"Essentially it (Obama) is a conservative administration which has changed the mood music."

"Obama boasts, and his office boasts, that they have 13 million supporters online. Well, what the hell are they doing with them?"



Tariq Ali on "The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad"
We speak with British Pakistani political commentator, writer, activist and editor of the New Left Review, Tariq Ali. He is the author of numerous books; his latest is The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad.
September 21, 2010

AMY GOODMAN: .... right now we’re staying with Tariq Ali. He has a new book out; it’s called The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad. Some might say that’s a little harsh.

TARIQ ALI: I know some of his supporters might feel it’s a little harsh, but I think that we’ve had two years of him now, Amy, and the contours of this administration are now visible. And essentially, it is a conservative administration which has changed the mood music. So the talk is better. The images of the administration are better, the reasonable looks. But in terms of what they do—in foreign policy, we’ve seen a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies, and worse, in AfPak, as they call it, and at home, we’ve seen a total capitulation to the lobbyists, to the corporations. The fact that the healthcare bill was actually drafted by someone who used to be an insurance lobbyist says it all.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesperson, going after the so-called "professional left"? Your thoughts?

TARIQ ALI: Well, I mean, it’s interesting that they are incapable of dealing with the right. With the right, it’s conciliation. That’s what they feel they have to appeal to. With critics from the left, they tend to be very harsh, as if they are saying to us, "You don’t know how lucky you are." But why are we lucky? I mean, you know, we judge people not by how they look or what they say, but by what they do. And what Obama has been doing is, you know, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing at home, and abroad it’s murderous. On Palestine, on Iran, no changes at all. So, one has to spell this out, because if they don’t realize that they’re doing this, they’re going to get more shocks. And Rahm Emanuel refers to people on the liberal left who are critical of Obama, and he uses a bad swear word and then says, "effing retards"—well, we’ll see who the retards are after the midterms, Amy. That’s all I can say.

AMY GOODMAN: What about solutions right now? I mean, you have this One World March that’s going to be taking place on October 2nd in Washington, DC, based on jobs, justice and education. What about the kind of organizing that you feel is the most effective? People say, well, what should Obama do? What should Obama do? He is one person, albeit occupies the most powerful position on earth. But isn’t it really about movements, pressuring these individuals? That’s what makes history.

TARIQ ALI: I agree with you entirely. And I remember saying to lots of activists in the United States during the Obama election campaign—you know, people mobilized by MoveOn.org, etc.—and I would say to them, "Fine. You’re campaigning for Obama. You want him elected. OK, good. Let’s hope he delivers what you hope he’s going to deliver. But he’s not going to deliver even that if you just elect him and go back home." And I remember arguing for a massive antiwar gathering for the inauguration, which would pressure right from day one on the new administration, saying, "Congrats, Barack. Now out of Baghdad and Iraq. Out of Kabul and Afghanistan," from the word go. And, you know, when people tell me in this country, "Oh, but there’s pressure from these kooks on the right, the tea party and this and that," I said, "Obama boasts, and his office boasts, that they have 13 million supporters online. Well, what the hell are they doing with them? I mean, why couldn’t they mobilize even a tiny proportion of these to come out and give them support?" They don’t do that. So, someone has to do it.

Please read or listen to the full interview at:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/tariq_ali_on_the_obama_syndrome

negative story about Obama every day. You're just Mr. Consistency, aren't you?

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

Lots of atheists around. And, yes, I know where you got that. Bring it up and I'll explain it like I always do. It was my tagline. Would you care to know why? Just bring up the source, and I promise I'll tell you and everyone about it.

I'll carefully consider your critique after you've finished reading or listening to the entire interview.

This is a discussion board, not a trash talk and personal bashing board.

Also stalking DU'ers you generally don't agree with is not encouraged here.

You didn't know that?

Tariq Ali does that all the time. This interview is no exception.

I am NOT anti-Obama. I am also not pro-Obama. I'd vote for a dead squid if it would get us closer to achieving progressive change. We are THIS close to having the gov't we all want. What we need is 6o votes -- good progressive votes -- in the Senate. The House has passed lots of good leglisation only to have it die in the Senate. Give us the Senate, filibuster-proof, and it will be a new day in America.

Other than the blanket disapproval of anything negative about Obama, that is?

Should we take it that you approve and agree with the specifics of the interview since you have no critique to offer?

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

is spot-on. "I'll carefully consider your critique after you've finished reading or listening to the entire interview."

Whenever someone takes issue with Obama's actions there are those who post drive-by insults and yet can't seem to substantively critique the position they disagree with. That is the minimum that should be expected.

I neither agree nor disagree with Ali. Tariq Ali laid out his pov and I take it as exactly that: his pov.

Obama does not appear to have a pov that is congruent with the pov of Ali. Obama is not about to embark on a policy of radical reform. He is too cautious for that sort of thing. My reading of him is that he thinks that the country is not ready or willing to support such changes < he may be wrong about that>. Nor, is the Congress. I read Obama as a practical man who takes what he can get. Ali wants to push the limits.

I think that strong progressive reform will take a working progressive majority in Congress. A Democratic Party president would sign those bills, if passed.

I'll let people read it for themselves and make up their own minds about it. Lots of smart people on DU who can see through things.

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

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

But I certainly don't have a problem with you being an atheist - most smart folks are :)

Well the poster you are supporting has nothing to say on the issues. You support him One Quintillion PerCent. One quintillion times zero equals . . . . zero.

So you got nothing.

:rofl:

PS. Get a dictionary and look up ad hominem.

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

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

You make some sort of accusation about me. Let's hear what you think.

Or are we blindly following Nancy Pelosi's ludicrous propaganda that Latin American progressives are even worse than Chimpy? That makes about as much sense as supporting Lieberman back in the day because he had a D next to his name.

as it did with Bush II.

how many active subscribers OFA has today.

despite the fact that many here don't want to admit it.

and listened to him debate along with Oliver Stone "South of the Border." He's been spot on about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Latin American.


I'm going to check out his book when it comes out.

but I always enjoy listening to what he has to say. He knows his material cold and is a good speaker.

But, isn't that true with most progressives?

Rahm Emanuel called us fucking retards!

Any chance someone might run against him in the Democratic primary for mayor in Chicago or is Emanuel a shoo-in with La Salle Street support?

and a small one at that (no matter how important you think you are). This week, 85% of Liberal Democrats approve of Obama, and similar proportions have been consistently shown to approve of his policies.

Deleted

Thanks for the info.

Are you sure that only 15% of liberals/progressives don't support ALL of President Obama's policies?

Book of Fun "Facts" for the Faithful.

If he has even normal human empathy, that's a lot of pain to absorb.

Bush in Babylon: The Recolinisation of Iraq
The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity

guess I'll have to pick up his new one on Obama.

I look forward to reading the rest of your critique of this interview.

Not

Keep doing what you're doing and ignore all those who can't stand to see the TRUTH!

What's pissing him off is Obama likes some of those Bush-era policies a hell of a lot more than any of us expected he would. I agree with his upset. Recommended watching, runs about 12 minutes or so.

K&R

PB

AMY GOODMAN: The cover of your book, The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad, is a picture of the face, the head of President Obama, and half of it is peeled away to reveal President Bush.


TARIQ ALI: Well, this, you know, I think, is a sort of very brilliant West Coast montage artist, and they are the best. Whenever there’s a crisis, they come up with an image which says it all. And I like that image a lot, and I used it very deliberately to show the continuation, that it’s not a case that we have a new administration. We do, technically, but it’s continuing with many of the old policies in the—how it deals with the economy. When you have people like Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, occasionally Frank Rich in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd, these people who were desperate for a Democrat administration being incredibly critical of some of its things, when you have venerable professors like Gary Wells saying, "I’m disappointed," the honeymoon didn’t last long with Obama. It lasted much, much longer with Clinton. And one reason for that is that he had raised hopes and was unable to deliver. He turned out to be an apparatchik and a political operator from one of the worst Democrat areas in the country, Chicago, and that’s what he behaves like.


AMY GOODMAN: Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesperson, going after the so-called "professional left"? Your thoughts?


TARIQ ALI: Well, I mean, it’s interesting that they are incapable of dealing with the right. With the right, it’s conciliation. That’s what they feel they have to appeal to. With critics from the left, they tend to be very harsh, as if they are saying to us, "You don’t know how lucky you are." But why are we lucky? I mean, you know, we judge people not by how they look or what they say, but by what they do. And what Obama has been doing is, you know, to put it mildly, extremely disappointing at home, and abroad it’s murderous. On Palestine, on Iran, no changes at all. So, one has to spell this out, because if they don’t realize that they’re doing this, they’re going to get more shocks. And Rahm Emanuel refers to people on the liberal left who are critical of Obama, and he uses a bad swear word and then says, "effing retards"—well, we’ll see who the retards are after the midterms, Amy. That’s all I can say.

ratings in the high teens (wasn't it) by the end of his reign? ;)

:rofl:

Give 'em hell BBI!

:shrug:

PB

Like any parasite, they cannot survive in the light (of truth).
:kick:

:rofl:

TARIQ ALI: But, you know, Amy, some of us who are sort of elderly now remember exactly the same things happening in Vietnam during that war, where there were lots of report—in those days publicized much more, I have to say—of US soldiers in Vietnam taking trophies, which were parts of bodies of Vietnamese dead or who they had killed or tortured to death.


AMY GOODMAN: And just this report we read today, Michael Ware, well known face on CNN, constantly on talking about Iraq—


TARIQ ALI: Exactly.


AMY GOODMAN: —saying when he had this footage of a US soldier killing an Iraqi teen, they did not allow him to run that footage. And CNN owns it, so he can’t get it.


TARIQ ALI: It’s a disgrace that CNN did that, but that is a sign of how the global media corporations have been reporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Self-censorship has been the order of the day. They haven’t wanted to offend the US military, in sharp contrast to how the Vietnam War was covered. I remember Morley Safer on CBS News reporting a family’s home being destroyed by US Marines and Safer commenting, "We’re fighting for freedom." That sort of stuff is not permitted now. The global corporations don’t do it, which is why programs like this are important. But now that if he can’t even use the footage that he took, what is that? I mean, how people in that part of the world know exactly what’s going, and it’s not the Quran burnings that upset them so much—but they do, too—but what is happening to their daily lives with the US and NATO presence. That is what upsets them, and that is the root of the problem.

for their "collaboration" with the Taliban.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4548992

It's Donald Rumsfeld's wet dream. :shrug:

Thanks for linking to it, I would have missed it.

About 10 years old. "And they took Papa outside and they beat him very badly".

That's how they were "arrested" by NATO troops.

It's obscene. The corporate media is not our friend.

The people making them believe if they repeat it enough it will become a fact.

It's nonsense.

"And Rahm Emanuel refers to people on the liberal left who are critical of Obama, and he uses a bad swear word and then says, "effing retards"—well, we’ll see who the retards are after the midterms, Amy. That’s all I can say. "

What the hell does that mean?

Krugman:



You see, most people can recognize real change, and many don't get mired in the ridiculous exercise of feeling like a perpetual victim.

"And this gets to a point I’ve been trying to formulate: while the Obama’s political problems are largely due to a lousy economy, it’s also true that the administration seems to go out of its way to alienate its supporters."

You know, objecting to being slammed semi-weekly is not perpetual victimhood. That's self-respect, Pro Sense.

it's hyperfocus on parsing words to create the "Obama hates liberals" meme, which is beyond ridiculous.

Krugman says it's real change, but, hey, Obama should stop calling out the base, and in turn the base needs to focus on what's important.

How the hell does he propose they do that with all the hyperfocus on word parsing?

It's manufactured outrage. Gibbs makes a comment weeks ago and the spin is constant. Obama makes a comment at a friggin fundraiser, and pretzel logic it took to turn that into a hit is pathetic.

with Barack Obama. Because we don't have enough to do or to worry about.

That's simply delusional. And it didn't start with Gibbs and unfortunately, it probably won't end with the latest.

They are tone deaf and that's the very best construction that can be placed on this now habit of theirs.

Are you saying people are hyperfocusing on alleged hits because they blame Obama for the current economic mess?

or told I wasn't needed by the party..or been called a Professional Liberal..or a Dirty Hippie..

UNTIL NOW!

I certainly wasn't called that when my large donations were cashed!

Nor when I was Elected as a Democrat!

Nor when I was asked to go around the country speaking for the Dem Party!

Nor when I was asked to go to other states to protect the Voters right to vote!

Nor when I was requested to be a Poll Watcher at large in my state.

Nor when I was a rapid responder for the National DNC for 4 years!

Nor when I wrote news articles for the Dem party representing the Dem's policies!

Nor when I was asked numerous times to house National Democratic Field Reps sent to my area of Florida to run Democratic Presidential Campaign Offices..for 4 large Counties in my State of Florida!

No... in fact I was spoken to with respect, as were many of us who worked GOTV and all the damn dirty work for the Democratic party!

No ...I never recall in my 40 years working with and within the Democratic party being called any names, nor any other innuendo.

You still haven't been, but continue believing that.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/09/the-sooner-rahm-leaves-washington-the-better/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

From Alternet

"Rahm brought his corporate centrism to the White House, pushing for a smaller-than-needed stimulus bill, urging Obama not to pursue healthcare reform, watering down the bill when he did and calling progressive activists who wanted to pressure obstructionist Democrats “fucking retarded.” He later apologized to Sarah Palin but not to the Democratic activists he insulted."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

this is the direct interview!!

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”


The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

The facts are the facts - good on you for presenting them

:eyes:

:applause:

those who seem to get mad about everything he does or does not do...Obama is doing what he can & those who are getting mad would rather Obama act like a REPUBLICAN TEA BAGGER and stand on purity & pass nothing rather than compromise & move the country back in the correct direction!

