Daniel Ellsberg: "'Obama Deceives the Public"

[Dawson Leery]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html

"SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?

Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …

SPIEGEL ONLINE: … Such as the arrest, confirmed this week, of an Army intelligence analyst for leaking the "Collateral Murder" video of a deadly US helicopter attack in Iraq, which was later posted online at WikiLeaks.

Ellsberg: Also, the recent US indictment of Thomas Drake.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Drake was a former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA) who provided reporters with information about failures at the NSA.

Ellsberg: For Obama to indict and prosecute Drake now, for acts undertaken and investigated during the Bush administration, is to do precisely what Obama said he did not mean to do -- "look backward." Of all the blatantly criminal acts committed under Bush, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, aggression, torture, Obama now prosecutes only the revelation of massive waste by the NSA, a socially useful act which the Bush administration itself investigated but did not choose to indict or prosecute!

Bush brought no indictments against whistleblowers, though he suspended Drake's clearance. Obama, in this and other matters relating to secrecy and whistleblowing, is doing worse than Bush. His violation of civil liberties and the White House's excessive use of the executive secrecy privilege is inexcusable."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

2. Obama says he will not "look backward.".

But chooses to prosecute this case. Ok

[burnsei sensei]

90. Those who refuse to look back

will get themselves kicked in the teeth by historians and jurists of international law.
And they'll deserve it.

[KoKo]

99. Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers....all those we relied on say: "We will not look backward to the Mistakes

that were MADE."

We have NO Voice! We were hoodwinked believing...but so was Obama!

[wildbilln864]

3. k&r! nt

[joeybee12]

4. Apparwently lots of what was said about this got deleted, so I will only say,

HOPE!!! CHANGE!!!!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

6. So we can back-date prosecutions for releasing info to reporters, but not for actual torturers.

OK, Mr. President.

[Bluebear]

18. .

[Moochy]

38. Atty. General (Bag) Holder

Holder is moving forward looking ahead, while doing that you can't even see anyone from the Bush Administration.

[amborin]

7. super selective 'looking backward'...."Obama....is doing....worse than Bush"

[pundaint]

73. He's not as bad, but he isn't worthy of another vote either.

[lark]

75. Agreed

My time and money will be spent with a challenger who is actually progressive, not just a Repug plant. If there is no progressive challenger at the primaries or general, I will have to vote for him because at least he's Repug lite, but I will hold my nose while doing so.

I am so God damned tired of having to vote for least objectionable.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Thank you Daniel Ellsberg.

I appreciate greatly that you are out there stil trying to hodl people accountable. We need 100s more of you.

[Dawson Leery]

9. kick

[fascisthunter]

10. wow... the wheels are coming off the wagon

or should I say, the curtain has fallen down.

[Skittles]

11. he has never deceived me

or anyone else who was paying attention

[stillwaiting]

14. There are many who need to believe. Absolutely need to, but you're right.

It's been clear from the very, very beginning. I knew for certain with the cabinet selections.

I just don't believe he ever had a choice (or else he just agrees with neo-liberal economic policies and wishes to enact them while giving speeches that placate some portion of liberals/progressives).

[Skittles]

114. I understand how many people needed to believe

but I cannot understand why they failed to listen, really LISTEN to what he was saying

[PassingFair]

122. It was a choice between him and Hilary.

It didn't matter what he was saying.

Sad.

[Dawson Leery]

16. Same here. A few of us were fully aware of what he really stood for.

There are many out there who still believe the hype.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Raine]

25. I'm ashamed to say he deceived me for the first

few months because I wasn't paying attention and wanted/needed so much to believe ... not anymore though and never again. :mad:

[johnaries]

39. No, you only deceive yourself.

[liberation]

42. Uhmmm yeeeeeah.... that didn't sound Orwellian at all...

[SammyWinstonJack]

51. Ah yeah...

:evilgrin:

[Skittles]

113. keep telling yourself that

makes you seem very foolish

[Senator]

45. +1

[Enthusiast]

55. We wanted to believe.

It became a trap. Now we know Obama. I won't fall for the shit again.

[corpseratemedia]

12. if our media won't be focused on this I hope foreign ones will, as it is a grave injustice

with a non-corrupt govt., you protect whistelblowers, you don't prosecute them

[mikelgb]

13. kick for teh DU

[ProSense]

15. This is preposterous.

Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.

The pledge was made before the SOTU. In fact, if he's saying this is a lie and Obama knows it, then everyone who campaigned on full withdrawal from Iraq has been lying, even Dennis Kucinich.

Ellsberg is basically saying that there is no way that the U.S. will leave Iraq. That's is simply an opinion not based in fact given the current situation.

Juan Cole

<...>

Third, the US left wing does not believe that Obama is committed to leaving Iraq. What, they say, of the huge permanent bases, of the need to safeguard US petroleum companies’ operations, etc.? So the left blogosphere magnifies the footdragging reports leaked by elements in the Pentagon.

But there are no such things as permanent bases. You build a base when you need a base, when you are in control or have a willing host. The US is a superpower, but generally speaking bases are bilateral agreements with the host country. When the Philippines asked the US navy to leave in 1989, it did so. The Iraqi parliament has asked the US to withdraw by the end of 2011 and Bush signed that treaty.

<...>

[dorkulon]

20. I guess we'll find out. /nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

17. Hmmm, I'd never heard of Thomas Drake before. Interesting. nt

[Greyhound]

19. I'm sure "nobody could've predicted" that, as the mid-terms rolled up,

giving your base the finger (yet again) by prosecuting whistle-blowers that even your predecessor chose to ignore might not be "prudent at this juncture".
:rofl:

So let me make a "wild guess" here, after the elections the Democrats will be "powerless" to do anything meaningful to help the people for the next two years...

[dorkulon]

21. K&R willful blindness will not do, folks.

What he does is more important than what he says.

[laurel46]

22. why is this guy lying and smearing the president?

I don't call someone out like this too often but this is patently false. Look at the seimens case where a whistle blower got millions. There are more if anyone one does a search, so whats up with this guy? Look for his connections, follow the money and see that the whistle blower awards are plenty. FCPA prosecution is going after criminal corporations. I think this is pure propaganda and I am seeing so much on DU I am suspicious of this site now! Also, an American was assassinated by our friend and many of these magazine writers have close ties. Sheesh, come on people.

There is a lot going on with the war and countries that have attacked us in multiple ways. No wonder we can't get anything done with gullible people attacking Obama who is doing so much for us. Call these a-holes out by fact checking.

[Individualist]

23. Ellsberg doesn't lie. How old are you?

[Bluebear]

27. The Pentagon Papers author now a "lying a-hole" for dissing Obama!

:silly:

[Individualist]

28. Mind boggling, isn't it?!

Something tells me that poster knows nothing about Ellsberg; that's why I asked about her age.

[Dawson Leery]

29. Ellsberg was a few years before my time

and I know very well who he is.

[Individualist]

30. Good for you, Dawson.

:thumbsup:

Unfortunately there are too many people who have no interest in what happened before they were born. They seem to be more into American Idol.

[flyarm]

64. yes I concur..thank you Dawson for caring enough to know this nations history! eom

[flyarm]

63. the age question is an easy one...but what i wonder is ..have any of these types read a damn history

book?? and they have the fucking nerve to call others out??????????

anyone else remember the commerical with the frying pan and the eggs ..and the slogan ..this is your brain????????

[laurel46]

84. hi individualist, I am 46 and a senior research associate from UCLA.

[Bluebear]

24. He's an 'a-hole'! Daniel Ellsberg never really loved Obama!

:cry:

[Autumn]

33. Ellsberg an a-hole ? patently false?

Look him up. Educate yourself. Check your own facts.

[liberation]

34. LOL, it took long enough...

[donco6]

37. Wow. What a . . . silly comment

self deleted, but the sentiment still stands.

[readmoreoften]

40. You people just can't face reality, even when the most venerable of critics speaks.

[Bluebear]

44. She's "calling out" Daniel Ellsberg

:rofl:

[QC]

48. Oh, please. Daniel Ellsberg is not dreamy at all.

He's like, old 'n stuff.

[Moochy]

52. He Can't even Body Surf

[QC]

53. And not even once have we seen him wearing cool sunglasses. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

83. Now that's funny.

Someone said the Obama "haters" wouldn't like hte Obama rap of 'whose ass to kick", I thought it was funny, but this is bitingly funny, thank you. It's sadly true. There's so many questionable actions taken by this WH that are very B*shian, and it's clearly a hero-worship mentality for just a few % in the US who ignore the shameful actions.

I want Obama to be a Democratic & progressive president - he's being corralled into being a centrist, anti-transparency pol either by his DLC team, or he always felt these actions were proper, which many Hillary people warned, but I ignored in switching over from one fraud, potentially to another (Edwards to Big O).

[Moochy]

110. I fully grok where you are coming from,

Edwards Supporter here as well. I could sense the dlc smell on Obama but was willing to go along to get along.

[Mz Pip]

54. I saw him recently

He spoke at my school. He's 80.

However back in the 60's he really was pretty dreamy.

[QC]

61. The 60's? Ewwww! That was, like, you know, like so long ago, you know. n/t

[Enthusiast]

56. LOL!

[Moochy]

111. whats sad about using this as a joke

its one of the coolest images of Obama I've seen...

I have such high hopes for our body surfing president, despite our current cynical and sarcastc slump... :)

[Marr]

59. My goodness-- there's no more room under this bus!

[QC]

62. Fear not! There is room for all under the Hopemobile! n/t

[arcadian]

67. A new bus is being constructed from the debris leftover from the Hope and change rhetoric.

Due to budget constraints, those destined for the underside of this bus will be forced to throw themselves under it when identified.

[Dinger]

92. It's A Crowded SOB, Isn't It? (nt)

[flyarm]

60. Quote:" Call these a-holes out by fact checking"....may i suggest you do some fact checking on who

YOU are calling a-holes!!!!!!!!!


Do you ever do any "FACT CHECKING"..TRY IT ON YOUR BLACKBERRY WILL YA??

Yes, however hard it will be for you.. put your Ipod down and turn off American Idol and do some fact checking on who you are calling an a-hole!

Perhaps you could pick up a history book?????????????

Your age is..let me guess..lol...nahhh..we all know.

[Bluebear]

89. She's 46 and a senior research associate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8532127&mesg_id=8538122

:wtf:

[walldude]

100. Fucking low standards at UCLA these days...

[Bluebear]

121. !

:)

[frylock]

68. read up on the pentagon papers..

try and educate yourself before smearing a REAL patriot.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

70. I'll believe Ellsberg over O ---

any day of the week. Ellsberg had proven himself to be an honest, couragious American.

[Subdivisions]

74. Are you going to respond to anyone above? Well??? n/t

[lark]

78. What has he done for "us"

Truly - what good has he accomplished other than not being as bad as Shrub on most things, but actually worse in others? I'm not trying to be cute, really curious about what someone else could see as so positive when I see so many lost and squandered opportunities.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[truedelphi]

98. Do you even know who Daniel Ellsberg is?

No, I didn't think so.

He was the person who was facing life in prison for blowing the whistle on the unlawful war we had going in Vietnam. Because of him, the Pentagon Papers were released to the press. However due to the fact that back in the day,we still had a (somewhat) free and independent press, he was left alone. (Don't remember if he served any actual time.) While all the rest of us got an education.

He is one of America's great unsung heroes, and those of us opposing the war will never forget him.

[mix]

102. Which "countries have attacked us in multiple ways"? nt

[Bluebear]

109. 'Also, an American was assassinated by our friend!'

:silly:

[mix]

115. an ignorant fantasist,

classic rightwing qualities

[saracat]

124. Do you not seriously know who "this guy" Danial Elleberg is?

And what his career is based on? I am getting a bit fed up with some who think history began in 2008.

[indepat]

26. If one didn't know better, one might start to wonder if BHO is a way-out-in-right field

arch-conservative. :shrug:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

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

[mistertrickster]

97. No, he's simply a Clinton-style democrat who ran as a liberal and sold-out to the

corporatocracy.

He's not as bad as any RepubliCON would be, BUT he's not what he said he was either.

I knew this when I was working my ass off for the man to get him elected.

But I didn't think the stab in the back would come quite so soon and quite so deep, heigh ho . . .

[Greyhound]

119. If it was 1980 he would be. n/t

[G_j]

31. we all know how unpatriotic he was when he leaked the Pentagon papers

Ellsberg makes us all look bad!

:sarcasm:

[Moochy]

35. Did Ellsberg prefer Palin/McCain?

What do you think Ellsberg wants on his pizza?

[laughingliberal]

49. A real DUzy! nt

[Dr.Phool]

58. He tells you himself, right at the top.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html


06/09/2010


Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.

Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?

Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Ellsberg speaks for me.

"I voted for {Obama} and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration."

[flyarm]

66. good one!! eom

[Admiral Loinpresser]

72. No, he would have preferred a Democrat, if available. n/t

n/t

[flyarm]

76. Bada Bing!! ..eom

[dflprincess]

81. Most of us would have.

Maybe in 2012 (I can dream).

[Hawkowl]

95. Ellesberg prefers Mao!!!

He's a filthy commie islamo fascist bastard!

You sir, are..... (insert your preferred insult).

[Hatchling]

86. Definitely unpatriotic!

Why, today that kind of whistle blowing would be properly prosecuted!

:sarcasm:

[Zoroastor]

32. I don't know enough...

...to comment on most of this, but the USCMJ action against the kid who leaked the helicopter murderers video is kind of a stretch to pin on the administration. It's not that the military isn't politically motivated, but a case like this being within the circle of the president's, circle of giving a damn doesn't really pass the sniff test with me. I'm a 17 year vet with combat tours to include Iraq. That wouldn' qualify me much to comment on its own, but let's just say I was in a position to have a feel for these kinds of things and this one doesn't make sense to me.

If, after the fact, we want to criticize POTUS for not pardoning this kid (if he's convicted), that's another issue.

[liberation]

36. I think he meant...

... that the kid who leaked the info was prosecuted, but no one has been prosecuted or no indictments have ensued for the acts captured by the info the kid leaked.

I believe that is the reason why whistle blower laws exist, so people can make a deal to protect themselves from the consequences from releasing the info describing criminal activity. But in order for a deal to exist, the criminal prosecution of the acts leaked must be in place.

[Zoroastor]

108. All true, but...

...the angle the military is going to take hear is the release of classified material, regardless of incriminating content. Look, the way they work, if it was simply an embarrassment issue of being caught doing what they always do, they'd simply make scapegoats of the pilots and all. I'm not sure the whistleblower laws are going to cover this (I think he was a specialist) kid because ALL inflight videos are classified unless vetted for a multitude of things for public release.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is just a loophole to get the young man back for calling 'em out, but I don't think this is an example we can hang on the president's door knob just yet.

[Wilms]

43. dem changes n/t

[The Doctor.]

46. Oh Puh-leaze.

"I knew it! Obama was always evil! Never fooled me!"

Some people need absolutely any excuse to claim he's fulfilled the prophecy of the anti-Christ.

Hey, how's this for a thought; blame him for exactly what he should or should not be doing. :think:

In my OPINION, whistle-blowers should be given some latitude. Some whistle-blowers, like Sibel, have broken no laws. If these guys have broken laws, then they are supposed to face the charges. If someone is breaking a law in order to expose a greater wrong, I personally believe that their motives should be strongly considered. But that doesn't mean the Administration has to turn a blind eye to any possible infractions.

Now, if you want to say Obama is totally caving in on principle by not prosecuting former administration torturers and traitors, then I'm right there with you. But this, "See!!! See!!! He's totally a monster and I knew it all along!" crap is, well... crap. It rings of how the 'right' goes ballistic and screams; "See! We told you! Democrats are corrupt monsters!!!" when they are gifted with a single Democrat caught in a scandal.

The difference?

Wingnuts believe that every specter or shadow of wrongdoing must be the whole picture.


If these guys broke no laws, then wail away, I'll even join you.

[tomp]

47. total crap.

yeah, obama is ONLY caving on principle. i guess you don't get how absurd that sounds. principle is all we have.

selective prosecution is political harassment. everything has to be judged by the fact that he's not going after bush/cheney, inc., and that he is hiding behind state secrets to carry out bush/cheney-like policies.

it is utterly naive to think we should have to change draconian, self-serving, state secrets laws before speaking out about imperialist crimes.

and yes, i knew who obama was when he embraced colin powell. an exposure of the man that was not lost on me.

[The Doctor.]

103. Nice selectivity. Must be convenient to argue by misquoting.

Where did I say he's "ONLY caving on principle", and just when did I insinuate his principles had anything to do with this issue, caving or not?

Oh, I didn't. Twisting and spinning what people say is a wingnut thing... lay off it.



Did Obama order this prosecution? I don't know, but it seems everyone is assuming so out of the need to demonize him.

I'm all for changing "draconian, self-serving, state secrets laws". Unfortunately, so long as there are laws on the books, it is the responsibility of the Executive branch to enforce them.

They teach that in grade school, you know.

As for 'embracing Colin Powell', how the living hell does that 'expose' him? I suppose that, because he's bowed to other world leaders, that means he's 'exposed' himself as believing their ideals, right? :eyes:

Again with the wingnut tactics... really... that's not right around here.

[tomp]

112. i re-read your post and i stand by everything i said.

perhaps you could open your mind to what you read. Here's what you said:

"Now, if you want to say Obama is totally caving in on principle by not prosecuting former administration torturers and traitors, then I'm right there with you."

I take that to mean you agree he is totally caving on principle. I don't see how it could be read any other way. So, when I said, "...ONLY caving on principle," I didn't mean that's the entirety obama was doing. I meant it as MERELY caving on principle, as in, " We,ll if it's JUST principle we're talking about what's the big deal?" It could just as easily have been read that way.....unless, of course, you had made up your mind in advance that anyone who didn't agree with you must be twisting things like a wingnut.

By the way, your cavalier use of the wingnut label is pretty McCarthyesque, and I'm going to ask you to stop it. Then you have the arrognace to suggest that my posting doesn't fit right on du. Check the rules, pal. I'm pretty sure Skinner has clearly said he doesn't want these types of terms thrown around loosely.

Then in this post you say, "...so long as there are laws on the books, it is the responsibility of the Executive branch to enforce them." And I ask you, all of them, or just the ones obama selects? How many laws did bush/cheny, inc. break? I repeat: selective prosecution is political harassment.

As for the Powell issue, well...if you can't see that, you're just fucking hopeless, and much less intelligent than you take yourself to be, and than i initially took you to be.

[liberation]

57. Sorry, but...

This has nothing to do with what whistle blowing laws should or shouldn't be in your "opinion." But what whistle blowing laws ARE FOR.

[The Doctor.]

105. In case you haven't noticed, law is complicated.

It often steps on its own toes.

I'm sorry if you do not appreciate my "opinion" that whistle-blower laws should protect whistle-blowers. Unfortunately, it is a fact that there also exist laws that are designed to safeguard secrets.

Inevitably, these will come into conflict. When they do, it is my hope that those who exposed wrongdoing in the face of great adversity would be vindicated every time.

Now, I'm afraid that due to a certain lack of deliberation I'm seeing in this thread, I'm going to have to start asking a pointed question;

"Should Obama order the justice department not to prosecute someone who may have broken the law?"

[nashville_brook]

79. it's all the italics, bolding and all-caps that make this so persuasive

[liberation]

88. I don't trust any post without links to unrelated articles on the internet...

... or circular links to other posts by the same author saying exactly the same thing. Personal opinions and narratives become the undisputed truth the minute they become link fodder, and you can take that to the bank. (color fonts means it is totally true)

[nashville_brook]

116. blahahahaha!

[Bluebear]

93. indeed. I'm impressed!

:silly:

[nashville_brook]

117. i'm dazzled.

[The Doctor.]

106. Glad you like that. Got another one for you;

"Should Obama order the justice department NOT to prosecute those who may have broken the law?"


And yes, I know... the whistle blower statute is supposed to protect people under certain circumstances. If those circumstances are extant, then does the President have the power to intervene, or is it up to the DoJ to figure it out?

[Bluebear]

120. Like torturers?

[The Doctor.]

123. Obama should order the DoJ not to prosecute torturers? I totally disagree with that.

The question was very straightforward.

"Should Obama order the DoJ NOT to prosecute those who may have committed crimes?"

[laughingliberal]

50. I remember when Democrats fought the right wing to pass and enforce whistle blower protections.

I always thought it was one of the things we stood for.

[asdjrocky]

65. Everyday there's another reason to regret my vote.

[Jackpine Radical]

71. All I have to do is think of McNutso-Palin and my voters' remorse lifts.

Nevertheless, I did not get my pony. I am not happy. I was hoping for something better than marginal changes. In fact, I believe that Obama is in the process of squandering the best chance anyone has had in 80 years to make the massive retooling of our infrastructure this country needs to make in order to survive in the coming years.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

87. That's what breaks my heart the most.

This was in incredible opportunity that has been completely squandered. America was screaming for something truly different. And what we got was either a bunch of same ol', same ol' or, worse, "change" that will may actually push us back (HCR, lifting the OSD ban). :(

What a fucking waste.

[walldude]

101. +1.. this should have been historic.

Obama had a chance to be one of the greatest presidents to ever live. Now he's just another politician... Sad.

[mix]

104. Totally agree.

Time will tell, but this administration has misread the historical moment and is perpetuating the structural rot destroying our economy and democracy at least since Raygun.

A tonal change perhaps, but nothing more.

[The Doctor.]

118. I agree. He may be squandering a vast opportunity.

It does lead me to wonder exactly what he may be dealing with though. If he is only pushing as hard as tptb will allow, then I am very worried about how far gone we already are.

[Divine Discontent]

85. well, like you, I'm disappointed in the WH overall. I won't regret my final vote over McSame, but,

I will certainly do no campaigning like the dozens of people I know I swayed to vote for him despite concerns, and I will not vote for him if we are still in Afghanistan (let alone Iraq) in such a large force kind of way. Yes, there have been good things that he's done, but the negatives are piling up. And they're very unfortunate. Why even WORK at all with the GOP pigs, the moment he had the opportunity to appoint new agency heads for every B*sh-era employee left behind, he should have done it. He said, when he did the recess appt's that the GOP was stalling in voting, no really? Screw the GOP criminals - heck, it seems he's more concerned with those trying to point out their crimes and having them arrested, than going after the ones who perp'ed massive heinous actions from '01-'
09.

I would like a Democratic candidate who is a sound progressive to run against him so we can "waste a $100 million" or so on her/him to send a political message that if he doesn't start being the progressive we HOPEd for, then we just won't vote for him. He's got a lot of the progressives who go out and do ground work and campaign quite disgusted.

[SILVER__FOX52]

80. Every day, a little more of the.......

onion is peeled back. This is disconcerting and almost laughable. Obama, who the fuck are you because you are not the guy I voted for. When you said " change ", I thought you meant for the better. Oh, what fools we are.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[Nothing Without Hope]

94. The oligaarchy rolls on...

...whether the President wears a stupid and craven "Republican" face or an intelligent and charismatic "Democratic" one. The corruption is in place and doing what it was designed to do: feed the wealthy and powerful and promote their schemes to do ever more of this.

[Mithreal]

96. oiligarchy too

Who needs sea turtles or clean air and clean water anyway?

[Jefferson23]

107. How sad, and how the MSM ensures Obama will not be called out, they

have idiots like Ed Henry from CNN to ask all those tough questions.


Thanks Mr Ellsberg.