 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 The Democrats’ Class WarPosted on Feb 7, 2008By David Sirota For all the hype about generational and gender wars in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, we have a class war on our hands. And incredibly, corporate America’s preferred candidate is winning the poorer “us” versus the wealthier “them”—a potentially decisive trend with the contest now moving to working-class bastions like Ohio and Pennsylvania. In most states, polls show Hillary Clinton is beating Barack Obama among voters making $50,000 a year or less—many of whom say the economy is their top concern. Yes, the New York senator who appeared on the cover of Fortune magazine as Big Business’s candidate is winning economically insecure, lower-income communities over the Illinois senator who grew up as an organizer helping those communities combat unemployment. This absurd phenomenon is a product of both message and bias. Obama has let Clinton characterize the 1990s as a nirvana, rather than a time that sowed the seeds of our current troubles. He barely criticizes the Clinton administration for championing job-killing trade agreements. He does not question that same administration’s role in deregulating the financial industry and thereby intensifying today’s boom-bust catastrophes. And he rarely points out what McClatchy Newspapers reported this week: that Clinton spent most of her career at a law firm “where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards,” including Wal-Mart’s. Obama hasn’t touched any of this for two reasons. First, his campaign relies on corporate donations. Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. That cash is hush money, contingent on candidates silencing their populist rhetoric. Advertisement  “If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him within the lens of transcendence would start seeing him differently,” says Charles Ellison of the University of Denver’s Center for African American Policy. That’s because once Obama parroted Edwards’ attacks on greed and inequality, he would “be stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race,” says Manning Marable, a Columbia University history professor. That is, the media would immediately portray him as another Jesse Jackson—a figure whose progressivism has been (unfairly) depicted as racial politics anathema to white swing voters. Remember, this is always how power-challenging African-Americans are marginalized. The establishment cites a black leader’s race- and class-unifying populism as supposed proof of his or her radical, race-centric views. An extreme example of this came from the FBI, which labeled Martin Luther King Jr. “the most dangerous man in America” for talking about poverty. More typical is the attitude exemplified by Joe Klein’s 2006 Time magazine column. He called progressive Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., “an African-American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped” and “one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics.” The Clintons are only too happy to navigate this ugly cultural topography. After a rare Obama attack on Hillary Clinton for supporting policies that eliminated jobs, Bill Clinton quickly likened Obama’s campaign to Jackson’s, and the Clinton campaign told the Associated Press that Obama was “the black candidate.” These were deliberate statements telling Obama that if he talks about class, they’ll talk about race. And so, as Marable says, Obama’s pitch includes “no mention of the class struggle or class conflict.” It is “hope” instead of an economic case, bromide instead of critique. The result is an oxymoronic dynamic. Obama, the person who fought blue-collar joblessness in the shadows of shuttered factories, is winning wealthy enclaves. But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds. Obama, who was schooled by the same organizing networks as Cesar Chavez, is being endorsed by hedge fund managers. But Clinton, business’s favorite, is being endorsed by the United Farm Workers—the union that Chavez created. Obama, the candidate from Chicago’s impoverished South Side, is finding support on Connecticut’s gilded south coast. But Hillary Clinton, the candidate representing Big Money, is finding support from those with relatively little money. As the campaign heads to the struggling Rust Belt under banners promising “change,” this bizarre class war may end up guaranteeing no real transformation at all. David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” will be released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network—both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
House Passes Health Care Bill
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By Mickey, March 11, 2008 at 12:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You’re a liberal and you voted for Clinton. You must have twisted like a pretzel to do that. Clinton, who like her husband, is a firm member of the DLC, the self-titled Democratic Leadership Council dedicated to empowering corporations at the cost of workers and consumers. Clinton, who voted AGAINST the ban on cluster bombs, which kill and maim mostly children—guess that “village” of hers doesn’t include little brown kids. Clinton, who has voted with Bush all but two or three times, who is a self-proclaimed warmonger of the nastiest kind “no nuclear war or unprovoked attack on Iran off the table”, who is correctly called the Queen of the Military Industrial Complex, who has already sunk to destructive campaign ads, who hasn’t a principle left in her bag of tricks (too full of bucks from Big Pharma, Big Banking, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Business, et al., for such useless things as a principle or two).
Oh, she has tossed the populace a few tidbits while in Congress, such as co-sponsoring a bill outlawing flag-burning and some “goodies” for the state of New York, but otherwise she’s all blood and steel with a bit of window dressing. I say, if she gets the nomination, vote for McCain and leave him holding the bag of disaster left by BushCo. With McCain’s foul temper and utter lack of honesty (read the quotes), he will self-destruct in no time.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 13, 2008 at 9:20 pm #
By Paracelsus, February 13: “No, that would be Obama smoking the crack…”
Someone mentioned this somewhere before….. but it would be naive to think that BO smoked crack when he would most probably use pure cocaine obtained from his medical buddies.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 8:32 pm #
I don’t like either of them, Clinton or Obama, Mike. I am trying to encourage people to use a different tactic other than voting.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 8:02 pm #
No, that would be Obama smoking the crack.
Report thisBy lib in texas, February 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm #
Louise & paracelsus, are you two smoking crack. What the Hell were you trying to say ??? Didn’t make much sense to me !!!!!
Report thisBy tdbach, February 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m left of Castro in issues of human rights, for example. But it was, I admit, an exaggeration.
Im not a socialist. Im not a collectivist. Im not for authoritarian rule, no matter how well intentioned. But Im pretty freaking liberal. Dennis Kucinich probably best represents my ideology, but Id never vote for him not because I dont think he could get elected, but because Im afraid that he might (I believe in the destination but not the mode of transportation). I contributed to Obamas campaign because I like his voice in the debate, but I ended up pulling the lever for Hillary.
I dont think civilized discourse that eschews profanity belongs to either the Right of the Left. Its more indicative of age and upbringing, I suppose. And maybe my Midwest roots. But I can get down into the scatological trenches with the best of them, if Im of a mind.
So f*ck off. (Better?)
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 12, 2008 at 10:20 pm #
I have soem pints to make in reponse.
1. If we stop paying our income taxes then the only way those bond coupons can be paid for is by electronic printing press. Who wants bonds that are back by printing press only? Also we don’t need to worry about our grandchildren suffering, because we are suffering right now.
2. Hillary is part of a crime family. You can not have tons of cocaine coming through Mena, Arkansas without being mobbed up.
3. Identity politics is not the way to get things done. Have you ever wondered why so much foundation money goes to identity group causes? It is to keep us split up and fighting
against eachother.
4. Latinos want the same things that other American citizens want. To enforce the law is not racist. Illegal alien labor is the same scab labor of years past. On this issue I think we can walk and cheew gum at the same time.
A. Chewing Gum
Let’s punish employers who hir illegal aliens, and let us deport illegal aliens as well.
B. Walking
Report thisLet’s push to get out of NAFTA, GATT, and the UN. These organizations impel a race to the bottom as well as destroying our Constitution.
By Louise, February 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm #
We could all stop paying taxes tomorrow, and it wouldn’t put a dent in the war. The war is being paid for with BORROWED MONEY. The truth is, our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the tax to pay for GWOT and all the other foolish folly’s of repub leadership for years! If it isn’t hurting now, it will be monumentally painful tomorrow.
Everybody who has family, or friends in the military is worried about the War. And everybody that worries has to wonder exactly what is Hillary’s position? And why exactly did she support Bush? And what exactly can we expect from her in the future. I know what she says. I know what she did. I know I don’t know what to expect. Not really.
Blacks and the working poor are getting hurt most by the results of Bush/repub fiscal irresponsibility. Followed closely by the other minorities, and what’s left of the middle class. And believing that all older women support Hillary is plain ridiculous. We too are a minority. And a lot of us lay awake nights wondering if our grandkids will make it home from GWOT alive, or in one piece.
The Latino’s are a growing voting block. They are organized and being hurt by immigration xenophobia. A lot of their ancestors were here before a lot of our ancestors were. They are citizens. They work. They pay taxes. And they serve and die in Bushes War. But stupid white men/women lump everybody in one pot and target everyone that “looks” Mexican. For Latinos the big issue is immigration and their concerns are actually more valid than the wing-nuts who want to ship them all “back” to wherever they have decided that might be!
So whether anyone wants to accept it or not, these are the three major issues that define the voters views.
Report thisThe War. The Economy. Immigration Xenophobia.
By invisible_hand, February 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Obama’s views on trade are actually quite progressive, if you go to his website anc check, though siroka’s analysis of why he is not able to be more vocal about it is spot on and quite disturbing.
Report thishowever, obama is now calling to mind that fact that the clinton presidency lost democrats both houses of congress and more! so he is indeed drawing sharp distinctions.
By BobZ, February 12, 2008 at 1:53 am #
“But I dont buy into the populist Lefts notion that corporations = evil.”
Corporations were behind the overthrow of elected governments in Chile, Iran, Venezuela, and multiple central American governments. They used the CIA to do their handiwork for them, but our multinational corporations were the culprits. Corporations like Halliburton have also been responsible for war profiteering, something that would have gotten their CEO tossed into jail in World War II. There are many books out documenting the way corporations have compromised democracy around the world. Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is a particularly good read, although as an American it makes you sick to see what our government has done to ensure a steady stream of profits for some companies.
Report thisBy Maani, February 12, 2008 at 1:04 am #
tdbach:
Though no one here will be the least bit surprised (LOL), I agree with your assessment here.
What is even more troubling than his Wall Street cash is his energy industry cash, including the $220,000 he accepted from Exelon, the “dragon” he claimed to have slayed for his constituents - and then betrayed them. As well, his largest “bundlers” is the CEO of Commonwealth Edison, and one of his biggest private contributors is the head of the National Energy Institute.
Finally, let’s look at some hard numbers, shall we? These are the amounts taken in by the two candidates from certain industries and businesses:
Lawyers/Law Firms
Hillary, $11.7 million; Obama, $9.5 million
Education
Hillary, $2.05 million; Obama, $2.84 million
Real Estate
Hillary, $4.8 million; Obama, $2.7 million
Commercial Banks
Hillary, $1.11 million; Obama, $1.01 million
Insurance
Hillary, $666,000; Obama, $478,000
And so on…
They don’t seem to be all that different, now, do they? Yet people like CY will lambaste Clinton as “Hillary-the-business-shill,” while completely ignoring Obama’s complicity in same.
Yup, Obama has learned the play the game as well as Hillary - and he has even figured out how to get people to accept it when he does it!
Peace.
Report thisBy Louise, February 11, 2008 at 10:53 pm #
Bill Moyers Journal:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers
“The Latino vote will decide who the next President of the United States will be.”
Report thisRev. Samuel Rodriguez
By Outraged, February 11, 2008 at 10:29 pm #
RE: By tdbach, February 11
“Im a liberal. Heck, Im probably left of Castro on some issues.”
tdbach:
Could you please elaborate on which issue you are “probably left of Castro” on..? Odd…I’ve never met a libeal who said “heck” before….guess there’s a first time for everything…...huh…...
Report thisBy lib in texas, February 11, 2008 at 8:45 pm #
Mike Mid City, Please stop with the OLD tired (she voted for war sh**). I guess she’s the only ONE who voted that day !! Oh, yea, Obama couldn’t he wasn’t in the senate yet just the state where he only voted present !!! If that is your only problem with Hillary you definitely need to vote for her.
Report thisBy Maani, February 11, 2008 at 6:32 pm #
Mike:
“Manni how does an unnecessary insult stack up to an unnecessary war?”
Both are unnecessary for different reasons.
Peace. (Not a salutation; a way of life.)
Report thisBy tdbach, February 11, 2008 at 6:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m a liberal. Heck, I’m probably left of Castro on some issues. But I don’t buy into the populist Left’s notion that corporations = evil. Neither do Barack or Hillary. Are there corporate interests behind the Gulf conflicts? You bet. And they need to be understood and curtailed. Are there corporate abuses of employees, the environment, and even customers? Absolutely. Corporations are essentially soulless entities contrived to turn capital into profit. Whatever good can come of them, besides creating jobs and producing products of use to society, depends on the good will of their leadership and the constraints of government regulation and rule of law. But lets face it, a market economy of some fashion, along with corporations for harnessing capital in the service of production are indispensable for modern civilization and all the comforts we now take for granted.
Mr. Sirota whose blogs I often admire appears to be solidly among the populist Left crowd. Its not a terribly popular place. Sure there are a lot of disenchanted folk both among the unemployed or underemployed and the intellectual class who would seem to like to throw the baby out with the bathwater in these troubling economic times, but a goodly number of the 90% or so gainfully employed even if their wages have stagnated in the last decade realize that their livelihood depends on the prosperity of the corporations for whom they work. They may want some more regulation and oversight (and would probably like a raise), but theyre not inclined to join the crowd storming CEOs mansions with pitchforks and torches.
For whatever reason, Sirota has decided that Obama is his man. Is it because hes the anti-Clinton or because he likes the hopeful tone of Obamas campaign? Its hard to tell, but it sure looks like the former. Hes quick to dump Hillary (and her husband) in the corporatist pot, but has rationalized Obamas corporate connections as a pragmatic compromise. In one of the most contorted pieces of rationalization Ive seen in a long time, Sirota writes: Though Obama certainly is less industry-owned than Clinton, the Washington Post noted last spring that he was the top recipient of Wall Street contributions. Wow! How did he figure out that Clinton is owned by industry, but Obama, who enjoys more contributions from Wall Street (is that synonymous with industry?) is somehow immune to their influence? And then he makes his grand thesis: Obama would be a rip-roaring corporate-bashing populist if only the cash demands of modern campaigning didnt make him depend on those corporate contributions and, most important, if only he werent black!
It couldnt be because Obamas smart enough to know that the followers of populist candidates may be rabid, but theyre not enough of them to get elected. Just ask Kucinich and Edwards and Paul. Maybe in his heart of hearts Obama doesnt believe corporations are the root of all evil. Good God, does that make him, along with Hillary, one of THEM?
Youd better get used to it David: there are a lot more of THEM than there are US.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 11, 2008 at 5:51 pm #
I do not fabricate. I use a seamstress.
Subprime Obama
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080211/fraser
As the subprime mortgage debacle drives a recession that threatens financial markets around the world, the Democratic presidential candidates are pushing plans to address the crisis. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are pledging substantial federal resources to stabilize the mortgage market and intervene on behalf of borrowers. Barack Obama’s proposal is tepid by comparison, short on aggressive government involvement and infused with conservative rhetoric about fiscal responsibility. As he has done on domestic issues like healthcare, job creation and energy policy, Obama is staking out a position to the right of not only populist Edwards but Clinton as well.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 11, 2008 at 4:56 pm #
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/4/worldupdates/2007-08-04T013503Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-288095-1&sec=worldupdates
Bush criticises talk of U.S. strike on Pakistan - govt
By Zeeshan Haider
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday described the prospect of U.S. strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan as “unsavoury”, saying Washington respected its ally’s sovereignty, the Pakistani government said.
Bush made the comments to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in a telephone call to congratulate Pakistanis ahead of the 60th anniversary of their independence on Aug. 14.
U.S. President George W. Bush is seen speaking to the media in the White House in this August 2, 2007 file photo. Bush on Friday described the prospect of U.S. strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan as “unsavoury”, saying Washington respected its ally’s sovereignty, the Pakistani government said. (REUTERS/Jason Reed/Files)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said this week that the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.
A Pakistani foreign ministry statement said: “President Bush stated that the United States fully respected Pakistan’s sovereignty and appreciated Pakistan’s resolve in fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist elements.
“He (Bush) said that such statements were unsavoury and often prompted by political considerations in an environment of electioneering,” the statement added, without making direct reference to Obama.
Report thisBy Louise, February 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm #
For those of you who may have missed it, check out Bill Moyers Journal for Friday, Feb. 8, 2008. Info on Chavez, Latinos, immigration xenophobia and other stuff ‘mainstreammedia’ ignores.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers
“The Latino vote will decide who the next President of the United States will be.”
-Rev. Samuel Rodriguez
***
seenmostofit:
“Have you noticed who is voting for Hillary?? Women and the middle class. Who is voting for Obama? The rich and white men and blacks.”
***
I think we’ve all noticed who ‘mainstreammedia’ is telling us, is voting for Hillary.
But I learned a long time ago, never believe all the ‘mainstreammedia’ hype!
In the final analysis who votes for Obama will be who votes for Obama. And if he wins the most votes, it wont be because of rich white men and black voters. Because they aren’t the most voters!
Although I must concede, ‘mainstreammedia’ will still hype and too many will still suck it up.
***
Mike Mid-City:
“Nancy Pelosi said she would have a civil government next year. We need a loyal opposition not a effen lap dog. A civil government means no accountability.”
[Great observation!]
“HOW ABOUT A NEW FACIES IN CHARGE OF THE PLACE.”
“Dennis K. for leader, Dodd for Senate Majority Leader, Obama for President and Edwards for Attorney General.”
***
OK, but wont happen if Kucinich doesn’t get re-elected to the House.
If your serious, maybe we need to get on that!
***
P. T.
“Actually, both candidates have run away from some previously expressed support for indigenous Palestinian rights about as fast as they can.”
[Yey, what’s with that?]
***
jackpine savage
“We had our golden opportunity and we wasted it; well pay dearly for wasting that opportunity, no matter who is elected president. But those who believe that we might go forward into the past will be the most disappointed.”
[Another great observation!]
Sometimes we forget. The reason the Clinton years felt so good, was because they came on the tail of a decade of being tinkled on, which felt so bad!
Maybe deep down inside that’s the real reason I don’t support Hillary. The tinkling stopped but the bleeding never did!
Naw. It’s the economy because of the WAR!
***
cyrena:
“Caesar Chavez would have recognized it, and Martin Luther King Jr. would certainly have recognized it. He did THEN, which is why he was assassinated then. The elite/corporate oligarchy DEPENDS on keeping the masses stupid and ignorant to the very CAUSES of their own distress. They CREATE the distress, (the Clintons and NAFTA, and their corporate theft of everything that creates such economic imbalance) and then…THEY RIDE TO THE RESCUE. (or claim to).
Now, how novel is that? Criminals and psychopaths have been using that trick for centuries.”
[Down right brilliant!
]
Thanks cyrena!
***
seenmostofit:
“I dont care as I am also a women who has fought for equally opportunity for women all my live and it sure isnt there yet. These primarys prove white males are still chualvinistic.”
***
Do I detect a bit of patriarchal prejudice there? Strange. One would think that would lead you away from voting for the candidate who appears to be using that most “womanly” way ...
entitlement by virtue of patriarchy by marriage ... to get ahead!
I too am a women who has fought for equal opportunity all my live, but I did it the hard way. Proving my value based on my own merits! I would certainly hope if you truly want to help Hillary’s candidacy you get over that prejudice and help her prove her own merits!
***
Seems through all these “pro” Hillary comments I detect an edge of, well ... panic maybe?
Interesting.
But it’s still the economy because of the WAR!
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 11, 2008 at 3:41 pm #
Obama is going to go down in flames if Larry Sinclair gets confirmed on the cocaine smoking story. Don’t worry. Hillary Clinton will become President. The Bilderbergers like her. Rupoert Murdoch likes her. Even Ann Colter likes her. I don’t why you strees and strive against a predetermined result. BTW, the country is already in a low grade depression. It has been for 27 years.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 11, 2008 at 3:34 pm #
I have given up any hope of change through electoral politics. We keep getting the same sets of demons every election cycle. I am sure the elite could not keep bombing Iraq if people stopped paying their taxes.