It will take time to correct all the problems in this country & some simply want it all now. FDR had to deal with a pissed off left that wanted everything right away as well. I find it funny how they will say Obama is no FDR while ignoring the fact that many progressives were mad at FDR for not doing everything they wanted at the time.

I am a progressive & I want much more to be done as well...However, I am not going to go off screaming & crying giving the GOP more ammo to fire at Obama and I am going to vote! Criticizing the President is a good thing but being reasonable is also a good thing.

I honestly think many of these people want to see the Democrats lose both houses of congress in November and I will never understand it.

"I honestly think many of these people want to see the Democrats lose both houses of congress in November and I will never understand it. "

Seriously, why on earth would anyone make this comment: "well, we’ll see who the retards are after the midterms, Amy. That’s all I can say."

Is this a threat? Does this person believe that Republicans gaining control of Congress is a serves-him-right moment for the President?

I think they would rather Obama stand on "purity" & pass nothing rather than passing what he could with the votes he had. The HCR might not be perfect but it is much better than what we had which was nothing!

These people will probably get their wish come November then all we will hear is Obama did it to himself for not being their brand of progressive.

I will never understand how many in our party who I always felt understood the political climate & knew it would take years to fix what the Conservatives have done over the past 30yrs...But NO NO NO they want everything they want in 2 years! WTF?

Some loud but minority voices on the left ignoring reality Obama & the Democrats simply can't do anything correct!

I like what Obama & the Democrats have been able to do in 2yrs...I could only imagine what could be done in 4-8yrs if the party could stay focused on our long term goals instead of fighting over "purity". I would much rather see them get what they can passed rather than stand on "purity" & pass nothing like some on the left want. I will never understand it! Criticizing the POTUS is a good thing but some think that is all they are suppose to do even in cases when it is not warranted.

'Obama could never satisfy',
'Purity',
'it will take time'
(Leftys) "go off screaming & crying"
(Leftys) "giving the GOP more ammo to fire at Obama"
"and I am going to vote!" (and these whiners won't! Or they'll vote for Palin! Right?)
"Criticizing the President is a good thing (:rofl:) but being reasonable is also a good thing." (italics mine)
Putting it another way, with slightly wording, yet keeping the exact same meaning: 'but being reasonable is double-plus good!

Congratulations! :applause:

Hey, Cherchez. Do you reckon there's some playbook or cheat sheet that we could all use. That way we too wouldn't have to think or actually even know what the administration is doing. We could just parrot the Phrase of the Day and avoid all that policy and concentrate on the popularity. Maybe the playbook could come all illustrated with bathing suit pictures.

Maybe the DLC website? :evilgrin:

And those pictures drive me crazy -- reminds me of my nieces cooing over 'Teen Beat' (or whatever those teen tabloids are called) :hi:

Indeed! And then we'll see who the retards are!

Why this interview NOW? Why wasn't this conducted and posted way back when Emmanuel made his stupid remarks? How is all this helpful now? What alternatives do we have to Obama at midterms? Why not talk about the Dems in the House and Senate instead? (After all, they make laws, not the President) What good does this interview do for the Progressive cause at this point in time?

Also, What effect might it have had if it was conducted AFTER the midterms....on the "downside" of Obama's presidency....when Progressives might start presenting other alternatives to Obama's leadership.... again, as opposed to MIDTERMS?

How does selling a book figure into all of this?

Jess askin'....

not done anything else to complain about? :shrug:

more word salad .

Some people's chosen user names are delightfully ironic.

But then, Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown are relatively liberal (Brown less so) and don't offend the base.

Gardeners know better than to harm the insects and other animals that help make things grow. You'd think the Obama administration would have learned by now that the so-called left (which used to be the center right) will support the administration as long as it sticks to the moral highground and acknowledges the legitimacy of the so-called left's goals.

The problem with Obama is that he has refused to take the moral highground with regard to the criminal activities of the rich and powerful and has, at the same time, shown only disdain for the people who got the aching feet walking precincts to get him elected.

Arrogance, that is what we are objecting to. We could understand that Obama cannot attain every single goal that we would like, but we would at least like a seat at the table when, for instance, health insurance policy is being discussed. Obama refuses to oblige us with even that.

And now, Obama has formed the Cat Food Commission to attack Social Security. Insult added to injury, that's what it is. Of course, the OP is correct. Obama has heaped arrogant mistake upon arrogant mistake.

:rofl:

Yes, we will, won't we. We'll see tons of "progressives" that are SHOCKED to find out that a Republican Congress means -- a more right-leaning government all around.

It could lead to Republicans formally gaining control of Congress.

So if that happens, you think that will cause President Obama to move to the right when you wrote this would mean "a more right-leaning government all around."?

The President doesn't make laws. Congress does. He can veto them, of course, but that's it.

you truly think that a Republican controlled House and Senate wouldn't be "much more right-leaning" than the current Democratic controlled House and Senate?

That's your honest belief?

Sid

two parties. I wish that were not the case.

Really? 100% block voting "no" is the same as forming a Consumer Finance Protection Agency?

I guess we will see who the retards are.

and you wonder why people lose interest in politics and have no desire to vote.

I will vote with my feet in solidarity with other workers & the house niggers can continue to pretend they are doing something useful for society.

Homework: (http://www.zimbio.com/Black+History+Month/articles/265/Malcolm+X+House+Negro+vs+Field+Negro)

"There was two kind of slaves. There was the house negro and the field
negro. The house negro, they lived in the house, with master. They
dressed pretty good. They ate good, cause they ate his food, what he left.
They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near their
master, and they loved their master, more than their master loved
himself. They would give their life to save their masters house quicker
than their master would. The house negro, if the master said "we got a
good house here" the house negro say "yeah, we got a good house here".
Whenever the master would said we, he'd say we. That's how you can
tell a house negro. If the master's house caught on fire, the house negro
would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the
master got sick, the house negro would say "What's the matter, boss, we
sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than the
master identified with himself.... (much more at link)

Because "progressives" truly believe that having a Republican Congress means Lefty Heaven! :crazy: :silly:

I wouldn't call him "Conservative," but he is a centrist. The far-left meme only came out because the RW hijacked this country and attempted to steer it to the right (and failed).

Just what's on the can. I can't complain (though I disagree with the President sometimes).

Obama is what I expected him to be.

I would have liked him to advocate stronger reforms; but, I doubt that Congress is capable of passing anything stronger.

I've certainly never noticed them arguing for that before, and the opposition from actual conservatives in Congress suggests they disagree with the writer's hyperbole.

lol

Best to disregard anything he has to say, lest we be exposed to false doctrine.

Whoa!

Straw Man much?


He does have a funny name! It's almost as funny as, say, Barack!


We'll see who the retards are!

but there are several gross exaggerations in the post.

For example.
"But in terms of what they do—in foreign policy, we’ve seen a continuation of the Bush-Cheney policies,"

Really? He didn't notice Obama rescinding Bush torture and interrogation policies? He missed the dramatic reversal on nuclear weapons policy? Or withdrawing from Iraq? Or a new approach to our relations with the world? Has Obama talked about "Us v Them" the axis of evil and started plotting which country to invade next? And as much as I dislike the escalation in Afghanistan, it's not a continuation of Bush policies. His broad-brush comment is without merit.

And if there really was a "total capitulation to the lobbyists" then there would be NO financial regulation, credit card regulation, new lending industry rules, new auto mileage standards, no EPA regulation of CO2, and cap-and-trade would not have passed the house.

These are the kind of soundbites that make frustrated people who want more action feel better, but it's also completely idiotic. Someone who says such ridiculous things should be laughed off the stage. We need people who can criticize Obama without overreaching into stupidity.

And you do know that Obama's CIA head said, explicitly, in his confirmation hearing, that rendition was a tool he would use?

And you do know that McChrystal, on Obama's watch, was farming out prisoners to remote outposts to hide them from the Red Cross according to watchdog Andy Worthington?

Just start with that and think about what you're saying.

that Obama has changed many aspects of Bush's foreign policy, but some key policies are still too similar to Bush's. And in fact, even the rendition policy is not the same as Bush's since it now requires more oversight and public disclosure.

Specific criticisms would leave the author with more credibility than the inaccurate generalized statements that make him sound like a disingenuous propagandist. There are plenty of things about Obama's foreign policy worth criticizing but calling it the same as Bush's is simply a lie.

Who exactly would he be propagandizing for?

That Democratic Party partisans find his criticism harsh was acknowledged in the interview by both Amy and by Ali. And it's completely understandable. But that criticism is really too narrow for the scope of his work which isn't contained by party politics.

Those comments in the interview were not. I don't give someone a pass for bullshitting me just because I agree with most of their views. The fact that he's fighting on the right side is not an excuse. It only damages his own credibility and his ability to make an impact on the issues he cares about.

And as both he AND Amy acknowledged Obama loyalists would find his views harsh, how exactly is he bullshitting you? Is there a fact in dispute here besides his comparison of Obama's policies with Bush's policies?

You haven't refuted any of the examples I gave of his false broad-brushed statements.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9182465&mesg_id=9183208

that Obama has kept or expanded the assassination program.

ETA: It's fine if you don't agree with Ali's opinion and if you dislike it. But to accuse him of dishonesty is in itself dishonest because you have not shown his facts to be wrong in any way or that he intentionally gave false ones.

