Barack Obama's Progressive Cannibalism

[Karmadillo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/barack-obamas-progressiv_b_75933.html

Barack Obama's Progressive Cannibalism

For months this has been going on. In fact, I was the first to point it out. Maybe the void of comment is why Barack Obama felt he could get away with attacking Paul Krugman, one of the leading thinkers in the progressive community. It's akin to going after Molly Ivins, but since she's gone I guess Obama decided to take down one of the only progressive columnists that have our back. At issue isn't just the personal attack on Krugman because he dared to analyze Mr. Obama's health care plan, an analysis that was right on the money. The bottom line is that this proves what I've been saying for over ten months. Barack Obama has no ideological compass. He doesn't care if it's a progressive honestly pointing out the flaws in a policy plan. All Obama cares about is the aura of him, because he has no ideological center, which he admitted himself, offering the first self-inflicted warning signal that all progressives should have picked up.

"I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions." - Barack Obama (on ABC's "This Week")

It didn't start with Paul Krugman, though Obama's voracious appetite for anti progressive attacks reached its crescendo with it. Obama's audacity of a smear against a leading progressive shows no political conscience whatsoever. This comes as no surprise to me. Skipping out and not being counted where it matters on the issues is what Obama's been doing all year.

Obama not being an ideologue explains so much, not only his Krugman attack, but also his revelation that Social Security is in "crisis," giving the Republicans the bone they've wanted for so long. Mr. Obama's ability to cannibalize the very essence of progressive policy by going to the right of our Democratic party foundation knows no bounds. From a DailyKos diary in 2005:

Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

more...

[ClarkUSA]

1. Another Taylor "Stenographer to Mark Penn/HillaryIs44 contributor" Marsh hit piece?

How many swift boating Obama screeds does she churn out in a single day?

[babylonsister]

2. And what happened to the HuffPo being anti-Hillary? Not so much. nt

[cuke]

16. Attacking the messenger

Obama can't be defended because it's true that he uses rightwing rhetoric

[Jim Sagle]

3. Fuckin' A.

[madrchsod]

4. please report taylor to her local aspca because she`s--->

[cloudythescribbler]

5. Here's my response to Taylor's column (Part I)

in toto:

This column is a nasty, broadside attack on Obama, throwing everything into the kitchen sink. Since at least one commenter insists that Obama supporters aren't willing to defend Obama, I'll try to do just that, although it will take more than the 350 words allotted to 1 comment. (Incidentally, it'd be nice to have a word count visible as you type

And I agree that the use of the term "cannibalism" is over-the-top -- and oddly hypocritical -- given the harsh nature of the overall column.

First, Krugman. I personally favor single payer. I've read (including in a reasonable column by ESKOW on Huffpo, as well as in Reich's comments). Mandates are VERY arguable among progressives (there's support for Obama's position also at TPM Cafe) and Krugman (and Marsh) act as if support for this TACTICAL policy was a litmus test of authentic progressivism. Krugman, although I respect him greatly and regularly read his columns, really overdid it here in suggesting that Obama's proposal and the fact that Obama had the sheer impudence to actually defend it was "mudslinging" .

Now, it is simply perverse to suggest that, having been tagged with the term 'mudslinging' on such a flimsy grounds (note the distinction between arguing for mandates and the claim that Obama's position is tantamount to mudslinging) it is, in turn 'cannibalism' for Obama and his campaign to respond to the attack launched by Krugman.

As at least 1 recent blogger (sorry, forgot the reference) noted, mandates were originally insisted on by RIGHTWINGERS in lieu of medical coverage, and are included in Romney's Massachusetts plan. Thus criticizing them although it does introduce some political realism, is hardly a 'RW talking point'.

The tack that Krugman earlier 'supported' the Obama plan is indeed taken out of context and overstated; but does at least contrast, if not with the SUBSTANCE of Krugman's current position then with its extreme and uncharacteristically vitriolic nature.

I'll try to address some of the other issues like the Kyl Lieberman vote in a subsequent post

[babylonsister]

6. Smooches, and thank you! Taylor is a tired old supporter, but we

know that. Thanks for your enlightenment.

[JDPriestly]

7. Obama is naive if he thinks he can sit down with Republicans

and get a fair result. Edwards is right about the fact that the Republicans have become so ideologically entrenched in free market, right-wing theology that they have to be confronted rather than courted. It is unfortunate, but we are that far. This is evident from the way the Bush is "cooperating" with the Democratic Congress. Bush's view on sitting down at a table is that he gets you to sit down and then he stands up and hits you over the head. Bush does not know how to talk to people who disagree with him. Neither do the rest of the Republicans. Obama is thinking in terms of a pre-Reagan reality.

It is because of Obama's faith in his ability to sit down with the other side that I prefer Edwards. Ob ama simply has not operated on the national scene long enough. Edwards went through the 2004 election. When Edwards says you cannot sit at the table with the Republicans, he is talking about election night 2004. The election was very probably stolen. Does Obama really think he can negotiate with cheats and thieves? He needs to spend a little more time in national politics if he does.

[Peace Patriot]

8. I agree with your assessment, JDPriestly. Thanks for posting it.

This notion of Obama's of "sitting down" with global corporate predators, master thieves, gas gougers, credit card usurers, war profiteers, brigands, mass murderers, torturers, shredders of the Constitution, looters, congenital liars, monopolists, robber barons, hijackers of our military for corporate resource wars, killers of the planet, and 'christian' nutballs and their billionaire fascist donors, is very naive, indeed.

What you do with these goddamned fascists is hit 'em with a Big Stick--like Teddy Roosevelt said. Bust their monopolies, pull their corporate charters, dismantle them, seize their assets for the common good; impeach and prosecute them and put them in jail; get our money back; slash their war budgets (no more wars of choice!); undo their nazi laws; and rally the people to the Constitution, the rule of law and a "New Deal" for the vast poor/lower middle class who have suffered so much at the hands of these corporate fuckers.

The "sitting down" thing is classic corporate bullshit. It's the strategy the corporations have used to undermine the environmental movement--I know, I've seen it first hand--when what we should be doing is bringing the full force of the government, and the full outrage of the people, down on their heads, with draconian laws to punish them with fines, taxes and hard time, and dismantle their corporations, for daring to pollute our air and water, destroy our forests, kill off thousands of species, and send our planetary environment into a tailspin.

Their reps want to "sit down" and talk at a table at which they hold all the power. It is the slimiest of corporate P.R. techniques, and they've carried it very far, indeed, on the environmental issue, to the co-optation of all major environmental groups, and to the creation of corporate-dominated "green" certification entities that do nothing but "talk"--and issue bullshit reports that justify the deforestation of the entire planet.

We've got to get back to "hard left." Tough, uncompromising, majority power that our leaders are unafraid to wield. We need an FDR, not a Bill Clinton. We need somebody who HATES BIG BUSINESS and is not afraid to whack them upside the head on behalf of "the little guy."

I've been uneasy about Obama since his keynote speech to the Democratic Convention in 2004. I was listening for PRINCIPLES--on war, on torture, on predatory capitalism, on the rule of law, at a time when our very democracy was being dismantled, and hundreds of thousands of people had been slaughtered in a corporate resource war. And what I heard was a personal story, that, moving as it was, seemed much too narrowly focused, in the face of the outrages of the Bush Junta.

I know that Obama opposed the war, and has said some excellent things about torture, and other issues. But not that night. That night, when the nature of the campaign against the Bush Junta was formulated, Obama bowed to the corrupt leadership of the Democratic Party, who had not only supported Bush's heinous war, but had colluded on the fast-tracking of highly riggable, electronic voting machines, all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations--in time for the 2004 (s)election.

He was kissing up. His personal story--just like the "touchy feely" things that go on when global corporate predators "sit down" to "talk" with environmentalists, and to "scope" the sentiments of local communities--was SAFE GROUND.

It stayed with me. I was so disappointed. This is not to say that he could not make a good president. JFK did the same thing both in his keynote address to the Democratic Convention in 1956, and again in his 1960 campaign. He curried favor with the militarists and the anti-communists. But he CHANGED, in his brief 3-year tenure as president (and so did his brother Bobby). He became a GREAT president--tough as nails on civil rights, battling the CIA and its dirty scheme to invade Cuba, inspiring (and funding) our greatest technical achievement as a people (putting men on the moon), designing most of the legislation that LBJ later got credit for (the civil rights bills, the "war on poverty"), preventing nuclear war with Russia (over Cuba), promoting the first nuclear disarmament treaty, and he would have, if he had lived, stopped the Vietnam War in its early stage. (I am convinced that is why he was killed--also his brother, five years later--it was the war profiteers.)

In any case, if you go back to JFK's early career speeches and his debates with Nixon, you will be dismayed at what JFK says. He was all concerned about a "missile gap" and he simply lies about that and some other things, to score debating points. Move forward, then, to his speech to the UN on nuclear disarmament, and you will be moved to tears. It still has some "Cold War" rhetoric in it, but, aside from that, it is a speech that could be given today, and would move people to tears today, for its passionate expression of the desire for peace. He is no longer the glitzy "playboy" politician. He is a man on fire.

I do think that Obama has that potential. Comparison of this era with that era, though, may not hold up, in general. We live in the post-assassination world. Leaders who cross the war profiteers--in any truly threatening way--don't live long. And that's what it's all about--global corporate predator war profiteers who have no compunction about killing our leaders (although, with Diebold, they don't really need to any more), and whose object is to destroy our democracy as a potentially very strong progressive force in the world. And if Obama crosses them, after he gets Diebolded into office (if they choose him to be our leader), he will be dead.

