Reply #25: His conclusions remind me of what I wrote in my journal in 08/2008 during [View All]

[clear eye]

the Presidential campaign. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6793972&mesg_id=6793972

The 2nd half of the entry was why standing for nothing in particular other than a promise to play nice w/ everyone doesn't grab independents. I used the analogy of a ball game and said that going for that non-position would for independents be like "rooting for the umpire".

In other, earlier entries I also mentioned the complete monopoly the int'l corporatist financiers had on Obama's economic advisory positions, and exorted labor to demand at least one voice before committing to backing him.

It looks like I had a pretty good picture of what was to come in his Presidency, but while I didn't expect an FDR or a JFK like some other DUers did, I've still been taken aback by the old-style moderate Republican, firmly corporatist orientation that's emerged. It's been significantly worse than his record. For instance, while voting in favor of the FISA Act amendment in 2008, Obama said he did so expecting some provisions to be corrected to improve civil rights protections later, so I expected him to go ahead w/ that as President. Instead, according a careful analysis by the EFF, he has promoted changes to the Patriot Act that make warrantless surveillance over the citizenry even easier. And so it's gone down the line on all the important issues that have been addressed so far.

Nor did I fully expect that so much whipping of progressives would be done, and none of anyone else. I thought that there'd be a little more give and take. I thought that in a desperate economy, even if he didn't appoint any progressives to advisory positions, he'd at least invite them to conferences to hear there suggestions. Frankly, I'm a little shell-shocked.