OK. I just wrote the congratulatory article below a month ago and today Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty in cases not involving murder. A few days ago he decided to decline public financing. I just saw a CNN interview with Senator Feingold in which I learned that Obama is going to support the current FISA legislation that gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies which Feingold vehemently opposes.
I am starting to get worried about this and it is only 1 month. You are going to lose the "base" and make the election closer than it should be. How can a true liberal be for the death penalty especially in cases not involving murder? How can a true liberal vote for corporate immunity for violations of privacy? I understand his position on public financing in these narrow circumstances, but the cumulative effect is devastating and he will start to lose support. You will start to see this in the next series of polls.
Furthermore, Obama starts to stutter and stammer with issues and presentations in which he does not truly believe. I saw that clearly today in the press conference he had in Chicago. You guys need to get out of your bubble and look to those of us who are on your side in the real liberal media. Help!!! And don't tell me that this is good general election strategy. You cannot beat Republicans by playing in their "briar patch."
If you are thinking about 1988 and Dukakis you do not need to think about the Kity being raped and murdered question posed by Bernard Shaw. Furthermore, the incumbent President at the time was Reagan, not Bush. Reagan had a 50+ % approval rating and Bush is down to 28%. There is no need for this.
May 21, 2008
My Letter To Obama
By SDrobny
May 21, 2008
Dear Senator Obama:
Congratulations on your spectacular victory in the primary battle against one of the most powerful political machines, the Clintons. Your campaign reflects the attitude of most Americans about true change in American government and politics. It is very likely that you will be our next President if you remain true to your principals which is the very reason that you got the nomination.
Now that you are moving into the next phase of your campaign, I strongly advise you to use the same strategy in the national election. There is no reason for you to move to any arbitrary perception of the so-called "center." It is a myth created by the media along with the help of the Republican Party. The only responsibility you have in this campaign is to speak the truth as you see it as passionately as you have in the past. If you compromise those principals and say things that you do not really support, you will lose the grass roots supports that you desperately need to win in November. I believe that sincerity will circumvent any political attacks that you may get.
Truth is an absolute defense to anything that you do in life. It is very difficult to advance a cause that one does not have unconditional belief. That has been the problem with the other failed Presidential candidates. If history has taught us anything about Presidential politics it is that the move to the so-called "center" is a prescription for failure no matter who is the messenger.
When you become the President-elect, I strongly advise you to look beyond your campaign advisors, elected officials, and old guard Democrats as potential cabinet appointments. Running the government is serious business and appointments other than ambassadors should be awarded to the most capable people including fresh young faces. Modern Presidents do not have all the requisite skills to oversee all aspects of government. As we have painfully experienced in the last 7+ years, political appointments of cronies is a ticket to disaster. The 9/11 attack was completely avoidable if the August 2001 PDB was communicated properly to the President by Condoleza Rice, Bush's NSA. Had they warned the airlines and our air defense group of the Bin Ladin threat, these attacks would have been intercepted in advance. The Katrina disaster is another example of a disaster that could have been avoided with competent cabinet appointments.
I wish you the best of luck in the upcoming campaign and will be available at your pleasure for any help or advice.
Very truly yours,
Sheldon Drobny
Co-founder
Air America Radio
Paradigm Group
Authors Website: novamradio.com
Authors Bio: Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Nova M radio and Air America Radio. He has supported many philanthropic causes and is currently involved in purchasing radio stations for liberal talk radio with his new company, Nova M Radio, Inc. Mr. Drobny specializes in business and tax matters and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court as a non-attorney. Less than 200 non-attorneys have been admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court since its inception in 1942. Mr. Drobny received a Bachelor of Science Degree in accounting from Roosevelt University in Chicago and is a member of Beta Gamma Sigma, an honorary fraternity recognizing acadamic achievement in colleges of business administration.
novamradio.com
Sheldon Drobny was the co-founder of Nova M radio and Air America Radio. He has supported many philanthropic causes and is currently involved in purchasing radio stations for liberal talk radio with his new company, Nova M Radio, Inc. Mr. Drobny specializes in business and tax matters and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court as a non-attorney. Less than 200 non-attorneys have been admitted to practice before the U.S. Tax Court since its inception in 1942. Mr. Drobny received a Bachelor of Science Degree in accounting from Roosevelt University in Chicago and is a member of Beta Gamma Sigma, an honorary fraternity recognizing acadamic achievement in colleges of business administration.
Maybe this is the great "change" Obama has been talking about all this time.
For months, dupes in groups like MoveOn believed he represented genuine change. He doesn't. If Obama believes he can win in November by following the "conventional" (pun intended) script of running to the left in the primaries and to the middle in the general election, he's making a huge blunder.
Obama has a choice to make. He can either follow the tired old political prescriptions that foolishly believe winning the independent vote means moving towards the center or he can remain genuinely non-partisan by fighting to protect the Constitution and honoring American values. Ensuring that Americans' civil liberties are protected and that Telecoms don't get away with breaking the law is not partisanship. With Obama's FISA position, it's clear he's made the "Clintonian" choice. Charlie Change sure seems like some of the old status quo Democrats we've grown so tired of.
To win an election and win it big requires a whole lot of "real". If you want to attract independents, the way to be less "partisan" is to embody and embrace the idea that, regardless of party, American values and ideals come first. You don't win independent voters by selling out in some perceived centrist compromise. Independent does not mean centrally located between the two major parties; it means that the right values and choices are put ahead of playing partisan political games. Hillary and Bill never understood that; it seems pretty clear Obama doesn't either.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 9:14:10 PM
He's showing his true colors -- typical Dem Party sellout.
He's a corporatist Democrat, very much in the mold of Bill Clinton. The points you mentioned in your article aren't the half of it -- there was also the groveling in front of AIPAC, the pandering to the Miami anti-Castro fanatics, the saber rattling towards Iran, & the embrace of Bush's "War on Terror" framework. He also has been recruiting a slew of economic & foreign policy advisors straight out of the Dem Establishment of the last 20 years -- Madeleine Albright, Sam Nunn, Lee Hamilton, etc; & a Robert Rubin clone from Wall St named Jason Furman.
There is nothing "progressive" about Obama except his stage presence & the fact that he's black. Like Bill Clinton, he's very charming, & knows how to stand on a stage & give the impression of being sympathetic to an audience of wishful thinking liberals. But where the rubber meets the road, he's in the standard framework of big-league US politicians: a corporatist who poses no challenges to either big business or to US militarism.
I wouldn't call what he's doing "running to the center." It's pandering to the ruling class, which is really "running to the right." // Unlike my friend WelshTerrier2 above, I don't think it will cost him the election. I believe he will still win, by a comfortable margin. But it will bring no relief to the working people of this country, & will be a classic illustration of the true function of the Democratic Party in our political system: to temporarily take over the reins for a while after the Republicans have overreached & stolen the country blind; to lead without really changing anything, except cosmetically; & to prepare the country for the resumption of harsh rightwing rule, after his one or two terms expires.
There is an economic collapse coming. I believe that over the next 4 years, the Republicans will prove very skillful in pinning the blame for this on the Democrats. McCain is a feeble & pathetic candidate, like Bob Dole. The R's don't really want to win this time -- it's smarter for them to lose, & use the time to regroup. They know this. All the corporate money is flowing to the D's. // But there's nothing to celebrate, here. The corporate oligarchy has already won, by nominating two candidates who are both 100% in their pockets.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM
You are on target again. The R's have a weak candidate and they know it, hell all of the candidates that they had in the primary were weak. But why should they worry if they have President Obama for the next for years? He will not really make any substantive changes. We will have 4 years of a moderate Republican administration like we did when Clinton was in office. Fiscal policy, trade, taxes (maybe a few cosmetic changes), environmental, and foreign policy will be a whole lot like they are right now. Obama's base will finally realize that they have been duped and won't say much in his defense when he is blamed for the recession that will continue throughout his administration. By that time the R's will be able to replace him with Newt Gingrich or any other Neo Con fool who can slither to the top of the greasy pole. As I said before, Obama is not any different from the Clintons, he's just beating them at their own game. I've begun to wonder if Obama might really be Bill's illegitimate son. He is starting to look and sound like him more each day.
I am disappointed with this election cycle. I thought that John Edwards was one of the most exciting and viable populist candidate to have a chance of leading the Democratic ticket and I would have voted for him, but MSM and other nefarious corporatistas pulled the rug out from under him quickly. Looks like I'm going with Nader again. BTW, don't buy into the corporatista BS that you can only chose between the two parties--Republican or Republican Lite. That's how you get choices that look like you are choosing between having cancer or having a heart attack.
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 4:53:46 PM
Change is not a policy platform and in and of itself the world is meaningless. 18 months of primary hell and we still know nothing about the issues. Sad, very sad state of affairs.
Obama has failed to define what his campaign means by "change".
I think most Americans are in favor of a very progressive platform, unfortunately we do not have a progressive candidate.
After years of being a Democrat, I no longer feel any party loyalty.
Also, not planning on voting for Obama.
Reasons:
His change platform is "undefined".
Everything looks like "blue dog democrat" style center voting
Does not support a Single Payer Not for Profit Health Care System
Supported Telecom immunity
Economic Advisor - Wall Street Insiders
Has not stopped the Iraq war funding
Very uncertain of his positions on key issues
So far the "change" I see is much more of the same
Corporations - Everything; People - Nothing
So does the change merely mean a different person, same corporate advantages, same human disadvantages? I guess so...
My Vote:
__None of the Above (No Confidence)
or possibly Ralph Nader
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 442 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 1:27:05 PM
Obama is more centrist and conservative than people think, and the truth is that if elected he will become even more conservative as president- that's how it works, that's how it's always worked. Link to what Carlin said, he really hit the nail on the head here:
click here this bit exposes what the real problem is.
by
Cheryl Abraham (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 180 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 2:34:52 PM
Remember the day/weekend when the corporate media "lost Obama" on that plane back to Chicago, and even his own campaign guys didn't know what happened? Then a day later... they (media) tell you he was at Hillary Clinton's house, then all of a sudden the story changes, and he was at some other senator's house in Virginia? Yea, he was in Virginia alright, but not at the other senator's house, or Hillary Clinton's house like they tell you. Pretty sure he attended the Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly. Never been the same since. Problem is the media doesn't say anything regarding Bilderberg. It's highly secretive, and creepy. Although there is no evidence of this, its just very coincidental, and most of the past presidents have attended Bilderberg, and then get elected. Who knows..........
by
Mike M (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 3:33:42 PM
I agree with other commenters that Obama has never been for change, despite his rhetoric. The disappointing stands he has taken in recent days shouldn't really be so surprising.
I think MoveOn's supporters may have been duped, but not MoveOn. MoveOn was started by wealthy businessmen as an effort to combat what they saw as the twin threats of progressive Democrats and right wing Republicans. Their basic centrist establishment perspective has never changed, despite their rhetoric. They just changed their approach to one focusing on duping progressives into supporting the establishment. Despite their progressive rhetoric, they haven't really been progressive. Remember their famous major campaign for funding for the Iraq War which lost them a lot of supporters.
MoveOn never would have supported Obama if they believed he was really for change. They correctly perceived him as a defender of the establishment.
by
Bill Samuel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 277 comments)
on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 8:04:02 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
