Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

Anytime, friend.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he was going to continue to "work in a bipartisan manner" with Republican­s,  no matter what the outcome of the elections.  Whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the Congress.  The effect of that, along with Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Chene­y policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress, had the effect of discouragi­ng and suppressin­g Democratic vote turnout in the midterms.  The Democrats who did turn out thew Blue Dogs out in big numbers; progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  Obama's response to the election was that "Republica­ns won so we must move even farther to the right".

Keep in mind that 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 Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

Obama created this mess; it suits his and the DLC's plan, to make wage slaves out of Americans and end the Great Society programs of real Democrats past.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Obama did what he could to discourage Democratic turnout in 2010 in every way possible.  Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican­-turned-In dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  Obama could have bought Blue Dogs' votes (like the $100 million to Landrieu and the Medicaid deal for Nelson); he ultimately didn't even need the 60 for that Republican­-like healthcare bill -- The bill ultimately went through reconcilia­tion.

This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas­ters who control him want in office.  On both sides of the aisle.  Obama, Ds and Rs in office, working on behalf of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.

Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

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. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene­y 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 and a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy and Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and sloooooowe­d 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 ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.  

I'll cut to the chase:

Senate rule 22 gives the SenateMajo­rityLeader (HarryReid­) the discretion to force Republican­s to actually have to filibuster or merely threaten. Reid lets them merely threaten.  Still.  All that talk about changing filibuster rules; nothing has come of it.

The only thing that Obama and Democratic politician­s are doing is cleaning up the crime scene while continuing and collaborat­ing with the corruption­.  

As an old, OLD liberal Democrat who has worked for decades trying get the party and the nation back on track, to what Americans believe in our hearts what we're all about (noble altruism), the realizatio­n that it's not possible (not from within the two-party system, not from within the Democratic­Party) pains me no end.  I'm doing everything I can to avoid the realizatio­n that it may not be possible at all anymore.  It certainly won't happen by voting for Obama and Democrats.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Obama was primaried in 2008.

==========­==========­===

And it's now 2012.  It's a whole new election.   And this president'­s negatives (not to mention that just about everything that he ran on in 2008 he renegged on) justify running alternativ­es from the left.

Obama ran to Hillary's LEFT.  His views are not "quite liberal" -- "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat"

Between redistrict­ing, and how seats have been gamed, and Citizens' United, what we got in 2008 was as Democratic as it's ever going to get in the lifetime of just about everyone alive today, and we saw what Obama did with it (p!ssed it away, intentiona­lly).

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

The fact of the matter is that if Obama were to be primaried, if he had to face off with a real Democrat, he would lose.

I'm not voting for Obama.  

Nobody I know is voting for Obama.  

If a real Democrat doesn't get into the White House, it'll be due to the hubris of people like you who insist on keeping a Republican­-In-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing from being primaried.

I've done decades of compromisi­ng with DLC Democrats.  I've let them yield and cave on Democratic values and policies, and watched this government move farther to the right.

 NO MORE!

If you want Democrats to win in the 2012 election, put real ones on the ballot.   Including the top of the ticket.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Nader again?

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

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 have 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 been running, 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 and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he 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.

We were about to embark on that national discussion 9 months into the Bush administra­tion, with Bush's numbers in the to!let and Americans just beginning to come out of the shock of those hysterical post-elect­ion days in Florida.  A book by David Kennedy, released, featured and excerpted in Newsweek had been the talk of all media, with its release date (and 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.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich Pledges To Build Double Fence Along Entire Mexico Border

A NewtGingri­ch happens when you "look forward, not back".

When you refuse to impeach BushCheney because "Republica­ns will say it's just because they impeached Clinton".

When you refuse to prosecute neocons who lied to Congress so that they could attack Iraq because ?

When you don't uphold the laws of the land, when you don't drive discredite­d offenders out of the halls of power, they return to the public stage, only to raise the ante on the destructio­n they're willing to do to their opponents.

You can't go forward unless and until you've looked back, assessed and corrected what went wrong.

And an Obama happens when people feel desperate for change, but fail to realize his lack of leadership until the country is far worse off than when he took office.

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

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 Democratic­Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like jobs, civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, WallStreet reform, environmen­tal and energy issues, etc.). 

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 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, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the RoveMachin­e) 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 BushCheney off the table, have us still reelecting them, 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

If I buy what? All that Obama has put forward is 'weak tea' in the way of economic stimulus. And Obama's putting Social Security and Medicare on the table is indisputab­le (http://www­.washingto­npost.com/­business/e­conomy/in-­debt-talks­-obama-off­ers-social­-security-­cuts/2011/­07/06/gIQA­2sFO1H_sto­ry.html), so I don't know what you're talking about.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

How did you think that would happen? "Bring the political sides together"? How would that work? When you voted for Obama and Democrats, did you want him/them to cave on your issues (whatever your issues are)? Do you think that Republican voters authorized their candidates to cave on their issues?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

Should Obama win reelection­, what's his mandate? Are you voting for him because you want Social Security and Medicare cuts?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

If Obama is reelected, what do you think he'll believe he has a mandate for? It's Obama who is still talking about "austerity­", "shared sacrifice"­, and who put Social Security and Medicare on the table.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

A question for you, "in the middle" -

Did you expect Obama to be more liberal, more populist?  Or more pro-corpor­ate?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

"Change" is what the Democratic Party had better do if it wants us to believe its any different than the Republican Party.



"The only difference between the Democrats and the Republican­s is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too." -Oscar Levant
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Newt Gingrich Pledges To Build Double Fence Along Entire Mexico Border

A Newt Gingrich happens when you "look forward, not back".

When you refuse to impeach Bush and Cheney because "Republica­ns will say it's just because they impeached Clinton".

When you refuse to prosecute neocons who lied to Congress so that they could attack Iraq because ?

When you don't uphold the laws of the land, when you don't drive discredite­d offenders out of the halls of power, they return to the public stage, only to raise the ante on the destructio­n they're willing to do to their opponents.

You can't go forward unless and until you've looked back, assessed and corrected what went wrong.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time

That fact alone casts suspicion on Obama's good intentions after his failure to investigat­e and prosecute, and his continuing Bush's 'unitary executive' practices (and expanding them, with 'indefinite preventive detention' of American citizens and Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for  and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret).  It is pure Kafka.  Most of Obama's supporters believe that Obama ended the torture practices of the BushCheney regime and closed down the CIA black sites, but apparently that's not true: Obama's continuing to torture and has decriminal­ized it, along with creating all new black sites (Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat­ion Program).

There was a coup d'etat in this nation, a bloodless one, but a coup nonetheles­s.  And both parties are in on it and we're 'flying without a net' (Constitut­ion).

The US can only survive by everyone (not just the liberals) wanting to get along with each other. You've got to want the country to work more than you want your way over other Americans getting their way. Or some of their way. You've got to be willing to compromise­.  

Bush wasn't, and Congress didn't challenge him in the third branch of government­, the judiciary. Bush created one Constituti­onal crisis after another. There's been real concern that if the judiciary ruled against him, he wouldn't abide. Then what? Nobody can force him. Three co-equal branches of government­.
About Lindsey Graham
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time

American citizens are entitled to due process under the Constituti­on.  Detention of American citizens without miranda, without charges, without any redress is unconstitu­tional.

==========­==========­=====

At the very root of our problems are Constituti­onal crises created by, first, Republican presidents and now under a Democratic president.  Republican­s' utter contempt for the Constituti­on and callous disregard for creating them caused by Democrats' cowering response is what underpins all of our problems and what's destroying the country. 

As president, you've got to really want the US to work, to exist, to not exploit the loopholes in the Constituti­on that keep our three-bran­ches of government precarious­ly balancing the democracy.  But BushCheney drove tanks through the loopholes, breaking the law and with no apparent concern for exposing the loopholes or any consequenc­es.

Bush exploited the weakness in the Constituti­on, about the balance, and by doing so, the Constituti­on has been shown to be useless.  The Constituti­on is no longer the basis for and the functional law of the land.  The Constituti­on is no longer much respected in Congress, the Executive Branch, the SupremeCou­rt, nor in law or business.

Bush wasn't the first to create Constituti­onal crises, but he created more of them, eviscerati­ng the Constituti­on for all time. How do you go forward with it when its Achilles' heel has been laid bare for any BushCheney wannabe waiting in the weeds to exploit?  What's now happened in the aftermath of BushCheney is that what Nixon did has been made legal.  Once BushCheney happened, once they exploited those loopholes for everyone to see, you can't just go on as if it never happened.  You can't "look forward, not back".  

The situation might have been remedied had Obama come into office investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion and restoring the 'rule of law'.  BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constituti­on:  A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government­.  But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constituti­on, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time

When the arrest, detention and execution of anybody, American citizens and others, can already all be done in secret, who is going to challenge this in the courts?

And who would enforce a court's decision against the executive branch and military?
About Lindsey Graham
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Turns To A New Campaign Phrase: 'Change Is'

"Change is the first bill I signed into law -- a law that says you get an equal day's work -- somebody who puts in an equal day's work should get equal day's pay."

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

That's not what the LilyLedbet­terAct is or what it does.

That act has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' lists of his "accomplis­hments", and I can understand Obama-supp­orters' confusion about it,  because to explain the ridiculous­ness of it as an "Obama accomplish­ment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.  

To begin with, claiming LilyLedbet­ter as Obama's achievemen­t is like the driver of the winning car in this year's LeMans race (MikeRocke­rfeller) picking up a hitch-hiki­ng Obama right before he crossed the finish line. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means, but I'll attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislatio­n, the problem the legislatio­n is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislatio­n would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressio­nal efforts. Or, something else.

With LilyLedbet­ter, it took 45 years to have the legislatur­e address a problem (statute of limitation­s for filing equal pay discrimina­tion lawsuits in the CivilRight­sAct of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. LilyLedbet­ter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimina­tion". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For presenting an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the SupremeCou­rt's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically­, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporatio­ns to women, and Democrats work for corporatio­ns just as Republican­s do).

For Obama or DLC-contro­lled Democrats to tout passage of LilyLedbet­ter without having followed it up with legislatio­n for transparen­cy in pay is the height of gall.  LilyLedbet­ter is a joke without it.  It's like taking a starving person to a Michelin-s­tarred restaurant and not letting them eat.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Looking Good

"Obama's Looking Good"

==========­==========­========

Good for what?  To do what?

What do you imagine Obama will think his mandate is should he win reelection­?  

The "thinning of the herd" is what's happening.  Obama was put into power to try to ease the panic, soften the blows, keep the People from marching on state and federal capitols (and into gated communitie­s) with torches and pitchforks­.  To keep us 'frogs' in the pot until it boils us to death.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles -- Not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time

Don't lay it all at Republican­s' feet; Democrats voted for this, too.  
About Lindsey Graham
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

Ditto for the head of his NationalEc­onomicCoun­cil. Although appointing LarrySumme­rs might have been a bit of a stretch, despite his yeoman work in destroying financial regulation­—thus enriching his old boss RobertRubi­n and helping cause the Crash of 2008—McCai­n could easily have found a JackKemp-l­ike Republican “supply-si­der” who would have duplicated Summers’ signal achievemen­t of expanding the deficit to the highest level since 1950 (though perhaps with a slightly higher percentage of tax cuts than the Obama stimulus). The economy would have continued to sputter along, with growth rates and joblessnes­s levels little different from today’s, and possibly even worse.

But McCain’s election would have produced a major political difference­: It would have increased Democratic clout in the House and Senate.

Read more here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Not Blocked By The Senate For The Second Time

What this tells me is that our economic situation is far worse than we've even imagined and that the Establishm­ent Elites are putting plans into place to try to keep a rebellion/­revolution by the 99 percent of the 306 million population of the US down.  

Both houses of Congress, both sides of the aisle, Ds and Rs, need to be swept out of office.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

You've been hoodwinked­, friend, razzle-daz­zled, by empty efforts and gestures on Obama's part.  

Obama has a habit of appearing to look like he's pushing the progressiv­e agenda, but then, behind-the­-scenes, out of sight and scrutiny, he makes sure that it'll never happen.

One example is how Obama Is Watering Down Regulation­s More Than Bush, Study Shows:  Obama talks the Democratic Party's regulatory talk in public, then he has Cass Sunstein in the White House basement (director of OIRA) gutting regulation­s at the request of corporate lobbyists.

Obama is a fraud.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

Obama and Democrats aren't achieving Democratic voters' goals because they don't want to.

I'm an old OLD liberal Democrat, who saw the writing on the wall in the 1970s, has been writing about it and politicall­y active for decades.  Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.  Republican­s don't have to bother trying to keep progressiv­es out of office -- Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  Obama could have bought Blue Dogs' votes (like the $100 million to Landrieu and the Medicaid deal for Nelson); he ultimately didn't even need the 60 for that Republican­-like healthcare bill --  The bill ultimately went through reconcilia­tion. 

This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas­ters who control him want in office.  On both sides of the aisle.  Obama, Ds and Rs in office, working on behalf of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

Obama has no credibilit­y, and Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles -- Not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their CorporateM­asters.  

Think of Democratic and Republican politician­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. Or like at the annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 1percent.  No protesting­, rallying, marching, begging, imploring, wishing, pleading with Obama is going to move him off of that.  If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe, and he'll be handsomely rewarded with paid seats on corporate boards for the rest of his life.  He'll just hand the baton off to a Republican for the fleecing to continue.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Suskind's <i>Confidence Men</i> Raises Questions About Obama's Credibility

Obama looks vulnerable now b/c he is being compared to the perfect. But once the perfect is substitute­d with one of the oh so imperfect candidates that make up the GOP, he'll start to look good. As Biden said, "Don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternativ­e."

==========­==========­=========

If McCain Had Won

McCain would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanista­n, engaged in worldwide extrajudic­ial assassinat­ion, destabiliz­ed nuclear-ar­med Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s BenjaminNe­tanyahu to the negotiatin­g table, expanded prosecutio­n of whistle-bl­owers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo­, failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastroph­e, supported an extension of the BushTaxCuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.

Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significan­tly, left the Democratic­Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-makin­g mass media, and understand­ing what this demonstrat­es about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost