Has Obama moved to the right?

[They Live 1988]

Run time: 05:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDrYmGpoNs   Posted on YouTube: June 07, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 08, 2008 By DU Member: They Live 1988 Views on DU: 2431

 

[Bonobo]

1. Hi Jackson!

[stlsaxman]

7. you know this guy?

[Bonobo]

11. Sounds like Jackson_Dem.

[Ashy Larry]

2. That reporter is dumb.

Just because Obama framed his positions using different language, does not mean his positions have changed.

[bkeeper]

17. I don't agree that the reporter is dumb.

Everyone hears things somewhat biased by there their own experience and expectations. I think that he was correct in seeing this speech as a move to the right, though it is difficult to not lean right at the AIPAC conference and I hope to see a little softening of these positions. Obama rightly voted against labeling the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization, but in this speech he contradicted his own position. Very disappointing. I'm still a huge fan of Barack. John Edwards also made a bellicose speech to this group in the spring. It must be something they put in the water.

[lapfog_1]

3. Uhh, the "newscaster" in this video did some awfully big

linguistic gyrations and took major liberties with what Obama actually said.

His interpretation is that Obama would have rather invaded Iran instead of Iraq.

No where does Obama say this in the speech. And what he HAS said is that we should have invaded (more troops) Afghanistan and, possibly, the Wazeristan region of Pakistan, where Al Qaida and OBL were hiding. What he says now is that the war in Iraq has made Iran more powerful in the region (true) and the Iran sponsors terrorism (true, but they don't sponsor Al Qaida!), and that Iran needed to be dealt with much differently (true).

But that doesn't say that we should invade or even bomb Iran.

Saying things like "the military options are always on the table" is a bit of obvious pandering. If you HAVE a military, then by definition, the military options are "on the table", not only with your enemies or perceived enemies, but with your FRIENDS as well.

[uberllama42]

4. I concur

Obama never said we should have invaded Iran, and this guy is a bullshitter for trying to say otherwise.

There are some contexts in which saying "the military option remains on the table" is saber-rattling, but as you say, it remains an option whether it is made explicit or not.

[pedo]

5. obama is pandering to the israeli lobby

and anyone here that doesn't admit it is blinded. DU users should know better. he has stated that he wants to INCREASE military spending. as if america doesn't already spend enough on weapons.... if he had any real courage he would have used the opportunity to criticize israel's policy of terrorism and apartheid against the palestinians.

people, just because you support obama doesn't mean you have to defend every fucking thing he says and does.

he wore a US/Israel flag pin for fuck sake. talk about compromising your principles. obama has completely sold out when it comes to this issue.

[aquart]

6. 'pandering' 'sold out' 'wore a US/Israel flag pin.'

Oh, I so agree. Obama should certainly proclaim his championship of the Palestinians immediately.

LOL! Better yet, he should have done it three months ago.

Oh, well. You go to the election with the candidate you've got. Not the one you wish you had.

I'm sorry, did you vote for Obama because you believed those emails about him being Muslim?

[MindMatter]

13. No question about that. He isn't MOVING to the right, he was already there.

I don't know where his heart of hearts is on this, but he clearly made a calculation that this is one of the CHANGES that he wasn't going to fight for. While I deplore the hard-line regimes in Israel that have fed and maintained the intensity of global unrest that makes Americans less safe, I understand why Obama has to do this. There simply is no path to the White House otherwise.

I do believe that we have a better chance of settling down the Middle East cycle of terrorism on both sides if Obama is President compared to having McCain in there.

[bkeeper]

18. Get used to it.

You are totally right in saying that we shouldn't support every position of the candidate or the party. That's what republicans do. But, with a country of 300 million people and 50 states, some amount of pandering is inevitable. A sad fact of our stupid political life. Be sure to send a message to his campaign when you notice the pander. If enough people respond, he'll "pander" to us and stop pandering.

[Middle finga]

8. I'm still scratching my head also, why the need for Obama to

have to crawl on his knees in front of AIPAC and talk like some Neocon. His core supporters who've carried him this far reject that kind of war mongering and the same old status quo position on middle east policy. He should have turned down the invitation, the damage to his credibility among his core supporters out weighs any new support he was trying to win from the hard right Jewish community or the hard right Evangelicals.

[They Live 1988]

21. I am honestly disappointed

Reminds me of this war-hawkish crap last year regarding Pakistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

[Crowman1979]

9. He's probably just doing it to get the repugs from claiming anti-semitism.

Then come January, the demands from AIPAC will be conveniently put on the backburner.

[mikehiggins]

10. What do we want? Repukes OUT!

When do we want it? NOW, or as soon as legally possible.

Obama could promise us the moon on a stick and as long as we beat the Gopukes in November it'll be okay if he only delivers Klondike bars.

No matter what happens, January has to be better, if we win, so forget all these differences and "lack of purity" arguments and get to work saving the country.

Just my opinion, of course, but I'm most likely right.

[marcus_b]

12. Here is what Obama could have said.

Here is an outside opinion. I am from Germany, and thus you may disregard my position as being anything from irrelevant to preposterous, if you want. I just want to contrast the analysis of Obama's speech with things Obama could have said. He could have said something like this:

"I recognize that the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was an illegal aggression, a violation of the supreme law of our country and the sanctity of international law. When I am president, we will immediately honor our responsibilities as an occupier and obey the will of the domestic population. We will also pay reparations for the damage we did. We will take steps to start to honor international agreements, including the non-proliferation treaty, and sign further treaties including those prohibiting land mines and cluster bombs. We will restart the dismantling of our own nuclear weapons arsenal, thereby strengthening nuclear disarmament efforts all over the world. Furthermore, when I am president I will reduce US military spending and start to undo the US empire by closing US military bases all over the world. As for Israel, I will revoke US military support for Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine territory and will bring Israel and Palestine to the negotiation table to work out a fair two-state solution honoring all UN resolutions on this matter. Part of this solution will be for Israel to disclose and dismantle its own nuclear weapon arsenal."

It may be that these simple, honest, responsible positions could never survive in the US political climate. It may be that it is important for Obama to take a different stand to ensure his election, in favor of other progressive goals. But if you contrast this with what he said, it is obvious where the video commentator's criticism comes from. Obama's positions on Iran, Iraq and Israel are not progressive positions. They are entirely compatible with the US military complex at all levels, with the unilateral doctrine of the US empire, and with its consistent development after WWII.

If your blood is boiling now, let me reassure you that I totally agree that you have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil no matter what. That is a simple truism, and anything else would be beyond cruel.

However, the critiques have an important point: Just because Obama wins doesn't mean the fight for progressive values is over. Even assuming that Obama is just pretending to be non-progressive on these issues, Obama alone will not be able to resist the US military complex. He will need your support and continuous lobbying. And if Obama's positions really are less than progressive in this area, it is of course only more important to hold his feet to the fire. There are some big guys who count on the progressive movement to collapse into nothing once it won a few yards ground. Prove them wrong, and show them you can go all the way to touch down!

[kemamusa]

14. He's a politician. Just things you gotta do to win an election.

We all know that even giving a hint of apathy for the Palestinians is a political suicide.

Because of Obama's name and his diplomatic stance on Iran and its neighbours, there will always be doubts about his support for Israel.
Only the strongest unequivocal support for Israel can erase any doubts and Obama did just that in the most appropriate venue for such language.
I think it's just part of political jousting and we haven't seen the end of it yet. He might actually be forced into adapting even more pro-Israel position.

He's a politician. It's just one of those things you gotta do to win an election.

[bertman]

16. Unfortunately you're right.

I have a client who asked me recently, during the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, who I would vote for if the vote were held that day. I said Obama. She said to me "I'm Jewish and I have to vote for McCain because he's pro-Israel."

I tried to explain to her that Obama was not going to dessert Israel, but she seemed focused on Republican backing of Israel.

Sad, but true.

The Israeli/Jewish lobby has a tremendous amount of power in our governmental affairs. Fortunately, there are a lot of Jewish voters who see Obama as a supporter of Israel. Let's hope that his "pandering" has convinced others of his support for Israel.

Regarding the military buildup rhetoric, that's no different from wearing a flag lapel pin. You can say anything but it's what you do when you're in office that counts. I'm counting on Hopey to bring most of our troops home, strengthen our overtaxed forces to the point where we could respond to an ACTUAL threat, then begin ratcheting down the militaristic, jingoistic propaganda wing of the Pentagon/arms complex. It's going to require a leader with exceptional oratorical and persuasion skills to couch this in terms that most Americans understand and are willing to buy into. Barack Obama could be that leader.

But that's going to be a long, long journey and it's going to take a huge citizen-lead grassroots support base to sustain it. I hope we are up for the struggle.

[bkeeper]

19. Republicans support Isreal?

You should ask you Jewish friend to look back at the 70's before the republicans and conservatives spent 30 years "supporting" Israel. Peace with Egypt and Jordan was achieved with the help of a Democratic president. Is Israel better off today?

[singilarpoint]

15. A long time ago

Man I put Jackson_Dem on my ignore list so long ago it's not even funny!!!!

[SergeyDovlatov]

20. War is not right-vs-left issue.

War is a bipartisan issue.

During Clinton years, a lot of republicans (with the exception of neocons) were against using force abroad. Serbia, Somalia, etc., where democrats were cheering military intervention abroad.

So, I don't view that speech as Obama moving to the right. Obama did not change.
His voting record indicates that he is pro-war democrat his rhetoric not-withstanding.