Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Yogi Berra: Eternal Yankee

Yogi Berra: Eternal Yankee

By Allen Barra
$18.45

more items

 
Report

Lincoln’s Lessons for Obama

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

Posted on Oct 19, 2011
White House / Chuck Kennedy

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Can President Obama take advantage of the egalitarian sentiment let loose in the country by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations? Would doing so be consistent with the moderate, conciliatory persona he has cultivated?

The best response comes not from polls but from history. Eric Foner’s magnificent book on Abraham Lincoln’s evolving views on the slavery question, “The Fiery Trial,” offers some surprisingly relevant lessons.

The thing to remember is that on the slavery question, Lincoln was a moderate, not a radical. He promised in the 1860 election to leave slavery alone in the South, and even after the Civil War began, he tried again and again to conciliate Southerners, believing that Southern unionist sympathies would eventually prevail over slaveholder extremism.

As a result, he was accused by his allies of “too much tenderness toward traitors and rebels,” and Lincoln worried to Republican leader Carl Schurz that his middle-of-the-road politics would offend both Democrats (the conservative party of the time) and Republicans (many of whom yearned for bolder action against slavery). Foner summarizes Lincoln’s concerns: “He feared he was too radical for the Democrats and not radical enough for the Republicans and would end up without political support.” Sound familiar?

Eventually, Lincoln grew weary of being caught in the middle and seeing his overtures to the South rejected. The government, he observed at one point, “cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
And so he finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863. Hostilities commenced on April 12, 1861, with the South’s attack on Fort Sumter, so Lincoln took his time before embracing his role as the Great Emancipator. Obama, who even three months ago was seeking compromise with his congressional opponents, might understand.

Now comparing anything with Lincoln and the Civil War requires a paragraph full of caveats. So: No, we are not approaching civil war, and no, the issues we confront now aren’t as morally momentous as slavery. And lest conservative readers get bent out of shape, I am not saying that Obama is Lincoln. FDR vies with Lincoln to be America’s greatest president, and even he wasn’t Lincoln.

But the political parallels are striking. Lincoln was always aware that getting too close to the abolitionists risked losing the political center of his time. Obama also cares about the center and has been wary of his party’s left. Lincoln believed in reason and conciliation even with enemies who had taken up arms against the government he led. They wouldn’t be conciliated—and Obama has had no better luck with less fearsome opponents.

In the meantime, as Foner points out, “abolitionists and Radicals” were pushing public opinion in the North to see that ending slavery was a necessary step toward winning the war and reuniting the nation. Their “agitation,” Foner writes, “helped to establish the context within which politicians like Lincoln operated.”

And so has the agitation of Occupy Wall Street begun to change the context of our discussion. Politicians and commentators who had been silent about economic inequality and the excesses of the financial sector are finally facing up to economic injustice and the irresponsibility of the financial elites. In the meantime, Obama’s moderation has won him absolutely nothing. Having done much to save Wall Street and the banks, he receives in return only ingratitude and criticism. Bankers and financiers who needed the rest of America to bail them out now respond arrogantly when the rest of America complains about the unpaid promissory note it holds.

My old friend Doug Schoen wrote in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal about a poll of “nearly 200” Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York, concluding that they are committed to “radical left-wing policies.” I’m sure there are some radicals in the crowd, since moderates aren’t given to mass protests. But the dissatisfaction with the privileged that the demonstrators are expressing extends far beyond the left, and majorities share OWS’ inclinations on many issues, including the need for the wealthy to pay more in taxes.

In their time, the abolitionists were radicals, too. Lincoln, a shrewd politician, understood that public opinion in the North did not fully embrace their cause but was moving in their direction. Lincoln remained at heart a moderate, but he abandoned moderation on slavery when this proved to be morally and politically unsuited to the imperatives of his moment. By following Lincoln’s example and acting against the injustices of our time, Obama could also come to occupy the high ground.


E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
   
© 2011, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

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

oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 24, 2011 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

Diana—
Was careful to direct my perjoratives to your first comment (and to ElkoJohn’s, with which you “totally agree.”)

