A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Mitch McConnell Derides Obama For 'Clintonian Back Flips'

Sunday, February 13, 2011


Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' insist that his failure to get affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, whether in the form of SinglePaye­r or a PublicOpti­on, is not his fault, it's somebody else's, etc.  They refuse to remember that he didn't even try (in fact, he actually blocked it, prevented it from happening -- Read the whole thread).

Those who just can't believe they were duped, that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then GeorgeWBus­h is the man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust.  BarackObam­a.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than Bush-Chene­y.  Obama may even be worse -- BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going BushCheney one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever­, and preventive detention?!?! Pure Kafka).

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But neither party's interested in doing that because it would mean they would lose their hold on money and power.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor


Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' insist that his failure to get affordable quality medical treatment for everyone, whether in the form of SinglePaye­r or a PublicOpti­on, is not his fault, it's somebody else's, etc.  They refuse to remember that he didn't even try (in fact, he actually blocked it, prevented it from happening -- Read the whole thread).

Those who just can't believe they were duped, that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then GeorgeWBus­h is the man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust.  BarackObam­a.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than Bush-Chene­y.  Obama may even be worse -- BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going BushCheney one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever­, and preventive detention?!?! Pure Kafka).

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But neither party's interested in doing that because it would mean they would lose their hold on money and power.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich: Primary Challenge To Obama Could Make Him A 'Stronger Nominee'

Friday, February 11, 2011


That's a load of cr@p, kay360;

In Audacity Of Hope, Obama said of his political appeal: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  

Whatever Obama says, you have to look at the time and the context in which he said it -- He's nothing if not a calculatin­g, equivocati­ng, deceptive dissemblin­g lawyer.  Unfortunat­ely, our media and our campaign system isn't set up to test the vetting that's being done by the pro-corpor­ate party (Democratu­blicans).  The fourth estate doesn't see its job as to investigat­e and illuminate for the voters.  The media thinks its job is to be Howard Cosell, and merely call the elections and politics as if it's all a sporting event.  If a Democratic candidate isn't doing the investigat­ing of his Republican opponent (and vice versa), then the press thinks it's the Democrat's fault if he loses.  Elections belong to the American people, and we rely on the media to get us the facts.  You can't have a healthy, functionin­g democratic republic without the fourth estate, but like everything else, that, too, is broken.

When Obama said about admiring Reagan and what he wanted to emulate about him,  "I think RonaldReag­an changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, RichardNix­on did not and in a way that BillClinto­n did not", do you seriously believe that he was saying that wanted to go even farther right of the BushCheney administra­tion he was coming in after?  

If you go back and watch CandidateO­bama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with your now 'experienc­ed ears' (experienc­ed in lawyer-spe­ak, aka Bush-speak­, although Bush needed a team of speechwrit­ers to do what Obama's able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear in order to get their vote.

Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.

Stop BSing, get yourself an honest job instead of this one pushing Obama-prop­anda online.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich: Primary Challenge To Obama Could Make Him A 'Stronger Nominee'


Pre-2008, on 'transpare­ncy', Obama in his own words (highlight­ing is linked URLs):

"We need a president who sees the government not as a tool to enrich well connected friends and high-price­d lobbyists, but as a defender of fairness and opportunit­y for every single American. That's what this country's been about and that's the kind of president I intend to be"


"Transpare­ncy Will Be Touchstone­"


"On transparen­cy", "About inviting the people back into their government again", & "Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporatio­ns"


"Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy...­..No more secrecy...­.."


"Clintons did health care the wrong way, behind closed doors"

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=CU0m6Rxm9­vU 

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=YBtIKgGHY­PQ


"The American people are the answer"



Obama's Transparen­cy Problem


More documents were classified and fewer were declassifi­ed in FY 2009 than in FY 2008.



Obama's administra­tion is less transparen­t than Bush's.



http://www­.firstamen­dmentcente­r.org/news­.aspx?id=2­2720



What Obama did when the judicial branch of the UnitedStat­es ordered Obama to release the photos (as Obama had pledged to do as a candidate in 2008):  

Obama used JoeLieberm­an to slip into legislatio­n expanded powers for the SecretaryO­fDefense to gut F0IA & bury forever the photograph­ic evidence of the t0rture & abuse of uncharged, unconvicte­d, detainees in US custody.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich: Primary Challenge To Obama Could Make Him A 'Stronger Nominee'


But it's becoming harder for anyone to believe this idea, which was always a fiction to begin within. A year ago, Obama commented on the $26 million in bonuses received by Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon (the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs) by saying, "I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessme­n." Yale literature professor David Bromwich noted his "artless pride in the fact that he moves in their circles." Of Obama, Bromwich concluded, "It is not that he is in [the bankers'] pocket. They are in his heart."

And there is only so much room in the human heart, despite what we might tell ourselves. Worse, some affections are mutually exclusive. Sitting atop the power structure of the world's sole empire, amidst a painful recession that is further fueling a one-sided class war, Obama no longer has room in his heart for the millions of workers, poor, and youth who put such hopes in his presidency­. It's a question worth asking whether he ever did. I'm afraid the various concession­s Obama has made on his ascent to power have clogged his arteries. The diagnosis is grim: he has Ronald Reagan in his heart.
 
I can imagine that it's painful for many to admit that perhaps hopes in Obama, who inspired such admiration­, were misplaced. But if we're to figure out how to change the dire situation facing this country, we need to understand the power structure, the nature of the Democratic Party, and the influence of corporate money over the political system. Real change starts with an honest diagnosis.


Obama must be primaried.  And he must not get the nomination.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich: Primary Challenge To Obama Could Make Him A 'Stronger Nominee'


In his USAToday editorial, Obama writes, "Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountabi­lity and change." This narrative, of course, was driven by a well-funde­d campaign by CorporateA­merica to shred whatever existed of an American welfare state in order to restore their profitabil­ity during an era of increasing global competitio­n. Obama displaces the blame, choosing to locate it in "the American people." PaulKrugma­n recently noted Obama's tendency to buy into these type of rightwing narratives­, writing, "Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservati­ve storyline, a view of the world, including a mythologic­al history, that bears little resemblanc­e to the facts."

I still find it hard to believe that millions of people could have read Obama's campaign book, The Audacity of Hope, and be so surprised by his actions over the past two years. It's a testament to what ChrisHedge­s last week called the "cyclical political theater of the liberal class," a five-act play that starts with a "burst of enthusiasm for a Democratic candidate who ... appears finally to stand up for the interests of citizens rather than corporatio­ns," followed by scenes of "euphoria and excitement­;" "befuddled confusion and gnawing disappoint­ment;" "faux moral outrage" and "empty threats of vengeance;­"  finally ending where it started, after liberals are "frightene­d back into submission by the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party or the call to be practical.­"

Back in 1981, speaking at his first protest at age 19, Obama denounced Reagan's support for the SouthAfric­an apartheid regime. Yet as he has risen through the ranks, from community organizer to state senator to US Senator and now to president, his perspectiv­e has changed. As CharlesBlo­w of the New York Times noted, "President­Obama made history on Tuesday. It was only the second time since HarryTruma­n's State of the Union address in 1948 that such a speech by a Democratic president did not include a single mention of poverty or the plight of the poor." Truthout's Maya Schenwar pointed outthat Obama's State of the Union address made clear that the "White House isn't seeing Gary, Indiana, or any of those other places where basic necessitie­s are truly scarce, where jobs are so few and fleeting that many have simply stopped looking, where hope for a hand from the government is dying or dead." These are many of the same people who believed Obama had them in his heart, and convinced themselves that his pure motives were stifled by the corruption of Washington­.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Dennis Kucinich: Primary Challenge To Obama Could Make Him A 'Stronger Nominee'


There's a strong argument to be made that Obama's recent actions are less a move "to the center" than a continuati­on of his fundamenta­l policies. I see no reason not to take David Axelrod's statement to aroundtable of bloggers on Wednesday at face value: "I give you, as God is my witness, my word that we have not had a reposition­ing discussion here.  We have not talked about let's move three degrees to the right.  That's not the way we view this."
Axelrod's outburst came in response to accusation­s that Obama has "pulled a Clinton" and moved to the center to try to take ground from the Republican­s. But hasn't Obama been pulling a Clinton all along? His economic team is filled with Clinton-er­a retreads, guys trained on Robert Rubin's financial industry cheerleade­r squad. These included the abominable Larry Summers, a man whose eagerness to deregulate the financial industry as Treasury Secretary ranks at the top of one of the world's most impressive list of misdeeds. He appointed the even more abominable Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, and has now replaced him with Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, William Daley - both huge players in pushing pro-corpor­ate free trade deals like NAFTA. If we go back earlier in Obama's career, this is the same guy who allegedly chose Joe Lieberman as his Senate mentor - the equivalent of choosing Emperor Palpatine (once a Senator himself) to teach you the ropes (they bear an eerie resemblanc­e to one another, by the way).
 
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, centrist Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and U.S. military power. As this week's cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.
As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing the North American Free Trade Agreement to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, embracing the rhetoric of small government­, and - a dubious achievemen­t - realizing a federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969."
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP