quote:

---

Neither candidate, in and of themselves, is likely to bring about real change in the U.S. because of the rigidity of the corporate-controlled system. A massive movement for change beyond even what we saw in the 1960s is what is needed to advance equality - whether gender, racial or economic - and to transform the U.S. into a positive force in the world and for the planet. A major obstacle to progressive change in the U.S., as it is in Canada, is the overwhelming sense of hopelessness in change that so many people, especially the young, feel. That Mr. Obama is inspiring young people to stand up and be counted is, in itself, worthy of support.

His is the politics of hope, as opposed to the politics of fear that has gripped the United States since George W. Bush's election.

Whatever the final result, the Democratic primaries of 2008 are the tip of the iceberg of a people who are fed up with the über rich, mostly white and male elite using the resources and power of the U.S. to get richer and richer - and plundering their own country and the rest of the world to do so.

---

But look at what you're saying.

Is the USA ready to elect a socialist on a platform of ending global poverty?

Is it a coincidence that, after George Bush, they are apparently on track to elect either a woman or a black man?

Neither of those things could happen without huge amounts of financial and media support from the "corporate-controlled system." A system that has finally noticed George didn't sell well across the world.

They need a new front office.

Either a woman or a black would be great. Either will lower the resistance to the USA "plundering their own country and the rest of the world." Hey, they'll even disarm Judy Rebick. Well, partially disarm, for a moment or two.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Wilf, that article is for Globe subscribers only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
that article is for Globe subscribers only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Try this link.

---

quote:

---

"I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans. I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny." His is the politics of hope, as opposed to the politics of fear that has gripped the United States since George W. Bush's election.

---

quote:

---

...we are our sister's keeper...

---

Nevertheless I suspect he has raised a couple of false hopes here or there.

"Yes we can."

An inspiring slogan, when the United Farm Workers used it.

A good Amway slogan too.

After AeroMexico, a Mexican airline, had filed a trademark application for "Sí se puede" with the US Trademark Office, lawyers for the United Farm Workers defended the phrase as the intellectual property of the UFW. After litigation, AeroMexico agreed not to use the phrase and abandoned its trademark application.

But Beneva Flowers still uses it.

Where's the beef?

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

People cite Obama's lack of experience all the time.

That's right because people with experience such as war mongerers Hillary RC and George Bush are such an example to live up to. Such a great help their "EXPERIENCE" and elder wisdom was for the millions of dead Iraqis. Their "experience" resulted in gross and tragic misjudgement in Iraq and this is not a forgiveable sin. I could never see Hillary going against corporate interests ever.

If that's what "experience" does then I'll take "hope" any day of the week.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Issues: Pro-hopes, also supports dreams

---

Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I just don't think Obama's message, no matter how inspiring, will stand up once the GOP and their enablers in the mainstream media start Swift-Boating him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
The Onion's candidate profile for Obama pretty much sums it up:
Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I just don't think Obama's message, no matter how inspiring, will stand up once the GOP and their enablers in the mainstream media start Swift-Boating him.
The Dems have to learn to play rough and Obama does not strike me as the type to go for the jugular.

---

It's also worth noting that both Obama and Clinton have called for increased military spending in the U.S., not a decrease. Either would probably pursue a foreign policy we'd prefer to that of a President McCain but that doesn't mean we're going to like it.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Going for the jugular in response doesn't coincide with the message of change. He can stay on track only if he is able to successfully highlight the tactics of his opponents, without resorting to the same Rove style antics.

---

But that's what I'm getting at. What you call "Rove-style antics" work, and have worked, for years. Clinton won in 1992, in part, because of the Begala-Stephanopoulos-Carville strategy of having a 'war room' that could provide 'rapid response' to GOP attacks.

I hate to be so cynical, but I really do not see an Obama win resulting in the creation of some sort of magical bi-partisan fantasyland where the GOP suddenly decides to kiss and play nice with an Obama administration. The GOP and their allies were relentless in their pursuit of the Clintons before and during their time in office, they stole the 2000 election, and they Swift-Boated Kerry. I'm sorry, but I just do not see these people suddenly 'seeing the light'.

Clintons not so nice side.

"Stupid Campaign Tricks
And then there are the dozens of stupid campaign tricks by Clinton staffers who should know better, including:

* Sen. Clinton, angry at a competitor also having ambitions, raged that Barack Obama once wrote a kindergarten essay entitled " 'I Want to Become President." (The revelation prompted MSNBC to ponder if there were also upsetting paste-eating episodes in Obama's background.)
* Last week, an Iowa county chair for the Clinton campaign admitted to passing along an email falsely claiming that that Barack Obama attended a Muslim madrassa as a child.
* The Iowa waitress used by the Clinton campaign as a photo-op prop, then not left a tip for her time-consuming efforts.
* The global warming question planted with a winking Grinnell College student at an Iowa press conference. (The student told CNN that she "wasn't the only one who was planted.")
* Another college student forced at a Clinton-friendly CNN debate to ask a girlie question about diamonds and pearls.

Each incident makes the Clinton campaign look dumb. Collectively, they make the Clinton campaign look desperate and a bit pathetic.... not to mention cold, calculating and manipulative."

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Clinton cries in Connecticut ....

---

Crying is all well, good and healthy (I do it myself at times) but this cynical manipulative ploy of crying right before a major vote with Obama leading in the polls makes it news whether you agree or not.

Let me refresh your memory with Clinton wriggling out of a tight spot before.

tears are not enough

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And Obama farted today - twice.

Why is this news?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Judy has trouble distinguishing the politics of hope from the rhetoric of hope.

---

True that. If one can judge what someone will do based on what they have done, 8 yearsof Obama will be a whole lot of nothing. Considering he voted present literally hundreds of time in the Illinois legislature rather than taking a stand on an issue, we're really looking at someone spouting rhetoric as opposed to any solutions. I hope people wake up and see that Obama is a complete joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Hillary also cried right before the New Hampshire primary that she won that turned out to be an upset (pollsters were wrong) and managed to sway female voters because the tears humanized her. There was an online debate then about whether the tears were real and all.

Crying is all well, good and healthy (I do it myself at times) but this cynical manipulative ploy of crying right before a major vote with Obama leading in the polls makes it news whether you agree or not.

---

The object is to distract people from talking about any real issues and divert them into stupid debates about whether Clinton's tears were real or fake, and whether a woman really can handle the pressure of being President, etc.

It's bullshit substituting for real news, and it should be denounced, not repeated on progressive discussion boards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ghoris:
....I hate to be so cynical, but I really do not see an Obama win resulting in the creation of some sort of magical bi-partisan fantasyland where the GOP suddenly decides to kiss and play nice with an Obama administration. The GOP and their allies were relentless in their pursuit of the Clintons before and during their time in office, they stole the 2000 election, and they Swift-Boated Kerry. I'm sorry, but I just do not see these people suddenly 'seeing the light'.
As for 'exposing' their tactics, all I offer is this: Americans say time and again that they deplore negative campaigning and attack ads, but the proof is in the pudding - negative campaigning and attack ads work. Unless and until people stop responding to attack ads, they will remain part of the political landscape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
And by the way, how come Clinton is always "Hillary" and Obama is never "Barack"? Are we all on a first-name basis with the woman, but not the man?

---

A more intelligent and honest approach would be to simply NOT respond and INSTEAD post what YOU feel is worthy of being "real news".

Instead of coming here and attacking my posts contribute positively to the thread with what you consider to be real news.

I won't be getting into an ego pissing match with you that some whites males on this board so often indulge themselves in. This also has no place on a progressive board.

I'm here to discuss issues not get into insulting matches.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

I invite you and anyone else to watch this video of Clinton's remarks and decide whether this can reasonably be described as "crying" or even "tears".

quote:

---

And by the way, how come Clinton is always "Hillary" and Obama is never "Barack"? Are we all on a first-name basis with the woman, but not the man?

---

Could it be because "Clinton" is a slave name for Hillary Rodham.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I invite you and anyone else to watch this video of Clinton's remarks and decide whether this can reasonably be described as "crying" or even "tears".

---

Well, I don't know about Rodham, but those scripted emotions almost reduced me to tears.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Could it be because "Clinton" is a slave name for Hillary Rodham.

Or maybe because Clinton refers to two people, not just one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
They were doing it long before she started campaigning, and they do it to other female politicians as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
Maybe a lot of people refer to Hillary Clinton as Hillary because her campaign is encouraging it.

---

Thanks pogge you are right about Hillary Clinton's people encouraging the single first name mostly.

Her website is encouraging the simple one "Hillary" for alot of the campaigns:
-"get your official Hillary gear"
-"Hillary Hub - the source for daily news"
-"women for Hillary" slogan
-"Join Team Hillary" slogan

quote:

---

The two are virtually tied in Monday's survey, which shows the New York senator has lost a comfortable national lead she's held for months over Obama and other rivals.

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
I would assume that the press would use the most unique name. With less women in politics their first name would still be somewhat unique and used more.

---

And I'm not buying the theory that the name Hillary is "more unique" than the name Clinton.

Rodham is a wonderful candidate, a compassionate human being, and an accomplished weeper.

Rodham deserves nothing but respect and admiration.

Didn't Rodham promise that the day she takes office, she'll immediately start to ponder what should be done about Iraq?

That's Rodhamian leadership. That's presidential material.

Why, it was foretold in the Bible, was it not?

"Thy Rodham staff shall comfort me."

Remember, JFK (who Rebbick lauds in the first sentence), escalated the war in Vietnam, a legacy that heaped untold misery on SE Asia for generations. JFK will also go down in history as the man who almost destroyed the world during the Cuban missile crisis. On a personal note, he was also a notorious, excessive womanizer and adulterer. How's that for progressive?

Bill Clinton, another philanderer, called General Suharto, one of history's great mass murderers "our kind of guy." (And his Foreign Secretary, Madeleine Albright said the 500,000 dead children after the First Gulf War was "worth it.")

Then there's LBJ, another Democrat, who flat out lied to his people, fabricating the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and poured even more troops into Vietnam. There's a role model.

And the last paragraph of Rebbick's article is risible:

quote:

---

Whatever the final result, the Democratic primaries of 2008 are the tip of the iceberg of a people who are fed up with the über rich, mostly white and male elite using the resources and power of the U.S. to get richer and richer - and plundering their own country and the rest of the world to do so.

---

Why do the brains of these liberals shut off whenever a Democrat walks in the room? The Democrats don't care about the poor (not once they're elected at least). Bill Clinton presided over the pauperization of a great swatch of the American public. He gutted welfare (remember his "Welfare Reform"); and accelerated globalization during his two terms. And remember, he gave up his medicare plan in the face of the insurance lobby.

But then, he did manage to come up with his "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, didn't he? How's that for progressive.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

ETA: George Carlin says it all.

[ 09 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
And they make Mr. Harper look soooo much better that we're still giving him a majority and a pass and we prefer discussing their dirty politics down there.

---

I'd disagree martin. Harper doesn't say "hope" alot (say, wasn't that one of B. Clinton's big slogans too: the boy from Hope, Arkansas?) -- but I'd rather live under a Harper government in Canada, than a Democrat government in the US. At least you could see a doctor without the wallet check, and not go to jail for smoking pot.

You raise a good point. This infatuation of Canadian liberals for Democrats seems to operate at a social level more than anything (they clearly don't understand anything about the actual policies of Democrats once in power). They wouldn't mix socially with Harper's socons; but upper-crust/declassed Democrats -- sure!

In fact, this is why the perfect 21st century Democrat, Michael Ignatieff, joined the Liberals when he came back to Canada, not the Cons -- even though on all political issues he was right there with Harper.

(As an aside, does anyone see shades of Elizabeth May's idolization of Stephane Dion in what Rebbick says about Obama?)

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

quote:

---

At least you could see a doctor without the wallet check, and not go to jail for smoking pot.

---

quote:

---

Jonathan Gruber, a major Clinton health care advisers (whom Paul Krugman cited this NYTimes article) told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that the Clinton plan will NOT include everybody.

---

(1) - who's right on health care

(2) - Bottom line: lots of disingenuousness from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when it comes to their rhetoric on this issue.

(3) - The fact checker Hillary Clinton Versus Barack Obama on health Care and where they stand.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
When is the last time you checked on the progress of healthcare privatization and the length of waitin times in what's left of the public system? And there *are* plenty of people locked up in jail or institutions here for doing or selling soft drugs (or being stoned and Aboriginal simultaneously).

---

quote:

---

More than 100 New York feminist leaders released a joint statement Sunday afternoon criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Obama for president - evidence that Clinton's support among women activists has declined significantly in the days before the super-Tuesday primary.

Clinton's support for the war in Iraq was the leading reason she lost the support of the group, which calls itself "New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!" "We urgently need a presidential candidate whose first priority is to address domestic needs," the group added.

---

Feminist leaders support Barack Obama

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
I would assume that the press would use the most unique name. With less women in politics their first name would still be somewhat unique and used more.

---

"Barack" isn't a unique name?

This has been pissing me off lately, because I've been seeing it more and more - Clinton being referred to as "Hillary" while Obama is being referred to in the same article (or blog/forum posting) as "Obama". It makes me want to shake people who do it.

I don't care if her campaign signs say "Hillary". Reporters aren't campaigners. They're reporters and professional writers who should fucking know better.

And don't give me this "they're trying to distinguish her from Bill Clinton" crap. Bill Clinton isn't running in this race, so it's pretty clear when the article is about the two front-runners in the race that we're not talking about Bill Clinton. If Bill Clinton figures into the story, then sure, differentiate with first names PAIRED WITH their last names.

But don't be so damned sloppy and write "Hillary and Obama". If you're not on a first-name basis with him, then you're not with her either. It's patronizing, infantilizing, and a common thing to do to women in politics.

quote:

---

This has been pissing me off lately, because I've been seeing it more and more - Clinton being referred to as "Hillary" while Obama is being referred to in the same article (or blog/forum posting) as "Obama". It makes me want to shake people who do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

You know I've found myself about to refer to her as Hillary in a few posts I've made, where I called Obama Obama but recognised the disparity in terminology as I wrote. I'm sure I've made that slip when talking. I think of myself as a fairly progressive guy, but it just goes to show you, I guess. Social attitudes are embedded and insidious, and all awareness has to start with self awareness.

---

You're trying way too hard to be PC. Look at this:

and her official website.

You'll find "Hillary for President", "Hillary TV", "Team Hillary" and so on.

So take your so-called "self awareness" and realize that "Hillary" is the way she wishes to brand herself.

[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: Partisan ]

quote:

---

A major obstacle to progressive change in the U.S., as it is in Canada, is the overwhelming sense of hopelessness in change that so many people, especially the young, feel. That Mr. Obama is inspiring young people to stand up and be counted is, in itself, worthy of support.

---

This is so much more sensible than the usual "they're all the same" garbage which drowns babble.

It is similar to what Tom Hayden, one of the best of the radical student leaders of the 1960's has written:

quote:

---

Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agenda. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. (As Gandhi once said of India's liberation movement, "There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.")

We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past.

So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Rigid moron, thy name is Stalin.

---

[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: St. Paul's Progressive ]

See, the IDEA that Tom Hayden is just some "liberal" is about as bone-headed as you can get, but whenever I post something from ANY radical who isn't a member of the Communist Party, they fling around the "liberal" epithet.

Here's something for you about Obama supporter Tom Hayden:

quote:

---

He served as president of SDS from 1962 to 1963 and drafted its most famous work, the Port Huron Statement. From 1964 to 1968, he lived in Newark, New Jersey, where he worked with impoverished inner-city residents as part of the Newark Community Union Project. He was also witness to the city's race riots and wrote the book Rebellion in Newark: Official Violence and Ghetto Response (1967). Hayden also played a key role in the protests surrounding the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois. There, he was arrested as part of the "Chicago Seven," with other protesters including Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, and charged with conspiracy and inciting riots. He made several high-profile trips as a peace activist to Cambodia and North Vietnam during America's involvement in the Vietnam War, including an especially controversial one in 1972 to North Vietnam with his future wife, actress Jane Fonda.

---

And what's with this appeal to "authentic radicalism"? We're just getting further from what's important. How about substantive policy that can be expected from Obama?

And when he sees something in Obama to support, like Judy Rebick does, you have to crap on it, because YOU are about toeing the line, not creating a movement.

Your party? 1918--yawn. ZZZ.

[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: jeff house ]

So. Basically Obama inspires, um, hope. OK, I can live with that. I even kinda liked his speech on race some time ago. Spector denounced me for that, but I seem to be managing anyway.

But hope for what, exactly? How is involvement in a campaign for Obama going to create any kind of wave of change?

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I had to look at Hayden's article as Jeff somehow managed to completely avoid all references to policy.

---

quote:

---

Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agenda. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated.

---

quote:

---

Pogo: I think it is a chicken and egg argument. The quote indicates that the author is considering the movement as an engine of policy change rather than policy change being behind the movement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I should have posted this in the "Hillary Clinton sexism watch" thread.

---

In another thread, now closed, there was considerable praise offered for this article in Salon:

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!

I think the use of the term "boys" in the title is, in the context, more than a little bit questionable. The author is a staff writer for Salon, Rebecca Traister, and while she doesn't quite disclose her own personal identity in so many words, she does say that she belongs to "white, liberal, well-educated circles".

So to complete the cultural imagery that is implied in the title a white woman is exclaiming to a group of "Obama boys", the order "Back off already!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Two words: subscription wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Two words: subscription wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Can someone please explain to me how this kind of imagery is acceptable?

---

Easy. It's not.

I honestly hadn't noticed that before, but now that you mention it, you're absolutely right. Although I think the reason why I hadn't noticed it is because it's pretty clear that her reference to "boys" is about gender (e.g. "frat boys") and not about the "boy" epithet that has been used against black men.

But you're right. People should be more careful about what imagery they invoke.

[ 27 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]