Not to you or him personally.

My comments stand as written.

Report this

By Diana, October 24, 2011 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oddsock, may I remind you that this Blog. represents
ideas and hopefully the thought process.  Your
childish name-calling obviously replaces any real
contribution here. 

Previous generations (not so true in the 21st
Century) were ostracized from society for many
reasons. I believe the world would have condemned the
South for owning slaves. As long as greed continues,
there will be enslavement (of one kind or another). 
China comes to mind with the hellish conditions of
workers who supply this country with their goods. 
It’s wrong but we keep buying - don’t we?

There is no perfect solution to these problems; human
bondage is always based on some feeding off others. 
Let’s not forget that these Africans were sold off
from their own country (in many cases). That doesn’t
make it right, but these unfortunate people were
“freed” into another kind of hell with the
Emancipation Proclamation. There were no long-lasting
provisions made for an uneducated people hated by
many and ignored by others. 

I believe pressure from the North and elsewhere could
have put the South in a position where “slavery”
would have been too costly. A divided nation might
have worked with less bloodshed and destruction,
however, others would have to stop buying the goods
produced. There were buyers of their products (cotton
for instance) that kept the slave-trade booming.

A moral conscience cannot be counted on, of course,
but cutting-off business with slave holders certainly
would have affected their lively-hood. Education was
the key to helping the African people (as it is for
all people) but that was not provided by their
“liberators”. The war caused more harm than good and
the blacks became a hated race (by many). As long as
something is profitable - it will be held by the few. 
Isn’t that what Truthdig is about?  Aren’t we seeing
that greed now?  If we aren’t careful, we will all be
the slaves.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 24, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

@diana

You sound well-intentioned.
It appears from your 2nd post you have enough of a grasp of history to have known better than to write that “slavery would have died a natural death.”
You still haven’t explained that.

Sorry, but the first posts by both you and ElkoJohn remain as monuments to idiocy.

Report this

By DIana, October 22, 2011 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey Oddsox, my comments will not magically transport
us back to the Civil War and allow the South to win. 
OK?

If “Honest” Abe had not finally found that drunken
butcher, Ulysses S. Grant, or allowed Philip H.
Sheridan’s horrific burning and destruction of the
Shenandoah Valley to destroy everything in his path;
it would have been a different outcome. But like our
“elected officials today” WAR is big business and Abe
would not have been re-elected (or had the chance to
attend the theater that faithful night).

Many of the people who were starved and/or reduced to
poverty never even held slaves.  And as usual, it was a
war fought by the common man (so-called) while the
rich could pay someone else to fight.  Sound
familiar? 

The South was left bitter and many blamed the blacks
(even though that was not the initial cause of the civil
war).  Eventually the black man was treated as badly
by the North.  Everyone lost! The African Americans
(as we now call them) found themselves in a world
that “set them free” to do what?  Education was
denied them, thus the vote, and they were treated as
non-citizens.  NO! I certainly don’t believe in human
bondage (or animals for that matter).  Only the rich
man comes out on top from war. . .

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 22, 2011 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

@elkojohn (and @Diana, who agrees):
You write: “Lincoln should have let the country divide into two countries.
Slavery would have eventually been abolished in the south, all the bloodshed would have been averted,
and the world would be a better place with two US countries instead of one.”

If Confederate succession had stood, the South would have been even MORE dependent upon slavery, not less.

But you agree it “would have died a natural death,” as Diana put it.
How so?

Also, how many more years of slavery did you figure on? 
10 years? 25? 50? 100?

We still have issues in this country that trace back to slavery.  We probably always will.
You really think the world would be in a BETTER place today had it continued?

