Is this one the good monarch?  I don’t think political change is going to occur without at least a movement, if not a party.  Everyone seems to want to jump over this difficult fact.

WildCard and others—I would like it if Feingold ran for president. He never will, y’think?

Outraged—Thanks for the link. I happen to agree with you (I am cautious, as always). The more I hear conservatives (alof of them today!) say , “Take it slow!” and “dont do ALL this stuff”—the more it gladdens my heart!  But, I agree that the reason they are saying “hold steady” is because they are afraid—for their money. Good. They took most of the middle class’s. If the Obama Team keeps it up, I may say “Si se puede”. It remains to be seen if it will be done.

Of course it CAN be..some of it MUST be.

When FOX was crying “socialism” , I thought, the Dems must be doing SOMETHING right, if they are afraid. Gawd, I would love to see these neo-cons get their desserts. I just cannot help it.

I am more concerned with the country doing well…I just dont know if everyoen can get past all the injustice, if nothing is done.

felicity. Yes. Peace.I am paranoid about Reaganism.

If this isn’t fluff, and we’ll have to wait to find out, on Face the Nation today Rahm Emmanuel eluded to the fact that SEVERAL of our most pressing issues, especially in the domestic issue dept. are to be addressed immediately.

I hope he’s sincere, it sounds good.  An excerpt:

“Appearing on Face The Nation, Emanuel told host Bob Schieffer that Obama is now “going through the names” for his economic team.

He also said, in relation to the auto industry’s troubles, that “Washington needs to look at fast-forwarding the $25 billion that has been provided for retooling the factories for, basically, a more fuel-efficient auto fleet.”

The video of the program and the article.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/09/ftn/main4586620.shtml

BTW, at the same link during “the analysis” David Brooks had this to say:

“Brooks said that Emanuel gave him the impression that Democrats “want to do everything at once. They want, as you called it, the big-bang theory. I think that’s a disastrous mistake. You’re going to tell me you’re going to solve an incredibly difficult economic crisis, at the same time you’re going to reorganize 14 percent of the American economy? Health care? I think that would be a gigantic overreach.”

What’d ya think….?  If David Brooks thinks its “a disastrous mistake” then it must be a really good thing….no?  Its all in how funds are ALLOCATED ....most if not ALL of the “funds” are already there.

Single Payer Healthcare, Single Payer Healthcare, Single Payer Healthcare….
HR.676, ..... HR.676, ..... HR.676!

SusanSunflower:

You say, “I…couldn’t find any instance of him taking a principled or risky stand, the kind that might cost him.”

Actually, while it is the only one I can think of right now, he did push through the most sweeping ethics reform ever attempted, and he did so as a neophyte senator who could easily have been marginalized by most of the Senate for daring to take away many of their perks.

Peace.

KDelphi -  I disagreed across the board with all of Reagan’s policies. When right-wingers extol his virtues, I cringe and then chalk it up to their ignorance. 

I believe that the Vietnam War years launched a wave of unhappiness, pessimism and general malaise across this land.  People reacted, as they always do when they’re unhappy, by becoming overly agressive and/or adopting fixed moral codes.  Reagan was obviously their man.

Obama is the first president - out of maybe 13 total - who I actually voted for with enthusiasm.  (Notice that leaves out JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton) 

Reagan is dead and gone, but his ghost continues to plague us, most dangerously in Congress which has and has had, afterall, the Constitutional power to end the plague.  The fact that it’s a self-serving, spineless, bunch is what I really worry about.

Actually, a more literal translation of “Si se puede” (Yes we can) is “Yes it can be done”. When you think about it, that changes the “change” somewhat.

The Bushites WILL be a hard act to follow, Anarcissie.  They have tied the military down to losing morasses and have looted the treasury.  They have privitized much of the government.  They have destroyed the trust of a significant fraction of the American people in their leaders and the trust of the people of the world.

And Obama would have to repair this while being black in a highly racist country.  He can’t repair it with vacuous rhetoric.  The US power system has been transformed and you can’t go back to the way it was before.  Just as Claudius could not turn the Roman Empire back into the Republic though he was portrayed as a Republic adherent.

So Obama is obviously not going to try.  He is going to govern from the Center, by which is meant the center of Elite opinion, not the center of population opinion. That is, the right.  He is going to try to mobilize the population to support the increased class inequality and power inequality that the Bushites have institutionalized.  He will continue the war, Zionisn, neoliberalism, and police state, managed in a more intelligent way.

The people will continue to lose their homes, continue to lose their jobs, the prisons will continue to overflow, the military and police to incrrease, all covered over by inspiring American rhetoric, bland incomprehension, and massive media deceit and censorship.

Which leads to the temptation of increassed war.  Which is what happened to Roosevelt when he couldn’t cure the last depression.  But schoolbook American history is so perverted the American people have no idea how class-based power operates. 

But Obama does. And if he is not going to go to the left, as he obviously isn’t, he will go to the right.  And serve the thrid term of Bush.

