[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

that ship has already sailed, the establishment is altered. this article reflects very closely my own opinions, only better-- see what you think:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/109436/clues_obama_won't_govern_center-right/?page=entire

let me highlight a coupl e of crucial paragraphs:

"Obama ran a campaign that clearly and unequivocally described priorities that will turn American in a fundamentally progressive direction. His cabinet picks indicate that he will surround himself with people who have experience and can competently manage the government. They also indicate his absolute commitment to unifying the country to make change. But they do not in any way diminish the fact that America is demanding -- and Obama intends to enact -- a sweeping progressive program the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal."

and

"Finally, writers and pundits who focus on Obama's cabinet picks to show he will govern from the "center right" need to have a look at history. Like Obama, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln all installed people in their cabinets who they believed to be effective managers who could deliver. They all had their share of outsiders and progressives, but many were old Washington hands. Yet all of these Presidents faced historic challenges that demanded and enabled them to make fundamental change. And all of them were guided by progressive values that were sharply different from those of Bush, Cheney, and Delay. Obama shares and articulates those values more than any political leader since Robert Kennedy died forty years ago."

and a fragment:

"Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are."

the full argument, of course, reads better, as it explains the shift in what is this new "center".

---

now, can anyone be 100% sure of anything? of course not. but by all reasonable expectations, this is not a return to the past.

Thanks for the link. I read it with interest but have to take issue with certain sections. Obama is said to have fought a campaign based on moving the US in a 'fundamentally progressive direction'. This being the same campaign where the concerns of the middle class dominated all others, with (from memory) absolutely no mention whatsoever of a growing body of Americans living beneath the poverty line. It was also a campaign in which Obama asserted an entirely dogmatic commitment to Israel and even out-Cheneyed the previous Bush administration with his all too comfortable talk of launching a nuclear strike on Pakistan. (A position even Sarah Palin was advised by her party to distance herself from) Obviously, none of these points suggest that Obama is merely an extension of the Bush (or even the Clinton) regime, but does a continuation (nee strengehtening even) of America's partisan backing of Israel, an incredibly hostile to Pakistan and an apparent blindness to its nation's poor really constitute a progressive move both for America's foreign and domestic policy? I'm prepared to agree with the article in so far as its pointing to a shift among the American people in favour of a fairer, less stratified and less bombastic society. However i see little so far either in Obama's rhetoric or his actions to suggest that he's particular committed to such a shift himself.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It was also a campaign in which Obama asserted an entirely dogmatic commitment to Israel and even out-Cheneyed the previous Bush administration with his all too comfortable talk of launching a nuclear strike on Pakistan.

How is not taking the nuclear option off the table to suggest that he would be comfortable to use it? And how can you accuse him of dogmatic commitment without any evidence that he has done anything more than appeal to s skeptical Jewish voting demographic? Are you not picking and choosing for Obama what his first term will consist of before its time?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Thanks for the link. I read it with interest but have to take issue with certain sections. Obama is said to have fought a campaign based on moving the US in a 'fundamentally progressive direction'. This being the same campaign where the concerns of the middle class dominated all others, with (from memory) absolutely no mention whatsoever of a growing body of Americans living beneath the poverty line.

well, see, in america, unlike in england, the working class doesn't like to call themselves "working class", they call themselves "middle class", and if you call them otherwise you're pidgeonholed as an elitist. and in fact this working class achieved middle-class living standards at some point in history-- living standards which have sharply eroded in past decades. so this is a semantic issue.

same with mentioning the poor-- when obama talked about "spreading the wealth", the repukes tried to paint him as a socialist-- remember that fake unlicensed wannabe-millionaire plumber protesting tax increases for what he one day wanted to be while ignoring the offer of tax cuts for what he is today? (see "joe the plumber"). people like to think themselves better off than they actually are (is an unlicensed plumber considered "middle class" in england?)

so in america if you say "let's give money to the poor" you get called an advocate of the welfare state. if you call for improving the conditions of the "people making under $50,000 a year" and the problems of people "living paycheck to paycheck", and you fight "predatory lending", and "protecting the rights of workers to organize", "raising the minimum wage," "balancing work and family", and calling for universal health care, etc, then you indeed are tackling the problems of the working poor, just from a different, non-socialist approach. americans tend to dislike "handouts" but are ok with people getting their "fair share" when they work. what can i say, it's the national ethos. but the problems of the middle class are a lot like the problems of the poor, today. in fact a lot of "middle class" people are just one paycheck away from poverty.

so yes, they are dealing with issues like poverty--- again, i refer you to melody barnes, who will be in charge of domestic policy

start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melody_Barnes and follow links to her previous affiliations and career. the proposal for "green jobs" that obama adopted comes from the center for american progress, for example.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It was also a campaign in which Obama asserted an entirely dogmatic commitment to Israel and even out-Cheneyed the previous Bush administration with his all too comfortable talk of launching a nuclear strike on Pakistan. (A position even Sarah Palin was advised by her party to distance herself from) Obviously, none of these points suggest that Obama is merely an extension of the Bush (or even the Clinton) regime, but does a continuation (nee strengehtening even) of America's partisan backing of Israel, an incredibly hostile to Pakistan and an apparent blindness to its nation's poor really constitute a progressive move both for America's foreign and domestic policy?

obama never said let's nuke pakistan, he said he'd enter pakistan to kill osama if pakistan couldn't do it-- later he's refined his position in "with the permission of the pakistani government if they can't do it", etc. there was some kind of nuclear weapons gaffe.

see: http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas...-strike/59807/

at the time, biden was his opponent, ha ha ha.

anyway, obama has a clear understanding that the real front on this fucking "war on terror" (i hope it doesnt end up like the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on etc) is in the afghanistan/pakistan border. he stood out from early on calling for teh withdrawal of iraq to finish things in these other two taliban-infested countries.

and yes, pakistan is a horrible country with a rich elite and a starving population that's utterly fucked up from decades of the u.s. propping up its military dictatorships during the cold war and beyond, and that-- that is beyond my understanding

it was hillary who said later (i think i was at the AIPAC conference?) that she'd nuke IRAN if they nuked israel first.

please note, i'm not too excited about hillary's pick for state, but i can see the rationale for getting here there. see for example: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...wering_th.html (you might need login, sorry, but try anyway). still i have my reservations, like i had when obama asked for lieberman no to be publicly impaled.

regarding support for israel, let's face it-- israel is a longtime u.s. ally, there are millions of well-organized pro-israel jews in america (no rotschilds, but still). so we're sticking to this alliance. plus, it's the only democracy in the region (in spite of the apartheid, human rights abuses, etc-- ok-- that's what permanent war gets you). clinton was very much pro-israel yet the palestinians loved him, he got arafat in the white house, remember? so you can be pro-israel but you can negotiate the peace. now remember that israel is not just netanyahu and ariel sharon (i know, it's serious) and those demented settlers, there are other important factions and ideologies in its political life, but unfortunately things have moved to the right in recent years. so let's see what happens.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'm prepared to agree with the article in so far as its pointing to a shift among the American people in favour of a fairer, less stratified and less bombastic society. However i see little so far either in Obama's rhetoric or his actions to suggest that he's particular committed to such a shift himself.

ok, i wrote a super-long reply; i hope that was sufficient for the time being.

[pbradley]

Also on the note of change (which I believe is a G minor):

http://crooksandliars.com/cernig/cleaning-stables-state

[!@#$%!]

"You Mean We Can Talk Back?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by pbradley

How is not taking the nuclear option off the table to suggest that he would be comfortable to use it? And how can you accuse him of dogmatic commitment without any evidence that he has done anything more than appeal to s skeptical Jewish voting demographic? Are you not picking and choosing for Obama what his first term will consist of before its time?

Nobody in power of a nation armed with nuclear weapons can ever take such a threat 'off the table'. to do so would be to render having them entirely pointless. However in a statement (discussed later in this post) Obama went quite a bit further than to merely suggest that they were in his possession and available for deployment, in principle.

I suppose i am guilty of trying to anticipate how his first term might progress. but I'm only doing this based on my reading of decisions he's made so far. I don't see anything wrong with this. surely, anyone who voted for him did so because they had some kind of an idea how he'd act in certain situations before those situations had actually occured.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well, see, in america, unlike in england, the working class doesn't like to call themselves "working class", they call themselves "middle class", and if you call them otherwise you're pidgeonholed as an elitist. and in fact this working class achieved middle-class living standards at some point in history-- living standards which have sharply eroded in past decades. so this is a semantic issue.

One of the most interesting things to have come out of this election for me are the very cultural distinctions you mention between Europe and the US. Certainly within Britain, and I'd assume much of the rest of Europe, the term 'working class' is treated very much as a badge of honour. Even those who fall firmly within the 'middle class' bracket tend to look desperately for some kind of way in which they can describe themselves as 'working class'. To describe oneself as a socialist however is now less popular than it was, although even in that case i believe Europe is far more sympathetic to its tenets than is the case in the US. And so while I'm reluctant to say that Obama's refusal to use the word is a purely sematic one, I do acknowledge the potential cost to his campaign were he to start talking freely about the 'working class'. (And no, 'Joe the Plumber' wouldn't be described, in Britain at least, as being a part of the 'middle class'.)

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

http://www.nysun.com/national/obamas...-strike/59807/

LOL. OK, so he said it, then he diodn't, then he did say it but he didn't mean it quite the way people took it. To be honest, I think too much is made of politicians on-the-hoof comments. (And that even goes for Palin's gaffe while waiting in line to order a cheesesteak.)

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

obama has a clear understanding that the real front on this fucking "war on terror" (i hope it doesnt end up like the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on etc) is in the afghanistan/pakistan border. he stood out from early on calling for teh withdrawal of iraq to finish things in these other two taliban-infested countries.

Personally I think that so long as the so-called 'war on terror' continues to turn a blind eye to Israel, it'll never really get to grips with the core grievance of the muslim world. Unfortunately this has reached such a bloody stand-off that I now believe that Israel probably does require Western protection. However i also believe that this help has to be provided on the condition that Israel plays its part too. Equally, I think that the US's overt support of Israel (even when in the eyes of the rest of the world it is clearly overstepping its legal remit) offers a veil of credibility to muslim extremism that would be far more likely to dissolve were the US to be a little more even handed.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

please note, i'm not too excited about hillary's pick for state, but i can see the rationale for getting here there. see for example: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...wering_th.html (you might need login, sorry, but try anyway). still i have my reservations, like i had when obama asked for lieberman no to be publicly impaled.

I managed to read that article and i have to agree with a part of its rationale for Obama picking Hillary as one designed to keep both her and Bill under some kind of control. I actually think that this is one of the most intriguing aspects of Obama's upcoming presidency: his ability to neutralise a threat from the Clintons. I certainly foresee Hillary distancing herself from the Obama's administration should things begin to go poorly for the new president but have to admit she's provides far less of a threat while she's a part of his team.

For the record, I should say that were I an American, I would've wholeheartedly voted for Obama, and still would, even given my reservations about those he's appointed to his cabinet. He strikes me as an utterly capable man and I can see the logic behind his caution. I only hope that his fear of rocking the boat doesn't end up undermining his ability to address the crucial decisions he's going to be faced with in the very near future. If there's one thing that this economic turn and escalation of events within the Muslim world is sure to prove, it's that the necessary progress will not be something that suits every interest.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

One of the most interesting things to have come out of this election for me are the very cultural distinctions you mention between Europe and the US. Certainly within Britain, and I'd assume much of the rest of Europe, the term 'working class' is treated very much as a badge of honour. Even those who fall firmly within the 'middle class' bracket tend to look desperately for some kind of way in which they can describe themselves as 'working class'. To describe oneself as a socialist however is now less popular than it was, although even in that case i believe Europe is far more sympathetic to its tenets than is the case in the US. And so while I'm reluctant to say that Obama's refusal to use the word is a purely sematic one, I do acknowledge the potential cost to his campaign were he to start talking freely about the 'working class'. (And no, 'Joe the Plumber' wouldn't be described, in Britain at least, as being a part of the 'middle class'.)

yep. americans are like the waiters as described by orwell in "down and out in paris and london". he said that waiters were terrible prospects for the communist party because they didn't hate the rich, instead they looked at the fatcats they were feeding and thought "that could be me". so this is the reason why the rich aren't hated in america, they are even considered virtuous, and that's also why an unlicensed plumber can be a symbol of the self-appointed "middle class".

anyway... 1 month 16 days and 7+ hours until bush is gone!!!!

[gmku]

Three years ago I saw a bumper sticker that read Condoleeza Rice for President in 2008.

Oh, my God, we are so lucky.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

yep. americans are like the waiters as described by orwell in "down and out in paris and london". he said that waiters were terrible prospects for the communist party because they didn't hate the rich, instead they looked at the fatcats they were feeding and thought "that could be me". so this is the reason why the rich aren't hated in america, they are even considered virtuous, and that's also why an unlicensed plumber can be a symbol of the self-appointed "middle class".

anyway... 1 month 16 days and 7+ hours until bush is gone!!!!

It's an interesting issue that seems increasingly evident across a number of countries, not just the US. Britain went through it's own revolution in learning to love the wealthy in the 'that could be me' fashion you describe with Thatcher. And of course the dissolving of the Soviet Bloc at the end of the 80s hardly did the credibility of Socialism much good, at least in terms of mainstream popularity. And yet I do think there's a kind of grass-roots suspicion of wealth, and in particular the wealthy, that still remains within a broad - if declining - sweep of European society that appears far greater than what I've experienced within the US. I've yet to really work out why this is though.