Change we could believe in?

[David Zephyr]

Obama's Cabinet Posts: 75% Men to 25% Women.

Obama's Secretary of Secretary of Health and Human Services? Tom Dashle a lobbyist for the healtcare corporations along with his career lobbyist wife, Linda.

Obama's Secretary of Defense? George Bush's choice for Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

Obama's Secretary of Interior? Ken Salazar, a man in the pocket of the mining industry and the agricorps and who was a cheerleader for the corrupt Gayle Norton at Interior.

Obama's Choice to "heal" the nation and to bring "unity" at his Inauguration? An anti-gay bigot who has used his power, money and influence to whip up hatred against gay and lesbian Americans.

That's not "change".

Karl Rove and Dick Morris would be proud.

[Mari333]

1. Its not looking up, thats for sure.

a huge *sigh* is all I can muster.

[mike_c]

2. same as it ever was- that's what Americans get for voting for a slogan....

eom

[BlooInBloo]

3. I'm sorry your horse lost.

[paulk]

11. actually

Mr. Zephyr was one of the biggest Obama supporters on the board...

[BlooInBloo]

19. Oops - my error then.

[tomp]

35. yeah, you're full of 'em. nt

[yardwork]

44. Not the first!

[BlooInBloo]

46. And not the last.

[McCamy Taylor]

85. Obama is exactly as advertised. Mr. Zephyr should have voted Hillary if he wanted Gay and Lesbian

rights and health care and progressive causes and no compromises with the right to be on the agenda. Obama made not bones about being a more moderate and a more conciliatory and a less in your face candidate that Hillary. He was also less of a gay rights advocate. Hillary has been surrounded by lesbians for years.

People should pay attention to what the candidates say and not what they wish that they candidates would say or what they think they must believe because of their demographics. I suspect that a lot of whites who do not know any Blacks took one look at Obama and said "Ooo. He must be progressive." Because he was young, and mixed race and grew up in another country. And so they did not listen to him.

I am perfectly happy with Obama. He is going to be LBJ all over again except no Vietnam War. Just let him do what he was elected to do.

[scarletwoman]

88. You've got to be fucking kidding. What evidence do you have that Hillary "obliterate them" Clinton

is one whit more "progressive" than any other mainstream Dem?

Was it her brave stance against the Iraq war? Oh, wait...

Was it her outspoken opposition to the Kyle-Lieberman resolution? Oh, wait...

Yeah, a real "in your face" progressive. :eyes:

She's nothing special, she's just another pol like the rest of them.

Hillary supporters were doing just as much projecting of their own desires on HRC as Obama supporters were doing with Barck -- maybe even more deleteriously, since so many of them went totally nuts when she lost the nomination.

What we're getting with Obama is no different than what we would have gotten with Clinton. The problem is, many of us hoped for better.

sw

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

92. there are a lot of people who voted for Obama

in the primaries who weren't listening to what he was saying.

or not saying....

[jonnyblitz]

18. he was a hardcore Obama supporter in the primaries

believe me, I know, because he used to jump our shit for criticizing Obama over McClurkin in the GLBT forum. I thought he was one of the biggest Obama KoolAId drinkers around. so you are WRONG.

[PurityOfEssence]

51. Once again, serially toxic and consistently wrong

David's been a very strong supporter of Obama since early winter and has done so honorably in the face of what for him are very personal and sincere soft spots: the McClurkin crap and Mr. O's latent warmaking. He hasn't shied away from disagreeing on policy issues and tactical moves that irk him, but he's faced the opposition quite squarely and held true to Obama when many were quite unpleasant.

This contrasts nobly and starkly with your vitriolic hectoring and knee-jerk accusations of racism to those opposed to Mr. Obama at virtually every turn upon your arrival here last spring. At least that tack has been dropped.

Using reactionary sneers of this sort are de rigeur and are the rhetorical equivalent of accusing one of being a whiner. Besides, wiseguy: his horse won.

At least get it straight. David's been a very obvious and vocal advocate here, and you've been very present and engaged since arriving; this leads one to believe that, like many sanctimonious hecklers, you are too wrapped up in your own views to even PAY ATTENTION TO OTHERS.

It's been a fun run for those who have dismissed any failings of Mr. Obama and slagged any dissent, but anyone who demands binary thinking with this man is going to have to dance a mighty elaborate ballet to hold the line. We have a right and even a duty to hold him to account, and doing so is not disloyalty; only binary, lockstep simpletons would conclude that.

