On the Need to Challenge President Obama from the Left

[Time for change]

As a liberal/progressive American voter, I have been a long-time supporter of Democratic candidates, ever since I worked as a volunteer in George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign at the age of 22. Yet, as a liberal, I believe that if there is anything that liberals can and should agree on, it is that an individual candidate’s predispositions and actions are more important than the Party s/he belongs to when deciding which candidates to support.

National political parties change over time. The “Party of Lincoln” in the 1860s was the anti-slavery party, while the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party in those days. Yet, by the 1930s, the Democratic Party was the clearly the party of the people, compared to the Republican Party, which was the Party of wealthy elites. That remained the case for many decades. But today, increasing infusion of corporate cash into the Democratic Party is corrupting it and moving it further and further to the right. Unqualified support by liberals for a Party that is progressively moving to the right will do nothing to slow down or reverse that trend.

I contributed money to and worked as a volunteer in Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and I also wrote and posted numerous favorable articles about him on DU and elsewhere in the run-up to the 2008 election, as in this article, in which I favorable compared Obama to McCain with regard to numerous important policy issues. Yet, I have been very disappointed in Obama’s performance in office, as time and again he has reneged on the most important promises on which he ran for president in 2008. Consider the major points that I espoused in the above noted DU article in support of Obama’s major campaign promises, which now make me look somewhat foolish:


BROKEN PROMISES AND A SHARP TURN TO THE RIGHT

Torture and other unconscionable “War on Terror” policies

Torture
In my 2008 DU article comparing Obama with McCain, I pointed to Obama’s strong stand against George W. Bush’s Military Commissions Act of 2006 and a major Senate speech in which he took a strong stand against torture.

President Obama does deserve credit for banning torture on the second day of his presidency. However, as Alain Nairn explains in “The Torture Ban that Doesn’t Ban Torture”:

What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of “an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government…”, which means that it doesn’t even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of “armed conflict,” which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren’t in armed conflict.

Secrecy and immunity for human rights abusers
And despite campaign promises to the contrary, Guantanamo Bay remains open and a source of serious human rights abuses:

It is absolutely undeniable that fundamental human rights violations are occurring in this detention center…. And although the current Obama administration has pledged to shut down this oasis of human right violations there continues to be an unacceptable disregard for fundamental right.

Many aspects of our current War on Terror are unknown because of the cloud of secrecy that surrounds it. Indeed, the Obama administration continues the designation of “state secrets” in a number of cases that seek to challenge alleged misconduct of the Bush administration.

One of the most important requirements of a democracy is transparency of government actions. To the extent that citizens are not aware of what their government does, they cannot hold it accountable for its actions. For that reason, “state secrets” should be invoked to shield citizen knowledge of government action only in extreme instances. This is especially important where the rights of the accused are concerned. It is difficult to understand what information could be so important to our national security that efforts to hold our government accountable for its actions should be obstructed. Russ Feingold, previously one of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, commented on this:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program.

The Obama administration has also actively sought to obstruct prosecution of war crimes. According to UN special rapporteur Manfred Nowak:

Obama has the authority to pardon crimes, not obstruct efforts to investigate crimes for political purposes. This may not be politically advantageous for Obama, but these treaties do not exist for his comfort or advantage. We made a pledge to the world that we would aggressively pursue any war criminals – even if they happened to be made in America.

Climate change and the environment

Climate change
During his presidential campaign Obama used rhetoric that emphasized the need to combat global warming, saying “I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.”

It was widely recognized by climate scientists prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference of December 7-18 in Copenhagen, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, that failure would likely eventually portend world-wide disaster. An article in Scientific American by Douglass Fischer, titled “What Would Failure at Copenhagen Mean for Climate Change”, written a month prior to the Summit, summed up the stakes:

Climate experts, scientists and negotiators say that, absent international agreement, the children and grandchildren of those living today will negotiate a world where planetary geo-engineering is a part of daily life, sea-walls defend coastal cities, the world's poor are hammered by drought, floods and famine and our planet is heading toward conditions unseen for the last 100 million years…

The accord that the 30 leading countries agreed upon dropped the goal of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050, despite the fact that our best climate scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophe. It retained a (non-binding) commitment to reducing global temperatures by 2050, but contained no concrete plans for achieving that goal. Consequently:

Many countries almost immediately tore to shreds the compromise plan that the group of 30 countries presented in the main hall. Those countries that could face destruction as a result of climate change, in particular, could not see any solutions in it. Now we are faced with the threat of an impasse in global climate politics. And the consequences of this holdup will primarily be felt by the poorest of the poor. Experts anticipate that they will be subjected to storms and flooding stronger than ever before. Their crops will wither. Melting glaciers might deprive several million people of their water supplies and deprive them of their livelihoods.

Later, the United States committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

More recently, renowned NASA Climate scientist James Hansen was arrested protesting the Obama administration’s decision to ok the construction of the Keystone oil pipeline. Asked why he was willing to be arrested over this issue, Hansen explained:

President George W. Bush said that the U.S. was addicted to oil. So what will the U.S. response to this situation be? Will it entail phasing out fossil fuels and moving to clean energy or borrowing the dirtiest needle from a fellow addict? That is the question facing President Obama. If he chooses the dirty needle it is game over because it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians, with no real intention of solving the addiction.

Smog pollution standards
Obama also recently gave in to Republicans and corporate polluters on smog standards which his own EPA strongly recommended be strengthened:

In a dramatic reversal, President Barack Obama on Friday scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy. Withdrawal of the proposed regulation marked the latest in a string of retreats by the president in the face of GOP opposition… and the American Lung Association threatened to restart the legal action it had begun against rules proposed by President George W. Bush…

In March, the EPA's independent panel of scientific advisers sent a letter to the agency's administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying it was its unanimous recommendation to make the smog standards stronger and that the evidence was "sufficiently certain" that {it} would benefit public health…

Explaining why these standards are so important, Obama’s own EPA:

estimates that up to 12,000 lives could be saved annually from heart attacks, lung disease and asthma attacks by implementing the new standards.

War

In September, 2010, Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, thus apparently fulfilling a major campaign promise. However, not only is the commitment to withdraw from Iraq uncertain, but the total U.S. casualties between Iraq and Afghanistan has not changed a lot since the Bush presidency. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 469 military fatalities between the two wars in 2008, Bush’s last year as president. There were 466 military fatalities in 2009, Obama’s first year as president. There were 559 in 2010, and 404 in 2011 so far. While casualties in Iraq have decreased substantially, the war in Afghanistan has escalated.

