I don’t want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America’s bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy—absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.
That said, those who believe that the Democratic Party is firmly in the hands of a malignant and self-serving corporate and political elite have to explain why “their” candidate, Hillary Clinton, seems to be sinking.
Meanwhile, it must be acknowledged that the Obama phenomenon is a real thing. That is to say, whatever his personal politics, his candidacy is genuinely igniting a wave of passionate support across the nation among people—particularly the young, and more recently African Americans—who had for years been ignored by, and consequently disinterested in the political process.
It might be that this is all the result of the magic of charisma, a winning smile and a good turn of phrase. But even so, it would be a mistake for the jaded left, myself included, to dismiss this phenomenon as meaningless, and to ignore it or its potential.
Indeed, I want to suggest here that Obama may at this point have the proverbial tiger by the tail, in that his clarion calls for “hope” and for “change” may be stirring up hopes and expectations for those very things in a way that will not easily be denied should he succeed. (In this he does resemble Jack Kennedy, whose own politics tended to be conservative and Establishment, but whose rhetoric helped stir a generation to political idealism, and may have contributed to the era of '60s activism.)
I would also suggest that while Sen. Obama may well be part of the party Establishment—with a record as a safe backer of the status quo—if he succeeds in winning the nomination, and especially if he goes on and wins the White House, it will be because he has aroused a huge pool of voters in this country who had until now been cynically staying away from politics. It will be because he has transcended the racial divide that has stymied real political change for so long.
And the forces that are propelling him toward the nomination, and toward the White House, are forces that will not easily be denied if they succeed.
That is to say, a President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don’t really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like barnacles to a rotting pier.
For this to happen, Obama will first have to reach out beyond his current base of support, to rank-and-rile workers—both unionized and non-union--to Latinos and other minority groups, and to older Americans. He’ll have to reach out, that is, to the groups that have thus far still been backing Hillary Clinton and the party Establishment. He need not win all those groups over to his side—in fact it would be better if he didn’t. He needs only to win over the disaffected within those groups—the people who recognize that they have been betrayed by the two parties and by the System.
Should this happen—and it probably will have to happen for this first serious black candidate for the presidency to successfully beat back the Clintonians and the DLC, who will try to kill off his candidacy before the convention—Obama will have been, perhaps in spite of himself, or perhaps because there is in him still some spark of insurgency, transformed into a real agent of progressive change.
None of this means that a President Obama would be a new Franklin Roosevelt. The pressures on any president to “cool it” and play the game of supporting the big moneyed interests that have been undermining and hollowing out America for decades are enormous. But certainly an alternative reality is also possible—namely that an aroused and newly empowered bloc of voters, in bringing a black politician to the pinnacle of power in America, could tip the balance and free that new president from outside of the White Establishment to follow his better instincts. (Franklin Roosevelt himself, remember, was no Franklin Roosevelt when he ran for office; the movement that installed him in office made him into the transformative New Deal figure he became.) Progressives cannot be naive about this. Even if I’m right, for a Barack Obama administration to become the dawn of a genuine progressive era, it would demand tremendous organizing and continuous political campaigning after Election Day. There will surely be a serious effort by the political Establishment—both on Wall Street and inside the Beltway—to rein in both a new president and the forces that put him there. And Obama himself—clearly no visceral radical--will need to be convinced that the path to a second term lies through heeding his populist base, not through reaching accommodation with the sclerotic old guard.
That is a call-to-arms, though, not a reason to ignore this possibility.
What I’m suggesting here is that Barack Obama’s campaign, by its very rhetoric of change, may be creating something bigger than Barack Obama, and that Barack Obama may never have intended: a powerful constituency for real change. ___________________ DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006, and now available in paperback edition). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
I do think he is the best choice for the progressive movemen
I think Obama might be playing down massive change in policy to win the general election.The right would call him weak on national defense and play the terror factor more convincingly to the moderate Republicans and Independents.
