The Obama meltdown begins

Print Friendly


If he’s taking progressives for granted, he’s taking Black people even more for granted…

OBAMA, The Latest Great Liberal Hope, the man who set the nation afire with the promise of “change” (conveniently left undefined), the candidate who would like to sell us the “healing notion” that there’s no longer any left-right divide…seems to be unravelling already…a victim of his own nature and intrinsic limitations. As Cyrano warned from the beginning, [see links to existing articles below] Obama is not a man of authentic progressive principles or agenda, in fact he’s not even that smart (judging from the way he’s busily flushing his momentum down the toilet by caving in to the spin doctors’ shopworn formulas); he’s just a professional American politician, a Clinton clone, with all the tics and vices of such despicable breed, among which opportunism, careerism, and cowardice define conduct at all times. So now, except for the incurable Obamaniacs out there, or the perennial pseudo realist crowd who reflexively fall for the lesser evil bogeyman every four years, the legions are in confusion and disenchantment is growing. As it should. And whether Obama wins or loses in November, the lessons from this exercise in mass delusion will have to be sorted out for years if not decades.

But what we need to remember is that, long before Clinton and his crowd cynically perfected the “GOP-lite” formula of naked triangulated betrayal, the vaunted Third Way to win elections, the Democratic party, as one of the two wings of the single Corporate Party that truly rules America, was in deep programmatic trouble. For the greed and callousness of this country’s plutocracy have become so imperious that the old leftovers from the table of the rich with which old pols pacified the masses are no longer available, and the Democrats are now forced to scavenge harder to erect the old compromises. Don’t expect the media gurus to tell you this, but for at least a generation now the Democratic Party has lived as a bloodsucker, feeding off of popular disgust with the overreaching greed and wanton criminality of the Republicans, who, as time goes by, show ever more clearly what the American bourgeoisie is all about. And that’s a poor excuse for a party. 

In this installment of The Greanville Journal we bring to the attention of our audience two articles which are symptomatic of the mounting disarray in the Obama/Democratic Establishment camp. Both are voices of what we might call “leftoid liberalism”, whose main figures, despite their criticisms, pretty much continue to see the world from the comfortable, celebrity-studded inner folds of the System and its many power rings, especially the media. As such we are more in agreement with their diagnosis of the trouble than with their overall purpose, to elect Barack Obama, a politician we cannot trust. [Lesser evilists, spare your ammo.] In the case of Arianna’s piece, we have also included some of her comment thread, to shed more light on the malaise afflicting the Obama faithful.  —Patrice Greanville

______________________________________________________________________________________

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers

By Arianna Huffington / The Huffington Post

Posted June 30, 2008 | 03:14 PM (EST)

LAST FRIDAY AFTERNOON, the guests taking part in Sunday’s roundtable discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos. One of the topics he raised was Obama’s perceived move to the center, and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it. I talked about it over lunch with HuffPost’s DC team, over dinner with friends, with the doorman at the hotel, and the driver on the way to the airport.

As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don’t let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn’t work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn’t work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn’t work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his “microtrends” and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on — and pandering to — this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn’t galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d’etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of “I’ll do these things for you” with Obama’s “Let’s do these things together”:

“This has been the premise of Barack’s politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer,” Axelrod told me. “He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically. Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it.”

Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call it Obama Zero.

In 2004, the Kerry campaign’s obsession with undecided voters — voters so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters’ charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart — allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant his medals.

Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an “unlikely candidate.” Which he certainly was — and still is. And one of the things that turned him from “unlikely” upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters — some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn’t turn out in 2004 — to engage in the system.

So why start playing to the political fence sitters — staking out newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA?

In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA “a big mistake” and “devastating.” Obama’s reply: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”

Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was “overheated?” Or was that one “amplified?”

Because if that’s the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is “overheated” and/or “amplified,” so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.

When Obama kneecaps his own rhetoric and dilutes his positioning as a different kind of politician, he is also giving his opponent a huge opening to reassert the McCain as Maverick brand. We know that McCain has completely abandoned any legitimate claim on his maverick image, but the echoes of that reputation are still very much with us — especially among many in the media who would love nothing more than to be able to once again portray McCain as the real leader they fell in love with in 2000. And the new Straight Talk Express plane has been modeled on its namesake bus, decked out to better recreate the seduction.

The transition between the primaries and the general election — and from insurgent to frontrunner — is tricky. Even a confident campaign can be knocked off course. So this is when Obama most needs to remember what got him to this point — and stick with it.

In a Los Angeles Times article detailing Obama’s attempts at “shifting toward the center,” Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way says that Obama is a “good politician. He’s doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate.”

But isn’t being a “good politician” as it’s meant here exactly what Obama defined himself as being against? Instead of Third Way think tankers, Obama should listen to this guy:

“What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems…. The time for that politics is over. It’s time to turn the page.”

That was Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,” he said that day, “but I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

Was that just “overheated and amplified” rhetoric?

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and “change we can believe in.” I like that brand. More importantly, voters — especially unlikely voters — like that brand.

Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America’s vacillating swing voters — the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun — would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.

The ubiquitous Arianna Huffington, among other things, is editor in Chief of The Huffington Post. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

June 30, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Obama Agenda

It’s feeling a lot like 1992 right now. It’s also feeling a lot like 1980. But which parallel is closer? Is Barack Obama going to be a Ronald Reagan of the left, a president who fundamentally changes the country’s direction? Or will he be just another Bill Clinton?

Current polls — not horse-race polls, which are notoriously uninformative until later in the campaign, but polls gauging the public mood — are strikingly similar to those in both 1980 and 1992, years in which an overwhelming majority of Americans were dissatisfied with the country’s direction.

So the odds are that this will be a “change” election — which means that it’s very much Mr. Obama’s election to lose. But if he wins, how much change will he actually deliver?

Reagan, for better or worse — I’d say for worse, but that’s another discussion — brought a lot of change. He ran as an unabashed conservative, with a clear ideological agenda. And he had enormous success in getting that agenda implemented. He had his failures, most notably on Social Security, which he tried to dismantle but ended up strengthening. But America at the end of the Reagan years was not the same country it was when he took office.

Bill Clinton also ran as a candidate of change, but it was much less clear what kind of change he was offering. He portrayed himself as someone who transcended the traditional liberal-conservative divide, proposing “a government that offers more empowerment and less entitlement.” The economic plan he announced during the campaign was something of a hodgepodge: higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes for the middle class, public investment in things like high-speed rail, health care reform without specifics.

