By Brad Parker, Wayne Williams and Ahjamu Makalani
Jan 6th 2008
Dateline – America, 2008. Barack Obama must have spent a lot of time studying Bill Clinton because he has become an eerie doppelganger of the same triangulating, capitulating dogma aimed at romancing any citizen who wants all image, vague promises and little substance; a citizen on edge about the future. Mr. Obama says, “I am the change!” Change to what, we ask? Mr. Obama says, “Turn the page!” Turn to what page from what book, we ask? Mr. Obama says, “Hope we can believe in!” Hope for what, we ask? The siren song remains the same - a lot of smoke and mirrors and no ideas. Here is how the dog and pony show works.
Ginned up fear and anxiety conspire to create an opportunity and into that vacuum walks another friendly face – a face in the crowd. As one great seducer leaves the spotlight, another enters from stage right. Their personas are created on Madison Avenue, financed by Wall Street and sold on YouTube. It’s a crony corporate trifecta and the sullen youth of America, frightened soccer Moms and salivating militarists are giddily marching together down the prim rose path once again. Why do these pied pipers of faux political policy so continually beguile America? The answer is – they pimp the sizzle and ditch the steak
Like in any rock and roll circus the lead singer needs to be believable; at least when you see them on stage or in a video. However, Barack Obama is not Elvis Presley or James Brown, he’s Millie Vanilly plus Vanilla Ice and appearances are decidedly deceptive. Poke any policy proposal put forward by Mr. Obama and the air will rush out of the bogus balloon. There is no there there, when it comes to substance or his favorite word, change.
Examine Mr. Obama’s proposals for Health Care, energy, education, Social Security or any other macro policy program and you will see that Mr. O’s thoughts are aligned with the people who put up most of the money for his campaign - Corporate America! Mr. O would privatize all or part of each of the aforementioned government programs. Oh – you missed that part? Let’s take a look.
His health care program is neither Universal nor Single Payer and would leave out at least 15 MILLION Americans, while leaving the corporations in control. Nor would it provide for the future healthcare needs of the young Americans who are currently swooning over his candidacy. In fact, like his distorted energy policy, which embraces dangerous nuclear and polluting coal as primary energy sources, Gen-X, Y & Z’s will end up paying dearly for the tune this pied piper is downloading for free to their hard drives. Generations of Americans, used to racking up enormous credit card debt, have no idea what this purchase is going to cost them.
Then, there is the fact that Mr. O pointed the finger at all the other candidates who voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq and yet when the time came to give BushCo permission to invade Iran, Mr. O couldn’t find the time to show up and vote against it. His track record in Illinois and in the Senate has followed the same pattern; when crucial votes are counted and its time to take a stand: where is Mr. O? As always, he’s missing in action. Mr. O subscribes to that old Clinton/DLC dictum; stand for nothing other than rhetoric, move to the right and call it the Third Way – an end to partisan bickering.
Under the guise of being all things to all people, Mr. O is heartily solidifying corporate America’s control of the political process in the name of - you guessed it, change. It’s no surprise that clever advertisers have once again figured out how to sell the same ole - same ole as something new. Young Americans say that they are enthralled because Mr. O gives them hope. What they perceive as hope is.... a placebo. They believe they are seeing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Bobby Kennedy, Kanye West and John Mayer all rolled into one - here to save the day. In actuality, they are staring at a mirage cleverly adapted to reflect their hopes, dreams and desires while picking their pockets. Buyer beware.
So, why would a bright, well-educated man with all the good intentions in the world, play this deceptive part in the American political drama? Perhaps the answer lies in his progenitor - Bill Clinton. Perhaps it is simpler than that. Maybe Mr. Obama became Mr. Opportunity because he saw an opening, a chance to do what he wanted no matter the price, a chance to advance? We may never know why, but we know how. Mr. Obama became Mr. Opportunity because America was desperate for it and if he played their song, the corporations would mortgage his future. Whatever success electorally may follow for him, failure for the rest of us will be close behind. Just ask our most recent hollow Democrat, Bill Clinton. Eventually the Madmen who finance the show come for their ROI and it will cost the rest of us big time in the form of more corporate driven policy and legislation.
Somebody needs to tell the twittering Obama crowd that this isn’t American Idol. This is for real and a price will be paid for every choice that is made. If you really want to choose change that isn’t Progressive in name only then elect John Edwards. If you really want to win a better place at the table for every American then support John Edwards. If you yearn for a President who is more substance than image then choose John Edwards. John Edwards stands for an immediate end to the Iraq War, Full Public Campaign Financing, Universal Healthcare, Public Education through college and all of the policies and programs America needs now. That’s the change we’re looking for.
A truly powerful African-American, Fredrick Douglas, famously wrote and strenuously insisted "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.” Somebody needs to tell Mr. Opportunity that this isn’t a luncheon, this is a struggle - this is a fight for everything we all hold dear. Let’s send a fighter into the ring - John Edwards - not a capitulator, appeaser, or talking head that claims that he can make everything nice without a battle. But then again, as Mark Twain was fond of pointing out, America loves a huckster. We shall see.
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." - B. Bonsai
John Edwards has been singing the praises of Obama for a couple of days now. You need to accept the fact that either your guy sold out (not my opinion), or you are wrong about Obama.
How will you react to the likely Obama/Edwards ticket?????
And, by the way, Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a disaster as a president (excluding the philandery, of course)
by
Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 303 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 2:28:11 AM
George Bush and his Poppy have given us Smoke and Mirror in every act of government Jr. has performed--from their stealing of the electios times two, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to the No Child Left Behind, to the Katrina Relief Effort, to ... you name it!
On the other hand, Bill Clinton, was always very clear in his administrative policies. He may have given you and me (and Hillary as well) Smoke and Mirrror when it came to Monica Lewinsky. But you know what, that was none of your business, nor mine... and whether Hillary made it hers, it was hers to make and still none of your business nor mine.
No. Obama has not been studying Bill Clinton. He has been learning from George Bush to including, in my opinion, some problems with articulateness and with being able to keep his thinking straight. In the ABC debate last night, there were times when he seemed not to be able to follow his own straight line and had to make an effort to keep his line of thought straight.
Peace.
by
teresa simon-noble (56 articles, 17 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 4:47:17 AM
If you had a passing awareness of Barack Obama's resume, you would know that he had ample oppportunity to park himself on Wall Street and start building his pile. It's where he went after Harvard Law, and within a year, his true calling, public service, compelled his return to Chicago where he fought in the trenches as a civil rights attorney. Then he ran for and won a seat in the Illinois Senate.
There he called upon his community organizing experience to reach across the aisle, forming coalitions that produced solid accomplishment, including an ethics bill. While still in the Illinois Senate, and before the Bush Cannonade, he made a speech condemning the regime's invasion of Iraq.
The centrism that you so stridently revile in him is the key to his success. I'm sure that if you look around, you'll find a candidate that suits you. A candidate who will beat his or her fists bloody and scream his or her throat hoarse before the concrete wall of problems that we face. But at the end of his or her efforts, the wall will still be there, albeit bearing the bloodstains from his or her knuckles.
I am gender inclusive here, because in spite of the evident disdain expressed in your article for Bill Clinton, it sounds to me like the pen this screed dripped from was Mark Penn.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 8:05:13 AM
about Bill Clinton? He was a great errand boy for Wall St. and bombed more countries than any other "peace time" Prez in US history. NAFTA, Haiti, Kosovo, Privatization, and on and on and on.... The guy was a criminal of the highest order.
It's obvious this country needs a mass deprogramming and a simple history lesson.
For all who have any delusions about Obama please just do some research on these matters.
by
coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 9:58:27 AM
Not on this subject exactly, but let's talk about Bill Clinton.
NAFTA and our entry into the WTO occurred on Clinton's watch. Now the Democrats (even his wife) see to forget that. The job losses in the U.S. are tied to these agreements.
Bill Clinton raised taxes more than any other in peacetime history. He also was the recipient of a huge one time tobacco settlement that skewed the numbers.
He also raised the annual budget...a lot. Sure, he raised the taxes to pay for all of the increases, but you can only go to the well so many times and it runs dry.
The dot com bubble occurred on Mr. Clintons watch and shortly after his departure the U.S. took a $2 Trillion haircut, erasing all gains that he had made.
So exactly what did Bill Clinton do other than raise the cost of running the U.S., be there when the tobacco companies paid off, and raise taxes to cover his increased spending?
by
Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM
An archived article from before his presidential run and the concurrent barrage of flack, and I also urge you to visit his website where he articulates all of the positions on issues that his detractors can't seem to find.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 12:34:24 PM
TRY (OBAMA CFR ON GOOGLE OR EDWARDS) ALSO, THESE TWO ARE GLOBALIST PLAYERS, IF ELECTED, YOU WILL HAVE TO GO TO NIGHT SCHOOL, STOP WAIT FOR GET THAT, GO TO DAY SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU WONT HAVE A JOB ANYWAY AND LEARN SPANISH.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 1:43:50 AM
Edwards reminds me of a western saying, "Big hat and no cattle."
Free healthcare, free education though college, combat everyone who makes any money... except trial lawyers of course.
Edwards does have some good ideas, just no viable plan to pay for them. We are on the verge of a total collapse of the U.S. economy, recession is a near certainty, what is John Edwards answer to that? Sue someone?
by
Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 11:55:57 AM
FWIW, PolitiFact's analysis of some statements by Barack Obama.
IMHO, just another establishment hack, another NeoCon, a Dubya Mini-Me.
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them." ~~ Karl Marx
by
Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM
seems to be as much an analysis of syntax as anything else. It is clear that to be entirely acceptable to them one must speak machine language with no allowance for metaphor.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM
I don't believe Obama is simply aping Bill Clinton. However, he is the model of image without substance. Hillary pointed out in the latest debate that when he campaigned for Senate he promised he wouldn't vote for Iraq War funding or the Patriot Act, but actually voted for both. He did provide leadership on some incremental reforms on Senate ethics, but otherwise his career has been quite undistinguished.
He is the quintessential establishment candidate in the race. He can be counted upon not to rock any boats. He has no positions at all that threaten the establishment in any way. However, he has the gift of sounding like he's for change to the voters. He is the only charismatic establishment candidate of either party. He probably will win the nomination and the Presidency, and the establishment can then rest easy.
Edwards is not a meaningful alternative. His record is more conservative than Obama's. He has closer ties to the super wealthy. He talks a good game but is not believable. What he is really passionable about is his own ambition. The populist rhetoric is a political gimmick.
The only candidate who seems to have any chance of success this year who is not solidly controlled by the establishment is Huckabee. Huckabee appears to genuinely despise the establishment. Unfortunately, on some important issues, he nevertheless believes the establishment line, so even he would not provide much change. But the establishment is clearly afraid of him. None of the Democratic candidates scare the establishment, either because they are safely establishment or they have no realistic prospects of any success.
by
Bill Samuel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 278 comments)
on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 1:53:40 PM
I did a story on the IRS not long ago. The cost of maintaining the system and the associated costs of tax preparation, record keeping, tax attorneys, etc. etc. is punitive to say the least. Some estimate the aggregate costs at 50% of all collection.
The IRS is also a fear based collection method. What method do you recommend that we use to collect taxes or do you support the current IRS system?
by
Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM
A national sales tax is a regressive form of taxation, and that is what makes it unacceptable. Poor people and many middle class people as well, live paycheck to paycheck, spending their entire income on binding body and soul together. A national sales tax means that they would pay the going rate on 100% of their income.
For the wealthy, however, much of their income would not be taxed. That portion that was saved or invested, or simply stashed under a mattress because they didn't need it for living expenses and couldn't blow that much on conspicuous consumption and entertainment, would not be subject to taxation, no matter how much it is.
That is primarily the system that George Bush has been trying to foist on us through tax cuts for the wealthy under our current system.
If it were up to me, I would indeed retain the current system, but roll back the tax cuts that have taken place since Ronald Reagan turned his baleful eye to the system. This would mean a sharply higher marginal tax rate on income above the first few millions of dollars, and relief for those in the lowest and middle class income brackets. I would exempt charitable giving from taxation, and use other incentives to deal with intractable problems like weaning the nation from petroleum motor fuels, sustainable urban development, and protecting those family farm holdings that can (and still do) produce food with reasonable efficiency.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 9:14:03 AM
If you believe that the wealthy should have their income free of taxation to maximize its investment potential, you must understand where these investments are going, and where they are not going.
By and large they are not going to invest in production of goods in the United States. They may be invested in "American" companies, but those "American" and transnational companies have their production offshore, primarily in China.
Perhaps tax code revisions could target such investment to provide incentives for investment in domestic production (and consequently employment) and leave the offshore investment as a less attractive proposition.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM
Thanks for the reply, but it still does not deal with the cost of running the IRS. Billions could go to healthcare etc.,if that money were saved. An entire multi billion dollar non productive industry has grown up around tax collection, similar to that which has materialized in our justice system.
The IRS is also an arcade, complex, fear based system that consumes millions of otherwise productive hours from business and individuals to comply with reporting standards. There has to be a better way.
More than 1/2 the people in the U.S. do not pay taxes, so the lower income thing is already taken care of. The cost of the tax system falls unfairly on Middle America, just like everything else.
As far as reviving the U.S. workforce, it isn't going to happen. The discepancy of wages, work rules, environmental controls, etc. etc. between the U.S. and say China is far beyond fixing with a tax break. A Chinese assembly worker can work 10 hours per day for a year compared to a U.A.W. worker putting in two 8 hour shifts!
by
Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 5:06:47 PM
I agree that our current tax system is in no way perfect, or even pretty good, or even okay, but it does have the capacity to be progressive if adjusted correctly.
It is badly in need of recalibration, and I realize that may not be the required solution. However, for any replacement to be acceptable, it must be progressive. That is a feature that is conspicuously absent from any of the suggested replacement plans I have heard about so far. Those that I have heard suggested are the Flat Tax, the Value Added Tax (another sales tax), and the National Sales Tax (which I have laughably heard referred to as the "Fair Tax").
I am not, in spite of disappointing progress to date, closed to new ideas to correct an extraordinarily difficult problem. If this system can be replaced with a system that has the feature of progressivity, I would likely back that system. So far, I remain unaware of what form that would take, and so, support improving what we have.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:00:16 PM
The disparity between China's labor force and ours...
Is the reason that unfettered Milton Friedmanesque free trade is poison. It is corrected by leveling the playing field with reasonable import tariffs on goods that can be as easily (not necessarily as cheaply) produced domestically. I would expect that Chinese enamelware, art, and whatever else needs to be produced in China to be authentic could be imported duty free.
It is a system that, before Reagan, worked very well.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1175 comments)
on Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 9:13:29 AM
23 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (