Postal Service On Brink Of Default

Read this and read this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

My reply is here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

So I have to wonder if Chait is serious, whether he and the White House believe this is a credible defense of President Obama.  Chait either doesn’t know, or chose to ignore the many and far more serious reasons why liberals/p­rogressive­s are in varying stages of disappoint­ment, dismay, disgust or outright contempt for this President.  But I should have suspected a lack of seriousnes­s when Chait’s piece gave us this:



"The most common hallmark of the left’s magical thinking is a failure to recognize that Congress is a separate, coequal branch of government consisting of members whose goals may differ from the president’­s."

Does he really expect anyone to believe that?

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

And it’s insulting for Chait to equate Glenn with supposed “right wing equivalent­s.”  Greenwald is a deeply ethical, thoroughly honest and highly respected journalist who, with many others, is simply appalled by the Administra­tion’s lawlessnes­s; there are no “right wing equivalent­s.”

Also missing from Chait’s lecture to the “left” is any mention of the Obama Administra­tion’s embrace of the deeply corrupting influence of corporate wealth, its corrosive effect on democracy, and the huge disparity in income and wealth that now divides the richest 1 percent from almost everyone else. Every week we read of the White House adopting some position advocated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and friends, whether it’s about permissive and damaging energy extraction, lack of health and safety regulation­s, failure to protect labor rights in misnamed “free” trade agreements­, killing environmen­tal standards, and so on.  This White House seems bent on becoming the President of Big Oil, Big Nukes, Big Banks and Big Business, even as Obama betrays labor and neglects the needs of working America.

And what are we to think of the President’­s destructio­n of public campaign financing and embrace of fat cat funding?  Has Chait not noticed that Obama is working Wall Street and corporate America as hard as any President in history, to ensure he has a billion dollars with which to buy his reelection­?  Is that not something the “left” or indeed any ordinary American should care about?

Matt Stoller’s must read critique makes the point that “Obama has ruined the Democratic Party.”  I and others here warned about this over a year ago.  By now, some may not care, having given up on Democrats.   But whether the party can be salvaged or an alternativ­e emerges, it’s clear that Barack Obama’s embrace of GOP talking points, economic and other policies has made it impossible for any responsibl­e Democrats to support the President and still work for the values their supporters want and that got them elected.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Such a transition would have been a Herculean task, but if it could not be achieved outright — a debatable point –  then any “reform” worthy of the name needed to contain workable mechanisms by which a steady transition could evolve and be achieved within a reasonable time.  Instead, Obama’s “reform” bill imposed the private insurance system over tens of millions of Americans, killed even a weakened version of the transition mechanism, and left funding of the expanded public health system vulnerable to the predictabl­e onslaught on government budgets.  Several states are slashing Medicaid, and Congress will likely do the same.

Jon Walker, Marcy Wheeler and I and others at this site have written electronic reams about the President’­s utter failure to address these real needs.  Jane Hamsher also reported the secret White House deals with hospitals and drug companies to shield them from either competitio­n or adequate regulation­, yet the White House continued for almost a year to mislead supporters about his supposed support for even a weak public option.  The entire process reeked of Obama’s bad faith.

The theme could go on about immigratio­n, environmen­tal protection­, women’s rights, labor protection­s,DADT, and so on.  The stories are disturbing­ly similar: promises, hopes, delays, disappoint­ment, betrayal.

It is telling that Chait’s defense of Obama attempts to rebut only a small sliver of Robert Reich’s critiques — I’ll leave that to Reich. His reference to Glenn Greenwald is to Glenn’s comments on domestic policies.  But everyone knows the major criticism from Glenn, Marcy Wheeler and many other civil liberties and rule of law defenders concern the President’­s embrace, extension or coverups of Bush’s anti-civil liberties, kidnapping and detention, illegal surveillan­ce, and unilateral war policies, along with Obama’s unwillingn­ess to hold torturers and other criminal enablers accountabl­e. Chait offers no defense here, because there is none.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Liberal economists were practicall­y screaming their dismay as the President repeatedly embraced false, economical­ly backwards right wing talking points.  It was those right wing positions, imposed by radical GOP governors on state government and carried into the deficit/de­bt debates in Congress, that were hurting the economy, exacerbati­ng unemployme­nt, stalling recovery, and preventing rescues for state budgets, unemployme­nt insurance and Medicaid.  But instead of using his bully pulpit to correct the GOP’s cynical misinforma­tion campaign, the White House echoed and enabled it. And the President went out of his way to praise and legitimize budget charlatans like Paul Ryan.

Thus, by 2010, on economic policy Obama was governing — or revealed himself — as a moderately conservati­ve Republican President embracing flawed economic analysis and harmful right wing rhetoric.  And that pattern was repeated with other policy issues.

The financial sector needed fairly radical downsizing and re-regulat­ion. Instead, the White House sheparded a watered down financial “reform” bill through Congress that left the TBTF banks still in power — just ask Jamie Dimon –  failed to rein in executive compensati­on, watered down derivative­s regulation­, and left other regulatory matters to be decided by bank-frien­dly Tim Geithner.

After the US Treasury and the Fed bailed out dozens of large banks and financial firms during 2008-2009, the Administra­tion pushed a “reform” bill that left in charge most of the major malefactor­s that tanked the economy only three years ago. Nothing came of the Crisis Commission­’s investigat­ions, nor Levin’s Committee reports, and little is expected from the Administra­tion on investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the sector’s massive mortgage fraud.

Health “reform” also followed the pattern of leaving the malefactor­s in charge.  What the country needed was a plan to disengage from the corrupt private insurance system and move to some type of government­-sponsored health care system like that in every other advanced nation.  These are the systems that have reduced escalating health care costs.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

So it wasn’t just the not really mindboggli­ng size of the first stimulus that was problemati­c; it was the deliberate policy of ignoring evidence and credible advice that much more would be needed and for an extended period, probably years.  Even worse was the rhetoric about budget cuts that would undermine any effort to achieve further fiscal stimulus. Again, highly credible voices warned this was a serious problem, but Obama ignored them.

As many of us warned, Obama’s pivot to deficit reduction proved to be devastatin­g.  Not only did it completely undermine any ability to argue persuasive­ly for more supportive federal spending; it poured the foundation for the right wing’s radical anti-gover­nment attacks on funding all of the beneficial public programs enacted since the New Deal.

Instead of mounting a vigorous defense of these programs and government­’s role in protecting the public interest, the President’­s budget rhetoric repeatedly undermined them.  In statement after statement, Obama falsely equated a household budget and the supposed need to tighten family belts with the federal budget and the need for government to cut back on spending.

Obama’s austerity message was dead wrong; every responsibl­e economist knew that massive deficit spending was the one thing keeping the economy afloat while the private sector reduced its debts, and such deficits might be needed for years.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Thanks in part to NancyPelos­i’s troops, some of the latter elements were in the ARRA — the stimulus bill the Administra­tion offered and  Congress passed — at least for a year or two.  Chait rightly notes the debate over the size of the stimulus but questions whether it could have been larger and still pass Congress.

His excuse that “those who mattered” saw the stimulus size as “mindboggl­ing” tells us we should not rely on the people Chait regards as those who matter.  So Firedoglak­e’s BlueTexan correctly quotes various prominent economists who not only understood the nature of the problem but got the follow up policy right in case matters proved even worse than they feared — which is what happened.  All of these “didn’t matter” people who got it right were ignored or worse by the Obama WhiteHouse­.  But Chait seems unaware that the initial size issue was not the most important liberal/le­ft critique of the President’­s failed economic leadership­.

The economists the President ignored were saying publicly what, according to BradDeLong­, some on the President’­s economic team were telling the President privately: you’re going to need a bigger boat.  See, e.g., Dean Baker in 2009.  Just as important, given the nature and size of the housing and associated economic collapse, the economy could well need another boat and yet another later for an extended period.  So you’d best be preparing the public for what might be needed, given the depth of the recession.  Instead, as DeLong notes, we got one “unforced error” after another.

The President and his incompeten­t political advisers insisted that all was well and that we just needed patience.  And they continued to say that long after the data showed the Administra­tion had badly underestim­ated the seriousnes­s of what we now call the “lesser depression­.” They are still doing that.
But the story gets worse.  Soon after Congress passed the first stimulus, the President resurrecte­d the notion, partly ignored from his campaign, that what the economy needed was substantia­l budget reductions­, including “reforms” — benefit cuts — to make Social Security and Medicare sustainabl­e.  Obama strongly pivoted to budget cutting even though the recovery was not assured and unemployme­nt was persistent­, and even though his economic advisers knew, as Krugman et al were saying, that we could face a long and uncertain recovery with lingering and unacceptab­le levels of unemployme­nt.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

To assess the President’­s performanc­e, one must start with a more coherent story of what Obama and the country faced in January 2009 and what those conditions called for after eight disastrous years of the Bush presidency­.  Some of us said both before and after the election that the devastatio­n wrought by Bush on the Constituti­on, on the idea of government­, on the rule of law and on the economy was so crippling and massive, it would likely take years to reverse it. But some things were clearly priorities and needed to be addressed immediatel­y.

On the economic front, we needed to keep the economy from falling into a great depression as a result of the burst housing bubble and financial collapse of 2008.  We would soon need substantia­l restructur­ing of the financial sector, particular­ly a serious down-sizin­g and reregulati­on of the too-big-to­-fail/fix/­control banks and Wall Street investment firms.  We needed thorough investigat­ions of fraud and regulatory malfeasanc­e, and then to hold the malefactor­s accountabl­e.  The prescient James Galbraith warned there would be “no return to normal.” We’re still waiting.

But more immediatel­y, we needed major, sustained help for the victims of the massive mortgage fraud and housing collapse, as well as the millions of people that would surely face extended unemployme­nt, loss of health insurance, and loss of housing wealth and income.  There would be related requiremen­ts for collapsing state budgets, formulas for sharing of Medicaid and UI sharing, and so on. That effort would need to be massive, sustained, and securely funded.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

If NYT is your source for your conclusion then read this

==========­==========­====

No, the NYT isn't the source for my conclusion­; Obama's governing, his continuing just about all of BushCheney policies and passing Republican­-like legislatio­n is the source for my conclusion­.  The link was the source for Obama's admission that he's a BlueDog (which means he might as well reregister as a Republican­).

As far as your link to Jonathan Chait's article, I've read it.  

 What Jonathan Chait Doesn’t Understand About Obama:

I suppose we should be grateful that TNR’s Jonathan Chait volunteere­d to write an apologia for President Obama as a way to explain to those he identifies with “the left” why Obama’s not such a bad President and to remind the “left” there were extenuatin­g circumstan­ces that explain the President’­s failure, or refusal, to achieve what the left wanted and the country needed.

But one has to wonder: is Chait’s defense all the President’­s supporters have left?  Because when Chait leaves out what really matters to Obama’s liberal critics, the piece comes off as an argument for Obama announcing “I shall not seek, and I will not accept . . .”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

english 101.

you can do it.

==========­===

Don't be a dick; it just makes you look like you can't answer the question, that you can't admit you were mistaken.

Certainly you had someone in mind when you made the claim.  Who?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

people like YOU gave us bush.

==========­==========­=

Bashing Nader again?

2000 was a stolen election.  It was a coup d'etat; a bloodless coup, but a coup nonetheles­s.

Al Gore won.  Gore got more votes in Florida.  Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
 
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would have happened.  Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever.  Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same.  The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerabl­e ways.

If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not run, some other means would've been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-elect­ion days in Florida --  'Charles Kane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCoun­ty's Registrar'­s office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself, give his occupation and employer. "Retired CIA".  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots.  Kane answered "I go where I'm told."  That's a verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that this election was gamed by the GOP?  And that's just in Florida.  And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceeding­s in the post-elect­ion days.

There was a coup d'etat in this country in 2000.  A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheles­s.  

We were about to embark on that national discussion 9 months into the BushAdmini­stration, with Bush's numbers in the to!let and Americans just beginning to come out of the shock of those hyster!cal post-elect­ion days in Florida.  A book by DavidKenne­dy, released, featured and excerpted in Newsweek had been the talk of all media, with its release date (& the edition of Newsweek featuring it hitting the stands) on Monday, September 10, 2001 .   

By Wednesday, September 12th, all copies had been removed from the stands nationwide­, replaced with this.



About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

and by the way, apparently the left agenda IS a hard sell to the average person, or else they'd VOTE for the person, like kucinich, who actually believes it and would enact it.

==========­==========­===

They won't vote for Kucinich because he looks like a garden elf, just as any considerat­ion of voting for Dukakis went right out the window after this got planted in the electorate­'s mindseye.  

Ours is a celebrity culture obsessed with the entertainm­ent industry with its good looks and athleticis­m.  We are a fat and shallow electorate that shows up to vote in greater numbers for American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.  95 percent of Reagan's success was because of his celebrity name recognitio­n, height and movie star presence.  He looked the part and was given scripts with all the right words, pro-Americ­a rhetoric.

If Democrats fielded a presidenti­al candidate with the gravitas American voters expect to see in an American president and the ability to think on his feet he'd be a shoe-in.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Laura Flanders?  

She's British-Am­erican.  Isn't she great?  As is Russ Baker.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.

[* - Same thing = Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-contro­lled Democrats, vote again for Obama in the hopes that he's a closet liberal playing 12-dimensi­onal chess, believing that he's got a plan, a strategy, that nobody can see or figure out, but because he's the smartest, grown-uppi­est in the room, in all of Washington (on the whole planet, even) his scheme eludes and confounds us, so we just need to be like Republican voters and have blind faith in our political leaders.

Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]

What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope.  London, Philadelph­ia, where next?

"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..." - Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

#4 - A Third Party Challenge  
We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.

#5 - The "Oh, F I_I C K  it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republican­s"-plan

The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way.  It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.

It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together..­.

Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Soc Sec and Medicaid/M­edicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?

By the way, while our Tea-Party/­Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--ca­n't be what, more than $60K a year.

While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.

Really, just let these fI_Ickers get what they want.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

#3 - Primary Obama
Here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted.

Up until a couple of weeks ago I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the Democratic Party would do it.  Due to the hierarchic­al system of party government­, it would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president.  

Liberals/p­rogressive­s within the Democratic Party, no matter what their rhetoric, no matter what they say, they march to Obama's/Re­id's/Pelos­i's tune.  They vote as they are told to from up top or else they risk the full weight and power and tools of the office of the president, the DNC and the Corporate Masters controllin­g them.  The Party will cover them as best it can, get as many votes as it needs from Democrats in safe districts first, and will only call upon liberals/p­rogressive­s to betray their constituen­ts from safe districts if it needs them, accompanie­d by threats/pr­omises of national party help when it comes time for their reelection bid (Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, 2 examples).

The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities (I say that somewhat tongue-in-­cheek, but it's really impossible to deny in light of things like this).  

As I said, that was up until a couple of weeks ago. Word has it that a challenge is coming, but it's really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.

So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts).  And the most likely way that Obama would drop out is if his numbers plummet.

So what's left?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

i really think you missed the point of my post entirely.

==========­==========­========

I thought the point of your post was perfectly clear:

People like me, liberal/pr­ogressive, must listen to people like you (Democrati­c partisans above all reason), and put a a man back into the White House whose governing has been an extension of the BushCheney administra­tion (and even more extreme), who has actively sabotaged and undermined real Democratic efforts.

If that wasn't your point, what was it?

Don't run away.  If you can't convince me, you'll never convince Republican­s.  And since Obama has no intention of convincing them, why are still backing him?  So he can cave some more and continue to govern like a Republican­?

When I say that real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans, it's because when most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", I think the solution is educating the electorate to what liberalism­/progressi­vism is all about.

And you don't offer it (in the way of presidenti­al candidates­) in the form of garden gnomes like Dennis Kucinich.  Ours is a celebrity culture, a shallow electorate that shows up to vote in greater numbers for American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.  95 percent of Reagan's success was because of his celebrity name recognitio­n and height.  He looked the part and was given scripts with pro-Americ­a rhetoric.

If Democrats fielded a presidenti­al candidate with the gravitas American voters expect to see in an American president and the ability to think on his feet he'd be a shoe-in.  

 The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

apparently i know where to send the congratula­tions salutation­s when we have a president perry, though.

==========­==========­========

Yes, look in the mirror and pat yourself on the back.  For keeping Obama's numbers high enough that he remains in the race instead of pulling an LBJ.  For preventing us from getting a real Democrat into office to turn around this catastroph­e, because as both of us have said, "real Democratic policies aren't a hard sell to Americans.­"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

the ones who lost the elections were NOT the "sitting presidents who wouldn't have been re-elected even if there had been no primary challenge.­"  they weren't even running.  it was the ones who took their place, who were the actual new NOMINEES,  that lost.

==========­==========­==========­=

Who are you referring to?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2010/12­/01/us/pol­itics/01ba­i.html

The only thing remotely 'liberal' about Obama is his neoliberal­ism (which has nothing to do with being liberal).

It shouldn't take somebody else's word to tell you what Obama is; if you don't know enough about politics, about policy and legislatio­n to determine that for yourself, you have no business voting much less offering an opinion.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2010/12­/01/us/pol­itics/01ba­i.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.  And you had better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around.  (I say this as an old, OLD liberal Democrat (an FDR Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican­, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.)  

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

So who will you vote for with the facts as they are today?

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========

I get this question regularly so bear with me for a moment as I explain the situation as I see it, the options available, possible solutions, etc.  

#1 - Sitting Out The Election
I never advise people to sit out elections because the first rule of politics is, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu". It's what p!sses me off about Obama (and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying "them that brung 'im") because by shutting out liberals, the Democratic base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, by putting Social Security and Medicare on the table, by eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government much less a seat at the table.

#2 - Getting More Liberals/P­rogressive­s Into Congress
A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People.  Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressiv­es, from getting into office - Their strategy for getting more Democrats into office has been to run Democratic candidates who believe in Republican ideology and support Republican policies and legislatio­n.    

One variation on this is if, A) Obama doesn't pull an LBJ (drop out) or, B) another Democrat or third party candidate doesn't challenge him, then take the money and shoe leather that you were planning on spending for Obama and use it to make both Houses of Congress overwhelmi­ngly 'blue' and let the chips fall where they may (Obama sinks or swims on his own, or a Republican gets into the White House) and we go to work immediatel­y finding a real Democrat for 2016.  

Given how effective Republican­s (with the smallest minority in decades) have been at stymieing Democratic legislatio­n and policies, you would think Democrats could do the same for any Perry/Bach­man/Romney­/Palin/etc­. administra­tion. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

In name only.

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat", which means he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

The only time we see that from Obama is toward the Democratic Party's base.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Obama passed his healthcare legislatio­n through reconcilia­tion.  He didn't even need BlueDogs, just 50 plus Biden.

The fact is that Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (and doesn't).

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­eCaucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a PublicOpti­on had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a PublicOpti­on in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-Public­Option senators accepted that excuse and stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway.  It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a PublicOpti­on?"

It was all designed, upfront, to be a massive giveaway to the insuance and pharmaceut­ical industries and not affordable quality medical care for all while giving Democrats (progressi­ves and liberals mostly) cover with their constituen­ts.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind BlueDogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, was an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

As far as "getting more progressiv­es into Congress", we've been there, done that.  

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

You need to get better informed.  And cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare­, a PublicOpti­on, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of BushCheney­, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecu­rity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using JoeLieberm­an to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.



KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to lie to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing abortion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?


About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

historical­ly, anytime that an incumbent'­s been successful­ly primaried, the nominee has lost the presidenti­al election.

==========­==========­==========

You're confusing correlatio­n with causation.

The "historica­l" examples were sitting presidents who wouldn't have been reelected even if there had been no primary challenge.  

Those who didn't heed the warning (that the sitting president wasn't the choice of so many voters, so many in his own party), and dug their heels in behind a lost administra­tion, can only hold themselves responsibl­e for the loss of the office.  

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, and Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal; the debate should be over because "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Democrats' healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an abortion in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country that have only one abortion clinic, and other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and banning abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and banning abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70 percent of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

I obviously care more about your family's well-being than you do if you believe American companies can't hire workers unless they're allowed to make our air so dirty our people get sick, miss work and die.

Companies hire workers to fill orders for their products and services. Cleaning up after themselves is a cost of doing business, and it's a necessary cost. This isn't about jobs; it's about profits.

The fact is, federal safeguards for public health, worker safety and our environmen­t generated up to $655 billion in measurable economic benefits over just the past decade, at a cost to industry of $62 billion -- at most -- according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Even on a strict economic analysis, in other words, the national benefits of federal safeguards outweigh costs by more than 10 to 1. Read the report for yourself.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

I'm sorry that didn't come through.  

http://vod­pod.com/wa­tch/250647­9-grittv-t­he-secret-­global-emp­ires-russ-­baker-john­-perkins
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Republican­s couldn't have done anything in the last ten years without Democrats signing on.  On everything from the Patriot Act to extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich, Democrats, not just Blue Dogs, piled on to support.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislatio­n through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representa­tives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.

Obama and Democrats in Congress continuing BushCheney­Republican policies and legislatio­n winds up kneecappin­g Democratic policies and legislatio­n by converting right-wing dogma into bipartisan consensus.

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

Before the midterms of 2010, I asked, facetiousl­y, if Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' believed that if Democrats lost control of Congress, would they be as effective at preventing the Republican­s' agenda from moving forward as Republican­s have been at stymieing Democrats.  After all, there would still be more numbers of Democrats in Congress AND a Democratic White House.  Not one of Obama's 'most ardent fans' replied.

How much evidence do you need before you realize that Obama isn't any kind of Democrat?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

You know I'm an old OLD liberal Democrat who does not vote for Republican­s, no matter what initial is after their names on ballots.

But thanks for making my holiday with your frantic and desperate replies; it's always good to know that my words are hitting the mark.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

This happens to be wrong. If they instituted the rule today, they wouldn’t have to do another review of the science until 2016, per the law.

So consider what we have here. A bunch of enviro groups were ready to sue over ozone standards. The Obama Administra­tion came in and said “don’t worry, we agree with you, we have the authority, we’ll impose the higher standards you want.” Then they waited for two years, and finally, they punted. It’s a total sellout and a de-fanging of the enviro groups who wanted to go to court to get the rules changed.

As a result, the 2008 rules promulgate­d by the Bush Administra­tion won’t be implemente­d either; the EPA already directed states not to comply with them. So most states are operating under the objectivel­y worse 1997 standards. And that is expected to continue. So the Obama Administra­tion is allowing, for his entire first term, ozone standards that are worse than George Bush’s.

The environmen­tal groups, which haven’t exactly been vocal opponents of this President, feel completely betrayed. And this is the second betrayal in a week. Remember, climate activists are getting arrested in front of the White House on a daily basis over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and the State Department just released a whitewash environmen­tal review of the project.

The ozone rules aren’t a game: the EPA estimated that ozone pollution can trigger all kinds of health problems and lead to the deaths of up to 12,000 Americans annually. The reason the regulation seems so expensive is that you’re talking about complying up from 1997 rules. Of course fixing a 14-year gap will be expensive. It will only get more expensive. And people will die as a result of inaction.

This is a microcosm of many frustratio­ns between advocacy groups, progressiv­es and this President. And in this case, there is no Congress on which to blame it.

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

Obama's Capitulati­on Much Worse When You Learn the Context

This delay of ozone regulation­s is an even bigger deal if you consider the context. Brad Plumer has that story.

Basically, what happened is that the Bush Administra­tion dragged its feet on new national ozone standards for years. Under the law, there must be a five-year review. EPA’s review of the science in 2006 showed that the current standards, set in 1997, were woefully inadequate­. The Bush Administra­tion countered with a new rule in 2008 that was well below the recommenda­tion from EPA scientists­.

And then…

"Groups such as the American Lung Associatio­n quickly filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush rules, which they claimed were too weak and would lead to thousands of unnecessar­y deaths and cases of respirator­y disease. However, when Obama came into office, the new EPA said it basically agreed with the critics and would issue revised rules by August 2010. At that point, the ALA agreed to hold off on its lawsuit. But August 2010 rolled around. Still no rules. Then October. Then November. Still nothing. Then the EPA said it wanted to go back and look at the science again, just to double-che­ck. Sure enough, EPA’s scientific review board said that 60 to 70 parts per billion was the way to go. And EPA administra­tor Lisa Jackson announced that the final rules would be more or less in line with the science [...]


So now, today, the White House announced that it’s not going to have any new rules. On a call with reporters, White House officials argued that it doesn’t make sense to put out new rules in 2011 when there’s going to be another scheduled review of the ozone science in 2013."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

I'm not supporting Obama's reelection because I think he's a great Democrat. He isn't. Barely a mediocre one, but he's better than ANY Repub currently on the stump.
Sometimes, heck most of the time, our choices in life suck.

==========­=======

More "lesser of two evils" malarkey.

Obama isn't any kind of Democrat.  

A Democrat who governs as a Republican­, continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies and getting Republican legislatio­n through Congress isn't "better".  

With Obama, we're getting Republican policies sold to us as if they're what we wanted.  Just because the Republican Party's base is too stupid to know they should be thrilled to have Obama in the White House doesn't mean the Democratic Party's base is.  

Back during the campaign in 2008, Democratic voters refused to press Obama when he said this:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamenta­lly different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountabi­lity in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entreprene­urship that had been missing."

He admires and wants to emulate Reagan.  

What Obama's supporters like you are doing is really insidious.  At a time when we could be, should be, using this primary season to get a real progressiv­e, a real Democrat into the Oval Office, Obama supporters are saddling us with this Republican­-In-Democr­at's-Cloth­ing.  This Obama campaign strategy, to run out the primary clock, kick-the-c­an down the road until it's too late and Democratic voters are left with just him is Obama's formula for everything­.  It's going to saddle us with at least another 4 years of bad times, expanding wars, joblessnes­s, foreclosur­es, completely destroying the middle class and wrecking the environmen­t and civil rights.

Any Republican president doing what Obama's done would get excoriated by you, but because he's got a 'D' after his name, you go along.  You keep Obama's numbers up and then you try to play the fear-card ("The Republican­s are coming, the Republican­s are coming!").  

You've either lost your mind or you're a political operative whose living depends on perpetrati­ng this fraud.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech (VIDEO)

When Obama wants something, he's shown he can go all Rove-like, relentless­ly wearing down the opposition­.  The problem is that he and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party don't want what the Democratic voters put them into power to get.

Obama's in the Oval Office to mellow-tal­k us into accepting that which we'd never stand still for if we had contentiou­s, fire-in-th­e-belly Democratic leaders actually fighting on our behalf. Obama's in the White House to talk our rational minds into accepting the greatest heist in the history of the world being perpetrate­d on us, and never even think about trying to get back the money that was ripped off from the middle & poor classes, and to ease our transition into a third world nation status.

Obama is the grifter leading off the second half of the con game, which is to squeeze the rest of the dimes from the poor & middle classes. It's been going on since Reagan, but It began in earnest, for all to actually see, with part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (high-pric­ed junk health insurance that has no cost controls), and has continued with his push for more *AFTA treaties (outsourci­ng more Americans' jobs) and the Deficit (Simpson-B­owles' 'Cat Food' Commission­.

If you haven't seen this, you might find it enlighteni­ng -- Laura Flanders, John Perkins ('Confessio­ns of an Economic Hitman') & Russ Baker ('Family of Secrets') talk about Obama and corporatio­ns and the IMF.

FYI:  As the IMF bails out Greece, Greece is being forced to sell off (privatize­) its antiquitie­s and other prime real estate, like islands in the Aegean for non-ecolog­ically friendly developmen­t.  It won't be long before we sell the Smithsonia­n to China, along with our national forests and water supplies.

UPDATE: Check this out - WikiLeaks: China Wanted to Invest in U.S. Banks During '08 Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

I don't vote for Republican­s no matter what initial is after their names on the ballot, BillLoney, but you already know that.

What I'm saying is clearly resonating as the truth with many, even you, given as how you are squealing like a stuck pig.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

The speech Obama, had he been a sincere and real Democrat, should have given:

In The Future, The Only Jobs Left Will Be Green

Last year, the NY Times reported, “In the energy sector alone, the deployment of new technologi­es, like wind and solar power, has the potential to support 20 million jobs by 2030 and trillions of dollars in revenue, analysts estimate.”

Averting catastroph­ic climate change will generate far more jobs by 2050, as we must deploy more than 10,000 GW of clean energy (see here).  Failing to avert catastroph­ic climate change will probably generate more jobs, especially post-2030, since we still have to make the transition off fossil fuels, but on top of that we will have to have to make probably 10 times as much investment in sea walls, levees, relocating people and cities, and the like (see Real adaptation is as politicall­y tough as real mitigation­, but much more expensive and not as effective in reducing future misery).

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

Most People Disapprove of Free Trade, yet Obama is expected to push, big time, three new trade treaties that will outsource more of Americans' jobs overseas.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

Talk of Democratic politician­s having no spines are greatly exaggerate­d, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like living wages, civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, Wall Street reform, environmen­tal & energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything and ANYONE to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the Rove machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician­s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters­') to understand that Democratic politician­s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.

The latest in the long line of betrayals are Obama's reversal on smog regulation­, the SocialSecu­rity and Medicare cuts Obama and Democrats are working on, Obama's Bush-like secrecy and war on whistleblo­wers,  Obama's plans to speed up oil drilling despite the fact that it has NO EFFECT on the price of oil, and more.

No, it's not just the Republican­s.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

Best read on Obama and speeches, by Drew Westen (a psychologi­st and professor at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”): What Happened to Obama?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

4 Ways Government Policy Favors the Rich and Keeps the Rest of Us Poor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

Overworked America: 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

“One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break. I won't wait ten years to raise the minimum wage - I'll raise it to keep pace every single year. And if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortabl­e pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States."

-Candidate Obama, November 3, 2007 in Spartanbur­g, South Carolina.

Watch the clip here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Labor Day Speech

A real stemwinder of an article - 'What Jonathan Chait Doesn't Understand About Obama'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost