Obama: Still not worth the support of progressive voters

It's not an excuse, it's reality -

quote:

---

The U.S. budget deficit will widen to a record of about $490 billion next year, an administration official said, leaving a deep budget hole for the next president.

The projected deficit for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 is far higher than the $407 billion forecast by President George W. Bush in February. The official also confirmed a report in USA Today that the deficit this year will be less than the $410 billion estimated in February.

The bigger shortfall for fiscal 2009 may reflect dwindling tax receipts because of the U.S. economic slowdown, the cost of payments distributed under the $168 billion economic stimulus package and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a08O9REm5k9c&refer=h... means they're borrowing around 15% of the budget.[/url] If that's not broken, I don't know what is.

I should add that contrary to the article, not all of the cost of the Iraq war is included in this number - a lot of that is off-budget, so the budget situation won't be massively improved just from that coming to an end.

[ 28 July 2008: Message edited by: Doug ]

Yes, it is important to deal with reactionary attempts to disenfranchise black voters.

And Obama is already forcing the terms of debate in the United States. As Frank Rich noted on the weekend:

quote:

---

The Obama stampede is forcing Mr. McCain to surrender on other domestic fronts. After the Democrat ran ads in 14 states berating chief executives who are “making more in 10 minutes” than many workers do in a year, a newly populist Mr. McCain began railing against “corporate greed” — much as he also followed Mr. Obama’s example and belatedly endorsed a homeowners’ bailout he had at first opposed.

---

[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27rich.html?em&ex=1217390400&e...

Or perhaps he simply wants to be elected President (coincidentally putting himself in the best position possible to combat racism in his country).

No presidential candidate can say, "the U.S. is racist" and hope to win the White House. This seems ridiculously obvious. BY doing so, Obama would provide the Republicans and their complicit media colleagues (who are desperate for this to remain a horserace) with months of ammo.

It's certainly not taboo for Wright or anyone to say such a thing. Of course Wright isn't trying to win a majority in the Electoral College.

I agree that the statement is the truth. I suspect that Obama actually agrees with the statement. But he had to repudiate it. Because "racism is endemic to America" basically means "the U.S. is racist". Nuance and politics/mass media don't mix.

The Wright affair ended in the only way possible for Obama to save face. Obama was being held responsible for each and every word his minister had said in the past or that he would say up to Election Day. Intellectually dishonest? You bet. Inconsistent with the media's treatment of Republicans and the hatemongering* statements of their supporters? Of course. Entirely predictable? Yes.

Obama's real crime is being a politician. And guess what, that's what he is! At the end of the day, he's in this race to win it. And if that means compromising his positions for votes, he'll do it. That's what almost all successful politicians do.

Obama is an imperfect person. But since early in the primaries, I've believed he's the best legitimate presidential choice available. And I don't think it's even close.

(* Please note I'm not suggesting that Wright's statements were hateful - just that the media/Republicans/Hillary were going to spin them as such ad nauseum)

Very interesting thesis by SJ. Obama, to be elected, has to deny that America is racist. McCain, to be elected, can flat out say what he really feels about the world. What utter contempt for the U.S. electorate, suggesting that it is ordinary citizens who demand religious fanaticism, white supremacy, no social benefits, and war and aggression abroad - and the politicians have to cover up their own deep-seated goodness in order to pander to the ignorant backward masses.

It's a terrible historical lie, and what a shame that progressive people with a superiority complex help to perpetuate it.

Here's what I'm wondering: why does the question of America's endemic racism rank as a ballot question in 2008? The only reason issues of race are being given any attention in this election is because of one candidate's skin colour. If HRC had won the Democratic primary, but refused to endorse Wright's premise, then would everyone here be decrying her as loudly as they are Obama.

As far as contempt for the electorate is concerned, that's exactly the media meme that would have resonated re: Obama if he endorsed the "endemic racism" statement. And nowhere did I suggest that the U.S. electorate "demand(s) religious fanaticism, white supremacy, no social benefits, and war and aggression abroad". In fact, I think the results in November will show that that most Americans demand none of the above.

I must have missed the thread where you were appointed as the spokesperson of all Babblers, Robespierre. Congratulations.

For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick. And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency. (Cue the chorus on invading Pakistan, attacking Iran, etc.)

YMMV though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombrero Jack:
[b]I must have missed the thread where you were appointed as the spokesperson of all Babblers, Robespierre. Congratulations.

For me, it's no so much about accepting the boudaries of debate as it is acknowledging the reality that either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick. And contrary to the opinion of many on this board, I believe that an Obama presidency would be substantially more progressive than a McCain presidency. (Cue the chorus on invading Pakistan, attacking Iran, etc.)

YMMV though.[/b]

---

That's silly, no one appointed me to be anything. Most Babblers don't accept the rules laid down by others, especially by the U.S. ruling class, and that is all I said.

You are different. You say that you don't accept the rules of debate but then proceed to endorse one of the two possible choices permitted under those rules. That is such a neat solution, no need to fight for something better, just cast a vote like some kind of zen realist, and you're done.

[i]"...either Obama or McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. Given that choice, I know who I'd pick."[/i]

Don't believe the hype. Now is the best time to reject both McCain and Obama, in words and deeds. You might be dead tomorrow, same as any of us.

[img]http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/225/voterrrrrvy2.jpg[/img]

And here is what Linda McQuaig had to say about Obama. Echoing what many here have already said:

quote:

---

Is it possible that someone within reach of the Oval Office sees that the "war on terror" is rooted in a Washington mindset which has more to do with extending U.S. military and economic power than with protecting America from actual threats?

Sadly, however, most of the time, Obama is resolutely in sync with the existing script prepared by Washington power brokers, not even veering far from the Bush White House.

It's good that Obama opposes torture. But it's a reminder of how low the bar has been set that this seems impressive, rather than just an indication he's not subhuman.

On keeping his options open to bomb Iran, he's just as warmongering as Bush.

On the Israeli-Palestine conflict, he's just as one-sided, keeping all the focus on Israel's right to security, while not mentioning the Palestinian right to be free of military occupation.

Even Obama's much-vaunted opposition to the war in Iraq has morphed into a call to retain a residual force there "to protect our bases," and to redeploy troops to Afghanistan.

Indeed, Obama's enthusiasm for beefing up the fight against the Taliban is a key part of the "change" he wants to bring about – and it has important implications for Canada.

His muscular approach to Afghanistan will unfortunately give new energy to the combat-oriented stance of the Harper government, which is now floating the idea of adding another 200 troops to the Canadian mission.

---

quote:

---

So if we want a stirring rehash of Bush's "war on terror," we'd do well to listen to Obama's soaring oratory. But if we want to actually change the "mindset" of war, we'd be better to heed the less melodious but more insightful words of our own parliamentary committee.

---

[url=http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/468817]Behind Obama's Rhetoric[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[b]Norman Solomon said that Democrats are often more violent than Republicans once they get into office because they think have to try harder to show they aren't soft on the US's enemies.[/b]

---

I'd appreciate it muchly if you could point me towards a link to that comment. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Meanwhile, here's another quote by Solomon from earlier this year:

[url=http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20080406152521862]exce...

Wise Democrats would heed the words of media critic Norman Solomon: "Arguments over whether U.S. forces can prevail in Iraq bypass a truth that no amount of media spin can change: The U.S. war effort in Iraq has always been illegitimate and fundamentally wrong." The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we perpetuate the wrongs we have done, regardless of whether we achieve military success by anyone's measure.

We are uninvited intruders in Iraq. We invaded the country on false pretenses. It's long past time for us to admit that truth and leave. The longer we stay, the longer we tell the world that invasion and occupation are okay with us, and the longer we leave America's moral reputation around the world in tatters. When our troops leave, we will set an example for countries that have occupied, or might be tempted to occupy, other lands. And we can begin to heal from our moral bankruptcy, not to mention our impending financial one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Obama doesn't even think the US is racist. That alone spells out that he either is a) a dimwit b) cozying up to white voters and tossing African Americans aside and c) an opportunistic asshole. Either way Obama looks like a fool.[/b]

---

If he says the US is racist, he's almost saying that he feels he doesn't have a hope of getting elected - and that's not the sort of thing you want to say during a campaign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
[b]

If he says the US is racist, he's almost saying that he feels he doesn't have a hope of getting elected - and that's not the sort of thing you want to say during a campaign.[/b]

---

I'm pretty sure we all get that in order to win a dog and pony show you must say whatever it takes. This is what Stargazer and lots of others here object to, though. We don't accept the rules of the debate, it makes the whole process a fraud, it becomes a gigantic commercial for a new car instead of a campaign to convince voters that you represent their interests better than the other candidate.

I've been carrying on a conversation with a friend in the US, and he's adamant that Obama is far more progressive on taxes than McCain, and while McCain wants offshore drilling and more nuclear power plants built, Obama is for renewable energy sources. Obama is still a warmonger, though, given his stances on Afganistan, Iran, and Pakistan. I can't find anything progressive about McCain whatsoever. I'd still vote Green if I had a vote in the US.

quote:

---

Too many babblers assume that the US electorate are, in their vast majority, political dinosaurs who will vote for the most right-wing candidate they can find.

---

Er, no. But, a) Obama supporters would probably say he supports 4 of those 6 cited positions (Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan for attacking before being attacked; the keeping of Bush's faith-based initiatives programme), and b) a popular vote of the entire US electorate doesn't elect the President (see "Al Gore 2000"). The Presidency is won on a state-by-state basis (not just the progressive Congressional districts), and you can't just rely on liberal voters in the 10 most Democratic states.

Obama has to chase centrist/right-wing voters in some swing states. That's why he's run 3 videos on his YouTube channel in the last 10 days that focus on Colorado. In Colorado, he needs to do well in urban areas (Denver), but he has to do well enough in the rest of the state.

[ 30 July 2008: Message edited by: Willowdale Wizard ]

I thought the Green Party in the US headed by Cynthia McKinney was a solidly progressive party
(unlike the Greens in Canada headed by May).

quote:

---

Obama has to chase centrist/right-wing voters in some swing states. That's why he's run 3 videos on his YouTube channel in the last 10 days that focus on Colorado. In Colorado, he needs to do well in urban areas (Denver), but he has to do well enough in the rest of the state.

---

I know some Colorado Democrats and they haven't been impressed with Obama lately; though I guess he is only trying to impress the Colorado Republicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]I thought the Green Party in the US headed by Cynthia McKinney was a solidly progressive party
(unlike the Greens in Canada headed by May).[/b]

---

It's starting to look that way, seriously is. And, the US Greens are doing the right thing to get their message out by campaigning on a substantially better platform than Obama's so-called progressive platform, and doing it right, freakin' now---not in three years, or ten, or thirteen and a half---or whatever.

The signer's list of that open letter has people on it who I know or have worked with on the left during the last twenty-five years, and they haven't changed one bit. They are still singing that same old mainstream song---never too radical, never to threatening to the status quo.

That letter is pathetic. "We're going to challenge you, Mr. Obama, when you are wrong!"

Yeah, right.

Jeff, what are you offering? Isn't it the same old, same old?

And it anyone is singing the mainstream song it's you, who still holds on to the illusion that the US is actually a democracy.

quote:

---

And YOU are still singing the murderous song of fascists and communists.

---

As are you, with your unwavering support of the murderous thugs in the Whitehouse. I wonder why it is you feel so upset by real change (or fail to see that it could not happen with the same old crap the mainstream politicians spew.)

And seriously, that comment was totally nasty and uncalled for. Not sure what has been eating you up inside but maybe you want to have a look at that.

Oh dear. Well Jeff, that probably hasn't even been the most egregious attack from you in the last few weeks, but I guess it's going to be *the* one.

Multiple suspensions haven't worked, you just come back worse than before with unwarrented personal attacks. Your personal attack debate style is making the board unworkable. It's really some of the good work you do in other areas that has kept you going here as long as you have, when if you were anyone else you would have been gone ages ago.

Given both of our long history here it is in sadness rather than anger that I feel I have to do this, but I think it's time to pull the plug.

I'm very sad as well. People who remember rabble and babble from the origins will recall the crucial role human rights and refugee-defence lawyer Jeff House played in this board playing an important role in refugee and sanctuary issues. I still don't understand why he has gone off on this strange tangent, but I guess that is all it would be polite and appropriate to say.