We all know what happened next. The Clinton administration achieved a number of significant successes, from the revitalization of veterans’ health care and federal emergency management to the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and health insurance for children. But the big picture is summed up by the title of a new book by the historian Sean Wilentz: “The Age of Reagan: A history, 1974-2008.”

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque.

Like Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama portrays himself as transcending traditional divides. Near the end of last week’s “unity” event with Hillary Clinton, he declared that “the choice in this election is not between left or right, it’s not between liberal or conservative, it’s between the past and the future.” Oh-kay.

Mr. Obama’s economic plan also looks remarkably like the Clinton 1992 plan: a mixture of higher taxes on the rich, tax breaks for the middle class and public investment (this time with a focus on alternative energy).

Sometimes the Clinton-Obama echoes are almost scary. During his speech accepting the nomination, Mr. Clinton led the audience in a chant of “We can do it!” Remind you of anything?

Just to be clear, we could — and still might — do a lot worse than a rerun of the Clinton years. But Mr. Obama’s most fervent supporters expect much more.

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist [ if not downright rightist ] now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

One thing is clear: for Democrats, winning this election should be the easy part. Everything is going their way: sky-high gas prices, a weak economy and a deeply unpopular president. The real question is whether they will take advantage of this once-in-a-generation chance to change the country’s direction. And that’s mainly up to Mr. Obama.

Paul Krugman writes for the New York Times. 

———

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES AT CYRANO’S JOURNAL ONLINE:       

• Obama’s Audacious Deference to Power | By Paul Street /// • OBAMA’S MONEY CARTEL • Hypocrisy on Health Care / By Bruce Dixon, Black Agenda Report • 

2 comments on “The Obama meltdown begins
  1. We reproduce below some random comments from the Arianna article, as published on The Huffington Post. While some comments are on point, and seem to “get it”, many are pathetic examples of confusion and rank political cretinism. And the thread also packs many justifications for the “centrist” position. If these are the folks supporting Obama, what does he have to fear? What do the ruling orders have to fear?

    Well, here we go, read and cry:

    Reply Posted 07:47 PM on 06/30/2008
    – EvSmith See Profile I’m a Fan of EvSmith
    The Obama campaign is worried about Ohio, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Conservative and blue collar Democrats have yet to be moved by the change mantra. I don’t agree with this type of political calculated risk taking by Obama’s campaign, but his campaign may feel they have to do something to shake up Ohio and Florida. Still better this than selecting Hillary Clinton or Ted Strickland for V.P. Never the less, Sen. Obama’s handling of the FISA vote is a Senatorial disaster. Move to the middle in areas other than crimes against our Constitutional freedoms and blanket immunity for coroporations that have violated Federal law time and again.
    I’m just not sure anyone, Obama, Kucinch, Biden, anyone, can really stand up to and move in any serious way against the powerful forces of the M.I.C. or even industry heavyweights.

    Reply Posted 07:45 PM on 06/30/2008
    – Erdgeist See Profile I’m a Fan of Erdgeist
    Arianna, I wouldn’t worry about the center. What is important is this: Can Obama create and control the center and thereby force McCain to run to it.

    The center is not fixed. It is fluid. I would urge Obama to define the center in his own way (not statistically but proactively). There are a number of ways to do it–but I can’t discuss them here. 🙂

    Reply Posted 07:45 PM on 06/30/2008
    – Independent_voter See Profile I’m a Fan of Independent_voter
    It’s unfortunate that Obama has started pandering. I’m realled pissed about FISA and I think that he should stand with Wesley Clark. Getting shot down makes a person a bad pilot (or at least unlucky) and is hardly qualifying experience for POTUS.

    The Republicans are mocking Obama for lack of spine and you can’t blame them. As an ardent Obama supporter I am terribly disappointed.

    Reply Posted 07:44 PM on 06/30/2008
    – harriscrl3 See Profile I’m a Fan of harriscrl3
    This is only one side of the argument he is leading in double digits with Independents over McCain thats why he is doing so well in swing states. SO dont think that its all bad at least tell the truth that there is some advantage to his movement to the center.

    The left need to stop being so mypoic and learn to look at the big picture.

    Reply Posted 07:41 PM on 06/30/2008
    – Titonwan See Profile I’m a Fan of Titonwan
    I could say the same, but I doubt if you’d even get it. Progressives have above average intelligence.

    Reply Posted 12:53 AM on 07/01/2008
    – mosh See Profile I’m a Fan of mosh
    He is acting like just one more waffling democrat – like the gang of eight who recently and once again sold this country out to George w and his crowd.

    Reply Posted 10:15 PM on 06/30/2008
    – bosshogg See Profile I’m a Fan of bosshogg
    i believe obama was always center but moved left during primary however obama need to be careful not to anger liberals …… obama should soon give lefty some red meat on either a topic or policy……..

    Reply Posted 07:41 PM on 06/30/2008
    – mouselion See Profile I’m a Fan of mouselion
    Except that, Obama was already a slightly left of center moderate — every policy he has proposed from the start of the presidential campaign proves as much. He is only a far lefty to wishful thinkers — both supporters and detractors. This is his naked disguise and has been all along.

    Reply Posted 07:40 PM on 06/30/2008
    – SadButWiser See Profile I’m a Fan of SadButWiser
    I don’t really get it. Being liberal is a slur in America as considered by the right. And now being a centrist is a slur as considered by the left. The far right is no worse than the far left. The best of all position is always the middle one. [!]

    Reply Posted 07:37 PM on 06/30/2008
    – Titonwan See Profile I’m a Fan of Titonwan
    Read Arianna’s article again please. And again.

    Reply Posted 12:53 AM on 07/01/2008
    – Jason357 See Profile I’m a Fan of Jason357
    I don’t see this as a left/right issue. The appeal of Obama was that he was principled and based his campaign on principles, not just what people wanted to hear. He supposedly had the courage to put politics aside and try a new approach, since the old approaches of earlier candidates haven’t done much. Here we are 40 years later, still talking about civil rights, poverty, health care and education. Yet, the government will have us working until we’re 85 years if they keep pushing the Socail Security age up. I don’t care what some bureaucrat says, 70 years old is pretty old to be running around the rat maze of work. It’s hardly equitable to have federal employees retiring at 50 and everyone else working until 70 to pay their bills.

    I can’t put my finger on it, but I think we got lied to. Then again, what choice it is between McObama, McClinton, or McCain??

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    I don’t know what O would have to do for me to cast my vote elsewhere, but I do know he hasn’t even come close. He’s the best candidate by far and if he has to move more toward the center, or appear to anyway, then let him. I know he will take our country and it’s people into a world that is much better than where we have been and where we are. Try watching some foreign news. The entire world is behind O. Wonder why?
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 07/01/2008

    4today See Profile I’m a Fan of 4today
    that is only if he gets a congress/senate he can work with. The democrats at this point should be more concerned about winning a large majority in both houses. I don’t understand how we lose sight of this. Our country has been destroyed because Bush had a congress/senate that allowed him to destroy the Supreme Court and pass these war funding budgets. We lost our check & balance system.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 07/01/2008

    Meggie See Profile I’m a Fan of Meggie
    too many dems who are already there are voting for bush policies. a little lip service and then wham – big business wins every time. more dems will not fix this and unfortunately I’m not sure if it can be fixed. look at the dems turn on feingold over this telecom filibuster. it’s disgusting that they sneak away to vote repub every time.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 07/01/2008

    4today See Profile I’m a Fan of 4today
    than they must be voted out!! Its ike I said – the dems should be more concerned about getting the 2 houses in order.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 07/01/2008

    unionave See Profile I’m a Fan of unionave
    WE have a “National Bureau Of Standards” because we want to measure every thing to compare every thing . The only item not there is a human . But we must compare even humans also so we have invented descriptions that are at best difficult to describe in writing . Including the physical we also have , Left . Right . Center . Left of center . Right of center . The GOP wind mud slingers know this well so they invent new descriptions daily and sadly the Dem wind machines either remain silent or join the GOP noise makers and help sling the mud at their own family member . Regarding our General the GOP has made some thing that was said many times in the past in to today’s mind adjustment and the and the Dem wind machine is going full blast with it . We do not like us .
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 07/01/2008

    viper234 See Profile I’m a Fan of viper234
    I agree with Arianna. Obama is getting off message and is risking the support of the new, enthusiastic voters that helped him win the Democratic primary. His over the top lauding of John McCain’s military service is also troublesome. It’s one thing to acknowledge McCain’s military service from time to time, but to laud McCain at practically every mention of his name is ridiculous. He doesn’t seem to realize that he’s starting to sound like a McCain surrogate rather than his opponent in the general election.??I’ve donated to Obama’s campaign twice, but he won’t get any more donations from me unless he gets back on message. His rebuke of General Wesley Clark was the cut-off point for me — that along with his new position on FISA, and his wishy washy tone on ending the Iraq war. He’s not even making a strong link between the war in Iraq and the destruction of the American economy. If this electiion is about the Economy and the War, well here’s your chance to connect the dots.??I certainly hope he’s not getting behind House Resolution 362 that calls for a Naval blockade of Iran — an action that many experts say amounts to an Act of War. Obama is tacking to the middle and far too close to the neo-con right. And if he thinks he’s getting any of those voters, he’s dreaming. Get back to your roots Barack. Get back to your base before you lose it all.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 07/01/2008

    evekendall See Profile I’m a Fan of evekendall
    Per Matt Bennett of Third Way: “He’s doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate.”??My response: It’s not possible to be all things to all people. Those who try end up standing for nothing.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:20 PM on 07/01/2008

    evekendall See Profile I’m a Fan of evekendall
    The list is growing just since June 3:??FISA?NAFTA?Gun control?Death penalty?Faith-based initiatives?Throwing Wesley Clark under the bus??What next? I have been an avid supporter, but he is starting to give me pause.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 07/01/2008

    MalleusMaleficarum See Profile I’m a Fan of MalleusMaleficarum
    You left out his statement to AIPAC that failed to mention the human rights of the Palestinians or the occupation of the West Bank – now in its 41st year. Obama’s visit to Israel – when he should visit the West Bank and visit the refugee communities in Gaza – will reveal his entire approach to post-Bush foreign policy. Obama’s position on foreign policy and the critical need for reform is the engine driving his campaign.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 07/01/2008

    evekendall See Profile I’m a Fan of evekendall
    My list was not comprehensive, and certainly, you are right. The AIPAC speech was major pandering, especially about the issue of Jerusalem, but Clinton’s, of course, was as bad. What does it take for our politicians to have some guts on this issue?
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 PM on 07/01/2008

    Rjmartinelli See Profile I’m a Fan of Rjmartinelli
    FISA: No change. Supporting the changed bill but is against the immunity.?NAFTA: I’ll admit I don’t have the research done to comment on this?Gun Control: He supported the decision of the Supreme Court but still stated we need more regulation, not a flat ban.?Death Penalty: I believe someone stated you should read his first book.?Faith-based initiatives: I don’t recall him ever having a stance on this.??Throwing Wesley Clark under the bus? Obama stood by his promise to run a clean campaign by NOT attacking McCain or questioning his military service. That’s not a flip. That’s not a betrayal.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 07/01/2008

    KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I’m a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider
    The 4th amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”??Somebody tell me how the FISA court part of the FISA bill breaks the fourth amendment.??Many legal precedents have been established based on the 4th amendment but by the letter of the constitution monitoring international communications is not covered. Much of the legal precedents based on the 4th amendment are established though an expectation of privacy. Based on the slippery slope we have gone down the last few decades I doubt anyone expects their international communications to be private any more. I’m not saying it is right but it is true. At least restoring the FISA court requires the government to get warrants for these communications.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 07/01/2008

    tom_ellison See Profile I’m a Fan of tom_ellison
    I have just about zero sympathy for people crying about this. Who didn’t see this coming, honestly? Everyone drove C linton out of the race and now, once all the kool-aid wore off, the Democratic nominee is another John Kerry. if the Democrats blow this election, they should pack it up and start over with a new name. They should have this in the bag big time and they just don’t.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 07/01/2008

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    Nope. We are united. We have the new vote and we are taking back the big house. The rest of this nonsense is just filler.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 07/01/2008

    JimR See Profile I’m a Fan of JimR
    Let’s take a look at what happened when Democrats ran to the left: McGovern in 72, Mondale in 84, Dukakis in 88. They all got CREAMED.??Gore and Kerry each lost, too, but not by much. In fact, Gore won the popular vote.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 07/01/2008

    phoenix1964 See Profile I’m a Fan of phoenix1964
    Also, one time a person (woman) complained to FDR about the deplorable conditions of workers and asked FDR to do something. FDR told the lady to go out there and make him do it. So she convened with labor organization, developed a 10 point plan, held rallys and marches and FDR Part 2??responded by acting on some of the agenda items.??You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Obama knows this too well. You need a grassroot movement plus a President willingly to listen to effect change. Obama is a shrewd and ruthless (goodway) politican. He knows and protects his brand and core values to the upmost and leads people by not beating them over the head and say your position is wrong, do what I say. He listens, incorporates their language and in a socratic way leads them to his way of thinking and inspires them to follow his lead.??Name one President that ran as a liberal purist and won. None. End of story.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:35 PM on 07/01/2008

    KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I’m a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider
    Great points but the fact is that progressives want to feel like they “own” a candidate for once like the right can point to Bush as their guy, even though Bush is not even a real conservative. All this outrage is a matter of lost pride and hurt feeling that Obama is not as lefty as them. The real problem is that Obama has never said he was a champion of the left, actually he said quite the opposite. This being said Obama is on the left with the majority of his policies, while McBush is on the far right with almost all of his policies.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 07/01/2008

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    That’s right. I mean correct. Now if I could have a show of hands, how many of you are switching parties because of some gaffe by Obama? I just don’t see that happening. Too much to lose.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 07/01/2008


    several See Profile I’m a Fan of several
    The only place that Obama has actually moved to the middle is in the MSM and blogosphere media narrative swirling around him. Nothing he’s done in the past few weeks is a change in policies he’s stated previously, months ago or positions clearly laid out in “The Audacity of Hope.”??What has changed is that with the drama and intensity of the primaries behind us there is a natural lull between the primaries and the conventions. But the MSM and blogosphere have become addicted to the drama so they’re making mountains out of molehills to try to keep the drama and intensity levels up, and with it their advertising revenues.??If you doubt me go do a little research. Go to the Obama HQ blog, the BarackObamadotcom channel on YouTube and/or the ObamaforAmerica videos on ustream.tv. Read and/or listen to what Obama has actually said about the issues on which he’s being accused of moving toward the center or right.??The closest thing to a valid argument to be made regarding a change in positions is on the FISA compromise, but even in supporting the compromise he stated that he’d work as senator and when president to revoke the telecom immunity. Supporting incremental progress toward goals is not the same as turning your back on those goals.??Put on your critical thinking caps people. “Silly season” is in full swing.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 07/01/2008

    truesoccermom See Profile I’m a Fan of truesoccermom
    I agree 100%. People who are objecting to Obama now never knew the true Obama (and probably haven’t read Audacity of Hope). Obama is, and always has been, a man who transcends politics and promises to be a leader for all the people — not just the left-wing idealists.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:18 PM on 07/01/2008

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    I like you soccermom. Us moms are smarter than your average bear. We get nuance.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:38 PM on 07/01/2008

    HotATL See Profile I’m a Fan of HotATL
    Bush is the leader “of all of the people”, that comes with the job. But if you mean a leader “for all of the people”, then I say that, that is impossible”. How can you be a leader for different group of people when they have opposite and opposing views?
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:35 PM on 07/01/2008

    truesoccermom See Profile I’m a Fan of truesoccermom
    You find some common ground and go from there. We all essentially want the same things out of life — we just have different ideas of how to achieve those things. Obama, unlike many other leaders, has the intelligence to find the right solutions and the ability to inspire people to get behind those solutions.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 07/01/2008


    LTCKal See Profile I’m a Fan of LTCKal
    Unfortunately, if one does not “stake out” positions in a campaign, the other side will do it for you, and you will end up jumping up and down saying, “what I meant was,” and endlessly apologizing for all sorts of imagined misstatements, a la John Kerry. The most important thing is to define yourself, and convey what you stand for. Compromise follows — but you need to stand for something in order to compromise.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:56 PM on 07/01/2008


    4today See Profile I’m a Fan of 4today
    oh what a shock – a politician that changes his ways after he gets the nomination.??what shocks me more is that people feel into his line of crap. Now we are stuck with the puppet, and whoever is pulling his strings. ??He is NOT electable!! He never was!!
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 07/01/2008

    intelliwoman See Profile I’m a Fan of intelliwoman
    Agreed, but me must elect….??SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:55 PM on 07/01/2008

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    Oh no my friend. It will be an Obama mop up come November. Thank goodness.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 07/01/2008


    reinaldok See Profile I’m a Fan of reinaldok
    I have been a Obama backer from day one. I still believe that he is far better than the alternative – Certainly McCain will be a Bush three. Am I disappointed with Barack and his minders? Absolutely.?What could they have been thinking? One pundit called his famous speech about the Israeli-Palestine situation a Belly Crawl to the Aipac. Here in Florida there is true dismay with Obama’s pandering to the?CANF (the Dictator Batista lovers). Obama states that he will continue the never ending absurd embargo (blockade). It would certainly appear that Barack and his flunkies never read the reports from just about every coutnry in the world. The United Nations General Assembly, in their last vote on the subject, voted (I believe for the 13th time) in favor of the ending of the embargo. 184 countries (including many of the so called Bush puppets) voted against the USA.. Sure three great nations did support the Bush and the Obama position. Israel, Palau and The Marshall Islands. The thinking people outside of the USA see Barack’s position as just another indicationa that there will really be no significant change in an Obama government. It doesn’t take much research to find that companies from all continents are negotiating for new businesses in Cuba. If Obama and his close advisors truly think that everyone on Florida is 100% against the present government of Cuba, they are terribly mistaken.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 07/01/2008


    Mogamboguru See Profile I’m a Fan of Mogamboguru
    In Germany, we have an adage – saying (translated):??”Someone who tries to please everyone, will please no one.”??I can’t help getting the notion that, the Obama-campaign is exactly trying to do just that, actually – with exactly the predicted results.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 07/01/2008


    Terrakron See Profile I’m a Fan of Terrakron
    Thanks so much Arianna! It is now more than ever that progressive ideals have to show strength. Pandering is not the answer it has never been!
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:44 PM on 07/01/2008


