In Barack Obama’s speech the night he won the 2008 election, he made a promise:
[A]bove all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation …
This victory alone is not the change we seek. It is only the chance for us to make that change.
And there were a whole lot of people ready to help. According to Marshall Ganz, one of the architects of Obama’s 2008 organizing strategy, Obama’s campaign had 3,000 organizers who recruited thousands more local leaders, who then helped mobilize 1.5 million volunteers and 13.5 million contributors. They thought Obama meant it, and was going to ask them to stay involved and keep campaigning.
But Obama didn’t mean it. As Ganz later said:
One Obama campaign volunteer from Delaware County, Pa., put it this way soon after the election: “We’re all fired up now, and twiddling our thumbs! … Here, ALL the leader volunteers are getting bombarded by calls from volunteers essentially asking ‘Nowwhatnowwhatnowwhat?'”
In a new interview with the Daily Beast’s Eleanor Clift, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) identifies this as a key moment of failure by Obama:
“I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama,” [Sanders] said, but the “biggest mistake” he made after running “one of the great campaigns in American history” was saying to the legions of people who supported him, “Thank you very much for electing me, I’ll take it from here.”
“I will not make that mistake,” Sanders said, making a pitch for a mobilized grassroots movement that every candidate dreams of and that in ’08 Obama came closest to achieving. The Obama movement faltered amidst legal issues once he was in the White House, and in ’12 became Organizing for America, primarily a vehicle for fundraising and a shadow of what it once was. (Emphasis added.)
Consider this, however: I think it’s unlikely that Obama’s demobilization of his supporters was actually a “mistake.” As Ganz put it in 2010, Obama saw his supporters “like a tiger you can’t control”; Ganz speculated that the president’s real goal was simply to “keep the machine on for the next election.”
In other words, Obama was acting in accordance with what I like to call “The Iron Law of Institutions” — that is, the people in charge of institutions (as Obama was in charge of the Democratic party and his “movement” in 2009) care first and foremost about their own power within the institution, rather than the power of the institution itself.
So while the Democratic party itself would have been much more powerful overall if Obama had kept his grassroots mobilized and involved, Obama himself and his most important donors and supporters would have been less powerful within the Democratic party. So Obama let the enthusiasm and activism surrounding his candidacy dissipate, all his supporters stayed home in 2010 and Obama’s party suffered a catastrophic collapse.
But from Obama’s perspective, so what? As Boies Penrose, an early 20th-century Republican senator from Pennsylvania, said when he was told that his slate of anti-reform candidates would lose and destroy the GOP: “Yes, but I’ll preside over the ruins.”
(This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.)
Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
A brilliant campaign strategy by Bernie.
Only it wasn’t Obama that took over after the election, it was his big donors and their neocon policy makers. In exchange for our vote, we got an empty suit.
I voted for Obama, and now I consider him to be worse than GWB and Reagan combined. He is an eloquent liar. He can twist and turn the truth inside out just like any lawyer. He has hired a cabal of misfit oligarchs to bolster the already exorbitant wealth and power of the already filthy rich and powerful…for a reason. They have promised him a place in their heaven, with streets of gold, and gold toilets. How many virgins he will have access too I do not know, but probably many! Everything this guy has said has turned out to be nothing but a ruse and a lie! Neither the republicans nor the democrats will ever get my vote, or my support, again!
It was far worse than that. After receiving a strong and clear mandate for deep and lasting change, Obama surrounded himself with banksters from Wall Street, turned his back on Due Process, droned meetings of village elders and wedding parties into oblivion, waged war against whistle blowers, appointed a BioTech Governor of the year to head the USDA, and betrayed the progressive based that had him elected in a thousand additional ways.
He has has long history of turning his back on those that helped him arrive at his goals.
It was far worse than that. After receiving a strong and clear mandate for instituting deep and lasting change, Obama surrounded himself with banksters from Wall Street, turned his back on Due Process, created a more pervasive mass surveillance state, waged war against whistle blowers, droned meetings of village elders and weddings into oblivion, appoint a Biotech Governor of the Year as head of the USDA and betrayed the progressive cause in a thousand additional ways.
Obama has a long history of betraying those who helped put him where he wanted to be.
getting rid of the 50 state strategy? a feature not a bug..
Can you elaborate on this?
Is Sanders so naive that he believed Obama? Does he not realize that citizen participation in the policy process is the last thing Washington wants, and that Obama, rhetoric aside, telegraphed to anyone paying attention that he desired to be a Washington player? If the answer is “yes” to those questions then this should exclude him from consideration as a “voice of the left” presidential candidate.
He still supports the apartheid state of Israel and endless US crimes no different than the others.
As does Sanders.
Oops! I believe that’s who you meant. My apologies.
After 17 months of running the Obama campaign in a NORCAL county, the day we were advised the Obama team was being rolled into the DNC, wife and I were shocked and immediately saw the team we were so happy to be apart of (National Obama delegate) was heathy one day and completely decapitated later that same day.
Thanks for this historical revisit. You seem to be saying that because Obama *intentionally* discarded OFA (which he indeed did) it can’t have been a mistake. I think a better slant on the Rahmification of Obama’s transition was that it was both intentional (for the reasons you offered) and a strategic mistake that not only impacted midterm elections but also the quality of policy coming out of the WH–maybe most visible, early-on, in the healthcare wars and the finance debacle.
Ah well. Bygones.
sgt_babble
re: JFK
“The only two progressives in the White House were FDR and JFK, who was essentially continuing FDR’s original plan.”
“.. and I’ve never voted RepubliCON”
..
JFK – ‘Conservative’ [book]
Ira Stoll
As Ira Stoll convincingly argues, by the standards of both his time and our own, John F. Kennedy was a conservative. His two great causes were anticommunism and economic growth. His tax cuts, which spurred one of the greatest economic booms in our history, were fiercely opposed by his more liberal advisers. He fought against unions. He pushed for free trade and a strong dollar. And above all, he pushed for a military buildup and an aggressive anticommunism around the world. Indeed, JFK had more in common with Ronald Reagan than with LBJ.
..
While encouraging young Catholics to serve the common good, Kennedy hardly argued that they leave their religiously-informed beliefs in the living room or the pew. Rather, it was these very convictions that would provide the tools they needed to govern well..
An In JFK We Trust (Not) Production
Just read those books I mentioned below, plus simply read the legislation JFK signed, his presidential directives and executive orders — his original Alliance for Progress, his push for taxing offshored monies of the corporations and super-rich, his standing up for labor against US Steel and GE, his refusal to use the CIA in Indonesia as Eisenhower did and Johnson would later do, his pumping $4.3 billion debt-free money directly into the economy through the Treasury, doing an end-run around the Federal Reserve, his support of Wright Patman’s congressional research and studies into how the super-rich hide their ownership and wealth through foundations and trusts, and many, many other points.
Ira Stoll is such a useless hack, dood!
Bernie Sanders’ biggest mistake was to vote along with the other 99 Senators in the U.S. Senate to “support Israel” after the Israelis had already slaughtered 500 people, mostly civilians, in its most recent assault on Gaza. That was the defining moment in recent American politics when we discovered that there are no progressives in the U.S. Senate–not Warren, not Leahy, and certainly not Bernie Sanders. It is not possible to be progressive about everything else and to have gotten the central human rights issue of the last three decades wrong. Sorry, it is not possible to be a PEP, progressive except Palestine, especially when it means supporting a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu and the right wing of the Likud Party. Has Sanders ever heard of colonialism?