I feel compassion for Obama, and for other basically well-meaning politicians, for this reason--and I forgive them a lot. And I don't think we will have much to say about who gets crowned. But, for what it's worth, I think Edwards is tougher. He, too, made nice with the war profiteers, when he voted for the war. But it is Edwards who most reminds me of the Kennedys, especially Bobby--who underwent a real change of heart about Vietnam. (He was even more of a "Cold Warrior" than his brother, to start with.) Edwards has Bobby's pugnaciousness, and his identification with "the little guy." He's tough. He's anti-corporate. And they won't let him become president. Never happen. We have lost control of the vote counting.

Same with Kucinich--who is both tough, and consistently radical enough for me to be an enthusiast. But the war profiteering corporate news monopolies got onto him early, and give him no coverage. He is being blackholed--whereas they weren't sure about Edwards--because he voted for the war--and only recently have begun trying to cut him out, marginalize him and keep his ideas blackholed. These global predators use their media, first, to marginalize or destroy any real representatives of the people who might become president, and then use the rigged voting machines as the final 'coup de grace' to keep the presidency, and congress, under war profiteer control.

So, when I say "for what it's worth," I'm not kidding. I don't think my opinion, or your opinion, or any citizen opinion of these candidates counts for much, or for anything. It's all pretty much kabuki theater. Our real work is to unrig our vote counting system, which is going to be a long hard project. It is the essential first step in regaining our say on who gets elected. We may have to swallow a whole lot more shit--including "touchy feely" with the war profiteers--in the meantime.

[ellisonz]

10. You know the TDR Big Stick reference wasn't about fascists...it was about American imperialism.

1. How will you fix the voting machines if you're perpetually out of power because you can't bring together a still very divided country?
2. You seem to associate a willingness to negotiate with capitulation, when really Barack Obama is an sharp combatant who knows that the best way to get what you want isn't to swing a Big Stick it's to not let the opponent see the swing coming at all!
3. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have just as much a chance of being assasinated as Barack Obama.
4. John Edwards displayed an astonishing lack of judgment in regards to the IWR and DK doesn't have much of chance of even breaking 5% in the majority of the primaries.
5. The DNC speech had plenty of principle:

John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service because they’ve defined his life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he's devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available.

His values and his record affirm what is best in us. John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded; so instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.

John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage our politicians in Washington have for themselves.

John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.

John Kerry believes in the Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.

And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes, but it should never be the first option.

[Peace Patriot]

11. "1. How will you fix the voting machines...?" We have to, that's all. It's a...

must-do. We have to find the way. I've frequently talked about this. The Diebold II Congress is hopeless on this issue. The best venue for election reform efforts are state/local jurisdictions, where ordinary people still have some influence. And that is where the election reform movement is, indeed, most active and growing.

It's not that I associate a willingness to negotiate with capitulation. It's that I've seen supposed advocates of the public interest too often capitulate, after many a "touchy feely" tactic by corporations. It's merely P.R. And it is often followed by--or accompanied by--corruption on the part of the public advocates.

Negotiation over the fate of the planet--which is literally being destroyed, at a very fast rate, by global corporate predation--or the oppression of the poor (billions impoverished by global corporate predators)--must be done from a position of strength and power. The main power that we have is voting. Our vote counting system has been gravely compromised. There should be nothing else on the agenda but this. We don't ask for crumbs from the global corporate predator banquet table. We restore transparent elections and kick their butts out of our country, in some cases, and force the rest of them to kneel before the sovereignty of the American people.

These fuckers, and their political lapdogs in both parties, have nothing but contempt for we, the people, and have done everything they can to destroy our democracy and our country. Negotiate WHAT? Torturing prisoners? A trillion dollar deficit? Selling our country to Saudi Arabia and China? Credit card usury? Health care viciousness? Destroying our manufacturing base? Shredding our Constitution? Corruption, bribery and theft on a scale never before seen in anybody's history? A half a million to a million innocent people slaughtered for their oil?

You don't negotiate with people who have done such things. You close the jail cell door on them, lock it and throw away the key. Or, in any case, that is the attitude that needs to be taken with them. They (global corporate predators and their Bushite and Democratic operatives) have forfeited their seat at the table, where the future of this country is concerned. They are traitors.

Negotiation is sometimes appropriate. And it is certainly the substance of politics IN NORMAL TIMES. These are not normal times. And to speak as if they were is a deception. Like Obama's speech to the Convention, it is SAFE GROUND.

That's all I'm saying. But I also see that we are royally fucked. We have no power as an electorate. There IS no negotiating table. It's over. We have suffered a fascist/corporate coup. And I think I said that I DO understand that any well-meaning leaders that we have must take a dissembling stance. They are in danger. We are in danger. It is very, very hard to judge politicians, in this circumstance. I feel for those with integrity, because they will come up against it, at some point--like JFK did, with the CIA invasion of Cuba--and they will have to decide: Are they going to stand down? Or are they going to whack the traitors upside the head? JFK decided the latter. (The other reason why they killed him--the Bay of Pigs; he simply wasn't a militarist.) And things are infinitely worse now, with the mask of democracy entirely ripped off from the global corporate war profiteers who control us. I UNDERSTAND why Obama is the way he is. And it's very, very difficult to judge his integrity. And, if he has any, he won't become president.

So, my thing is: why don't they just say so? --instead of playing all these corrupting games. Why don't they TELL people about the voting machines, and tell them, "It's your democracy. Take it back! I can't help you until you do!" But no, they all play out this myth that the opinion of the American people matters, and, if they have any integrity left, they try to keep their heads down enough, so as not to get "swift-boated," and so as maybe to sneak their way into power, past Diebold and ES&S.

[lwcon]

12. JD and Peace Patriot, I think you might like this

Video response to all the "bipartisanship" accommodation that Barack and Hillary keep promising:

http://www.correntewire.com/the_sorry_news_sorry_about_bipartisanship

[ChiciB1]

29. I Too Liked It... As John Edwards Has Been Saying... If You Sit Down to

dinner with lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies, THEY eat all the food!

To me, you lose when you walk in with the "Kumbaya" attitude! Not only will they eat all the food, they'll stomp on you as they LEAVE the table!

Do tell, how many Repukes have been willing to at least find common ground since 2006? I saw Boehner on TV this AM and he's still lapping up what The Idiot is throwing at him!

Almost to a person, Senators don't budge or support anything or anyone but THEIR GOD, George!! If being aggressive means making a difference, then I want to be with those who have enough SPINE to stand up and holler.... NO MORE SHIT!! I want my country back!

Good Night, And Good Luck! I stole that from KO who stole it from Winchell, who I think actually originated it!!

[lwcon]

34. Thanks! n/t

[zulchzulu]

14. I guess you feel the same way about Feingold too

Listen, as in REAL LIFE, you have to sit down with people that don't agree with everything you do to get anything done.

Your assessment that it doesn't work to sit down with those you might disagree on some issues with must also go with working with diplomacy. Should we do what Bush has done by not sitting down with those we may disagree with and therefore get nothing done?

You allude to Edwards saying that we can't sit down with Republicans. What his record as Senator shows is completely opposite to his sideline rhetoric now.

Do you want to trash Russ Feingold too? He has the balls to work with Republicans as well and get legislation passed.

If you think you don't have to work with the other side of the aisle to get laws passed, you are completely naive or ignorant about how things work.

Perhaps you've never had to work on a project at work with some people you can't stand? I have...many times. Things need to get done and there are ways to make everyone happy without giving up your principles.

As for the bullshit meme that Obama is picking on poor little progressive Krugman, it's Krugman who fails to mention just how mandated healthcare insurance will get implemented. Hillary says she'll tell us all later while Edwards says you will be automatically assigned to a policy or get fined or get your wages garnished. Obama correctly doesn't think mandated healthcare insurance works. Krugman can't find the balls to admit it.

[Peace Patriot]

15. I said negotiation was sometimes appropriate--as is the case with every country

on earth, none of which have harmed us or pose any threat to us whatsoever (including Iraq when Bush invaded it and slaughtered upwards of a million innocent people to get their oil).**

The Bush Junta has destroyed our country as well. Do you "sit down" with them and say, 'Well now, how can we further kick the American people while they're down?'

They have done far, far more harm to us than the 9/11 hijackers (whoever they were**). Negotiation with Bushites (most Republican leaders, some Democratic colluders) is not appropriate. They should be treated like pariahs--like the heinous criminals they are--shunned, exiled, excommunicated from democracy. There is nothing to negotiate. We have to pick up the broken pieces of our once great country and try to put a decent country back together from the shattered parts. We have a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Do you know what that means? We are no longer a sovereign people. And whatever chance we had to prevent the utter catastrophe of this Junta from getting far worse vanished when OUR PARTY LEADERS acquiesced to RIGHTWING BUSHITE CORPORATIONS 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, fast-tracked across the country by the Anthrax Congress for the 2004 AND SUBSEQUENT elections.

What we have witnessed is treason. You don't negotiate. You investigate, punish and jail.

But our Democrats (most of them) quiver and shake before this criminal syndicate, in fear of the 5 far-rightwing billionaire CEOs who control all news and opinion in this country, in vast media monopolies, some in fear of Bush Junta blackmail and assassination, others just corrupt--Vichy Democrats who sold us out to Diebold and ES&S, and Exxon-Mobile, Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel, Citibank, Monsanto & brethren, not mention Saudi Arabia and China.

To recover what's left of our country, we need to SHUN them and treat their "policy" like the pile of treasonous crap it is.