Obama’s “hope” and “change” were largely empty signifiers which everyone filled out in his own way.  It will be interesting to see how Mr. O manages the babble which will now arise as to what they actually mean.  George Bush’s woeful regime, with its cynicism, corruption, violence and general destructiveness, will not be a hard act to follow, at least.  On the other hand, the real problems which it cultivated are pretty daunting even if one’s only aim was to put things back the way they were before they were as bad as they are now.

Oh, and for a final slap in our face, pay very close attention to the smiling faces in the acompanying picture. Don’t they all look happy and gleefull? I would be if I knew I was being rewarded for running a business or industry into the ground and the taxpayer was going to pay me for doing so.
ENJOY!

I don’t know if this is a post to comment here about this, but since the election on Tuesday the democrats have shown nothing but neocon BS to the people. Now the democrats want the bailout to help the american auto industry, not the people who traitor pelosi demanded to be helped and not have to pay for any of the bailout in her ‘acting’ speech to vote down the first bailout vote. So, here fresh from a lot of you people’s least favorite msm site, msnbc, is the blue dogs(republicans in democrat clothes) wanting to ‘aid’ not just the financial sector that played a BIG hand in bring us the current financial crisis but now include the failing american auto industry for their complicity in this economic failure the WE the taxpayer is going to pay for out of OUR pockets. And they want it done before w & dick are out of office, IF they decide to give it up on 1.20.2009.
Here’s the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27607725/

Read it and weep! ANY MORE PROOF OF THE INFINITESIMALLY SMALL DIFFERENCE OF A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT, OR THE INFINITESIMALLY LARGE SIMILARITY OF A REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT???!!!!!
Expect more of the same shit and an even closer political and corporate coziness for THEIR benefits. Just the thing I thought that by electing someone other than a republican as president or congressional rep. or sen. would end but NO, it shit still gets deeper.

felicity—If you will read the post, you will see that it was NOT “personal attacks”—I listed several thinss Reagan did that, I think ,made way for Bush neo-conservatism.

YOu know, if we are supposed to have “change”, I am past worrying abvout personal atracks. (That is something Reagan never shied away from!)I detested Reagan.If you have supported Obama 100% from day one—then maybe you havent gotten the backlash. Reagan attacked peope by kiling them.He was a war criminal. So is Bush.

If Obama’s supporters think Reagan was a “nice guy” then they will think that his behavior was acceptable. It was not.

We have a RIGHT—no, and obligation—to expect and get BETTER than Reagan. I, for one, would like to see that before I die. Wouldnt you?

I have nothing against you personally. But, really, we shoudl know better. I was pretty young (or unaware) during Reagan. But I remember. We all should. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.We need more than a “friendly face”.

Sirota’s article is posted also at Salon.com and the letters are interesting ...

There are a lot of familiar sounding Obama “supporters” insisting that Obama’s “madate” is for nonpartisan cooperation and that he’s a real progressive who will bring the parties together and that ....ewwww…. none of that lefty stuff, please ...

During the primaries and the campaigns—since I was never an Obama enthusiast and never considered him a liberal—when I would mention to the obviously infatuated Obama supporters who seemed to believe he was a liberal, that his voting record did not support such as assertion—these same sounding voices would insist he was never ever a liberal and that only a stupid and uninformed person could ever think so—they would insist this with such vehemence and anti-liberal tone, that I even wondered if they were actually Democrats (and might perhaps rather be Libertarian types)...

In fact, I recall they were part of my wondering if Obama was a Democrat for purely practical reasons ... had to pick one party or the other, black voters are democrats, so I’ll be a Democrat ...

The Obama campaigns use of race—specifically the sliming of Bill and Hillary Clinton—also made me question his/their “party” affiliation since, as I realized pretty early on, there as no way in hell that the Democrats could hope to win the White House if they ran the slimed Hillary Clinton and lost a substantial part of the black vote (probably due to not voting) ... I remember saying, these charge of racism could destroy the party—and then the light came on ...

I don’t know what Barak Obama “stands for” and couldn’t find any instance of him taking a principled or risky stand, the kind that might cost him…. Doing community services for a couple of years after college is a great thing to do ... and it’s something many graduates saddled with student loans and other expenses can’t afford ... It’s great on the resume, but as a “sacrifice,” not so much.

Sorry to ramble, but I don’t expect much from Obama, though reality may well force his hand ... in the form, probably most urgent and most universal, in some form of foreclosure relief, something to permit homeowners to walk away and regain the freedom of mobility to go where there is work.

There are dozens of things I’d love to see ... but I’m merely hoping we can keep Social Security and Medicare afloat for another decade until it’s “my turn” ... I’d love to see national health, but if it’s not universal single payer, I think we might be better off waiting (and I’m uninsured)...

Don’t know what Obama’s position on Iraq wrt the recently increasing violence and the possibility that Maliki may actually want us to “stay provisionally” until the elections this spring ... ditto all the independent contractors.

Check out Salon’s letters ... there’s a rather strong not-liberal bias contingent of Obama “defenders” who seem to want to protect him from us liberal types.

KDelphi - Nope, I’m 76 years old.  It’s just that I’m sick to death of the Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity/O’Riley/Malken venom.  Maybe ‘nice’ was my over-reaction to the business-as-usual poison directed at the person rather than his policies which seem to saturate political discourse (and I might add a lot of cyberspace)these days.