I’ve read some looney comments, but ElkoJohn & Diana, you take absurdity to a new level.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 22, 2011 at 2:21 am Link to this comment

“- it starts with political parties that care not about politics but only about getting
their senators, congress members and gouvernors reelected, and a voting public that
cares too little about substance and a lot too much about form.”  Marian Griffith

With computer voting machines, “fixed” during the GHWBushJr administration, Jeb
Bush´s Florida governorship, and no paper-trail, the voting public has little
opportunity to demonstrate concern with “substance.”  The Clint Curtis story reveals
the facts.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tjnuG-l6g

Report this

By Marian Griffith, October 21, 2011 at 11:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

—-By following Lincoln’s example and acting against the injustices of our time, Obama could also come to occupy the high ground.—-

And he would be quickly crucified for doing so by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Even now Senators for the Democrat party are pandering to the extremist right wing rhetoric in an attempt to secure their re-election and leave a Democrat president to hang.
Obama may not be a terribly effective president because of his attempts to still seek consensus and his apparent natural timidity, but the rot in the system goes a lot deeper than that, and it starts with political parties that care not about politics but only about getting their senators, congress members and gouvernors reelected, and a voting public that cares too little about substance and a lot too much about form.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 21, 2011 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

@EmileZ

Do you think that scrutinizing hidden motivation, possible pitfalls, internal contradictions, and bad acters is important for all movements? or only for conservative ones?

I get your point, though.  I know full well that some of the rocks that i look under dont have anything underneath them, but please take note that some of them do.

And most of all please understand that the process is important.

Truthdig will not explore the problems of OWS. I think i have done an admirable job of applying some scrutiny in the face of tremendous denial.

The tremendous denial itself scares me. The problems are just covered over, and everyone(well not everyone, but almost everyone) accepts that for the sake of the cause. That is not good, it is a bad habit, especially for a movement that has no plans to work within the system. With continued denial of the problems, i think OWS could develop into something bad.

I cannot support OWS on blind faith. What it needs is sharp criticism, and its supporters ought to respond with honesty.

I do support the kind and honest chat we are having.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

“By following Lincoln’s example and acting against the injustices of our time, Obama could also come to occupy the high ground.”
—EJD

Agree w/AMeshiea, it ain’t happening.
Obama’s has been the Presidency Distracted.
Now, I believe, it’s too late for him to change.

...but breaking up the Too-Big-To-Fails would be the appropriate high ground for Obama to take.
I’ve detailed the idea on TruthDig many times, won’t bore you with repetition. 

For newer readers, more here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/oddsox/2011/10/10/too_big_to_fail_too_big_to_begin_with

If Obama “grows a set” and also supports moves to limit campaign contributions to natural citizens only (no corporations, no unions), that would be something!

Not betting on it, though.

Report this

By Diana, October 21, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ElkoJohn, I totally agree with you. I think Lincoln has been over-rated (just like Ronald Reagan). It’s well known that Lincoln thought the negro was inferior and at one point simply wanted them returned to Africa, however, he did start changing that mind-set. I’m sure meeting or knowing someone like Frederick Douglas must have had an effect. Yes, slavery would have died a natural death and the South would have had to change. As it is the South was destroyed and left a legacy of poverty and ignorance which still prevails in many area even to this day. The black people certainly didn’t come out of that war much better off. It took Martin Luther King to finally win their rights. Yes, a divided nation would have made sense and war never does!

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, October 21, 2011 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

When Obama’s presidency began, he had leverage and could have easily stood up to Wall Street.
Much tougher for him now. 


“Obama’s moderation has won him absolutely nothing. Having done much to save Wall Street and the banks, he receives in return only ingratitude and criticism.”

He bet on the wrong horse. 
Had Obama been even “moderate” in pursuit of increased employment, he’d be sitting pretty right now.
Instead he catered to the desires of the Too-Big-To-Fails (witness Obamacare). 
Corporations, powerful as the are, cannot vote.

—-

“...the rest of America complains about the unpaid promissory note it holds.”
Most American’s don’t realize that all but $2B of $245B in TARP money has been repaid.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, October 20, 2011 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

@ Ozark Michael

OWS is very much about what is going on in Washington with BOTH PARTIES!!!

It is so very much about the influence of consolidated wealth on our political process.

It is NOT a re-branding of the democratic party to distance itself from the economy. It is ENTIRELY SEPARATE!!!

