The day in day out crap that Obama is a corporate neocon

[cali]

is sick making. The evidence does not support that over the top claim, and I truly wonder about the agenda of those pushing that shit.

[MadMaddie]

1. I agree with you Cali!

There is an agenda I am not sure what it is.

[niceypoo]

2. Obama a Neocon?

Never heard that one before.

The straw man rides again.

[The Magistrate]

3. Try Here, Ma'am

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8252262

[niceypoo]

5. Half measures

"a profoundly corrupt system is left intact"

[The Magistrate]

8. The Substance Of the Comment, Ma'am, Is Not the Point Of Providing the Link

You had expressed doubt anyone employed the descriptor.

[niceypoo]

12. Ma'am?

One thread is hardly, 'day in day out.'

I do, however, concur with the crux of said thread.

[Enrique]

15. that's a link to a libertarian magazine characterizing Klein's words

I'm skeptical Klein called Obama a neocon, but people here seem to trust the libertarians more than I do.

[blindpig]

20. Neocon, neoliberal, can't tell the difference.

They both love them some Capitalism and that is the source of their crappy policies.

[Kalun D]

28. Capitalism is Incorrect

It implies a level playing field

Predatory Capitalism is a kind term

Corporate Fascism, virtual monopolies, corporatism

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

10. yup

n/t

[spanone]

6. i hide any and all threads that spew that shit

[jpak]

7. no shit

K&R

[cali]

9. lol. the unreccers don't like being called on their stupid crap.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

11. Certainly he is not a that.

But he is a politician and politicians have a lot of people to please and the common man isn't usually one of them.
That being said, I perceive he IS trying to accomplish things that benefit everyone. But he's still a politician, not a knight on a white horse, or a genie or more than human...............

[cali]

14. no kidding.

where in my op did I suggest he was a knight on a white horse or more than human? I didn't. I disagree with him profoundly on issues from war to DADT

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. It seems people have a hard time imagining the gulf between "neo corporatist" and "white knight"

I mean...it's OK for people to fall somewhere in between.

Obama is a corporate fascist now? Ok...

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

40. Take it easy........... :)

I didn't say you did. I'm commenting on the anti's who criticize because he hasn't changed everything with a wave of a magic wand. And I'm also pointing out that he is beholden to powers greater than the common person, is all. One problem with internet communication is there is no tone of voice, facial expression stuff like if we were face to face..... :)

[Warpy]

13. Do they have any idea what would happen to a raving lefty who proposed

the type of sweeping changes most of us here in the Underground agree are necessary?

Even if he managed to avoid being whacked, he'd face a wall of opposition from Congress, the State Department, the DOJ and every other bureaucracy in government whose business it is to keep their own fiefdoms intact by clinging to discredited ideas.

Incremental change is maddening when the problems are as severe as they are now. Unfortunately, it's all that is likely to work.

My own hope for Obama was that he wouldn't make it all worse. He's done a little better than that so far, so I'm fairly pleased.

[Better Believe It]

18. So how do you think we should incrementally cut Social Security and Medicare benefits?

President Obama's conservative "deficit commission" should have their incremental proposal to cut "entitlements" ready for Congress to pass right after the November elections. How convenient!

Perhaps if we work real hard on "reform" we can also weaken if not destroy our Bill of Rights with one executive order, lawsuit and legislative bill at a time. And we can expand an imperial America one war at a time. These "reforms" are a step by step process.

You can't "win" everything at once!

Obama is not a neocon.

He's just very conservative on major issues.

You haven't noticed that?

[Warpy]

19. Excuse me?

I'm not the enemy here.

[Better Believe It]

60. My point is the only significant incremental changes you will see are to the right, not to the left.

Based upon what has happened over the past year.

I know you're not the enemy.

But I just don't agree with your suggestion that signficant progress can't be accomplished by the Washington politicians and the best we can hope for is tiny incremental changes over the next .... decade? century?

If we aren't capable of organizing and building mass independent movements (independent of any politicians or political party) we won't see any meaningful changes we can support and believe in. If fact, you won't even see the kind of slow and gradual progressive changes you support.

[Kalun D]

23. La La Land You Are In

""My own hope for Obama was that he wouldn't make it all worse. He's done a little better than that so far, so I'm fairly pleased.""

Obama is like Clinton but worse. Lots of feel good talk but the actions are screwing the working class. Like NAFTA and GATT with Clinton, you don't feel the bad effects until a few years down the road and they are out of office.

[Rex]

16. Seems they forget the Dick & Bush years so easily.

Which tells me they never paid any attention to what was going on. Obama is one of the last persons on Earth I would call a neocon. Ain't even close lurkers...sorry I know you want him to be one of ya'll. Just ain't happening.

[Kalun D]

25. Bush's Parting Shot

The $700 Billion bailout for the crooked bankers that intentionally caused the "problem" in the first place?

You weren't paying attention when Obama was front center pushing that through congress?

You weren't paying attention when Obama re-appointed bush's REPUBLICAN appointee Bernanke?

[Rex]

31. I never said Obama was not in the pocket of corporations, but to say

he is a neo-conservative (like Newt Gingrich) is dishonest. No I saw what Obama did as Senator and now as POTUS and didn't agree with bailing out anyone, but that doesn't put him on par with Bush & Dick. Lemme know when Obama starts some illegal wars and/or lets something like 9/11 happen. He believed (like many other Dems) that this 'stimulius package' would save the economy Bush & Dick fucked up. While I don't agree with him - things are starting to get better, so looks like I was wrong.

[Kalun D]

34. Neo-Con

Obama is a neo-con like the DLC, like his right hand man Rahm. His IMAGE is progressive but his actions are corporate conservative.