I do sympathize with well-meaning Democratic leaders who are caught in this acid bath of corruption, trying to negotiate with our tormentors--Feingold being a good example. But we need a NEW WAY. We need to take their torture toys away from them. We need to sever the rightwing off the political spectrum, and find solutions for...

--death of the planet
--worldwide hatred of the U.S.
--ten trillion dollar deficit
--Great Depression II
--corruption/destruction of all our laws, agencies, emergency services, democratic powers, pension funds, jobs, health, common purpose, whatever we had that could help us survive this and recover.

And that's just the short list.

The trouble is that virtually none of the Republicans in Congress, nor of course Bush/Cheney, were elected, and hardly a one of the Democrats can prove that they were actually elected. There is NO PROOF. They got rid of the proof. So, when Obama talks about negotiating, WHO is he proposing to negotiate WITH? People who were NOT elected, and whose ideas are therefore NOT representative of the American people? SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War and want it ended. SIXTY to SEVENTY PERCENT of this so-called Democratic Congress is of the opposite mind--endless, bottomless, conditionless funding of war in the Middle East, with a TEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. Or maybe he proposes to negotiate with Halliburton & co. and ask them to return some of the billions of dollars they have 'disappeared' in Iraq. I mean, it's just ludicrous. They've absconded with all our wealth, raped, pillaged and plunder us, and he wants to sit down and "talk about" this? With whom? Over what? It's just a soothing phrase--safe ground--for a politician who's walking in a minefield.

As I said, I pity them. I feel compassion if they are good men and women (hard to tell, these days). And, if you believe that the Vichy government of France saved lives, by kneeling to Hitler--and it's arguable that they did--then we can pity leaders caught in that position, but, before anything can get better, the putrid Nazi Reich has to be evicted. This is apt as a political analogy. I won't argue it as a revolutionary, patriotic obligation. I think the time is long past when violence--even righteous violence--can solve any problem. Either we solve this peacefully and democratically--as the Bolivarians are doing in South America--or we don't solve it. We go down as a country. But war analogies come to mind--because war has been made on us, and I don't mean by Al Qaeda.

A Quixotic hope, I know--that new leaders would arise and communicate with us, over the Faux Noise of the 5 war profiteering, billionaire CEOs who decide what most of us will see, hear and read--and will speak the truth, and will be an uncompromising, non-negotiating champion of American Revolution II, and that we will then be able to swamp the rigged voting machines with so many votes that we blow their 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting codes away. Realistically, we will have to settle for a Vichy government, while the global corporate predators who now control our government take the last dime out of our pockets and the last of our freedoms, and the last of our self respect, to finish their worldwide corporate resource war and their plan for world domination.

Support whom you will. What else can we do? Volunteer, send money, fight the good fight on the issues. And hope for the best. But we must be realistic about our situation, if we are to understand the mechanisms of oppression and act, collectively, to remove them.


-----------------------

**(There is more evidence now that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded and colluded on 9/11. This points right to the Bush Cartel. So...tell me if we should negotiate with these fuckers? I'm not for bombing ANYBODY--it just slaughters mostly innocents. But if there ever was a case for cutting off diplomatic relations, for international isolation, for sanctions, for UN peacekeepers, and for dealing with the massive debt paper that Saudi Arabia holds over us, in whatever way we can, this is it. As for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & cabal, what is there to negotiate? The charge is treason in time of war (a war of their own making). The penalty is death. I would prefer to get some of our money back, and some appropriate community service--like life sentences of cleaning bedpans in Veterans' hospitals. I don't want revenge. I want HEALING. But healing cannot occur if you blind yourself to reality and to the magnitude of the problem.)

[Scriptor Ignotus]

27. I know many, many Republicans

and when you use the phrase "Republicans" in this thread you really mean "neo-cons". And that's a HUGE difference.

What you say is correct about the extremist parts of the Repub party (the neo-cons or the fundies), but you are wrong in saying we cannot deal with Republicans and still achieve progressive public policies. Just flat out, 100% wrong.

[Peace Patriot]

35. Oh, I know it's true of ORDINARY people--ordinary Republicans. You're right.

In fact, I think ordinary Republicans may be the biggest victims of the rigged voting machines. (Where would be the easiest place--the least noticeable place--to steal votes for Bush and/or Bushites? Republican precincts.) I'm not saying don't negotiate (politically) with ANYBODY. And I'm also not calling "traitor" only on Republican leaders. We have some of our own--quite of number of them. But I was talking about a theoretical Democratic leader who would take on this entire, corrupt, treasonous political establishment, and refuse to negotiate with war profiteers and their "bought and paid for" political lapdogs, and with shredders of our Constitution, and with supporters of "TRADE SECRET' voting counting, and with monstrous international corporations and their lobbyists. Look what they've done--to us and to others! And they're killing the very planet we live on. Killing it--killing all life on earth! We've got fifty years, at best (according to the World Wildlife Fund)--fifty years to the DEATH of the planet, at current levels of consumption and pollution.

Negotiate? Wrong attitude!

The killers of our planet, and the slaughterers of millions, and the impoverishers of billions, belong in jail. They have no inherent right to do business. They have forfeited that right. We need to pull the charters of the worst bad actors, and bring the others to heel.

There is nothing to negotiate. We, the people, have the sovereign power here. WE say who does business and how it is conducted. And the president is OUR servant. That is what is lawful. Everything else is an aberration. Got to get back to those fundamentals.

I'm a Californian and I remember when the Republicans were the LEADERS of the environmental movement. I had good Republicans in my family. I am not against ordinary people, ordinary voters. And there might be one or two current Republican leaders whom I might permit to set at the table where America's future is decided. But 99% of THAT leadership is rotten to the core, and must be purged before I would ever give the time of day to a Republican leader again. They went way wrong with Reagan, and if they won't recognize that, then to hell with them as a party.

I'd guestimate that about half of the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core, a quarter of it is gravely compromised but possibly redeemable, and only about 25% is truly representative of their constituents and was truly elected (although almost none of them can prove it).

So, let's be clear. I'm not talking about ordinary Republicans. I'm talking about their Diebolded leaders. There are some nutballs in the Republican base, but I'm sure they are a minority--emboldened by the nutballs, thieves, murderers and torturers at the top. Republicans who are loyal to the Constitution need to assert themselves, and, if they don't, I'd just as soon see this party excommunicated from democracy.

WHO is Obama talking about negotiating with? THAT is the question. If he's planning on making nice with Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and Daddy Bush, and Exxon-Mobile, and other corporate bloodsuckers, and their unelected Republican lapdogs, then I think he's wrong, and the outcome will be bad--although, as I've said, I can understand a well-intentioned leader thinking that he HAS to do that (and not just for his own safety). OR, is he talking about negotiating with REAL Republicans--people whose conservative views are genuine (not Bushite/fascist/corporate radical), small to moderate-sized business people (who are being fucked by global corporations), professionals, small to medium-sized investors--THAT kind of Republican?

And then there is the vast mass of workers, and the poor and lower middle class--America's MAJORITY. They have NO place at the table today. And they are, in theory, the sovereign rulers of this land, as the majority. Their views and interests should be the deciding factor ON ALL ISSUES. Is Obama going to put them at the table, with sufficient power and number of chairs, to reflect their rightful say? Or is he going to weight the table toward corporations who have NO inherent rights here--none!--and give the labor/poor seats to "centrist," compromising, sneakily pro-corporate Democrats and other "weak sisters"?

As for other malefactors, such as the 'christian' right, you don't negotiate the First Amendment. Period. They have NO PLACE at the table of our SECULAR government. And if they step one fraction of an inch over the line into political activity, their non-profit status needs to be pulled. Nothing to negotiate there--nothing!

Again, I'm talking about ATTITUDE. What may be realistic and possible in a given political situation is always fluid and not all that easy and predictable, as to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. But if the fundamental principles are not stated, in as kickass a way as possible, then we veer off into compromises of compromises of compromises, to where we are now--a totally fucked over democracy and country. We have to get back to those fundamental principles, and we have to be very, very adamant about it. I don't see that in Obama. I see Edwards edging that way. Kucinich is already there, and has been all along. But then, the Corporates will NOT permit Kucinich or Edwards to take power. So we're stuck with Vichy--until we, the people, get smart and start attending to the MECHANISMS of our rightful power, such as the corporate-rigged voting machines.

I include most ordinary Republicans in "we, the people." They have been screwn as bad as the rest of us, maybe more so. (Did you know that small business is the biggest creator of jobs in the country? And what is Corporate doing to THEM?)

[Chovexani]

9. Why didn't they just draw him with a fucking bone through his nose?

I am so done. :puke:

[Progress And Change]

13. Obama=a charismatic Lieberman in sheep's clothing

[Peace Patriot]

20. ???Lieberman??? Where do you get off saying that? This is completely unjustifiable

and unfair.

Don't just "hit and run." Take responsibility for your accusation, and provide some evidence, or at least argumentation. I'm not a particular fan of Obama's politics, but I do believe in trying to be accurate. There is no way that he is "Lieberman in sheep's clothing," in my opinion. So, convince me--or crawl off into the shadows, where putrid hits like this are concocted in less than ten word sentences.

[Progress And Change]

23. relax. i had to go get some lunch and watch some football

Both Obama and Lieberman are quick to attack fellow Democrats from the right. Lieberman does it largely regarding foreign policy while Obama's focus is domestic (health care being the prime example). Central to the politics of both is fealty to bipartisanship, not progressive values. Obama's "new politics" is not new. Lieberman has been advocating the same thing for years. Lieberman just lacked the charisma and effective handlers to sell it as well as Obama has. Obama is from the Lieberman wing of the party. This is not to say that Obama is a right-winger. Lieberman is very similar to typical Democrats on most issues and so is Obama. However, Obama and Lieberman both bring things that none of the other presidential candidates do while divering from the party on vital issues (health care for Obama and Iraq for Lieberman).