I don’t see how denigrating the OWS movement is in the interest of ANYONE who is not a corporatist, or corporatist politican trying to gain or hang onto power themselves.

If you want to defend the Tea Party, go right ahead, but I don’t see how making absurd claims OWS are pawns being manipulated by an invisible hand over and over again is any kind of credible defence of your own organization. It may be some sort of tactic. I don’t know what you think such a tactic will accomplish???

You are obviously deeply involved with the Tea Party, so why not do something constructive which you and your fellow members can take pride in?

Personally, I think if a “Tea Party” candidate, or basically anyone besides Mitt Romney gets the republican presidential nomination, THAT will do more than anything to insure Obama’s reelection (except if Romney gets the nomination and the Tea Party runs their own candidate seperately, which unlike Nader, would almost certainly be allowed to participate in the presidential debates by the corporate media). So I don’t know what to tell you about that.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 20, 2011 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

EmileZ, they are not knowingly being pawns. I think they were set up from the start and they are being used, eventually will be very much used. Most will never know it.

At least that what Leftists tell me about myself and the tea party. I have contact with 6 Tea Party groups. None of them has seen money from billionaires and we arent taking direction from anybody, billionaire or not. But for all that we are ‘controlled’ ‘pawns’. This is why i feel pretty free to apply the tactic back, and return it with interest.

Actually, i think Obama would like to have OWS exert much more pressure. I think he would be more true to himself if he had more leeway to go harder Left. OWS provides space for him to do that if it gets big enough.

If something bad happens to OWS, Obama would come in and wring concessions out of Wall Street, and we conservatives would thank him for resolving a crisis. Many OWS(but not the hardliners) would thank him for getting at least some “change” at last. His reelection becomes much more likely.

A atlemeat that drags on all year? even better! Think of it this way: As long as OWS is pointing the finger at Wall Street, Obama is not being blamed for the economy, and we know the economy is what is hurting his reelection chances more that anything.

Furthermore, as long as Obama can blame someone else for bad things, he gains a chance to win. If stock market tanks, what would normally be a nail in Obama’s re-election coffin, has the scent of opportunity. Not everything Obama can do with OWS involves being nice to OWS, or even nice to Wall Street.

The situation is fluid, isnt it? But mark that Obama is free to shift, while Wall Street and the Occupiers are stuck.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, October 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

@ Ozark Michael

I agree, and his political advisors are no doubt scheming about it right now.

However, that does not in any way make OWS “pawns” of the corporate democrats.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

EmileZ, OWS doesnt need to be to be a Democratoc movement to be useful to Obama

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, October 20, 2011 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

I would disagree that Obama has been moderate.

He is a full-blown corporatist Wall Street shill.

Any overtures he may make to OWS will be superficial and mendacious.

I recommend Glenn Greenwald’s article “Can OWS Be Turned Into A Democratic Party Movement?”

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/singleton/

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment

-E.J. Dionne opened his article with:

Can President Obama take advantage of the egalitarian sentiment let loose in the country by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

                   
Can he?

My, this is such an unforseen development. I mean who could imagine that Obama might have this OWS thing fall into his lap, energy and widspread deomgraphic slipping into his pocket like Big Pharma money or a Solyndra photo op? Its like a plan, only it was only coincidence!

Can he?

Oh the drama and suspense, with the weighty comparison to Lincoln. I mean if Lincoln could rise to the occasion as circumstances allowed him to do, is it possible… to hope… that maybe… but…

Can he?

Can Barack Obama “take advantage of the egalitarian sentiments let loose” ie ‘take advantage of the situation’? Can he?

Yes he can!

And will the pawns of Occupy wall Street end up providing votes to Obama, one way or the other? Will they?

Yes they will!

Report this

By pundaint, October 20, 2011 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

Can we really be so stupid as to think that the actions he has taken since given his mandate for change give us any hope that Obama can ever be an effective leader for anything but the status quo?