    StaggerLee See Profile I’m a Fan of StaggerLee
    I totally agree Arianna, but I see no way back now. Obama has pretty well locked himself into this weak kneed model. The thing I find most surprising is that Axelrod would find this a smart strategy. He just never seemed like the “tack to the center” sort of guy.?It’s been pointed out by many here and other places that the “independent” vote isn’t what it used to be. There seems to me to be well defined battle lines in this election and there’s just not as much room for the dithering idiots of the middle. I would be surprised if they amount to 10% of the vote. So for a small minority of voters he intends to piss off the base. I can’t say how unbelievably stupid this seems to me.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 07/01/2008

    mmerose See Profile I’m a Fan of mmerose
    I agree with this observation about the electorate. Obama is not going to win over the voters it seems he’s pandering to. Thing is, he and Axelrod surely know it if we do. So what gives? ??Call it conspiracy theory, but how about Obama is conciliating the capitalist beast that could gang up on and overwhelm even the money he’s raised if they got really scared. Wall Street and Hillary already had a comfortable arrangement. Obama may be enough of an unknown to get them twitchy. ??Oh well, we’ll never know.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 07/01/2008


    KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I’m a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider
    For the record people tell me how much you are not sending Obama so I can make up some of those donations. I cannot afford it with my income but I have some things I can sell to make up some of the deficit you whinny lefties will create. I’m a true blue lefty as well but it’s more important to me that we change direction in this country than withholding funds based on the fact that Obama was not as progressive as you thought.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 07/01/2008

    buckygreen See Profile I’m a Fan of buckygreen
    $1000 so far, about $30 a week.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:07 PM on 07/01/2008


    Mogamboguru See Profile I’m a Fan of Mogamboguru
    Hey, Quarks (like the Quarks in “Star Trek”…? 😎 )??Could it be that, the Obama-campaign and their candidate are just twisting and turning like NEO in Matrix, Part two, to evade all the possible – no, not sinks thrown at them, but propaganda-bullets fired at them from the republican side – and that Obama is only trying to please each and everyone out there right now, just not to expose any soft and, potentially, lethally vulnerable spot to the Republican’s “rapid fire of electoral destruction”? ??It’s just an idea – yet at least one, which would let me sleep well again (IF IT WAS SO!). ??What do you think?
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 07/01/2008


    u2cancounterpoint See Profile I’m a Fan of u2cancounterpoint
    Thank You Arianna Huffington. This article is well put and timely the word pandering says it all. Obama we thought was dedicated, I”m mean dedicated to change, he spoke articulately about the need for change during the primary. He voted against the war and we thought that was a vote for us not for a broken institution. His campaign has focused on his willingness to fix the institutional problems that plague this nation not act like a run of the mill and lame politician looking for expedience. Some roads are hard to take and if he can”t take this bumpy road, the one he choose for himself then what does he stand for.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 07/01/2008


    KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I’m a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider
    What is not going to change under Obama???Obama has unwavered about getting out of Iraq, taking the tax burden from the middle class and restoring the progressive tax codes, establishing affordable health care for all, weening us off of fossil fuels for the environment and economic survival, not running the endless campaign and working with all members of government, reigning in executive power, restoring the constitution and regulating an economic system run amuck.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 07/01/2008


    Markvli See Profile I’m a Fan of Markvli
    I am continually revising my views on this. Let’s consider the following: Senator Obama’s candidacy has never been based on conventional thinking. He ran — against conventional wisdom counseling him that he would lose badly in the primaries. Most of us a year ago would have agreed with that conventional wisdom. But he ended up winning. ??Now the conventional wisdom is that running towards the center is a bad idea, and again it will mean that you loose. The conventional wisdom is that there are certain constituencies that are simply not reachable so why even try. Sure, using social networking to power a campaign, strong branding, and solid organization are all great ideas, but they are not the bedrock of his campaign — the bedrock of his campaign, what propelled him to even enter the race against all odds, is Hope. ??So expecting Senator Obama to discard that for conventional wisdom or simply pragmatism — running to the middle is for losers, for instance (a very sounds piece of advice from a purely pragmatic standpoint) – is the kind of thinking that would have deterred him from entering the race in the beginning.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 07/01/2008

    Mogamboguru See Profile I’m a Fan of Mogamboguru
    The conventional wisdom of Chess says:??”If a move might cost you more than you could gain by it – don’t make it.”
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:12 PM on 07/01/2008

    luvobama See Profile I’m a Fan of luvobama
    I don’t know about you, but I would never play chess with Obama. Check mate.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 07/01/2008


    TJRich See Profile I’m a Fan of TJRich
    Obama has always said he wants to be president of all the people. I don’t think all this criticism from persons who are not advisors is very useful. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with expressing a different point of view on issues from those expressed by the self appointed experts. I don’t have a problem with him at least trying to including all Americans.??It still sounds very much like an ‘us against them’ argument.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 07/01/2008

    intelliwoman See Profile I’m a Fan of intelliwoman
    Part of the problem IS the advisors. He has no depth or breadth of people advising his campaign, he managed through good rehetoric and a certain “cult of personality” to get the nomination, although cracks were really showing at the end and if the primary season had gone on much longer he might have been in real trouble.??Now, instead of mesmerizing people with wonderful rhetoric, he needs to wake up to the real world. he did not win the majority of the popular vote, and he could be in serious trouble if he doesn’t shore up his campagn with some people other than ivory tower academics. He won the nomination on a progressive platform, its what got him all the ne voters, and he needs to find a way to stick with it, and NOT be “just another politician” (although I really believe thats what he is.)
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 07/01/2008

    TJRich See Profile I’m a Fan of TJRich
    The chosen advisors have done a fine job so far. They won the primaries. He has not changed anything in his platform. This successful run has never been based on rhetoric or cultism as you suggest. He has kept it real from day one. ??Your anti-O b a m a sentiment is showing. But stick with him and you will be glad you did.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:56 PM on 07/01/2008


    amanda85 See Profile I’m a Fan of amanda85
    What America calls “the middle” or “the center”, the rest of the world calls “the right.” That’s a fact. Most conservative politicians in Europe are more progressive than 0bama…?0bama has betrayed America’s progressives that so much helped him get the nomination. This is the biggest case of “bait & switch” in American history. I totally agree with Arianna.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 07/01/2008

    intelliwoman See Profile I’m a Fan of intelliwoman
    I absolutely agree! Bait and switch is an excellent way of phrasing it. However, there were those of us who actually saw it for what it was while the masses were mesmerized! His speeches were always full of “change” and “hope” but never much acutal policy??However, as a progressive and a democrat I will pull the Obama lever in November, as I keep repeating to myself 2 words….SUPREME COURT, SUPREME COURT……??And as I keep praying that he has the good sense to put some people with real experience in the positions where they need to be.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 07/01/2008


    HotATL See Profile I’m a Fan of HotATL
    Last week I commented on an article about Obama voting for bill that gave immunity to telephone companies. One lady, an “Obama support” replied to one of my comments with something thoughtful. I can”t remember it word for word but it was something like this. She said that Obama was never a liberal. And it isn”t his fault that I read my beliefs into what he said. Or something close to this.??I guest that, this is correct. When you use phases like “Change you can believe it”, I guest people can read what they want into it. NICE TRICK!!! ??But after seven years of Bush, I”m kind of fed up with tricks.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 PM on 07/01/2008


    KQuarksSuperKollider See Profile I’m a Fan of KQuarksSuperKollider
    So explain to me how Obama is not a major change to Bush.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 07/01/2008


    HotATL See Profile I’m a Fan of HotATL
    If you really want an answer I will try to give you one. I honestly just don”t know anymore. That”s why I started reading this blog. To try to figure things out. I am a liberal. I don”t like the way that things have been going in this country for the last 7 years. But I also didn”t like some of the things that Bill Clinton did like signing NAFTA. So I start thinking that maybe it all of a game. That none of these guys were really representing us. Just keep putting different people up there saying different things but really just working for corporations. So your answer is “I honestly just don”t know” and I haven”t voted in eight years. I was going to vote again this November but now I”m not sure.
        Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 07/01/2008

    truesoccermom See Profile I’m a Fan of truesoccermom
    If you want to figure out who Obama is, don’t read these blogs — read his book Audacity of Hope. It outlines Obama’s positions on every issue and clearly tells you that he is an extremely intelligent man who is a pragmatist and a realist in his politics (and he has never deviated from his underlying values). His promise is in transcending the right/left divide in our country and actually solving problems. The fact that he is extremely well-spoken and inspirational is just icing on the cake.

    syllepsis See Profile I’m a Fan of syllepsis
    Arianna, the problem is that the Democratic Party brand is just as soiled by now with Bush’s legacy as is the Republican brand. Try as they might, the Democrats cannot explain away the fact that they have run both houses of Congress since January 2007, and that Bush has escalated his madness, unopposed.?Yes, slim majority in the Senate. Bush LOST the majority in 2000!?The Democrats are either complicit in Bush’s crimes, blackmailed, or incredibly stupid. ?You have only to read the headlines here to get the idea. So Bush is performing covert ops in Iran in conjunction with al Qaeda-afilliated groups? And the Democrats are silent??Complicit, blackmailed, stupid. Take your pick. What party does Obama belong to?
        Reply   Posted 03:55 PM on 06/30/2008


    j0em0mma See Profile I’m a Fan of j0em0mma
    This is the worst mistake I can imagine Obama making. This guy didn’t last three weeks at number one before caving. Or is he actually the Manchurian candidate, but for the Right, that his detractors have been warning us about? Long live the tyranny of mediocrity…
        Reply   Posted 03:52 PM on 06/30/2008


    LeftRoss See Profile I’m a Fan of LeftRoss
    Exactly right. Last week’s Obama is not the one I signed up for! ??Obama’s been a bit of a blank slate for us to project our hopes on. We’ve been giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll do the right things once he’s in office. But when he grabs John Kerry’s playbook, my hope goes out the window.??Not very audacious.
        Reply   Posted 03:52 PM on 06/30/2008


    meanguy See Profile I’m a Fan of meanguy
    leftross, don’t you get it? he’s already GOT your vote…it’s not like you’re going to go over to mccain…he needs the middle to win. he can go after them without risking the far left because he OWNS you…you’re pretty much stuck with him, so have fun…
        Reply   Posted 04:21 PM on 06/30/2008


    meanguy See Profile I’m a Fan of meanguy
    it’s amazing that so many fell so hard for so long…for so little
        Reply   Posted 04:04 PM on 06/30/2008


    LeftRoss See Profile I’m a Fan of LeftRoss
    I didn’t fall so hard actually. And you’re right, he’s got my vote. I just wish he could see how counterproductive it is to abandon what’s gotten him this far.??If it works, great. But Arianna’s right – this method has proven to be a loser for a generation.
        Reply   Posted 02:36 AM on 07/01/2008


    MinuteMan See Profile I’m a Fan of MinuteMan
    That’s an important point. I think that many Obama supporters, particularly those who are Dems are mild Obama supporters who came to Obama after originally backing other candidates. Obama was my third choice thought I thought the choice between Obama and Clinton was clear. Now, however, he seems to be channeling many of the things that I disliked about Clinton (e.g., her flag-burning amendment, etc.). So Obama is faster turning these mild supporters who would be writing checks and volunteering into nearly indifferent supporters who will turn up to vote for him in November—probably—but not do much else. That’s squandering a very valuable resource; is he so arrogant that he thinks he can afford this both in November and in January?
        Reply   Posted 12:02 PM on 07/01/2008


    Grunty1 See Profile I’m a Fan of Grunty1
    Why would O’bama take to the middle when he is ALREADY drawing large number of independents and even Republicans?
        Reply   Posted 03:51 PM on 06/30/2008


    AnotherTry See Profile I’m a Fan of AnotherTry
    I don’t think he is Irish.
        Reply   Posted 07:08 PM on 06/30/2008


    Waitaminute See Profile I’m a Fan of Waitaminute
    good point.
        Reply   Posted 05:14 PM on 06/30/2008


    JustDealWithIt See Profile I’m a Fan of JustDealWithIt
    To keep the ones he has and draw more
        Reply   Posted 04:14 PM on 06/30/2008


    NicholeWebb See Profile I’m a Fan of NicholeWebb
    Thank you, Arianna, for a wonderful post! If he does not listen to this line of reasoning he will loose.
        Reply   Posted 03:49 PM on 06/30/2008


    nipinbud See Profile I’m a Fan of nipinbud
    Agreed. Arianna is exactly right. This is the first presidential election that I thought I would not be voting for the lesser of two evils. My enthusiasm has waned to the point that I have not worn my Obama 08 t-shirt for the last two weeks. I just called Obama headquarters to voice my complaint about playing into the Media’s distortion of the General Clark comments.
        Reply   Posted 04:53 PM on 06/30/2008


    oscarp See Profile I’m a Fan of oscarp
    Well, Arianna, I never thought that this moment would come, not because I never trusted Obama, but because I never expected that all the support and the good things you have said about him would one day change. Time is our great ally, always for good, but in this case, the political blindness has put in the maximum spot a candidate who is showing to be just an empty suit, full of promises with the only objective of obtaining votes and money. The funny part is how blind a person can be thinking that a lie will be believed for so long.?It must be painful for those who have blindlysupported Obama to see how their “ideal” candidate is nothing but another politician full of political ambitions. That he does not care about those who voted for him, he just cares for himself and his ambition.?Welcome to the real world. It is just the beginning. Let’s see how far it goes.
        Reply   Posted 04:46 PM on 06/30/2008


    60andcounting See Profile I’m a Fan of 60andcounting
    Ok. How do we all send an email link to this article to Obama to let him know how we feel? He is going to lose us if he keeps this up.
        Reply   Posted 03:48 PM on 06/30/2008


    Marcee See Profile I’m a Fan of Marcee
    Thank you for saying what so many of us are thinking. As a strong Obama supporter, I am discouraged by his move to the center and his seemingly wimpy responses to critical issues. Who is advising him and writing up some of his statements? Current case in point is his rejection of General Clark’s statements on yesterday’s Face the Nation. I watched the program, and Clark’s comments were absolutely faultless. He praised McCain’s service and noted McCain was a hero to many in the military. He also pointed out being shot from a plane is not a prerequisite to be president. What is wrong with that? Today Obama rejected Clark’s clear-eyed, fair comments suggesting Obama’s courage may be a phantom. I fear this is just one more sign of moving to the middle and trying not to offend.
        Reply   Posted 03:48 PM on 06/30/2008


    tedbear See Profile I’m a Fan of tedbear
    What about the theory that if a person doesn’t get elected a person cannot do any good at all??There is something about Obama that inspires trust. It would be terrible for him to get carried off by the broken system, and yet I just don’t think that is going to happen. I think he is for real and he will have a chance to prove it when he is elected. Why blame him for trying to get all the votes he can muster? He hasn’t sold his soul, why not give him the benefit of believing he will come through the campaign to the election with his core values intact.
        Reply   Posted 03:43 PM on 06/30/2008


    MinuteMan See Profile I’m a Fan of MinuteMan
    You could say that McCain has already showed the fallacy of that argument. He’s exorcisedthe few “maverick” positions he ever had on the alter of securing his base and getting himself elected. In doing so he becomes nothing more than a tired, unprincipled, do anything-to-get-elected politician. Hillary Clinton is not the nominee because many thought of her as almost the same as McCain. ??What got Obama the nomination was the perception that belief that he held roughly comparable positions to HRC, he was not the shameless, political opportunist. If he damages his reputation then he is going to lose one of his main advantages over McCain. Further, I think he’ll bean McCain almost no matter what he does, but if he enervates those who should be his most fervent supporters then he increases the odds of reaching DC with a GOP-laden Congress who will successfully obstruct him. And, if he loses his reputation he will not have the power to use the bully-pulpet to break the Congressional logjams the way the steadfastly rightwing Ronald Reagan did.
        Reply   Posted 11:55 AM on 07/01/2008


    Zeje See Profile I’m a Fan of Zeje
    I don’t believe him anymore
        Reply   Posted 06:58 PM on 06/30/2008


    hopeless277 See Profile I’m a Fan of hopeless277
    Now that he’s seen what goes on in DC, he kinda likes it. Especailly the Imperial President stuff. If Obama votes for FISA, or even if he fails to show up for the vote, he will lose my support. Not that my support is any big deal, but I really don’t believe that anyone who voted for him in the primaries expected him to support giving away the 4th amendment rights of every person in the country. And once he does, he becomes what he supposedly was running against: politicians who will say anything to get elected and once they are, go along to get along. If he doesn’t fight for this, he won’t fight for anything else. Time to prove yourself, Barak. I am not optimistic.
        Reply   Posted 03:40 PM on 06/30/2008


    MidwestBlue See Profile I’m a Fan of MidwestBlue
    Your post exactly epitomizes my thinking on this. ?Furthermore, when the nominee goes back on his word and breaks his promses, it is not the responsibility of the citizen to make excuses for the candidate’s behavior. It is up to the candidate to prove he deserves the citizen’s vote. FISA is the defining issue. I am not optimistic, either.
        Reply   Posted 05:20 PM on 06/30/2008


    MonicaL See Profile I’m a Fan of MonicaL
    Obama IS a zero. He’s gonna get stomped by McCain.
        Reply   Posted 03:39 PM on 06/30/2008


    MinuteMan See Profile I’m a Fan of MinuteMan
    Obama will have to work very aggressively to lose out to McCain; however, now that he seems to be taking counsel from the inside Democratic Wormtongues, Obama may yet seize defeat from the jaws of victory—showing that he is just your typical Dem after all ;-(
        Reply   Posted 11:46 AM on 07/01/2008


    Welfred See Profile I’m a Fan of Welfred
    Oh and running to the left like McGovern was a winning strategy!!!
        Reply   Posted 03:34 PM on 06/30/2008


    Querent See Profile I’m a Fan of Querent
    Great point, Welfred. We must all face the fact that every election is 1972. Even the most superficial of analyses reveals that there is no difference at all between this election and that one. After all, there have been no changes of any significance in our politics or culture since then, let alone our national history. Thanks for understanding that with your penetrating intellect.
        Reply   Posted 04:51 PM on 06/30/2008


    bigbingtheory See Profile I’m a Fan of bigbingtheory
    That was a very different time.
        Reply   Posted 04:34 PM on 06/30/2008


    Marlyn See Profile I’m a Fan of Marlyn
    McGovern went too far to the left. If you will remember, he wasn’t just for ending the war in Vietnam, he was also for getting rid of the Defense Dept. That was even too far left for me.
        Reply   Posted 04:15 PM on 06/30/2008


    j0em0mma See Profile I’m a Fan of j0em0mma
    He doesn’t need to run anywhere. That he is running to the right is a mystery, and pretty damn suspicious.
        Reply   Posted 04:14 PM on 06/30/2008


    meanguy See Profile I’m a Fan of meanguy
    worked for dukakis, right? ooooops….
        Reply   Posted 04:05 PM on 06/30/2008


    speeddeeps See Profile I’m a Fan of speeddeeps
    Come on, he has to do this to this to increase his appeal, just as GWB in 2000, and Billy boy in 1992, so apparently it is not for losers
        Reply   Posted 03:34 PM on 06/30/2008


    AnotherMcIntosh See Profile I’m a Fan of AnotherMcIntosh
    Increase his appeal to who???Are there any independents who are demanding immunity for the telecoms? Or Republicans, who might vote for him, if only he would agree to vote in favor of telecom immunity???Who, other than the top-level neocons, wants immunity for the telecoms?
        Reply   Posted 04:55 PM on 06/30/2008


    Zeje See Profile I’m a Fan of Zeje
    Those are exactly the questions I have been asking. Who wants to be wire tapped? Who wants the Constitution scraped?
        Reply   Posted 07:00 PM on 06/30/2008


    MinuteMan See Profile I’m a Fan of MinuteMan
    The GOPers will find something to twist and use against Obama. However, if he has the support of the left and keeps his reputation as someone above politics intact then their attacks will bounce off him. He appears to be sawing off both of those legs and in leaving himself wide open. I wonder how many of the same “consultants” who helped Al Gore shoot himself in the foot in 2000 are now advising Obama?
        Reply   Posted 11:43 AM on 07/01/2008


    Querent See Profile I’m a Fan of Querent
    The problem with your assertion is that by doing all the wishy-washy political positioning shit, he has actually DECREASED his appeal.
        Reply   Posted 04:52 PM on 06/30/2008


    Jaml3000 See Profile I’m a Fan of Jaml3000
    At least one person gets it…you can’t change anything from the outside. I’m from the South and I tend to always vote democrat, but if someone raped my 6 yr old daughter in a brutal way, I would turn into Samuel L. Jackson’s character in A Time To Kill. Taking a liberal position on issues like this don’t win in the south & midwest. ??Fighting over the 2nd amendment this election would cause an enormous distraction (like gay marriage amendment & the immigration debate), that would only drive most of America away from a “liberal that wants to take their guns away”. Avoiding that issue is the best possible thing to do. We do live in a global economy & will have to trade…his stance on what was unfair about NAFTA & what he would like to change about it hasn’t changed.??On FISA, telecoms are still not FULLY protected, & if the telecoms should be sued, then shouldn’t we be able to sue the Congress that authorized the Iraq War out of fear?
        Reply   Posted 04:42 PM on 06/30/2008


    AnotherTry See Profile I’m a Fan of AnotherTry
    If being the first president to EVER mention gay rights is moving to the center in 1992, what the heck would be going left???Bill Clinton won because he reached out to the base. ??Arrianna is EXACTLY right.
        Reply   Posted 03:58 PM on 06/30/2008


    EvereaderinSC See Profile I’m a Fan of EvereaderinSC
    You have a point about that, AnotherTry. Clinton did come out on gay rights with don’t ask don’t tell for the military. I think he was pretty much grilled for coming out on that and dropped the whole discussion. ?I would add another important point, lots of people, in the wake of his 92 victory kept talking about the importance of his move to the center in the win. But I think more important than that was Bush’s growing unpopularity, read my lips, the floundering economy and equally important, Ross Perot’s taking of 10 percent of the vote, mainly from anyone who would have voted for Bush.?I really think Obama moves away from his base at his own peril. He needs to keep those folks he can count on engaged & not disillusion strong supporters. Appealing to the middle is NOTHING about change. It’s about politics. I understand it, but it disappoints me. It’s not the Obama I saw the night before the SC primary. He had us all on our feet by reminding us this is NOT about politics as usual…??Pete
        Reply   Posted 01:49 PM on 07/01/2008


    fpie See Profile I’m a Fan of fpie
    Amen!
        Reply   Posted 03:32 PM on 06/30/2008

    bigbingtheory See Profile I’m a Fan of bigbingtheory
    The headline says it all. Moving to the middle is for losers. Be left, be proud, screw the rest if they don’t like it. People aren’t afraid of liberalism, they simply abhor a waffler.
        Reply   Posted 03:28 PM on 06/30/2008


    MinuteMan See Profile I’m a Fan of MinuteMan
    Especially when Obama wasn’t all that “left” in the first place. ??This latest tactic just sets him up for a GOP attack that he’s just another finger-in-the-wind politician; it’s a lose-lose proposition.
        Reply   Posted 11:36 AM on 07/01/2008

    mrBlue1 See Profile I’m a Fan of mrBlue1
    All or nothing thinking. Time for some cognitive therapy.
        Reply   Posted 07:30 PM on 06/30/2008

  2. Defender of the general welfare (black and white)

    Dennis Kucinich is as white as they come but his actions and voting record speak for the lower 80% in income level. He speaks truth to power. He has submitted a bill to impeach Dick Cheney. Now we are waiting for frightened black “leaders” such as John Conyers, the head of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, and James Clyburn to have the guts to support this bill and start investigations into the blatantly treasonous actions of our vice president. Kucinich speaks on behalf of disenfranchised people throughout the world, from Palestinians in Gaza, displaced Iraqis in Syria, and refugees in Darfur to Native Americans in the USA. He wants to close the infamous “School of the Americas” where future dictators are trained to crush opposition with fear and brutality. He wants to close Guantanamo and end the occupation of Iraq immediately. He is a self proclaimed dove who finds no need to squander America’s treasures both monetary and human on permanent warfare in foreign lands to capture brown people’s resources for corporate interests. He wants to put Americas’ young people to work on green projects that will liberate us from oil. He wants to guarantee free state college tuition to anyone who wants it. He wants to give us truly universal single payer health care. He wants to abolish NAFTA and CAFTA and all the unfair trade agreements that decimate underdeveloped nations and create our immigration problems. Dennis Kucinich is white but he speaks for the black agenda and the poor agenda and the agenda of peace. He doesn’t even drink the milk or eat the eggs of animals. His devotion to peace and fairness is this deep. Imagine a vegan in the White House. The budget for state dinners would be slashed by 80%. How much does it cost to serve carrots and kale even if you buy the best organic bunch you can find? When you are dealing with someone who has already recognized that health and wealth have nothing to do with caviar and diamonds…you are dealing with someone very different. Someone who could be a true catalyst for Change. Dennis Kucinich offers more than Hope.

    Obama has already made his bed with the corporate fascists and they have paid him hansomely for this favor. He has voted against the people time and again in favor of big business and business as usual. He voted with banks to change the bankruptcy laws. He voted with the fascists to change the surveillance laws. He voted with the corporations to change the tort laws. He has campaigned on the words Hope and Change. He will deliver neither.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Categories

From Punto Press


PuntoPress_DisplayAd_REV

StatCounter

wordpress stats