He did not say Obama continued one specific Bush policy. He made two general statements about Obama continuing Bush foreign policies and "total capitulation" to lobbyists. Both of those exaggerations are easily proven false. The fact that you can point out one or two policies doesn't prove the generalized statement in any way. You may be satisfied with half truth and exaggeration (most of Obama's harshest critics on this board are) but it only damages the credibility of those who spread them.

policies, but what do we know? Without prosecutions of those who put those policies in place, how meaningful are Obama's words. We take him at his word.

But then he said he would close Guantanamo -- and?

He said he would govern transparently -- so he set up a Cat Food Commission that deliberates in secrecy -- and?

Should we trust him? I wish I could say yes.

You wrote: "Without prosecutions of those who put those policies in place, how meaningful are Obama's words."

What does prosecuting former officials have to do with the activity of current officials? That makes no sense. We could prosecute them and the people in power now could still be doing the same thing. The only way to stop it is to increase transparency, which Obama has done. I think you're just writing any barely related criticism you can think of.

He said he would close Guantanamo and congress blocked funding to do it. Blaming Obama for that is disingenuous.

The deficit commission meetings allow the press and are even webcast. That's not secrecy.

You're just spouting talking points.

is serving? I thought there meetings were being held in secret and that the members were not supposed to discuss what went on in them.

Did Bush get funding from Congress to open Guantanamo? If not, why would Obama claim he needs congressional approval to spend the money to close it? If so, this is yet another instance in which Obama permitted himself to be bullied by the Blue Dogs.

I can understand that the Republicans vote against Obama's agenda, but why does he put up with it when the Blue Dogs vote against what he wants? He should call them out on that. He is so willing to call out progressives -- but so careful not to offend Blue Dogs even though they are the folks that make him look inept and foolish, not us.

sadly

"Oh, but there’s pressure from these kooks on the right, the tea party and this and that," I said, "Obama boasts, and his office boasts, that they have 13 million supporters online. Well, what the hell are they doing with them? I mean, why couldn’t they mobilize even a tiny proportion of these to come out and give them support?"

Interesting. And not in a good way. I didn't realize that progressives -- who apparently need NO help in voicing disapproval -- had to be arranged and organized to voice approval.

"The cover of your book, The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad, is a picture of the face, the head of President Obama, and half of it is peeled away to reveal President Bush."

Good Lord.

Unrec'd.

no Lefty who did not support Obama on Day one (even though those of us who were paying attention knew that Obama was no lefty -- he was definitely, at that time, Centrist)

It is, however, Obama's fault that that many Leftys don't support him now. His Corporatism and massive reneging on campaign promises was bad enough, but then the number of arrogant, denigrating ad hominems issued from the White House itself didn't help anybody.

At all.


President Obama is supposed to be very intelligent, in particular areas of that there is no doubt;
but that certainty is belied in at least this one area: when one hears about all these contemptuous calumnies aimed at a sizable portion of his very own base one really has to wonder what's going on...

(even though those of us who were paying attention knew that Obama was no lefty -- he was definitely, at that time, Centrist)

You must be so proud of yourself. Being able to see the blatantly obvious, and all...

And those "many" lefties you talk about that are "not supportive" of the President, I wonder where they are? Every single solitary poll has Obama's support amongst "lefties" at 85% or higher. Obviously, you're in that 15% or less. But with that "paying attention" thing you're so good at, I'm sure that you knew that already. Right??

Am heading out the door, will answer you later if I can

Tariq Ali's book, the one being discussed in this interview.



As you see, it's the Obama=Bush equation. I wonder why the OP didn't include that image. It's the point of the book. Ali is saying that Obama is not any different from GW Bush. That equation is something that doesn't fly on DU. It's no wonder the cover wasn't shown, eh? This is the person the OP thinks is such a paragon of political thought. I say: Feh!

:thumbsup:

the look of the two are very different...hmmm, can't think of much else...their cabinets are even similar!

Really? I mean, if that's what you think, that's what you think, but I sure don't see it.

the corporations and the military. The differences don't really matter too much...

Obama not searching for the next country to invade doesn't matter? The fact that 9/11 is commemorated as a day of service rather than being exploited to continue two wars doesn't matter?

There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize Obama but that kind of exaggeration is something I can't take seriously.

pudding baked for us. ;)

says it all. I understand that Obama kept most if not all of Bush's military brass appointments. There is far too little change -- especially considering how utterly unhappy the country was with Bush.

Of course, in the economic sector, Obama changed the names and faces -- but did not change the places from which he drew his top advisors or the economic policies they have used. Very, very little has changed. And what has changed is mostly superficial.

Sid

We don't need you to tell us what Ali has written or said. So stop putting words in his mouth. You know, unless you have refused to read what Ali has actually written, that Ali did not write or say that "Bush equals Obama" or that "Obama is identical to Bush".

Now it is true, as you known and should acknowledge, that Obama is conducting many of the same policies that Bush initiated from the Wall Street bailout, the Patriot Act and other attacks on our Constitution and the escalation of the war against Afghanistan just to name a few.

Now you do acknowledge that .... right?

Or would you prefer that we blind ourselves and pretend that President Obama is the radical change President on all of the important issues.

No need to. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I know an author/journalist here in the UK who hated the cover that the publisher of his first book saddled him with.

Oh, well, let the haterz hate I guess. :shrug:

out some stuff about the book, I guess it gets a pass on that rule. Still, for me, the books' cover and some of the things Ali said in the interview make it clear that he does believe that President Obama is the same, in multiple ways, as George W. Bush. People deny that here, but the cover of the book speaks for itself, I think.

It's up to the moderators and administrators of DU to make the call on things like this. I'll defer to their judgment, but I won't stop pointing out the awkward facts about Tariq Ali and his equation of Obama and Bush.

What's especially alarming to me is that these attacks by a tiny minority of the left began almost as soon as President Obama took office. It almost seems like they never intended to give this new President a chance. Fortunately, President Obama still has the support of a large majority of liberal Democrats, but this minority viewpoint is certainly getting a lot of play.

I truly believe that President Obama will succeed in gaining a second term and will end up surprising even his minority detractors among progressives. The main problem I see is the fallout that may cause some active liberals to lessen their effort to elect other Democrats. A return to Republican domination of Congress is a horrifying prospect.

Sid

For me. At all.

And I listened to the whole interview.

But the article is right about 1 thing- they have continued alot of bush's foreign policies. Even the Iraq pullout was on bush's time table. The current situation in Afganistan is like a massive replay of the surge strategy in Iraq too.

The policies on education and health care from the administration are to the right of policies from that administration. And he continued a war he campaigned against.

I'm old. But I definitely remember that Nixon was a republican and a conservative. I campaigned against him. I voted against him. i was disgusted with his policies. Hmmmmm.

ideology that ran for office in 68 by catering to the conservatives that voted for Goldwater in 64 but once he got in it was clear that Nixon did liberal social policy because he was afraid of the left. We could make the case that Obama has some liberal attitudes personally and ran for office by enlisting liberal supporters who didn't trust the Clintons but once he got in he's cautious of the right. At least that's my take on it.

And I must say, this Tariq Ali is well-versed in American politics.

I really couldn't find much fault in what he said, other than being completely blunt about the situation in America.

That's what they called it when I posted such things. ;)

Seriously though. Well-done interview by Amy Goodman and Democracy Now. Can't see much there to argue with.

I tuned the dial real careful-like, but the static just wouldn't go away. It went from a buzz up around 23,000 KHz to a very loud cricket-like sound.

I had to give it a K&R, though.

Nice.

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

DU was behind Democracy Now 100% during BushCo's reign of terror. Now that the same crap is happening when someone who has a (D) following their name is in charge she gets thrown under the bus? Hypocrisy people...it's either that, or you're working for the corporations that are gaining from this.

...covering stories which are less than flattering to Obama. For me, that shows they're not one-sided and care about Progressive values, not just when a Republican is in office.

I was trying to think about what annoys me about Obama the most is: It's that while he's a Democrat he's definitely more centrist than one ever would have guessed by his stirring calls for Change (and that's putting it lightly) and he also seems to be almost lock-step on Bush-era policies when it comes to many of the laws which sprung up in the "War on Terra". Unbelievably, even more right than Bush when it comes to indefinite detention and pre-crime detention- which Rachel Maddow covered extensively in a great piece from her show you can find on YouTube.

PB

:thumbsup:

making sure that does not happen.

Then you've got to admit that president, be he Democrat or Republican, is conservative. Obama's platform and actions are to the right of Ike.

Rachel Maddow: Rachel Maddow on Obama's Indefinite detention ideas 5-21-09

The above, for example, is extremely odius and goes even farther than Bush in regards to indefinite detention.

Or has Rachel Maddow been added to the Enemies List? Tough to keep up...

PB

I trust that he has greater knowledge than you or I or Rachel Maddow and that he will do the best he can under the circumstances.

...name. Because you would have never afforded George W. Bush the same latitude and it's the exact same issue.

In this case, we have an example of Obama actually going farther to the right on an issue (and an important, Constitutional issue) than Bush.

It might be worth your while to take a moment and think about why you criticize or support the actions of any elected representative. If it's just because of their party affiliation instead of their actions, you're doing something other than defending the Constitution and the integrity of our rights as U.S. citizens.

PB

Or is it only President Obama, who's dealing with the legal morass left by his two predecessors, that is the target of your blame? :eyes:

if God himself had decreed it.