If We want change, one of the first changes must be the guy who has increased wars, secrecy, disparity of income, outsourcing the military, refilled the pockets of the speculators who crashed the economy as they continue on the same path to the next crash, while giving most consideration to the policy initiatives for the ostensibly losing party in the election.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, October 20, 2011 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

I disagree.
FDR was the greatest president in history.
Not only did he bring much needed social and financial legislation
during the Great Depression,
(his Fireside Chats kept America informed and educated about the real issues)
he also lead the allies to victory in World War II.

Lincoln should have let the country divide into two countries.
Slavery would have eventually been abolished in the south,
all the bloodshed would have been averted,
and the world would be a better place with two US countries instead of one.

Report this

By Myshkin, October 20, 2011 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Mr. Dionne Jr should read the reporting published on Truthdig, which, unaccountably, still continues to run his pathetically weak sister ruminations.

For example:

“One top banking executive who raises money for Obama, discussing fundraising efforts on the condition of anonymity, said reports of disaffection with the president “are exaggerated and overblown.” He said a strong contingent of financiers in New York, Chicago and California remains supportive of Obama and his economic policies, even as some have turned on him.

“But, this donor added, ‘it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy.’”

“Obama,” says Dionne Jr, “could also come to occupy the high ground.” And that would be what, exactly? ‘the high ground’ of a politician who says one thing and does another? Who hires Timothy Geithner? Who hired Lawrence Summers? Who retains Ben Bernanke? Who discards Elizabeth Warren? Who makes a deal with Big Pharma and takes the Public Option off the table before “reforming” health insurance? Who retains Eric Holder? Who moves Leon Pannetta to the DoD, and David Patraeus to the CIA? Who’s establishing 100 drone bases around the world? Who caved on Military Tribunals? Who assassinates American citizens and their teenage children in Yemen? Who received the largest amount of campaign donations in US history from the financial sector of any candidate running for office in 2008? Who turns a blind eye on the treatment of Bradley Manning and is confident to believe whatever his military advisors tell him? Who sends a 100 special forces into Uganda, where 2.5 billion barrels of oil reserves have been discovered?

Who wants to read any more of this list? Does E. J. Dionne Jr even know where the “high ground” is, or what makes any place the “high ground”? It’s past time for Mr. E. J. Dionne Jr to quit the op-ed business and settle down to writing that heist-caper novel he’s best suited for, and which provides the advantage of keeping him safely within the confines of his limited comfort zone: cheap, disposable fiction.

Report this

By Mental Traveller, October 20, 2011 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And he said, “To what should I compare the kingdom? It is like several men who coveted a neighbor’s possessions. They broke in one evening and stole everything he owned, setting fire to his house as they went away. Now when they returned to their own land they invested the man’s possessions wisely so they were able to build lavish mansions, each of them, and live in peace. One night after many years had passed they were enjoying a dinner party in the finest mansion when suddenly a hush fell over them. Each time they sipped their highballs or stretched out on the plush chairs and couches they smelled smoke. Over the sumptuous dishes their eyes watered. The beef wellington tasted of ash. Even the caviar smacked of cinders and char. Finally a few of them decided to go outside, champagne flutes in hand, to see what was the matter. And they saw that fire had consumed everything between their own mansions and the neighbor’s land, and now it was threatening the edges of their manicured lawns. One of the men, a respected religious leader, sickened by the smoke, grew indignant and denounced it as evil. Another, a senator, suggested they write legislation prohibiting anyone from setting fires. Yet another man, a builder, said they should construct a high wall between themselves and the fire so at least they wouldn’t have to look at it. Some men proposed going indoors and stuffing the doorjambs with towels and lighting incense, while others in loud voices blamed the neighbor for building a house out of such flammable material. Perhaps, someone said, they should charge him for not stopping the fire from spreading. A few tossed champagne onto the fire and then fell to congratulating themselves. But at midnight, grown weary at last, they each went home to dream their private dreams. And the ashes came down and smothered them and they never woke.”

