with respect to their nuclear program.

Romney opposed almost every Obama intiative that helped minimize the economic meltdown, opposed the bailout of the auto industry, and opposed the recdent deal.  He is even more hawkish on Afghanistan than Obama has been, did not support the NATO support for the Libyan rebels, etc., etc.

Of course, as I noted, given Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch policies, he could decide tomorrow to reverse every one of these position.  That’s because he is just SO honest…LOL.

Peace.

Report this
Mona's avatar

By Mona, May 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

The French just threw out Sarcozy as a right-winger, and many felt that he looked left compared to Obama.

What that makes Romney, hey?

I do not have the answers.  It’s very bad what’s going in American politics.

Report this
Mona's avatar

By Mona, May 6, 2012 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

carlo - honest or dishonest - a rightwinger doesn’t represent MY views!

Report this

By realveive, May 6, 2012 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Time to walk the talk, Barack.  Glorious oration ain’t gonna help the US of A.  We need some tough, explicit plans and the chutzpa to bowl over the GOP peanut section brayers.

Report this

By carl quinlan, May 6, 2012 at 11:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mitt Romney already has his national security team lined up. No big surprises in it—it reads like a re-air of the Bush Administration:

Oliver North (convicted felon), Gen. Thomas McInerney (birther), KT McFarland (Reagan PR hack), Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Republican tea party water carrier, and more.

Report this
Not One More!'s avatar

By Not One More!, May 6, 2012 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

More of the Same.

Cue in the people who are going to insist that Obama is going to be different this time around.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me over and over, call me a democratic party supporter.

When are people who proclaim to be for peace and justice stop voting for the lesser of two evil? It doesn’t represent standing up for basic principles of justice. Silence equals consent.

Stop giving the current corporate regimes and their henchmen your consent by voting for them.

“It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” - Eugene Debs

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, May 6, 2012 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

carl is saying the boot on your throat is more acceptable, comfortable and benevolent if it has a (D) on it.  “My larynx isn’t messing up the shine on your boot is it sir?”

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, May 6, 2012 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

Maani - You mean like the recent unanimous decision that the cops can strip search anyone at anytime for any reason.  I’m sure the women who will be strip searched by bored lecherous police will take great comfort in that being a “left” decision.  Especially the ones that will be tased a few times for not complying with a lawful order.  Perhaps that’s why NYPD is using sexual assaults (gropes) in their attacks on OWS now, they have Kagan and Sotamayor’s blessing.  Not to mention it will soon, predictably, be extended to the private sector, from CCA to strip searches with you drug tests, unless you’re wearing a gun, of course.

Its no real surprise the kind of Justices the “Gang of Five” were going to be and yet the Dimocraps seated them all six times they had the opportunity to stop them.  Claiming that you need to elect the party that approved the SCOTUS line-up to save you from the SCOTUS is pandering of the worst sort.  That’s why we should all laugh when the Dims accuse the Repugs of campaigning via fear.

Finally, what did you know of Kagan and Sotamayor before they were confirmed?  The only thing I knew about Kagan was that she was a strong supporter of the Unitary Executive theory, something I’m sure Barry 0 requires of all his nominees.  When you add that to his obvious belief, expressed at every occasion by his DOJ, that financial, political, and military elites are beyond the rule of law you should have a disqualification from being President, not a reason to vote for him.  Obviously the Repugs want a corporate state that 70 years ago would have been called fascism, but calling a politician and his party that are to the right of Otto von Bismark the “left” is to have actually already given up.  As well as acknowledging that Bernays was really on to something.

Report this

By Carlo, May 6, 2012 at 9:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I support Romney more, because he’s an honest right-winger. Obama is a con man who confuses and divides progressives by saying what we want to hear, but then doing something else. Anyone who says they support Obama is simply a fool.

Report this

By Jeff N., May 6, 2012 at 9:13 am Link to this comment

carl - It’s not so much that there is no difference between Romney and Obama, but the line separating the two is so thin as to render a serious comparison between the candidates useless.  We can sit around all day waiting for some benevolent leader to come down and give us all the things we want from our government, but it isn’t going to happen until the pubic becomes more engaged and continues to hit the streets like Occupy has been doing.  Casting our useless ballot and then sitting back to play arm-chair politics for another four years gets us nowhere.

Report this

By balkas, May 6, 2012 at 6:12 am Link to this comment

u mean ONEPERCENT’S campaign for [s]election
of a prez is finally begining or ending?
i mean, everything already decided!!
i want to get here a no, a yes, or a what!! don’t be
shy! educate me!!

Report this
vector56's avatar

By vector56, May 6, 2012 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

“If you look at the way Sotomayor and Kagan voted on issues similar to the ones you cite, you will find that they were, indeed, on the “left” side of the decisions.”

Maani;

Sotomayor and Kagan are good Corporate Democrats like Obama; how does this slow the corporate take over of the country?

Also, enough with this declaring someone “Center-Left” Democrat; if the center has moved so far to the right that would make them Nixonian Republicans after being adjusting for inflation.

Report this

By Maani, May 5, 2012 at 10:04 pm Link to this comment

blueokie:

The proof is in the pudding.  If you look at the way Sotomayor and Kagan voted on issues similar to the ones you cite, you will find that they were, indeed, on the “left” side of the decisions.

Peace.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, May 5, 2012 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Seriously people, the SCOTUS argument again?  What is it this time, 5-4 sounds better than 6-3?  Remember the only SCOTUS decision the Dimocraps give a rats ass about, but only during Prez elections, they could care less in between?  Do you honestly believe that Barry 0 won’t nominate Justices who look at financial statements to decide who is right?  That won’t be willing to look the other way at
Executive Branch abuses?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, don’t answer that e-mail from the Nigerian prince.

Report this
Copeland's avatar

By Copeland, May 5, 2012 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Maybe Jon Corzine can bundle a few more big contributions for the sometimes
dreamy, sometimes warlike, Obama. Who says embezzlement and collusion don’t
pay?

Report this

By Maani, May 5, 2012 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment

Carl:

Hear, hear.  Even if there were no other differences, I’ll offer a single one, worth all the others put together: SCOTUS.  Obama appointed two center-left women.  Is there any question what kind of justice Romney would appoint?

‘Nuff said.

Peace.

Report this
Copeland's avatar

By Copeland, May 5, 2012 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

What a wild trip it must be, from the faux post partisan to the grainy faraway look
of the post apocalyptic. It’s not about expectations or dreams now, but about
settling in among the ruins. Corporations and debt vultures are out to trump governments. O what a Brave New World, forward!

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, May 5, 2012 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

The Emperor wants us all to follow him “forward”...to hell.

Report this

By bigchin, May 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rah rah siss boom bah!

Re-elect the corporate war pig, he’s better than the other (untested) corporate war pig.

Repulsive progressive hypocrisy.

Report this

By carl quinlan, May 5, 2012 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cue the long line of commenters who will insist there is absolutely no difference between obama and romney.


just like there was no difference between bush and gore in 2000. As if the outcome would have been the same no matter who got elected.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.