But, as another poster said, not applicable when the POTUS is a Republican.

Gotcha! :thumbsup:

what I call "unconditional supporters" of President Obama to tell all of us skeptics, cynics, and critics what things he has done that they would have done differently. IOW, are you actual "unconditional supporters" or can you lay out the potential common ground we can work together on? My guess is that this has become a battle of egos now, but hey, I could be wrong.

For my part as a critic, I would say I like the ideas behind the HCR. However, I think negotiating away the PO and ability to negotiate drug prices gained him nothing from his enemies (corporations AND pukes) AND disappointment from his base. The companies will continue to skirt the new laws and there is no alternative for citizens to turn to. I think fighting for these things and not getting them in spite of his best efforts would have been lauded by his critics on the left. He would have been especially enabled to go after the obstructionists then.

Nothing like a little McCarthyite red-baiting.

Frostin on the cake.

CASE CLOSED AGAINST TARIQ ALI!

Hotsy, Totsky.

Leon Trotsky!

:)

Guess you missed that bit of reality.

The organization ANSWER was putting on a demonstration in Washington, DC to rail againt Bush and the war in Iraq. This excited many DUers because there was fuck-all nothing in the way of protests organized by any other major organization at that time. In fact, I would feel confident in saying that during Bush's time in office, ANSWER sponsored more protests than any other organization- and very big ones to boot.

But all was not acceptable because, you see, ANSWER was affiliated with the WWP (World Worker's Party) which is a Communist organization. ANSWER, itself, may have been founded by Communists or run by Communists- I don't really even know or care. They put on protests against the Iraq war at a time when nobody else was*

The point was DUers who posted information about this protest were smeared as...wait for it...trying to indoctrinate their fellow Democrats into the Communist Party! Just by attending the protest against the war that ANSWER was sponsoring.

Here is a thread started by either someone who had posted about the protest or was upset about the red-baiting which went on en masse.

* During the entire time Bush was in office, ANSWER put on the biggest, regular protests of any other organization against Bush. See this list of demonstrations. I bet you can still probably check out video from them on C-Span or possibly YouTube. Not like it mattered at DU- fuck the demonstration, it's run by Commies!

that in that 2005 thread you posted that all of the posters who agreed with the OP have tombstones.
No I don't know why, perhaps they were all trolls,
but it's still interesting

to put demonstrations together. And for that, they deserve ALL the credit in the world.

are the people that would kill them if given the chance?
:kick:

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.



ANSWER uses the time-tested anti-war stance for only one purpose, and that is to further their agenda.

They would kill Democrats if they took power in this country.



FUCK 'EM.

What is that old line? You can fool some of the people, blah blah blah

It was clear to me what sort of Administration Obama was going to lead.
His campaign speeches told me that. His appointments told me that. My reading of his personality told them that. The compostion of the Congress that he was getting told me that.

If progressives want washington to enact progressive legislation, progressives will have to elect progressives to office.

If that is not done, progressives will get either a GOP agenda, or the dithering half reform of an Obama type administration.

I am sure that Tariq Ali knows all that.

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

...the level of Change is at odds with his rhetoric from the campaign. That is putting it as nicely as I can. Rachel Maddow's piece, which I linked to upthread, on indefinite detention is far more concerning.

PB

The amount of change is astounding in historical terms. It's amazing that so few of us can see that.

:rofl:

Of course, it's a well-paying gig, as his vitriolic revolutionary rhetoric schtick allows him to live in one of the most expensive London suburbs with his Anglo female partner and their three children.

or just the usual upset over someone who disagrees with the Obama Adminsitration and its policies?

displaced

Is that a habit of yours or is it "just the usual upset over someone who disagrees with" an habitual 24/7 Obama critic who happens to be a Pakistani Brit from an extremely wealthy Pakistani family (whose uncle was head of Pakistan's Military Intelligence) and lives in one of the most expensive sections of London?

What. The. Fuck.

:eyes:

PB

Or did my stating the facts bother you? :)

...interview with him. His house and where he lives, the heritage or color of his wife's skin have nothing to do with that.

:shrug:

PB

And it was you brought up the "color of his wife's skin" not I, not that Susan is his wife (as I said before).

Why did you do that?

You didn't bring that up first? Really? Then what should we infer from this statement by you: "Anglo female partner"? What does that mean if not "white"?:shrug: I'm almost 65yrs old, and for the life of me, I don't ever remember meeting anyone described as "Anglo" or "Anglo-Saxon" who wasn't white(or caucasian, if you prefer).

edited for spelling.

PB

Why did you do that? This is the second time I've asked you. I am still waiting for an answer.

So far, this is the second reply you've made to me after I've asked a question of someone else. Are you lonely?

:rofl: