Obama’s Change: Shouting at the ocean

Chorus of angels, heavens will open, solid gold houses and rocket cars for everyone... Sorry, that's not what the man promises.

What he asks of us (not promises us) is to acknowledge that the status quo is working to the detriment of most Americans and probably the country as whole, and to work with him (and any other leader who agrees to work that much harder to forge consensus at the expense of a little ideological posturing) to try to do something about it.

I agree that he has been frustratingly silent on the means of accomplishing even the initiation of this challenge. One thing he has stated repeatedly, however, is that it is a change that requires as much if not more support from the bottom up than from the top down.

It is the height of irresponsibility to ignore a corrupting system because it appears entrenched unless you believe that change is impossible or that this is the best we can do. History shows we can do better, and the future demands it.

"The Illinois Senator speaks lovingly to his massive audiences about rejecting beltway “politics as usual..”~This Post
*****

"The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer."

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07...

*********

Barack Obama strong-armed no less than four candidates he was up against; one even a longshot that he didn't have to worry about.

It feels like a bad relationship. I voted for him after he won me with a smooth smile and promises of change and yet he's held elite office by exterminating his liberal activist competition (and even those who held no threat) in Chicago?? He EXTERMINATED them from the ballot to run unopposed.

Read up on fascism folks. Every fascist dictator started out the same way. You want to believe their charisma, their message of "change". But when they espouse "change" and operate the same old dirty ways of those they are supposedly replacing, it's time to revisit the old saying:

"Actions speak louder than words."

Read up on fascism folks.- Fascism is when the state and business combine into one entity, and business becomes the end all and be all of the state. Sounds like gwb and the republicians to me. And you sir, sound like a republician troll, harping on a subject that has no meaning. Whats the matter, can't find anything else to try and swiftboat him on? If this is the best you got, then he will not be really bothered by you swiftboaters. Republicians + Military Industrial complex+ corporate media+multicorps+gw bush administration=Fascism. Be careful of the words you republicians throw around. Remember what happened to that wing nut radio jock that Chris Matthews tore apart because he was just repeating the republician talking points and had no idea at all of either the history or the meaning of the word of the day-note how the republicians dropped it like a hot potato after that segment. That republician word of the day was APPEASEMENT, the item you did a cut and paste on is nothing new, but you might want to read some history, like just how Hitler and big business worked together- something like todays republician administration and how they allow/give permission for big business to loot our treasury-before you once again throw around words when you have little or no idea what they mean

ab, good comment. Sillo, you really seem bitter, but I'm guessing you're a McCain troll, continually attacking Obama. Terms like "fascist dictator" are a real tip off. Challenging petition signatures is not "strong-arming" candidates. If their fledgling campaigns couldn't get enough unassailable signatures to even get them on the ballot that's their failing. In fact, it's pathetic. What incompetence that they failed right at the starting line. Frankly we don't need candidates like that. Of course they could challenge Obama's signatures too, and probably did. (Did you check?) But he had many many more than he needed, because he's a better candidate. Let me repeat that slowly. He's - a - better - candidate.

Now, in terms of changing the game in Washington, it's a huge challenge for all of us. With 70 lobbyists for every legislator and every politician with their hands out for cash to get and stay in office, the culture of corruption is daunting. Obama can take a shot at it precisely because he has funded his campaign without selling out to these interests (though some will argue that he has "sold out" to special interests he believes in). But to change the way things are done in Washington takes many more than one player. His entire administration will have to be determined to work for the public, not for the moneyed interests who call the shots today.

Obama is walking a tightrope. He must be (and has been, IMO) detailed enough about what he plans to do, without saying anything controversial enough to give ammo to the attack dogs. We have a historic opportunity this election, with two candidates taking vastly different positions on the issues. It is on those issues we must decide, not personality, race or wives. Not pastors or wringing tortured hidden meanings out of offhand comments. And not petty "gotcha" details from the deep past. Sorry to get personal Sillo, but taking a political strategy that many candidates use and implying that it means he's Hitler is a perfect example of how this debate should not go.

Anyone who has an educational policy consisting of giving the teachers unions whatever they want and don't ask any questions, is definitely in the pocket of special interest.

Look at how Senator obama refuses to ever be specific. It gives him great escape methods for any disappointment.

Also, people forget that special interest are made up of real people. The aggregate of those special interest are what make up the body politic.

All that the Obama Administration will do is to pick a slightly different group of winners and lowers. The real question is how many bad mistake the administration will make in picking the winners and losers.

Gen. Washington didn't win the Revolutionary War. He inspired and led his troops to win. Had the trrops resisted or leaned on their muskets saying ''nah, it can't be done', the war would have been lost, and we would be reading very different history books today.
Even though Washington, later, was not a perfect president, as a general, he enabled the colonies to usher in a whole new era. His success, though, was very much dependent on having sufficient followers and supporters. It was the followers who took personal responsiblity for shaping the future, and they deterrmined what that future would be.

There were those, however, who wanted to sit the war out on the sidelines, tending to their own fortunes and plotting how to continue dong so without personal risk. They wanted a free ride, no matter who won the war.

Those who say, today, that it can't be done, are, in effect, saying they don't want change, or they want someone else to hand change to them on a silver platter while they tend to their personal fortunes.

Obama can't effect change. It depends on whether enough people will get off the sidelines to shape their own future. I have no sympathy for those who complain about Washington, DC, but content themselves with only polishing their own apples and calculating how to do well no matter who wins. They forfeit complaining rights, as far as i"m concerned.

.

No, I'm a registered democrat and have been for 25 years and voted democratically.

This may boggle the mind, but you don't have to support McCain automatically to criticize Obama. McCain is an abomination as well.

Both are unacceptable.

The facts remain that Obama EXTERMINATED, in fascist style, four candidates in the Chicago election to make himself the uncontested candidate in that race. One of those fallen four was a minority progressive person who posed no threat to his win. He just wanted them all out of the way for good measure..

You don't have to support McCain to see that that doesn't represent change. You barely have to have a gradeschool education to see that that is nefarious, underhanded, slimey old-school tactics of climbing to the top and taking flesh as you go.

If I supported McCain, why would I be encouraging people to Write-In Hillary Clinton in the Fall?

Puzzler, eh?

With the support galvanized for Hillary further by Obama's recent Michigan rally where his supporters "booed" Clinton's name, and with his selection of her old campaign manager, and his pretending not to know how galvanizing that would be (If I had to accuse anyone of working on the sly for the GOP it would be Obama himself and his closest aides), there will be big numbers for Hillary this Fall in a Write-In.

Add that to people waking up about Obama's lack of experience, past bad deeds like exterminating competition per the Tribune article above, his ties to extremist ministers denouncing whites (racial bias) and his blatant capitalizing on Dr. Mr. Luther King Jr.'s persona...his lack of experience in foreign policy and even basic foreign matters like which language is spoken where...all this in time of war...

You have a recipe for more people like me disenfranchised with our original support of Barack Obama and towards Hillary Clinton.

Then add in McCain supporters who will see him as the buffoon Bush-stooge he is..

You'll see a groundswell for a grass-roots Clinton Write-In this Fall.

We educated voters know how to make our voices heard. Even if backroom politics, and superdelegates and Big Media don't want to hear us.

Write-In Hillary Clinton this Fall.

Actually, Superdestroyer, his promoted policies and other positions are quite specific--and some are antithetical to the dreaded teachers union (merit pay, vouchers). My complaint about specifics had to do with how he will attempt to lead a change to the way the federal government works (or fails to work) effectively as a deliberative entity that transcends provincial concerns enough to arrive at pragmatic solutions.

Yes, special interests comprise people, too, in addition to businesses (whose health and sustainability are just as vital to the country as those of individual citizens). The point isn't to badmouth special interests; it is to curtail their excessive influence over policy derived from their ability to keep politicians in office regardless of their capacity to be effective legislators.

Yes, but how do you reconcile the fact that he exterminated four running candidates to run unopposed in Chicago? Obama used the lowest and most underhanded tactics to chop down other minority people with progressive ideals...even those who posed no threat to his win at all...just so he could assure himself the Senator's salary he was after and the power of course...don't forget that..

With all his glitz, lip-service and charm, how do you mitigate what HE ACTUALLY DID vs what he's talking about doing?

Sill,
You want Hillary to win? Boy, do you have the wrong strategy.

Many Democrats already had trouble with her style of attack politics. You are NOTendearing Hillary to anyone or convincing anyone to like her better. You are actually confirming the worst suspicions and citicisms people have always had about her.

Your heroine showed an ability to recognize the greater good above personal interests and displayed tremendous grace when doing so in her concession speech.
You are not only huritng Hillary, you are besmirching her legacy among Democrats.
With friends like you, Hillary needs no enemies.

Going back to the original post, this was not an attack on Obama. Simply noting the truth of the editorial when it says that, while Obama's intentions to change Washington politics as usual may be heartfelt, it may also well turn out to be impossible. It's very hard to dismantle the system when you're busy running the system.

Jazz,
My comment (6th from the top( was a response directed at your post and the following:
'It's very hard to dismantle the system when you're busy running the system."

My fear is WHAT KIND of change Obama has in mind when he thought nothing of destroying four minority progressive candidates to represent that district in Chicago?

When questioned about his behavior then he had this to say:

********

""I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."~ Barack Obama.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-07...
*******

He went and fine-tooth combed each and every single signature on petitions that those candidates didn't even have direct contact in supervising the collection of signatures. Just a couple of non-verifiable addresses and they were out.

Note: no one challenged HIS petitions. I'm sure each and every single signer had a valid address....

I hope his idea of "changing politics" doesn't mean he reserves the right to nitpick minority progressive ideals if we don't have every "t" crossed and "i" dotted in our pleas to be heard and given a fair shake. I'm sure he'll change his proven track record and give us our due...as long as it doesn't interfere with his overweening aspirations to power...

*shudder*


BTW runasim, I VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA in the primaries. I now regret that decision.

People make mistakes. That's what humans do. But humans also learn from them and make new decisions. That's why I NOW support the best job applicant for President of the United States in the pivotal 2008 election.

She has eight years' experience in the Oval Office standing at the side of and de facto chief advisor to the then Commander In Chief. She's never sued an election committee in an attempt to eliminate other candidates running against her based on signature errors on petitions.

She runs on her own merits, hard-earned and gritty, tenacious. She doesn't shamelessly borrow her image from Susan B. Anthony or Harriet Tubman to get by on..like someone does from the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She comes to us raw, unwrapped for viewing and dissection as candidate for the world's most important employment. We intend to look at her qualifications and track record. What a novel idea when considering an applicant for a job.

Understood, runasim. Fair enough.

Sil, you seem to be defending the illegal practice of getting on the ballot with bogus voter signatures. Obama didn't "exterminate" anyone. Why do you assume the other candidates were legitimate candidates for that office? Maybe those candidates deliberately padded their petitions with fake voters. Maybe not. It doesn't matter. The law says the signatures have to be legitimate and signed by real, living voters in the district, state, county or city for which they are petitioning to be on the ballot. You marginalize the law and rationalize cheating when you characterize abiding with election law as "crossing Ts and dotting Is." And when you call being a stickler for following the rules as "nefarious, underhanded, slimey (sic) old-school tactics" WOW. You make the law breakers the heroes. You're losing credibility with every comment.

Election officials are charged with scrutinizing these petitions and making sure the signatures are legitimate. This is NOT trivial. It's based on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the courts. It protects our democratic process. You are justifying cheating, especially by "progressive minority candidates." It is NOT OK to cheat in the electoral process. It is NOT fascism to insist that the process be legitimate. I don't see how you can rationalize gaming the system while criticizing Obama for using the system legitimately. Amazing.

By the way, I've been involved in such petition drives and I've worked (volunteer) for the Dem party in the Recorder's office. Before submitting petitions, we checked to see that all the signatures complied with the regulations. It's just plain stupid and lazy not to. It's an amateur mistake. And in the Recorder's office, any signatures that didn't meet the regs were considered illegitimate (it's the law!) and discarded.

Obama challenged the petitions of other candidates, and now he's the second coming of Mussolini. That's simply genius.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: JOHN McCAIN’S 3R ECONOMIC PLAN 2008

Progressive Candidate John McCain comes through for America with his 3R economic plan.
In the persona of Theodore Roosevelt, McCain’s plan just makes sense.

1. RETHINK: America must rethink the global views on what America is capable of in our current state of technology, engineering and the demands that face the world.

“RETHINK” in terms of re-action means to set forth this plan.

Most Americans know where the USA falls short in the ways of manufacturing and valuable jobs.
It’s time to meet the change of global demands with Made in USA quality and a new American workforce. Oddly enough, the framework is ready and waiting for this plan and active participation. The Progressive attitude of John McCain to get things done will resurrect America.

2. REFORM: America must rise to these demands and compete aggressively in a global economy. We must demand higher quality products and less restricted trade routes for Made in USA components.

”RE-FORM” is simple to comprehend as through John McCain’s Progressive attitudes, the USA will reform our manufacturing and hit it full steam ahead!

Made in USA has always meant highest quality products at moderate prices. The difference today is, we save loose change with Imported Chinese junk products, but few high paying jobs exist to do anything except buy the cheaper foreign-made products.

3. REINVENT: America and Americans must reinvent themselves to reach and maintain these standards and by sheer American ingenuity, control the world’s marketplace in the competitive manner, as we have always been proud to rule. Can you hear Theodore Roosevelt shouting this?

”RE-INVENT” is the exciting part of McCain’s 3R plan.

Americans in need of a future yet without a desire, funding or free time to spend 2 to 8 years in college can go back to a re-invented manufacturing education. McCain’s formula allows these new students, young and old, to be paid a moderate paycheck while learning their new skills and leadership roles in hands on classrooms! Without costing taxpayers or the US government additional funds, we can literally change the face of America and the world.

Learning the skills required in order to become the American driving force behind new USA manufacturing boom, many Americans will also gain the skills to become the CEOs and leaders of their own USA Mfg arenas. Leading a group of people who love their new lifestyle is not difficult and Americans have been proving American ingenuity and leadership since Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Republican era.

Initial estimates of 1 in 5 students will go on to begin his or her own company and drive even more Americans into a viable lifestyle with real jobs, real benefits and a retirement to look forward to. Many students will combine forces and create successful joint ventures.

America has the means to follow through with John McCain’s 3R plan, ready and in place across the USA. The buildings we need sit vacant for the most part. America has millions of people screaming for new and improved jobs.

Senator McCain has provided the new guard for Social Security, the promise of retirement and the dreams that can be realized by Americans who would otherwise be lost or at the mercy of a dying workforce. This is the new workforce for American’s future.

By assuming leases on abandoned stores and factories across America with MC-3R schools and mini-manufacturing training centers, the USA made products can be sold and support the stores. Building owners write off the loss in taxes over a few years!

Although the thousands of new businesses manufacturing USA Made products is exciting enough, the real excitement comes from the massive amount of additional jobs that will be created to provide the new housing, new buildings, new parks, shopping, grocery stores, schools, government outlets and so much more.

The Key PROBLEM with the housing slump and the huge crude oil buy-out is not from greedy developers or greedy oil companies, but from the desire to locate and invest in the era’s best investments. Housing was #1 until the investment funds were pulled and crude oil took its place as a commodity. McCain will get us out of the mess that threatens the world’s economy.

These three R’s will be accomplished by the McCain express and through wealthy American entrepreneurs who were once able to invest in America’s manufacturing capabilities but have since fallen into investments that have caused catastrophic world economy failure.

McCain’s Progressive nature embodies Theodore Roosevelt more than any other US presidential candidate in history since.
We need John McCain to lead our nation.

Progressive John McCain? Hahahaha. Oh, good one.

Economic policy (see GW Bush): permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, elevating wealth over work. Continue loopholes for offshoring jobs. More GOP style debt to pass on to our children.

Foreign policy (see GW Bush): more cowboy "diplomacy." Bomb Iran. 100 years in Iraq. More saber rattling and bullying. Continuing torture and rendition.

Domestic policy (see GW Bush): Continue spying on Americans. Continue eroding rule of law. Big government in the bedroom, the doctor's office. Corporate lobbyists writing the rules and calling the shots.

Supreme Court: radical right judges who favor an imperial presidency, no oversight, continued evasion of oversight, destruction of checks and balances, loss of women's right to medical decisions, contempt for gay rights.

Energy policy: Give big oil more oil leases (68 million acres leased so far sit idle) and eliminate regulation so the companies can be even more profitable. Drill off Florida (bye bye Florida voters).

Not trying to convince you, jlmeal, but for others, don't buy this BS. It's just more years of failed Bush policies.