Report this

By Mental Traveller, October 20, 2011 at 7:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is ironic that Mr. Dionne urges our president to embrace radical opinions—especially considering how anxiously Dionne himself clings to lily-ishly moderate solutions. His essay betrays a laughable inability to understand the zeitgeist, a bewildering desire to defend a cliched paradigm. One cannot expect to be freed from oppression by the very sources of that oppression; Mr. Obama is a bobble-head spokesman for corporate opinion, and it is hardly in his best interest to bite the hand that feeds him. Keep your paternalistic tripe to yourself, Mr. Dionne, thank you very much. Liberty bestowed as a gift by the powerful is not liberty at all.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 20, 2011 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

Yes undoubtedly Obama will try and take advantge of the demonstrations….

For it is in Obama’s nature to take advantage…his essence is captured to a T by E.J.

It is Obama’s nature to take advantage, just as he took advantage of his mothers death
of cancer to sell himself as the man who would reform halth care, then gave the
Insurance companies a big pay day, letting a former insurance executive write the bill he
signed.

If there are similarities between Lincoln and Obama it’s by design not by emulation.  But
just who is the man behind the carefully crafted mask?

From the very beginning of his acts as president, millions weren’t cheering but
wondering just who in the hell they voted for. It’s so much easier to pretend to be
someone else when you don’t know who you are or what you stand for.

And it’s so much easier to get votes that way too. Up to a point.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 20, 2011 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

“By following Lincoln’s example and acting against the injustices of our time, Obama could also come to occupy the high ground.”  Dionne

Reminds one of his pre-election promises.  On which he reversed his actions.  Yet, he wants to be re-elected?  Which the Hitler entourage behind the “Federal Reserve” will probably not permit.  He has not supported the Carte Blanche assumed by the Zionist dictators of Israel, has not supported the continued, illegal seizure of Palestinian property, and has consistently called for a truce between “Israel” and Palestine.  The Hitler entourage behind the Federal Reserve and the banking system require their theme song be adhered to, and only their theme song.  In order to suck back into their theme song, he would have to renege on all objective actions, and dance to their tune, 100%.  It appears that even Obama, half-breed that he may be, does not enjoy behaving like a “little nigger”.  Regardless of who the boss is.  After all, he is half British.  Or, perhaps 100% British.

Report this
Billy Pilgrim's avatar

By Billy Pilgrim, October 20, 2011 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

Comparing Obama to Lincoln is borderline treason. I’m
so jealous that Dionne gets paid to write such garbage.
Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation 18 months
into his first term. After 32 months in office, Lincoln
gave the Gettysburg Address, two minutes of oration
that left the prior speaker, Edward Everett, who droned
on for over 2 hours, speechless. What, pray tell, has
Obama done for the 99%, except mock what remains of the
liberal/left wing of his party? Obama channeling
Lincoln? What delusional nonsense. Dionne: Please
return your Truthdig paycheck.

Report this
AMeshiea's avatar

By AMeshiea, October 20, 2011 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

Dion-“No, we are not approaching civil war, and no,
the issues we confront now aren’t as morally
momentous as slavery.”

There has not been any kind of armed insurrection,
after all we aren’t just emerging from the days of
armed cowboys crawling around the west and shooting
native Americans for fun and profit. But we are in an
ideological civil war, between those that still cling
to the notions that free market capitalism and the
American dream are linked against those who have seen
that dream for what it is once the “free market” and
the rich interests rape it.
And these times are equally if not more momentous
than those that occurred in the 1860’s. We are facing
a global catastrophe in ecological terms along with
an economic tragedy unfolding daily to the further
impoverishment of the masses.

Dion-“By following Lincoln’s example and acting
against the injustices of our time, Obama could also
come to occupy the high ground.”

RFLMAO, will ye never learn….

Report this
Robespierre115's avatar

By Robespierre115, October 19, 2011 at 10:19 pm Link to this comment

It’s sad to see idiots like Dionne still clinging to their Dear Leader even as history starts to leave them behind. Get ready you worthless sock puppet, the times for radical ideas, radical politics and revolutionary passions are upon the world once again. This is about the oligarchy vs. the citizens, the proletariat vs. the capitalist state, and Obama is offers nothing except empty rhetoric, so go fuck yourself Dionne, you and your worthless band of losers still hoping the Messiah from the Shepard Fairey posters will appear in the flesh.

