quote:

---

if you put it in a relationship context, if you've proven your a doormat you can pretty much expect to get stomped on

---

Right now he's doing what he needs to do to get into the White House.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wwSwimming:
I think Obama is still a question mark, that may surprise us in a positive way.

---

quote:

---

I'd feel more hopeful if someone could provide a list of presidents who campaigned from the right and governed from the left.

---

What about FDR?

As far as Presidents of the US go, he would probably be regarded as the one most to the left of the nonexistent ahistorical/ageographical political spectrum, right? [Left, right: see what I did there? See it, see it?]

Well, he didn't exactly campaign by pushing forward a proposal for vast, comprehensive legislative reforms. Rather, he tended to talk about change and hope, without getting much into specifics... [insert chin stroking and "hmmmm..." sounds here] He also spoke in favor of "immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures" and admonished Hoover for his deficits.

Preemptive note the first: no, I do not think Obama is the reincarnation of FDR.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bärlüer:

What about FDR?

---

Wiki says FDR was related to several presidents by blood or marriage, including:

quote:

---

George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, and Martin Van Buren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bärlüer:

What about FDR?

---

What about him?

quote:

---

My distinguished opponent is against giving the Federal Government in any case the right to operate its own power business. I favor giving the people this right where and when it is essential to protect them against inefficient service or exorbitant charges.

As an important part of this policy the natural hydro-electric power resources belonging to the people of the United States, or the several States, shall remain forever in their possession.

To the people of this country I have but one answer on this subject. Judge me by the enemies I have made. Judge me by the selfish purposes of these utility leaders who have talked of radicalism while they were selling watered stock to the people and using our schools to deceive the coming generation.

My friends, my policy is as radical as American liberty. My policy is as radical as the Constitution of the United States.

I promise you this: Never shall the Federal Government part with its sovereignty or with its control over its power resources, while I am President of the United States.

---

And especially this:

quote:

---

As I see it, the object of Government is the welfare of the people. The liberty of people to carry on their business should not be abridged unless the larger interests of the many are concerned. When the interests of the many are concerned, the interests of the few must yield.

---

The Portland Speech, September 21, 1932

The man ran the most socialistic-sounding campaign I've ever seen - I'll include Canada in that sweeping statement - and he more or less kept some of those promises. He campaigned, and ruled, from the "left" (compared to the others).

Did you have something in mind that I've missed?

If Obama campaigns from the left, he will of course win - but will then be in the inconvenient situation where he will have to break every single one of his promises.

quote:

---

Birthday Balls - Initially, Roosevelt's fund-raising campaign was a small-scale operation, but that changed when his associate Keith Morgan called upon business magnate Henry L. Doherty for a donation

---

quote:

---

to appoint Jason Furman as your chief economic advisor is a complete slap in the face to Andy Stern. But has Andy Stern spoken out against it? I haven't heard it. So why is it? Because, you know, I've spoken to some of the hedge fund guys who are funding Obama, and they are more than willing to say that they think that his tax plan is a disaster, that it will make America uncompetitive. And if they're willing to say that to me, I'm sure they're saying it to Obama. So, you know, there is an incredible double standard, where the corporate funders for Obama, they make it very clear they have somewhere to go—it's called the Republican Party—and that they want him to soften his policies. This is not a secret. And then what you have from the left is just "go, go, go."

---

I've now read the 1932 campaign speeches I could find on teh internets (as opposed to relying on Wikipedia/my assumptions) and I'm now inclined to generally agree with your assessment. I was actually surprised by the "boldness" of his speeches (by today's standards, anyway).

For centuries, money chased power. Today that situation is completely reversed and sometimes referred to as democracy

~"We can have great wealth concentratred in the hands of a few, or we can have democracy but not both." justice Louis Brandeis

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I am just sick and tired of the squalid opportunism which suggests that in order to get elected - whether in Canada or the U.S. - a very nice principled politician has to pretend to be a barbarian savage.

People who adhere to this belief are actually, in my experience and firm belief, far more backward and ignorant than the "masses" that they advocate pandering to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Having a chunk of steel flung at you by a watery bint is no basis to wield supreme executive authority.

---

I thought it was "you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you", or "if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away".

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I thought it was "you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you", or "if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away".

---

Very likely, I was running from memory.

Do you think Obama has a sense of humour?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Interesting thread title. Why is Naomi Klein on Obama?

---

One question for you guys: Who won Indiana for Obama? The State which put him over the top in the primaries?

I doubt is was the anti war "movement". Pretty sure it was SEIU local 880 and their founders going door to door doing voter ID and GOTV.

My point is Klein doesn't realize who the kingmakers are. Moveon.org helped get Obama the candidacy, much like the anti war sentiment in the USA, but they are not the movement who will be there in 2010 fighting the man they made king.

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: Joe Strummer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Strummer:
Not sure how aware sister Klein is on this but the major forces behind the grassroots part of Obama's campaign have been, are, and will continue to fight for domestic economic issues, like the successful living wage campaigns in the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's clear to me that anybody can become president in the U.S. Even a second or third rate politician with money like Obama can have a totally fabulous makeover into corporate stooge material and shoved into the WhiteHouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

I was wondering if you could give me an example of a first rate politician, either Canadian or American. Would it be Pierre E. Trudeau by any chance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
I was wondering if you could give me an example of a first rate politician, either Canadian or American. Would it be Pierre E. Trudeau by any chance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Who is Naomi Klein, and why am I, or anyone, supposed to care what she thinks?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Someone whose views get more attention than Jack Layton's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Lester Pearson, actually.

---

It's not an assessment I would argue with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

Do they really? Why is that?

---

Because it is impossible to know what Jack Layton's views are. I think he is an intelligent and caring person. But you can't engage him in a public conversation without being embarrassed. It's not his fault. It's the prevailing theory of how a "leader" is supposed to talk.

Naomi Klein, whether you agree with her or not (and I often don't), is interesting.

Can't say that about Jack.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cornerstone:
Klein is a has been looking to get her media fix. In order to be heard now she has to start trash talking Obama.

It's rather tragic to have one's career peak at the start like Klein did with No Logo. Ever since she's been on a slow decline towards a conspiracy theorist.

---

If you go to her home page she not only has an article about Obama she also has one about China's prototype for a police state city. She is no media darling but a serious left wing journalist.

Frankly her theory that Thatcher created the Falklands war to push a neo-con economic agenda in the UK would fit right in with those who believe that the Trilateral commission rules the world.

Having said that her basic theory that governments use disaster as an opportunity to push an agenda is not a new one. It's just politics. China provides a good example how the state would ignore natural disasters and keep the knowledge of them hidden in order to promote the myth of the all powerful state. We can also remember the days of denial that the USSR showed us with regards to Chernobyl.

What Klein fails to understand is that disasters can work against regimes. It can be argued that Chernobyl was the straw that broke the camel's back for the USSR and was the catalyst for its eventual downfall. The lesson is that disasters can bite the masters hand just as hard as it can help it. Something Putin is learning in his Georgian adventure. Smart politicians don't play with fire as they know it is dispassionate in who it burns.

This must be the "throw enough s*it and some is bound to stick" school of "thought". ha ha

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Someone whose views get more attention than Jack Layton's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I don't understand why you consistently denigrate the NDP. I would think you would support them.

---

You pop in from time to time and generalize based on random inaccurate observation. I voted NDP, and I consider its stands on many issues to be superior to all the other parties.

One of the examples she uses in her book to prove the evils of capitalism was that there was a charter company that was providing exclusive jet use to evacuate the rich from New Orleans while the poor waited for a bus that never came. So what! As if there wasn't a guy profiting by providing fast horses to those who could pay during the sacking of Rome.

War and disaster profiteering are as old as humanity. People will always put their self interest first and nothing is going to change that. The question should be how do we use the tools that are available to us to affect positive change so that we don't have to make such asshole decisions.

Globalisation has provided humanity with an opportunity to promote meaningful change. Corporations are the only global infrastructure we have. Coke and Pepsi are universal, more so than any army, NGO or government. For example if managed correctly that infrastructure can start to provide safe drinking water for the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
But rather than continue with your thread diversion, why don't you respond to what I said about Naomi Klein's views exciting far more interest from progressives everywhere than Layton's. True? False? Don't care?

---

Of course Naomi Klein's views are more exciting to progressives everywhere. She's an international intellectual. Layton is a Canadian politician.

However, I can't give a proper response to what I think you actually meant because I don't know enough about Naomi Klein. I've read a few articles by her which I thought were substantial, but never any of her books.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by cornerstone:
Globalisation has provided humanity with an opportunity to promote meaningful change. Corporations are the only global infrastructure we have. Coke and Pepsi are universal, more so than any army, NGO or government. For example if managed correctly that infrastructure can start to provide safe drinking water for the world.

So instead of just bashing something because you're not in charge and you're jealous, try to think of a way to use it for what you want. Hold on gently, let go lightly.

---

Oh great and powerful lord of the market we thank you for the pittances that fall off your table. Amen

quote:

---

Originally posted by cornerstone:
She misquotes, gets her facts wrong and really doesn't understand economic theory

---

Apparently neither do neoliberal shock specialists, nor do their more recent namesakes, "neoclassical" economic theorists have it figured out. It's all just theory, you do realize. Every once in a while some U.S.-backed despot or hireling of the superrich makes an entire country available for them to experiment on. And since 1929 Wall Street and beginning in Chile 9/11/73, all of their real world lab experiments have ended on sour notes.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

I don't understand why you consistently denigrate the NDP. I would think you would support them.

---