[tammywammy]

17. Taylor Marsh, who I go to for unbiased Obama reporting

:eyes:

[avrdream]

22. Well, if you actually READ her stuff, you'll see her reasonable analyses.

Over and over again, no matter who the candidate in question is. Taylor hammered Clinton a few months back about the Kyl-Lieberman vote.

Her colums are quite fair.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Those that think that Hillary is entitled to the Presidency are pretty pissed

that the rest of us are not enamored with continuing with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. This is why we are going to see more of this shit being thrown about, not just against Obama, but to anyone that comes between Hillary and her throne.

This merely reinforces my view that the Clintons are wrong for America at this crucial time in our history!

[hedgehog]

19. If someone is so tone deaf or else so sneaky to put Obama's

name in the same line as "cannibalism", then I don't have to read any further to know that this op-ed isn't worth reading!

[PufPuf23]

21. The Weekly Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/463haksg.asp

Now Hillary is in next to last place in my universe.

[Peace Patriot]

24. I opened this thread, Hedgehog, because I found the word interesting (cannibalism)

and was seeking information to explain my own unease with Obama. I don't mind strong rhetoric if it is justified with evidence and argument--although I agree that this particular word has racial connotations that didn't even occur to me, as I opened the thread (and should have been avoided by the writer for that reason). I was more thinking compromise, pseudo-liberal, being a "centrist" on a political spectrum that doesn't have a left side. That is my impression of Obama, and that is why I bothered to read this OP. But it was not helpful at all in explaining Obama's positions or gaining an understanding of his candidacy. In fact, this OP makes me suspicious of the writer's motives. It is an "attack dog" kind of political writing that always pushes me in the opposite direction. (What is this writer not saying? What is this writer hiding?) I have tremendous respect for Paul Krugman's op-eds. I think he is a brilliant examiner of economic and other policy. But, you know what? I have never forgotten that he took a vacation just after the 2004 election, when I had expected him to be one of the few of our nation's commentators who would "have our back" at the crucial moment. He vanished, as our democracy went down in ruins--to the "TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote counting coup. If ever we needed him, it was then--when the matter was then black-holed throughout the corporate media, and by our own party leaders. So this writer's setting Krugman up as a sacred cow of the left--that Obama shouldn't dare to criticize--didn't wash with me. It's a false and intellectually dishonest argument.

As I said upthread, I'm not a particular fan of Obama's. And I side with Krugman on the health care controversy. But the OP's framing of this spat as a sort of "loyalty test" for the left is more than unconvincing. It stinks.

And I will say this about Obama. I have reservations about him, but if my opinion, or the opinion of other citizens, matters at all--and I don't think it will--I would choose Obama over Hillary Clinton (and over any other Dem candidates, except Kucinich, and possibly Edwards). Obama has the potential to be independent and innovative. He hasn't been around long enough to be thoroughly putrified by the global corporate predators who rule over us. He would be a better advocate for "the little guy" in our bent-over position before our corporate masters--whereas Hillary Clinton IS a "bought and paid for" member of the corporate cabal. And--again, if my choice mattered--I would choose Hillary over any Republican, no matter what the devil said he believed. The only thing we can be fairly sure of--in this corporate/fascist coup situation--is that the "choice" of president next year will not be up to the voters.

And it is worth noting that we have two Democratic candidates for president (Dodd and Richardson) who bear direct responsibility for that circumstance (--the "TRADE SECRET" vote counting coup). Dodd in fact helped engineer it. And Richardson stopped the vote recount in New Mexico that might have exposed the 2004 election e-voting fraud.

Which of the candidates is going to end up with emperor's crown, bestowed on them by Diebold and ES&S? And will that person have any independence at all, and help us get our country back? Those are the questions. Not who you or I "support." But how bad is it going to be? How obstructive is the next president going to be of our efforts at restoring transparent elections, the rule of law and democracy? I think Obama will be less obstructive, and possibly helpful. I have no such hope for Clinton, Dodd or Richardson. Biden has been a war profiteer shill throughout his career, so I truly don't trust his recent pugnaciousness toward the Bush Junta (--although I have to say he's a somewhat old-fashioned war profiteer shill, and may have some attachment to older type patriotic ideas like the rule of law). Kucinich I think is true blue. Edwards reminds me somewhat of Bobby Kennedy in his genuine change of heart about the Vietnam War. I don't think it's pure opportunism. I think there is something genuine in Edwards. He started as an insider, and has become something of an outsider. It may win him the kind of votes that will be 'disappeared' when a less independent candidate is chosen for us.