Report this

By Textynn, October 19, 2011 at 9:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What the hell is wrong with people. The people of this country elected Obama with a mandate because he condemned the Bush administration, the abuses of the MHI, the abuses of Wall street, and the warz.  Then, once elected he complete changed into a righwing elite loving Wall Street ho continuing every Bush policy like W never left.  He had the people in tears by the thousands when he said his oath. Single mothers living in poverty sent him money dreaming of the day they could go to the doctor when they needed to.

Obama was elected with a mandate and the DEms had both houses. All Three HOUSES. We voted for change and hope.  Change from the international elite sheering the American people at every turn.  And then, Obama removed his mask and we saw to our horror that he was with Wall Street lock, stock, and barrel. He sold all the power and stock of the people off in the first few months to the MHI and Big Pharma. Since then it’s been more of the same especially obvious with the phony debt deal.

Obama has every intention of serving Goldman Sachs Social Security’s head on a platter. With the way things are going he’ll just serve up a crucial piece of legislation that will give them enough control to gut it if he doesn’t just fork it over which he probably will.

All I know is if anyone is waiting for Obama to be the person that he said he was, they are a fool. The kind that is fooled ALL OF THE TIME.

Report this

By glider, October 19, 2011 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

>>Obama’s moderation has won him absolutely nothing. Having done much to save Wall Street and the banks, he receives in return only ingratitude<<

What absolute unadulterated crap! 

The narrative that a sitting President only cares about getting re-elected is absurd.  Eugene, in case you can not connect the dots, Obama was awarded the Presidency itself, in a quid pro quo of campaign money for being a Wall Street friendly Executive Branch.  That was his reward!!!  Obama did his duty for WS against the electorate, and will still likely be re-elected in a truly obscene good cop bad cop 2012 so called “election”.  If not it matters little, as he will still be set for life.  Do you call either of those two outcomes nothing as well?

Report this

By hogorina, October 19, 2011 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THE RIDDLE OF THOUGHT CONTROL

Three thousands years past a Man strolled along the
ancient city of Jerusalem. This was a good man as
history has shown. This strange personality had been
proclaiming that so-many people would dare listen or
comprehend just what was this individual was about.
This so-called messenger, stranger, from whence
unknown– this being was well versed in verbalism, and
straight-forth proclaiming his enemies with the most
stringent adjectives. Still, the higher ruling
element of this Holy city turned a deaf ear. This
Wanderer about the streets of Jerusalem openly wept,
because specific mankind in this man’s mind knew that
many could not see and not comprehend, while a
multitude stood amazed. In 70 A.D. this city was
destroyed because of the fact that one lonely
individual was not allowed to speak;

and the America today is headed in the direction
towards mass destruction because, collectively,
citizens are not allowed free speech even though our
constitution honors expression of opinion reflecting
free speech in a democratic system;

one should never forget that good Man that was nailed
to a tree, for wanting to speak in the name of one
that sent him on a mission. In reality this lonely
messenger dies for free speech, as gold and silver
mattered nothing to Him. This great Man was trying to
warn the people of pressing events and the Supreme
Court of Palestine put him to death. Dr. Sigmund
Freud would proclaim that that good man objected to
mind control just as Americans suffer from today–(
The Personality suppression complex syndrome );

collectively, this describes the Wall Street affair.
In essence, thousands of people nationwide suffer
from what is known as ( The Personality Suppression
Gravitational Syndrome );
yes, prior to and from A.D.70 A.D. Satan’s gang has
continually attempted to suppress free thought and it
shows in tallying up the crowds on Wall Street and
through out America;
With watchful eyes the National Psychiatry Industry
holds its hands–what is the next move of those whom
cannot speak freely. We now have a massive
psychoneurosis haunting America!

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


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

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook