Journalist, Paul Street, writing in Zmag, asks, Is "deeply conservative" and "power-worship too bold and grotesque to go unnoticed" by Barack Obama? Obama has written two books about himself. Paul tells us these narcissistic tomes are illustrative of the Obama "power-worshiping essence" filled with "pontificating orations" wherein he, Obama, applauds arch conservatives, i.e., The Council on Foreign Relations, as he did recently in an interview where lauding the "transformative" Ronald Reagan. I lived during Reagan's administration and what I remember the most is the all too real threat of nuclear holocaust, thanks to the irresponsibility of Reagan policies. There is no way to repaint a favorable picture of Reagan imperialism. Paul says, for some real "jaw-dropping reactionary reflections" of Barack Obama, read:
- "Obama's Audacious Deference to Power" (ZNet - Jan 24, 2007) - Also published at Black Agenda Report.
- "The Pale Reflection: Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Meaning of the Black Revolution" (Znet - Mar 16, 2007)
- "Obama's Insults" (ZNet - October 3, 2007)
- "Barack Obama and The Audacity of Deception: Reflections on the Manufacture of Progressive Illusion" (ZNet - December 6, 2007)
- "Obama Speaks: `Oh Great White Masters, You Just Haven't Been Asked to Help America" (ZNet - December 11, 2007)
Paul says you shouldn't read these essays too late because it may well disturb your sleep - especially if you have genuine progressive world views.
Obama is no progressive. Journalist Larissa MacFarquhar in The New Yorker last May: "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative" (Larissa MacFarquhar, "The Conciliator: Where is Barack Obama Coming From?," The New Yorker - May 7, 2007).
Do you really think in the end it really makes a difference who is selected to be the new CEO of the United States? Assuredly it will be a DLC "New Democrat", either Clinton or Obama, or a tow-the-line conservative Republican, like McCain. All of them will be corporate whores.
The purpose of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is to make it financially attractive for Democratic candidates and current office holders to be corporate friendly. Often, in fact, almost all the time, the point is to support corporations over the economic interests of their constituents. Barack Obama was included in a directory of DLC/New Democrats directory, featured in its 100 Democratic Leaders to Watch in 2003. The DLC is the right wing corporate funded arm of the Democratic Party. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are also members of the DLC. Bill Clinton was a DLC Democrat.
The following are excerpted notes from (March 21, 2007) from "The Empire and Inequality Report", a bi-weekly news and commentary letter produced by veteran radical historian, journalist, Paul Street writes this with a peppering of references to Barack Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope:
"The Audacity of Hope is peppered with favorable references to Obama's many good friends in the black super-bourgeoisie, including one wealthy "black friend" (probably Aerial Capital Management chairman John Rogers) who lent him an airplane "one of the first times I needed a corporate jet". It makes Bill Cosby-esque references (repeated in his Brown Chapel speech) to the black poor's alleged cultural responsibility for its own hyper-segregated poverty. It also embraces neoconservatives' incorrect notion that family public cash assistance created intergenerational black inner-city poverty."
"This does not stop Obama from claiming, however, that most black Americans have been "pull[ed] into the socioeconomic economic mainstream". Never mind what James Loewen calls "the astonishing 1-to-11 black-to-white wealth ratio that now afflicts African-American families".
"Obama's indifference to the depth and degree of racial inequality in the U.S. was reflected in his Brown Chapel claim that 1950s and 1960s civil rights activists - who he referred to as "the Moses Generation" - had brought black America "90 percent of the way" to racial equality. It's up to Obama and his fellow "Joshua Generation" members to get past "that 10 percent in order to cross over to the other side".
"Ten percent? Maybe that's how it looks to Obama and his corporate-jet-owning friends in the black super-bourgeoisie. By the latest count of the leading academic wealth gap-expert Tom Shapiro, however, it appears that black America still has 93 percent of the way to go. "In 2002," Shapiro noted for the mainstream Center for American Progress, "a typical Hispanic family owned 11 cents of wealth for every dollar owned by a typical white family, and African-American families owned only 7 cents".
Above excerpt from (March 21, 2007) from "The Empire and Inequality Report", a bi-weekly news and commentary letter produced by veteran radical historian, journalist, Paul Street.
Obama is like a rockstar. Every generation has their stars. Some are better than others. I'm not impressed but I have lived far longer than the young groupies and idol worshipers who are catapulting Barack Obama to prominence.
But as to differences between the two remaining contenders, there are many over policy issues. BUT in the Senate they are very close to following the liberal line. Both of them. They are both very careful to follow the party line. Obama sided with Republicans against Democrats 97% of the time in his first two years in the Senate and during that time Hillary did so 94% of the time. They agreed with each other 93.2% of the time on all votes in the Senate in 2005 and 2006. (per CQ senior reporter Greg Giroux)
Political scientists at the U of Ca-San Diego, Keith T. Poole, analyzed 93 percent of roll call votes in the 109th Congress and found Obama and Clinton had essentially the same vote record. Both candidates are in the Democratic center.
Personally, in my view, I don't think Ted Kennedy and John Kerry's endorsements for Barack Obama are going to help him as much as some may think. I think there will be negative consequences as people look at who is supporting these candidates. It isn't in the polling, but I suspect there will be a number of Democrats who dislike Kennedy and Kerry enough to cross-over and vote for the Republican nominee, especially if it is the more centrist McCain, in spite of his pro-war position on Iraq.
There is a lot about Obama which puts him squarely on the right of Hillary Clinton. His refusal now to back Hillary Clinton's moratorium on home foreclosures and a freeze on mortgage interest rates is anti-progressive. Hillary also has a better position on health care which she wants to take universal and Obama, who is a staunch capitalist and supporter of the health care industry over health care consumers is opposed to legislation which would not be beneficial to that industry. After-all he has a vested interest in high profitability for the health care industry, since his wife is firmly embedded for which she receives over 300,000 dollars a year and no doubt that corporate payola contributed to his acquisition of a $1.6 million dollar mansion.
Where is Obama on movement of jobs out of the country. And stopping foreclosures. Stopping higher interest rates and extending the freeze until long after the recession has ended. It is not on his agenda to make too many changes in the status quo even as he repeats his mantra for change.
The pundits and the entire media, for that matter, have adopted a hands-off position with Obama. I think he is an African-American who is acceptable to the ruling elite because he is not so black and he is not so progressive. So what do they do? The conservative press at least labels him the most liberal. We know he isn't. He is more pro-war and has a lousy health plan and his stimulus plan is also wanting. He supports more right to centrist positions and has some admiration for the way Republican leaders have catapulted the vox populi to change - even though he doesn't support Republican change, HE SAYS. And Obama has NEVER really been vetted. He has been exposed by the radical black community but no one else wants to touch it because it seems not to be politically correct. As for his speeches, you are old enough, I think to remember really good and articulate speakers - and Obama isn't it. I've listened to entire speeches and I see how he can mesmerize young people but anybody with any life experience should recognize what and how he says what he does for what it really is.
Obama is no Progressive. Hillary is also not a great candidate but she is saying a lot of the right things this time around. She is to the left of her husband. She isn't Bill. People tend to see them as one. She could be another Roosevelt. He, too, was not the perfect candidate. Check his positions and speeches before he became the best president we have had. I think the next best president was a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, but I'm biased since I worked for him. He could have just as easily have been a Democrat and almost was. Hillary easily could be like Ike, or she could be our Roosevelt with universal health care. She is qualified. She has the ability to turn this ship of state around and put it back on a progressive course.
If Obama is nominated, I think you are going to see a cross-over vote, in spite of whoever the Republicans nominate and a lot of Democrats will also stay home.
Obama cares for his reputation. Hillary cares for people.
Hank Roth
All quoting per the Fair Use Doctrine
for educational and
discussion purposes pursuant to
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
Copyright Law.
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Zeta/POw.shtml
Today is Wednesday July 23, 2008