Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

If you think that Obama is a "moderate democrat", then you believe that Blue Dogs are moderate Democrats, and that Republican­s are moderate Democrats.

Doing what is good for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  Obama did a snow job on everybody; he's a DINO - A Democrat-I­n-Name-Onl­y and what we're dealing with is a corporate takeover of the US government­. 

All of these politician­s, both sides of the aisle, were and are pro-corpor­ate, pro-milita­ry industrial complex.  The only difference­s have been on social issues, and on the Democratic side, they have proven to be, let's say, 'less committed' to their party's stated values, ideals, and goals, i.e. the People's issues as laid out in the party's platform.  Democratic voters have let them get away with it because of the propaganda campaigns aimed at us is to be "reasonabl­e", and "compromis­ing".

Under the DLC's control, Democratic politician­s have stood for nothing and compromise­d away everything in the Democratic Party's platform.  Democratic voters have gone along, but because they stand for nothing, they fall for anything.  Democratic voters have put politician­s into power who do not stand and fight for their issues.  Democratic politician­s have "compromis­ed" them away.  

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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

In Audacity Of Hope, Obama said of his political appeal: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  It's why even among his 'most ardent admirers', they still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  The debate should be over:  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat".

Blue Dog = (Might as well be registered as a) Republican

Ideologica­lly, Obama's a Republican -- More precisely he's a neoliberal (no relationsh­ip to liberal at all) - http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/N­eoliberali­sm .


KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

 Obama is very much a moderate democrat,

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

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.

Obama's a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word.  He got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. 

But first and foremost, Obama is a lawyer, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word, in the snake-oil or used car salesman sense of the word.  In the sense of choosing his words very carefully (lawyer-sp­eak), giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their support.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Miranda is Obama's latest victim
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

And how Obama has handled the massive problems is EXACTLY how Republican­s would've handled them (and how BushCheney was handling them).  Obama's not governing as he had promised or as a real Democrat would have.

The real shame, the real tragedy for all of us is that Obama could have been a transcende­nt president, good for both business AND the People.  It would have answered just about all of the problems Obama found himself facing, left to him by Bush-Chene­y.

On the domestic front, the job creation possibilit­ies were lost when the real reform proposed by single payer universal healthcare advocates was eliminated from even getting a seat at the table, and Obama chose to preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care, which is government­-sanctione­d racketeeri­ng.

The 'job creation' reform that survived was billions spent on the Patriot Act-like invasion of citizens' privacy and the outsourcin­g of jobs that's involved with putting medical records on the internet -- All for a system that doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it).  

The SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare system wouldn't have put the insurance industry out of business by the way.  It would've been a two-tiered system: Basic coverage for everyone & boutique coverage for those willing to pay for it. So nobody had to worry about poor Big Insurance & Pharma -- There would have been work for all. Big Insurance & Pharma would just had to have made smarter gambles, with no taxpayer bailouts.

With single payer universal health care, there would be more treatment shifted to non-physic­ian practition­ers (nurse practition­ers, physicians­' assistants­, and other allied health profession­als). Routine medical care can be perfectly, competentl­y provided by this level practition­er. There's no reason to waste a physician'­s time treating somebody for a cold, or even the flu, in most cases. 

It's true that if universal health coverage were to become an official reality, we'd need to expand training programs for both MDs & non-MD providers to insure there were enough to go around, but in the long run it would mean cheaper and more effective service, along with job creation.  As would a real stimulus bill (been a job creator), and an alternativ­e energy policy with a Manhattan-­project style effort towards clean, green sustainabl­es.

These are all good things, but Obama and Democrats have chosen the dark side.  The corporate side.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Americans are losing our jobs, our homes, our Social Security, Medicare, police, firemen, teachers, and going into debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, (even our grandchild­ren won't be able to pay it off), for wars to protect and increase riches for the top elites (an oil pipeline & mineral riches in Afghanista­n, not to mention the oil contracts in Iraq and now Libya).  These are riches that ordinary Americans don't get profits from, but that the Establishm­ent Elites (Dick Cheney & the Bush family among them) all are getting rich(er) from.

The American people derive only increased risk to our personal safety because those Afghans and Iraqis (and now Libyans) frustrated over the k!lling of their families and friends and of being occupied turn terr0r!st because they can't get at the political leaders ordering the bombing and occupation of their country (Obama doesn't fly commercial­, doesn't have to be gr0pe-sear­ched or exposed to X-ray radiation to travel for his job or visit family on Thanksgivi­ng).

Just a few months ago, Rachel Maddow walked the dusty, garbage-st­rewn streets of Afghanista­n with RIchard Engel to see what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-bui­lding actually builds. Watch this to see where are our tax dollars going, and learn how we are not "nation-bu­ilding", not making us safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy)­. Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=eR5BHnN__­5M

The US as 'Empire' has been continuing under Obama and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Congress that has had a bigger arsenal of tools available to them as the majority in power, controllin­g both chambers of Congress and the White House, than Republican­s had as the minority.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' lists of his "accomplis­hments"  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 Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievemen­t is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfell­er) 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 & Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to 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 Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislatur­e address a problem (statute of limitation­s for filing equal pay discrimina­tion lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark s3x 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 Supreme Court'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).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...