[David Zephyr]

63. You are a stand up guy, POE.

You didn't need to do that, but you did. Thanks.

[QC]

81. Excellent! n/t

[Idealism]

4. Way to not be superficial

Good job providing evidence of your claims, too.

I give it an "A" for effort.

[David Zephyr]

21. Factual.

Every single one of the four points I give are factual.

If you'd look into each of those statements, you'd find that beyond the superficiality of idol worship, there are some of us actually keeping score.

[Idealism]

27. So where are your reliable sources

If this information is factual (being in the pocket of this industry, etc)?

Your "keeping score" doesn't serve you so well if you think Gates is a loyal Bushie. The guy has publicly disagreed with the handling of Iraq, was outspoken about scaling down troop numbers, and has chastised the Bush regime's horrible handling of VA Hospital maintenance.

Those, sir, are facts.

[EFerrari]

49. Gates is an Iran Contra criminal. n/t

[dflprincess]

73. But Gates supports Obama's plan to escalate in Afghanistan

so he was probably kept on to help continue the policy of endless war.

[Joe Fields]

80. You also believe that Cerberus is an honorable corporation who

didn't hold the American people hostage in the auto bailout issue. Do you ever do any research on a subject? I have cause to wonder.

[Greyhound]

48. So, because you've not been paying attention and are, apparently, too lazy to look it up yourself,

it is incumbent on every poster to endlessly re-post years of evidence, articles, and decisions?

Nice try.

[glitch]

57. Perfect, that does seem to be the mentality behind the "link, please"

I used to provide, then it clicked that it might also be a forum bottle-necking technique.

[Greyhound]

59. There are several coteries here that specialize in this "strategy"

Can't name names of course, but they are easy to spot.

I used to do it myself until I learned that they don't look at the links or even the text when I tried posting that because I thought they might just not know.

Occasionally there are some genuinely curious people that do indeed appreciate it and I am happy to oblige, but when the same people do it over and over it is clear they are simply feigning ignorance to avoid acknowledging the lack of substance in their argument.
:kick:

[glitch]

61. Agreed. The sincere requesters are easy enough to spot, -- they're not rude. :) nt

[mitchtv]

5. K& R

:kick: #2

[cliffordu]

6. I'm thinking we should just crap all over the president-elect

'Specially since he's not really in office yet.

Of course all the crappers are experts and he's not.

[mitchtv]

7. He just dropped one on my community

200 katie Courics worth

[cliffordu]

10. keep watching.

I get the feeling he's still playing chess, not checkers.

We'll see.

[mitchtv]

14. yeah, I get it

But no sale this time. I'm strictly wait and see from the sidelines

[cliffordu]

16. And so aren't we all.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

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

[NJmaverick]

8. I agree, Karl Rove and Dick Morris are proud of your hit job

hell you smeared a great and honorable man, and they didn't have to do a thing.

[readmoreoften]

67. And Rove is pleased with his choice of Warren to divide the base.

"Great and honorable man." WTF are you smoking? He's a politician, ya servile, anti-democratic POS. He seems like a nice guy. His speech writer is great. And he's a politician not the fucking second coming.

[Skittles]

12. no surprise here

[Celeborn Skywalker]

13. That's just ridiculous.

To compare him to Karl Rove and Dick Morris is just way over the top.

[tinrobot]

15. Yeah, and he's gonna live in the same house as George Bush!

Whatever.

[notesdev]

17. Makes you wonder

whether voting is just a charade... no matter who wins 90% of everything stays the same. These days I wonder whether DC has an agenda of its own, separate from that of the electorate.

[scarletwoman]

24. Wonder? Everything you just posted is actually exactly how it is. Wonder no more.

The Who had it pegged long ago: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

sw

[DerekG]

20. Q: What's the best kind of Emperor?

A: No Emperor.


Politicians are not to be trusted.

[readmoreoften]

68. I second that motion.

[scarletwoman]

22. k&r And that's not even getting to his economic team!

I opposed Hillary Clinton in the primaries with every ounce of my being because I wanted to make SURE that the DLC wouldn't run the executive branch again. I was so relieved when Obama finally came out on top -- "the end of the Clinton machine!" I thought, "Hooray!"

I naively thought that Obama would bring in a whole new team -- a "Chicago machine" to replace the Clinton machine. New blood, new ideas -- you know, "change".

I was never deluded into thinking that Obama was any kind of progressive, I just was "hoping" that since he wasn't exactly an entrenched part of the DC culture, that there was a chance for some new approaches.

Hoo boy. Did I ever get punked.

Oh well. I already knew that electoral politics was a scam designed to keep the proles convinced that "voting" actually accomplishes anything. But I thought I'd give it one more shot -- just in case all the folks going gaga over Obama were right and I was just being too cynical.

Obviously, I wasn't fucking cynical enough.

sw

[Lorien]

25. That's pretty much what my dad said to me recently too

and he made the maximum donations allowable to Obama on his fixed income!

[scarletwoman]

32. I'm sorry for your dad, that sucks. I imagine he's upped his cynic meter now. (nt)

[David Zephyr]

31. I like you, scarletwoman.

And you might has well signed your post David Zephyr because I feel the same way. :hi:

[scarletwoman]

34. Thanks! I like you, too! I'm really grateful for your post, because it provided the perfect context

for me to make my post.

I'm proud to be in your company. :hi:

sw

[BigBearJohn]

53. You are not alone, ScarletW

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. I was plenty cynical but the very thought of McPalin freaked me the fuck out!

I could have stayed home on election day, since I am in Texas, I didn't. Maybe next time I will. :shrug:


As far as obama's corporate cabinet picks go, I just keep remembering what Edwards said:


I think if you give them a seat at the table, they'll eat all the food.

[TBF]

64. Same here, sw, many of us didn't do our homework. Still it is ridiculous

that we should be expected to look at these cabinet picks and rejoice. I'm with you.

[scarletwoman]

83. I don't know, I don't think it was so much of "not doing our homework" as not having any reasonable

alternative.

I only started rooting for Obama when all the other competitors besides Clinton had been eliminated. I was adamantly opposed to Clinton, so my support went to Obama by default.

In the general election, I wasn't particularly thrilled with Obama, but there weren't any other choices left except voting for Mc Cain (NEVER!) or not voting at all. I already knew I didn't like alot of was I hearing from Obama, but the alternative of McCain was so much worse.

As I posted somewhere else, my intention was to get Obama elected, and then gear myself up for a constant fight.

sw

[readmoreoften]

69. Yup. Not nearly cynical enough.

If Obama had a wonderfully 80% progressive cabinet, I might entertain this Warren crap as a "good-hearted misstep." This guy is as establishment as it comes. I realized it before the election because neocons like Kagan were cheerleading his aggressive interventionist foreign policy speeches at CFR promising to 'protect American interests', expand the war into Pakistan, and grow the troops numbers in Afghanistan. I also saw that the only difference between him and Clinton was that his money came from 1) Financial Industry and 2) Health Insurers while Clinton's was 1) Health insurers and 2) Financials.

Some fucking choice in America. I realized that Clinton was the Devil I knew, representing herself as the Devil I knew and that Obama was the Devil I didn't know, representing himself as a progressive messiah. After that, I was actually promoting my last choice, least favorite politician over the devil I didn't know. In the end, I'm glad he won because now he's outing himself for what he is and at least some people are getting it. If he lost, he'd be the perennial messiah that could've been. UGH.

My big "hope" is that he shows his true intentions fast and that everyone left of center-right gets angry and demands REAL politicians with PLATFORMS and OLD-FASHIONED PARTISAN PERSPECTIVES such as "I support public schools" and "I support abortion" and "I represent the interests of the workin' man and woman, etc. etc."

[scarletwoman]

84. Honestly, I never once thought that Obama was "representing himself " as a progressive.

What I saw -- and it bothered me no end -- was legions of progressives projecting all their hopes and dreams on him. I knew they were fooling themselves.

I never saw him as anything other than a more competent manager of the Empire than what we'd had for the last 8 years.

sw

[stillcool]

23. Same old, same old......

I think it's funny how people expected Obama to change everything all by his lonesome. Appoint all the 'right' people according to the 'right' persons view. All of Washington DC, the Pentagon, will cease to exist as it does right now. We will cease being an empire because Obama will decree it from on high. The Defense Industry, and all the other multi-national corporations, and all the politicians that represent their issues, will stop the way they do business every day in every corner of the world, and just agree to do the right thing by the American people. No pressure at all will be needed from anyone other than Obama to have every representative from every state to do what is right and just. And we can all sit back and watch it play out on the tv, all the while pissing and moaning about the 'unfairness' of CNN in the production quality of our delusional world.

[scarletwoman]

29. Plenty of us had no such expectations, we knew we'd have to keep on his ass from the get-go:

I've got this plan, see? What I'm gonna do is work like a sumbitch to get Obama elected and then once that's accomplished I'm gonna turn his life into a living hell...

I recommend you read the whole thread.

sw

[stillcool]

38. You know...I think it's a beautiful thing...

with some exceptions, to see the push-back against Obama's choice of Warren. I would hope that every single person who has expressed their outrage here, has also emailed or phoned their own representatives to ask them to speak to Obama and relay that outrage, as well as the Inauguration Committee..surely those leaders have his ear, as well as various other places..change.gov, etc. But..Obama's choice of Cabinet members? I understand expressing disagreement, not liking someone. But I don't see how that correlates with "Is this the change you voted for"? I didn't vote for a cabinet pick.

[scarletwoman]

40. "I didn't vote for a cabinet pick." Huh?

You voted for the head of the executive branch, which includes the cabinet.

I voted for a guy who was supposedly all about "change". Taking him at his word, I expected that his cabinet would consist of people who would also reflect his theme of "change".

Instead, what we've gotten are largely a bunch of neo-liberal Clinton re-treads. In other words, not much in the way of "change" at all.

sw

[stillcool]

43. Well...I didn't realize...

that I got a say in the cabinet. I guess the way you think he should go about bringing the change that you want, and his idea about the things he needs to do to help facilitate that change are two different things.

[scarletwoman]

45. Look, I've read your other post where you said you were "ignorant" about what these agencies do,

and who those people are. That being the case, I see no use in continuing a debate with you.

You can come back and argue with my assessment of his cabinet picks when you actually know something about who they are and what their policy positions are.

sw

[stillcool]

47. Oh..you know what the Secretary..

of the Department of Energy does? You know what that job entails? Do you think that person's own policy positions on energy makes he/she incapable of performing the job that the President wants them to do? Listen you don't like so and so, that's fine. Have at it. I'm sure it will do wonders.

[Maven]

30. I think your way of putting it doesn't give Obama enough credit.

He made these choices. He chose to keep Gates, he chose an architect of the AIG bailout to run the Treasury, he chose a healthcare lobbyist to run HHS, he chose a homophobic, misogynist bigot to deliver his invocation.

No one expected him to get results ASAP with all the country faces at the moment, but these choices, and what they mean for how his presidency will run, were his to make.

[David Zephyr]

33. He made those choices.

Exactly.

[scarletwoman]

36. Well said. I'm all for giving Obama credit where credit is due -- HIS choices.

:thumbsup:

[stillcool]

37. Yes he did...

Embarrassing to say, but I'm ignorant about the jobs these people are appointed to do, and I'm equally as ignorant about who most of the people are that have been appointed. I will get around to reading up on them maybe..maybe not. When the reading comes with lots of bluster I tend to dismiss it. I'm thinking about narrowing my field of interest so that I might have a better understanding about one of these Government Agencies, rather than next to nothing about all. As far as the Warren choice, I did not realize that was part of the Cabinet choices, and the 'change' we were all supposed to somehow take part in.

[ProSense]

26. I don't think Karl Rove and Dick Morris would be proud of

this

But if saying so makes you feel better, OK.

[soulcore]

28. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. n/t

[slay]

39. I'm glad someone is willing to say it

Because it needs to be said. When people ask me why I don't think the Democratic party is liberal when we have a *wink-wink* "liberal" in Obama - the reasons you posted are exactly why. Color me unimpressed. This is NOT change and everybody knows it. I'm still willing to give him a chance - I mean what other choice do we have now honestly. The facts are clear though - this is NOT change, not so far, and is honestly very disapointing. This was/is our big chance to really change things. If ever there was a time for REAL CHANGE this is it.. so.. um.. where is the change??? Sigh.. :shrug:

[scarletwoman]

42. I'm really grateful, too. You know, all this "unity and healing" crap we're currently being flogged

with -- I keep thinking, "How about a little unity and healing with the LEFT?" WE'RE the ones who have been shoved aside and derided and belittled for DECADES, even though WE'RE the ones who have right about issue after issue.

But we're just a bunch of dirty fucking hippies -- nowhere near as important to cater to as a misogynist bigot snake oil salesman. I've had it with the Democrats.

sw

[dflprincess]

76. We need to resurrect the Farmer Laborites

I'll bet there's more of them in the state (and the party) than the DFL would ever admit.

[scarletwoman]

82. It's a wonderful idea -- I just wonder how many are still around. We've gotten so far away from

the old progressive and populist strains in Minnesota politics. My dad is a diehard union man, but he's 82 years old -- how many like him have already died out?

We're living in a world with no sense of history or community, surrounded by people completely seduced by the shallow commercial world of TV. People who have no sense of "the commons", who have no sense of community or care for the common good.

I know there's still good-hearted people about, fighting the good fight -- but so many have been seduced into believing the corporatist paradigm.

sw

edited to add: Several weeks ago -- back in November or October, MPR did a piece on genetically modified sugar beets, featuring interviews with beet farmers in the Red River beet growing area. It was extremely disheartening. Farmer after farmer talked about how they felt they had to switch to the GM beets, because the yields were so much higher -- that the only way they could really make their farm pay was by giving in to planting the GM variety. If they didn't switch, they wouldn't be able to compete with the farmers who were planting the GM beets.

There was no lone voice saying, "Forget it, I refuse to give in." -- I kept waiting for one, as I listened in horror. No, they all gave in, because they sincerely believed that it was the only way they could survive.

[leftofthedial]

41. you go.

I can't post this kind of comment any more. The local chapter of Intellectually Dishonest Goons for the Obama (IDGO) get my threads locked because they fear the truth so much.

It is not change. It is the status quo. Don't forget IMF, Fed, Wall Street Geithner either.

[Sanctified]

50. Did you vote Obama or McCain?

I voted Obama and I am quite pleased with him over the alternative thank you very much.

[scarletwoman]

54. Try reading the rest of the thread. David was a passionate Obama supporter all through the primaries

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. David I can only hope that these appointments are for the same reason

as FDR's

His were also friends of Wall Street and all that happy...

So I can only hope that we will be pleasantly surprised

But we cannot live on hope alone.

[David Zephyr]

62. I am a life-long student of FDR. What you say is true, but he was pushed by an active Left & Eleanor

FDR, whom I admire with some exceptions, did appoint many of his friends, long entrenched within the establishment and Wall Street. Unlike Obama, he came from that class, although the Roosevelts were among the poorer of the rich in Hyde Park, and this was the only crowd that he really knew. Obama is not hamstrung by that same limitation. He can pick from a broader base than Franklin could. So in this, times are different.

Also, FDR understood that socialism was not just sweeping the entire world, but that it had very great popularity here in the good old U.S.A. Even Woodrow Wilson's "Palmer Raids" that imprisoned the Wobblies and anarchists and deported great progressives like Emma Goldman had not changed that powerful movement within our beloved country.

The Left was as outspoken and far more prone to direct action than electoral action back in that time. This pushed FDR to make more concessions than I think he was inclined to make.

Moreover, Huey P. Long was giving FDR fits with his neo-socialistic populism from down in Louisiana and had hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of supporters which threatened Roosevelt from the Left and from the working class.

And finally, Eleanor, who is truly my hero of that time, was a consistent force in pushing Franklin more and more to the Left economically and socially.

So, Obama will need us to keep his feet to the fire just as the Left kept Roosevelt's feet to the fire and it might be helpful for him to have political opposition from the Left electorally too so that we are not taken for granted. And we can only hope that Michelle might also push Barack to not be so willing to compromise with the Establishment which he now seems comfortable doing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Correct, why we need to keep pushing and be willing to be more than just

net citizens and take to the streets if need be, or rather when it becomes obvious we need to

[DerekG]

78. "Obama will need us to keep his feet to the fire..."

Obama's not my friend, nor is he my ally. I don't care what's helpful for him. What I want is immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, universal health-care, and economic justice. If Obama stands in the way of this, he can go to Hell.

[newtothegame]

55. At least he looks different though, right?...

I mean that was the big draw for most DU'ers.

[OwnedByFerrets]

56. Great Post David. I am sorry we are having to

experience this. I have to say, I expected better.
I have tried to find the source and cant locate it, but immediately after Clinton was sworn in, someone took him to the side and said "I know the policies you ran on, but HERE is how things are really going to go". I am paraphrasing, but what was meant was, you now belong to us and will do things our way. I am so afraid that "they" didn't wait till inauguration day to tell BO this time.:evilfrown:

[glitch]

58. Remember his acceptance speech? How grave he looked.

I don't even think they waited for that, I think they gave him that talk once the returns were in.

[readmoreoften]

70. If you look at what his platform was, I don't think this was any surprise to him.

He wanted to keep No Child Left Behind. After he beat Clinton up with NAFTA, he "rethought it." He said his ideas about Iraq were fundamentally the same as Bush. He said he had no ideology, no core beliefs, and just wanted "unity". He promised to EXPAND faith-based funding. He wanted to increase the overall troop numbers, and pull out of Iraq to go full force in Afghanistan and move into Pakistan if necessary. I mean, he PRAISED REAGAN. I think that was misconstrued as "he wants to be the Progressive Reagan." My take was "He has no ideology. He has no political beliefs. He just wants to be popular."

Arghhh. Well, the game was rigged any way you look at it. As someone who believes the votes were stolen in 2000, 2002, 2004, and (in some cases) 2006, I'm really not sure how they couldn't rig the central tabulator produce an Obama loss. Frankly, I think there is two sets of "theys". I think there is the Republican "they" and then I think there is the "they" who wants to control both parties.

[TheWatcher]

65. Shhhh. You might Anger The Rose Colored Bunny Brigade.

You just don't get it, do you David?

It's all about blind faith, belief without question, ignoring anything negative, feeling good, terminal happy hope, false paradigms, and not ruining the "rush of victory" now that the "football team" has won.

:sarcasm:

You will of course be skewered by those who subscribe to the above, but those who are willing to see with more open eyes Thank You for your post, and Thank You for speaking up.

[book_worm]

71. Obama will bring great change despite what some on DU think.

[LibDemAlways]

72. When I heard he was keeping Gates, I knew we were

screwed. Unlike you, I supported Edwards early on and never completely warmed up to Obama, though I did vote for him.

People on the left took Obama at his word when he said he was an agent of change. So far, I'm not seeing it. His decision to include Warren just added insult to injury.

When did the repukes ever reach out to the other side and have a policy of inclusion? Never. And it will never happen. Obama's pandering to a bunch of criminals will get him exactly nowhere with them while alienating his base. Not at all smart.

[dflprincess]

74. I agree with most of what you said - I don't agree that we on the left

took Obama at his word that he was an agent of change. I think most of us were paying enough attention to know he wasn't and voted for him only because he wasn't McCain. Once the MSM succeeded in whittling the race came down to Clinton or Obama I pretty much dropped out of any activity in the presidential race and stuck to local races.

[LibDemAlways]

79. I personally didn't see him as an agent of change either, but

he certainly convinced a large number of voters - and many right here on DU.

[stillcool]

90. I think Obama consistently said..

that 'change' comes from the bottom up. That there is no "change" without pressure from we the people. You're right that things will not change. I believe that 'change' needs legislation, and as long as the people are polarized the people's representatives can join in the fun, and at the same time give away what's left of the store. There is nowhere near the support needed to go up against what we are up against.
Peace.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/index.html@sort=title_tagline.html#org
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Pfffft

No, seriously, pffffft.

[JanMichael]

77. No no no no! It IS real "change"! It is! Hope hope hope!

It is all just the actions of a preternatural superman marxist! You're just to stupid to get it. This is what Change and Hope meant all along!

Blah blah blah blah blah....at least they had cool bumper stickers!

[McCamy Taylor]

86. duplicate

[McCamy Taylor]

87. If you read my journals from the primary, I was extremely critical of the way that Obama Team

ran their campaign against Hillary Clinton. I believed that it was unnecessarily divisive and ran the risk of fracturing the party in the general---and throwing the election to the Republicans.

However, Obama proved to be an excellent general election candidate, and he has handled the post election skillfully, considering the mine field that the Bush Administration has laid for him. In particular, his cabinet choices are ideal for the purpose of persuading Congress to pass some very important but controversial legislation, on par with LBJ's Medicare, Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.

We can expect the 41 GOP Senators to try to filibuster health care reform, election reform and economic stimulus measures in hopes of getting corporate contributions for the 2010 war chest. People like Daschle, Biden and the others will help Obama persuade Congress to pass legislation the way that Humphrey helped LBJ pass his landmark legislation.

Obama is a man with a plan. Some of the steps look a little awkward, but if you look at the big picture, it all makes sense. If there is a single goal, it must be to reverse the 20 year trend of rising income disparity which has lead to a host of problems such as depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug use, diminished self esteem, early death from chronic disease, domestic violence which affects everyone gay and straight. All of society's other problems---including our tendency to fear those of other races, sexual orientations, religions--become exacerbated when we live in economic hardship. Economic justice must come first, before you can expect people to open their hearts to love, because when people are sick or hungry, they only know misery and resentment.





Read "St. Francis" by Leonardo Boff. Yes, we need to love each other. But anyone who says that their hurt feelings at being called a name are as painful as the swollen belly of a chronically starving child who will never know what it means to eat a full meal has never been hungry.

[MH1]

95. Well said.

and especially because you definitely were a hard critic of Obama during the primaries.

:applause:

[tritsofme]

89. A politician not living up to all of his lofty campaign rhetoric?

Stop the presses!

Honestly, people are surprised?

[stillcool]

91. I think the problem is..

that he is living up to his "lofty campaign rhetoric". I guess this is what happens when people don't listen.

[earth mom]

94. Guess I could say I told you so. I spent months trying to enlighten people around here

and all I got was grief for it. I even got a warning last month for the first time in 4 years of posting on DU.

That said, I don't feel good about being right. Rather, I am just so damn frustrated & irritated by the whole frickin thing.

As Edwards said, Clinton & Obama are BOTH Status Quo.

Change is meaningless to them. :argh:

[scarletwoman]

98. "Clinton & Obama are BOTH Status Quo." True that. The problem is, when those were the only 2 choices

left, what was a Dem voter to do?

I will always be Kucinich first. But it's obvious that the powers-that-be will NEVER let him anywhere near the presidency. Once Kucinich was out, I threw in with Edwards, who at least talked a good game.

I was part of the very vocal Edwards cohort here, desperately trying to get heard above the persistant noise of the Obama/Clinton crowds -- but it was no use, Edwards simply got no traction at all with the voters, much less DU.

And at this point, given the subsequent revelations about Edwards that definitely call his overall character and integrity into question, I can't exactly regret that he got pushed out. He might have turned out to be big phony -- saying one thing but doing something totally different.

I was very wary of Obama -- I wrote some scathing posts about my first impressions of him. At the same time, I was adamantly opposed to Clinton -- I had started speaking out against her presidential ambitions from the time she was elected to the Senate.

It absolutely confounded me that any self-proclaimed "progressive" would want a return of the Clinton machine to power -- the whole neo-liberal, "Third Way", DLC bloc that set us up to begin with.

And that was the conundrum -- getting Hillary out of the running meant having to support Obama. That's what it came down to for me. And it seemed worth the chance -- Clinton was clearly an Establishment Dem, while Obama, seemingly a Beltway outsider, was a relatively unknown factor. Maybe he really was something new and different.

So, I reluctantly joined the Obama side, because he was the only defense against a Clinton nomination. And it was definitely exciting -- he ran a brilliant campaign. It was fun to root for a winner for a change.

I'm well aware that many DUers were warning against Obama -- but I couldn't see how there was any choice at that point. It was either Obama or Clinton -- and I absolutely knew that I didn't want Clinton.

The lesson from this, I think, is that elections are just a distraction from the real work that needs to be done. NO ONE is going to ascend to the position of "Leader of the Free World" (tm) unless they are ready and willing to accomodate the desires of the Powers-That-Be.

What we won with Obama was a more competent manager for the Empire, nothing else. But we had no real choice in the first place.

sw

[LWolf]

96. You forgot

Obama's Secretary of Education, known to Chicago educators as,

"Privatizer, Union Buster, and Corporate Stooge."

:grr:

[Romulox]

97. You forgot the neoliberals: Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee, and Larry Summers

Obama has surrounded himself with "free trade" zealots, Wall Mart defenders and neo-liberals. I don't see Warren as a "last straw", but rather just another point on a well established path.