"Barack, I Want to Believe" By David Sirota (a good read)

An excerpt:



READ MORE:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=AD079A9C-E0C3-F084-D9837A691BAD316A

If Senator Obama were to address the issues raised here head on, he would immediately bring out ALL the big guns of insurance and probably health care as well. His destruction would probably be swift and sure, and would bear no apparent relationship to the issues surrounding our health care problems. If you thought the swift-boating of Kerry was despicable, I suspect that what they may try to do to Obama will make Kerry's difficulties look like a lark.

I wish I could be more optimistic.

But it's not likely he'll be able to address the problem if he doesn't get elected. But perhaps you'd just prefer to seen him crucified prematurely?

I asked you a question, based on your reply to me.

Civility.

It's a good thing.

And you might get a more civil response. You asked the question as if you were attacking me for expressing an opinion. I guess I should apologize for responding in kind, though. This may be why communication via the web is so imperfect--we misread others' intentions.

:rofl:

"I wish I could be more optimistic."

I wish you could, too.

I agree with Sirota.

Obama is treating important issues with temerity. Why? Who knows. I don't care why. I only care that he doesn't seem to be the kind of guy I want in the White House.

I want a person in the White House who has intelligence to make informed decisions, the guts to go against popular opinion, and the self-assurance to stick to his guns when he knows he's right. Obama ain't that guy right now. He's flapping in the breeze, invoking gawd at the drop of a hat, pandering to the moderates, the Republicans, the religious wackos. He'll never get to be my candidate that way.

I agree 100% with Sirota's analysis.

in this party realize that compromising our values in order to win just leaves us in the same position. We still have to compromise with the king-makers once in power and then we get nothing done. Was B. Clinton able to turn his back on the health insurance industry and give us universal health care? No. Was he able to turn his back on mining concerns and give us a federal lands policy that made mining fees in line with mining profits? No. Was he able to turn his back on corporate interests and make sure that workers were able to exercise their right to organize? No.

There is no third way. You go Sirota.

Someone with vision, and drive.

This is my fear about Obama, and Sirota described it well.

I hope we decide to go for real improvements, but I fear we are too...afraid. :(

Just ask Neville Chamberlain's ghost.

:thumbsup:

n/t

I believe he will be the vice presidential candidate and will be an emissary for the U.S. and bring peace in many situations where there is strife.

:thumbsup: But I cringe and quake at the thought of him as President.

After reading the text of Obama's announcement speech, I have no doubt his eyes are wide open to what it will take to bring this country back out of the dark ages Bush et al. has sent us to.

Obama's message today was the complement to the message of the "State of Black America" forum on CSPAN today. Faith must be accompanied by action to realize it. Too many people want to just sit back and believe that things will be righted because you wnat them to be. The simplest way to act is to just vote or to volunteer. Those who have been lulled into complacency or bullied into silence need to be taught that they have the capability to be personally effective--that there is power in their voice and in using it to claim their rights as citizens.

and talked about the corrupting power of corporations and lobbyists, I would say the author's criticisms are a lot of uninformed bullshit. He doesn't know Barack Obama or understand his message.

Obama was a civil rights lawyer and community organizer. I think Obama understand better than any candidate in decades the importance of movements in changing America. Who the hell is this guy to tell Obama the importance of the civil rights movement after the work Obama has done? The author of this article is writing about a disingenuous characterization of Obama that has nothing to do with who Obama really is.

Don't you think that's a little strong?

Regardless of what value his other writings have, he is way off here.

I can't believe you've never heard of him or read him.

I encourage you to not just read the snippet, but to read the whole article. The author was not talking about civil rights,etc. Those were just examples in the piece.

He is saying that Obama is basically a centrist and a diplomat who wants everyone to come to the middle -- and he is also saying that now is NOT the time to cater to the middle and that the facists on the right will never agree to compromise because they are making too much money and love their power with the status quo of the present situation.

And I agree with that assessment 100%.

As another poster on this thread said, Obama would make a fantastic diplomat - Secretary of State or Vice-President perhaps -- but he does not have a vision or the fight in him for taking us back 10-12 clicks to the left which would get us even back to center. He just wants everyone to "get along". His whole platform is about "learning to compromise".

Those are fantastic ideals for a diplomat, but not for the kind of executive we need to clean up King George's mess!

I for one am not compromising with the right who are simply lackeys for big insurance, big oil, the military industrial complex or big pharma. Period.

This characterization is so far off as to sound moronic. He has misunderstand or is intentionally misinterpreting Obama's message. Obama had one of the most liberal records in the Illinois State Senate. Obama knows that a unified public is the best way to combat the special interests who fight against the common good and defend the status quo.
Reducing Obama's message to wanting to compromise and get along with everyone is a gross distortion.

David Sirota says that he is holding out hope that Obama will come around, and I will hold out hope too.

:)

Obama seems to like to have it both ways- and that's NOT a gross distortion- but a reflection of the reality that Obama's shown repeatedly during his short tenure as the Senator from Illinois:

From The Nation article:

Obama carefully answered the question about how he wants to define himself: "The amount of publicity I have received...means that I've got to be more sensitive in some ways to not step on my colleagues." For those who see him as a bold challenger of the system, this may be disappointing. After all, it oozes deference to the Senate clubbiness that has killed many a populist cause. And Obama has defended that club from outside pressure not only in his rhetoric but in his actions.

For instance, last year he posted a long article on the blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts--even though Obama himself voted against Roberts. And in January Obama publicly criticized a fledgling effort to filibuster nominee Samuel Alito. Obama actually voted for the filibuster, but his statements helped take the steam out of that effort.

True, Obama did show a rare flash of defiance when he unsuccessfully pushed legislation this year to create an Office of Public Integrity, which would have enforced anti-corruption laws. But that kind of power-challenging move, which was met with strong resistance from both parties, was an exception.

At the same time that he was ruffling feathers with that bill, he was one of the many Democratic senators who fled from Russell Feingold's motion to censure Bush over the White House's refusal to seek court orders for domestic wiretapping. Though polls showed that roughly half of Americans supported censure, it was shunned by the Senate club as too confrontational, and Obama seemed to agree.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota

of my unease with Obama. I fear that if he is elected on a platform that ignores the real reasons for the pickle we're in (e.g., pervasive corporate bribery of elected officials and a media that has been castrated by corporate control) and instead provides platitudes like we all just need to get along, we will lose our last opportunity to tackle the huge forces that are going to overtake this country and planet. I hope I'm wrong about him. I agree with Sirota that his heart is likely in the right place.

he spoke about the corrupt system in Washington, the power of lobbyists and corporations, and problems with the media. Obama is far more attuned to these things than Sirota gives him credit for.

America wants a charming, eloquent, positive leader who can unite not divide. America doesn't want someone angry and divisive, just strong and honest and who will work to improve life for the people.

When right wingers pull out the heavy ammunition against a popular charismatic leader it will make America angry. It will make America finally see that the right wing is powerful and works against their interest. America will then demand a strong leader who will change the status quo. America will shock and surprise the pundits and politicos. The first step is finding a democratic leader the people can love.

I believe he wants to empower PEOPLE once again?

Thanks BBJ, recommending.

Krugman said essentially the same thing about him the other day:

Krugman: On Being Partisan
(Obama said): Partisanship means “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.” Um, no. If history is any guide, what we need are political leaders willing to tackle the big problems despite bitter partisan opposition. If all goes well, we’ll eventually have a new era of bipartisanship — but that will be the end of the story, not the beginning.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3078797&mesg_id=3078797
Link: http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26krugman.html

The other thing that bothers me about Obama's "can't we all just get along" attitude is that you can't let fascists get away with fascism. FURTHER -- when "both sides" are blamed for not sitting down in a spirit of bipartisanship to "solve" our various problems, the people who've been the REAL sinners get away with the horrific behavior they've exhibited over the last 12 years. That's not only not FAIR, that's counterproductive as well. The LAST thing this nation and this world needs is to let the fascist enablers off the hook, enabling them to go on and sin some more.

I'm not suggesting big vengeance moves, or anything -- just a good, firm, strong, unassailable, moral stand against which we will not allow them to push. Or, they can push, but we won't yield. That's what's required. And if Obama can't get that, he's not worth much to us at the moment. Maybe later.


For example: If the house is on fire, it's the responsiblity of both people who live there and are there at the time to fix it. But ONE party has to be stopped from that damn arson next time and forever more.

:kick:

:kick:

I know that Obama talks a bit more about unity but to some extent all the Democrats talk about compromise. Some, like Bill Clinton, are especially guilty of this triangulation strategy. All it does is stick it to the little guy one again.

I am tired of this unity talk. Frankly I think there can be no compromise on genuine principles: equal right for all humans choice, universal health care, taxing the rich to fund social security (well, lifting the current cap on earnings at least), the environment, ending the war on Iraq, not starting war with Iran. I know that Obama has some good ideas on some of these things and he has the virtue of at least not voting for the war (because he wasn't there then and hindsight is 20/20) but this talk of unity with people who want liberals DEAD basically is a nonstarter.

a way as he looks forward to the trip. Obama is a diplomat.

What Sirota has written echoes my concerns as well.

We need to know that our next president will face up to these challenges, and will in fact be capable of doing so.

We need a Dean, a Gore, a Kucinich, a Clark. Someone who will not merely leave us to assume that she/he's going to DO something, to have us speculating whether or not they're "laying low" during a campaign due to political expedience.

At least that's what I need. The risk is too great at this point. I question whether Obama is tough enough, for it's a smart and clear-headed toughness that is now required.