Report thisBy Maani, February 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm #
The Cyrena Unnecessary Insult Count:
1. “I think you do drugs or something”
2. “MORON!”
3. I have to wonder what drugs youre doing”
4. “stupid”
Report thisBy John Kennedy, February 11, 2008 at 4:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It is quit unfortunate that the democrats again are falling again into the republican traps again. What happened in 2004 should be a very big lesson for democrats. The democrats should not be letting these right wings dictate to us who we nominate as our candidate. Howard Dean a true democrat who was heading to be the nominee for our party all of a sudden got ripped apart by the media. The big three media networks are owned the Republicans (CNN, MSNBC and FOX) they just have different prospective. News is not meant for you to believe, it is meant for you to see and judge by yourself. Democrats should stop letting (Chris Mathew, Bill Oriely, Wolf) dictate your future. They are also Americans just like everybody else with there own views.
For Democrats to diminish the 8 years of Clinton is “Ignorance” unless you are a republican posing to be a democrat on this forum. Yes Clinton has his ups and downs just like every other presidents, we are human. But he made a great president. For democrats to decide who our nominee is, we should think independently but vote democrat in general election. It will be a shame if you support Obama just because 40,000 people came to hear his speech or support Mrs. Clinton just because she is for the poor. I will suggest people to visit both candidates websites and do some research also because nobody tells history against itself.
Reading all these comments, it shows that most people supporting Obama has not actually ready anything about his work as a State and US Senator or even visited his websites. It will be of “Ignorance” when you support a candidate based on what you heard by one of the pundits on TV.
I have read the positions of these candidates and I believe Sen. Obama will be a better president than Pres. Bush but will not be a good president. I have found that his messages are great to listen but none of his can be done in reality. Mrs. Clinton messages are about what is actually going to work. For those that say 8 years of being first lady is not an experience thats a lie. In American history First Ladies are known to stand beside their husbands for photos but Mrs. Clintons case is different. She believes that women should also have the right to carry out their own plans also. She learned from her husband and she knows that you have to work hard to achieve a goal. For those who want Mrs. Clintons Tax information, if there is anything illegal about her taxes, both the IRS and the news media who resent her the most will jump on her because she is a woman who stands for herself.
All I know is Mrs. Clinton will be a Great president even better than Bill.
Louisiana for Hillary 08
God bless America
Report thisBy cyrena, February 11, 2008 at 3:04 am #
Paracelsus,
Im not going to spend a whole lot of time on this response, for the same reasons that I now limit my time responding to anyone who makes very broad claims for which they provide absolutely no objective or documented evidence. And, thats the way it is with all ideologically based arguments.
So, Ill cut to the heart of the matter with your more simplistic claims, for which you have zero proof
1. Obama has called for the boming of Pakistan. CerAzeey!
This is a simple example of a basic LIE! Obama has NOT called for the bombing of Pakistan, and I think you do drugs or something, and then get on these forums, and just start doing a LIES AWAY type operation, complete with multiple misspellings.
Heres another one
5. Obamas economic team has rejected any ideas on halting home foreclosures.
Another general rhetorical fabrication. How do you know this? Who is his economic team? More importantly, why would he even HAVE an economic team addressing the issue of foreclosures which arent remotely related to his own experience or background as a political CANDIDATE? What connection does Barack Obama have to the subprime mortgage crises, or the economy in general, to the extent where he could or would have a team to address the issue? For Christs sake hes not the President YET!! Hes running a presidential campaign just like the rest of these people, although he IS a Senator, so he does have a little bit of leverage in that regard. In other words, he could sponsor some bills that may or may not help the situation, though theres a limited reality to him carrying anything out singlehandedly. Obviously, Congress doesnt work that way.
More to the point, HE didnt create the crises. The problem with home foreclosures, is certainly NOT new. Despite the additional plague of the subprime mortgage crises, these record foreclosures are a typical result of far more fundamental phenomena. Its called long term economic recession that is rapidly becoming a full scale depression. But, it didnt happen overnight.
In short, home foreclosures are happening because people have no jobs, or the jobs they have dont pay what they once paid, or what they should pay. Monies for basic infrastructure and the needs of society are being laundered through the sands of the Middle East, to feed the military industrial complex and the corporate oligarchy. The subprime thing is just a microcosm of the whole house of cards that has been the US economy for the past several years now, and the corrupt establishment can no longer hide it under the rug, or behind the façade of more and more debt.
So, how is Obama somehow not only responsible for that, but how/why should he have an economic team to deal with it, as part of his CAMPAIGN? MORON!
As for people not paying taxes again I have to wonder what drugs youre doing. Its your standard broken record that has no basis in reality. WHAT TAXES are YOU paying, and what taxes are you recommending that everyone else STOP paying? If youre talking about sales or property tax thats an oxymoron. If people are losing their property, they obviously arent paying property taxes, and they arent buying much either.
Your suggestion that people not pay INCOME taxes is never going to go over with the majority of the American population, any more than george was able to get his privatized social security plan into operation. Thats been a repug agenda for a long time, and its just not gonna happen. Too many Americans have paid into the system for too long, and are now dependant on that same system for their retirement incomes. Those monthly checks are dependant on the income taxes that TODAYS income earners pay. If everybody stops paying their taxes, those dependant on SS/retirement funds dont get their funds. It’s simple - stupid.
What youre suggesting would give us a depression that would make the 1920s version look like the gilded age.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 11, 2008 at 12:33 am #
I condemn Obama not because I want you to vote for some one else. I would rather you didn’t pay your taxes. I suggest that you buy stockable food, ammo, guns, and gold.
Here are my complaints about Obama:
1. Obama has called for the boming of Pakistan. CerAzeey!
2. Paul Adolf Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, has endorsed Obama. I am not comfortable with a banker whose money policy killed the industrial rustbelt in the early 80’s as an endorser.
3. To quote Webster Tarpley:: “The overall image consultant for Obama is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, now joined by his son Mark Brzezinski—a veteran of the Clinton National Security Council—plus Mika Brzezinski, who is leading the charge for Obama at MS NBC. Zbig is also Obama’s foreign policy controller. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s entire life has been dominated by his consuming, fanatical hatred for Russia. As he approaches 80 years of age, Brzezinski feels that he has one last chance to dismember the Russian Federation and to partition European Russia. This will be the great foreign policy project of a future Obama administration. It is certain that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join Napoleon and Hitler in failure, but what will become of our country?”
4. Austan Goolsbee, a member of Yale’s Skull and Bones is a putative economic advisor to Obama. He is also free trade idealogue in the tradition of the Chicago School. He has many ideas to privative Social Security as well as increasing the regressive FICA payroll tax.
5. Obama’s economic team has rejected any ideas on halting home foreclosures.
Alright then fire away!
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm #
Can’t Hightower walk and chew gun at the same time? Also Congress is much more likely to vote in punitive anti-illegal alien measures than to pull out of NAFTA. Closing the borders is a necessary rearguard action, then we must take the offensive against NAFTA.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm #
I trust the exit polls pretty well; it is the voting machines I don’t trust.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 10, 2008 at 7:50 pm #
What is this? Making absolutely broad, overarching comments about who is voting for who. It is impossible to say that all “poor” people are voting for Clinton, or that all black people are voting for Obama…or anything else of that matter.
First, because that data rests on exit polling which is only sometimes accurate, and certainly cannot be used to infer the word “all”. Second, because a lot of this information is actually coming out of campaigns (either one) and so is spun to produce the desired effect.
But the big reason we have to discount a great deal of this exit polling demography is that one of these candidates started out the process with absolutely HUGE name recognition.
My guess is that a great many people who make less than $50,000/yr don’t follow politics that closely. So a name that they recognize goes a long way…this was obviously a fundamental part of the Clinton strategy. But those same exit polling data suggest that Obama has been making up ground in every demographic segment as voters have gotten to hear his message…regardless of whether its a good message or not.
And finally, i’m pretty sure that David Sirota is not speaking for the Obama campaign. He’s looking at this process through his own lenses, just like the rest of us.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 10, 2008 at 7:42 pm #
I’m pretty sure that i would make a better president than Bill too, and that isn’t saying much either.
Report thisBy Shadrach, February 10, 2008 at 5:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow, brilliant column—We have truly passed into the postmodern meta age. I suppose that might be why I and so many others put such hope in him. Born of nothing and deserted by his father, raised by poor liberals to become a serious contender for the presidency. He embodies the best of the meritocracy and by extension the best of America. Now pitted against a goldwater girl who fought her own battles of idealism, but lost her voice to the allure of power. Most of us supporters are romantics that think if he wins he will redeem our idea of America, the hardened among us know he is likely follow in her footsteps.
I am willing to roll the dice, the alternative we already know.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 10, 2008 at 4:01 am #
Re: Marjorie Swanson
..Sadly Cyrena, and other that support Obama, there are some of us out here that dont support him. We dont like him and we find various things about him annoying, disturbing and ofttimes frightening. How dare we think for ourselves?....
Marjorie, fortunately, not all people choose to misinterpret my posts, for whatever your personal reasons are, and Outraged has in fact explained exactly what I said in this post that has so troubled you.
But, we know that youve been troubled by my posts before, and this rant frome you is nearly identical to the same accusations that youve made before. So, it is NOT the nature of my post, which anyone can read for what it is, but rather the fact that I wrote it. And THAT is what is sad Marj; that you are incapable of any objectivity. People like you end up shooting yourselves in the foot or worse.
So, for the purposes of practicality and reality, it doesnt much matter whether you and your buddies like Obama, or various things about him which I suspect might have a whole lot to do with the fact that hes black, and educated, and very much capable of rallying and unifying the people of America. How DARE he be so smart and well received by the US population, eh? He might even appear to be smarter and more successful than YOU, and THAT certainly wouldnt do now, would it? Is that what makes him frightening? You poor thing. Maybe you could just hide under your bed.
Yes, I do support Barack Obama, but I would also have supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich, had they been able to get far enough in the process. I actually like Gravel as well.
Thats because while I AM passionate, (and I am sincerely appreciative of that notice from Outraged) Im also willing to see the pros/cons/BOTH sides of nearly any issues, as well as the ones in-between. For people who are ideologically compromised, and guided by childish and immature emotion, that is obviously a difficult task. For me, its passion with objectivity and practicality. You might be suffering from some sort of mental or personality disorder. When grown people behave (emotionally) like children, thats generally a sure sign.
As for you Freeze, I resent your implication that ANYBODY is insulting the Latina/o population, OR Caesar Chavez, because that IS NOT the case, and your comments are out of line. I am a NATIVE Californian, and I know very well what benefit Chavez was to the farm workers. Im not at all sure that YOU do!
So heres something you obviously dont get. Caesar Chavez was NOT in favor of illegal and unregulated immigration from Latina/o nation states, or any damn where ELSE!! In fact, he was very much OPPOSED to illegal immigrants coming in and working under the circumstances that they are now exploited by the Corporate Cabal, of which Hillary is a proud member. In the era of Chavez work, the issues concerning immigrant workers were NOT of the same source, and that was long before the effects of globalization and policies such as NAFTA began to take their toll. (Clintons=NAFTA) Obama KNOWS what NAFTA has done to us all.
So, if there are members of the Chavez family who are supporting Hillary, then THEY DONT GET IT EITHER! And I am very certain of that. You dont need to believe me however, since there is a library in my state, named after him, with literally volumes upon volumes about his work and his philosophy. You should check it out.
Please, educate yourself about issues affecting you and your community, before lobbing unfounded and unwarranted attacks on others.
Heres a start:
Immigrants Come Here Because Globalization Took Their Jobs Back There
By Jim Hightower
The Hightower Lowdown
Seal-the-border hysteria is everywhere. Instead of blaming immigrants for America’s problems, let’s look at executives on both sides of the border.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020708G.shtml
Report thisBy badlawdog, February 10, 2008 at 3:17 am #
truth is the po-folk know the corporate media has generated the obama campaign from day one…they also know they did this for a reason…cause he can’t win the swing voters in the battleground states….if these 50 grand a year folks are able to manipulate the superdelegates and he gets in, obama loses like mcgovern…..heard it here first folks
Report thisBy seenmostofit, February 9, 2008 at 10:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
nrobi, Have you noticed who is voting for Hillary??
Report thisWomen and the middle class. Who is voting for Obama? The rich and white men and blacks. Hillary is not going to mess with Social Security. Your post shows you don’t listen to Hillary because most of your post is just plain wrong!!! Obama has never said ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO ABOUT ANYTHING. I for one am very sick of his MLK speeches, they tell me only that he is a good orator of which he has had much practice. You Obama lovers are getting sucked in !!! AND YES, I do listen even tho I get mighty sick of the process.
By Alexia, February 9, 2008 at 7:18 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Uh, he might have fought Chicagoland blue-collar job loss, but he didn’t win.
Hillary is supported heavily by those corporations people percieve that she loathes.
But hey - you guys should thank the Republicans. THey’re more afraid of Islamofascism than Socialism, so now your chance to bankrupt everybody equally.
But hey - maybe we can all go stay in the Kerry mansion.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, February 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm #
Very much on. Now I would argue that the Clintons did some of the right things, but only somewhat. On the issue of the military small cuts were made. Not enough to save the big bucks, but enough for the Repubs to rile up their supporters with the “G$$% D$#@% Clinton cut the military” stick. We are going to be fighting that one in the general, as Luntz style polling shows that the phrase “America should be strong” registers very highly.
On oil, at least Clinton Gore started with a good idea -significant increases on gasoline tax, only once they got an inkling of the kind of “all taxes are bad” stuff they would have to endure, they quickly backed off.
But you are clearly right, we are in a very bad situation economically. We have been living on borrowed money. We are spending close to $1T/year for our “national security drug fix”. We are spending $.5T per year for oil, and that is only going to go up. Meanwhile we are so easily divided, fighting about such things as “who lost Vietnam”.
Report thisBy Outraged, February 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm #
RE: Marjorie L. Swanson, February 9
I reread Cyrena’s post and find nothing outrageous about it. She didn’t call anyone ignorant. Here’s her quote:
“YOU are ignorant to the work that Obama did”
Dictionary definition:
Ignorant: lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified (parents ignorant of modern mathematics)
All she said was that he didn’t know. Maybe you are sensitive to the word “ignorant”. She said that he was “IGNORANT of the WORK Obama did”. This is not the the same as saying someone is stupid, which is a common misinterpretation. I agree with Cyrena. Logic dictates that you would either have to be ignorant of the facts or intentionally misrepresenting the facts to make a comment like that.
Your comment: “we are not at all ashamed of having voted for Bill and think that Hillary will make a better president than he ever did “
I don’t argue the point that Hillary would make a “better” president than Bill, I agree. However when one has to compare themselves to “the bottom of the barrel” (as far as democrats go) that’s not saying much. In fact, how many people do you KNOW that WOULDN’T make a “better” president than Bill. I’d make a better president than Bill too, but that isn’t saying much.
It seems to me that your upset that SHE disagrees with you and you don’t like it. Your comments are bullying. Your quote:
“How are anyone here or anywhere, disagree with Cyrenas right to be right about everything? If you dont agree with her then you are, lets see, ignorant, ill-informed (evidently only mildly ignorant) stupid or worst of all, you will get her all pi$$ed off and then youll be in real trouble.”
Cyrena and I disagree quite vehemently on the gun issue, she’s NEVER attacked me, I will say Cyrena is a passionate person….I like that.
Report thisBy jake2, February 9, 2008 at 3:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course the corporations are targeting the poorer, presumedly less educated in their contributions and candidate support. Remember, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” The corporations care less about party and more about who they can buy to support their interests. It speaks volumes about the elastic Clinton on her acceptance of such support. That coupled with her support of Bush’s war and phoney war on Iran highlight that she can’t and won’t stand up to them nor will she change anything.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, February 9, 2008 at 1:14 pm #
How are anyone here or anywhere, disagree with Cyrena’s right to be right about everything? If you don’t agree with her then you are, let’s see, ignorant, ill-informed (evidently only mildly ignorant) stupid or worst of all, you will get her all pi$$ed off and then you’ll be in real trouble.
Sadly Cyrena, and other that support Obama, there are some of us out here that don’t support him. We don’t like him and we find various things about him annoying, disturbing and ofttimes frightening. How dare we think for ourselves? Well, maybe it’s because in spite of all that people like Cyrena, and the media, and the Right-wing does and says, we still like the Clintons, we are not at all ashamed of having voted for Bill and think that Hillary will make a better president than he ever did and we think in a Democracy we are allowed to voice our thoughts and our feelings. Even if Cyrena doesn’t agree with them. Bullying isn’t only for Republicans anymore is it?
Report thisBy seenmostofit, February 9, 2008 at 11:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
OMG, who woke cyrena up. Now we have to pass over all of her know-it-all garbledygook. FOR your information Hillary worked for disadvantaged kids when she got out of school. Maybe if you researched things better you would see you are color blindsided by Obama. Obama was a privileged kid !!! He worked 3 1/2 years for poor people. Hardly a life time commitment. You have a lot to say and a lot of it NOT TRUE and you call other people liars. And yes we all know you are a black woman. I’ve seen you declare it before, however, I don’t care as I am also a women who has fought for equally opportunity for women all my live and it sure isn’t there yet. These primarys prove white males are still chualvinistic.
Report thisBy seenmostofit, February 9, 2008 at 11:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Okay you republican, the only plan I see from Barack Obama is his miserable health plan. The rest is Martin Luther Kingish I have a dream speech. He is no MLK, JFK, or RFK. The reason these youngsters like Obama is because he is a good cheerleader and these mothers who let their daughters think for them
Report thisare rich stay at homes who live vicariously thru their kids. Thats how we want to elect a president. Even Massachusetts voted against the Kennedys and the Kerry’s and their governor. Hurrah for these free thinkers.
By seenmostofit, February 9, 2008 at 11:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
She’s written books dumb a**. Any excuse to vote for Obama white male chualvinist.
Report thisBy nrobi, February 9, 2008 at 10:18 am #
Mr. Sirota, I must heartily disagree with your analysis of the race for the presidency among the Democrats. In point of fact, the majority of the people who are giving to Barack Obama, are the working class and poor who see the potential of Barack Obama to unite this country and elevate the level of discourse from one of class politics to one of united and “WE” politics. The majority of the donations that have been received from the people, giving to Barack Obama’s campaign are well below the limit and have continued to give throughout his fight to win the nomination for president.
Report thisHillary R. Clinton’s campaign mainly focused on the big money and now she must try to put a different spin on the fact that the major contributors to her campaign have been wealthy and corporate contributors who have reached the limit of giving even before the face-off between herself and Barack Obama.
Must people always misunderstand the fact that Barack Obama, is and will be the choice of people like myself, who are fighting the government for their Social Security benefits and have been for many years and who have seen the underbelly of poverty and despair for many years, people who have no voice and who are waiting for someone who will listen and work for an equitable and just system of compensation for those who cannot work and who are living on the edge of life and death.
By i,Q, February 9, 2008 at 5:07 am #
Outraged has hit the nail on the head. At a certain point, the word “prejudice” was rebranded and the new word for it is: “branding.”
We have a tendency to over- intellectualize this analysis of the electorate. It is really very simple. People who lack critical thinking skills gravitate to what they recognize. They see that as a safe choice because it is a known quantity. Since they do not base their decisions on facts or data, it is very easy to manipulate them using slogans, half-truths and outright lies. To be a successful candidate you have to hammer your message and identity home over and over again. The simpler the message, the better. In other words, “Buy the world a Coke” if you want to win the election.
Obama would do well to find a speech writer who can boil his message and some key details of his policy down to George W. Bush sized talking points. The target attention span won’t afford him a half an hour to come to the point.
Report thisBy i,Q, February 9, 2008 at 4:42 am #
...but Clinton refuses to release her tax record despite the request from the Obama campaign (which he has himself revealed).
Sorry, no citation, heard it on one of the blabfests on the tube.
Report thisBy Outraged, February 9, 2008 at 3:54 am #
Article quote:
If Obama started talking like John Edwards and tapped into working-class, blue-collar proletarian rage, suddenly all of those white voters who are viewing him within the lens of transcendence would start seeing him differently, says Charles Ellison of the University of Denvers Center for African American Policy.”
**Somewhat. While I think that this could be true for the middle class, I don’t find that to be true in the working class or poor. Poor and working class people who do feel that way are probably voting republican anyway. And these types usually, no matter how much it hurts them economically or otherwise will vote republican because they are prejudiced and for no other reason. I live by tons of them and I’ve “debated” this extensively with them and sure as shit, after they’ve run out of their “traditional excuses”, when they don’t have a leg to stand on in their argument, they’ll declare, “Well…I’m voting republican..I just am. After much “experience” of this type of debate, I can qualify what that comment is code for, “I’m prejudiced” (although they would never say so). Hand’s down, there’s no doubt in my mind.
On the other hand, I don’t think that people in these groups who tend to vote democrat feel that way at all. Most of them are looking for stability, justice and strong progressive leadership. From these people you’re more likely to hear things to this effect: ” I’m sick of getting screwed”, “All I want to do is just live my life, what is this shit!?”, and “This is crazy, somethings gotta change”. I think they want relief, and I don’t think they are as apt to care from whom or where. They want relief! And WILL vote for who they believe is most likely to give them some.
I also think (cause I know y’all were wondering..LOL) that Hillary has sent a stronger message in this regard, or at least comes across that way. I don’t buy it but I do think she does. Obama needs to be more vociferous. If I were Obama, I’d talk about fairness not poverty, leveling the playing field and not affirmative action and about how hard HARD WORK really is and how some don’t understand or appreciate that, the backbone of America and all that good stuff. I will say Obama needs to be careful (but don’t they all), but especially here in the “rust belt” the masses don’t like someone they consider “softish” or “namby-pamby” or “the suits”. Even if their record is otherwise, the masses WANT someone who’s persona at least projects something to the effect of, “I’m tough enough, not mean but tough enough”. The “get the job done” kind of tough.
As far as that “transcendence” thing, my take is that around here that will work with the 18-25 yr. old or so age group. “Change” and all that, sure…..they eat that up.
Report thisBy Peter Ajemian, February 8, 2008 at 10:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This was an interesting article, but I think its main premise is too narrow. I enthusiastically support Obama, but I think he must begin to talk about his “populist” positions in more specifics - including, for instance, his position on closing tax loopholes for the rich. He must appeal to the working class much more directly and spell out what he’ll do to represent their interests. I don’t think he’s afraid to do that - as this article suggests—He simply has to get into details more - across the board. If he does, he can get some of these lower-income voters back from Hillary.
Report thisBy Jon Koppenhoefer, February 8, 2008 at 9:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
So Hillary Clinton ‘loans’ her campaign budget a cool $5 million of ‘her own’ money?
I’m curious to know: 1) how much interest will she charge her campaign for this loan; and 2) where did Mrs. Clinton—ostensibly a public employee since she left the White House and before that, a partner in a law firm in Arkansas—get $5 million in cash?
Senators just don’t get that much pay and according to public reports, the Clintons left the White House without very much in the way of assets.
Anybody have the inside story on this issue?
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 8, 2008 at 9:36 pm #
When Lieberman becomes President I want Abe Foxman as Secretary of State. And let’s make a Holocaust denier law for 9-11. Anybody who questions 9-11 is an anti-semite. We’ll also have an embargo on Volkswagens, BMW’s and Benz’s because of you know what. Never. never, never, never, never forget. NEVER! If I forgot anything Lilmamzer, let me know.
BTW, did you know why Playgirl never did a spread on Henry Kissinger? Because they hate Jews. That’s why.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, February 8, 2008 at 9:24 pm #
I want to vote a straight Lierberman/Harman ticket!!! Wooo Hoooo! Also I support a union with Israel. Someday I will be able to vote in Bibi Net as President. Wooo Hooo! Also every Sunday all year round we should have Holocaust Remembrance Day. If you are against it then you are Nazi scum. Wooo Hooo!
Report thisBy Sally Cutler, February 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary Clinton has trumpeted her 8 years in the White House as part of those “35 years” of experience that prepared her for president. She can’t pick and choose which of the Clinton administration policies she supported and which she fought. She gets one, she gets them all.
Report thisBy P. T., February 8, 2008 at 6:59 pm #
She was a backer of the Wal-Mart friendly policies.
Report thisBy P. T., February 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm #
I’ve mentioned AIPAC before but not the others. You forgot to mention Arabs. You’re slipping.
Report thisBy Alex, February 8, 2008 at 6:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
And people criticize when independents say that the Democrats are not that different than the Republicans. The class issues that affect us all are not discussed or are quickly marginalized, because both parties do not seem to want to change the status quo. Instead we talk about abortion, illegal immigration, the horse race, and other topics that are a symptom of the bigger pictures of legal justice, economic justice, environmental justice, and voting rights/election justice. The bosses of both parties do not want to deal with these subjects because the corporations that sponsor them will remove the financial support they’ve grown to rely on (see Kucinich article).
Report thisBy P. T., February 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm #
Actually, both candidates have run away from some previously expressed support for indigenous Palestinian rights about as fast as they can.
Report thisBy lilmamzer, February 8, 2008 at 4:35 pm #
“We might have fostered real democracy in Russia and helped them build a functioning economy”
How, exactly????
Report thisBy lilmamzer, February 8, 2008 at 4:28 pm #
You forgot to mention AIPAC, the Bilderbergers, the CFR, and the demolition charges at the WTC.
You’re slipping.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 8, 2008 at 4:05 pm #
“...So some very minor-league organizing in Chicago puts Obama in the same category as Cesar Chavez?... Give me a break!...”
Nope Roger…NO BREAKS for IGNORANCE, and it’s not nice to lie…not even through innuendo and defamation is evil and immoral as well.
The truth, is that Obama’s work was HARDLY ‘minor league’ and indeed, he can be considered well beyond the category of Chavez in that respect. (maybe you should look around the nation).
So, just because YOU are ignorant to the work that Obama did, beginning in Chicago, and moving out, in the same way that people in New York, or Nebraska, Illinois, or Maine, may not have been aware of the work that Chavez did 2 decades ago in CALIFORNIA, doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it.
Ignorance is nothing to be proud of, because in the end, we all suffer from the ignorance of a few.
Report thisBy P. T., February 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm #
The article is an excellent analysis of the box that Obama is in. It is a bizarre situation when Obama thinks he must keep his mouth shut while the Clintons win the votes of the working class they did so much to devastate.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton in the belief she stands up for the underdog is misguided. She has been a NAFTA backer, welfare reform backer, corporate lawyer, Wal-Mart board member, and triangulator.
Report thisBy cyrena, February 8, 2008 at 3:19 pm #
Actually, Caesar Chavez would be outraged that the UFW have been fooled into supporting Clinton. Matter of fact, we were just discussing that last night.
David Sirota is right on the mark here. The paradox is an ugly one indeed…designed to continue the destruction. The poor and underprivileged, be they black or Hispanic, have put their support behind the very power structure/establishment/candidate who IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CURRENT CONDITION TO BEGIN WITH!!
It is the policies of NAFTA, (along with so much else) that have created this ‘immigration’ problem that everyone is so up in arms about, because if the Corps weren’t THERE, (Mexico, Latin America, etc) then those ‘illegal immigrants’ WOULDN’T BE HERE).
But, as usual, very few people ‘get that’ and of course Obama has not capitalized on that himself. (now Sirota explains why, which makes sense to me..it’s real politik plain and straight up). But yes, it’s created an oxymoron and an ugly one, as long as people are unable to connect the dots.
Caesar Chavez would have recognized it, and Martin Luther King Jr. would certainly have recognized it. He did THEN, which is why he was assassinated then. The elite/corporate oligarchy DEPENDS on keeping the masses stupid and ignorant to the very CAUSES of their own distress. They CREATE the distress, (the Clinton’s and NAFTA, and their corporate theft of everything that creates such economic imbalance) and then…THEY RIDE TO THE RESCUE. (or claim to).
Now, how novel is that? Criminals and psychopaths have been using that trick for centuries.
As for Obama’s career work, it was far more than ‘a little community organizing’. It was his CAREER as a civil rights lawyer. That is the path that public interest lawyers take, which is the OPPOSITE path than that of the corporate or big firm lawyer, and pretty much ANYBODY in the legal field KNOWS THAT. Public interest law pays peanuts, and corporate law pays millions. That’s a GIVEN.
Ergo, people go into public interest law EITHER because they’re already well off, or because they honestly don’t care about the greed, AND because…on a very basic level, it is far more ‘prestigious’ to do pro-bono work and/or public interest law. That’s what Obama did.
He certainly COULD have chosen corporate law and the big law firms, and/or Wallstreet. Hillary obviously did, as did her husband. Most people without a whole lot of money to begin with, but a whole lot of greed…DO choose the high paying end of the stick.
Hillary always has. Obama never did.
So, let’s keep it real, (which Sirota has done) because truth actually DOES matter. This way, when we act against our own best interests, (and in the interests of the corporate elite) and least we know it’s our own fault, based on our own ignorance.
Report thisBy AngryJed, February 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
very well done. I’ve been talking about this class war for a while but nobody seem to take me seriously until hurricane katrina. Will anything ever get any better?
Report thisBy Diana, February 8, 2008 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Sirota says: “But Clinton, the person whose globalization policies helped shutter those factories, is winning blue-collar strongholds.”
I believe the policies Sirota refers to were those of the Bill Clinton administration. Casting Hillary Clinton as an engineer of globalization policies in the 90s is wholly without merit.
Report thisBy Aegrus, February 8, 2008 at 11:13 am #
What a bunch of nonsense. I still don’t understand why people believe Barack doesn’t have an economic plan. Hillary only talks about “green jobs,” which Obama also includes in his plan. The only thing motivating people’s economic concerns toward Hillary is the misconceptions of the first damn Clinton administration! It’s bunk! It’s not an accurate way to determine Hillary’s economic policy.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, February 8, 2008 at 11:04 am #
Ah those blessed nineties when everything was swell and groovy. The world was at “peace” and everybody was getting rich.
Except the world was hardly at peace, and that economic wonderland was leading us straight to the mess we currently have.
We might have spent the 90’s thinking of ways to live with significantly less oil, but why should we…it was only $20/bbl. Let’s buy SUV’s and build more suburbs instead.
We might have laid the foundations for replacing those manufacturing jobs lost by agreements like NAFTA, but why should we…WalMart’s good enough for the lower classes.
We might have fostered real democracy in Russia and helped them build a functioning economy, but why should we…just champion Boris Yeltsin and rape a nation.
We might have taken the end of the Cold War and used it to draw down our empire and slash our “defense” budget, but why should we…so long as no soldiers are dying no one will notice.
Every problem that we face today was known full well during the nineties. We did nothing about any of them, preferring instead to gaze proudly at the brand new diamond stud we inserted in our own naval.
We had our golden opportunity and we wasted it; we’ll pay dearly for wasting that opportunity, no matter who is elected president. But those who believe that we might go forward into the past will be the most disappointed.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, February 8, 2008 at 10:22 am #
This is poor old David Sirota wearily working his way towards an understanding that his pet politician, Barack Obama, is not quite as wonderful as he would like to imagine. That is, the white male misogynists in the USA are being dragged kicking and screaming towards the greater reality.
First of all, though, lets go back to the Truthdig article at the beginning of the week which already dealt with the erroneous statement (BS) regarding “McClatchy Newspapers reported…” - Fact-Checking Clinton’s ‘35 Years of Change’ http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080204_fact_checking_clintons_35_years_of_change/
But, a lot depends now on whether McCain and Huckabee form a united ticket early on and how the Democrats will address that. I have said that they have been destroying each other through disunity. The fact that Hillary had a $5 million funding shortfall already proves that.
Effectively, most of the combined Clinton/Obama campaign funding is being wasted on indulging peoples’ very temporary delusions and fantasies with no regard whatsoever for the final telling campaign which is actually the real battle.
Endlessly pursuing the perceived differences between apples and oranges will NOT help the Democrats win government - or even to be able to govern successfully with ongoing enmity and discord in their ranks. The time to resolve their campaign ticket is now!
Report thisBy Amir, February 8, 2008 at 6:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Bribing For Hope
Report thisThe reason for the support of the Gilden South Coast of Conneticut is the necessity for keeping “hope” alive in order to avoid anger from boiling over. The myths needs to live on without becoming reality.