Obama didn't have to start any illegal wars, all he had to do was continue them and he has done so.

[Rex]

51. He had no choice but to continue and is going to withdraw our troops

or did you not know that? Haven't heard him say, 'mission accomplished' yet nor will we hear him say that. Obama is NOTHING like a neocon, sorry guys find another word.

[Kalun D]

55. No Choice

Of course he had a choice.

There is no threat from Afghanistan, other than the Taliban trying to eradicate the CIA's opium crop.

all we are doing is killing a majority of civilians, of course you won't hear that on the corporate television.

so what is the mission if it's never going to be accomplished?

the Afghan mission is

maintain the opium crop for the CIA

try to establish an oil/gas pipeline from the Caspian basin to a deepwater port.

maintain excessive military spending at the expense of all other sectors in the economy.

Afghan is un-winnable, and there's nothing to win in the first place.

BULLS ON PARADE
Come wit it now!
Come wit it now!
The microphone explodes, shattering the molds
Either drop tha hits like de la O or get tha fuck off tha commode
Wit tha sure shot, sure ta make tha bodies drop
Drop an don't copy yo, don't call this a co-op
Terror rains drenchin', quenchin' tha thirst of tha power dons
That five sided fist-a-gon
Tha rotten sore on tha face of mother earth gets bigger
Tha triggers cold empty ya purse

Rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells

Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk tha corner to tha rubble that used to be a library
Line up to tha mind cemetery now
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive an movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells

Rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells

Bulls on parade

Come wit it now!
Come wit it now!
Bulls on parade!
Bulls on parade!
Bulls on parade!
Bulls on parade!
Bulls on parade!

[Rex]

58. Uh..noooo he had no choice, did you miss the last 10 years?

Living in some other country? When you decide to accept reality, let me know...your 'rage against the machine' dogma is so typical of someone that doesn't understand and just wants to vent. I'm sure when we withdraw troops from Iraq and Afganistan you will find fault in Obama then too.

[Kalun D]

63. Mere Assertion is Not Even an Argument

so tell us then since you haven't countered my argument

why do you think we are we in Afghanistan?

[Rex]

64. There is no arguement to counter! Us? You are the only one on this

thread making up stuff. Read up on the last 8 to 10 years of chronological events that lead us into Iraq and Afghanistan, then get back with me.


Why do I think we are in Afghanistan? Well I don't have to, I know why because I was around when we went. You? Any clue as to what you are talking about or just more rumblings?

[Kalun D]

71. Does Afghan Threaten Us?

What's wrong can't answer the question of what constitutes "mission accomplished" in Afghan?

Are you afraid of "terrorists"?

Are we going after Osama? How come the FBI doesn't list 911 on his most wanted page?

Did you know most of the terror camps are in Pakistan and were there when we first invaded Afghan?

What are the chances of getting killed by "terrorists"? Compared to pharmacuticals? Compared to cell phone drivers? Compared to lightning?

""You are the only one on this thread making up stuff""

why do you think that? Because you didn't see it on the corporate Orwellian TV?

""Read up on the last 8 to 10 years of chronological events that lead us into Iraq and Afghanistan""

Read what source? The corporate media military industrial complex or independent unbiased sources?

Did you now NBC is owned by GE the largest military contractor? No bias there ehh? Did you believe what they told you? Aren't they the same ones that told us there was WMD's in Iraq? Did you believe that?

[timtom]

106. You're dancing around the issue.

What, in your opinion, is the reason for us to remain in Afghanistan or Iraq?

[branders seine]

17. neocon? no

corporatist? absolutely

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Parker CA]

22. Rec'd but lots of silent unrec'ers winning this one.

[Kalun D]

26. Sort of Bogus

That the counter doesn't go in the negative direction

then we could see how DUers really feel

I feel the worst thing about Obama's policies are education

continuing the bush testing policies, and firing Union teachers

screwing America's future for the sake of corporate profit.

[NNN0LHI]

24. Larouchies are abundant around here. You didn't know that?

They are so damn easy to spot because they tend not to be the sharpest tools in the shed.

Don

[Kalun D]

30. Extremist

Larouche is an extremist. There's a ton of leftist liberal progressives not as extreme that object to Obama's policies.

[Cal Carpenter]

27. Okay, he's a corporate neo-liberal

Does that suit your sensibilities better? He's a kinder, gentler tool for the status quo.

:shrug:

It's not his fault, really, it doesn't matter what he 'believes' - he's ultimately a figurehead, as unpleasant as that sounds. I'm sure he's a very nice man with splendid ideals.

[Kalun D]

29. Image

""He's a kinder, gentler tool for the status quo.""

Tool is a good word, image is another. He is no kinder nor gentler, he merely portrays the image of being so.

[SammyWinstonJack]

114. +1

:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

33. Their agenda is making sure you're as cynical about all Democrats as they are.

Think of people who only highlight the bad things they don't like about Obama and ignore the good things he's doing. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox. Yes, I'm saying there are Greens, Marxists, Libertarians and others with as much ideological blockage as the talk radio crowd. I understand their goals, but I don't believe that downplaying the progress that's happening is an effective way to advance the progressive movement.

[Kalun D]

35. Lists

You list the progressive progress

and I'll list the corporate progress

[Radical Activist]

36. How about you list the progressive accomplishments.

Are you capable of doing it? DU is full of threads about Obama being on the wrong side of issues so that's well known. Yet, there are also progressive accomplishments and I wonder if you're aware of what they are and able to acknowledge them. I bet a lot of people can't because much of the good he does isn't written about half as much as the bad.