I’d have thought Obama’s biggest mistake was the premeditated murders of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, and other American citizens, without due process—but what do I know?
quote”I’d have thought Obama’s biggest mistake was the premeditated murders of Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, and other American citizens, without due process..”unquote
Yeah, and you would have thought what a few million or more American citizens have been thinking for a very long time. However..Obama’s decision to murder an American citizen..and his son was no mistake. It was a war crime. PERIOD. As for what you know…. quit putting this in the context of satire. Obama and everyone who conspired to murder these citizens is a war criminal. The only question left is when will the rest of the citizens of America see the truth, and demand accountability.
Today I am with Bernie Sanders. Today I want his message out there as only he can deliver it. To whine about his politics is a shade decadent. Like Pope Francis, Bernie is a helluva lot more than we might have hoped for from a guy in that position.
who is Greg Burke?
Also, William, the purpose of Sanders’ “message” is to keep the peasants of America from revolting. Sanders’ candidacy is necessary to promote the illusion of consent of the governed, the illusion of choice, the lie of American Democracy. The fact is that Election 2016 is a counter-revolutionary measure; the ruling class, not the public, decides which politicians will be heard from, and it is the ruling class that dictates which issues, questions, and “solutions” will be considered. The Election is not an occasion for the expression of the preferences of civilians. The only meaningful way in which the public can participate in the election is through boycott, as part of a revolutionary strategy to deny the ruling class the legitimacy that it seeks and to expose the ways by which the ruling class controls us.
Vivek Jain, I’m neither as cynical, nor as defeatist about Our Nation as you seem to be, but that’s your prerogative,and you express your ideas very well. The one part of your post that I take exception to is the part about a Boycott. Liberals and Progressives boycotted, or were just uninterested in the 2010 Midterms, and look what that gave Us, a House full of Tealiban Traitors and straight-up Nut Jobs of no sane category. Democracy may be a damn poor form of Government, but it’s what we’ve got, and Voting Our own interests and beliefs is the only way we’ll ever end Citizens United, and the rule of the uber wealthy.
Well said, Herman.
If there were really only two candidates to choose from, the candidates being the Democratic and Republican Party candidates, then perhaps a boycott would be in order. If there was no social media, or if the Establishment shut it down, thus preventing the people from figuring out a rough guesstimate of the total independently, then perhaps a boycott would be in order.
But neither of those situations are upon us yet.
Such calls for a boycott only HELP the corrupt Establishment. Even if only some thousands of people were to vote them in, they’d still be voted in. A more productive way to protest the Establishment parties would be to support and vote for third party candidates like Jill Stein, who was arrested several times for protest throughout her 2012 campaign. Let’s try voting differently before deciding to quit voting entirely.
http://www.jill2016.com
While I will definately agree with you that at this point our vote is simply an illusion of choice, i must humbly disagree that Mr. Sanders’ campaign is party to that illusion. He aims to spread the facts about where we are as a country, who EXACTLY is at fault and really in control, and what will happen if they succeed in convincing our politicians into passing this TPP agreement. He vehemently disagrees with our voting system and calls is rigged, which it is. He advocates for a return to the one person one vote system, full transparency in our legislative process, removal of the money from politics, closing tax holes in the system that allow for corporations to make trillion dollar a year profits here in the US and not pay a cent in taxes on. … and many other issues that are CLEARLY in favor of a select few private interest groups at the expense of our nation’s workers. Please understand that Mr Sanders’ intent for campaigning is not to achieve glory as an individual, but to bring to light the many injustices that have been brought upon our workers.
The fault here is shared.
On one hand, Obama definitely did not put nearly enough effort into keeping his supporters engaged. As The Intercept itself knows, creating a good internet forum is hard. People treat it like it’s a routine programming task, an optional frill – when it is the central issue of democracy. To create a forum where everyone truly has a chance to be heard, where the best ideas are fairly selected and brought to more general notice, and where people can go back and build on each other’s work – that’s the very stuff the philosopher’s stone is made of. Yet the forums we communicate in don’t even try to measure the Gini coefficient of their posters, or even think about what level of equality is desired. (Having both equality and opportunity is a key challenge of economics as well, and ignored nearly as thoroughly in that context). So when Obama’s team played around with barackobama.org, change.gov, and kept getting their sites ‘hijacked’ by people who wanted to legalize pot (though it turns out that wasn’t such a minority opinion after all!) it seems like they threw up their hands and went to the current White House petitions system, which though not useless is basically just a registration system for lobbying you have to do by some other means. That was an understandable frustration, but not an acceptable one – they had a duty to do the deep thought, the intellectual pioneering that would lay the groundwork for democracy itself.
That said, it is also easy to see that the numbers kept falling and falling, participation got worse and worse. You can say the people should have done more. After all, they shouldn’t need the White House to create a successful social medium that isn’t created for the sole purpose of some asshole getting rich selling your private data. That’s a job you’d say the ‘private sector’ should do, or once you give up on business creating useful, then the academic or hobbyist sector, but somebody.
“the biggest mistake he made after running “one of the great campaigns in American history” was saying to the legions of people who supported him, “Thank you very much for electing me, I’ll take it from here.”
That is a misleading narrative. Obama utilized his grassroots support heavily to pass his first major initiative of Obamacare. That organizing put pressure on the many elected democrats in congress to push thru with the law, despite unprecedented partisan blow back from conservatives. The structure of the healthcare law wasn’t written by the grassroots, of course, but the organizing efforts offered major support for the President in terms selling it to the American people and convincing Congress to prioritize it.
When engaging in political activism, it takes persistence, dedication and consistency. Many of the folks caught up in Obama’s grassroots were young with little or no experience in activism. To many it was more the result of getting swept up in a campaign that felt good rather than spearheading a political revolution. There is a distinct difference between the two when supplanting the status quo and implementing a system of long lasting change. By the time the 2010 midterms rolled around, the energy from the grassroots level severely dissipated and lost momentum; largely due to the bitter political divide launched by Republicans.
A true and persistent grassroots movement dedicated to change would have become more resilient at the sight of Tea Party backlash – and crush it – rather than allow it to dissolve its spirit. Every one of those Republican congressmen who put politics ahead of the people who voted for Obama should have been destroyed at the ballot box. The progressive agenda would have moved forward. Instead, the agenda was stalled and you simply can’t place it all on the shoulders of Obama. Look in the mirror.
It wasn’t the so called tea party, and it wasn’t the Republicans that took down Obama’s grass roots support. It was Obama himself and the people he immediately brought in to his political work force from the very beginning of his administration, and even before he was inaugurated.
Here is one article — incidentally about the Obamacare that you are touting as a big win — to show what a scam Obama was and is, and that is why he not only didn’t want the grass roots backing, but didn’t need it in order to pull off administrative goals which with were 180 degrees from what those former grass roots supporters had intended to be working toward.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19692-obamacare-the-biggest-insurance-scam-in-history#
So because Healthcare is delivered thru the private market its automatically a scam? No system is perfect, and yes, private insurance companies have a downside. But so does a single payer government run system. The link to the article you posted, for example, attempts to suggest that a single payer healthcare system would automatically be cheaper. Its not that simple. And what about factors such as quality? Do you think top healthcare providers would just except getting capped on prices by the gov’t, just to save on insurance cost? Do you live in a universe, like the author of the article, that believes switching from a privatized healthcare system to a gov’t run system over night would not pose its fair share of issues?
The ball has moved forward; healthcare is more cost efficient and accessible for more Americans. There are millions of Americans who are better off because of this law. What about the Supreme Court ruling coming up that could end healthcare for millions on the federal exchange. Do you believe they would be better off without Obamacare? No one said the gov’t can’t eventually play a bigger role in the facilitation of our healthcare system at some point, but in the meantime, bashing Obama as a ‘scam’ for making progress, isn’t doing anything.
That’s a ridiculously simplistic piece of straw man “rebuttal.” There’s mountains of detailed information to inform you why it is a scam, including the very article I linked to. You can play ignorant if you like, and hope that others will follow, but as the example article that I linked to shows , you’re not fooling anyone who digs even a little bit.
Everything you posed has been beaten to death. I’m not wasting my time rehashing it with you. Your refusal to acknowledge that Obama immediately took on advisers from, for example, Goldman Sachs into his team from day one, and that his healthcare legislation was written by the insurance industry, is enough to show me that you’re a weak and worn out apologetic or lobbyist of some such. Who buys this crap you’re selling anymore?
The fundamental issue with your argument is that you are hell bent on believing that Obama has these devious intentions to service the elites as opposed to the American people. Based on what evidence? The fact that he had Wall Street bankers on his team to address the financial crisis? Why does that automatically have to lead to the conclusion that Obama is corrupt and only serving the interest of lobbyist? How about the fact that dealing with a major financial crisis might require information and advice from individuals who are directly knowledgeable about the banking industry? That was the decision – either don’t bail them out and suffer the consequences or bail them out and help stabilize the markets. Best believe there are alot of folks like you calling out the President for making those decisions, yet are reaping the benefits of a stabilized economy, thanks to those very decisions. They might have a 401k plan that is growing; parents who can now retire because their plans have value; small business that have access to capital because those banks were kept alive.
This reality is less about Obama bending over for the special interest while screwing the middle class – its more about decades of ‘too big to fail’ policy between the big banks and Fed – which was allowed to exist by the American voter. You don’t like that banks consolidate global resources and utilize deregulation policy to create too big too fail scenarios? Then where were folks like you when Obama stressed the importance of passing further, potentially crippling bank regulations, that went beyond Dodd/Frank? What was he rewarded with? An all Republican congress that laughed at such a thought. If Obama is so brought out by special interest, why was one of his major platforms during the 2010 and 2012 elections about creating further restrictions on Wall St? All he needed was a democratic congress to pass further regulations, but he couldn’t get it because the people don’t show up at midterms.
I know your looking to pass the buck to someone, but blindly blaming whoever is office doesn’t always cut it.
Rote quotes such as that just crack me up, because they are so revealing of what a lazy commentator one is dealing with.
Braxton, your post is full of straw man arguments. No one said single payer had to come “over night,” and no one said there wouldn’t be issues. But our country needs to move TOWARD single payer, and you aren’t moving toward it by putting more money into the hands of the same companies that it would essentially replaced by single payer (with exceptions of insurance companies sticking around to fulfill niche markets, but even those companies will see a massive reduction in business).
Giving more money to the companies that want single payer prevented is NOT moving the ball forward.
A thousand thanks for a perfect statement of logic!
Nguyen, if you want to move TOWARD single payer, then you need to elect officials in congress who are willing to write, support and defend single payer. Congress didn’t want that. The people didn’t demand congress to create single payer by threatening them and showing up full throttle in the midterms. Obama as president can’t work outside of the system. If the congressmen YOU VOTED FOR are constructing legislation and policy for new healthcare by doing business with insurance companies – if that’s the only way it will get passed – It is not practical for the President to destroy the process. Its not helping anyone. If you are so disgusted with the current healthcare law, then form your coalition and march on Washington. Beat out the special interest with your voice. Be persistent. And get single payer.
So because Healthcare is delivered thru the private market its automatically a scam?
Yes, it was structured to be dismantled at the state level (e.g., in the state of Washington, the legislature voted down the exchange database allowing for competitive price checking by the consumer), and this has already occurred at many of the states, and because it is private sector, many of the premium costs of gone up, while various exceptions to the fules have been written at Commerce (with everyone’s fave neocon, Penny Pritzker).
Yes, a few people will benefit, but the majority of the benefit goes to the insurance companies and biopharmaceuticals, owned by the banks.
But the appointments of all those neocons by Obama, including the Queen of Jobs Offshoring, Diana Farrell, all those Citigroup people and Goldman Sachs and Chase types, etc., etc., etc.
Progressives need not apply to the Bush/Obama Administration.
Nicely said sft_doom.
The housing crash, and how it was handled by the Obama administration, increased inequality on a mass scale. It altered fundamental relationships with property rights. At least for white people. I think any right wing backlash was both anticipated and welcome.
So, the admin had all the leverage in the world. You never let a crisis go to waste, right? Obama certainly did not. He presided over the largest transfer of wealth in American history. Geithner “foamed the runway”. With millions and millions of livelihoods. Who needs a mirror? Acknowledge the policy. Acknowledge the results.
Perfectly stated. I recall reading a passge from Michael Hirsh’s book, Capital Offene, when long-time advisor to the New York Federal Reserve Bank (the control element of the Federal Reserve System), Prof. Shiller of Irrational Exuberance fame, suggested to the new chairman, Timothy Geithner, that housing mortgages could fall in price, and he was immediately replaced with Catherine Mann, the jobs offshoring evangelist from the Peterson Institute (David Rockefeller, Peter G. Peterson — Blackstone Group).
Thanks. I wish I were so eloquent.
“Ain’t it hard when you discover that // he wasn’t really where it’s at // after he took from you everything that he could steal?”
50 Years: Like a Rolling Stone
Obama made a lot of empty promises. He fooled the majority of people in the U.S. who felt they had someone who would truly represent them and bring about change. He turned out to be the biggest imposter of all. What a disappointment. We were all played. I’ll remember him as a LIAR and a fraud.
Granted legal immunity to the banksters for fraudclosures — kept claiming they never broke any laws, when they broke numerous laws, milions of time [Law of Fraudulent Conveyance — a felony committed each and every time they submitted false affadavits or robo-signing — REMIC violations to the max, etc., etc., etc., plus, of course, millions of violations of Sarbanes-Oxley); plus granted legal immunity to Monsanto and the the others for their GMOs, and so many other crimes against the people on behalf of Wall Street.
And then there’s the invoking of the Espionage Act again and again and again against real, patriotic Americans. . . .
There’s a very funny woman who looks just like Jeb Bush, with the same glasses and same hairstyle and grey patches, and I see her in Mesothelioma ads run on the Internet. Perhaps someone else in another show might be interested in this, as it does not seem to be what you do. Maybe the people at Huffington Post might treasure an item like that. I think I have the phone number here somewhere…Jeff
I agree — Obama got just what he wanted. To cite one example, had that huge base been nurtured and kept active, he would not have been able to get precisely the kind of medicare program he wanted, one that favoured the medical insurance industry instead of patients. In addition, he would actually have had to close Gitmo; put a few banksters in jail; jail those who authorized the torture program and the illegal mass surveillance programs instead of those who blew the whistle on them; and, and, and …
In short, like OBL, who died a happy man having accelerated the decline of the US, BHO has had a largely successful and satisfying run.
As a Bernie Sanders fan, I say THANK YOU for posting this.
When GWB was in power, Democrat supporters wanted Guantanamo Bay closed down, not just because of the torture, but because the idea was that you need to either give the prisoners a timely trial, or release them if you don’t have the evidence. Obama is inaugurated and he doesn’t close it. Do the Democrat supporters then criticize Obama like they did Bush, for not putting prisoners on trial or releasing them? Nope. They say “Republicans in Congress blocked him from moving the prisoners around.” Umm, now it’s a matter of moving them around? I thought it was about giving them a speedy trial or releasing them if you didn’t have evidence? Seems to me like they just don’t want to criticize one of their own.
I think Bernie is being too kind to the President. That said, expect to see lots of comments attacking Sanders below because he represents the true threat to Hillary’s campaign of the 1%. As a choice between corporate friendly Hillary and Bernie (who has a long record of creating legislation of what he is campaigning about) who would people vote for in the Democratic primary?
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8666215/bernie-sanders-ideas
Down thread you claimed that those specifically here on this site “attacking” Sanders would be “astroturf” for Hillary Clinton. Point them out. Point out the commenters who you believe are actually astro turfing Hilary Clinton supporters. Make your list. We’ll discuss your claims. Deal?
I suspect you’ll find that over at commondreams.org and rawstory.com, two sites which banned me forever for pointing out Sen. Hillary Clinton’s negative voting record on progressive issues, and positive voting record on war financing and jobs offshoring.
I don’t think you’re going to find too many Hillary AstroTurf shills here.
You can’t depend on one person even the president to fix everything in this country. Any candidate elected for change isn’t going to be able to accomplish anything without pressure from the people demanding the same.
Obama supporters were busy being involved in that stupid conservative vs progressive fight and also defending him from the bizarre attacks from Republicans flooding media to keep Obama policy in check. That was a mistake and will be for any supporters of a candidate that defeats the Republicans.
The most pressing obsessive issue for awhile was that birth certificate nonsense. Then he bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia! (Republican politicians have changed their tune about Saudi Arabia and Obama. He isn’t loyal enough)
Presidents aren’t immune from propaganda. Obama probably thought the right wing sponsored media accurately represented the concerns of the people.
Everyone had to have seemed crazy. (probably most Americans actually the world would agree)
His thoughts about that and the most pressing issues being the economy and protecting the people in my opinion, could have drove him to find the CIA the most reasonable people he could talk to. You got to have allies.
That alliance plus U.S love affair with privatizing the military (more expensive than government and more opportunity for corruption) brought on the very destructive and secret nature of our military involvement in the Middle East which was a HUGE mistake. Its not in the advertising of the war(s) that’s the problem, it’s the war itself.
The only choices we have with our representatives are in style of how to conduct a war. I know I would like there to be one against being involved in that way.
That was quite the Obama apologist post there.
And I’ll bet Candace really believes she is a Democrat while espousing Obama’s neocon values.
Nah, those are sadly pretty mainstream views in the Democratic Party today. It’s not about making the world a better place, it’s about being at the top of the ruins.
Or perhaps he was led that what happened to JFK could happen again.
Or perhaps he was led to understand that what happened to JFK could happen again.
Excerpt from “VOTE EVERY DAY”:
I’m hearing a lot of talk about the Obama ground game and the effective use of collected information – this tremendous marketing campaign seems to have paid off, but what have we learned? Are we being sold a president the same way we are sold a pair of sneakers or a box of cereal? Are we being invited to participate in our democracy when we answer the polls and surveys? Is this collected information useful in addressing the challenges we face or is it just a mechanism for securing our vote, and through that vote our deference to authority? I read an article that mentioned grassroots movements in conjunction with supporting the administration’s agenda, but this top down approach (the agenda being set by the president) seems contrary to the very nature of grassroots organizing. In yet another post election piece I read this:
“Following re-election, the president wasted no time taking advantage of the organization’s massive base. Obama spoke to 30,000 supporters on a conference call last Tuesday about the fiscal cliff, rallying the troops as he began negotiations with congressional leaders to find a deficit-reduction package. ‘Our work can’t stop now,’ he said, according to audio of the call. ‘We’re going to need you guys to stay active. We need you to stick with us and stay on this and I’m pledging to do a better job even than we did in the first term in making sure you guys stay involved, that you guys know exactly what we’re doing, that we’re giving you guys clear directions and talking points in terms of how we keep mobilizing across the country.’”
We don’t need a marketing campaign to keep us engaged, keep us busy, keep us quiet. Can the OFA network, or perhaps another network altogether, be used instead to ask our people how they think we should address the challenges we face? Perhaps as a means to submit proposals, compile ideas, develop solutions to these challenges? Elevation of ideas from the bottom up is what grassroots is all about – the community participates, not as de facto liberal lobbyists and cheerleaders, but in the actual process of policy development and decision making. When it comes to the “fiscal cliff” Obama is asking us to make Republicans concede to his demands, not to make him concede to ours. With few specifics being offered we are expected to support an agenda that we have had no part in creating. I can recall talking to Bush supporters in 2004 about their “$300 tax rebate” when they brought it up as a reason to re-(s)elect Bush, and asking them if their city and state taxes went up to balance the loss of federal revenue. Isn’t bush getting your vote for nothing if the same amount of income is extracted from you one way or the other? How do you feel about getting duped like that? Will our states and cities be made to compensate for Obama’s proposed federal spending cuts? What and how much will we be asked to sacrifice in order to keep “our” tax cut and make the 1% pay their “fair share”? When you get to the end of the survey there’s a button labeled “submit.”
http://whatisthemissingpoint.blogspot.com/2012/12/vote-every-day.html
This argument may well be true on a political level, but it would not have mattered very much, had President Obama stayed the course on the arguments he made for the needed changes in U.S. Policy that got him elected ! He knew what to do ! But I suppose he could only go so far ! It was the failure of transformation of policy, not the falling away of his grass roots supporters, that would most characterize the failures of the administration and the Democratic party today . Mr Sanders makes an argument but its a political one , not a policy one ! In the end its policy that matters, the rest is fluffy stuff !
Well, the comments section brought my faith in federal
I honestly thought that Bernie Sanders
Now U don’t know.?
Sanders is a fraud. You don’t hear him exposing the bipartisan drive to war with China and Russia. All his fantasy proposals exist only in th eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
For example, you don’t hear S
Fell asleep on the keyboard, did you?
I don’t think any influential legislator thinks war with China or Russia is a good idea or a realistic threat. War with China or Russia is a step above Louie Gomhert ‘terror babies’ level stupid.
Obama said “trust me” and I voted for him twice and contributing to him post election. For what? He has forgotten about the people he said he would champion for, and seems intent to pay back corporate favors before he leaves office. I will be contributing and voting for Sanders and doing everything I can to get people excited about him.
He is the *only* candidate in this race not connected to a PAC and the only one who has fought for the middle class for decades. People need to educate themselves. If they do, they will sen Bernie Sanders is our best chance for prosperity and equality.
It is precisely the kind of thinking your post reflects that has put us in the situation we are in today. Obama won the 2008 election with the promise of “”Hope”, but hope is not a plan, just a feeling. He had no publicly announced program for dealing with any of the serious issues facing the country, and nobody bothered to call him (or his opponent) to task for the lack of substance. Then, given what he did, you voted for him again!! This reflects the general misconception that the only choice is between the republicans and democrats, which in reality is no choice at all. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and for Ralph Nader in 2008, so can honestly say none of the current situation is in any way related to anything I did. Finally, as another poster has pointed out, the president cannot do very much without support, namely from Congress. If things are to change, we need to ask tough questions of congressional candidates, and hold them to their platforms when they get elected.
I would not vote for Bernie Sanders as a democrat candidate for president because of party affiliation. Electing him as an independent or as a Green would send a message to both the democrats and the republicans, and even though he would be as ineffective as a result, that ineffectiveness would not result from a clash of parties but rather from a clash between ethics and corruption.
I plan on voting Green again in 2016. It is indeed time to have a woman in the White House, but hey, as long as we are doing that, why not a competent, ethical one?
Obama sold a lot of US out!
Jill Stein lacks the skills of scheming and politicking for well…a politician. But she has her principles. At least Nader knew how to get legislation passed. A Green Party president would feel good, but would be useless until they have a candidate who can play ball and not be played like a marionette.
I always consider these ad hominem attacks most specious. Ms. Stein has the requisite intelligence of who should be appointed to her administration — and I feel rather positive that she wouldn’t appoint a Diana Farrell, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Jack Lew, Mary Jo White, Eric Holder, Robert Mueller III (reappointment), James Comey, Robert Gates (reappointment), and on and on and on!
For the reasons I stated, they’d be better off with someone who actually knows their way around politics, like McKinney. On paper I agree more with Stein than Johnson, but at least the Libertarian Party puts forth real candidates. Or the Green Party could focus on winning smaller elections and actually having some representation. I voted for Hawkins for Governor of NY, they should have put more support into that race. He had basically the full support of organized labor, and Cuomo managed to piss off a lot of the Democratic base, the teachers unions with his hard on for standardized testing and charter schools, the Working Families Party, public employees, and anyone who likes firearms with the knee jerk reaction that was the SAFE Act. Astorino ran basically as a single issue candidate, for repealing the SAFE Act. If Hawkins had more publicity, spoke of reforming stupid parts of the SAFE Act such as banning “assault rifles” based on nothing more than hysteria of a gun’s physical appearance and conceded some of his more radical views like full legalization of heroin, I think he could have pulled in double digit percentage of the votes, maybe enough to at least scare the establishment.
Well said! Jill Stein 2016!
i’m going to assume sanders hasn’t read a lot of howard zinn.
“The result of having our history dominated by presidents and generals, and other ‘important’ people, is to create a passive citizenry; not knowing its own powers, always waiting for some savior on high, God or the next president, to bring peace and justice.”
– Howard Zinn (1922-2010)
I couldn’t agree more. I stood in the freezing cold for hours to be at Barack Obama ‘s inauguration and within hours, he was backtracking from the candidate I supported .
Obama was blackmailed by the NSA from 2008 and sold out his supporters to save himself. So there was never going to be any hope or change.
That’s bullshit. Why would you make such a self-discrediting claim without any evidence?
Obama was exposed as a right winger and fake-progressive long before 2008. Read Paul Street. Or Adolph Reed. Or any of the Left analysts who recognized what the ruling class was doing with Brand Obama.
@Vivek Jain: “Obama was exposed as a right winger and fake-progressive long before 2008.”
Perhaps, but if that’s all it was, his policies wouldn’t have so closely matched those of his blackmailer. Russ Tice pointed out that Cheney was using the NSA to tap Obama’s phones from 2004 on, and not long after he became president, he went to Bill “Cheney is the best Republican” Kristol to have his polices validated. Kristol was thrilled with them, and called him a “born again neocon.”
Two dots that are easy to connect.
“And in this kind of situation, it’s very easy to fall into the belief that we had a hero, and we had a wonderful country, and we had this guy who was going to lead us, we had the messiah — then they shot him down and ever since then everything’s been illegitimate. So really there have to be serious efforts to get past this, I think.”
– Noam Chomsky on JFK assassination conspiracy theories
The Kennedy brothers’ premature, violent deaths, and their rhetoric, which was tailored to resonate with the imaginations and aspirations of the post-WWII generation, has made it easy for poorly informed people to mis-remember and confuse them as romantic, heroic, idealistic, well-intentioned, anti-establishment figures. It’s easier to mourn the shattering of a fantasy (the JFK of liberals’ dreams) than to study and understand the rise (and political economy) of capitalism-imperialism in the US, and the anatomy, physiology, psychology/propaganda, objectives and (counterrevolutionary) strategies of the imperial ruling class. Americans are in denial about the fact that the office of the POTUS more closely resembles that of a mafioso instead of a public servant.
Unfortunately, Vivek, you too have fallen for the revision. The only two progressives in the White House were FDR and JFK, who was essentially continuing FDR’s original plan.
Please remember JFK’s Alliance for Progress emphasized radical land reform in South America, but was completely changed when LBJ took over.
Also, Kennedy had ordered the withdrawal of all US military advisors from South Vietnam, with the memos sent out to State Department personnel, via military teletypes (knew several USAF and Navy comm techs who read this independently, and Richard Parker mentioned this repeatedly on his book tour in the early ’00s for his biography on John Kenneth Galbraith), plus JFK had moved, with his last budget to congress, to tax offshore monies of the super-rich and corporations, a most damning proposition to them.
Many other actions JFK took on behalf of the people: standing up to US Steel and GE, going against the wishes of David Rockefeller and the Business Council (today called the Business Advisory Council), and many other items — please read those books suggested in an earlier comment of mine.
re: JFK
[@7:20]
https://youtu.be/m7SPm-HFYLo
I suggested well-sourced and verified books, and until that time you provide some sources to back up the official progressive gatekeeper for the sheeple, disinformation specialist Noam Chomsky, I rest my case.
Huh??
You ‘suggested well-sourced and verified books’, 18 hours after I provided a source that would validate Mr. Chomsky’s deranged viewpoints (w/ respect to 9-II & jfk), and you’re ‘resting your case’?
A Sgt_Dipshit Production
Yup, Chomsky loves to trash John F. Kennedy, but somehow ALWAYS forgets the sources, and goes ballistic when one calls him out on it (such as I used to call him at MIT when he was still there).
Suggest you read Andrew Cohen’s recently published book, Two Days in June, and compare JFK’s handling of Indonesia compared to how Eisenhower attempted to overthrow their government, costing thousands of Indonesian lives, and Johnson successfully overthrew their government costing one-half to over one million Indonesian deaths.
Also, suggest you read the following
Battling Wall Street, the Kennedy presidency, by Donald Gibson
Brothers, by David Talbot
JFK and the Unspeakable, by James Douglass
Reclaiming Parkland, by James DiEugenio
Rockefellerocracy: Kennedy Assassinations, Watergate and Monopoly of the “Philanthropic” Foundations, by Richard James DeSocio
JFK, the last dissenting witness, by Bill Sloan
History Will Not Absolve Us, by E. Martin Schotz
excerpt:
from “A Historic Moment: The Election of the Greatest Con-Man in Recent History”, by James Petras in December 2008
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1766
“Havard minted Gunga Din”. Not bad for an ill-educated coo-coo clucker.
from Paul Street:
From this March 2009 article, “Obama and the Left, Such As it Is”
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/obama-and-the-left-such-as-it-is-by-paul-street/
read Chris Hedges. For example this 2009 piece, “Buying Brand Obama”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090503_buying_brand_obama
Excerpt:
I’ll pile on to this one.
Matt Gonzalez (Ralph Nader’s Vice-Presidential running mate) wrote this in October 2008, before the election:
What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises
Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush’s agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/10/29/the-trail-of-broken-promises/
Why I Won’t Vote for Barack Obama by Steven Salaita
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/why-i-wont-vote-for-barack-obama/
“if one wishes to keep his or her integrity intact, then that person shouldn’t seek national office as a Democrat.”–Steven Salaita
As I’ve stated, I have no interest in Bernie Sanders’ integrity, or lack thereof, but for those who do, you might consider applying that statement from Salaita–which was about Obama for the most part–to Sanders.
Barack Obama and the “End” of Racism
http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/barack-obama-and-the-%E2%80%9Cend%E2%80%9D-of-racism/
What are you suggesting they blackmailed him with?
That he once worked for CIA-front organization, Business International Corporation?
Or that his mom worked for the CIA through the Ford Foundation, USAID and Development Alternatives, Inc.?
Or that his step-father was involved (like his mom) with the overthrow of Sukarno and that he worked for Stanvac, Caltex, Mobil and Unocal?
Hillary needs token opposition, and Bernie is providing it. Should Hillary win the general, Bernie will be considered for HHS Secretary or a prestigious ambassadorship. Folks, THAT is why he is running.
the masses need to understand that the very ritual of elections is a means by which the ruling class perpetuates itself. The ruling class coerces, manipulates, and deceives just enough people to participate at the polls and provide a figleaf of legitimacy to our oppressors, who pretend to be our guardians and benefactors. Elections in the US are not a democratic mechanism. The ruling class evokes the history of the popular struggle for the expansion of voting rights — a struggle that, unlike the illusion of choice offered by the ruling class, was real— to persuade the public not to boycott the elections (which is a political action that the masses should consider as a first step toward weakening the ruling class’ hold over us).
Hey, another Teabaglicker troll shows up.
I think you’re confusing Bernie Sanders and Lincoln Chafee.
Bernie Sanders is part of the theater *subduing* real change. He is embedded in the corrupt system, with no interest in making it obey even common decency, let alone the Constitution…
“Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary [Clinton]’s than he likes to admit. Yes, he opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan. In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders voted for a congressional resolution hailing Bush: ‘Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.’ As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out millions to “pro-freedom” groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush administration, you’ll recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering scores of Iranian civilians. Bush was also canoodling with the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label lifted by Hillary Clinton’s State Department after a well-oiled public relations campaign). Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate office in Burlington, Vermont, he called the cops on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie argued passionately in favor of Bill Clinton’s “humanitarian” intervention, and pointedly told hecklers to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say…”
“Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than Sanders’ support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in Vermont. Never mind all that highfalutin’ anti-militarist rhetoric – a politician’s job is to bring home the bacon. And that is what Sanders, and his fellow progressives (for the most part), have done. In Bernie’s case, the F-35 issue dramatizes the political dynamics of how the ‘anti-imperialist’ radicals of yesteryear became the Establishment’s house progressives in 2015.”
“As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted in favor of making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI’s authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the Senate he was regularly voting for that agency’s ever-expanding budget.”
Quotes from:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-the-ron-paul-of-the-left/
Yes, absolutely no one is perfect enough for our Cindy…not Greenwald, not Sanders…
He’s pragmatic. He wasn’t going to kill off the F35 money pit by himself, might as well make sure the work and grants were coming to his home state.
Sound more cynical than pragmatic…
So you’re criticizing for not pulling funding from troops that were already dispatched? Opposing the war is smart but pulling funding when the troops are already deployed is tantamount to sacrificing human lives to make a point about not going to war, when the whole point of not going to war is avoid killing people.
And voting for a budget for Homeland Security is required because the budget for that is always going to be in the same bill as the budget for other things you need.
Seriously, it sounds like you’re parroting weak points most likely conjured up by Clinton’s supporters. Clinton’s campaigners and supporters are extremely dirty. They’re the ones who started the rumors about Obama’s birth.
Forgive me but that’s not how it works. When funding is pulled, contingencies are put into action. It simply means you begin the process of leaving occupied territory (America is quite terrible at this part). The necessary funding in the appropriated. It does not mean leaving troops to die on Danger Island.
I’m glad you took the time to point that out because, as you can see, there are many who really don’t know that. It doesn’t help that when it is debated on the floor of the Senate or House, that is the argument that many of the Senators or Representatives use. They actually pound the table yelling about supporting the troops and not leaving them in harms way without their toys and uniforms. I’d like to say that they can’t possibly be that wantonly or lazily ignorant, but I suspect many of them are. Most of them, though, know better and are just lying.
Yah, it’s such an easy out. “I regrettably have to fund this war”. Cry and shoot.
That was exactly how the Vietnam War was finally ended — congress killed the funding of it.
Sadly, I fear you are right, but he does offer a ray of hope?
Jon’s “Iron Law” post is probably my favorite thing I’ve read on politics. Everyone knows politics suck but I think Jon (and Robert Michels?) provide something approximating a metaphysics of the suck, which is very useful and always interesting imo. Culture changes. Institutions adapt. Black Panther’s free lunch program was considered a national security threat. Then it became national policy.
Matt Stoller did an insightful piece on Al From along similar lines:
https://medium.com/@matthewstoller/its-al-froms-democratic-party-we-just-live-here-5d0de7f89c3e
“Everyone knows politics suck but I think Jon (and Robert Michels?) provide something approximating a metaphysics of the suck”
Thank you — I especially appreciate the phrase “a metaphysics of the suck.”
Great comments. Bernie Sanders is not the unknown that Obama was in 2008. Obama may have built a grassroots campaign, but remember the Occupy Movement? Obama tried to claim Occupy, but was quickly dismissed as part of the problem. He and his Wall Street cronies, along with the intelligence community and the media, snuffed out Occupiers. I see the current progressive movement as coming from Occupy, and not Obama’s base. Bernie is much more in touch with progressives and populism.
Gallup shows the country is shifting to the left where Bernie has always stood. Hillary and Bill are a product of the problem, not a solution.
I wonder how much money OFA has…..
I think Sanders is absolutely on point. Obama’s failure to mobilize his supporters after general elections probably contributed to the Democrats’ dismal mid-term elections, imo. I’m not saying the Dems would not have lost any seats in 2010/2014 — just not as massive. And, with a stronger ground-up organization, the Democrats could get their messages out more effectively.
Negative, they did not appreciate all of Obama’s neocon appointments nor his neocon support for Wall Street!
As much as I admire Bernie, I see a concession in his running as a Democrat. If he ran as an independent he would still be in the running in November. Instead, he’ll build an organization of admiring followers, run a heroic campaign, and gracefully bow out when Hillary wins the nomination. He’ll get to give a speech at the convention, his followers will wind up, more-or-less by default, joining the main Democratic campaign, and that’ll be that.
I see a concession in his running as a Democrat.
I had exactly the same thought.
Instead, he’ll build an organization of admiring followers, run a heroic campaign, and gracefully bow out when Hillary wins the nomination…his followers will wind up, more-or-less by default, joining the main Democratic campaign, and that’ll be that.
This dynamic is becoming more than a little bit predictable. Bruce Dixon of Black Agenda Report wrote about that here:
http://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary
I am awaiting the inevitable Kucinich moment when Sanders takes a plane ride with Hillary and decides by golly, I can’t win but she can and she ain’t that bad guys, really.
And lately, Kucinich has been using the word “incentivize” regarding corporations, as in “we must incentivize them to support the environment” — scary!
Kucinich probably found out mid-flight Clinton had a seatbelt/parachute and he didn’t.
Kucinich probably folded when the Obama campaign made him cut this from his 2008 convention speech:
I’m really hoping this plan backfires. I plan to leave the Democratic Party after the primary if Hillary gets the nomination (which she likely will). The primary is my chance to make my voice heard. Once I know it has gone on deaf ears, I know my party affiliation won’t matter.
I won’t. And I think a lot of voters are no longer willing to settle for the “lesser of two evils” or “my guy/woman is better than the crazy loonies” appeals to come out and vote. And I’ve never missed a vote since I turned 18.
At this point, I’m willing to be in the permanent minority assuming that minority in the House and Senate is willing to fight and set the table for the future in a morally and ideologically consistent manner. Losing isn’t the worst thing in the world if it’s for a purpose. Let the Republicans “own” the failure of this country. It doesn’t scare me one bit, not because it doesn’t impact me personally (it does and will), but people will never learn the lesson that if you don’t show political discipline and you fail to hold your own nominal party “representatives” accountable–then what’s the difference. Crumb sandwiches are still not a meal. And really you can’t and don’t want to live out your very limited time on this earth fighting over crumb sandwiches–because that’s precisely what the people in power want you to be doing. At bottom that’s why 60% of the people who comprise the supposed “greatest democracy in history” don’t even bother to participate in the process. They aren’t stupid, then understand intuitively that the system is rigged. And all the well meaning people who continue to vote on the basis of “lesser of two evils” logic get precisely what the deserve–a slower slide into the abyss and little if anything more.
Can we be optimistic for a change? I believe Bernie is honest, his voting record and his record as Mayor I think shows that. He is not perfect, but is clearly the closest to the progressive movement.
Instead just making comments, can we just all send him a bit of money and ask our friends to do so as well?. He has large group of volunteers and that means he does not need as much money as Hillary does (using paid staffers) to have his voice heard. I think if he can reach enough many people he indeed has a chance. Most of what money does in campaigns is to send a message to a lot of places repeatedly, and unfortunately if a message is repeated enough times people start to believe it (no matter if it is true or not), but this can be counteracted to some extent.
I think you’re totally right AkosM, but you have to understand that the 1%’s Hillary’s campaign already has people astro-turfing the web (and this site in particular) in comments to cast doubt on Sanders – as he’s the only credible threat to her campaign.
Point to specifically whom on “this site in particular” is an astro turfer for Hilary Clinton. Rrheard? Me? Cindy? Pedinska? What a joke.
Naaah, I voted for Jill Stein and the previous Green Party candidates back to 2000 — no way I would vote for Armand Hammer-supported Al Gore, and I’ve never voted RepubliCON.
“I see a concession in his running as a Democrat. If he ran as an independent he would still be in the running in November”
In your scenario he’d be “running” for the “job” of political footnote, 2016 edition.
It’s a long shot, but I believe that Sanders could go all the way. Sure, lot of people will never get past the demon-word “socialist”, but they’re going to go Republican anyway. I think Sanders’ platform is vastly superior to anything else out there, but more that that, I’m convinced that his lucidity and candor ON THEIR OWN can attract extraordinary interest. Aside from her truly dismal record — because of it? — Clinton can’t open her mouth without tossing out a stream of evasion and special pleading. In that sense she’s fully qualified to be a standard Dem candidate. In that sense, also, she might be the Dem choice best suited to lose to whatever loon the Republican traveling psych ward eventually emits. At best the woman inspires shrugs.
I understand the “sheepdog” concerns about Sanders. They’re legitimate, especially given the Dem’s institutional history over the last 2-3 decades. But I can’t recall anybody with a better combination of philosophy and possibility than Sanders offers. Further, who’s going to come along who’s any better? Face it, the “talent” in the political class as a whole is nothing but pathetic, and it seems to be even **worse** on the Dem side. How would Clinton even be a factor were it otherwise?
You can’t run for President as an Independent. I mean you can, but ideally you need to get on the ballot in all 50 states + DC. I believe Democrats and Republicans nomination are on the ballot in 50+DC, Libertarians had 48 states, Greens had 36. That means Jill Stein is a write in in those other 14 states.
The grassroots liberal movement never went away, they were just disillusioned by the Obama administration. All we need is a spark to get started again …
“I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama,” Bernie Sanders said, but the “biggest mistake” he made after running “one of the great campaigns in American history” was saying to the legions of people who supported him, “Thank you very much for electing me, I’ll take it from here.”
“I will not make that mistake,” Bernie Sanders said, making a pitch for a mobilized grassroots movement that every candidate dreams of and that in ’08 Obama came closest to achieving. / “It will happen if a million young people are marching on Washington.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/15/bernie-sanders-is-building-an-army-to-take-d-c.html
“I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama.” (Bernie Sanders)
Why? Obama is a corporatist-militarist murderer who not only covered up the crimes of Wall Street and Cheney/Bush but expanded the Afghanistan war, increased drone strikes exponentially, re-started the Iraq war (and expanded it into Syria, mercilessly killing countless innocents), hired sociopathic egoist Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to destroy Libya, etc…
Bernie Sanders is just another liar, supportive not only of the current overblown Defense budget (notice he only talks not about actually cutting it, but about not increasing it) but also of Israel’s diabolical behavior toward Palestinians.
In my opinion, he’ll continue to milk his gullible supporters just like Obama did, until he doesn’t need them anymore. This is not Obama’s ‘biggest mistake,’ (his biggest mistake would be either killing innocent people or ignoring the Constitution), and Obama is not worthy of respect and admiration. Sanders is part of the theater that stops people en masse from actually questioning the rigged system itself.
The Republicans are no better. Thought I’d add that in case anyone remotely supposed I was promoting the current goofs in the GOP over Democrats.
“In my opinion, he’ll continue to milk his gullible supporters just like Obama did”
Sure, that’s the default mode for politicians. But if people get their act together, it probably would be possible to organize enough to make Sanders let whatever movement he builds in his campaign be something that belongs to everyone involved, rather than just him.
I’m not sure what that would look like, though, or whether anyone has any intention of pressuring him like that. I hope to write more about both things in the future.
Although I don’t share it, I appreciate your optimism (and I guess this is a good time to say I think you’re the most succinct and incisive of all the writers here), but personally I would rather people got their act together around a Green movement than Sanders – who I don’t trust or like at all. Admittedly this Green Uprising seems unlikely, but I just can’t buy the idea that we have to settle for monumentally less than what is right.
“I think you’re the most succinct and incisive of all the writers here”
Thank you!
…mom?
Srsly, thank you.
Honest people trying to build an honest movement to, say, stop the war machine, stop supporting Israeli war crimes, stop supporting politicians like Sanders — he supports the war machine and he supports or does not recognize the war crimes of Israel — is not the way to organize and build a movement. Pedinska linked to a BAR article in this thread; you’ve probably read it. The article clearly lays out what to expect from Sanders’ current campaign and the predictable aftermath of it. It’s a co-optation and a defusing of a movement, not the building of a movement.
People who know that I pay attention to so called politics ask me what I think about Sanders. I know that some who ask are expecting that I might say that I’m encouraged. That’s not the answer they get, though. Sanders is a fraud. I don’t want to see us wasting time, losing ground on fraudulent campaigns and fraudulent politicians.
In summary, what Sanders said about Obama, “I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama,” should be a clincher for anyone who has continued to have any respect or admiration for Sanders.
Again listen to this from Bernie (before you stating things like this)
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2013/december/21/sen-bernie-sanders-exposes-bloated-military-and-intelligence-spending/
That was two years ago, and besides, there is nothing to criticizing and documenting defense spending. What is he doing in his campaign now? What has he done to actually decrease defense spending. What has he done in his district? How has he addressed it in his 2015 campaign? What is the difference between what he says and what he does or doesn’t do?
But back to the fact that I don’t have any regard at all for Sanders’ campaign. I could not care less about it, except for the fact that it is the latest incarnation of a fraudulent pull away from actual movement progress. Sanders knows that. Sanders has been and still is nothing more than a politician living in the bubble of that world of being a national politician.
“Potential Harm
“Sanders said one thing that surprised me a bit last Saturday. “The best and most honest president,” he acknowledged, “could not fix” America’s broken pseudo-democracy, because of “the power of the billionaire class, including corporately owned media.” But “there’s good news,” Bernie added: “history shows that the people can join together to say ‘Enough is enough. Billionaires cannot run everything.’” Both statements are true. But, then, why run for president? Why enlist in the “quadrennial extravaganza”? Why not opt instead for the more important politics of grassroots social-movement building?
“Could a Sanders presidential run help us build the popular movements and weight that mater count most for those who wish to bring about substantive progressive change? I very much doubt it, for two reasons. First, candidate-centered campaigns tend to pretty much soak up all or at least most of the political energies of their participants. There’s not much left for efforts to build and expand movements for deeper systemic changes beneath and beyond biennial and quadrennial elections.”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/4519
“In summary, what Sanders said about Obama, “I have a lot of respect and admiration for Barack Obama,” should be a clincher for anyone who has continued to have any respect or admiration for Sanders.”
You’d rather that a guy vying for a party’s nomination should go out of his way to impugn said party’s leader, who for all his faults is still more or less accepted by said party’s membership. That’s some solid tactical thinking there.
You’re hung up on the wording, so you miss the more important point that Sanders is actually offering up a pointed criticism of one of Obama’s central political failures. Not exactly a daily happening in American national politics.
Your “some tactical thinking there” is your “thinking,” not mine. Your preceding sentence to that one is also all yours, not mine. I wrote what I wrote. If you’d care to respond or reply to that, then maybe we would be having a conversation, but since you’re making up words and pretending that they’re mine, you’re having a conversation with yourself.
For the record, though, there is nothing at all uncommon about a primary candidate criticizing the incumbent, that’s as common as dirt. Also, if you weren’t busy declaring yourself to be a “tactical” strategist, you might have noticed that I have no interest in Bernie Sanders candidacy or potential candidacy at all, except that I see it as a co-opting or diverting of real movement building. I’m not wasting my energy or making the often repeated mistake of backing fraudulent politicians who publicly claim to have great respect for Obama or any other world destroying politician. You can agree or not with that, but if you intend to discuss or disagree, please do so understanding what it is that you are disagreeing about, rather than making it up.
Really are you sure he is a liar (and not you)? then listen to this:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/congress-alert/2013/december/21/sen-bernie-sanders-exposes-bloated-military-and-intelligence-spending/
Yeah, I’m sure.
To paraphrase, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
Exactly!
I agree with Ganz’s assessment.
>>the power of the institution itself
Seems both titanic institutions will eventually implode since they are the primary vehicles enacting the increasing wealth disparity, a process which will culminate in instability. I’m voting for Jill Stein.
“Seems both titanic institutions will eventually implode”
That could happen, they’re both being hollowed out by their billionaire financiers. But they’re both based in a wide swath of powerful US corporations, it’s more likely they won’t implode unless the corporations do.
Institution? A political campaign is often more like a circus: a lot of show and excitement, but then it folds up and moves on. Obama supporters apparently thought different, but most politicians — at least, the Democratic ones I’ve known — just want that title before their names. Platforms, campaign workers, supporters, even ideas are simply useful props.
P.T. Barnum and Ronald Reagan were both show business, and this is but another medium. Sooner that people realize that, the better.
“A political campaign is often more like a circus: a lot of show and excitement, but then it folds up and moves on.”
Yes, that’s almost always the case. Not always, however. The losing Goldwater campaign provided the nucleus for Reagan and the eventual far-right takeover of the Republican Party. Pat Robertson’s 1988 campaign was the nucleus of the Christian Coalition. Jesse Jackson’s 1988 campaign could have provided the nucleus for left-wing equivalents if he’d cared enough to make it happen. So it’s not impossible.
Bernie could hardly be expected to tear down the institution that put him in office if he wins.
And he has already promised to support the institution that presides over his loss when he most certainly loses.
“Bernie could hardly be expected to tear down the institution that put him in office if he wins.”
Agreed, no matter what Sanders’ personal intentions are, the only way something like what Sanders is advocating would happen would be if people got organized now to force it on him.
This comes down to trust. How can we really trust a candidate now. If Bernie Sanders truly is an earnest man, then this is an opportunity we cannot miss. If he wins and it turns out he’s not, then we need a revolution.
I agree and I think he is talking a bit differently than Obama did, much more to the point.
“This comes down to trust. How can we really trust a candidate now. ”
Agreed. Given what’s out there, at the national and state levels, Sanders seems like the best bet the Left (what there is of it, sadly) is likely to see for many years.
the only way something like what Sanders is advocating would happen would be if people got organized now to force it on him.
Pretty sure I heard that tiny violin playing not long after Obama was elected and started repudiating his campaign agenda.
Just sayin’… ;-}
That is what he is sayin’ as well:) (i.e he’d welcome that)