Clinton & Obama Supporters: Pls Refute This if You Can

[snot]

"The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States -- as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party.

"While the American people will cast ballots on November 4, the real decisions are made long before then, in the selection of candidates and framing of the election by the media and the corporate bosses and billionaires who finance and politically screen the candidates.

"It was millions in "startup money" from wealthy backers that made it possible for a very junior senator from Illinois, a man who four years ago was serving in the Illinois state legislature and unknown nationally, to become a viable presidential candidate.

"The largely flattering treatment of the Obama campaign, not only in the liberal sections of the media but in the right-wing press as well -- Rupert Murdoch's New York Post endorsed him in the February 5 primary in that state -- demonstrates a broader agreement in the ruling elite that some sort of new departure in US politics may be required. This, of course, will be a cosmetic and not a fundamental shift.

"Virtually all sections of the US ruling elite have now drawn the conclusion that the Bush administration is a disastrous failure. The world standing of America has declined catastrophically, while the base for imperialist policies has eroded within the United States itself, as the vast majority of the American people rejects the war in Iraq and opposes its extension into Iran, Syria, Pakistan or other potential targets.

"The president who enters the White House in January 2009 will face immense crises both at home and abroad. To address these crises from the standpoint of the needs of the financial aristocracy will require the imposition of unprecedented sacrifices on the American people. That in turn will require a new political approach˜a turn to the Democratic Party, which has always been relied upon by big business to use its image as the "party of the people" to defend the profit system.

"The huge swing to the Democratic Party in campaign contributions from big business reflects this emerging consensus. According to recent financial reports to the Federal Election Commission, investment bankers have tilted their financial support overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party, giving roughly equal amounts to Clinton and Obama. In total contributions, both Clinton and Obama collected more than $100 million apiece in 2007, more than twice the largest amount raised by any Republican, while Obama raised an additional $32.6 million in January 2008 alone."

From <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/obam-f04_prn.shtml> .

I'm not trying to rile anyone up. I'm just very worried that a lot of people are missing the big picture. In the interests of disclosure or whatever, I was a Kucinich supporter, then Edwards, now unenthusedly Obama.

[sce56]

1. I agree with that

And also this
"I'm not trying to rile anyone up. I'm just very worried that a lot of people are missing the big picture. In the interests of disclosure or whatever, I was a Kucinich supporter, then Edwards, now unenthusedly Obama."

[rpannier]

2. While I'm not usually an avid fan of wsws

It's an interesting article that makes some valid points.

You get a recommend and a heart for the find

[snot]

4. hey thanks,

I needed that.

I try hard to be constructive; but lately, I've almost wondered if trolls have spotted me as someone to pile onto.

[Kitty Herder]

3. You hit the nail on the head. nt

[emilyg]

5. k/r

[Whisp]

6. I always expect the anvil of wrong on my head.

to drop any moment.
but until then, I feel I am right.

and it's good.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. snot, did you have a chance to hear/read Obama's economics speech yesterday?

I see this article was dated the 4th, so it doesn't take into account his economic speech, which I feel mixes a great deal of what Edwards preached throughout his campaign. If you haven't read it, I can send you the link.

[truedelphi]

8. It would be okay with me (anyway) if you posted the link here

I'd like to believe that since Obama has appeal and since so many progressives now support him, that he will be for the progressive cause.

A link like the one you mention would be informative.

All the big campaign contributions he receives from the Corporate State interests scare me.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. Here you go.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm

It's a long read, but I think it may help ease your fears (I hope, anyway).

[snot]

11. no, pls send;

and I hope Obama's "hope" can be believed in. But I follow the money, and the actions.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. I posted the link above, but I'll do it again.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/Cmzm

Very long speech, though.

[snot]

15. thx!

[snot]

17. hm . . . I truly hope; but

I learned from Bush Sr.: DON'T just read their lips, 'cause talk is cheap. Follow the money, and watch their actions. Right now, Obama's actions generally seem better than Clinton's; but neither are anywhere near where I think they should be.

[LSK]

9. several things

John Edwards campaign has defined this election more than anything else. He was the one who pounded away on change, ending lobbyists interests in Washington, fighting for the middle class and poor, demanding universal healthcare. All the big issues in this campaign were John Edwards issues. Look at the progression of the Obama campaign. He has adopted the change slogan and run with it. He has taken up the call against lobbyists. Now this week he is slamming NAFTA and free trade. None of these issues favor any of the Corporations. All of these issues favor We The People.

As far as the Dems getting Corporate money, that is the Corporations seeing the writing on the wall for the GOP and the Corporations trying to gain favor with the Dems who they know will be the ruling party. It does not mean that the Dems will bend over backwards for them.

[snot]

14. actually . . .

I haven't seen much evidence lately that they won't. I'd feel more hopeful if you could provide one or more instances of a critical Dem vote against a major donor?

[LSK]

23. are we talking about Congressional Dems or the Pres Candidates???

:shrug:

[snot]

28. Congressional Dems, not just candidates. By "critical,"

I mean a vote against the interests of a major corporate donor when the vote count was close enough for it to matter.

[amborin]

13. great analysis

"Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing....

Theirs is a conscious policy of blurring social and political differences and denying class divisions in a society more deeply divided along economic lines than ever before in its history."

the best lines in the article perhaps....

that's the scariest thing Obama says....his promises to "bring everyone together"

folks, we're at war, like it or not....the radical right and the wealthy elite have been waging massive attacks forever, but the past 8 years have been some of the worst in US history....a return to the robber baron era as some have said

to speak of cozying up to these treacherous individuals makes my jaw drop

second worst part of the article: the notion that a draft will be initiated on the dems' watch....dems will get the blame....

face it: if we continue in Iraq and worse yet, invade somewhere else, a draft is inevitable

[Usrename]

16. So much so that I think Hillary still has a chance in this race.

I think Obama has opened the door wide for Hillary to swing past him to the left.

All she has to do is come out in support of impeachment, or at least criminal charges, and she wins the nomination, IMHO. Obama can't go there with her, it would step on his whole Kumbaya message if he tried to go there now.

And it costs her absolutely nothing (that she hasn't already lost) in the way of support. She could take the left back easily.

[Blue State Bandit]

22. She won't endorse impeachment because..

that would mean ungaging Sibel Edmonds, and that will hit her to close to home.

[boppers]

18. BHO is not a "true believer".

He's not Che, or some other leftist revolutionary, he's a politician, and is fueled the same way all of them are: Money. He goes for populism, Hillary for business lobbies, etc. Underneath it all, they're just trying to work the system the best they can.

"To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."-BHO, on adhering to his absolute principles.

Let that sink in for a second.

Here's the context:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all . . . Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

Heck, it's part of why I'm supporting the guy, because he *does* "get it", in that ethics reform is needed, street politics are needed, and playing the traditional DLC/Lobby/Corporatist games have not only been hijacking the party, but the whole electorate.

[TheWraith]

19. WSWS.org is a nutcake site, and they're wrong. 99% of Obama's donations are from individuals.

And from a donor base of now probably well over three quarters of a million people, maybe heading towards 1 million. Most of his donations are under the $100 mark. That's hardly big wads of cash from the "ruling elite."

And kindly remember that the source is an avowedly hyper-socialist website with strong conspiracy theory leanings.

[hfojvt]

20. the article is not anti-Obama from what I read here

not in the sense of being pro-Clinton. It is anti-Democratic Party

"Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party."

[Blue State Bandit]

21. This sounds like a Kremlin inspired article to me.

It is known that though Putin distrusts Bush, he would prefer a republican administration over a democratic one.

This smell like a soft swipe meant to taint the view of far left democrats against Obama by creating the meme that he was chosen as an empty suit by the American aristocracy without pre-empting any chance of a positive relationship between our two countries before Obama would even take office.

What tempers my judgment on this is how Putin sees Mc Cain as a dangerous anti-kremlin firebrand.

If, and I repeat if, this is where it is coming from, this is meant to shift support from Obama to Clinton where Putin has a greater political advantage in any bi-lateral dealings. Such an advantage he lacks with an Obama administration.

I will look deeper.

[cloudythescribbler]

24. This article melds several different theories, some of which are dubious

The notion that Obama is recognized as a nonthreat to the fundamental interests of capital by the elite is in all likelihood accurate -- indeed, Obama seems to have, at various points in his campaign for the Senate and IN the Senate, done or said things to reassure the Powers-that-Pee that he can be 'trusted' with power.
(For example, his gratuitous and unnecessary hawkish talk about Iran during his all-but-uncontested campaign as Democratic nominee for the SEnate was followed by being appointed -- a very good appointment for an ambitious Freshperson senator -- to the Foreign Relations Committee).

This analysis goes WAY beyond the requisites of a sophisticated Marxist analysis (I say this as someone who, though NOT a Marxist, has studied Marxism extensively in both college and graduate school) to suggest that everything is consciously orchestrated by some self-conscious entity of the ruling class. Now, if we look at FDR, we realize that although he could be said (indeed, himself insisted) that he was not only serving the general interests of US capital, but that he was in a very real sense the 'savior' of capitalism, there was genuine and MASSIVE opposition to him from the great bulk of the elite of business, even moreso AFTER he came into office and started an aggressive program of state intervention in the economy.

Now the situation today might indeed have less leeway and 'give' than was the case in the 30s (I believe that IS the case), but the notion of the kind of meticulous orchestration posited in this article is simplistic, what sophisticated Marxists sometimes term 'pidgin' Marxism or 'pidgin' class analysis.

I could go on and on but this is the general idea.

[NashVegas]

25. There's No Way of Refuting That

Clinton, Obama, McCain, all three are candidates the ruling elite would be comfortable with.

I voted for Clinton in the primary because I believe that she, at least, will try to cushion the blow that's coming to the average Joe.

This morning I stumbled on a Reuters story that will send a chill down anyone's back: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSGOR27660220080212

[MagsDem]

26. Man, that is DEAD ON

Especially this part:

"Obama is merely the product of an effective marketing campaign which has utilized media outlets ranging from Rupert Murdoch to The Nation to sell this new version of a very old product—the Democratic Party “friend of the people,” previously incarnated in the “insurgent” candidacy of Jimmy Carter in 1976, then in the “man from Hope,” Bill Clinton himself, in 1992. An Obama presidency would no more represent a fundamental change in American politics than the election of Carter and Clinton did, and if Murdoch & Co. feared it would, he would never have been allowed anywhere near the White House.

The typical Obama speech is a mass of nebulous phrases about uniting America, without the slightest acknowledgement that social and economic interests of working people, the vast majority of Americans, are diametrically opposed to those of the corporate and financial elite. In perhaps his most noteworthy comment, after the South Carolina primary, he explicitly rejected the notion that the wealthy don’t care about the condition of ordinary people.

Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing. Theirs is a conscious policy of blurring social and political differences and denying class divisions in a society more deeply divided along economic lines than ever before in its history."

It's good to know that some folks really see right through all this crap.

[rug]

27. Irrefutable.