I’m headed into the woods. Annual Adirondacks trip for a few days. But here’s my question. Obama is leading a popular movement. This is the first real progressive political movement of my lifetime, excepting the McCarthy spasm when I was a kid (and yes, followed by the cultural revolution…). I was angered by Hillary’s "celestial… everything will be right in the world" mockery in her yellowjacketed speech the other day. She is just like Malcolm Hoenlein saying, Why change anything, that will lead to mischief. Obviously Obama’s people want change.
Still haven’t gotten to my question. What do these people want to change? Forget about Obama. He’s just a guy we can believe in, for various reasons. Seems alright to me. As he says, it’s not about him. And what does this progressive movement want? Journalists should be interviewing these people. I’ll try to interview some of ‘em in the woods.
(And yes, I think many share my hobbyhorse. I was at two dinner parties recently where the mood of the table was impatient re Palestinian freedom. And what does it mean that two things Obama has had to renounce publicly–the Walt/Mearsheimer ad on his website, and Zbig Brzezinski’s endorsement of the book–involve the same hot-button issue?)
Related posts:
{ 34 comments }
"Obama [is] just a guy we can believe in, for various reasons."
I don't know, Phil. Re-read Obama's remarks, quoted in Alec MacGillis's WaPo blog that you were so enamored with:
"There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can't negotiate with. We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them. That's the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon. Now, somebody like a Richard Clarke would estimate that the hard-core jihadists would gladly blow up this room — maybe it's 30,000 people, maybe it's 40,000 people, maybe it's 50,000 people. But it is a finite number. And that is where military action and intelligence has to be directed."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling.html
http://tinyurl.com/yu73cz
Obama is openly endorsing the Israeli policy of executing people (and innocent bystanders) from helicopter gunships, in extrajudicial, state-murder, Mafia-rubout style. Olmert proposes, the IDF disposes. No trial, no appeal.
This does not correspond to any reasonable definition of "progressive." It is, in fact, fascist. I wouldn't touch this ideological sewage with a ten-foot pole.
Nevertheless, have a lovely trip. Please look, and think, before leaping over any waterfalls.
"This is the first real progressive political movement of my lifetime"
What the F___ Phil. You must have missed the debate last night. Timid Temple Mouse Barack Obama Turns Into Negro During Last Nights Democratic Debate…http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/
Philip wrote: "the Walt/Mearsheimer ad on his [Obama's] website"
Actually for the record, it was an Obama ad on the Amazon page for the Walt/Mearsheimer book.
James Petras expands upon the downside for the U.S. of supporting state-sanctioned liquidations:
"The Israeli practice of staging international assassinations of opposition leaders in major cities will not only invite retaliation against Israelis and Jews but also endanger sites in the US and EU, for tolerating these acts of state-sponsored terror. In other words, Israeli terror invites terrorist counter attacks like September 11, 2001. Israel, by provoking a new round in the Palestinian ‘war through global terror’ and the US and EU by embracing an Israeli car bomb assassination in Damascus endanger Western lives everywhere.
"The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, their publicists and op-ed ideologues in the mass media are opening the entire Western world to terrorist attacks. By supporting Israeli terror and increasing the chance of Muslim reprisals, [they] strengthen the repressive structure of a growing police state in the US. The brilliant and precocious Ivy League academic apologists of each and every act of official Israeli state-sponsored international terror apparently dissociate these acts of assassination from likely reprisals in our country and the consequent further destruction of our remaining precarious democratic freedoms."
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1727&more=1&c=1
"Brilliant and precocious Ivy League academic apologists" — why, he's not talking about the Columbia-educated Obama, is he?
People are dreamers, easily swayed by snake oil salesmen and their brokers and CNBC lies on how to invest into the stock market….
Phil really wants to believe. In a two-state solution, and in Barack Obama. Evidence–he don't need no stinking evidence. It's a feel good thang.
80% of americans have no liquid net worth, uneasy prospects for their livelihoods and families. their prospects have been deteriorating virtually every day for the last 25 years, but the intensity of the decline since 2000 has been overwhelming. i think they would like a little attention paid to their needs, and not the financial/military needs of the top 1%. if that means withdrawing from all military/occupation adventures i think most people would be thrilled.
"and what does it mean that two things Obama has had to renounce publicly–the Walt/Mearsheimer ad on his website, and Zbig Brzezinski's endorsement of the book–involve the same hot-button issue?)"
it means that he is being oppressed by a zionist lobby that does not want americans to become aware of the truths surrounding this issue. the politicians respond in pavlovian fashion after so many years of training and the press, well even you phil, have said that the press is full of zionist american jews who go along to get along or at worst who enforce this zionist style of autocracy over its writers/reporters on the palestinian israeli debate. and this meritocracy as you dubb it make you proud of its achievements, or are you proud that in the jungle of life your people have shown themselves to be worthy warriors who have clawed their way to the top using the american political system and its FREE PRESS.
what else could it mean other than he is being forced to keep silent while palestinians are being herded in cages and forced to live in ghettos and negotiate for their existence with their captors.
True, but many of these same Americans raiding their 401Ks (if they even have one) and paying on their usury credit cards (if they still have one) are scared to death not only of having no cash for food, gas, and rent or mortgage, but equally of "Islamofacism" and "terrists" and they don't read beyond the incessant scare tactics Goering commented upon long ago regarding how you can easily get the "just folks" democratic masses to do what you want. Further, generally Americans love being total idiots. They are proud of not knowing the location of a country on the map or general history or economics, etc. The heavy trend is not to read anything except what you are required to read for work or school. Why bother when we have tv, videos, video games? The ability to concentrate on text for more than a few minutes on the internet is vanishing. Reading has declined drastically among the poorly educated AND the college-educated according to a 2007 report by the National Endowment for the Arts. More than 40% of Americans under age 44 do not read a single book, fiction or non-fiction, over the course of a year. (St. Petersburg Times, 2-24-'08).
It means that Obama decided that it was inappropriate.
His decision, a good one.
Further, those same 80% of Americans living day to day or at most a few months ahead know nothing about economics–RP
knows it–that's why he's still amazed anyone paid attention to him, let alone gave him money.
It means that Obama decided it was politically advantageous.
His decision, a practical one.
Or, he sincerely believes it, and communicated the balance of judgement that he holds.
And, that he presented his honest opinion in a form that did not unnecessarily insult.
"His decision, a good one." Which really means it is a good decision for ZionNazi Jews who insist upon pretending they are liberals…Witty is a prime example of how these phonies operate.
Super lefties get real. There is no way that Obama can say anything critical about Israel and survive. The lobby is just too powerful. What does he really believe. No one can say for sure. But a few pieces of evidence are promising: his statement that being proIsrael is not the same as being proLikud is down right radical when you consider where Aipac is coming from.
In short, I believe Obama is probably the best person who has any chance of winning when it comes to bringing sanity to our ME policy. But the operative words are 'I believe' without much evidence to back that up. Just a feeling. But he is the only game in town.
Super lefties get real. There is no way that Obama can say anything critical about Israel and survive. The lobby is just too powerful. What does he really believe. No one can say for sure. But a few pieces of evidence are promising: his statement that being proIsrael is not the same as being proLikud is down right radical when you consider where Aipac is coming from.
In short, I believe Obama is probably the best person who has any chance of winning when it comes to bringing sanity to our ME policy. But the operative words are 'I believe' without much evidence to back that up. Just a feeling. But he is the only game in town.
syvanen , "Super lefties get real. There is no way that Obama can say anything critical about Israel and survive. The lobby is just too powerful. What does he really believe. No one can say for sure. But a few pieces of evidence are promising: his statement that being proIsrael is not the same as being proLikud is down right radical when you consider where Aipac is coming from.",
is absolutely correct. For a presidential candidate to come out and say being pro Israel is not the same as being pro Likud is an earthquake of Richter scale 7.
I fear he already said too much and that forces are aligning… (conspiracy hat on!)
he is deffinitely the only friggin game in town( at least with him we may be pleasantly surprised, (not so with the other two ziosellouts), for an america that needs to rid itself of zionist oppression in our media and in our political system.
one day the truth will out into middle america.
"This does not correspond to any reasonable definition of "progressive."
Jim, I understand your position. I had similar feelings. But strictly, he has not much space to move. As Phil pointed out, he went very, very far. He couldn't have donethis without the basic agreement, understand? He would be politically dead hadn't he done so by now. He is under close inspection and as you may have noticed constant attack (mainly below the belt). Any wrong step or word will be immediately used against him. That he knows.
What is much more important, I think, are his relations and experience with the Muslim world.
I doubt (I= hope = !change! My Obama projection) the war-mongers will ever win him over to their generalized Islamofascism hysteria: Nuke them to surrender!Shock them to Awe. And that is much at the moment.
A new anti Obama conspiracy theory in the making. Another guilt by association type:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392252.html
Or here:
http://www.rense.com/general80/bz.htm
The creation of the evil Brzezinski dynasty to counter the Bush and Clinton dynasty mythoi. And, surprise, surprise by a Bush dynasty expert. Now whom would you enlist given the chance? Quite some anti-Obama activity in the pop culture field generally. Is David Horowitz pulling strings as a consultant, distributing money? He would be the expert on pop culture in neocon circles it feels.
Some of the dirt will stick.
Bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb, bomb Iran
http://haergar06.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/kristol-leaks-conservative-agenda-fear-fear-fear/
Kristol leaks Conservative Agenda “Fear, Fear, Fear”
“In a “national security election,” pundit Bill Kristol predicts a presidential faceoff between Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). “We have terrorists to fear,” says Kristol. “And we have people who want to kill Americans to fear, and people who want to totally destabilize the Middle East to fear.” “And,” Kristol concludes, “I think that’s a pretty good argument for McCain to make against Obama.”
Krystol channels Goering.
Barack is beholden, give me Nader.
Without the awakening in middle America (and the rest of America, too), that the Pentagon and militarists (including Zionists) aren't DEFENDING us, or keeping us safe, or providing protection, but are sowing chaos and robbing taxpayers blind, not to mention daily violating the corpse of American democracy, well the American state parties can conduct all the ridiculous elections they want, with, at the most, marginal change, and continued 50%+ nonparticipation.
What America needs is more real information about its situation. The election cycles are a media frenzy wherein some of the actual governance of the country ostensibly matters to masses who have completely divested from the political process, otherwise.
Best to educate them to our situation, since they only think beyond their front gate every 2-4 years, and then only for a few weeks or months, and since the American public education system is embarrassing in its complete dereliction of the duty to prepare potential citizens in a democracy.
The timing and Nader's remarks make clear Barack's choosing to placate the Lobby recently must've impacted Nader's decision to run.
Meanwhile, the "evidence" super NPR journalist Cokie Roberts has says it's all about ego.
Ralph and his ego again. I just can't understand why an egomaniac like him doesn't sell out for more campaign money.
The "evidence" (Cokie Roberts definition) I have is Cokie is bitter and irrational because her heroes Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, the best presidential ticket in American history, were mercilessly robbed of certain victory by Nader's Raiders and their egomaniacal and infinitesimal budget and media coverage.
Did you say "yellowjacketed"? Is this a dig at Hilary being a WASP?
Seems, if I vote for Ron Paul I'm throwing my vote away, although I would have at least voted for tackling the net root
of America's full, terrible situation.
If I vote for McCain, I am voting for the endlessly taxing war machine, the fascistic government-corporate state on steroids.
IF I vote for Hillary, I am voting for the same thing, but with a vaguely human face–Robin Hood in a stocky pants suit.
IF I vote for Obama, I am voting for Robin Hood himself? Hoping
he will magically see beyond the local noble's castle and the confines of Sherwood forest's trees? At least it would be a vote
against McCain…
If I vote for Nadar, I'm helping to split the Demos, hence helping
McCain. But I'd be attacking the status-quo (as by a RP vote)–
except Nadar doesn't address the immigration issue to my knowledge & so I imagine he goes along with the Demos (& McCain) on that issue.
The worst candidate to me is McCain.
2nd worse is Hillary.
So I will vote for either Ron Paul, Nadar, or Obama.
Who should I vote for?
("You can't handle the truth!")
LeaNder, I understand your position too, believe me. Obama is a candidate I would like to like. He has a remarkable, JFK-like poise and charisma. His election would dispel the myth that only WASP males can be elected in multi-ethnic America, making many people proud. And maybe he really does stand for change.
But for all his admirable courage in posing a nuanced opposition to the Likudnik faction within the Israel Lobby, he shows little nuance on related issues.
In saying that the U.S. should pursue al Qaida in Afghanistan, Obama fails to draw the distinction that it wasn't necessary to overthrow its government and engage in a windmill-tilt nation-building project. He fails to point out that NATO's lost war in Afghanistan will rapidly take the place of Iraq as the never-ending catastrophe du jour of the Obama administration.
And in allowing that the U.S. will maintain garrisons in Iraq even after withdrawing ground troops, Obama essentially is saying that U.S. bases will provide air support for Iraqi forces. In a trend that's already underway, this will mean escalating civilian casualties and collateral damage.
Put the above together with Obama's chilling, gratuitous endorsement of Israeli targeted assassinations. The picture which emerges is of an "Obama doctrine" in which the US withdraws from ground combat, but escalates aerial bombing and assassinations, playing to US air dominance. This is a characteristic American pattern which goes back to World War II, and featured in the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now Israel, with similar strengths, is an unacknowledged nuclear power as well.
Just as Israel is blind to the original sin of zionism, the US is blind to its multi-decade track record of aerial war crimes, which it rationalizes away as "surgical strikes." By declining to make a clean break with the unsustainable policy of foreign interventionism, Obama is sketching a dark, conflict-ridden, morally-compromised future for America.
With the U.S. presidency having accumulated such unchecked, unilateral powers, any candidate who doesn't openly propose that the office be pared down to size (Ron Paul being the only one) must be suspected of dangerous megalomania. And that includes Obama. Unless I am vastly misreading his intentions, the man has a dark side (no pun intended).
Here's an example of 'collateral damage' from today's news. Do we really want to be involved in this?
"Feb. 28 (Bloomberg) — Israeli air strikes killed 15 Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip in the past 24 hours, a Palestinian medic said, as violence escalated following the death of an Israeli civilian in a rocket attack. Mo'aweya Hassanein, chief of emergency services at the Palestinian Health Ministry, said the 15 people killed included four children."
http://tinyurl.com/2qw3eq
For the curious I link the comment section of a thread almost one year old (the same I link down there in the Chelsea thread). Take a look at Bill "sword of gideon" Pearlman trying to act human. See how prescient some of you were (and are).
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2007/02/a_few_thoughts__2.html#comments
Interesting Anonymous:
See in Oboma what you want to see, I guess everybody has their own dreams and if Phil thinks that Obama will contribute to the end of Israel, fine. But, consider this possibility. Despite what the denizens of this talk back seem to think, that Joe Lieberman is directed from jerusalem and is I believe he is the senator from AIPAC, the last thing that I and a lot of people wanted was a Gore/Lieberman victory in 2000. Why? because he would have to bend over backwards to show his impartiality. A president who was raised in Indonesia, and who has the middle name of Hussein. Is going to have to sho how tough he is on the Arabs. So, I say, Obama in 2008, I can't wait. Besides, he has a grat looking wife.
Posted by: bill Pearlman | February 10, 2007 at 03:27 PM
I didn't realize that the sword_of_gideon was our dear "bill", mainly since he did not make his characteristic mistake. At least I did not notice.
Maybe, I would like to see IF Pearlsman's wish would come true? Of cause the choice of Obama and his strategy of addressing idealistic America could be a planned strategy of the Democratic Leadership Council: How to make sure to win in 2008. And do the same after in a slightly different dress. Take a Semi-black man and a woman.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463.html
But somehow Pearlman knows what would influence people's decision, and that could also be his intention behind this note.
Thanks Jim,
you don't know how well your link fits into what was on my mind today due to this message:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Antisemitism&month=0802&week=&msg=/t6h%2bgyiATz/FlTI6aG74A&user=&pw=
I have to admit that I was shocked about this message. Here is the larger context:
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list=H-Antisemitism&user=&pw=&month=0802
Below the list's voice that lately immediately calls to order anybody that shows traces of sympathy for the Palestinians. Julia Chaitin was the last victim of Eugenia Zazowska's wrath. Hopefully this story does not change Julia's position.
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=lx&list=H-Antisemitism&user=&pw=&month=0802
LeaNder, "his characteristic mistake" here for your pleasure:
=====================
Actually Charles, I think Hitler would feel right at home here. Not many people would describe Hitler has just being "weak in logic". But I'll grant you this, he was sincere, has are you.
Posted by: the sword of gideon | January 27, 2008 at 12:21 PM
=====================
Yes,thanks, Anonymous, seems indeed missed it!
And Jim, the last link did not work. The relevant passage below. My comment would be: Who says "except for"?
Zazowska's wrath.
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Antisemitism&month=0802&week=&msg=zwftRLn4MJKrXLNrNUiRag&user=&pw=
Who started and who have promoted the idea of Jewish commitment to everyone else's rights, except for the rights of Jews on the principle: "Jews were victimized, therefore, they should dedicate their lives to the rights of others." In other words, a Holocaust survivor, or his children, raised without families, displaced, suffering from awareness of their parents' suffering (not to mention financial consequences) should take care of children of the perpetrators and anyone in the world. Why do I sense some
manipulation here? I am aware, of course, of Jewish traditions. Personally, I resent statements like "As a Jew." "I am Jewish, but I (so nice, so open) forgive Adolf ." or something similar usually by someone who
is not affected/is ignorant/doesn't care. We are not identical; our fates/experiences are not alike; our knowledge is not the same; nobody represents all Jews.
RE: "nobody represents all Jews."
Strategic assumptions:
Cf: Goldhagen's thesis on the Germans.
Matt Gonzales rips the antiwar mask off of Obama:
"In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman 'his mentor' and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called 'Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.' Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?"
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html
So you can vote for Obama, who considers Lieberman a mentor, or vote for McCain, who may nominate Lieberman as Defense Secretary.
For a whiny guy who lost his vice-presidential bid eight years ago, Lieberman sure does get around. Strange, no? But not to us 'coincidence theorists'!
Yes, a coincidence theorist. Getting down past World hatred of Uncle Sam, down past USA taxpayers who can't keep up, down to
our military grunts who pay the ultimate price for direct and indirect foreign policy, as between the main candidates, they all have s___y voting records from a military grunt veteran POV. The worst, is McCain.
The IDF has better veteran benefits than the US military. I'm sure that surprises nobody on the blog since they know Israel also has more inclusive national health benefits. I mean, what are we working for after all?
Comments on this entry are closed.