I do think he is the best choice for the progressive movement.
by
Michael Chavers (41 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 168 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 4:43:38 PM
... the thing I would say to progressives is, get on board with the Obama campaign and mold his movement into as progressive as we can make it. Like Dave said, this movement is real and it is powerful. Its so strong it is holding Hillary to less than 40% in most of the last ten or so contests and she isnt expected to crack 40% in any of tomorrow's three contests either. I would never have dreamed that a Democratic candidate could do that.
Is the New York Times distorting the truth or is Obama distorting the Truth?
Nuclear Leaks New York Times
By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008
".......Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators.The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. .....
Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.
In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues........."
Sharon
by
Sharon (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 33 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 11:48:44 PM
#1. Several NY Times Journalists are obvious shills for Hillary. This guy is one of them as is Krugman who I normally like.
#2. Do you really think with Hillary's record that the way to prop up Hillary is to try to paint someone else as being in the pockets of corporate America? Just off the top of my head, the “Big Five” of health insurers-Aetna, Cigna, Metropolitan Life, Prudential and Travelers, responsible for Hillary’s health care reform are all major backers of her 2008 presidential bid. Gee, how effectively do you think Hillary will advocate for the little guy as far as Healthcare is concerned? That is just for starters. Do you really want me to post a comment with a list of her corporate backers??????
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1263 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:26:05 AM
His voting record is nearly exactly like Hillary's. He has done nothing to end the war in Iraq that I'm aware of. He has voted over and over again to fund it. His "movement" is his own cult of personality centered around .... himself. What am I missing here? Obama isn't remotely liberal and to call himself an agent of big change exposes him for the fraud he is. He's not a representative for liberals or any progressive movement. He supports nuclear power and corporate lawyers and Wall Street, nearly as much as Hillary. Obama also appears to be super-religious. You want more of that in this country, after the religious right?
I respect Mr. Lindorff but on this one the mark has been cleanly missed. Liberals don't have a candidate in this race. We've been disenfranchised again. Given that, if a gun is at my head and I have to choose, I'd choose the candidate with more experience and the one that I know is a feminist. I don't know that about Obama. What I know about Obama is that Obama loves Obama. He's all about the O.
by
Shelly Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:42:11 AM
... when I actually did the research, I found that Obama voted the Liberal/Progressive way on something like 68 out of 70 votes in 2007 alone. Hillary voted Liberal/Progressive on something like 66 out of 70.
So in a small way, you are correct, Hillary and Obama's voting records are not all that different. But accusing Obama of not being a progressive based on "having a voting record similar to Hillarys" is an extremely inaccurate distortion.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1263 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:52:17 AM
I didn't say Obama is progressive. I said his supporters are, and that he could be forced (or freed) to be progressive by the people who put him in office. It's what happened to FDR.
by
Dave Lindorff (300 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 143 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:22:23 AM
Instead of the usual tripe about Senator Clinton and her hubby we find Obama supporters, at least this particular article, now saying that progressives should ignore the truth of Obama's corporatism because it isnt the candidate that matters but his supporters....err what??????
I would suggest that progressives, rather than falling for such pie in the sky nonsense, refuse this overture to remain loyal to a Democratic Party that has long since reneged on its promises to us and realise that the way to support our own agenda is by voting third party.
Senator Obama, by vote, word and deed has shown himself to be no different than Senator Clinton, other than in his compete lack of experience in foreign and domestic policies.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:15:04 AM
How masterful the powers-that-be are that they have duped the lot of us.
Case in point, yesterday listening to callers on C-SPAN a caller says, " ... I'm Independent, because I vote both Democratic and Republican ..." without ever realizing what she was saying. If you vote for either Democratic or Republican candidates you're not "independent".
So powers-that-be have basically made "Independent" voters disappear by only giving us Tweedledee or TweedleDum to choose from, but if the true number of Independents out here were to realize their power and vote such we'd have representation we could be happy with. That's why it's impossible to vote in a corrupt system and to remain faithful to principled.
Not that any Green, Libertarian or any of the other 3rd parties could not be corrupted either, but it would take some time. But it's no mystery our current system is a joke. Most other democracies have more than just two major parties - it's a lot easier to buy-off two parties as opposed to twenty. And to think we have corporate networks, whose corporate pundits tell us who are the "winners" and "losers" are before we even get to cast a vote on machines that may erase it anyway as we run around the world bombing countries into submission proclaiming ourselves a "model of democracy" must somehow win an award somewhere for one of the all-time ironies in human history.
There is no way one can get to be a major player in either Democratic or Republican parties without making deals with the devil first. And if per-chance Obama should by some miracle become POTUS and go through a transformation into true progressive policies that would start to dismantle the Warrior Nation we are they'd kill him before his next birthday.
Unlike the author of this article I have absolutely no faith in believing this country can be saved by electing anyone coming from two parties that have exhibited nothing but to maintain the status-qua for a criminal organization we refer to as our so-called government. You can't be a "little" involved in a criminal organization. If you are an accepted major player in either party you are by definition and association a criminal. The few that are honest and speak truth to power, that are in either Democratic or Republican parties, are marginalized, ignored, ostracized or murdered.
Personally I'm over it. Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world", and that's exactly what I'm going to do even if it's blowing in the hurricane force wind of the current destructive force we refer to as our current system. I'm voting outside the two party system if for no other reason than my own piece of mind. I will not be made invisible just because the system is trying to force me to be.
Obama isn't going to change anything, at least not in any meaningful way. The forces at play are way beyond any one person, or even the powerful forces that control most all that is present. We may have had a chance to survive as a species if we had started progressiveness and had an enlightened view at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. But that's not humane nature. What has happened is what always happens, the darker side of humane nature takes over and those that are ruthless and clever enough to gorge themselves on what they have conquered till there is nothing left have done so. And we're at that time that we've pretty much used up all there is in maintaining any semblance of how we've lived over the past generation. Anyone that believes the next 20 years will be anything close to the next 20 is insane. Short of space aliens landing and taking control and giving us the knowledge to reverse the damage we've done - we're doomed and not Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, the Bilderberg's, TriLateral Commission, or any other force of man or nature is going to change the physical reality of what's coming. So you might as well vote your conscience because we're going down the drain anyway.
Have a nice day.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1059 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM
This article hit a whole lot of nails on a whole lot of heads. It raises the possibility, with not an ounce of naivete about Obama himself, that the "Obama movement" could ultimately reshape an Obama presidency. It's a question very worth thinking about.
Wouldn't it be nice if the enthusiasm of Obama's "JFK youth corps" reengergized a new generation of idealists to get involved, to join a new Peace Corps and to crush the abuses of empire, imperialism and corporatism? In short, wouldn't it be nice if a new generation could help reclaim our government for we, the people and restore America to human values instead of corporate values?
It sure is worth thinking about. The truth is, however, I'm not too optimistic. To put this much faith in Obama's followers demands that we look beyond the "rapid movement of the boiling molecules." It's easy to see them dashing about in Obama's boiling water. What's not at all clear, and would need to be clear to make the case, is what agenda the Obama youth hold beyond Obama himself. Put another way, are the Obama youth leaders of a new vision or are they merely advocates for an Obama presidency?
Dave's article nailed down the essentials:
I don’t want to overstate the case for Barack Obama, who has been fairly circumspect about his intentions if elected. While saying he is against the Iraq War, he has not acted very forcefully to help bring it to an end. And he certainly has not called for any downsizing of America’s bloated military budget or any end to its imperialist foreign policy—absolutely essential if there is to be any progressive change of consequence in the US.
Absolutely essential, indeed! Therein lies the rub!
Absent statements from Obama about a massive downsizing of the American military; absent statements from Obama about closing down every single foreign US military base and bringing all the troops home; absent even an acknowledgment from Obama that our entire government is run by and run for multi-national corporations, Obama's followers cannot be seen as a political force focused on the essential changes we need.
I would extend this argument beyond the military issue to global warming. Consider this: the current military budget is roughly $1.1 trillion per year. Obama has called for only $15 billion per year over the next 10 years to fight global warming. Does he seem to have his priorities right? Which is the greater threat: a military attack on the US or a global warming attack on the US?
Seeing the heated molecules moving with such frantic energy does, as Dave points out, create possibilities for a future political movement. That sure beats having an alienated, non-participatory generation. I commend the young people who have cared enough to get involved; I worry, though, that their energies are transitory and not based on the core values needed to build a sustainable progressive movement. America is a "People Magazine" culture where celebrity blinds us to issues and values and policies. I'm afraid the Obama molecules have been poisoned by the soil in which they grew.
I hope I'm wrong about that.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:48:58 AM
That is to say, a President Barack Obama, whatever his own political beliefs (and we don't really know much about the man), could well find himself, thanks to the movement that puts him in power, freed from the shackles of the Democratic Leadership Council and the army of advisors of stasis and corporatism that cling to most Democratic political figures like barnacles to a rotting pier.
Dave's view is idealistic, to say the least, but perhaps it's the most viable scenario provided the electorate realize that they do have a choice. That choice is not between HRC and Obama, but between the front running candidates and a "none of the above" vote, in the form of a third party or a non-vote.
All we're hearing is rhetoric and both candidates are very good at rhetoric. There is very little substance behind what either is saying, and neither has taken a stance on anything substantive. Their claims of promoting Change has nothing behind it, no history, no stand on current issues and no real definition of their future plans.
Unless the progressive electorate is willing to let the candidates know that they, the electorate, is willing to cast their vote for a third party candidate, or simply not vote for President, even if that means that the White House remains in the hands of the Repugs, nothing is going to change, because as Dave points out so nicely, There will surely be a serious effort by the political Establishment—both on Wall Street and inside the Beltway—to rein in both a new president and the forces that put him there.
Your vote is only as important and meaningful as you make it and risk is an integral part of the process.Neither of these candidates has earned my vote – yet – and I will not vote of either unless that support is earned, even if it means another four years of Republicans.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 147 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM
Both Obama fans & Obama cynics are missing the point here!
The fans are suggesting that Obama is "just playing down" his "real" (but slyly covert) progressive agenda until he wins the general election -- then (according to this theory) he'll suddenly pull off his corporate-friendly mask, and start downsizing the Pentagon and re-regulating big business left and right.
The cynics are complaining that Obama is not really progressive at all.
But both these positions miss Lindorff's interesting & subtle point, which is NOT grounded in any claim that Obama is particularly progressive in and of himself. Rather, the argument here is that the Obama phenomenon could conceivably turn out to be larger than the politician himself.
Lindorff buttresses this argument by correctly noting that “FDR was no FDR” when he ran for office; & neither was JFK any JFK. Both figures provided openings to historical waves & expression of mass yearnings which were larger than the politicians themselves (& were not intended, or likely even dreamed of, by the politicians at the outset of their presidential runs).
If one wants to make a compelling argument for Obama, this is an intelligent & possibly valid way to do it. The argument can’t be grounded in claims about Obama’s record or policy positions, because they’re just not that good.
The article offers a way of thinking about the Obama phenomenon, & seeing a way it could give rise to constructive developments, that’s not based either on naive illusions about Obama, or on the utterly stupid arguments of lesser-evilism. It’s hard to be certain that such a potentially constructive scenario is flatly impossible.
At the same time, of course, there's a lot that could go wrong. It’s entirely likely that the usual villains will exercise their influence, & will succeed in controlling & corrupting the flow of events, leading ultimately to a terrible disillusionment of the young & other potentially progressive forces who are sensing a vehicle for their aspirations in Obama.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1025 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 1:21:45 PM
Exactly what I was trying to say too, both you and Dave said
it better.
When you start a massive movement, it is not uncommon to lose control of it. I think of Robespierre as perhaps an example of this although I am not sure exactly how accurate that is.
I see in Obama the potential to happen to him what happened to JFK and FDR. He is as bright as either one of them, and he is open to change.
That is no guarantee, I will warrant you that, but I am optimistic. There is no guarantee with anyone though.
by
Steven Leser (189 articles, 35 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1263 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:39:23 PM
