screamingpalm wrote:

“A choice between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is not much of a choice. If it means a GOP victory, then so be it- perhaps that is exactly what this country needs before people will start to become more progressive.”
—————————————————————————————

CHAH -CHINGGG!!!!

maani—Clinton “balanced the budget” on the backs of the poor! Anyone can do that.

Welfare “reform”. That may have sounded good. But, I was working as a social worker part of that time, and, believe me, plenty of people were just thrown into the streets. Many are still there.

Reagan , smiliarly, instituted “de-institutionalization”, which turned out to be nothing more than a way to close mental hospitals…and put the people into non-existent “group homes”...people still do not want them in “their neighborhoods”.

The “war on drugs” (war on the poor).The “war on terror” (war on the poor). The war on “whatever the hell”

Bush’s “ownership society” resulted in massive loss of homes, and more tent cities.

NAFTA was supposed to “help the Mexican economy”, and “support progressive growth”—yeah, right?

Yet, the GOP is the only party to blame for the Big Three failure, ...sure…its all just crap…

It took me awhile to figure all this out, too.But, people will. Things are worse for many now, than they have been in our lifetimes. If there is NOT “change” that is voluntary, I hope to gawd that the people will have the balls to force it!

——————————————————————————-
By Maani, December 14 at 4:34 pm #

As for “Yet you say that a return to Clinton would be good, or, at least you imply that….how?,” the problem with cynics like yourself and others is that they ONLY see the bad, not the good.  Yet I have repeated that, if nothing else (and it IS a big deal), Clinton balanced the budget, paid down the nationla debt (to the point at which they actually SHUT OFF the debt clock in NYC for the first time in history), and left a surplus of tens (or perhaps hundreds) of billions of dollars.  We also got through his two terms without a “war” (though there were military conflicts), and there was as much GOOD legislation passed on numerous fronts as BAD legislation.
——————————————————————————-

Clinton is without a doubt the most overrated president in history. At the expense of short term gains (surplus, balanced budget) there has been extremely detrimental long term effects of Clinton’s policies. Blind faith in the Democratic party or the Clintons is just as detrimental as the fanatical Christian right wingers.

What are some of the “GOOD” legislation passed under Clinton. Especially any that would balance out or forgive any of the bad that I pointed out earlier?

As usual, how dare peogressives challenge or question the establishment or status quo.

Maani—YOU are not listening—did you read where I said that I had not expected much for a very long time, from the Dems? I just think that it is perfectly understandable for people to have believed that “CHANGE” meant CHANGE…how can you possibly not agree not delude yourself?

Surely you know something about group psychology…

If you think that most people will accept that Obama just meant “change from Bush”—you just have to be kidding me…of course, unless Bush changed the Constitution—COME ONE!! No one is going to buy that, unless they are just ready to accept the same/same.

It is not my responsibility to “know” whom you supported or did not. I dont even care. I am suggesting that it shoudl come as no surprise to most Dems that people expected more CHANGE—Gawd I am so sick of that word!!.

How can I “have expected too much of Obama” and been a “cynic”: I submit that I am a realist. Many are either new to the Dems or, just keep believing. Yes, I do think that the duopoly owes the American people better than Summers and Clinton. They certainly gave enough money for it!

If the Dems do not come to understand how disppointed many are with Obama’s picks, they will lose. If the uS can survive it, maybe that is good.

Maybe people will demand REAL change next time…

KDelphi:

“I think many feel that they were promised something that clearly will not be acted upon. Can you not understand that?”

As I have repeated ad nauseam, the problem is that too many of you heard what you WANTED to hear, but were not paying attention to what was ACTUALLY said.  If Obama left “perceptions” that you and others hoped were “realities,” the question is who exactly created those perceptions: him, or those listening to him.

I followed the campaigns as closely as anyone here.  And as many here know, I actually supported Hillary in the primaries, and was quite “down” on Obama (as Cyrena will be certain to tell you!  LOL) for the very reason you and others are angry: that it was clear that way too many people had on “Barack-tinted spectacles,” and were caught up in the “perfumed rhetoric” rather than hearing what he was actually saying.

Yet once Hillary lost, there was no question in my mind who I would support, since McCain and Obama are polar opposites in many ways (though, yes, there are a handful of similarities).

If you and others were expecting radical progressive “change,” then you have no one to blame but yourselves, because Obama never promised that.  He promised “change.”  And even if all he did was be “not Bush” (and, of course, not worse than Bush), THAT would have been “change” enough (for many).  But there is no question that his intentions and currently stated plans are not simply “not-Bush,” but are far more “change” than that - though obviously not ENOUGH change for some.

If Obama accomplishes even 25% of his stated goals, he will represent “change” on a level not seen in decades.

As for “Yet you say that a return to Clinton would be good, or, at least you imply that….how?,” the problem with cynics like yourself and others is that they ONLY see the bad, not the good.  Yet I have repeated that, if nothing else (and it IS a big deal), Clinton balanced the budget, paid down the nationla debt (to the point at which they actually SHUT OFF the debt clock in NYC for the first time in history), and left a surplus of tens (or perhaps hundreds) of billions of dollars.  We also got through his two terms without a “war” (though there were military conflicts), and there was as much GOOD legislation passed on numerous fronts as BAD legislation.

Finally, re “I saw where you were saying to your friend that it has gotten more “tense” in here, or something,” what I implied is that it has become far more “extremist” here (on both sides), with very little centrism.  And you and other cynics simply prove my point.

Peace.

Maani—there you go again, parsing words, and, ignoring the point…exactly HOW do I fail to understand the proper historical perspective ? I already read the stuff you wrote about Carter and Reagan..how does it seem that only one party is to blame, to you?

So Clinton put the nail in the coffin, but he is not to blame, but you are not excusing him from blame.

How about Gore on Kyoto? How about Clinton on the environment. He was better than Bush—him and 299 milllion other people, probably…

I misquoted. But, is that really the point?

OK—Clinton signed the REPEAL of GS—how else am I wrong?

Parsing words again, pointing out a misquote—good. But, how WAS Clinton on Iraq/the environment/the “free” mkts? Just better than Bush, right? You say you are not excusing him. Yet you say that a return to Clinton would be good, or, at least you imply that….how?

“If you are talking economic “misdeeds,” then your history is a bit skewed.  It was Carter who began deregulation (airlines).  Reagan continued the trend (including the first attacks on Glass-Steagall), Bush I continued them further, Clinton continued them further (including putting the last nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall), and Bush continued them.  So blaming Clinton is at best overstatement and at worst ridiculous….”

OK. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

“If you are talking about foreign policy “mideeds,” then you may be closer, but still way off the mark.  True, Clinton began the “extraordinary renditions” (in his last year in office; he rejected them for seven years) and attacked Iraq (among other wrong moves).  But to compare Clinton to Bush re military and intelligence misdeeds is equally skewed, by any measure.”

So Clinton is better than Bush..ok. So what? That doesnt make him good. And it doesnt make me happy that the Dems are bringing back the same people…

maani, I saw where you were saying to your friend that it has gotten more “tense” in here, or something..if it has, I think it is because people are angry. I think many feel that they were promised something that clearly will not be acted upon. Can you not understand that?

I havent really expected “change” from the Dems for awhile, but I can certainly see where many are going to be very disappointed with the Team that has been/is/will be selected… it is, you know..but I wouldnt want to use the wrong phrase. They are not appointed YET—it THAT supposed to be the HOPE? That Obama wil change his mind about Summers, et al?

Mr. Dionne. You have repeatedly praised Mr. Obama for declaring Bush’s intended war in Iraq “stupid”. Let’s keep in mind that Obama made that statement before any US soldier had aggressively entered Iraq territory.
Now you scold me for “prematurely” criticizing PE Obama’s intended war in Afghanistan and his cabinet appointments.
Sir, you qualify therefore for “the most prejudiced political commentator prize on Earth”.
Let me make myself absolutely clear: “I am not opposed to all cabinet appointments by Mr. Obama, only to his stupid cabinet appointments”.

KDelphi:

“You HAVE to be, at least, aware that Clinton SIGNED Glass Steagall.. “In 1996 this act was repealed by William Jefferson Clinton with, yes, the approval from the Republicans. NO one is safe from blame…”

These two sentences are baltantly contradictory.  Clinton could not have “signed” Glass-Steagall (which was created in 1933) AND repealed it.  What he “signed” WAS the repeal.  (Maybe you need to drink less coffee…LOL)

As well, prior to Clinton’s repeal of the remaining provisions of the Act, it was nibbled away at by Carter’s “Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act” (1980) and Reagan’s “Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act” (1982).  And Clinton’s “final nail in the coffin” (the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act”) did not come until his final year in office.

I am not letting Clinton (or Rubin) off the hook.  But you refuse to consider the issue in its proper historical perspective.

Peace.

You are wrong, Anarcissie.  Obiden is not a continuation of Clinton, he is a continuation of Bush. The Bushites have successfully conducted a political revolution, much as occurred in the Roman transition from a Republic to an Empire. Just as the Roman emperor was a military dictator, so the superpresident is, with Congress, the Supreme Court and legal system, deprived of the ability to constrain administrative power.

If you think that Obiden putting Israel under a nuclear umbrella will persuade them to give up their nuclear weapons, you are living in a dream world.  What it will do is increase the probability of nuclear war.  The Bushites increased the spread of nuclear weapons, and this would continue and extend Bushite policies, should it happen.

Obiden is continuing and consoldating the Bushite counter revolution, and extending the War On Terrorism. He signaled that he was for Change, and completely and immediately, by his appointments, betrayed this expectation by the naive.  But this gross cynicism so soon no one expected.

maani—“skewed”?? You HAVE to be , at least, aware that Clinton SIGNED Glass Steagall.. “In 1996 this act was repealed by William Jefferson Clinton with, yes, the approval from the Republicans. NO one is safe from blame…”

Rubin, who was Clinton’s Financial guy, was also central — in getting rid of Glass-Steagall, was the old restriction that the banks couldn’t tie up with brokerage firms and insurance companies.

Just because the GOP could have overriden Clinton;‘s veto , was not an excuse for him to sign it…

The Dems are decidedly mixed on the environment…MOST GOP are worse—so what..

It was easy for Bush to back out of the Kyoto Protocol when Al Gore and Bill Clinton undermined the agreement in the late 1990s. “Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the US Senate,” Gore said at the time. “As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change.” Sadly, Gore stood by his promise.

The Clinton administration’s Salvage Rider, known to environmentalists as the “Logging without Laws” rider, was perhaps the most gruesome legislation ever enacted under the pretext of preserving ecosystem health. Like the Bush-Wyden-Feinstein forest initiative, Clinton’s act was full of deception and special interest pandering.

“Not quite as bad as…” is a sad excuse for support.

Maani:

You have left out some of the most damning legislation, and inaction in other areas, which happened under Clinton-Gore. Here’s a few examples:

The environment, which was supposed to be Gore’s bread and butter, especially took a beating. The salvage rider eased regulations on clear-cutting, which in turn has had a devestating effect on salmon fisheries. This also set the prcedent for lawless timber sales.

In 2002 a rule change allowing mountaintop strip mining spoil to be dumped into lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. Then the resulting inaction when lawmakers wrote to him in opposition.

In 1996 the NDRC recommended a new standard of air quality. A standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size of 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Clinton’s EPA settled on a weaker standard of 15.

The CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) dropped to 1980 levels under Clinton-Gore despite the campaign promises to raise the standard. No doubt that we a feeling some effects from this, just like Rubin’s deregulation of the financial sector.

And of course some of the other most damning legislation to pass Clinton’s desk were WTO and NAFTA bills.

One can argue which is worse, laying the foundation for, or actually committing the crime. One should easily be able to see why Nader decided to run for office.

screamingpalm—Yes. Censorhip and pretending that they are the “only alternative” makes the DLC very happy, and, rich.

maani—a GAME?! I was almost certain you were saying that PE Obama was “different”—if he plays games, does the same free mkt crap, and appoints GOP—-wha…???

NEXT time we’ll demand REAL Change. Right…the SECOND term, when the Dems have all three branches, only 60, a supermajority…right. They have had control of both Houses for sometime. They passed a crappy minimum wage bill…

Abandon “HOPE”—it is a concept that involves NO ACTION. There is not one policy you can pin it to.When you move BEYOND HOPE, you realize that it never did anything for anyone. Give up HOPE that the govt, local and natl, will “fix’ things. They wouldnt even if they could. They are too comfortable.

Does “giving up HOPE” “kill” you? In a way…but, then, they cannot hurt and disappoint you anynmore…only you can do that…people can scream all they want—you know why they are doing it…

Maybe, then, we can turn to ourselves and each other—those that do not want a benevolent (maybe?) monarchy…

screamingpalm:

“You also need to remember all the damage that was done by the Clinton administration (one that he was part of). While Gore may have been better in some ways, Clinton paved the way for many of Bush’s deeds.”

If you are talking economic “misdeeds,” then your history is a bit skewed.  It was Carter who began deregulation (airlines).  Reagan continued the trend (including the first attacks on Glass-Steagall), Bush I continued them further, Clinton continued them further (including putting the last nail in the coffin of Glass-Steagall), and Bush continued them.  So blaming Clinton is at best overstatement and at worst ridiculous.

If you are talking about foreign policy “mideeds,” then you may be closer, but still way off the mark.  True, Clinton began the “extraordinary renditions” (in his last year in office; he rejected them for seven years) and attacked Iraq (among other wrong moves).  But to compare Clinton to Bush re military and intelligence misdeeds is equally skewed, by any measure.

Finally, if you are talking about “rule of law” “misdeeds,” there is no comparison: what Bush (and Cheney et al) have done to shred the Constitution and eviscerate freedoms, civil liberties and privacy makes Clinton look like Gandhi.

Peace.

Inherit:

You are preaching to the choir that Gore would have been better than Bush. What I disagree with you on, is that he is somehow entitled to my or anyone else’s vote. I also do not agree that he would have been the optimal choice, at least for me or other progressives.

You also need to remember all the damage that was done by the Clinton administration (one that he was part of). While Gore may have been better in some ways, Clinton paved the way for many of Bush’s deeds.

It is also appalling to me how far the Democrats will go to silence opposition, especially from the progressives. We’re all supposed to sit and wait for these progressive issues to be addressed while Obama surrounds himself with conservatives, hawks, and free traders. What will make you Democrats happy? Censorship?

Anarcissie:

“Maani—By ‘obeisance to AIPAC,’ I meant the symbolic act.”

Actually, I figured that out a few seconds after I posted!  LOL.

Re the “nuclear umbrella” thing, this is still a “rumor.”  It has been denied by both the Israeli government (Olmert) AND its opposition (Netanyahu). It has also been denied by the Obama national security team.  As well, all of the reports I have read in the media (from The Irish Times to various wackadoo websites) is simply regurgitated from the Haaretz claim - which ITSELF is based on “an unnamed source.”

Is it possible that it’s true?  Yes.  But I would not put much stock in it, much less continue to disseminate an extremely weak claim based on a single publication that does not even name its source.

Peace.

Maani—By “obeisance to AIPAC”, I meant the symbolic act.  If Mr. O is a competent monarch, he will be quite Machiavellian.  Perhaps that has already begun.  For instance, by “extending the nuclear umbrella” to Israel, he not only removes their excuse for attacking Iran, but perhaps their excuse for having nuclear weapons at all.

Anarcissie:

You speak of Obama’s “obeisance to AIPAC,” and others have noted this as well.  My question is: did anyone really expect him to refuse to speak to them?  Is that realistic?  Presidential candidates’ speeches to AIPAC (and ALL of them,, both Dem and Rep, do so) are an expected part of the game.  But it is just a speech, and no candidate is required to live up to everything s/he says at that time.

Let’s see what he actually does before you apply a word like “obeisance.”

Peace.

I find all this excitement about Obama’s appointments and projected policies rather odd.  While he did speak of “hope” and “change” during his campaign, his detailed policy statements made it clear that he was of about the same ideological temperature as Clinton.  This was remarked upon even by the dolts of the mainstream media, so it was hardly a secret.  Neither of them was that different from McCain, before he began sucking up to the Religious Right.  In case anyone didn’t get the picture, though, Obama explicitly dumped the Left last spring (FISA vote, obeisance of AIPAC, and so on).  Obama did allow people to make up stories about how he was the next JFK, the next FDR, the next Lincoln, but that is what politicians do.  As far as I know he didn’t actually lie to anybody, which is actually rather virtuous of him.

The “change” we appear to be getting with Mr. O is not some kind of progressive experimentation but a change back to the rather conservative policies of the regular Democratic Party away from the right-wing radicalism of Bush and his friends.  I think that is about the best you can expect from an empire.  We are not going to get a top-down revolution because top-down is the antithesis of revolution.  Revolutionary change starts at home, not in the White House.

The election was another matter.  The American people elected a person who was Black and whom the Right had tried to taint as a Muslim, a terrorist, an anti-American, a communist, a hippie—the sort of thing that had almost always worked in the past.  It failed miserably.  This was, to my mind, a great thing.  It is too early to say that we are witnessing the beginning of a tectonic shift in politics that will elminate the knuckle-draggers and know-nothings from significance, but there is room for hope.

But as for tearing your hair out about Mr. O—forget it.  It just makes you look silly.

screamingpalm, December 13 at 7:51 pm #

Again, the Democrats are not entitled to my vote. If you think the corporate puppet Gore would have made a great President, then so be it. Do not lay claim to my vote, or insist he lost the election because of Nader. The Democratic party does not own the political left of this country. The stench of elitism eminating from this suggestion is appalling. If you want to continue to support this two party duopoly, that is on your conscience. Don’t expect me to do the same.
*************************************************

Try reading what I wrote.  It wouldn’t have taken a messiah to differently than George Bush did in the 2 instances I listed.

It merely would have taken moderate competence. Anyone with a LICK of common sense would have acted as I said, Republican or Democrat. 

Bush’s father was far wiser and a better admin and would NEVER have done the same.  His reaction to Iraq in 1991 was completely different circumstances, was planned out better, and when the hotheads (me included) wanted to topple Saddam he wisely saw that as mission creep and that containment was far less expensive AND more effective.

Also, I can’t imagine ANY President would have let Katrina do so much damage without acting.  I STILL cannot believe that ALL Bush did was use it to tar a governor and mayor.

It doesn’t take Godly wisdom to do the obvious right thing. It simply takes some common sense.

This is something Gore clearly has, and Bush clearly has NOT.

Again, I cannot conceive of ANY President before Bush being so insane about attacking Iran and so inept about protecting us from natural disasters.

To think it would take a messiah to do that means it’s not ME whose thinking is warped.

——————————————————————————-
By Inherit The Wind, December 13 at 5:20 pm #

There are two things Gore clearly would have done differently:

1) As a continuation of the Clinton years he would DEFINITELY have given credence to the warnings about Al Qaeda that Bush and his surrogate, Condaleeza Rice, pointedly ignored as “Clinton paranoia”. Gore would have taken them seriously and acted on them.  Bush did not.

2) Gore would never have invaded Iraq as it was obvious even then (and Jimmy Carter gave a speech on it) that Iraq was contained and irrelevant.  We have known for YEARS that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before he was inaugurated and the 9/11 attacks were simply cynically built up as the reason.

There is no fundamental reason to expect that Gore would have taken Bush’s path on these two items, and certainly NOT on the environment.  To insist that Gore would be no different than Bush is to invalidate oneself as a debater.
——————————————————————————-

Please do tell how exactly Gore would have been the progressive messiah. I am not insisting that he would have been EXACTLY like Bush, we are all different, but the differences were very minute.

Lest we all forget all of Gore’s broken promises…

http://www.debatethis.org/gore/enviro/naderopenletter.html#globalwarming

Again, the Democrats are not entitled to my vote. If you think the corporate puppet Gore would have made a great President, then so be it. Do not lay claim to my vote, or insist he lost the election because of Nader. The Democratic party does not own the political left of this country. The stench of elitism eminating from this suggestion is appalling. If you want to continue to support this two party duopoly, that is on your conscience. Don’t expect me to do the same.

There are two things Gore clearly would have done differently:

1) As a continuation of the Clinton years he would DEFINITELY have given credence to the warnings about Al Qaeda that Bush and his surrogate, Condaleeza Rice, pointedly ignored as “Clinton paranoia”. Gore would have taken them seriously and acted on them.  Bush did not.

2) Gore would never have invaded Iraq as it was obvious even then (and Jimmy Carter gave a speech on it) that Iraq was contained and irrelevant.  We have known for YEARS that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before he was inaugurated and the 9/11 attacks were simply cynically built up as the reason.

There is no fundamental reason to expect that Gore would have taken Bush’s path on these two items, and certainly NOT on the environment.  To insist that Gore would be no different than Bush is to invalidate oneself as a debater.

Politics have become nothing more than grand theater, for the lemmings that will follow. The system of the founding fathers no longer exists, in its place we have theater with actors chosen only to play their intended role read the script no more no less. Politicians buy into the play for their own selfish reasons, usually to stuff their vaults with wealth taken by enacting laws that favor the producers of the play and receiving a cut in turn. It is guaranteed that while millions will be jobless and their children will go hungry this holiday season there will be plenty on their tables. Please contact them and share the misery, they do have blood on their hands.

Wars and rumors of war, the rape of the environment, injustice for all and human suffering in general will continue. We happened to win the lottery and by chance have come to reside in the empire were we still think we have choice over these matters, but in reality all we have left is the freedom of whether we accept and believe what we are told or not.

——————————————————————————-
By Maani, December 13 at 2:42 pm #

Please!  You can’t be serious!  This is the same excuse that people like you gave in 2000 and 2004.  Do you honestly and seriously believe that Gore would have been EXACTLY the same as Bush?  That his policies - in almost all regards - would not have been different?  That he would NOT have responded to 9/11 with a “global war on terror?” (And, if 9/11 WAS an “inside job,” would NEVER have supported its planning and execution?) That he would have ignored the science around global warming and done virtually NOTHING in that regard?  That he would have instituted “tax cuts” like those of Bush which favor the wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF the middle class?

I could go on.  But if you REALLY believe that there is no difference between (most) Republicans and (most) Democrats, you are living in a fantasy world that has no basis in reality.

Peace.

——————————————————————————-

Ah Mr Gore, where were you as Clinton’s VP to some of the most sweeping deregulations that have caused detrimental environmental effects in history! Guilty conscience perhaps? Wanna right all those wrongs? Feeling bad about mountain-top strip mining and the “salvage rider” allowing clearcutting of our forests?

I am not in the habit of voting least-worst. Perhaps Gore may have been different on some issues, but I look at voting records- not rhetoric. Don’t you think that Nader would have had even better policies than Gore? Why should the Democrats steal my vote away from Nader?

You Democrats act like you own the political left in this country. Many people, myself included, would not have voted at all in these past elections if Nader didn’t run. The DNC does not own my vote, and Gore, Kerry, or Obama would not have received that vote. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

The duopoly of our political system is the problem, not progressive third-party candidates! There is absolutley minimal difference between the two parties. The only difference is that the Democrats will lie and say things to get elected, whereas the Republicans will tell you to your face that they are going to screw you over!

To maani,

Al Gore would have followed exactly the same foreign
policies and he would have, also, attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the domestic policies, there might have been minor
cosmotic difference but the basic fundamental policies would have been the same which is to keep enriching the super-rich and impoverishing the middle class and the poor.
The current economic crisis would have occured anyway. The deregulations of the financial markets, which led to the current ecomic disaster,  happened
during Clinton time and was pushed and championed
by Rubin from the administration and Phil Gramm from
Congress.

have been

FT writes:

“Any argument will do, and if these arguments rationally conflict, so much the worse for rationality.”

Indeed. It’s like the hodge-podge of rationales for the Iraq war all over again. “Iran is crazy and can’t be deterred… and we should invade and occupy Iraq so that all those evil Muslims including Iran will be intimidated and therefore deterred from messing with us….”

screamingpalm:

“True, perhaps McCain would have won, but how is that very different to what we ended up with? A choice between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is not much of a choice. If it means a GOP victory, then so be it- perhaps that is exactly what this country needs before people will start to become more progressive.”

Please!  You can’t be serious!  This is the same excuse that people like you gave in 2000 and 2004.  Do you honestly and seriously believe that Gore would have been EXACTLY the same as Bush?  That his policies - in almost all regards - would not have been different?  That he would NOT have responded to 9/11 with a “global war on terror?”  (And, if 9/11 WAS an “inside job,” would NEVER have supported its planning and execution?)  That he would have ignored the science around global warming and done virtually NOTHING in that regard?  That he would have instituted “tax cuts” like those of Bush which favor the wealthy AT THE EXPENSE OF the middle class?

I could go on.  But if you REALLY believe that there is no difference between (most) Republicans and (most) Democrats, you are living in a fantasy world that has no basis in reality.

Peace.

Well change is on its way we have already been witness to some of it, socialization of corporate dept that’s a change, 10% unemployment headed for 15% or more that will be even more change. These are predictions of leading economists.

So what if the restructuring of the world economy brings major pain to this country’s middle class and poor we need the change.

King george has about 40 more days of change to finish up before we can get onto the real change.

Anxiety none here as it should be well known that in governments as corrupt as this, change comes from the bottom up, the bottom being the streets and there aren’t enough middle class folks in the streets yet.

Not to worry as the military is crumbling under the same economic weight as the citizenry and a prolonged pre emptive war, so the only way Berry will be able to protect the energy interests in the Middle East will be a draft, more change. More war is on its way, more change.

This change while cruel and painful also may just be the ticket for real change, the same change brought about by the not so peaceful demonstrations against the machine in the Sixty’s and early Seventy’s. Although this next go round should prove to be more exuberant.

Real change will take much more than just arguing ones point of view on the internet.
More change.

What an immature, fatuous, stupidly provocative article!  The “left” people in congress are 100% part of the democratic parties voting block, so I don’t care what they think; they are, even Sanders, establishment people with partisan muzzles.  I didn’t vote for Obama, I wouldn’t have voted for ANY of the Kennedy’s, and no, I obviously don’t endorse Obama’s programs or his appointments, and I am not going to “wait” to say that!  I demand economic justice through the redistribution of land and wealth, an end to the american empire and it’s wars/militarism, an immediate drastic change to truly green energy, living wages, jobs, and guaranteed housing for all.  Since this isn’t on Obama’s agenda, I am in the opposition, whether partisan hacks agree or not.

It’s not the people stupid!  Washington will not respond to the people until the people take it to Washington.  Then they will gas us and shoot us.  They view us as barbarians not citizens.  An attitude adjustment is in order.  They just gave eight trillion to the rich.  If there was ever a reason to hit the streets is this not it?  They are going to escalate the war in Afghanistan, is that not it?  They are going to continue the massive tax breaks for the rich, is that not it?  They believe that you are sheep, are they right?  Are you going to watch American children continue to suffer while the rich continue to live in careless splendor?  Does manhood and womanhood accept such harsh and abusive treatment?  I say not!  We don’t want to do it before Bush leaves office because we do not want to give him an excuse to realize his dream, the Bush Dictatorship.  After he’s gone, we need to exercise our franchise as a free people and make our presence felt and remembered.  Time is up.  It’s now or never.

Ed Harges—Consistency isn’t possible when mainstream Progressves like Dionne try to ratiionalize the irrtional.  Their function, like all Obamanites, is get rank and file progressives to accept the power interests of the power structure.  This is the basis of Continuity, the continuing policies of the Bushites, now being promoted by Obama.

The function of Dionne, etc is to baffle with bullshit, divert attention from Obama’s betrayal of his campaign policies (as all pols do), and conceal as much as possible.  Any argument will do, and if these arguments rationally conflict, so much the worse for rationality.

——————————————————————————-
By Maani, December 13 at 10:31 am #

I am all for voting on principle.  However, need I remind you that even if everyone who believes as you do had vote for Nader (which is unrealistic in the extreme), then McCain would have won, since all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of those votes would have gone to Obama?

You can (corretly) gripe about that fact all you want.  But it remains the reality.

Peace.

——————————————————————————-

True, perhaps McCain would have won, but how is that very different to what we ended up with? A choice between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is not much of a choice. If it means a GOP victory, then so be it- perhaps that is exactly what this country needs before people will start to become more progressive. Change doesn’t happen overnight, Rome wasn’t built in a day. The elitist Democrats act like they own the voters.

The tactics and politics of fear used by the Democrats that voting for a more progressive Independent candidate will put a neo-con in the White House is deplorable. The Democrats have gone as far as blocking Nader off of the ballots in past elections- not very “democratic” of them?

The end-result is a more centrist or right-leaning Democratic party, which can feel safe from challenges by progressives. They can then decide which board member of Chevron to install in the cabinet, and the corporate machine (and military industrial complex) rolls forward while they line their pockets.

screamingpalm:

“Time for those who believed that voting for an Independant candidate like Nader would be a wasted vote, to reap what you sow. You all act so surprised when the writing was on the wall. You can’t mess with the bull and not expect the horns. You have no one else to blame but yourselves for supporting the corporate puppets of the two-party system.”

I am all for voting on principle.  However, need I remind you that even if everyone who believes as you do had vote for Nader (which is unrealistic in the extreme), then McCain would have won, since all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of those votes would have gone to Obama?

You can (corretly) gripe about that fact all you want.  But it remains the reality.

Peace.

Time for those who believed that voting for an Independant candidate like Nader would be a wasted vote, to reap what you sow. You all act so surprised when the writing was on the wall. You can’t mess with the bull and not expect the horns. You have no one else to blame but yourselves for supporting the corporate puppets of the two-party system.

The Presidential elections are a coin toss every four years where conservatives get to tell liberals: “heads I win, tails you lose”.

re: Folktruther, December 12 at 12:27 pm:

And notice the incoherence of Dionne’s position. If the left is denouncing Obama “prematurely”, then the implication is that they need to be patient, because Obama will do, or might do, what the left wants.

But Dionne also asserts that everyone should have always known that Obama will never do what the left wants! Why should the left wait patiently for what Dionne says will surely never happen?

To a Conservative, a Liberal is the dog you kick when you get caught leaning too far Right,(which is most of the time).

The problem is,  todays Democrats are Blue Dog,  DLC Democrats,  evidenced by the fact they are afraid of the word—liberal; while, during JFK’s time they were liberal Democrats…Big difference.

______________________________

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

dihey:

“First of all, what gives you the right to call me “left-progressive”? You know nothing about my political home and are just guessing. Shame on you!
Secondly, and infinitely worse, you omitted the words “FOR DECADES” from your writeup.”

Okay, you are NOT “left-progressive.”  However, WHATEVER you are, you clearly did not hear what Obama was actually saying during the campaign, but only what you WANTED to hear.

Re “for decades,” I’m not certain Obama put a time factor on his statements in this regard, but it was clear that such a residual force would be there for a while.  (You can define “a while” any way you wish.)

Peace.

Dionne is incoherent.

On the one hand, he says that the complaints of the left are “premature” - i.e.,  “Please wait; maybe he’ll do what you want him to do!”

On the other hand, he says that Obama never did agree with the left, so that their faith in him was misplaced, i.e., “Don’t hold your breath - he’ll never do what you want him to do!”

Dionne is just a shill for the Israel-centric wing of the Democratic party, and its corrupt money men on Wall Street, and he denounces as a “doctrinaire leftist” anyone who wants an end to wars for Israel as well as an end to no-conditions bailouts for Wall Street crooks.

It is obvious that Obama is a fraud and not progressive at all. He got more contributions from Wall St. than what McCain got. Ten millions dollars
for seven millions $.
He is “good deceptive mask” that is worn by the ruling elites as they continue shifting the wealth of the nations to them and impoverishing everyone else. One trillion bail-out is nothing but robbing
the taxpayers.
If it walks like duck, quacks like duck and looks
like duck then it is a duck regardless of anyone wishful thinking or clever bull-shitting.

Maani: in bridge or poker they would say that you are false carding.
First of all, what gives you the right to call me “left-progressive”? You know nothing about my political home and are just guessing. Shame on you!
Secondly, and infinitely worse, you omitted the words “FOR DECADES” from your writeup. Are you trying to fool me and other readers? Answer: probably yes!

dihey:

“Here is a statement that DoD designate Robert Gates made to and as reported by George Will: ‘Regarding Iraq, Gates is parsimonious with his confidence, noting that ‘the multisectarian democracy has not sunk very deep roots yet.’ He stresses, however, that there is bipartisan congressional support for ‘a long-term residual presence’ of perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and that the president-elect’s recent statements have not precluded that…’ If Obama does not state publicly today that this is not his policy and fires Gates for insubordination (but is it really insubordination?) like Truman did with MacArthur, this is obviously his policy and a betrayal…”

This is just another case of the left-progressives hearing what they wanted to hear, but not really listening.  Obama CLEARLY stated - over and over during the primary and election campaigns - that he would “end the war” and remove “all combat troops,” but that a residual force of “about 30,000” would remain either in Iraq or in the immediate area.

So Gates’ comment is perfectly in line with Obama’s CLEARLY STATED intentions.

You may disagree with INTENTION, but you have only yourself to blame if you think Obama said anything else.  He was quite clear.

Peace.

What wonderful, wonderful TD truther commnents!  It’s perfectly alright to PRAISE Obama’s appointments, but according to the corporate, militarist, policestate truthers like Donne, it is premature to critque him. 

No, it is postmature, as Prole eleguently put it.  Obama is a militarist, corporatist and policestate Uncle Tom, and the sooner progressives understand this, they sooner they can mobilized against him.

Not incidentially, according to Sam Smith, there is a rise of socialism in Europe, 45% of the West German’sw thinking it a ‘good idea’ according to a recent poll, and 57% of the East Germans.  A refurbishing, or actually a frubishing, of socialism in the US, ought to threaten the power structure, as it did during the last depression.

As for the ruling class that Obama and his apologists are serving, to quote Blago, expletive them.

It occurs to me that Obama has, er, flip-flopped the maxim “plus ça change, plus c’ est la même chose”—“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

His recent penchant for “continuity” can be expressed as “the more things remain the same, the more they change”.

Or:  “Change Through Sameness”, to give it the proper Orwellian touch.

Obama’s extraordinary rendition of ‘change’

The new ‘hopeful’ Obama administration, cabinet, and entire democratic party in power seems to be waterboarding ‘change’, or perhaps they are just using all the Clinton alumns to triangulate change, or the newly re-installed Wall Street boys to securitize change in the hope that they can sell it as a structured investment vehicle or swap it for credit if or when it defaults.

Yes, that’s the trading ticket—- they hope that they can take that wonderful, refreshing, sparkling, new ‘change’ and without outsourcing it to any free trade Washington consensus, that they can continue to surge it out toward the gleefully waiting joyous crowd in a shinny new force package, bailout its repackaging, highlight its domestic energy, and polish its image, so that as the British might say, with a stiff upper lip, “Tina, this is bloody imperial.”

Dionne, somewhat, concludes:

“It’s also plain that Obama is no left-winger. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, John Edwards was the candidate of the economic left, Rep. Dennis Kucinich the standard-bearer of the staunchly anti-war left. Obama’s campaign advisers were moderately progressive, not radical.”

It’s clear that E. J. and folks like him in the comfortable employ of the ruling-elite ‘corporate financial Empire’ that controls our country behind the facade of their two-party, ‘Vichy’ sham of fuax-democracy aren’t very good weathermen and just don’t quite get the real change that’s coming with this storm.

E. J., get a clue.  This time “moderately progressive” means simply expunging empire from our democratic republic and forcing empire out of our country, as was done in the American Revolution.  While “radical” means excising the cancer of empire, driving a silver stake through its heart, putting it on a pike and burning it, so that empire ceases to exist as a potential ‘end of history’ anywhere in the world.

Dionne is just another corporate operative whose mission is to delay and disrupt the display of truth.

While campaigning Obama promised change including sane economic change. He hired a herd of the same people whose policies helped to destroy the economy to run it. Those are clearly corrupt choices.

People are right to be screaming about these choices. Instead Dionne’s effort is much like the German soldier in *Saving Private Ryan* who murmurs “Shhhhhhh…” to the American soldier as he works a knife back and forth in the American’s chest.

I am getting incredibly tired of Obama brown-nosers like Mr. Dionne who are ordering me that I may not analyze what Obama says and does, let alone criticize his clearly stated intentions or statements emanating from his “teams” because “he is not our president yet”. Dangerous Baloney!

Here is a statement that DoD designate Robert Gates made to and as reported by George Will:
“Regarding Iraq, Gates is parsimonious with his confidence, noting that ‘the multisectarian democracy has not sunk very deep roots yet.’ He stresses, however, that there is bipartisan congressional support for ‘a long-term residual presence’ of perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and that the president-elect’s recent statements have not precluded that. Such a presence “for decades” has, he says, followed major US military operations since 1945, other than in Vietnam. And he says, ‘Look at how long Britain has had troops in Cyprus.’”

Did you notice? FOR DECADES LIKE THE BRITS ON CYPRUS!

If Obama does not state publicly today that this is not his policy and fires Gates for insubordination (but is it really insubordination?) like Truman did with MacArthur, this is obviously his policy and a betrayal, not of me because I never believed this notorious liar from the den of liars Chicago, but of the millions of innocent voters who did believe that he was going to “end the war in Iraq” which for them but not for Mr. Liar-in-Chief meant all troops back home.

It will be interesting to watch Gates’ confirmation. Will Feingold ask him what his statement to Wills means? I sure hope so because if Gates did make this statement he should not be confirmed.

So what is the way around the recently concluded “agreement” with Iraq that all US soldiers will be out of the country on December 31, 2011? Simple. The Romans called it “divide et impera”, divide and rule. Gates c.s. will make absolutely sure that a new and violent civil war will break out in Iraq (is it already in progress?) in which case “we are morally obliged to stay”.

The truth is that these politicians have no morality themselves hence fantasize about “moral obligation to remain in Iraq”.

Misery Loves company, so the right is havig a field day using genuine questions about Obama appointment to cause a break in the ranks of Democrats…Same shit different decade.
Any far lefty (which I am) who has not realized the right has been using Us to springboard their own agenda off, is ignorant. Divide & conquer is not just a partisan tactic, it’s a way to weaken the opposition.
Frankly I have been suspecious of Nadars true goals considering he has been more beneficial to the right than he has been to the Left every time he runs for Pres…..He’s caused Dem losses, and who would
Barr was even more transparent- Libertarian my ass!
As one who voted for Kucinich in the primary, I knew the votes he got would work against the front runner. Even if Obama was on the MI Ballot, I would have voted for Dennis. I was voicing my preference within the democratic party- a voice. But would never sacrific the Cause to vote for a Dark horse in the General. I’d rather make Progress on issues, then lose the entire war.
I knew Obama would make decisions I would not always agree with, but the Ends do justify the means- Real concrete solutions.
so I choose not to Aid or Comfort the ‘right’ with prejudgemental dissent. I do reserve the right to bitch periodically, but I will not feed their propaganda and fear mongering tactics.
Call me ‘behind the times’, but I am still focused on the Current Adminstrations decisions and past criminal activity to skip over to roast obama’s balls yet.
I would prefer we prosecute Known Criminals and work to change the laws which they have used to perpetrate theses crimes, so that they won’t be copied in the future adminsitrations.
through Justice will come Deterence
All this BS does is distract US away from the Real Culprits of Crimes which have already been committed.
I never gave a shit about Wright, Ayers or now Blogo. And am not too worked up about Giethner nor Gates (Hillary actually scares me more).But I am obsesssed with investigating Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
The only ‘Change’ the Repugs have ever wanted is to ‘Change the Subject’...Stop helping them.

I prefer to place the blame on those who step on the rights of others, whether they do it for the “good of all” or for personal, political gain. And to a lesser degree on the rest of us who sat back and let it happen.

It’s an ideological tug-o-war! The squeaky wheel gets the grease! Time takes time! Money corrupts! Obama is a Muslim! Mini skirts for a strong economy! Depression is bad for America! Fat people in food lines! Rich get richer! Rock-n-roll will never die! A Mind is a terrible thing to waste!!

It doesn’t matter…“change” came too late.  The gig’s up, and “progressives” couldn’t save us any more than anyone else. 

What’s done is done…that’d be us.  Stick a fork in.  The People ran from our responsibilities, but they’ve caught up to us.  Now we hope to pin the blame anywhere but where it really belongs: squarely on each and every chest in America.

Meh, we’re all teets on the same sow.

Contemplating the Obama presidency is like trying to stay awake so you can see Santa Claus come down the chimney…..I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no Santa.

Another load of condescending, supercilious claptrap from a terminally co-opted corporate media infotainwhore. 

These complacent apologists for the duopoly are about as deep as an oil slick on a mud puddle.  Like “boy bands”—are those still popular?—they’re a commercial product pushing banal and tired scripts to a lowest-common-denominator target demographic, and their personnel are so vapid and indistinguishable as to be interchangeable.

The byline could just as easily be “Richard Cohen” or “Joe Klein”, and I wouldn’t be surprised if either of these fellow mediocrities recycled this commentary.  Who would notice?

This article succeeds in bogging down our thought process in a time when those in power are making dizzying moves towards limiting individual freedoms. Let’s face it, Barack has nothing new to say, nor does he have the power to create real change even if he wanted to.

The role of the Democratic Party is to coopt and subvert the popular will of the American people when it tilts in a direction that worries the multinational corporations and war profiteers. They put a human face and uplifting slogans on the same old corporatist policies. Then their lack of concern for human needs, and its predictable consequences, will cause voters to flock back to the other corporatist party in the vain hope that they will change things.
Sure, we could say that EJ Dionne is a weasel for making increasingly smug and increasingly threadbare arguments that the Obama administration secretly cares about what progressives think. Fact is, the real betrayal took place when liberals turned off their brains and got caught up in a wave of hype about a young, eloquent Chicago machine politician, with no record, whose commitment to corporatist centrist ideology was clearly visible through his waffling and pandering.
For an analysis of Senator Obama based on research, rather than on wishful thinking and selected quotes from Washington spin doctors, see Matt Gonzalez’s article “What do they have to do to lose your vote?”
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html

“Oh, my: Barack Obama is still more than a month away from assuming the presidency and already”... veteran spin-meister EJ Dionne is forced to try and put a brave face on another predictable ‘progressive’ sellout. Of course, it’s a little postmature for fretting over it now, the fraudulent campaign is over, the deceitful Democrats have pulled the wool over enough voters eyes, with the help of their unofficial party house organ, The Washington Post. And while relieved conservatives like Dionne offer high “praise for Obama’s transition choices”, the Left is left to organize against the erstwhile Organizer president. “There is nothing new” in Dionne’s attempts to try and sell a candidate or policy to “progressives that… is destined to break their ideological hearts.” He’s made a career out of it.  Whether it’s promoting corporate welfare for GM as “class bigotry” (my favorite!) or embracing the military as the “most moral and significant” presidential act, Dionne gives Orwell new meaning. And to top it off, we’re to have it that the Left yardstick is JFK and “no less a loyalist” than “the late historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.” is the beacon for damping dismay by dissembling about,“an administration of conservative men and liberal measures,” a usefully waffly notion to apply to Obama Copacabana. “As it happens, Obama’s team is by most reasonable tests somewhere to the left of the one Kennedy assembled”, making it, “by most reasonable tests”, somewhere to the right of Eisenhower. “That’s because reality has moved left, particularly over the last six months”...since it obviously couldn’t have gone any farther right without declaring martial law. “When a Republican administration presides over—let’s call it what it is” - state capitalism; “and when even” progressives are calling for large-scale defense spending, the very definition of the political left needs to be recovered. And not by neo-cons in sheep’s clothing like Dionne and Obama. “But there’s another problem with the” premature fretting story line. “If those looking for a split consulted with the most progressive members of Congress”...they’d have a hard time finding many. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont [opportunist] who proudly describes himself as a democratic socialist,”...but gives little evidence of it… “has as much of a claim as”... Arthur Schlesinger for speaking for the left. And even after all the rationalization and spin, the unavoidable conclusion remains the same, “It’s also plain that Obama is no left-winger”. Not even a John Edwards or a Dennis Kucinich. “This means that parts of the political left will have some differences with Obama over the next four years, but it doesn’t mean that most”... who aren’t already disillusioned with him are really on the left to begin with, except in Dionne’s right wing universe. Take it from Ralph Nader, a much more fitting spokesman for the Left (who presumably would probably fall somewhere in between Lenin and Robespierre in Dionne’s demonology), Obama is a corporate Uncle Tom, like Schlesinger and Kennedy. If you ain’t fretting, you ain’t Left!

E.J. Dionne, your Washington centric rationalizations are not convincing.  The Gulf between the Obama rhetoric and the Obama cabinet is enormous.  Obama attempted to communicate that he is the decider but to little acceptance.  For thirty years Washington has shown an infinite ability to ignore the needs of poor and middle class Americans.  Those needs are now gigantic and nothing short of a recapitalization of the middle class will save this economy that is steeply skewed toward the rich.  That will not happen unless we go to the streets and make it happen and that time is upon us.  We will not watch our children suffer while eight trillion is squandered on the rich, no way!!! Your words are increasingly those of a Washington eunich.  You are likely to be the last one to get it.