I knew Obama was gonna do this 2 years ago / Name's Cassandra

It was really pretty common predicting and pre-emptive lamenting, in fact me and d'tale had a whole poop-on-the-vote sewagey underground thing going till he revealed his loyalist moderate turncoat. Anyway, as a tribute to DavidByron's I knew Obama was going to do all this 18 months ago. Am I Cassandra?, here's my old thing from 2007, but with the lamentably defunct politicalfleshfeast links removed and probly some bold added:

65% of Democrats Back Hillary/Obama? R They Crazy?

by fairleft
Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:28:36 PM EST

Why are Hillary and Obama the Democratic voters' leading presidential candidates -- 65% of likely primary voters choose them --when they're so obviously bipartisan police-state corporate-whore imperialist Republicans?

My sane way of choosing a candidate or deciding to say fuk `em all is to look at their positions on the major issues of the day. I don't ask much anymore, just "Hey, if she/he would do the right thing on even ONE of the big issues, maybe I could see myself giving her/him my vote." So here are my six major issues and best guesses on what Obama/Hillary's real positions are (I know Hillary & Obama don't actually say the following, but their money has the following `bipartisan' & `responsible' positions, and neither has taken a strong and (especially) clear enough position contrariwise to make me think they will disobey their money):

[I realize the Iran prediction so far is wrong, but we've still got three years on that.]

I could go on (for example, under either Obama or Hillary the Pentagon would get its regular budget boosts, the rest of the budget would be subject to `responsible' drastic budget cuts, and the Bush police state measures would continue on), but you get the idea.

So, Obama and Hillary (pre-1980s thinking alert) simply are not Democrats the way I used to understand what that word meant. . . .

They will mightily screw over the bottom 80% of the population and do their best for the top 10%, even as the economy slides deeper into decline and the suffering of everyone (except upper-middle class and rich assholes) worsens. And, Hillary and Obama will continue the worldwide imperial war for oil, Israel, and corporate globalization -- whether it requires hot or cold wars or coups in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, or who knows where -- and no matter that it `requires' throwing ever more money at the military when we need instead to drastically redirect government spending toward rebuilding our real economy, giving everyone health care, and saving the safety net.

I don't get it! How is it that these two turkeys get away with offering real Democrats nothing except wordy fluff while their substance is `bipartisan' aggressive corporate globalist Republicanism? In other words the same old same old that is driving the people down and the economy off a cliff.

Instead of 65% of Democrats choosing Hillary or Obama, why don't most Democrats answer `none of the above' or, maybe, Kucinich or Gravel? Are the Democrats polled -- `likely primary voters' -- not really Democrats anymore?

Anyway, if next November all we're left with is two of Obama/Hillary/Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney, all real Democrats must piss or poop on such a 'choice'. But maybe we should start the pissing & pooping early when and if the Democratic race boils down to Obama and Hillary. Like now.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)



Great to see...

That you were a radical unrealist 2 years ago. Explains a lot of your diaries. Now I can avoid them as the 'I told you so' ravings of someone who thinks everything is a 'republican corporatist conspiracy' and there's no melioration, no difference between Obama/Hillary/Bush/Cheney.

One day perhaps you might start talking about politics rather than this strange mix of wide-eyed utopianism and bitter cynicism.

by brit 2009-12-20 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Great to see...

The diary had nothing to do with realism/unrealism, election strategy, it was simply an expression of frustration over Dem voters not choosing their favorite candidate based on which one would advance the voters' self interests. The two candidates most bought out by corporate interests and least likely to benefit the bottom 80% of us led all others by a substantial margin even in November 2007, when 'realism' demands on voters (i.e., now 'good' has not chance so choose 'bad' cuz he/she is not as bad as 'very bad') are not relevant.

by fairleft2 2009-12-21 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Great to see...

Express your frustrations all you like, but by the same token I'm allowed to express my frustration with your simplistic binary thinking.

The new healthcare bill, for example, will not give American citizens the same access to free universal healthcare that I enjoy in the UK. But it will cover more 31 million people, and bring down a hammer on a lot of the unfair practices of the insurance companies.

It's not great, it's certain far from perfect, but it is better.

Or would you prefer a Republican version of healthcare?

Do you really think they're the same as the Dems?

You're welcome to hold your nose at all parties outside the (as yet undefined) version of 'fair left' you eponymously subscribe too. But even if you're secretly hoping for a right wing backlash so that revolution can finally dawn in the US, this Bargain Basement Chomsky stuff about everything being 'corporate America' does little to ameliorate the conditions of the 80 per cent.  

by brit 2009-12-21 02:33PM | 0 recs
A one-sided look at the health care bill

is one less than a binary vision, so I have you there. You might have added that in effect the bill's also a massive tax increase on millions of people who can't afford that. Drug company profits and inevitable price increases are also long-term protected. And there will be no cost controls so whatever regulatory 'gains' from the health don't care companies (by hopefully disallowing current abuses) they'll take back in increased premiums and profits.

All in all like I said 2 years ago: 'can't do much at all (or maybe we've made things worse for most people in the bottom 80%) cuz the PTB are too powerful.'

by fairleft2 2009-12-21 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew Obama was gonna do this

" why don't most Democrats answer `none of the above' or, maybe, Kucinich or Gravel? "

Because they were nuts...

by vecky 2009-12-20 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew Obama was gonna do this

Yes, in part, but also heavily under the influence of campaign commercials and the corporate mass media's conventional wisdom. But allowing oneself to be heavily under such influence is a decision for many or most, and a decision that has gone glaringly against the interest of individuals in the bottom 80% for at least a couple of decades.

by fairleft2 2009-12-21 08:31AM | 0 recs
Think I'm going rec this diary too

Retroactive self justification seems to have replaced political debate on MYDD, and this is classic example.

Rec'd and rated.

by brit 2009-12-20 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: seems your idea of debate

I didn't realize an analytical statement about what was being said is insulting.

by JDF 2009-12-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
I happen to love Dennis Kucinich.

But if he'd been our nominee, we'd all be griping about President McCain right about now.

But maybe you think Gravel could have pulled it out?

by sricki 2009-12-20 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I happen to love Dennis Kucinich.

That is awesome. Gravel has a great future, perhaps as one of those human statues you see in tourist traps in London or Paris. All he needs is a better costume.

by brit 2009-12-21 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I happen to love Dennis Kucinich.

This diary was simply expressing frustration with the fact that two-thirds of Dems had already chosen the two most strongly corporate candidates among the bunch running back in late November, 2007. It has to do with the people expressing their will for the two candidates wrongly, against their own interests, and nothing to do with the strategic pluses or minuses of the Dems nominating Kucinich. Presumably people would've continued to vote against their own best interests in the general elections, and, winning strategy-wise, nominating Kucinich would've been a bad idea. I was just frustrated over the foundation for why it would've been a bad idea, people voting against the candidate who would do the best for their self-interest.

by fairleft2 2009-12-21 08:25AM | 0 recs
Tipped and recced

Worthy of teh engels!

by french imp 2009-12-21 02:13AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads