 |
|
Add to My Group
|
August 20, 2008 at 11:04:40
Loserville: Obama Is Channeling Kerry and Gore by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
By Dave Lindorff Well, it’s happened, and it’s no surprise. Barack Obama, the prospective Democratic presidential candidate, has How did he manage this feat (which is documented in the latest latest Reuters/Zogby poll)?
managed to turn a 5-8 point lead over prospective Republican opponent
John McCain into a 7-point deficit—a double-digit slide—in just two and
a half months following a campaign that had voters really excited over
his candidacy.
Simple: he followed the tried-and-true strategy of Democratic centrist
advisers who have increasingly dominated his campaign since the end of
the primaries, and who have a proven track record of producing
Democratic electoral disasters now for several decades.
Like John Kerry and Al Gore before him, Obama, who ran his primary
campaign as a liberal, staking out an anti-war position, has morphed
over recent weeks into a Republican-lite candidate, calling for a hard
line against Palestinian rights, threatening to attack Iran, calling
for an expansion of the disastrous war in Afghanistan, and backing away
from genuine health care reform and other important progressive goals
here at home.
One might think that after watching Democratic candidates lose the
last two presidential elections by following exactly this kind of
“strategy,” if it can be called that, Obama and his campaign managers
would have decided to try something different, but it appears that the
Democratic Party at the top is hopelessly in the grip of corporate
interests that favor war, free-market nostrums and corporate welfare.
(Okay, I know Gore really won the 2000 election, but he should have won
it so convincingly—for example taking New Hampshire and his home state
of Tennessee—that the election couldn’t have been stolen. And Kerry,
similarly, should not have had his race determined by a close vote in
economically distressed Ohio, which should have been his by a blowout.)
Obama got where he is—the first African-American major party nominee
and the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the White
House—by appealing to the Democratic Party’s liberal base. Now Zogby
reports that Obama’s support among liberals has plunged 12 percent.
That’s liberals folks!
I count myself among those on the left who have turned away from this fast-talking eel of a candidate.
It’s not a matter of turning to McCain, who is if anything more
dangerous than President Bush because of his fondness for war and his
evident lack of any kind of principles, not to mention his personal
greed.
But how can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate
who goes from opposing a war to saying he not only supports the idea of
keeping troops in Iraq for another five years—the length of the entire
WWII!—but who further says he won’t rule out attacking Iran, even if
that country poses no imminent threat to the US, simply because it
develops nuclear weapons—the same weapons that our putative friends,
Pakistan and India, have? How can I vote for a candidate who wants to
expand the military (by 65,000 troops) instead of shrinking this huge,
bloodsucking parasite of an organization which is costing as much as
the rest of the world spends on its armies?
How can I or any progressive vote for a presidential candidate who
cannot state categorically that he will defend the Constitution by
reversing all of President Bush’s abuses of power and who will not
promise to prosecute the president and members of his administration
for any crimes committed while in office?
If you look at Obama's vaunted website,
and check out his positions on the big issues of healthcare, education,
the economy, labor, social security, etc., you can see he’s pretty good
on most things (okay, his health care “reform” is a loser and will
never fly. He should be calling for a nationally-run insurance system
modeled on Medicare and paid for by the government). The problem is
that there has been a deliberate effort to soft-pedal all of it, while
backpedaling on his position on the Iraq War. (And if he can go from
anti-war to pro-war, what's to say he won't backpedal in office on the
rest of his positions, especially if he won't highlight and defend them
vigorously on the campaign trail?)
There has clearly been a decision made in the Obama campaign to
soft-pedal liberal positions and to make Obama appear “safe” and
uncontroversial.
The result has been his precipitous slide in the polls.
That’s not the worst of it, either. Obama is not just losing
liberals in droves. Many liberals, after all, will in the end return
and vote for grudgingly for Obama, though they probably won’t volunteer
to do any of the critical campaign work registering voters, promoting
his candidacy or getting people to the polls. The worst part is that by
becoming just another middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, Republican-lite
clone of Kerry circa 2004 and Gore circa 2000, Obama is losing the
young and also the disaffected, unaffiliated voters who were flocking
to his campaign during the primaries. This group of erstwhile
enthusiasts is down 12 percent, too. And it’s those people—particularly
the unaffiliated voters--who are raising McCain’s numbers. The Zogby
poll reports that McCain’s support among younger voters has reached 40
percent—not that much below Obama’s 52 percent.
There is probably still time to turn this electoral debacle in the
making around. Obama needs to come out unambiguously for a quick end to
the war in Iraq. He needs to do an about face on his call for an
expansion of the war in Afghanistan. He needs to flatly rule out
preemptive war as a policy for the United States of America, unless the
country is in danger of imminent attack. He needs to scotch plans for
expanding the military, and instead to start talking about how to
reduce military spending, so that those funds can be shifted to
domestic priorities like improving education and dramatically
increasing research into carbon-free energy production. He needs to
call for a national healthcare system that will provide quality,
affordable medical care for all, and he needs to call for an aggressive
campaign to combat joblessness and to reduce income disparity within
the US.
1 | 2
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 18 comments |
|
Basically true, but I challenge the idea that Obama ever
"ran his primary campaign as a liberal, staking out an anti-war position." His "antiwar" position was always just hot air, basically no more than a dishonest word game. He tried to parlay his one lousy speech in 2002, while still just a state senator, into being "antiwar." But the speech only criticized the invasion for being ill-advised. His opposition, as he put it, was not to all wars "but only dumb wars." In other words, he had no moral qualms, or any hesitation about invading a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us; rather he felt that it probably wouldn't work out well -- from the invaders' point of view. That's hardly an antiwar position -- and to claim that it is, is to deliberately misrepresent oneself. I similarly challenge the idea that Kerry or Gore before him really ran as liberals. They were scarcely more liberal than Obama, though they appeared to be merely hiding their liberal tendencies out of fear, as opposed to being genuine conservatives, like the Obama we've seen since early June. Strictly on the issues (& if he weren't black), Obama could easily be running as a Republican, with the colors he's flown since his AIPAC speech. I agree with your recommendations about what he "needs" to do ("flatly rule outpreemptive war as a policy," etc). But there's zero chance he'll do them. And if he tried, the media would turn on him savagely, immediately portraying him as an "out-of-touch far left wacko" etc, & questioning his patriotism & loyalty. Once again, the 2-party system presents us with a "choice" of two right wing militarist/corporatists. This is the function of the 2-party system, & it's once again performed this function brilliantly. Arguing about which one of these reactionary warmongers is "less evil" is a waste of time. That the "choice" is so repellant is far more significant than the marginal differences between the two pandering rightwing warmongers. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:59:11 AM  (0+)
|
|
Polls are missleading but any change is bad
Polls are not the end-all but the change +/- does disturb. Remember the theft of votes also has to be overcome so I suspect a few extra points of padding would be a good thing. by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM (0+)
|
|
When the two choices aren't the ones we would want
The False Choice Dilemma entails others making the primary choices before we can even have a true decision making chance. This is how they give us a chance to waste our time and effort to 'vote' for a change that isn't there to begin with. With the third parties left out in the cold and told time after time to vote the 'lesser of the two evils' every time. Kucinich would have been our FDR to help take us away from this fascist mess we are in but he was ridiculed, shut out and dumped. Part of the FCD is that no real choices must be on the roster for it to work. It has been working for a while. Infiltration of both allowed parties along with control of the vote also cements their strangle hold on us the electors. Make us powerless. That is why so many are balking at the idea that Obama isn't the great black hope. Also the 'center' these days is the right, and the right is now the extreme right wing, the left is the center and any further to the left is off the chart. All part of the slow revolution to destroy the republic and make it into an empire. So far they are winning. by nightgaunt (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 449 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM (0+)
|
|
The politics of change
Very interesting commentary. However, I think Mynick brings up a very good point. As Sen. Clinton kept pointing out, Obama's campaign was long on rhetoric and short on specifics. He did not exactly run as a liberal – he ran as the proponent of hope and change, without identifying the substance. Now that he is in the general election, he is forced to demonstrate specifics. It is not working. However, I suspect Lindorff's “solution” would lead to a Republican sweep. Perhaps the answer is a convention revolt nominating Sen. Clinton. Interesting and thought-provoking analysis. Thanks for writing it. by Casey Tefertiller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:45:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here here to that. Convention revolt
Obama needs to step aside like Romney did for the good of the party. We can't afford another Repuglican sweep into the White House and Obama's heading us there fast. If there isn't a revolt, and Hillary nominated instead, the Democrats will lose to John McCain. by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 118 quicklinks, 120 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:39:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The no vote perfectioinist crowd will put McCain in office
I see a lot of posters on here are saying they won't vote for Obama because he isn't a perfect left winger. Well, that attitude will get McCain into the presidency as surely as the Republican slander machine will. This comment isn't aimed at you personally but at others on this comments site: When will Democrats learn that perfectionism equals losing ? by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 118 quicklinks, 120 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:46:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's not about perfection, it's about a reason to vote
As I wrote, it's not the left Democrats that Obama has to worry about. It's the unaffiliated voters. There's this misperception that most of the unaffiliated and the people who generally don't vote are somewhere in the middle between Republican and Democrat. Actually, most of them are quite opinionated, are deeply cynical about both parties and the political process, and they need not nostrums and wedge issues, but real populist positions that will mean something to their daily lives. Obama is not giving them that red meat. If he doesn't, he's toast. They'll either buy McCain's patriotic snake oil, or they'll just stay home on election day. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:01:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Kerry then Obama?
As lefty as I am, we can all agree that Barack is not. With that in mind, I doubt that Barack will take a dive like Kerry did, but his heart is not in to the progressive movement. The guy is a corporate guy and he may be seeking for higher aspirations, beyond the civil servant position. I have a feeling that there will be a winner and then there will be a president, and Obama won't challenge it...Kerry didn't. by T H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Loserville: Obama etc
Look at it this way, when he stops passing himself off as african/american he might have a chance to persuade certain people that he should run, but this guy is 50% white, 35% arab and only 15% african. He is catering to the liley white voters who don't want to hurt anyones feelings because the may be called racists, and the black voters like his is a brother, and hoping that with an arab name he will swing the arab vote. Personally I don't trust anyone that can't stand up and say "Hey, I'm an American". There is no such thing as an african/american, those are two continents, your either African or your an American. Obama if you look at ethnicity is Kenyan, American and African. What on earth is the big deal? by Jay Timmins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:00:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This last comment is racist bullshit (yes I mean sh*t)
Kenya is not an Arab country. (If you want to see the difference between Arabs and Africans, check out the southern Sudan around the region of Darfur...) There is nothing Arab about Obama's background. The writer (who is also illiterate and doesn't seem to know the difference between your and you're! This kind of yahoo crap doesn't even belong at Oped News. Dave Lindorff www.thiscantbehappening.net by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:27:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your an idiot David
Grow up David, We are all Americans in this country that was the point I was trying to make. I'm tired of this American and that American we are all Americans and by the way look up what racism or racist really means. Obviously your not all that damn smart either. Rac-ism (ra'siz'em) n. the practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc rac'ist n. adj. There is nothing racist about any remarks I made. This forum is for everyone's ideas. Your no better then anyone else. I have my ideas and you have yours, now get over yourself. by Jay Timmins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:00:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You proved Dave's point, at least twice.
You obviously don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", as Dave noted. You made this spelling mistake at least twice. Furthermore, you're lying to yourself about the point you were trying to make. Your earlier post was indeed racist. It was obsessed with race. In fact, you talked about nothing else. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:56:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your and you're
You are both correct, I did make a mistake on your and you're. But I still see nothing racist about explaining the ethnicity of Obama. His father was Kenyan and was a muslim. Obama went to a muslim school in Kenya. This has been on the internet, in the newspapers and on cable tv if your wondering where I got this info. I never said Kenya was an arab country. My point was this guy never really tells the truth about who he is. Politically how can I trust him? I would love to see a new face in the big seat. I thought that Colin Powell would have made a decent president, but I sure don't blame him for not running. I just wish the options were different. This may be the hardest choice I have ever had to make in a presidential race. I can't say that I have liked everyone I have ever voted for, but this time, I don't trust either candidate. By the way, what ever happened to freedom of speech for all? And Dave, watch your language. You can make fun of my spelling, but bad language shows very little in the brain department. One thing I do agree with you on, the people advising him are hurting his campaign. by Jay Timmins (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:42:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And "Your" (sic) illiterate
But unless you say that there are no hyphenated Americans (which is kind of ludicrous), it is racist to say you can't be African and American. In fact, it might be fair to say that a third or fourth or fifth generation person of Italian or Irish descent, with no connection to the home country and no knowledge of the old family's language isn't an Italian-American or an Irish American, but Obama, who had an American mother and an African father is very much an African-American. And I would say it's racist to deny that he can be both black (African) and white. Besides, your 35% Arab comment was just ignorant nonsense. It's not racist, it's just dumb. It's like saying I'm Christian because my parents sent me to Sunday School at the Congregational church one year, where all I did was sneak off in the church attic and learn how to smoke. Obama is no more Muslim than I am Christian. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:58:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Fluent talkers can flame out
Even before Hillary conceded, his stump speeches were tiring. Too much hope and change. Everyone wanted a second act. Arrogance has set in, I believe, about the same time as the stadium was engaged for the acceptance speech. It will not be the Corsi/Morris books nor Fox News which will detract from Obama's vote totals. Those who believe that stuff were going to vote against him, regardless of the opponent. He has too much flare to worry about being called an elitist. We who counted on Obama's organizing days to keep him anchored have reason to note the part in his first book when he decides to leave Altgeld Gardens, visit his father's country, and get a law degree. I took note of that part of the book when he discusses Harold Washington's second term. Washington is the only black mayor Chicago has had. Although I and Washington share similar experiences at Roosevelt University (where the Alumni Association still covers him), living in Chicago for 22 years made me realize that being a Daley man is essential to politics in Illinois. I may read too much into Obama's desire, not to emulate that kind of poltician so much as to enlighten the state. In the vernacular of the day, I believe his style was and still is pretty much the Top/Down political attack. Olher observations I made from reading the autobiography is that as organizer he did not (nor did the church groups which hired him) aspire to the Alinsky style. And then when he returned to teach law, his choice of Chicago over a less elite university (I suppose Loyola would be good) pegged another influence in his acculturization to the US. I've always seen him as somewhat devoid of roots. It's not adverse criticism as much as how these last few years have left him not totally anchored. His best asset is his wife. Peculiarly, when rabid critics can't find anything else to say about him, they try to make Michelle into a firebrand. How can the couple get around the fact that Barack lacks the credentials of slave grandparents? In reverse, it's almost the anti-miscegenation complaint. Those with plenty of book learning soaked up the lecture in refutation of the Rev. Wright flap. Those who know "exactly" how they feel about him and have not read his book--and most likely none other than the Good One--know exactly how he thinks: communist, Muslim, and so far they have not got to polygamist (because they didn't read his book). Simple problem. Hard answer. How can Barack be FDR by getting a great Brain Trust and a fireside manner to let the people know we'll get through our troubles? He learned from Bobby Rush, Chicago's famous gangmember turned Congressman, how to get elected to Springfield. Bobby's routing for him. I think they ought to get together for a beer. by Margaret Bassett (45 articles, 2911 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 1860 comments [100 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 2:08:23 PM (0+)
|
|
I do not believe that Dave wrote this
To get people to support a coup at the Democratic National Convention that would make Hillary Clinton the nominee instead of Barack. Hillary would be a worse situation for progressives, liberals, Americans, etc. I think Mr. Lindorff would like some independent organizing outside of the two parties that run American politics. This doesn't necessarily mean organizing to elect people. I could be wrong. And I am sure he will tell me if I am. by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:14:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No, Hillary would be worse than Obama
And we've had enough of coups in this country! I'm not sure what I think needs to be done. Maybe emigrate. I'm afraid that the real enemy of freedom and democracy in America today is not Clinton or Obama or even Cheney. It's the American people, who don't have the self-preservation instincts of a woodchuck. It's only because we are such a lazy-minded, lard-butted, TV-addicted, anti-intellectual, racist, sexist, triumphalist and in the end, timid and selfish people that we end up with the politicians we have to lead us. by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:46:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Not republican lite
I see Obama more as full fledged republican than republican lite. Nothing he stands for in this campaign sounds democratic let alone liberal to me. Wait, what am I saying? The democratic party is nothing but a rubber stamp for the republicans. So Obama is just following the route taken by his cohorts. There are only a few real democrats left in the party and of course they've been marginalized. I disagree on what he should do now. It's too late for Obama to backtrack on his war mongering and his health plan and his aipac speech. To do so would only turn off even more voters because he would have even less credibility than he does now. I'm afraid the script is already written and the damage is done. I won't be voting for the dems corporate candidate who has turned out to be nothing more than a snake oil salesman. I'm casting my vote for someone whose platform mirrors my own goals and ideals for this country. . Nader/Gonzalez '08. by jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:57:07 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