Iraq
President Obama promised the withdrawal of all “combat troops” from Iraq by August, 2010, and the withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011. All U.S. “combat troops” were in fact withdrawn from Iraq, on schedule, in August 2011. But what exactly does that mean? There have nevertheless been 47 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq in 2011 so far, and U.S. casualties in Iraq continue to occur throughout 2011. Furthermore, “non-combat U.S. troops do engage in combat”, and while helping Iraqi forces to fend off an attack, US troops used helicopters and unmanned aircraft. Worse yet:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has admitted that US troops are likely to stay in Iraq beyond 2011, making another scheduled withdrawal date nothing more than an empty meaningless promise. There will be no withdrawal, because a permanent military occupation was agreed long ago. The date for the final pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq keeps being pushed back further and further. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq, then that was put back to June 2009, then it became August 2010, and now the date has been pushed back to the end of 2011. Every time a deadline gets close, the Obama administration simply insists that the situation is too unstable for withdrawal and the date is pushed back again.

Afghanistan
Regarding Obama’s escalation of the Afghanistan War, Professor Gregor Schirmer notes the illegality of the continued war:

Nine years after the start of the war, the war of aggression of the US and its allies in violation of international law continues. An occupation regime exists despite the progressive so-called “Afghanization” of the conflict and transfer of responsibility to Afghan authorities. Under this regime, Afghans cannot realize their right of self-determination.

The continued occupation of Iraq also constitutes a violation of international law, notwithstanding Obama’s removal of “combat troops” – as described in “US Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq, Report to the Ninth Session of the Human Rights Council”:

This report is grounded in the assumption that the U.S. is not above the law, but rather should be bound and limited by law. Yet the entire thrust of U.S. policy in Iraq stands in contradiction to the post-World War II legal order and particularly the legal framework governing occupation. The primary conclusion to be drawn is that the occupation itself is the root cause of systematic rights violations. They will not end until the occupation ends and Iraqis are allowed to exercise genuine self-determination. Full justice will not be done until all war criminals – U.S. as well as Iraqi – are put in the dock and held to account, and the U.S. pays reparations for the illegal devastation inflicted on Iraqi society.

Health care

As a presidential candidate, then Senator Obama offered a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” The plan that Obama eventually offered the American people as president was nothing like the one he promised as a presidential candidate. Instead of a plan “similar to the plan available to members of Congress”, he offered us the option – or, rather, mandate – of purchasing a plan from the same health insurance industry that has consistently abused its near monopoly of its product for the past several years or decades – albeit restrained by some government regulation. Instead of a system that provides competition to that insurance industry he offered us a system that mandates most Americans to purchase health insurance from that same industry – thus solidifying their monopoly.

Worse yet, Obama didn’t even appear to fight for the plan that he promised the American people. It simply slipped off the table. Worse still, he didn’t even acknowledge his about-face. He unveiled his shocking surprise in a speech of September 2009, in which he said:

An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

In other words, the plan that as a candidate he offered to “all Americans” – the not-for-profit public option – was now being offered to “less than 5 percent of Americans”, as Obama struggled to make clear to the insurance industry that threatened to fight him tooth and nail at the slightest indication of competition to their racket. But even that proved to be too much for the health insurance industry to accept. Obama was forced to take even his measly offering of 5% off the table – without a semblance of a fight.

The fact that the plan left control of health care insurance in the hands of the private insurance industry is reflected in large part in the fact that the plan has utterly failed to achieve its presumed major objective – a decrease in the number of uninsured Americans. By the end of 2010 there were 52 million uninsured Americans – up about 5 million from what it was at the beginning of the health care reform debate.


The economy

Continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
Far from reversing the Bush tax cuts that Obama promised as a presidential candidate, he waited until they were about to expire, and then he castigated progressive Democrats for not submitting to Republican blackmail to hold extension of unemployment benefits to the unemployed hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

Jobs
So far job creation has been negative during the Obama administration – representing the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover. One thing that could be said in Obama’s defense is that he has been president for less than three years, and that he inherited a nation in economic crisis. That is true, but so did FDR. Yet the philosophy and actions of the two administrations have been very different. In fact, Obama’s philosophy leans towards the Republican side of the spectrum, as he made clear in a statement:

See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers… that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery. I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient.

Favoring the wealthy
He brags about us being “the wealthiest nation on Earth” during the midst of an economic crisis that is driving millions of Americans into poverty? Worse than that, his actions have not been commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis: Though our best economists recommended a much stronger stimulus package, he decided instead to go with the advice of his much more conservative economic advisors; his solution to the home foreclosure crisis was “Making Home Affordable”, a program that William Kuttner explains in his book, “A Presidency in Peril”, was orders of magnitude more favorable to banks than to homeowners; his continuation of the Bush bailout of Wall Street without demanding much fiscal reform from Wall Street bilked trillions of dollars from American taxpayers, who received little in return; and in his 2010 State of the Union message he indicated that deficit reduction would be a priority over stimulation of a stagnant economy. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s response was scathing in his criticism of that:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team… It’s appalling on every level. It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment… And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view.

Parroting right wing economic talking points
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why our economic crisis has failed to improve under Obama is that, until very recently he failed to recognize or acknowledge the nature or existence of the class warfare perpetrated against the American people by the American oligarchy. Instead, he has mostly bought into the right wing point of view and worsened the situation by conceding to erroneous right wing talking points about such things as the origin of our expanding national debt. William Greider recently commented on this in his article, “Obama’s Bad Bargain”:

The claim that cutting Social Security benefits will “strengthen” the system is erroneous. In fact, Obama has already undermined the soundness of Social Security by partially suspending the FICA payroll tax for workers – depriving the system of revenue it needs for long-term solvency.

The mendacity has a more fundamental dimension. Obama helped conservatives concoct the debt crisis on false premises, promoting a claim that Social Security and other entitlement programs were somehow to blame while gliding over the real causes and culprits… There should be no mystery about what caused the $14 trillion debt: large deficits began in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s fanciful “supply side” tax-cutting. Federal debt was then around $1 trillion. By 2007 it had reached $9 trillion, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and his two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the massive subsidy for Big Pharma in Medicare drug benefits.

ON THE NEED FOR A CHALLENGE TO OBAMA FROM THE LEFT

I acknowledge that Barack Obama is a better presidential candidate than any of the current Republican candidates or any candidate who is likely to run on the Republican ticket. Yet, under Obama’s presidency the wealth gap continues to explode, the American empire continues to expand, planetary destruction portends world-wide catastrophe, the economic and political power of the wealthy climbs to obscene levels, and the rest of us remain mired in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. How much more of this can we afford?

A challenge to President Obama’s reelection could come in the form of either a primary challenge or a third party, or both. There are many Democrats who are very nervous about any kind of challenge to Obama’s reelection from the left, fearing that that would derail his chances for reelection and pave the way for a lunatic Republican to be our next president. An example that many of these Democrats cite in making their point is Ted Kennedy’s primary challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980, with Carter’s subsequent loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential election.

But that is a very select reading of history. I have great admiration for Jimmy Carter, but I think there is very little evidence that Ted Kennedy’s primary challenge had anything much to do with his failure to get reelected. Primary among the reasons for Carter’s defeat in 1980 were the long continuation of the Iran hostage crisis, high inflation, and biased media coverage against him from the right. Several presidents in U.S. history have faced substantial primary challenges (or third party challenges) and yet gone on to win reelection. Some relatively recent examples include: Harry Truman’s upset victory in 1948, despite two third party challenges from former Democrats (Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond); Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide victory, despite a serious primary challenge from George Wallace, who won around 30% or more of the vote in three state primaries, and; Richard Nixon’s landslide 1968 victory, despite a challenge from both the right (John Ashbrook) and the left (Pete McCloskey) that garnered a combined 30% of the vote in New Hampshire’s primary.


On support for a third Party

I am not going to advocate for a third Party, as it is against DU rules to do so. But I think it is important to point out that if corporate influence within the Democratic Party causes it to stray far enough from its ideals and so much resemble the Republican Party that American voters are put in a lose-lose position (which is already happening), a viable third Party is likely to emerge, as it has on a number of occasions in U.S. history. One can currently see a good deal of support for a third Party among the American people in: the fact that, though the president’s approval ratings continue deep in the red, he still remains in relatively decent shape against a Republican field that most Americans feel little affinity for; continuing woeful Congressional approval ratings, currently with a 6 to 1 ratio of disapproval to approval; a poll indicating that only 17% of the American people say that our government has their consent; a poll showing that 57% of American voters feel the need for a third Party, 31% say that having a third Party is very important, voters want to see a third Party candidate for president in 2012 by a margin of 58%-13%, and 20% say that they would be certain or very likely to vote for a third Party candidate for President in 2012; and a Gallup poll showing 52% of voters (68% of independents, 52% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats) picking the latter option (with 40% picking the first option) to the question “In your view do the Republican and Democratic Parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do so poorly that a major third party is needed?”


Reasons why our country needs a challenge to President Obama’s reelection

Either a Democratic primary or third Party challenge implies an avenue for continuing criticism of Obama’s presidency. In order for that criticism to be of value to our country, it must be constructive. Let’s consider some of the advantages to our country of a challenge to Obama’s reelection that brings with it a flurry of constructive criticism:

Criticism from the left helps to put the lie to Republican talking points
One of the biggest talking points of Republicans is that President Obama’s positions are so far to the left that he is a Socialist. When Obama receives a barrage of criticism from the left for not being liberal or progressive enough, that makes it more difficult for Republicans to maintain the fantasy that he’s way to the left of the American public.

Criticism of a Democratic candidate from the left helps to move him to the left and ensure a more successful presidency
It is not a bad thing for a candidate to know when he is alienating a certain segment of the electorate. A challenge from the left has the potential to make a candidate pay attention to many more issues affecting many more Americans. It may not work, but at least it has the potential to work. I don’t believe that Obama’s second four years has much chance of bringing value to our country if he continues to adopt so many Republican points of view in lieu of taking more seriously the issues of most importance to the American people.

Giving voice to fundamental liberal principles that affect the American people
A challenge from the left will help to give voice to the fundamental principles and agendas that represent the soul of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly been deeply tarnished by corporate influence. It will command media attention for the Democratic primaries, which will have the potential to better acquaint the American people with issues that most affect their lives and the health of their country. A letter written by some prominent progressives makes this point:

Certainly, President Obama will not be pleased to face a list of primary challengers, but the comfort of the incumbent is far less important than the vitality and strength of his party’s Progressive ideas and ideals. President Obama should emerge from the primary a stronger candidate as a result.

Failure to criticize or challenge when appropriate sets a dangerous precedent
And finally, the most important reason of all: When a candidate’s base fails to criticize the candidate when appropriate, that is not good for democracy in my opinion. Bill Burton explains why. Burton made this comment in the context of Obama’s support for Bush’s FISA bill prior to the 2008 election. But these words apply to any candidate, any time, any where:

This attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion – neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it – and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.

[Rabblevox]

1. Absolutely recomended!

[Kurovski]

2. K&R. (nt)

[Demeter]

3. Another masterpiece

[markpkessinger]

21. K&R! Great post! n/t

[KoKo]

4. Can't primary him...third party elects Repug Crazies...

So...we are caught. Have to see what comes out of the OWS Movement.

We are kind of stuck between the fying pan and the fire.

[galileoreloaded]

20. Yep. It's a choice between

right wing, ultra right wing, and ultra-ultra right wing. Remind me again why I vote?

[cliffordu]

98. Because you are too lazy to put your life on the line for what you believe??

[bertman]

108. cliffordu, please explain what you mean by that statement. I have no idea why

you would say that in response to the poster's comment. Thanks.

[cliffordu]

111. Because violent revolution is all you have left if everyone

stops voting..

The vote is all we have....

My snide comment is an indictment of the mindset that allows the thought of giving up on the democratic process.

I will be the first to admit that at times I use extremes to make the point.

[bertman]

117. Thanks for the explanation. While I disagree with your assessment about the vote,

I understand what you mean about using extremes to make a point.

[LWolf]

26. You're only caught if you choose to be.

I think the accountability part is wrong. A party who nominates and runs a candidate that betrays those who vote for him, and people who vote for that candidate, are the ones who lost the battle.

People who consistently seek out, support, and vote for strong, non-corrupt candidates with clear liberal/left credentials are the only hope left for the nation, not the scapegoats for the election of crazies of any kind.

In my opinion, of course.

[KoKo]

70. K&R

[radiclib]

5. Thanks for another great contribution, TFC

I couldn't agree more, and I wish some folks on here would actually read your arguments before dismissing them.
Small correction, though.
The Nixon landslide that followed the McCloskey and Ashbrook challenges was in '72, not '68.

[jaxx]

6. Unrec

I can't wait until the pubs have a candidate and people here won't be able to advocate for 3rd parties and against the Democratic President of the United States of America.

[SidDithers]

10. +1...nt

Sid

[indepat]

73. Could it be DUers are a tad more up on the issues than Democrats in general? Will that 76% approval

stand when rank-and-file Democrats fully realize that the machinery to eviscerate social security and Medicare, which was the obvious intent of the Catfood Commission from the git-go, and hence unmistakably BHO's, has been put in place and it's going to devastate them financially although there has been no shared sacrifice, the most shameful euphemism a politician has possibly ever uttered? I hope nary a one of the 76% moans, groans, nor complains when the full ravages of the cuts to social security and Medicare come home to roost. :patriot:

[jaxx]

91. I'm sure there will be such claptrap nonsense for the unhappy to read.

But it won't be here!!

[JuniperLea]

45. +2

[Wait Wut]

52. +3

/sigh

I'm tired.

[slay]

61. Rec

cause Obama IS a republican. wake up - look at his polices.

[Bake]

64. Some of us can't wait until we actually HAVE a DEMOCRATIC President.

Instead of a faux-populist who is owned by Wall Street.

Just sayin'.

Bake

[NICO9000]

83. Don't hold your breath...

:-(

[jaxx]

92. Such tired old canned rhetoric, it must be depressing.

[Bake]

99. Tired old canned rhetoric?

Do you REALLY want to go there?

How about this for some tired old canned rhetoric:

"Change we can believe in." That was definitely some canned rhetoric, and apparently that's ALL it was. And tired? Yeah, we're tired of it.

Bake

[FSogol]

71. +4 n/t

[Raster]

84. -1. Thank you, Time for change.

[ellisonz]

93. +5

[JTFrog]

105. +1000 n/t

[woo me with science]

7. Strong K&R. They will continue the Third Way corporate takeover until we stop them. nt

[emilyg]

8. Huge k/r

[bigtree]

9. great stuff, spot on about the administration's deficiencies

Not enough about the forces he's up against in making the changes you want.

I have to say, though, there's no evidence that a challenger from the left would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected president after dividing the Democratic vote.

[Time for change]

12. Thank you. I recognize that there are formidable forces driving him to the right

I'm not sure though that Obama is up "against" those forces. He often seems to me to be on their side.

I'm also not sure that a challenger from the left wouldn't stand a chance. Consider 1968. LBJ was driven out of office by a challenge from the left -- and rightfully so in my opinion, because of his escalation of our involvement in Vietnam. I believe that RFK would have stood a very good chance against Nixon had he not been assassinated. It depends who the challenger is. LBJ was damaged goods. So is Obama. Perhaps the biggest barrier is what the corporate media would do to a challenger from the left. But with enough charisma, maybe they would be unsuccessful in their efforts to destroy him or her.

[slipslidingaway]

18. "Perhaps the biggest barrier is what the corporate media would do to a challenger from the left."

It was the corporate media that kept Obama's name in the spotlight right after the 2006 elections, corporate media plays such an important role in our elections.

[Time for change]

29. I'm hoping that as the Internet becomes more and more widely used

and as the corporate media becomes more and more exposed for the fraud that it is, it will continue to lose a great deal of its power.

[defendandprotect]

48. Excellent point -- and we should be aware that we have have the means ....

of bringing down their propaganda machine --

just turn off the TVs -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

11. IMO, we also need to have a discussion of where we went wrong with Obama ....

was there no way to know who he really was -- or were we ignoring information

we should have been paying attention to --

For myself, it was a case of voting for Democrats because going it alone with a

third party didn't make any sense to me at that time --

AND because so many here had immense confidence in Obama -- though I did wonder

about the meteroric rise --

Nonetheless I wasn't going to vote for Hillary because she was DLC --

and Obama was denying it --

OK -- so where did we go wrong -- ?

Or was there no way to know -- ?

Certainly the betrayal on single payer could have been predicted if we had looked

closely at the corporations sponsoring Obama --

But I do think we need to explore this question -- BEFORE we get involved in 2012!!

I certainly won't be voting for Obama -- but I do hope to vote for a democrat

challenging him!!

And, preferably, would like to see him step down --

[russspeakeasy]

13. Yes, this deserves its own thread...

The four of us that worked closely together in central florida for Obama's election; approximately 100 hours each, had lunch last Friday....None of us are willing to work for his re-election; none of us are donating money..
Will we vote for him? It depends on his primary challenger. If he runs unchallenged, probably not.
We are a small sample of the 200 who were part of the campaign headquarters we worked out of,..but the feeling is pretty wide spread.

[defendandprotect]

30. Any ideas on ....

pushing for a challenger -- ?

Just want to add that I am hugely disappointed for all of us that our votes went for

nil -- it's heartbreaking, really. We need a humanist in the White House -- the reality

of America today and the suffering of our citizens calls for it.

[russspeakeasy]

32. I know this is a long, long, long shot, but what if Howard Dean

would primary him ? What are your thoughts ?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[russspeakeasy]

43. Yikes is right...A place for us to start is with Dylan Ratigan's

"get money out". It is an attempt to get the money out of politics...I know, that's crazy, but the positions of senators, reps and presidents are being auctioned off to the highest bidders.
When I signed on to "gmo" it had about 7,000 sigs; In two weeks it has close to 200,000 for a constitutional amendment to end private funding for elections.
I know it sounds a little hokey, but we need to do something other than sell governing seats to the well off and have them hold those seats in their family in perpatuity...

[defendandprotect]

44. How about a link to that -- ????

Do it as an OP -- I'm sure everyone here would vote for it -- !!



Just want to add -- there are two sides to that Citizens United coin --

Elites/corporations BUYING candidates and elected officials -- and --

Candidates and elected officials SELLING themsleves and our government to elites/corporations --


We need to be targeting both sides of that coin!!




:hi:

[russspeakeasy]

54. I put up the info I had, It landed in general discussion.

For people reading this , just go to getmoneyout.com
I am not a big DR fan, but at this point, I'll take a chance that he and his show can't make the situation any worse...

[LooseWilly]

113. About the "get the money out" idea—

Have you heard of Buddy Roemer?
(http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-6-2011/buddy-roemer) — Roemer on Jon Stewart

There's a candidate who is... sort of... already in the race (Republican Primary), whose primary platform is getting the money out of the elections. Just FYI ... ;)

[ellisonz]

94. Howard Dean has no interest in this line of debate. Remember when he took on Nader.

[slipslidingaway]

17. First clue ...

for me anyway, was the corporate media right after the 2006 elections who kept his name front and center which sent up a big warning sign.

Then the idea of escalating the war in Afghanistan and his answer about holding Bushco. accountable.

[defendandprotect]

31. Agree ....

the response to holding Bushco responsible I think was the first shock for me --

not even an "I'll look into it" but as I recall it an immediate negative response.

Don't recall exact words, but more or less he didn't see any reason to do so.

And this from a lawyer who once taught Constitutional law?


We need a Plan B -- any ideas?

I do think it's import for the LEFT to recognize how HUGE we are in numbers -- 99% --

think the OWS movements are giving us a bit of an idea about how liberal this nation

really is! We need to stick together!


:)

[dotymed]

39. I am inclined to totally agree with your previous post.

Bernie Sanders,IMO too, is an FDR (people first) type of person that has proven himself many times over. He is the person I could help to elect as President and feel confident in his motivations.

[M_A]

24. some of us saw it...

Serious research before attending the Iowa caucus made me walk away from Obama. I tired to share my discoveries with others only to be shot down by the hope/change religious fervor. No lesser of two evils voting for me, gave that up 20 years ago.

[defendandprotect]

33. Good point ---

about what was going on here at DU --

Very distracting battle between the Clinton/Obama forces -- though it was a simple

answer for me -- I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she was DLC leadership -- but

at the time I didn't know that Koch Bros. had been funding DLC for more than 20 years

and their influences over the party and its agenda!

Or the criminal Pfizer and Chevron corporations --


An AA and a female provided for a lot of post challenges based on racism and sexism.

We really didn't get to the $$$$$$$$$ or the whole truth behind DLC because of all of

that --

A lot of distrust grew here --


And, sadly, that left little room for getting to the corporate side of Obama -- !!!

In looking back on that now -- and how important your information might have been --

what might have been done to have directed DU'ers to the information you were trying to

warn about?


Any ideas on a Plan B -- ?

[M_A]

112. unfortuntely

If I answered with my ideas for "plan B or what now?" the post would be deleted and I might be tombstomed, which is why I seldom post but have been a member for quite some time.

[Time for change]

28. I believe there were lots of clues before he was elected

including lots of clues in his own autobiography:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7293381

Nevertheless, after he secured the Democratic nomination I put away most of my doubts about him and became excited about his election. History shows that people often change when elected to high office, and I hoped for the best. It didn't take very long for my high expectations to be shot down, one by one.

[defendandprotect]

38. Wow - You were doing the hard work figuring this out back in Dec '09...!!

And it looks like many of us missed that post --

it came and went in a 24 hour period, it seems.

Maybe due to the holidays -- maybe as an unwelcome post?


FRANKLY, I have a BS meter which has made me wary of Obama and many others --

so I have not listened to his speeches -- though I could have read TEXT and didn't --

and I counted on those liberal organizations monitoring this stuff who should have been

alerting us on the pro-MIC, pro-capitalist, "Reaganesque" junk Obama was spouting -- !!

In that sense, my BS meter backfired --


The Obama you've given us insight isn't much on the New Deal or Great Society or liberal

"interest groups" -- yet the New Deal was one of the greatest STIMULUS packages ever for

the economy -- and, btw, democracy. It's as close as we ever came to economic democracy,

without which there is no democracy!


Sadly, Obama is revealed as clearly pro-MIC and pro-corporate solutions --

Pro-American Imperialism and Capitalism -- in way almost suggesting he is SELLING himself

to elites listening?

And, strongly agree, that much of what Obama says sounds like Republican talking points!!


Thank you for your continuing hard work which always benefits us here at DU --

and .......

What now -- ? Any ideas?





*****************

Your OP was also shocking in relating that at the time of Obama's speech in '04,

we had 37 million Americans in poverty -- 12.7% while that number has now

increased to 66 million -- more than 20% of our population!!


And, I've also been trying to get this out on Jonathan Cowan, Pres. THIRD WAY which

now controls the Dem Party .... One morning last week he appeared on C-Span --

think it was Washington Journal? Rather early in the a.m.

Cowan made clear that it was the stance/policy of the Third Way that "the base of the

party is to be ignored."

And that populist and populism in discussions/debates was the "equivalent of Karl Rove

propaganda of extremism" -- !!!


:eyes:

[Time for change]

57. "What now? - Great question

If I had an answer for it, you can be sure I'd post it here.

It is my opinion that, next to the corrupting influence of money on our so-called "democracy", our next greatest root problem is a woeful ignorance by the American public regarding most of the issues that we talk about on this forum. As we all know, our corporate media contributes greatly to that ignorance, and the majority of Americans are unaware of that as well. So when I post these things my hope is to help address that problem in some way. I don't know what else to do.

[defendandprotect]

116. Think that many of us are coming to realize that there is little left ....

of the Dem Party we were counting on to address the issues/problems --

they are "silent" and too often "not present" and/or "AWOL" -- but always

with excuses which are becoming more laughable every day -- if things weren't

so sad.


When I clicked on the pic of the OWS crowd at Washington Sq. Park, I actually

gasped -- certainly many Americans do know what's going on -- but certainly

also agree with you that every American should be aware.

I'm calling our press these days our "Goebbels' style" press -- and Jim Marrs* says

that the same families and corporations which gave us Hitler/Nazi's control it.

Gore said clearly in his article in RS this summer that "Congress is controlled by

oil and coal industries" -- people may not know the specifics but they know something

is very rotten in America.


I do think your OPs are very helpful --- and amazed that I didn't see that particualr one!

I'm thinking of the holidsays coming and


:)




* Jim Marrs is an investigator/author -- long following the RW from the JFK assassination

onward --

[steelmania75]

14. I feel like no one really cares about Congress or Obama anymore with these protests going on

Because these protests have exposed the main issue: That there's too much corporate power in Washington and that is why Wall Street got away with the disaster they created in 2008. This will just keep on growing. October 15 will be huge. And it'll get bigger from there.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[slipslidingaway]

15. knr for another worthwhile, thought provoking post - thanks. n/t

[tblue]

16. You nailed it!

Thank you for having the courage of your convictions. Obama, as he is this term, really is not the answer to what ails us. Quite the contrary.

People will throw rocks at you, but a lot of us have your back.

[ObaMania]

19. K&R

[ChillbertKChesterton]

22. Excellent post!

Well written and spot-on accurate.

[mod mom]

23. Excellent post TFC-highly rec'd

[xchrom]

25. recommend

[lib2DaBone]

27. Kick. Well Said. Obama has outright LIED about every campaign promise

I don't know why I didn't see it. I donated money to him, campaigned for him and voted for him.

Now with his toxic Attorney General shipping guns to Mexico, with his assault on Medical MJ so Big Pharm can move in... Obama will not be re-elected.

Unless Mr. Obama steps down or we get a primary challenge, we are guaranteed a Repuke in the Whitehouse for 8 more years.

[xiamiam]

68. could that have been the plan/

[Zorra]

34. One of my posts about the last Dem presidential primary from Feb 2008

I'm not voting in the Dem primary for the first time in my life.
Posted by Zorra in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Tue Feb 05th 2008, 03:13 PM

I see both of these candidates as nothing but representatives of some new and as yet unnamed hybrid political party, a cross between the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Corporatarian Party might be an appropriately descriptive name for this party. This new party has fully usurped our democracy, as it recognizes corporations and a ruling economic elite class as the sole legitimate determinant of the political, social and economic policies undertaken by the government of the United States.

In the general election, I'll vote for the candidate that is nominated by the Democratic party, but my vote will be cast in an attempt to prevent a republican from being elected President.

I'm not a "Socialist", but when I read this piece while searching for information on the two remaining Dem candidates, I found myself strongly inclined to agree with it:

"For millions of voters, and particularly for young people, the response to Obama’s campaign reflects both a deep-going desire for significant social and political change, as well as widespread illusions—fostered assiduously by the media—that the election of the first black president would represent a fundamental break with an old and discredited political order in the United States.

Obama is not, however, the product of the civil rights struggles against racial oppression, nor is he associated with any popular movement from below. His career has far more in common with those of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, individuals selected and groomed by the American ruling class to carry out its policies. Like them, he is being used to put a new face on fundamentally reactionary policies and institutions.
snip---
It is necessary to distinguish sharply between the political shift among working people and youth, a movement to the left which presages the outbreak of mass social and political struggles, and the efforts of the ruling elite to manipulate popular sentiments, manufacture illusions, and disarm the masses politically.

The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/feb2008/...

On edit: great post. I will vote for Obama because he is better than a republican. But if he is challenged by a progressive in a primary, I will vote for the progressive.

[defendandprotect]

47. Interesting .....

Repeating the Socialist comments below -- in an odd way, I think the negative comments by

T-baggers re "socialism" -- and maybe Michael Moore's films? -- have generated an interest

in them -- !! For me, as well -- reading some of their stuff --



QUOTE --
I'm not a "Socialist", but when I read this piece while searching for information on the two remaining Dem candidates, I found myself strongly inclined to agree with it:

"For millions of voters, and particularly for young people, the response to Obama’s campaign reflects both a deep-going desire for significant social and political change, as well as widespread illusions—fostered assiduously by the media—that the election of the first black president would represent a fundamental break with an old and discredited political order in the United States.

Obama is not, however, the product of the civil rights struggles against racial oppression, nor is he associated with any popular movement from below. His career has far more in common with those of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, individuals selected and groomed by the American ruling class to carry out its policies. Like them, he is being used to put a new face on fundamentally reactionary policies and institutions.
snip---
It is necessary to distinguish sharply between the political shift among working people and youth, a movement to the left which presages the outbreak of mass social and political struggles, and the efforts of the ruling elite to manipulate popular sentiments, manufacture illusions, and disarm the masses politically.

The Obama campaign is not the vehicle of a leftward movement in the United States—as proclaimed by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and publications like The Nation. It is a preemptive attack by the ruling class against such a movement. Its function is to delude the American people and divert their growing opposition to war, economic crisis and attacks on democratic rights back into the dead-end of the Democratic Party."

[Zorra]

51. I agree.

Also, I think we can thank Scott Walker and the greed of Wall St for the current rise of "socialism" also.

I've pretty much become somewhat more of a "socialist" since I posted that, after witnessing the events of the past few years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Obama, and politics-as-usual, is being challenged by the left...on the streets.

It's amusing to watch some Democratic "leaders" trying to coopt the movement that's trying to overthrow the system they are part of.

[Doctor_J]

37. It's all in there

We were tremendously hopeful on election night, that a serious reversal of the disastrous Bush policies. Besides the Public Option betrayal, he failed to intervene on Don Siegelman's behalf, took a torture probe off the table, and on and on. Here is my testimonial from Campaign 2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5114403

Very, very discouraging.

[thesquanderer]

40. You forgot the unopposed renewal of the PATRIOT Act in full (nt)

[Time for change]

49. Didn't forget it --

Describing all his broken promises and rightward leanings would have required a post many times the size of the one I posted.

[defendandprotect]

42. Just curious ... How many replying had NEVER READ what Obama was saying ... or never heard it --????

I never listened to his speeches -- but I could have read the text --

Though that liberal groups monitoring this stuff would have alerted us to anything

this powerfully wrong -- but they didn't!!

So -- two problems here -- how did the monitoring groups on the left miss this?

And how many Americans and DU'ers didn't actually know what Obama was saying???


YIKES!!

[Billypenn]

46. Wow!

Thanks for taking the time to spell it out. Nice work.

[ProSense]

50. The

"On the Need to Challenge President Obama from the Left"

...OP isn't a case for a challenge, it's a list of cherry-picked claims used to spin the assertion that the President hasn't done enough, and in some cases the spin is flat out inaccurate. And the bullshit Hoover claim doesn't help.

Facts:

ACLU, September 2011

No policy or practice of the last decade has brought greater shame on America. But the stain of torture extends far beyond the damage to the nation’s moral standing. The use of torture—and the failure to engage in any formal legal reckoning—has degraded the rule of law in ways that continue to metastasize. President Obama categorically disavowed torture when he came to office, and closed the secret CIA prisons where so much of the abuse took place.14 But the President’s political calculation that the nation must look forward and not backward leaves the door open to future abuses.

WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

Reid is finally aligning the legislation with the President's goal for Guantanamo.

ACLU: Justice Is Served (Fair Sentencing Act made retroactive)

A Win for Free Speech: ACLU Recommendations Adopted by DHS!

Whether it's ending DADT, strengthening labor policies and environmental policies, helping low income communities and families and homeless Americans, establishing the CFPB, and other reforms, the things this President has done, will have a lasting impact on real families.

Even a staunch critic of the misstep on environmental policy by this President can acknowledge that he has move the progressive ball forward in significant ways.

Jobs and the recovery:

Senator Franken: The importance of the Reocovery Act

<...>

Another vital component of the Recovery Act that is often overlooked is its expanded funding for unemployment insurance that helped keep 3.3 million people, including 1 million children, out of poverty in 2009. Another overlooked but critical program in the Recovery Act is the funding for Head Start. The $2 billion allocation preserved Head Start and Early Head Start programming for 64,000 children across the country-over 900 in Minnesota alone. These programs are helping the most vulnerable kids in our communities.
It's simple-economic analysis suggests that the Recovery Act boosted demand, created millions of jobs, kept families in their homes, and helped the economy start growing again.

Let me tell you what I love about being a Senator. As opposed to being a candidate for Senate. I think most of my colleagues can relate to this. When you're a candidate, you're speaking mainly to your own party. When you're trying to get the nomination, when you're getting out the vote. But as a Senator, you talk to everyone. I travel all over the state of Minnesota and meet with mayors and city council members, and county commissioners, and small businesses.

And everywhere I go, they thank me for the Recovery Act. They thank me for the teachers and firefighters, for the Workforce Investment Act funds, which they used to train people for jobs. For the highway extension or the wastewater plant or the funds for rural broadband or for weatherization of public buildings.

In fact, Michael Gunwald, writing for Time Magazine, said this: "the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet."

<...>

Choosing a point of comparison

The problem, of course, is that the Great Recession isn’t just worse than all modern American downturns; it’s also a different kind of recession — this one, like the Great Depression, was the result of a financial industry collapse. With this in mind, the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis this week posted a different item, showing job losses associated with financial crises around the world, and by this point of comparison, “the U.S. labor market has performed better than 4 of the previous Big 5 crises.” (via Ezra)

Despite 14 Straight Months Of Public Job Loss, Republicans Continue To Block Obama’s Jobs Plan

Ending wars:

The President laid out an agenda.

•Afghanistan: Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.

•Pakistan: Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.

- In June 2009, U.S. Forces occupied 357 bases. U.S. Forces currently occupy 121 bases, and are expected to reduce that number to 94 bases by the end of August.

link

Operation New Dawn began with 94 military sites in Iraq, in September 2010. Today, that's down to 48 sites. Seven more sites will shut down in August, Richardson said.

more

On June 22, 2011 the President addressed the American people about the way forward in Afghanistan. We have made substantial progress on the objectives the President laid out at West Point in 2009, and he made clear that we will begin the drawdown of U.S. troops from a position of strength. We have exceeded our expectations on our core goal of defeating al-Qa’ida – killing 20 of its top 30 leaders, including Osama bin Laden. We have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and trained over 100,000 Afghan National Security Forces. The U.S. will withdraw 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, and the 33,000 “surge” troops he approved in December 2009 will leave Afghanistan by the end of summer 2012.

link

Health care reform was a huge step in the right direction.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer Will Seek Health Care Law Waiver To Establish Single Payer In His State

One Million Young Adults Gain Health Insurance in 2011 Because of the Affordable Care Act

Reducing costs, protecting consumers: The Affordable Care Act on the one year anniversary of the Patient’s Bill of Rights

One year after the Affordable Care Act’s Patient’s Bill of Rights took effect, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report summarizing some of the achievements of the health reform law. In the eighteen months since the president signed the Affordable Care Act into law, health reform has had a tangible effect in the lives of millions of Americans. The report discusses how the law is helping to give hardworking families the security they deserve and the reforms in the Affordable Care Act that have helped hold down insurance premiums, hold insurance companies more accountable and strengthen Medicare.

“The Affordable Care Act has made the health care system better for millions of Americans,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “As a mother, a wife and a daughter, I know how important health coverage is for America’s families. This law is helping to give hard working families the security they deserve and stop insurance company abuses, hold down insurance premiums and strengthen Medicare.”

Recent reports, including the U.S. Census and the National Health Information Survey, have indicated that approximately one million additional young Americans now have insurance coverage due to the Affordable Care Act according to experts. The Patient’s Bill of Rights made it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to a child with a pre-existing condition or place a lifetime limit on the care they will provide. Through Affordable Care Act initiatives, 19 million seniors with Medicare have received new free preventive benefits, while efforts to cut fraud and abuse have extended the Medicare Trust Fund by 8 years, strengthening the Medicare program.

To read more about the many accomplishments of the law visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/patients-bill-of-rights09232011a.pdf

To read a blog commemorating today by Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Richard Sorian visit: www.healthcare.gov/blog

And he saved the auto industry.

That's a tremendous amount of good in two and a half years.

[Time for change]

53. Cherry picking?

The excerpt from first document that you quote in defense of Obama, by the ACLU, is a prime example of cherry picking. The document overall pretty much says what I'm saying. From their introduction:

Some of these policies have been stopped. Torture and extraordinary rendition are no longer officially condoned. But most other policies—indefinite detention, targeted killing, trial by military commissions, warrantless surveillance, and racial profiling—remain core elements of our national security strategy today.

You say that some of my statements are "flat our inaccurate". You have a bad habit of saying stuff like that without providing support for it. Show me one example where my statements are inaccurate.

[ProSense]

55. Here

is what you cited:

Some of these policies have been stopped. Torture and extraordinary rendition are no longer officially condoned. But most other policies—indefinite detention, targeted killing, trial by military commissions, warrantless surveillance, and racial profiling—remain core elements of our national security strategy today.

While the ACLU states that indefinite detention continues to be the policy, the organization has acknowledged Congress' role: WH fact sheet on Guantanamo Executive Order and ACLU response

Again, Reid is finally aligning the legislation with the President's goal for Guantanamo.

[Time for change]

56. In my brief section on torture in the OP, I give Obama credit for officially banning torture,

and then note that his executive order banning it pertained only to a fraction of the total torture that goes on under U.S. auspices, including torture by foreign sources under US patronage, which Obama could stop supporting if he chose. What part of what I say about torture do you claim is inaccurate?

You put a lot of emphasis on "no longer officially condoned". I already quoted those words in the preceding post, and then you put them in bold print, as if that makes your point. For the most part, "torture" wasn't even officially condoned under Bush.

[ProSense]

59. Hmmm?

"You put a lot of emphasis on 'no longer officially condoned'. I already quoted those words in the preceding post, and then you put them in bold print, as if that makes your point. For the most part, 'torture' wasn't even officially condoned under Bush."

Yeah, if one wants to pretend that Obama = Bush. I mean, here you are absolving Bush/Cheney of officially sanctioning torture just to discount the ACLU's statement that President Obama "categorically disavowed torture when he came to office, and closed the secret CIA prisons where so much of the abuse took place."

Spin is not fact.

[Time for change]

63. You still haven't justified your statement that anything in my OP is incorrect

Why say stuff like that if you have no intention of backing it up with evidence?

[ProSense]

67. Why

"Why say stuff like that if you have no intention of backing it up with evidence?

...continue to pretend that there aren't points here refuting your claims?

You state that the ban on torture isn't really a ban, but it is a ban.

[SomethingFishy]

74. Well if it's a ban then Jeremy Scahill must have a hell of an

agenda. As he has been trying to get people to see that torture is still the order of the day for years...

2009: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug
2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INdpuNjSI-U
2011: http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/07/22/scahill-on-obamas-use-of-rendition-and-torture-in-somalia/

This is the quote from the ACLU that you claim refutes the OP:

President Obama categorically disavowed torture when he came to office, and closed the secret CIA prisons where so much of the abuse took place.14 But the President’s political calculation that the nation must look forward and not backward leaves the door open to future abuses.

First of all there is a pretty big "but" in there and as far as I am concerned Jeremy Scahill has been a straight forward guy so far. I have no reason to doubt him.

[Time for change]

78. If there was a point in your several page post that refuted one of my claims

then I would think that you'd be able to tell me specifically what it refutes and what refutes it.

[Raster]

85. Don't hold your breath.

[fascisthunter]

66. cherry picking? How about the whole damn tree

there are way too many cherries to pick!

[Poll_Blind]

58. Front page material- highly recommended!

PB

[slay]

60. I totally agree with you

cause to me it seems like Obama acts more like a republican than a Dem many times! with a corporate Dem in office there is nobody to represent the people. i would LOVE to see a primary challenge to Obama - even if the challenger loses at least Obama will have to answer for his pro-corporate, pro-war policies.

[sulphurdunn]

62. Let's face it. Shall we?

Against almost any Republican candidate, almost any progressives (including me) will vote for the Democrat. The Democrats know that and so do their paymasters. We're trapped by a pay to play two party political system where most of the pay comes from the wealthiest Americans, few of whom are progressive. Most of us also know that sitting out an election or voting for a third party helps throw elections to the party we oppose more. We are also aware that our elected representatives spend more time begging their moneyed contributors for bucks to sucker progressives into voting for them than they actually spend governing like conservatives. There it is. The only question is what, if anything, can be done about it.

[xiamiam]

69. well thanks to the kids who began occupying wall street..the way most of us feel is out in the open

even the white houses' tepid acknowledment is precictable..there is a major disconnect by the white house..its difficult to comprehend but..its what we got..and thousands of people are sleeping outside night after night in protest of the disconnect from the majority of our politicians..obama included

[sulphurdunn]

80. I agree. Maybe youth

isn't wasted on the young after all. :hippie:

[Time for change]

79. What can be done?

If they know from experience that we will vote for them no matter what they do, then they have no incentive to pay attention to us or address our concerns. So I don't think we can afford to do that. Once we give unqualified support to a candidate or party that is not concerned about our interests, the game is just about over.

[sulphurdunn]

81. I agree.

I am also open to suggestions.

[xiamiam]

82. well i cant vote for someone i dont believe in...i cant..

i believe in miracles..we thought we had one in obama..i realize that was incorrect. I believe in us..I believe we will do what we need to do. One of the most important things that happened thus far is that MMM revealed themselves to some who were unaware. The thing is, these are their/ our kids, and grandchildren, and sisters..brothers..and fellow veterans..sleeping in the streets..bonding with each other. The political system and politicians who run it and the mmm have rendered themselves irrelevant to the younger generation and ows protesters. That billion dollars that Obama is going to raise for his campaign ..well, its just not that impressive.

[fascisthunter]

65. somehow we are supposed to ignore all of this...

[ThomWV]

72. Beautifully done. K&R

[libinnyandia]

75. Nader 2012

we need nader to run in 2012. Then the new GOP president can lower taxes even more, gut EPA regulations, appoint a couple more right wing SCOTUS justices so there can be a 7-2 rightward tilt to the Court. Maybe even get a couple more wars.

[SkyDaddy7]

76. +1000000!!!!!!

I mean it worked wonders for the country in 2000!!

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[indepat]

77. Another tour de force from the most knowledgeable and insightful contributor

to the DU board imho. It's a shame some will gladly kill the messenger when being presented unvarnished facts they don't want to hear/cannot accept. While being fairly conversant with what's happening, your filling in some of the missing parts is especially informative and much appreciated. P.S. BHO had no bigger supporter than yours truly on January 20, 2009, someone who has supported his every initiative which did not ratify/continue one of junior's ruinous RW initiatives, wars, policies, appointments, or constitutional encroachments or initiate some RW policy in his own right, such as setting the machinery into motion to eviscerate social security and Medicare under the guise of the shamefully euphemistic "shared sacrifice" malarkey. :patriot:

[Time for change]

87. Thank you

Yeah, that shared sacrifice BS is really shameful.

[Ignis]

96. +1. Unfortunately, the witch hunt is already underway upthread.

Great post as usual, TFC.

[Raster]

86. OMG! Did you clear this with George Clooney?

You certainly don't want George to be disillusioned with you, now do you?

[Raksha]

89. Too late to recommend, but kicking anyway.

[bmwwahoo]

90. Obama Criticized

Obama remains the hope. If he were a dictator, I would have a problem with him. What I don't like is the conversations that start from the republican angle. No one writes their checks thinking about the national debt crisis. He has maintained the tax cuts under the threat of losing unemployment benefits. The cut in benefits would have been devastating for those dependent. Obama is practical and doesn't wage fights on what he knows he can't achieve. Votes have never been there in the "majority" Congress he had. What I don't understand is why some Congress people register as Democrats. It would be better to know who is truly on your side rather than the Nelson's or Landrum's who occupy the position.

The Supreme Court is the most important reason to have Obama in the White House or all of us will face draconian laws in the future. They put Bush in the WH and call corporations people. This has changed the dynamics of American politics more than any laws since the Voting Rights Act...and now, they are trying to rescind those.

Criticize and bring the topics that are of our interest, but, FDR didn't resolve the Depression in 3 years as you suggest. It took government spending and WW ll to bring economic prosperity. You want to bring the troops home, please, make sure they have a job when they return or you will see that number rise.

[ellisonz]

95. Welcome to DU!

:donut:

[JTFrog]

102. Nice post. Welcome to DU. n/t

[cliffordu]

97. You are absolutely and completely right.

So fucking what?

Being right never led to being in power.

And if the R's get back into power, you are more fucked than you are now.

Get it??


Only someone who wants President Romney or President WTF Perry from down in Texas wants to primary this milktoast, ineffective, republican lite pres'nit.

Really.

The argument that he'll lean left by some shithead in a primary him is so bogus I cannot address it.

Really. Fucking. Stupid.

[Puglover]

101. "You are more fucked THEN YOU ARE NOW"

Why don't you paint a sign and put it up in your front yard for a campaign sign. LOL. Unbelievable.

[cliffordu]

110. When quoting me, please spell correctly.

What you do in your own pithy retorts are your business, but at least I can spell.

[Puglover]

114. Oh Cliffie.

When you have to get your digs in by pointing out a misspelled word or a typo you really are in the weeds. Seriously.



Oh and PS Adding you to my little ok corral of ignore. You'll be in fine company.

[cliffordu]

115. bummer. I thought ours was a true love,

one that would withstand your mad pawing through online dictionaries across this great divide......

:hurts:

[JTFrog]

104. Indeed. Well said.

[TBF]

100. I agree that he has been a disappointment, but I think our focus should be on OWS -

anyone we could put in is subject to all the same capitalist forces and what will they be able to do?

I think our strength right now is in the protesting, I'm going to be putting my energy and donations there.

Edit: I did rec the post because I think it's worth the discussion and also as reference because it is a very good OP, just disagree that this should be our focus at this particular point.

[Solly Mack]

103. ...

Excellent read.

[LadyInAZ]

106. Agrees...

Thanks for that summary...

[myrna minx]

107. Thanks for the post.. It's too late to recommend, but I can give it a kick.

:kick:

[bertman]

109. From a sticker at Freedom Plaza in DC: "Lesser of Two Evils: Still EVIL"

That's exactly the way I see our "choice" for a Democratic President to be re-elected despite his unflinching support for all things Corporate and Militarist. Thanks for another well-researched post, Time for change.

I welcome a true Progressive Democratic challenger to President Obama, but I cannot imagine that the DLC would allow it.

Too late to REC. KICK.