Obama After 20 years of Bush-Clinton, a breeze stirs

[babylonsister]

Obama After 20 years of Bush-Clinton, a breeze stirs

Published: April 20, 2008 12:00AM


The historic choice facing Democrats ought to be a happy one: Their nominee either will be the first woman or the first African-­American to head a major party’s presidential ticket, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are candidates of extraordinary talent. Yet the Democratic campaign has turned ugly, perhaps because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are small enough to magnify issues of temperament and character. The economy is cooling, the climate is warming and the United States is fighting two wars — while the Democrats trade barbs over such minutiae as sniper fire and lapel pins.

The dispiriting tone of the campaign echoes that of the past several election cycles, in which the voters’ divisions over small matters have been exploited for transitory gain, obscuring the need for clarity of purpose in confronting the many large challenges that face the nation. A weariness with wedge politics should lead Democrats to choose not just between two politicians, but between two styles of politics. Voters should grasp the opportunity to open a new chapter — a chapter with a fresh political vocabulary, elevated discourse and rekindled hopes.

Obama offers that opportunity, and Oregon Democrats should support him in the May 20 primary election.

Clinton has the misfortune of being inextricably associated with the politics of the past — a misfortune not entirely of her own making. Many Democrats, witnessing her stamina and poise in the campaign marathon leading from Iowa to Oregon, must find themselves thinking that they elected the wrong Clinton in 1992. Yet she cannot avoid a close association with her husband’s presidency and the waste of its potential through self-indulgence and scandal, flaws that helped deliver the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.

Clinton has a well-developed plan for health care reform, but if she sent it to Congress as president, her proposal surely would be examined through the lens of the failed plan she crafted in 1993. Clinton’s positions on issues of trade have evolved, but no one would forget that the North American Free Trade Agreement was a product of her husband’s administration.

Name any issue — from taxes to Cabinet appointments, from public lands management to defense — and the ghosts of the 1990s would be standing over Clinton’s shoulder.

more...

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=95279&sid=5&fid=1

[Benhurst]

1. And Sam Nunn and David Boren have crawled out from under their

respective rocks to enthusiastically back Obama.

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/nunn-boren-unity-rears-its-ugly-head-on-behalf-of-obama/

Talk about depressing!

So much for any hope for meaningful change whichever way the election goes.



The corporate mass media: We narrow the selection -- you choose.

[babylonsister]

2. They're showing their support; that doesn't mean they'll influence

anything in an Obama admin. I don't know what you're griping about.

[Benhurst]

3. Yeah. Sam Nunn and David Boren are supporting him just because

they believe in "Hope" and "Change."

If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn which would interest you.

Go to the link. That Nunn and Boren chose Obama over Clinton is very disturbing.

[babylonsister]

4. Maybe they're sick of dynasties, and anyone named Clinton. I am. nt

[Benhurst]

5. I wish that were the case. But they are idealogues and still very powerful men.

And both managed to accommodate themselves quite happily with the Bush dynasty, so I doubt if a Clinton dynasty in and of itself would bother them.

If you haven't done so, go to the link and read the three articles.

Boren and Nunn are both war-mongers and imperialists of the worst sort.

I fear in another four years we shall be as sick of either Obama or McCain, as the case may be. The corporations rule.

[Peace Patriot]

6. I tend to agree that it's very difficult to tell who's telling the truth.

Does Obama really intend change? Or is he some sort of stealth candidate of the "military-industrial complex" after they got the real agents of change out of the race?

And what of Clinton--who really does deserve some flip-flop sandal ridicule? For NAFTA before she was against it. For the Iraq War before she was all for ending it, real soon, heh-heh. Against the Colombian "free trade" deal (free fire zone against union leaders) and hires Mark Penn--a paid agent of the Colombian government--as her chief campaign strategist.

Are the Bushites actually afraid of Clinton because she is such a devious "beltway" operator, and can beat them at their own game? And Obama is their "Clinton-stopper"? Which one do they fear? Or is it neither, and they've got the Diebold stealth bomb all rigged up for McBush?

Our political establishment has become so murky that it really is very difficult to suss out what's going on. And, for those of us who have been around a while, we have some bitter memories of betrayal of the American people that make us very wary. In 1964, in my first vote for president, I voted for the "peace candidate"--LBJ. And what I got for that vote was TWO MILLION PEOPLE SLAUGHTERED in Southeast Asia, before it was over.

Beware of Democrats bearing peace.

In the 1980s, that smiling son-of-a-bitch Ronald Reagan was colluding in the slaughter of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers in Guatemala, suspected of being "communists." Not that I voted for him, or trusted him for one minute. I didn't. But jeez, even I didn't know how bad it was, and I thought I was well-informed.

To my mind, the big difference between Obama and Clinton is Obama's SUPPORTERS. We have not seen such an activated citizenry in many a moon. It is THE essential ingredient for reforming our country. And, if the voters manage to outvote the Bushite-corporate-controlled 'trade secret' code voting machines, and put him in the White House, he will be the most beholden to the people of the three remaining candidates. Or so it seems.

That doesn't mean I trust him. I don't--despite the refreshing image. But I think that the people rallying to him really, really, REALLY mean business, as to serious change and reform, and that is a step in the right direction for our fascist-hijacked country.

I'll check out the articles you recommended. I think it is wise that Obama supporters be warned just how hard it is likely going to be, even if they succeed.

[Benhurst]

7. The article is biased against Obama at least in part because of the

endorsements. It would not be hard to imagine a similar article being written if Clinton were their choice.

I fear our elections have ceased to be an engine for change. But then I have become pessimistic since December 12, 2000.

Obama has gotten many to contribute to his campaign; but the big players are still there in force, and I have no reason to believe the corporations and merchants of death who have given so much to him and Clinton will not be in control once the election is held. Until all the big (bundled) contributions are eliminated (I'm still for public financing -- whatever happened to that as a progressive cause?), the millions of small donors will not have the clout of the vested interests.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/

I contributed to his U.S. Senate race (I'm a native of Illinois and still own property there); but I have been disappointed in his record so far, starting with his first vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice (a war criminal, if you are to take his objections to the Iraq invasion seriously) as Secretary of State. And his voting to continuing funding the occupation has left me speechless.

As the French say, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Oh well, however the primaries play out, November won't be the first time I held my nose voting for our nominee. We'll be lucky if the third presidential election in a row isn't stolen. Why didn't our "leaders", including Clinton and Obama, address that issue since retaking Congress?

[Peace Patriot]

8. Just a note on the articles you pointed us to. I don't find them very convincing

as a particular menace from Boren or Nunn, as supporters of, or even advisers to, Obama. They've had pretty typical careers as U.S. politicians and imperialists of the Clinton variety. I've read Obama's own article in Foreign Policy magazine, and I really have no expectation of him that he will be significantly different on U.S. foreign policy than any other pre-Bush, Jr., government, with the exception of Reagan's (which was particularly bloody in South America), and Bush Sr. and the Persian Gulf War (very bloody also). I don't think Obama will start any wars, and he may be significantly better than Hillary Clinton in that respect. But I suspect both of them of being potential PREPARERS of wars--as Bill Clinton was to Bush, Jr. He laid all the ground work for invading Iraq. And on that matter, I also think that Obama will be better than Clinton, if, for no other reason, than that she was part of an administration that played that role regarding Iraq--and he is untested.

I don't find Boren or Nunn particularly alarming, because I expected that Obama would have at least some advisers of their stripe (--political hacks for the energy corps and war profiteers). He'd be dead by now if he didn't. You simply CANNOT become President of the U.S., in the current global corporate predator coup situation, and challenge the basic premises of the oil/war profiteer policy. If you have some goodness in you, and you manage to end up the nominee of a major party, you will chip away at it, try to beef up diplomacy and try to divert some resources to the real needs of the people--while trying to convince the predators and profiteers to LET YOU become president.

Perhaps the most significant thing that Obama has said is that he will "talk to our enemies." This nutso policy of the Bushites of simply demonizing other leaders and groups, and engaging in one "shoot-out at the O.K. corral" after another, is even bad for the war profiteers! It has wrecked the U.S. military, and broken the piggy bank. Hillary Clinton seems to go along with it much more so than Obama. I'll settle for COMMON SENSE at this point. Because, fuck, we're talking about the NUKING OF THE MIDDLE EAST. The end of all life on earth. (Read Carl Sagan's "The Cold and the Dark," on the impacts to the earth of even a limited nuclear exchange.) I'm not sure Hillary has common sense. She seems to want to out-butch Bush. Obama at least has--or seems to have--the kind of common sense that comes from self-confidence. He doesn't rattle easily. She does.

I know, it's just gut feelings about them that I'm relying on. And I'm female and Hillary's age, so I don't think it's sexism. I know a lot of self-confident women with whom I would entrust the future of the human race. And Hillary (to appearances) is not one of them.

And I still think that the most significant difference between them is Obama's supporters. They will not only pressure him toward common sense, sanity and progressive change, they will REMAIN active citizens--and I think they will do so whether he is elected or not. THEY are the change that we have been waiting for. The political awakening of the American people.

[Benhurst]

9. I fear it's more like 1928 than 1932. The smarter people are getting

alarmed; but I think most haven't related what's happening to our politicians yet. And I fear much of Obama's support is from the young who are less motivated by issues than by peer pressure and what's fashionable, American Idol writ large. I wish their numbers had been as great in opposition to the war.

As for our influence as citizens, we certainly haven't had much over Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They keep using the excuse of not having sufficient numbers; but I don't buy it. I detest Newt Gingrich and blame him personally for much of the evil of the past two decades; but there is one characteristic of his I admire. He stood his ground and yelled bloody murder until he got his way. I can't help but think if Reid and Pelosi had done the same, things would be a lot different today. Passing legislation is the goal, but failed legislation which is the public's best interest is a powerful club which can be used against the opposition. The best interests of the United States have been "taken off the table" as our Speaker Nancy Pelosi would say. Coming together and touchie-feelie unity are the last thing we need at this point in our nation's history. The Republicans and reactionary members of our party have been waging war on the Constitution and us all -- it's time to fight back, and I fear neither Obama nor Clinton is at all interested in such a fight, nor are the powerful interests which have placed them in the running.

And I have next to no hope that either will prosecute the war criminals who have disgraced our nation and robbed us blind.

[Peace Patriot]

10. Just want to quote you a stat, which is not generally known, because it was

deliberately back-paged. 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War just before the invasion (Feb. '03, NYT poll; other polls 54-55%). 56% is a significant majority. It would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). The opposition to the Iraq War has now grown to a whopping, epochal 70%, and STILL the American people cannot get their will enforced. We vote, and somehow Congress turns out to be the opposite of the American people (the people 70/30 against the war; Congress 70/30 or so FOR the war, i.e., keep funding it).

I think this is why the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA-$3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle to fast-track 100% NON-TRANSPARENT voting systems all over the country) was passed by the Anthrax Congress in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (Oct. '02). The public may not have been aware that a significant majority opposed the war, but our political establishment was well aware of it--and knew that opposition would only grow bigger--so took care to provide a voting system by which they could shove this unjust war down our throats, no matter how big opposition to the war became. And non-transparent vote counting has other uses, of course (total looting of federal coffers and ordinary peoples' pocketbooks).

That WAS the fascist coup, in my opinion--HAVA. Very stealth move to end U.S. democracy.

Non-transparent vote counting is not the only thing wrong with our political system, but it is the 'coup de grace'--the final blow--to any effort of reform. It is blockading reform--the natural ability of democratic countries to correct the course of the country, when corruption and tyrannical leadership get out of hand.

I think that the Obama campaign has attracted many supporters from the anti-war MAJORITY--a majority that is so big now that it SHOULD BE directing the nation's course. Yes, he has also attracted young people--some of them very well-informed, some not, but probably many of them naive to some degree about the ability or willingness of Obama and his chief advisers to enact real reform. But I would guess that some of the smarter ones, and many of the adult supporters--especially the most activist supporters--are aware that Obama is not everything they want. He is all they have left. He is the ONLY one of the three remaining candidates who opposed the war at the beginning. And I can't imagine that his activist supporters are unaware of his pro-war funding votes. Some may think that he didn't have a choice (had to obey the leadership, as a freshman Senator), or make other excuses for it. But I think a lot of his supporters, from the anti-war majority, KNOW that he is less than he appears, as to change, and hope that, by electing a president with some obligation to the people, the past to change will be opened, or facilitated, for the grass roots citizenry to pursue.

And whether Obama wins or not (i.e., whether he has bowed and scraped to the war profiteers sufficiently to be permitted into the White House), the new, impassioned citizen activism will continue. If he is Diebolded, this new movement may turn to election reform. And if he is permitted to become president, it will put pressure on him and on Congress for serious reform, and will furthermore organize and implement reform at other levels--the necessary grass roots work that needs to be done all over the country, in every jurisdiction, at every level. I have never been of the opinion that reforming the U.S. would be quick and easy, or would occur as the result of one or several elections. It took a lo-o-ng time to prepare this fascist coup. It did not happen overnight. And it will not be easily reversed. We're in for a long struggle. Obama's supporters are the first big sign that I've seen that the people are awake and mobilizing, on a large scale. The election reform movement which sprang up just after the 2004 election was a good sign; the anti-war protests of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and others--and the huge anti-war demos that occurred--were another. Dissent within the military and the intelligence community was another. There have been many signs along the way, including the grass roots mobilization for Kerry/Edwards in 2004. But the Obama grass roots mobilization is the biggest, most impressive sign of life in our democracy--by its size, and by its recovery from the blows of 2004 and everything else that has been done to kill it.

Those of us who lived through the Vietnam War, and through all the crap that has happened in this country over the last four decades, will have to help the young keep their peckers up (so to speak), if, a) Obama is Diebolded, or b) turns out to be less than a real reformer (or, if he is a real reformer, gets blockaded). One of these two things is very likely going to happen. And the young need to buoy us up as well, with their energy and enthusiasm. We can't give up. Period. We MUST get our country back. All of us, working together. It's happening all over South America. It can happen here, too.

The three main lessons that I've learned, from closely watching the amazing, peaceful, leftist democracy movement unfold in South America, are these:

1. Transparent elections (!)
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

Also, never, never, NEVER give up! The South Americans had more reason that we do for despair. They never gave up on their democratic ideals and social justice goals. And we are seeing the fruit of that determination today, with good, democratic, left and center-left governments elected in Paraguay (of all places, this last Sunday!)--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala (and more to come, in Peru and Mexico). The left is sweeping the region--after decades of U.S.-supported, horrible fascist dictatorship. If the South Americans can do it, so can we.