We were taught that personal attacks against others only reduced us - to their level. Have to admit that calling Reagan ‘nice’ was a bit over the top though.

KDelphi—no apologies are necessary.  I was probably unclear.

Alan—It is already happening. Has been for months.

The sad part is that I dont think Obama would approve it! He let some of us debate FISA on hs website! I wish he’d listened to us—but I havent really seen his supporters’ tendencies to shut people up i him.Mayve alot of these people just know Clinton/Bush. He doesnt often do as I would like—but I have sen him intervene when other tried to “protect” him from a dissenting opinioin.

Of course, teh tendency to call every criticism “racist’ should now be discounted. He was elected with a majority.

Alot of his appointment ideas scares me. But none more than Larry Summers. Summers is a supporter of Friedman=-esque economics.(I posted links and quotes on the site about him—look it up, is you disagree!)

So much for the FDR stuff..can Summers have “changed his mind”? (I’m sure someone wil say that). Let him say so. Let him apologise for his part in creating this mess. Bill Clinton too.

Maybe he could start a “Summers Fopundation” for the homeless.

David great article and straight shooting about the vast majoritarian mandate we voted Obama in to represent.

Unfortunately, by reading Rahm Emanuel’s interview with the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, I now know how Obama will govern based on his massive popular mandate from all aspects and segments of the vast majority of voters including; race, origin, age, religion, geography, ethnicity, and education among the ‘working class’ who voted for him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122611134918910647.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

Emanuel said Obama will be bipartisan, pragmatic, flexible, and progressive, but without over-reaching, or claiming a mandate, and by governing “from the center”.

Talk about Clinton’s complex ‘triangulating’ with the ruling-elite? ——Obama is talking about octangulating with the ruling-elite ‘corporatist Empire’!!! 

“Just keep your eyes on these 8 pretty shells”.  “Everyone’s a winner here”, shouts the carny shill.

The concern I want to mention about any serious discussion and debate regarding support and pressure on Obama to ‘do the right thing’ is contained in this post I made to After Downing Street regarding principled articles by Dave Lindorff and David Swanson:

After downing street Lindorff on Obama:

Sadly, I have noticed a number of supposedly left/progressive web journalism sites already implementing an iron clad ‘no pressuring Obama’ rule in what they publish (or reprint), and in some cases even censoring and banning readers and posters who question or argue against articles recommending that Obama quiet, repress, and delay progressive issues in an attempt to ‘appease’ right-center, financial interests from both parties.

Naturally, most articles ‘advising’ such ‘appeasement’ are of the ilk of neo-con David Brooks in today’s Times, WSJ editorials, right-wing ‘think-tanks’ (sic), as well as DLC shills on the Democrats side.

Don’t be surprised to see any strongly-worded and genuine left/progressive posts that you may write to supposedly left/progressive sites starting to get ‘filtered-out’ (IE. censored)——its already happened to me!

Perhaps we need to start critiquing, rating, and sharing phony left/progressive site information.  I’ve already cut out a few sites which I now refer to as LINOS (left in name only sites).  Up against the wall, mother—-  it’s time to start separating the wheat from the chaff, the men from the boys, and the minute-men of democracy from the loyal royalist shills of continued corporatist Empire.

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

felicity—Reagan a “nice man”?? You must be very young.

“Gov. Ronald Raygunzap”

“He’s a drugstore truck drivin’ man
He’s the head of the Ku Klux Klan
When summer comes rollin’ around
We’ll be lucky to get out of town

He’s been like a father to me
LIke the only dj you can hear after 3:00
Hes a lawman’s friends, an all night dj
Sure dont think much like the records he plays

He dont like resistence I know
He said it last night on a big tv show
Got him a medal that he won in the war
Weighs 500 pounds and it sleeps by the door”

With apologies to Joan Baez and others. 

He started all this “compassionate” trickle down economics crap.He implemented Taft-Hartley against Unions. He sat with his thumb and watched AIDS multiply . He sold arms to Iran to pay for teh Contras in Niacaragua, who were fighting against a peasant revolution with the CIA. He wooed the South with coded “state’s rights” talks. He was things I cannot say.

We might be bettrer off with a moderate McCain than Reagan—
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2003/fax20031104.asp

  • “The working poor have borne the brunt of the cost of the Reagan Revolution. The hardest-hit programs have been welfare, housing and other anti-poverty measures. Even programs that were not cut have failed to keep up with inflation. Meanwhile, rich people got big tax breaks. And the middle class kept most of their subsidies intact. As a result, the Reagan years brought on a wider gap between rich and poor.” — Bill Moyers, who reported CBS’s 1982 anti-Reagan documentary, CBS Reports: People Like Us, after PBS re-aired it on June 20, 1989.
  • “The legacy of the Reagan administration will be with us for years. The deficit under Reagan totaled more than a trillion dollars. Someday we’re going to have to pay those bills. As officials look to cut spending and taxes at the same time, we can’t afford another round of voodoo economics….I remember that campaign slogan one year ‘It’s morning again in America.’ Well, it may have been morning for some, but for a lot of people in this country it’s become a nightmare.” — Ed Bradley in an April 28, 1996 speech to Benedictine University in Illinois, aired May 11, 1996 on C-SPAN.

NOw, maybe some agree with the website. People that lived through it shoudl know better.He made all the crap Bush got away with “ok”.

Maani, November 8 at 11:02 am #

Peace.
***************************************

You are comparing apples to oranges.  In 2004, at this point in the counting stage, Bush had barely 60 million votes and Kerry wasn’t that far behind, with nearly 58 or 59 million. It was only with the FINAL (Diebold-assisted) count that the 62/59 millions were tabulated.

At this point, estimates are that the FINAL total will be around 132,000,000.  You have to compare intermediate counts to intermediate counts, and final counts to final counts.  Otherwise the inference you make is invalid.

I deal with this all the time.  This week a HIGHLY experienced scientist made the same mistake, contrasting two differently tabulated results from two different studies. I questioned it and was pooh-poohed (I’m not a scientist, just a systems analyst and project manager) till another scientist, this one a clinician, stepped in to back me.

Though at the time I said it, it was true, I need to correct something.

I referred to the “3 million votes” that separated Obama from McCain vis-a-vis the popular vote, and noted that this did not represent a “sweeping mandate.”  Actually, now that the votes in all but one state have been fully tallied, I find I must completely reverse my comment.

Given that over 8 million votes now separate Obama and McCain, this actually represents the most sweeping mandate since 1980, when Reagan beat Carter by 8.5 million votes (it ties Clinton’s 8 million votes over Bob Dole).

To put it in full perspective, though, in 1980, only 79 million votes were cast, so the 8.5 million difference represents a larger percentage of the vote.  Similarly, in 1996, only 86 million votes were cast, so, again, the percentage is actually greater.

In the last three elections, the numbers look like this:

2000: 101 million votes cast; 500,000 vote difference (for Gore…)

2004: 121 million votes cast; 3 million vote difference (for Bush)

2008: 122 million votes cast; 8 million vote difference (for Obama).

Peace.

It probably started with Reagan, probably a nice man, certainly a gullible man, surrounded by Rasputins who convinced him that an economy based on the fact that people will pursue their own self-interests, a given, and that will work out well for everybody, a myth, was made out of whole cloth.

When the Sam Waltons of this world begin to notice a dearth of customers filling their aisles, Sam might begin to see that his customers are pursuing their own self-interests by saving their money rather than frequenting his aisles, old Sam might consider that “will work out well for everybody” is indeed a myth.

Our tanking economy may just be all Obama needs to effect his policies of economic fairness and inclusion.

Anarcissie—You know, when I went to bed last night, I thought about that post—I thought about sending an apology. I was pretty harsh. Maybe I shoudl explain (make an excuse? maybe) why.

I am one of those who has been striped of any money I ever had, because I cannot get medical coverage. Money in my pension, social security (they take that too), family money (not much—but couldve been enought to survive on)and even money granted me by the courts as payment for damages.(Same old song and dance? Well, it is still true—people who are tired of taxes should consider that if things were otherwise I would not be using taxpayer money)

The Bankruptcy Bill prevents me from escaping the medical debt—so I took an equity loan. I locked it in at a good rate (it was les than $10,000), so I still make payments. Also, credit card payments—Medicaid does NOT cover so much.

I cannot help but think—what the hell is going to happen when these formerly middle class people get older, or sicker, and the funding for Medicare, etc. is jsut not there?

If you are middle class—$150,000 net worth seems pretty average. For lower middle class and working classes, the picture is even more grim. The weak unions have allowed their pensions, COBRA and benefits to be negotiated out of the deals—while CEO pay continues to rise. We are going to need a back up plan for all the people robbed by the laissez faire capitalism—or we will have alot of people dying in the streets (which we already do)—but thank god!—wall st is ok!

I do not wish you to lose anything you worked for—you probably invested in real estate, becaseu soneon told you is was safe. Someone told me not to sell Exxon—I did it anyway. The real estate mkt is screwed. The govt couldve bailed out housing instead. It couldve bulked up pension, IRAs, social security aND 401ks—but it didnt. It bailed out the upper 2%.

It wil take middle class, who have more at stake than others , to speak up—-peopel wil just ignore a poor person—that is how capitalism works.Poor= your own fault. BTW—I did not come to this conclusions because I found myself in these straits—I came to it way before, working with people on the street.There is no way they deserve what they are “living”. The middle clas must help take up the mantle of egalitariansism.You can be sure that the rich wilnot.

KDelphi—I don’t own any stock, as I thought I mentioned, but maybe not.  You also seem to be confusing what is usually called “net worth” with income.  An income of $150,000 is indeed unusual, but a net worth of $150,000 or more, especially for older people, is actually rather modest.  You couldn’t live off it, and in many parts of the U.S. it would be inadequate to purchase even substandard housing.  Of course as the working class (including the middle class, who usually do have to work) are increasingly impoverished, that may change.  But in any case I doubt if it’s a really nifty idea to wipe everyone’s savings out, and pointed to an instructive historical example as evidence for my view.

Poor Obama; my god, the world loves and wants him in inverse proportion to Bush. 
Obama cannot possibly live up to the “worlds”, much less America’s, expectation of him.  He will carry this like a curse.  And you; what do you expect?  Better check; because there may be crushing disappointment ahead.  If he is up to the job he may well prove competent and begin to correct the shattered infrastructure of what used to be America.  But, with expectation so high, even a good job may look like failure.  Beware.

Anarcissie—“lower middle class”?? 100s of 1000s of dollars?

This is a stuff I see over and over again. People on the internet tend to be more educated, and, mostly a little more wealthy than the average in the US—and the world.(except EU, UK, Canada, New Zealand—well the list is getting longer isnt it?)But they have regulation and protection in Social Democracies. Hell, you cant even get US citizena to expect/request that. BYW—I was not always thus broke—I had Exxon stock that was bought for me by a broker—I made him sell it when the Valdez happened. The fool that I am. But—where woudl it be now?

Forgive me if I save my tears for people that do NOT have that to fall back on. Maybe you wil have to end up in like the rest of the US. I paid into SS and a pension too—the govt took it for me to get medical care,. I never get it back. Peroid. I did not chose to get hit by a drunk.

The median income in the uS is $42,000. Its true. If you make $154,000 , you are in the 95th Quintile. (Gawd only knows where that puts you in terms of the rest of the world!)People are just too used to the outrageous salaries on Wall Str. and DC. They think that everyone lives like that. Why dont you ask the free mkt for your money?

If you bought into the free mkt and are unwilling to take any risk to dismantle it—tough. Sorry. You will not starve, I am pretty sure of that. But maybe we need to pass some “minimum standards for human rights” , just in case.

Did you like it when your stock was up? Or was it ever really? It was a illusion—the stock market and the govt ripped you off. You are a flipper. Flipers, as well as a lack of regulation , caused the “bubble”—but it was never really a “bubble”—it is rigged-ass capitalism. That is not how it “doesnt work”—that is how it “works”.

Capitalism= moneyism. Moneyism= death. To people . To animals. To the planet.It is unsustainable. I know that most wil not agree—-how many of us wil have to be serfs before we demand change—REAL change?

“But it creates the most wealth”—does it? Really?

People think we need to “fix the stock mkt”—we dont. We need to revamp our entire economic system.These “artificial bubbles” wil just be created over and over.But, as long as people keep taking it, Wall St wil keep dishing it out.

We already bailed out the banks.Everyone will pay for it—even if we dont pay income taxes.But, people dont mind, right?

At least we are free to die with our rights on.

Big B:

Ditto re KDelphi: I’m with you on that.

Peace.

KDelphi—I made some money from buying and selling real estate.  Some of it is derived from interminable mortgage payments, and some from the bubble.  It is currently in a bank in a savings account.  This means the bank owes me the money.  I could have converted it to gold bricks and put them under the bed, but buying gold costs about 5% of the principal unless you’re doing it at a very large scale, under the bed is insecure, and the supermarkets I go to don’t really understand gold anyway.  So it’s in the bank, no doubt doing evil.  Regardless, I would prefer the banks’ debts to me not be canceled.  If that’s going to happen—and I do think annihilating people’s bank accounts through inflation is one of the courses of action our beloved government is now contemplating—then I’m going to wish I’d gotten those gold bricks regardless of their disadvantages.

I contributed some hundreds of thousands of dollars to Social Security, which I would also like to get back, with interest.  Again, this is money derived from hard labor; no one gave it to me.  It is owed to me.  If the government blew it, well, it’s true it’s the taxpayers’ money, but they voted for the government.

Mostly I’m just pointing out the absurdity of blanket debt cancellation.  The people who would be most harmed are small-time lower-middle-classniks like myself.  That’s what they did in Germany between the wars and you can see the wonderful results in subsequent history.

The “free market” is and has been propaganda.  What actually happened was that, under Greenspan, huge amounts of credit were manufactured by the government to inflate bubbles in the equities and real estate markets, thus putting off the day of reckoning “our” trade and Federal budget deficits have made inevitable, at the cost of making the later crash more severe.  It would be a good idea to bring this sort of thing to an end, but I don’t believe anyone has the political capital to do it, so nature will just have to take its course.

Maybe I’d better buy a gold brick or two after all.

Big B—I am with you on this one.

Step 1- remove Pelosi and Reid from leadership positions. They were a huge part of the problem. They got away with running a “Vicci” government for two years, wallowing around the ground without spines. They are gutless swine who deserve nothing but ridicule and a flogging. They failed the american people.

step 2- begin the bushies war crimes tribunals on Jan 22nd. The american people deserve nothing less, and should not settle for empty platitudes about “healing the nation”. It will never be healed until the torturers are dealt with harshly.

step 3- A new and improved new deal must be started immedietly. It may already be too late, but what do we have to lose?

and finally, everything Bush’s sleazy little fingers touched must be removed and set on fire. The foundation of our new era must be built on the bones of the failed Bush experiment.

If the Democrats “abandon their worst habits”, they won’t be the Democrats. The Party of Jefferson and Roosevelt is no longer the Party of Jefferson and Roosevelt and doesn’t remotely aspire to be such. Anyone still naive enough to believe that the Dem’s are even interested in - let alone capable of - “big” “transformational change” is simply whistling in the dark. It would be more realistic to believe in Spiderman doing the job than the Democrats. The Democrats exist precisely to circumscribe and forestall such change. What Wall St. loses in strength from a Republican loss, it gains back in a Democratic victory. “On huge issues—whether re-regulating Wall Street, reforming trade, solving the health care emergency, or ending the Iraq war” - Democrats and Republicans have been in virtual lockstep for decades. “America envisages enormous progress in the months ahead” - and will have no one to blame for failure but Democrats! But will they? So-called “progressives” (what a queasy term that is) - or at least many of them - have bought into the self-defeating notion that change can only come about through aligning with systems of power and the Democrats can be a force for “transformational” change. By hitching their wagon to Obama’s star they’re now stuck with him and his bipartisan consensus approach to preserving the status quo and co-opting dissent. Instead of holding Obama and the Dem’s feet to the fire, many self-styled “progressives” who bet the ranch on his vague, empty promises of “hope” and “change” will now feel compelled to defend his every move. It was a clever ploy on the part of the corporate establishment that controls both wings of the Duopoly Party to give the reactionary Republicans a breather and let the duplicitous Democrat’s mind the store for a spell in order to quell smoldering rebellion among the rabble. Who better than a black, nominal “progressive” to tell the proles they can’t have a bigger slice of the pie and American ‘interests’ around the world must be defended by any and all means - ‘nothing is off the table’. “A President Obama cannot credibly claim he lacks the political capital to legislatively steamroll” a fawning “progressive” coalition, desperate for “transformational” change, after years of wandering in the political wilderness, that has whipped him up into a secular messiah. “The election became a choice between continued conservative rule and a progressive agenda as far-reaching as the current crises” - but the result was the same. To badly paraphrase Clausewitz, two-party elections are conservative rule by other means. Whatever the voters may have intended, it’s not necessarily - or even likely - that’s what they will get. “To meet the challenge, Democrats have to” revert to “their worst habits.” Which is why Obama Copacabana has brought in so many insiders and former Clinton henchmen. Sadly, many alleged “progressives” fall into this same two-party trap every four (or two) years. It should have been clear long ago after having gone down this dead-end road before, that “transformational” change must come from the bottom up, outside of the two-party system. “That is not merely the better way—it is the only way.”

Maani—Thanks! I say we push for Krugman.

Please read his article, folks. It is worth it.

It might interest you to know that Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman agrees with Sirota, at least on the economic front:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

That said, it should be considered that although Obama trounced McCain in the electoral college, only 3 million votes separated them out of the more than 115 million votes cast.  This hardly seems the “sweeping mandate” that some are talking about.

Still, big bold ideas are often exactly what is needed in times of crisis and major shifts in U.S. politics.  (Consider FDR after Hoover.)

Peace.

Anarcissie-Are you serious about “restoring the ruling class”? I just ask , because , you seem to think that the investments you took a chance on with you 100s of 1000s of dollars (none from money invested in the subprime mess or war contracters, I assume—or do you know) is “owed to you” by taxpayers. If everyoen had not been so enthralled with teh “free market” and teh middle class had not been pushed into it with private pension plans, this would not have happened. A steady pension and funidng of Social Security would have prevented this.

People wanted more. To get more, you take a chance.. The stock market is part of “competitive capitaslisn”—compete if you like!

BTW—Still think the US is a “meritocracy”?

Felicity—I posted the below rant before I read your post—I include you with tdBach as one of the realistic sane folks.

TdBach,
You alone, of posters here, have a reasonable understanding.  The financial system wasn’t broken in a day—it took 27 years. I realized, with Bush’s first massive tax cut, that collapse was inevitable—and have been waiting for it for 5 years—5, not 7 because 2 YEARS ago we had the first sub-prime breakdown, and the best pundits warned it was just the beginning.  Of course, they were right (as I was). 

Massive amounts of re-regulation of the banking and investment industries need to be installed—and they will fight them tooth-and-nail with the stupidity and fear a of a dog or cat biting you when you give it the pill it needs to save its life.  This will take time.  It took years to dismantle.  Here, the change to go forward is in large part going backward—back to what WORKED!

Meanwhile the legal system needs to be rebuilt and part of it cannot—all of the biased political judges that Bush installed throughout the Federal judiciary will do their damnedest to prevent the change BACK to Constitutionality.  ALL the Federal prosecuting DAs need to be fired, then only the non-biased ones re-appointed—the ones who focus on the LAW!  Change by going backwards, yet again.  Back to our treasured Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In foreign relations change is already possible.  Again, change BACK to when we were the voice of morality, when we could lead a REAL coalition to end the genocide in Yugoslavia—and do it without losing one, NOT ONE American life.  Bush’s destruction of relations with our friends and allies isn’t merely stupid, it’s either insanity or treason—and there’s no other choice.

But one thing cannot be forgotten: When Bill Clinton came to power in Jan 1993, the ENTIRE Democratic Party in Congress thought this was a GREAT time to enact EVERY spending program they could—and a retroactive tax increase that went BACK 3 years (oh, did we get nailed on that one, my wife and I).  And in less than 2 years, the GOP hammered back with their stunning win in 1994, even unseating the Speaker of the House!  Let THAT be a warning to Democrats that majorities last only as long as the people think you are doing something for them.

Yeah, a lot of TDers will turn on BO immediately—they already have.  But most of those are the same ones ranting and raving that Nader should be president, and even that Nader was going to win! (ROFLMAO at that one)

But you know what? I’ll bet Barack Obama doesn’t read Truthdig.com.  He probably follows Ariana Huffington’s Huffingtonpost.com, but not TD.  So all the whining that he’s not implementing an unrealistic and unworkable nutty-left set of policies won’t even reach him…...

Some of us seem to be giving up on the guy before he even takes office.

My sense is that Obama will need sane and progressive-thinking Repubs in Congress on his side - given that too many Dems in Congress are dinosaurs - and one way to ensure it happening is to include sane and progressive-thinking Repubs in the Executive Branch.  Obama hasn’t gotten where he is without a keen sense of how to play the angles.  I have every confidence that he won’t lose that sense when he inhabits the OO.

Sure, shoot the moon. Why not? Go for it all the way!

Could become a bit tough with the greatest depression in history firmly asserting its chaotic paralysis over everything and everyone.

Allen Charles Report:
The Worldwide DEBT is the problem.

The best solution for the present economic crisis would be a REBOOT or restart of the entire debt system for the ENTIRE WORLD. ....

Well, that would certainly help out the American ruling class and screw the Chinese.  Ha, ha!

The trouble is, it would also screw me.  I’m owed hundreds of thousands of dollars by banks and insurance funds, and $2000 plus per month as long as I live, CPI-adjusted, plus major medical expenses.  I achieved this enviable position by 40 years of working, saving, doing without, putting up with, and a just a bit of probably non-renewable luck, and now, poof! it’s all going to vanish.  Sounds like something George Bush and Henry Paulson would have dreamt up after a long night of swilling the hard stuff.  Guess I’d better go buy a gold brick and hide it under the bed, or something.  You got any other good ideas?

The Worldwide DEBT is the problem.

The best solution for the present economic crisis would be a REBOOT or restart of the entire debt system for the ENTIRE WORLD.

1. A data base listing ALL DEBT, government, business and personal needs to be created. The list would need to list the debt and debt holder with a bank that could make an accounting of the debt. Included would be all national debt of all nations, all mortgages car notes and credit cards for individuals. All outstanding bond and other debt for corporations, The idea is to list ALL DEBT of any kind owed.

2 . Every government on the planet would need to call a special session of it’s legislature.

Using the same authority that governments have to use or create FIAT CURRENCY the legislatures and Central Banks need to authorize the creation of ACCOUNT CREDIT in an amount equal to all the listed debts in the world.

3. The Various governments and Central Banking Systems then need to make an accounting change equal to the debt in the form of an ACCOUNT CREDIT or CREDIT zeroing out ALL THE DEBT in the entire world, and crediting all debt-holders in the world.

The following day the economy of the entire world would restart and the Stock Markets of the world would react to the new renewed capital in the banking systems, the Capital now available to restart all business and the disposable income to the individual people would restart and grow the retail sectors and the manufacturing sectors of the entire world.

Allen Charles Report

http://allencharlesreport.blogspot.com/

tgbach: ’.... For Obama to succeed, he will need to take measured, careful steps in a progressive direction. He’ll piss off the likes of Sirota (others, like Hedges, have already wrtten him off), but he will actually move the country in the right direction.’

Obama’s first task (and this is what he was hired for) will be to salvage the position of the American ruling class, which has been seriously damaged by Bush and company’s radical experimentation.  He will need to help the economy find a solid bottom, and make arrangements to reduce the U.S. commitment to endless war in the Middle East and elsewhere.  These are conservative tasks; they will have to be taken care of before any sort of advance in any direction can be seriously undertaken by our Great Leaders.  However, I think we can be thankful that someone managed to pull the emergency brake before our bus went completely off the cliff.

When the GOP takes power, they move radically to the Right—they may pay a price down teh road—but they get re-elected. And their base gets what they want.

Most people talked about Obama as if he was a progressive—he’s not. But, if teh promises he made (or “hinted stat”—it is hard to pin down)are not going to be fulfilled (not ANY of them?), he wil lose support. People seem to be of the erroneous imperssion that moderates put Obamas in power—-PDA, even his delegates all CLAIM to be progressive. If he governs as though both parties (and ideologies) are equally responsible for the mess we find ourselves in, it wil be a huge mistake.

“Bi-partisan”, in DC, almost always means capitulation for Dems. They have all three branches now (not the SC). They should be expected to get something progressive done. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for progressives to back the Dems.

If they do nothing, how are they different from the gOP? We cant just keep accepting this “the other guy would make it worse ” stuff. What a bunch of cowards Reid et al are.

The times are “pregnant” as they say. The moment in pressing. Laissez faire capitalism has been shown to be the farce it always was. If the Dems do not take advantage of this chance, they will never get it again and, one would have to assume that they fel pretty much the same way about the economy, “war”, a regulated market, as most GOP do. This can be a chance to right some wrongs, to call for more eqalitarianism, and to bury the Newt Gingrich/neocon “revolution” and Reagan’s deadly anti-labor, faux populism stance.

If they do not, the people of this country owe it to future generations to attempt a bloodless coup d’etat.

Do people fail to see where we are and how we got there????

This is such a typical view of politics from the rabid - for lack of a better term - blogging left, who have been intoxicated by the apparent power of the web in shaping political discourse. We come to sites like this, because they are informed by progressive ideals similar to our own, but these sites are hot-houses that produce fruit unnaturally fast and large and for the most part inedible outseide of their steamy confines.

I love that title of Sheer’s book - “The pornography of Power.” He wrote it about the Bush administration but it could just as well apply to ANY group, including the Netroots left. Beware.

The only time Americans can accept huge change is if we face a huge crisis (think Depression). He can move boldly on the economy, but if he tries to take similar measures in social policy, he’s screwed. Guarantee it.

Thank heavens that Obama seems to be an extraordinarily grounded, thoughtful, intelligent man who, I hope, will avert his eyes as much as possible from the seductive images of power to concentrate on making real, meaningful progress in a real, compromise-demanding world.

If you think this election reflects an electorate that wants sudden, expansive, progressive policy change, you’ve been masturbating in the dark corners of cyberspace for too long. Clinton didn’t lose congress because he triangulated, he lost because the progressive issues he did trumpet and aggressively charge ahead with - healthcare reform and don’t-ask-don’t-tell - were not handled well and Republicans jumped at them to rip the heartland voters away from the Democratic party - the very people that Clinton’s triangulating campaign won over, that allowed him to win at all. These people still loved Bubba, because of his personality, because of welfare reform (which was HUGE for the blue-collar voter), and because our economy was doing so well. But because he made such a big deal - or the Republicans made such a big deal - of the progressive pieces of his agenda that the majority of people didn’t feel a sense of urgency about, the electorate got nervous about Democratic control of the government and turned congress over to the Republicans.

For Obama to succeed, he will need to take measured, careful steps in a progressive direction. He’ll piss off the likes of Sirota (others, like Hedges, have already wrtten him off), but he will actually move the country in the right direction.

Let’s make the Oil and energy Corps compete in a REAL Free market. Revoke all land leases, end subsideies and tax breaks and let them finally stop poaching Of US. Let American Own and Control resources found in our country(Like theIraqi’s are trying to hold on to). Make these Corps market ONLY what is one their Owned Properties. Do Not allow them to control Any Energy source, including Wind & solar.Electic should be On our Grid - thus they can pay US to use it! Once we no longer are beholden to them for our energy, our costs will go down (also remove energy from the Casino Tote boards as a commodity to be gambled on- It’s UnEthical to begin with, along with Food)
When we are no longer their customers, they will lose 25% of their market and the ability to influence Domestic & Foreign Policies!
Als oDemand these Corps remove OUR Flag from headquarters of Foreign countries- THEY do NOT Represent US! We’ve been used as Scape goats for Decades and they have not Upheld the standards by which this country Holds Dear.
Get US creating and manufacturing our Own energy resources, and Jobs will be created. With Jobs comes more income and purchasing power.With this we can also finanace a Healthcare system which Covers All citizens. It will also provide more income for the States to improve Schools and Infrastructure.
Give US the Freedom to Control our own Energy and We can then Rebuild the Country!the Feudalistic Monarchy in this Country does not have a Family Crest, it has a Logo!

The wimpish Harry Reid is becoming a big problem for the Senate democrats. Even after such a big and inspiring win, Reid shows no enthusiasm, no new approach.  He is so ingrained in the old ways that he is incapable of seeing the writing on the wall.  Why should Democrats have such a leader who shows no excitement at such a historic mandate made possible by the liberal and the progressive populations of America? 

Harry Ried’s waffling over Lieberman is another salient example that shows Reid’s mind is hard-wired by the same old politics.  There comes a time when politicking must be set aside so that principle can take over. 

One has to agree with David Sirota: If the Congressional democrats do not show the courage necessary to act big they will lose big.

BTW, when will they stop calling this Wall Street 800 plus billion rescue package a “bail out.”  Is this not a SUBSIDY?

Hard to go big when your marching orders are from the wall street robber Barron’s. Nothing in the new regime is new..same ol same ol, do you doubt this? Than look at the appointees and who Obama is turning to for advice. Even the names are the same as when than Clinton ran the extension of Wall Street. Which bedrooms will be for rent? If you are expecting Big Things from Obama you will be disappointed..the same as when we assured that this would be the mosted biggest voter turn-out, not true same as 2004. We will see the media lying machine once more working overtime for the Wall/K street extension.