I do think it's going to be a Democrat. The voting machines are rigged, but they have to be somewhat careful about how far they go in the rigging--so as not to risk an uprising in which the people throw these goddamned machines into 'Boston Harbor' (so to speak). They would thus lose control of our future, and risk the outrage and revenge of the people.

[hedgehog]

32. Maybe younger people aren't sensitive to it, but I can remember

when the mass media generally depicted Africans as cannibals. To me, it's in the same category as spreading the rumor that he' s a Moslem or using the "N" word.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

25. Obama is not an idealogue

Bush and the neocons are. Why is Marsh criticizing him for that? Sounds like she just wants a take-no-prisoner liberal version of W. Bush.

Is that really what this country needs right now?

[Peace Patriot]

26. I would say yes, we need a "take-no-prisoner" version of.....?

Not Bush. Good God. That is a false opposite. Unfair. It's like saying, do you want Neville Chamberland or Hitler?

Let's put it differently: We need a "take-no-prisoner" president who can face Great Depression II like FDR faced Great Depression I. Or, we need a "take-no-prisoner" president like Teddy Roosevelt, who can face the robber barons with a "Big Stick" and whack them upside the head. Teddy Roosevelt's full phrase was, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The trouble with contemporary politicians of the liberal variety is that they "speak softly" without a "big stick." They've given away their biggest "sticks"--transparent vote counting, big government that protects the "little guy," U.S. sovereignty in "free trade" deals (NAFTA, et al), impeachment (going way back to Reagan and his clearly illegal war on Nicaragua), the Constitution, the rule of law, congressional power over war, the progressive tax (again Reagan/Dem compromise), and on and on. They DON'T WANT "Big Sticks." They've handed them over to the global corporate predators and war profiteers. And we, the people, are naked before those powers.

We need a champion, who gets those sticks BACK--and USES them. Or, we have somehow to figure out how to be our OWN champion--collectively. (Getting rid of the voting machines would be a good place to start.)

You don't have to be an "ideologue" to recognize class warfare when you see it. This is war. The super-rich and super-powerful are MAKING WAR against the poor and lower middle class majority. The time for "speaking softly" is over. The time for the "Big Stick" is here. And where is it? What have they done with it? And why do they think that now is the time to "negotiate" and make nice with the fuckheads who have destroyed our country?

As I said upthread, I don't buy this hit piece on Obama. It is off the mark in many respects. But it IS a valid criticism of compromised and corrupt liberalism and "centrism," which have failed us, at critical moments, when the "big sticks" should have been raised, ready to whack the heads of traitors, torturers, mass murderers, thieves on a scale never before seen, and shredders of the Constitution. You don't make nice about things like this. You don't compromise on the ruination of your country and the impoverishment of its people, and mass murder. And it is unfair to say that the opposite of compromise on such fundamental matters is "ideological." What "ideology" are you (or Obama) talking about? The "ideology" that opposes a ten trillion dollar deficit (and counting)? The "ideology" that opposes all our manufacturing capability and jobs being shipped to third world countries with no labor laws? The "ideology" that opposes indebting us to Saudi Arabia, and trying to sell our ports to the United Arab Emirates? The "ideology" that opposes torture, and illegal, heinous war?

This is not "ideology." This is the American MIDDLE--the mainstream!

Yes, we truly do need a "big stick" talker and whacker of these NeoCon "ideologues," thieves and traitors. I agree with the OP about that. --although I smell a rat in this particular articulation of it (as I explained upthread).

[Scriptor Ignotus]

28. Obama fought against class warfare in the trenches

as a community organizer and Constitutional law professor. He wants to tie minimum wage to raises in inflation. He is on our side.

The "idealogue" part has to do with people who say we cannot, for example, discuss abortion with anyone pro-life (presumably because they are a fundie moron who doesn't know anything about women's rights). There are many on this board who feel this way, in general, and I suspect Taylor Marsh feels the same. Obama is willing and has shown he is able to deal with people progressives find repellent. I view that as a plus. Many view it as a negative. And I guess that's one of the dividing lines on this forum.

I just hope everyone remembers we're all on the same side and we're really just arguing over methodology and not substance.

Also, I agree with your point about the compromise of liberal values. I think most Americans are liberal, at least on social issues, but we have lost the communication war. I support Obama because he is a clear communicator, and I think can make progressive ideas "palatable" to a populace that has been conditioned to reject them. Hillary seems incapable of doing this. I like all our other candidates, but Hillary cannot move forward the progressive agenda because she is way too vilified and unfortunately lacks the ethos we need.

[Progress And Change]

30. but he has fooled many idealogues that he is the progressive savior

[Scriptor Ignotus]

31. i haven't met any and I've been going to Obama

grassroots meetings for months. NOBODY thinks Obama is more progressive than Kucinich, for ex. Obmaa is supported for other reasons. And this myth that his supporters idolize him or revere him is foolish. Some in the media do that - so how'd we get the blame?

[CyberPieHole]

33. Kick & recommend n/t

:kick: