The discussion there was interesting, and filled in a blank in my own analysis of the Obama phenomenon. Basically, in the thread, the OP has quotes of James Carville who says that the large turnout of voters in primaries and caucuses is an "incomprehensible" event. Commenters pointed out that Carville attacked Howard Dean after Dean's 50-State strategy had such success in 2006, Carville obviously speaking for the fascist wing of the Democratic Party--the one that hates voters, the Democratic Party grass roots and the American people. His claim that the big voter turnout now is "incomprehensible" is mind-bogglingly disingenuous and hypocritical. It is quite obviously the result of the 50-state strategy. That is the gist of the thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4710141What I had perceived in the Obama phenomenon is the whopping SEVENTY-PERCENT of the American people who oppose the Iraq War and want it ended (up from a significant majority, 56%, just before the war, in Feb 03), flocking to Obama because he was against the war, early and publicly. And even though he has voted to fund the war, in obedience to the warmongering party leadership in Congress, he is the only candidate left standing who even comes close to representing the majority of Americans on this central issue. For the people of this country, the Obama candidacy is a
way around the Democratic party establishment that supports the war.
I'm pretty sure that Obama supporters will be disappointed on the war issue. Even if the majority outvotes the machines (which I think is possible) and puts Obama in the White House, our government is currently owned by the war profiteers--lock, stock and barrel--and they will not permit a president to end the Iraq War. We will be there as long as Exxon Mobil requires the U.S. military to protect and enhance its ungodly profits and/or another war boondoggle can be devised. (They failed on Iran. They are looking at South America.*)
Since there isn't that much difference between Obama and Clinton on any other issue, and given the OVERWHELMING antiwar sentiment in the country, it seemed obvious to me that that was the main issue on many of Obama supporters' minds. Our Democratic Congress has a TWENTY-TWO PERCENT approval rating--three points above the hated Bush--largely
because this Diebold II Congress is so out of tune with the people on this matter. The Congress is the exact opposite of the people on it.
However, I didn't think of Dean's 50-state strategy and how that strategy works together with the vast discontent in the country over the war to produce the Obama phenomenon. I think the 50-state strategy deserves equal credit with the smart Americans who are against the war and know perfectly well that Clinton fully supported it and Obama didn't (and may know that Obama later fudged on the issue, but have no other choices now--he is it, if you oppose the war), and thus surged into the Obama campaign--with donations, votes and caucus attendance--as a way to be heard, to a deaf political establishment.
Stolen Election 2000, Stolen Election 2004, and the economic issues are all the outer issues of the whirlpool of the Iraq War, which is pulling the country into the abyss. The war, and the massive looting of government treasuries and the people, are WHY those elections were stolen. The war--horrible, unnecessary, unjust and costing over a trillion dollars, much of simply looted by war profiteers--is the ikon of the deadly, country-killing vortex we are caught in. I think it is central to Obama supporters, but could not have been expressed without Dean's 50-state strategy, creating the political infrastructure that voters, discontented citizens and grass roots activists could plug into. We don't have a 'Bastille' that we can storm. (They conveniently placed Guantanamo Bay off shore!) We, the People, were without the mechanisms of political expression--viewed with hostility by the DLC-ers, and, of course, hated by the Bushites as well--until Dean understood what was going on, and acted to correct it.
Funny, it's the message I've been preaching for several years now, with regard to our learning lessons from the awesome leftist democracy movement in South America (1. TRANSPARENT vote counting. 2 Grass roots organization. 3. Think big.) But I didn't quite understand, or fully credit, what Dean's strategy was doing--empowering the grass roots. Without it, we would have stolen primaries in addition to stolen elections.
I do think it's significant that Obama won 11 of 12 caucuses in the early states, but only 9 of 21 primaries. The latter is tallied by rightwing corporations, Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia--using
trade secret code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--and the former is not. The caucuses were therefore much more accurate portrayals of voter sentiment. And we can thank the DLC for that--for a totally non-transparent, fucked up vote counting system, that can easily--easily!--be programmed to favor war profiteers and corporate fascists. Now that Obama has such momentum, it may not be so important how the votes are tallied. It is possible to outvote the machines--for one thing because, apart from the 2004 re-(s)election of Bush/Cheney, these election theft corporations have to be cautious about showing their hand, in order to retain their long term power over election results--but we won't have a
real count of the
true sentiment in the country. And...BIG WARNING FROM ME...the general election CAN be stolen, just as it was in 2004. And, with collusive corporate news monopolies, and a largely collusive Democratic Party "old guard," we may be as utterly helpless against such a theft as we were in 2004.
One indicator of a possible stolen general election are the polls showing the Republicans with McCain as their candidate neck and neck with Obama or Clinton (Obama beating McCain but not by that much, and Clinton losing, but not by that much). I simply don't believe these polls. And I'll be damned if I know which polls we CAN believe. But I think these are possibly being manipulated--to make it appear that there is a contest, preparatory to stealing another election for the outright fascist Bushite Republican Party and their torturing, slaughtering, thieving crimes. Many polls weight toward Republicans--because, in the past, Republicans tended to vote more reliably than Democrats or independents (more reliable turnout). They also often weight toward likely voters in general--that is, on the basis of PAST elections (two of which were stolen!). Maybe this is the flaw--wrong methodology that doesn't reflect the
current political climate, nor the
real vote in recent past elections. Or--and I wouldn't put it past our war profiteering corporate news monopolies--they are simply lying--deliberately tweaking polls toward McCain. It is simply impossible for me to believe that the American people have
forgotten what the Bushites have done, and what role McCain has played in those crimes. I think McCain's true level of support is about 30% (the diehard pro-war fascists), or, at best, 40% (the diehard pro-war fascists and the millionaires).
I am not particularly impressed by Obama's policies. We need an FDR, not warm spit. Does Obama have that kind of steel in his spine? Maybe. It is not apparent in what he says. It may be underneath the surface of things--in his character and background. And, truth to tell, FDR wasn't all that radical-sounding in his first campaign. He rose to the challenge, once in office. Crippled as he was, with polio, he had a steel spine, and literally saved this country with his RADICAL "New Deal" programs (--so radical that the rightwing called him a "dictator"--just as the rightwing today does to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, who is nothing more nor less than a South American FDR).
Basically, FDR sounded a lot like Obama, at first. He was the candidate "for change." But on substance, he sounded more like Hoover than Hoover. He ridiculed and opposed Hoover's big deficit, for instance. (Parallel: Obama is often described as somewhat to the right of Clinton--but he is nevertheless a fresh face, and a fresh mind, promising a more creative, and more compassionate, approach.) Our badly crippled country--absolutely flattened by the Great Depression--needed RADICAL change to address that rightwing/moneyed-class caused disaster. But the radical part of the "New Deal" was not conceived or implemented until 1935 and later. See
1932 presidential election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Rooseveltand
New Deal (first paragraph)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal Our country is now facing a very similar rightwing/"moneyed class"-caused disaster. We are looking at a TEN TRILLION dollar deficit over the decade. Jobs and manufacturing have been outsourced to cheap labor markets abroad. In the 1930s, they were not outsourced, but merely ceased, due to the acute banking/finance crisis. We have a banking/finance crisis already manifesting in our economy--PLUS we have a crippling war--a vast financial drain. We are looking at a hostile world, creating by Bush--and Saudi Arabia and China holding the debt paper of our vast debt. We are in hock to the two most undemocratic countries of earth, one of them tied fast to the oil industry. Add global warming to all this, and, frankly, I think we are facing a far worse crisis, on multiple fronts, than the America of 1932. Radical measures WILL be needed. Is Obama up to that task? It was no more apparent that FDR was, in 1932, than it is today with Obama. But WHY he is succeeding--against the "old guard", pro-corporate, pro-war Clinton--is that the PEOPLE want, need and are demanding a fresh new approach on all fronts in American life, government and financial policy, and Howard Dean and the grass roots of the Democratic Party have created the pathway toward that peaceful revolution, much like political leaders and activists, and the grass roots, have done in South America.
I urge you to read about the early "New Deal." I also urge you to see "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" (available at YouTube, and at www.axisoflogic.com). The latter is about how the people of Venezuela overcame the violent rightwing military coup attempt against the Chavez government, in 2002, that the Bush Junta supported. Our two situations are not exactly parallel, but it is inspiring to see ordinary people defend their Constitution and their elected leaders.
---------------------------
*
"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html(Rumsfeld is planning Oil War II: South America.)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