[Kalun D]

37. List Them Then if There Are So Many Positives

Obama promoted and funded stem cell research

Obama funded alternative energy (although this may have loopholes, and he promoted off shore drilling too so it's a wash)

Obama helped the costly college loan situation

Obama helped with our international image although that is going in the wrong direction again as we kill more innocents in Afghan.

The negatives far outweigh the positives. Here's a glaring example

$700 Billion for the crooked bankers that caused the problem in the first place

$1.5 Billion for the victims of the crime, the working class mortgage holders, and only a fraction of that has been distributed.

[Radical Activist]

100. OK, some more.

With the stimulus bill, he did more to promote alternative energy and efficiency projects than Clinton and Carter combined. It has already created jobs and is changing the nation's energy mix. The bad stuff (more subsidies to coal, nuclear and offshore drilling) hasn't happened yet.

He passed new CAFE and auto emissions standards that will dramatically reduce oil consumption over the next 10-20 years. He ended the worst environmental disaster of the century, mountaintop removal coal mining.

Most of the Guantanamo prisoners have been released or are in the process of receiving a trial. Rules on interrogation and domestic spying have improved, even if not as much as I'd like.

States in financial crisis are being supported with funding for education and more.

Major new investments in high speed rail and alternative transportation.

We've already gotten some credit card and banking reform. We need more, which Obama has proposed.

I understand why giving money to bankers and mortgage lenders is emotionally outrageous, but:
1) It stopped the kind of downward spiraling effect that happened during the Great Depression. The economy is already starting to recover amazingly quickly.
2) We're starting to get the money back.
3) Many banks have failed and we're getting new regulation.

So no, I don't see that the negatives outweigh the positive at all. Not even close.

The biggest negative is continuing two wars and I'll keep protesting them while we see if he keeps his promise about withdrawing before his next election. If Obama is able to withdrawal most of our troops in the next three years, sign the employee free choice act, and sign a major climate change treaty then he'll be one of the most accomplished Presidents in history.

[sufrommich]

38. Agree. It gets tiresome. nt

[earth mom]

39. You are obviously in denial.

Here's indisputable proof of what Obama supports and has pushed for since he took office:


Wall Street Bailout and obscene bonuses while Main Street gets pissed on and kicked to the curb

Monsanto-who is allowed to continue their evil and diabolical behavior to crush any and all competition so they can feed us frankenfood

Health Care reform that ONLY benefits the insurance industry and rips off consumers to the nth degree

War is Peace which benefits weapons manufacturers, etc., while innocent people die in Iraq and Afghanistan for NO just reason

The environmental disasters of offshore drilling and bogus "clean" coal that equals big bucks for the Oil and Coal industries


FYI-OBAMA HAS CHAMPIONED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE THINGS ON THIS LIST!!! WAKE THE HELL UP!!!



Meanwhile people in this country are losing jobs and homes at an alarming rate.

Where's their bailout?!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fishwax]

42. He's definitely not a neocon

and it's absurd to claim that he is.

Maybe it's just been lost in the swarm of such things as the (justified) outrage at the Arizona bill, but I haven't seen as much of the over-the-top anti-Obama rhetoric here on DU these last few weeks or so. (Not that it's gone completely, of course.)

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janx]

47. PUPPET ?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

45. recommended

[G_j]

46. I don't know what to call him

but he sure has covered Bush's ass.

[wildbilln864]

108. You sure got that right G_j.

And he's covered it well! :banghead:

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noamnety]

49. You can tell a lot about a president by looking at his advisors.

I didn't vote for him because I was looking closely at who he decided to pick as advisors.


Austan Goolsbee: U. of Chicago neoclassicist and “Sicko” critic


David Cutler: Harvard economist who believes that high health costs are good for the economy


Jeffrey Liebman: another Harvard economist and former Clinton adviser who favors privatizing social security

more background on them: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/

While I found the OP to be a callout of DUers, I didn't find anything of substance to explain why Obama ISN'T a neoliberal who has surrounded himself with neoliberal advisors. I welcome a thoughtful discussion of the topic from the OP, including why Obama would have picked neoliberals as his economic advisors if he disagreed with their agenda.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Who needs republicans when you have self-proclaimed "true progressives"?

[Kalun D]

76. Who Needs Republicans

When you have corporate DLC dems.

[Greyhound]

52. LOL!

Not a day goes by that he and/or his reps don't make this perfectly obvious.
:rofl:

[Kalun D]

53. Your OP is TWO SENTENCES

Lot's of room for facts there.

Tell us how appointing Gietner and Bernanke, BOTH REPUBLICANS, to banking oversite is not corporate business as usual.

[cali]

54. He also appointed

Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary and put Sonia Sotomayor on the SC. How is that corporate business as usual?

[Kalun D]

56. the End Results

are what counts.

Sotomayor merely replaced a progressive on a conservative leaning court. We will see Obama's true colors when a conservative is replaced.

Don't know about Solis, what has she specifically accomplished?

but Obama's promise of the card check for the Unions (LABOR) has gone straight into the dumper. Along with his corporate appointment to Sec of education and support of mass Union teachers firings. How is firing Union teachers not corporate?

[cali]

59. Simply pointing out that if he were nothing but

the corporatist ghoul you claim he is, he hardly would have appointed one of the most progressive reps on labor issues to be labor sec or appointed someone like Sotomayor.

[Rex]

61. The posters answer to real politics? Rage Against the Machine.

About as played out, over the top bullcrap as I've ever seen it. It is almost as sad as the Repukes calling Obama a socialist!

Almost.

Give it up people, Obama ain't a neo-con...GOD did we all forget what Ronald Wilson Reagan was like!?

[Kalun D]

73. Neo Con is the wrong word

So this may be a straw man from the OP

the correct word is corporatist

If you ignore what comes out of Obama's mouth and how he's portrayed

and look at his actions and the results of those actions, more than 9 times out of 10 it favors the corporations over the working class. Is that progressive or conservative?

I think I have an advantage, my TV is in the closet and has been for years. It's an indoctrination tool. It's where 90 percent of Americans get their opinion of who should be president.

You are controlled if you watch TV and believe it. It's wholly owned by 5 large conservative corporations. You believe the TV, those corps own you.

Obama's first job out of college was with a firm connected to Kissinger, a NWO war-monger if there ever was one. Kissinger has since publicly stated that Obama is perfect to push the NWO.

Obama's 2nd largest campaign contributor Goldman Sachs, $997,000, got $Billions from bush's $700 Billion bailout that Obama was front/center pushing through congress. Then Obama appointed a republican Geitner to head banking and re-appointed the republican bush banking appointee Bernanke. He has also kept the Bush appointee Gates at defense.

Geitner, Bernanke, Gates, Rahm, how many others? ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT CORPORATISTS? They damn sure don't give a damn about the working class.

[Kalun D]

72. I'm not claiming he's as bad as bush

Just that so far the end results of his actions leave a lot to be desired.

If you list negatives and positives and especially if you compare them to his campaign promises,

his record is dismal.

[HughMoran]

101. ...but you are claiming he is worse that Clinton - after just one year

...where he has already eclipsed Clinton in getting a start of healthcare reform (vs. doing nothing for another 16 years).

[Kalun D]

77. George Carlin on Why Obama is Firing Teachers

George Carlin – The American Dream

"But there's a reason. There's a reason. There's a reason for this, there's a reason education SUCKS, and it's the same reason it will never ... ever ... EVER be fixed. It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've got. ... ... ... BECAUSE ... THE OWNERS, OF THIS COUNTRY, DON'T WANT THAT! ... ... I'm talking about the real owners now ... ... ... ... ... the BIG owners! ... ... ... The Wealthy ... ... ... ... ... the REAL owners! ... The big wealthy business interests that control things ... and make all the important decisions. ... ... ... ...

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. ... ... The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice . . . ... you don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. ... They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. ...

They got you by the balls. ... ... They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ... . . . lobbying, ... to get what they want . . . ... Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but Ill tell you what they don't want . . . they don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. ... ... They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that . . . that doesn't help them. That's against their interests. That's right. ... ... They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they're getting FUCKED by a system that threw them overboard 30 FUCKING years ago. ... ... They don't want that! You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. ... And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they're coming for your ... Social Security money. ... ... ... They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? ... ... ... They'll get it . . . they'll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this FUCKING place! Its a big club, and you ain't in it! ... ... ... ... You, and I, are not in The big club. By the way, its the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn't matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich COCK SUCKERS who don't give a FUCK about you. They don't give a FUCK about you . . . ... they don't give a FUCK about you. .... .... They don't care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That's what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that's being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. Its called the American Dream, ... cause you have to be asleep to believe it . . ."

[political_Dem]

57. He's not a neocon.

But there are a lot of folks in America who judge him more heavily than any other President before him. And because he is not white, they are more vocal in their derision, disrespect and biases more than any POTUS before Mr. Obama.

That does tell a lot.

And unfortunately, he has a lot of weighty issues that can't be taken care of in one day.

If there is one thing we need in order to have a national discussion on the pressing matters of this country is that we must engage in civil discourse.

This country has not learned to be civil in a long time. Our modern age is based on viciousness and intolerance, especially in the press.

[Prism]

62. Does civil discourse include lazily branding critics as racist?

Because that's precisely what you just did.

I expected less than nothing from Bush, and that is exactly what we got. Less than nothing.

I expect far, far more from Obama. If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. He's the one who made the outrageous promises to begin with.

[cali]

65. no. the poster pointed out that there's racism involved in some of the criticism

quite different. and what "outrageous" promises, did he make?

[Prism]

70. "Fierce advocate"

Enough said.

[political_Dem]

68. Some people, no matter how civil, cannot hide their racism.

And a person of color has dealt with their share of racism disguised as civil discourse.

That is something Mr. Obama should also know as well.

But, not all civil discourse is racist or based on racism.

As for outrageous promises, I don't know what you mean. He did lay out a vision of where he wanted to take America. That doesn't sound outrageous to me at all.

p.s. thanks Cali, for your answer.

[Kalun D]

74. Unkept Promises

Doing the exact opposite of promises, that could be described as outrageous

Increase taxes on the rich, NO. $Billions in "bailouts"

Close Gitmo, NO. 100's still held without trial or even charge

Get out of Iraq in 6 months, NO.

end signing statements, NO.

support the Unions with card check, NO.

roll back bush rights violations, NO. increase of violations, we can now assassinate by presidential decree

real health care reform, single payer or public option, NO, more corp giveaways

Transparency in the White House, NO, closed door meetings with big pharma, big healthcare, big bankers

Promote alternative energy, token effort, offset by "clean" coal, increase in offshore drilling.

[political_Dem]

80. I still don't think these issues are deemed outrageous, but I understand what you are saying.

And I believe that he should do more in the areas that you mentioned. However, I do realize that his plate is heavy. And time will tell what he will or will not do depending on how things will unfold.

It's only been a year and a half.

[Kalun D]

91. Outrageous

The issues are not necessarily outrageous, just the 180 degree reversals from campaign promises

like promising to raise taxes on the rich first thing and then immediately after gaining office saying we aren't going to do that. Raising taxes on the rich is key to balancing the budget. Clinton did that right as he came into office and he left us with the first surplus in 50 years. Obama has gone in the opposite direction, the largest deficit on record. Granted much of the 2009 deficit was due to bush policies like the $700 Billion bailout, but Obama is just continuing those policies and exacerbating the problem by not raising revenue.

like promising to not appoint cronies, insiders, and lobbyists to his admin and then appointing nothing but cronies, insiders, and lobbyists.

like promising to close Gitmo, roll back bush rights violations, and operate with transparency, and then doing the opposite pushing tribunals, phone company immunity for warrant-less wiretaps, and secret meetings with industry insiders.

Probably his worst area is education. His pick for Sect or Ed is a Union busting privatizer and he's applauded mass firings. They are continuing the failed bush testing policies. Education is key to America's future and Obama is a failure in this respect.

there are several things that should have been done immediately especially when we had super majorities in both houses

the really telling appointment will be the next supreme court vacancy. Sotamayor didn't affect the balance, the next appointment will.

I am hard on Obama, but we need someone who walks the walk better than he does. Sure his hands are tied in many ways, but we don't need someone who caves so easily or worse yet is just working for the other side. That's sure what it looks like when he appoints Republicans to all the key banking oversight positions and then does nothing about the massive lack of bank regulation for a year and a half.

[political_Dem]

96. There is nothing wrong with questioning policy. That I agree with.

There are policies that I even question. In that vein, I continue to watch how time unfolds in how he executes his agenda of what is to be done. It's a wait and see approach.

But what I don't agree with is the rampant criticizing Mr. Obama for simply everything that he does. There's nothing else to offer except finger-wagging every decision that he makes. That part is crossing the line.

I understand that he can't be all things to all people. But, people have to give him a chance to let him work out his agenda as he sees fit. He's done good things. But also, I realize that he hasn't been bold enough in other pressing issues.

Even with all this, one thing matters: when critically analyzing him, I believe one has to be fair about it. That's all.

[Prism]

78. The OP is discussing criticism from the Left

Lord knows, there are certainly bigots on the Left. We're all too familiar with them.

However, when discussing criticism from the Left, progressive criticism, laying down racial motivations as a significant contributor is a pretty hefty charge. Can you think of - and substantiate - racial animus as a heavy motivation of criticism from the progressive wing of the party? I'd like to see that justification. I cannot think of, off hand, any major left-wing critic of the President where you can say race is factoring into their ire. And I'm not talking about various individuals bouncing around the internet. I'm talking about the discontented Left in general.

As far as outrageous promises, where would we begin and not end up discussing his various betrayals all night long? From the mealy-mouthed doublespeak regarding a public option? From the repeated face-slapping he provides the LGBT community? Card check? The abhorrent treatment of teachers? His limp approach to Wall Street? The continuation of military imperialism?

It seems to me those issues and so many others would play a far, far larger factor in Left-based criticisms than race.

Which is why I say, throwing down race when there are a hundred likelier reasons left-liberals are angry is a fairly lazy charge.

[political_Dem]

79. Not a lazy charge to any person of color and not to anyone who is familiar with white privilege.

It is relevant to research and discuss racism because it is not only a factor for the POTUS; it is something that happens to every person of color every single day of their lives regardless of political affiliation.

To not discuss the racial aspect of political commentary and criticism is to ignore the one ton elephant in the room--especially in the face of those who fight to deny such talk in the dissection of politics. Race to a lot of folks in America is highly important regardless of the political spectrum because it affects one's treatment, access as well as mobility nationally and internationally. That includes the POTUS, who identifies as African-American.

So, the talk of race is not an idle, nor superficial aspect of this issue. And yes, it is a heavy charge. Therefore, it should not be dismissed--especially on the left. After all, it is the left who purports being a "big tent".

I also feel that when considering why this happens, cultural and racial implications should be analyzed and discussed in order to gain a further understand of why this happens.

Just because "some people don't see it" doesn't mean it should be ignored. There are racist liberals as there are racist conservatives. Racism is not exclusive to one political platform. One would be surprised at the blatant racism in terms of words and behavior that comes out of some commentators when it has to do with political commentary about the POTUS.

I am not saying that racism is a part of every polemical conversation that has to do with Mr. Obama. But, I will not ignore that aspect of the message just to appease some liberals who "refuse to see it".

Just as some folks are not silent about LGBT issues in this forum, I will not be silent about issues regarding racial discrimination. All forms of bias need to be discussed along with aspects of politics.

[Prism]

82. But it's utterly beside the point.

Let's go with Occam's Razor here. Which is more likely, that left-liberals are discontented over the treatment of unions, teachers, and the LGBT community, the continuation of military adventurism, the velvety treatment of Wall Street, the trillions of dollars in bad paper bought from a corrupt financial sector, poor energy policy, and anemic health reform? Or is it racial animus?

Out of scores of reasons left-liberals have to be pretty darn pissed at this President, the first one you latched onto is race. Pointing out the peculiarity of that response isn't denying racism or the role it may play with certain people. I would further say that by ignoring these scores of issues and immediately going "Oh, it's racial" you're guaranteeing there won't be much civil discourse.

That's why I say lazy. You made the charge - substantiate it. Don't merely assert. Especially in the context of liberal criticism.

I spend every day watching at least half the party expressing their rather open contempt for the LGBT community's expectation that this President get off his ass. When I note homophobia, I can back that up with example after example (well, as much as allowed on this board within the boundaries of call-outs). I can cite official administration statements and policies. I can lay down comparative statements and the hypocrisy of biased adjustment of argument out of political partisanship.

You didn't do any of that. You took an OP complaining of how some parts of the Left are pretty pissed and said, "Well, you know, race . . ."

That's lazy. And it's not privileged to say so. You have to back that up.

[political_Dem]

83. Okay then. I'll name some.

1) The treatment of the Obama "rape comic" in the left, via Racialicious blog.

(This is a criticism of how it was handled on Alternet.)

2) The http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani1019.html">redefinition of "multiculturalism on the left" as defined by Counterpunch. This is especially when it has to do with "identity politics".

3)Don Imus and his racism.

4)The underwhelming response http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3200">to discussions of race in the press by liberals in Open Left.

5)This insightful http://www.thecynicalones.com/2009/12/17/shes-white-liberal-how-dare-you-call-her-racist/">commentary from "The Cynical Ones".

6)http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04rich.html">Frank Rich's commentary on racism from the liberal left.

Most notably from Mr. Rich's commentary:

Last week, after I wrote about the role race plays in some of the apocalyptic right-wing hysteria about the health care bill, a friend who is a prominent liberal Obama supporter sent me an e-mail flipping my point. He theorized that race also plays a role in “the often angry and intemperate talk” he has been hearing from “left-liberal friends for the past many months about what a failure and a disappointment” the president has been. In his view, “Obama never said anything, while running, to give anyone the idea” that he was other than a “deliberate, compromise-seeking bipartisan moderate.” My friend wondered if white liberals who voted for Obama expected a “sweeping Republicans-be-damned kind of agenda” in part — and he emphasized “in part!” — because “they expect a black guy to be intemperate, impetuous, impatient” rather than “measured, deliberate, patient.”

And there is still more where that came from.

[Prism]

84. The weakness of the examples betrays the point

A comic, Don Imus, an e-mailer to Frank Rich, one of the dumbest bloggers alive.

These aren't the systemic racial animus you're looking for. They're examples of a couple Internet idiots and an assertion made by an e-mailer to Frank Rich.

You're not "discussing racism". You're throwing racial flash powder into the air as a distraction.

I'll explain why this particular point irks me so. Whenever the LGBT community starts pointing out that the President isn't exactly living up to the rhetoric of the campaign (or is, in fact, moving oppositely of it), the inevitable cascade of "He's not a magic negro!" or accusations that the LGBT community is racist or the idea that we'd never treat a white president this way come flying to the fore.

It's wearisome and insulting that people use racism to derail what are the incredibly valid complaints of second class citizens that this President promised to champion (not dodge for two years as he tosses crumbs over his shoulder to slow us down).

The OP concerns a very specific vein of criticisms from the Left.

1) Neocon. While neocon became something of a pejorative during the Bush years, there are two major characteristics of this term: the increasing authoritarianism of the executive and the expansion of American military imperialism. President Obama has repeatedly had the unitary executive defended and perpetuated in court and policy. Without question. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. The two centerpieces of neocon policy remain in place under a Democratic president. This will deeply anger people.

2) Corporatist. Well, this one doesn't need any explanation. Public option or profit motive? Profit motive won. Trillions to Wall Street while the people wallow in deep unemployment. Teachers under attack by the private sector with administration help. Etc. etc.

Your response to these two broad categories is "Well, race . . ." That's not a discussion - it's a dodge.

We have just exited perhaps the worst two term presidency in a century. When people voted for a Democratic president, they didn't want a defender of the ever further conservative authoritarian status quo - they wanted someone to reverse the nightmare. Are unreasonable expectations placed on President Obama? Probably. The Bush years were so bad that people are that desperate. They want a different course perhaps more than they have wanted in generations. When we got a Democratic president again, many of us thought "Thank God, now we can undo this catastrophe to some degree." Undo, not maintain. Not muddle along. Not apologize and claim "Golly gee, there's just nothing we can do. Lot on his plate, ya know. Have a few crumbs."

And certainly not look at the deep problems, the defended status quo, and the new center right and go "This is fine. It's the best we can do. People who think otherwise, well, probably a lot of racism there."

I understand the protective feeling towards the President on racial issues, especially given the rise of the tea types. But protecting him from his left flank, a Left that is desperate to undo the Bush excesses is counterproductive to say the least. To use race to do it is going to corrode the unity of the base required to maintain power in elections. The base is already fraying, and November is looking a little shady. To look at the very substantial, fact-based liberal criticisms and drag race into it isn't only unhelpful - it misses the point entirely and acts as a giant smokescreen to proect a President when he defends a poisonous status quo.

It's just no good. It creates far more problems than it helps. And highlighting a few bozos and this one guy who e-mailed a columnist doesn't make it more valid. It doesn't support it. It just detracts from the problems we face ever the more.

[political_Dem]

85. They are not examples from a "few bozos". My examples do not detract from the problems on the left.

In my point of view, it is part of the problems belonging to the left. And not in a good way. Let's face it. Mr. Obama's ascendance to POTUS, has allowed people to voice their racial biases a bit more openly even though they try to disguise it as other things. And then, they pretend that they aren't racist and claim that their bigotry is only criticism. Frank Rich is spot on when he describes the dichotomy of white liberals and their license to hide behind "colorblindism" while purporting to be as left as they want to be.

And to be frank, a lot of racist things are said by reportedly liberal folks on this board. It is often written off as an "intelligent" response mainly because of the use of white privilege by the speaker and those who agree with him or her.

Some white folks see this dichotomy and "get it". Others, make it a habit, not to. Such white persons go out of their way to suppress it only because it doesn't jibe with their racial, ethnic or cultural experiences.

Other than that, it is not my responsibility to make you understand that racism is an equal opportunity aspect of both the left and right--especially when it has to do with criticism of the POTUS. I understand that it is a part of the polemical discourse of his presidency.


If read closely, each example I gave describes a phenomenon that is happening in critiques of the left. These critiques are often "ignored" or "passed over" by folks in the dominant culture. Both Audre Lorde and bell hooks, among other theorists of color, discuss this aspect all the time--especially when it has to do with feminism.

If you can't understand the underlying aspects of what is being spoken about, I can't help you.

You asked for examples from the left about racism in the left. I gave them. I think they are important--because they expose the hypocrisy that white liberals often have when they blurt out something racist and in the same breath claim "just because they are leftist, they aren't racist". I've heard that crap too many times to count in many a political discussion.

I cannot help it if you cannot or are unwilling to understand the underlying aspects of what is being said.

And even while you continue to minimize and detract the aspects of racism as you have been doing throughout this morning, it is not going to stop me from discussing racism as I see fit and in any political discussion I choose. Too bad if it hurts your sensibilities.

Now you may continue your finger-wagging and lecturing about what should be "brought up" and "what shouldn't" in political discourse. Please do detonate that nuclear bomb of self-centered superiority while you're at it.

[political_Dem]

89. Speaking of this phenomenon on race, politicial critique and the left, there is this:

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/09/23/of-race-racism-and-flattering-whites/">Of Race, Racism and “Flattering” Whites.

A very interesting commentary about Mr. Obama, HCR and how race changes such political critiques. More flash powder for the political discussion. :eyes:

I expect to be finger-wagged for this as well. :eyes:

[Kalun D]

95. Nice Article

It points out that most of the racism is coming from the conservatives.

If there's racism from liberals it's a MINORITY

the real problems with Obama, his failures to do what he said he was going to do are the MAJORITY of the problem.

[political_Dem]

99. As I've written above, I tend to take a "wait and see" approach

to see how Mr. Obama's vision unfolds. I also said in a previous post, that there is nothing wrong with critiquing policy.

However, my argument is that in some aspects of critiquing Mr. Obama's policy, there is a racist aspect that occurs. Because of that aspect, it clouds the opinions of some on the left--especially those who like to hide behind the aspect of liberalism to shield their racism.

My point of contention with Prism is this:

1)No matter how benign a critique might be, sometimes it is clouded by the person's racial bias.

(Yes, I agree that a cigar must be a cigar, sometimes. But other times, it is not.)

2)No, I do not agree that bringing up racism further fragments the left. Racism is not mutually exclusive to one political platform or party.

(I cannot say whether racism exists less in liberalism than in conservatism. The question here is the way it is presented and how virulent it is when brought forth as a part of the critique).

3)Race is not a trivial issue--especially to persons of color belonging to any political spectrum in society. It is as valid as any other topic, whether one backs it up or not. It has nothing to do with having a "protective feeling" about the person or subject involved.

4)Keeping silent about race will not hold the left together any more than not keeping silent about it. This is succinctly stated at the end of "Race, Racism and Flattering Whites":

Racism was created by human beings (relatively recently in human history), and it can be dismantled, done away with, abolished. But not if we keep ignoring it and flattering those who perpetuate it.

Trying to appease those who want to "tamp down", minimalize or "suppress" racial discussion in any type of political discussion does no good.

[Prism]

107. You're answering your own questions

The question isn't "Is there racism on the Left?" Let me answer that for you: Hell yes, there is. Quite a bit. And homophobia. And sexism.

The question at hand is- Are objections to continuation of neocon initiatives or corporatist policy firmly rooted in racial animus.

You've two answers to that question. You point out random bits of racism on the internet. Which, yes, it exists. No one said it didn't. Your second approach is to basically declare yourself a mind-reader. You know there are tons of people only really pissed about war or corporatism or an authoritarian executive because the President is black.

Even though most of these people had these exact same objections under Bush, a black President warrants an assumption that racist animus is at work.

I'm not telling you what can or cannot be discussed. I'm calling bullshit at answering substantive liberal criticism with "Tch, racists."

Which is basically what you did, but with more words.

[political_Dem]

113. Here is some more proof:

1) Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post from a year ago:

The minute you observe that some of Obama's critics seem to be motivated by race, the critics howl that they're all being smeared as "racists" simply because they disagree with Obama's policies. This is not true.

Of course it's possible to reject Obama's policies and philosophy without being racist. But there's a particularly nasty edge to the most vitriolic attacks -- a rejection not of Obama's programs but of his legitimacy as president. This denial of legitimacy is more pernicious than the abuse heaped upon George W. Bush by his critics (including me), and I can't find any explanation for it other than race.

2)From the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Blog:

No one can look into another person's heart, of course. But many of Obama's most prominent critics have talked enough about the president and race to provide plenty of evidence about where they're coming from. And no one has been more revealing of their inner demons than Rush Limbaugh; who can forget this classic too-much-information rant?

We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president.

Strikingly, the same day Carter made his supposedly controversial comments about racism and Obama critics, Limbaugh (9/15/09) was engaged in all-out race-baiting over a schoolbus fight that was initially reported as a racial incident:

It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on," and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white.

If that's not an expression of a racial animus, what would qualify? Why is it more controversial to criticize people who issue hateful rants like this than it is to make them in the first place?

3)Walter Mondale, via the Minnesota Independent:

Politico reports there was a long, thoughtful pause after Walter Mondale was asked Wednesday if he agreed with Jimmy Carter that some criticism of President Obama is race-based. “Yeah” was his answer, when it finally came.

Mondale elaborated:

I don’t like saying it. Having lived through those years, when civil rights was such a bitter issue, and when we argued those things for years … I know that some of that must still be around. …

I don’t want to pick a person, say, he’s a racist, but I do think the way they’re piling on Obama, the harshness, you kind of feel it. I think I see an edge in them that’s a little bit different and a little harsher than I’ve seen in other times.

Although some might argue that Obama often dismisses this accusation of his critics not being racist, I suggest you read "Of Race, Racism and “Flattering” Whites," which delves into this problematic dismissal of critiques that are racially tinged. Especially this notion:

When Wyman refers to Obama has having “taken the high road where charges of white racism are involved,” he is subscribing to a white point-of-view. The high road, within this frame, means not calling out white racism when it exists, but instead deflecting, ignoring, minimizing. The key to all this is, as Wyman notes earlier in this piece, flattering whites. That need for flattery, that desire to always be right when it comes to matters of race and never be responsible for wrong-doing, that too is a kind of white racism – classic white liberal racism.

Now it's time to watch you crack the whip again in virtual poutrage. Prissy awaits her orders. :eyes:

[Kalun D]

97. Damn Good Post

what started out with a crap OP has turned into a decent thread

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mike 03]

66. I agree, and I can't even begin to fathom how anyone could disagree. NT

[Mike 03]

67. Who are the phonies here who could possibly disagree with your post?

[LWolf]

109. Disagreement does not make me a phony.

For the record, I don't consider Obama to be a neocon. He's a neolib, which does not reflect well on the party.

Can you express yourself without baseless name-calling?

[gleaner]

69. No matter how colorfully you lace your post ...

with craps and shits, it doesn't change the fact that Obama has come down for the rich and the corporations and the Republicans more often than he has for his base. I don't have an agenda but to keep you company in your bid for attention I will say that, I have been shat on by Obama as have many others.

Then there is the matter of his support of torture, rendition, suspension of Habeas Corpus and secret tribunals instead of open trials. Rather Bush like, but now legal thanks to Obama's court fight. Then there are the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and the saber rattling at Iraq and North Korea. His war on teachers in the public education system and his support of fossil fuels at the expense of the environment while that rig in the gulf gushes thousands of gallons of oil per day with no end in sight and his failure to back off on future offshore drilling which could do the same thing. Did I mention his support of drilling for coal when two more miners have followed the men in West Virginia to their deaths while mining for it?

There was the sell out on Health Care and the very saggy economy with no jobs, no hope and no future if his indifference to everyone but the rich continues. Does that count as evidence? Does it count that people are losing their homes in droves while he refuses to provide meaningful oversight to the banks who administer HAMP for the government after they were paid by the government to do this? Does it count that at least 70 people froze to death last winter because they had no money for heating oil and no government assistance to help them? It does to me. Now let your attack begin. It won't impress me a bit, and it won't change anything. He is still a bad president. It just makes one wonder what agenda it is that you are pushing.

[Kalun D]

75. Damn good post

+++++++++++ 1000

[Toucano]

81. ^ What she said. n-t

[arcadian]

86. It's not surprising that cail's posts have a scatological flavor.

[gleaner]

103. Considering the context ....

Maybe, "flavor" is an unfortunate choice of words. Perhaps tinge, or quality would be better.;)

[ipaint]

87. +1 nt.

[Karmadillo]

88. Thank you for posting this. A bad president is a bad president whether he's a Democrat or

whether he's a Republican. Despite the howls of the Defenders, we shouldn't stop insisting this country needs leadership that puts the welfare of the People above the enrichment of the Powers.

[gleaner]

104. You're welcome .....

I think you are spot on, and despite the colorful lexicon of names I have been called and the howls of outrage from those who choose "reputation" over substance, I will continue to post what I think. We need some kind of balance between opinions no matter what position they support.

[racaulk]

111. Fantastic!

Thank you for posting this. :thumbsup:

[pecwae]

116. Many thanks for this thoughtful response

to an OP with no other intent than to inflame and agitate.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

117. X infinity --

Obama is no neocon, but he sure as hell is a corporatist.

[bvar22]

90. Not "Corporate NeoCon", Cali.

The correct description would be "Corporate NeoLib",
though that is a distinction without much of a difference.


The DLC New Team
Pro-LABOR Democrats Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

”I am a New Democrat!”---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184

You can't be FOR Free Trade & Free Markets, and Pro-LABOR at the same time.
The two ARE mutually exclusive.

[tonysam]

92. He's a neoliberal, which is worse

Much worse. Too bad he wasn't more closely vetted in the primaries.

His policies on education are a freaking disaster, and that's just one of many areas where he falls short.

He's also not doing much at all about the economy.

[Kalun D]

93. Vetted

""Too bad he wasn't more closely vetted in the primaries.""

He's was very vetted, he's been groomed and vetted for years by the powers that be.

You know, the ones that own the TV in it's entirety. The ones that pick who we get to vote for.

[Fire1]

94. I don't even read such crap. n/t

[Kalun D]

98. Nobody On This Thread Has Read It

Not even the OP. The OP is a link to a story by someone that read it.

The material is not on the web, it's in the introduction to a hard cover book.

So the accusation against Naomi Klien IS NOT EVEN VERIFIED.

[saltpoint]

102. I voted for the man. I voted for the ticket. I'll vote for it again.

Now or in 2012.

Of the many good things he brings to the people's office, I like that he is a cool-browed problem-solving ADULT, unlike the prior inhabitant, who was a babbling fool and a sociopath.

Recommended.

[grantcart]

110. lol well it certainly has impacted the wellness of your syntax lol

I agree with you and it makes me so angry that I often find that it has made me sick making as well!!

[freddie mertz]

112. He is not a Neocon.

What he has turned out to be, in terms of governing so far, is a centrist, conservative Democrat, friendly to big business and corporate interests, and a disappointment so far on issues like labor, public healthcare, environment, DADT, etc.

[QC]

115. Neocon is a bit of a stretch, but he's definitely corporate. n/t

[Forkboy]

118. "why start a thread that's clearly simply a response to another thread?"

Couldn't you have just responded in the thread you're mocking, dear?

~ cali

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7932786#7932808

:P

Anyways, the idea is pretty absurd and people who say it with a straight face damage their credibility more than Obama's. He's definitely not near as left as I'd like, but he's not a neocon by any means.