Holding Barack Obama Accountable

talk about "keeping it real!" dayum! that article is pretty well written...=D

Thanks Jan!!!

to quote just a bit of it here...

"The Obama campaign is heavy on symbolism, and long on vague catch phrases like "new leadership," "new ideas," "a politics of hope," and "let's dream America again" calculated to appeal to millions of disaffected Americans without actually meaning much of anything...the results are dismaying to many who want to support Barack Obama....

"...Now corporate media have made him a rock star, Joshua, a prince on his way to a coronation. Those who raise questions about Obama's commitment to a progressive agenda will have to struggle to be heard....

"It's time for a little less respect for the high and mighty of either party, and a little more action. It's high time for activists inside and outside the Democratic party to look for creative, innovative, sometimes impolite and civilly disobedient ways to reach larger audiences as they speak truth to the powerful. Even and especially when those in power are nominal Democrats."

I particularly agree with the last paragraph I quote here =D

ooo...96thdayofrage...that St John the Divine quote is succinctly killer! hadn't seen that one before =D lol that's gotta go down as one of my favorites for politics today in the U.S. wow =D

The declining violence in Iraq also bolsters the responsible, if sketchy, case that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, rather than a pell-mell rush for the exits. A total pullout now, the non-negotiable demand of online pressure groups, lefty bloggers, lawmakers and former presidential aspirant Bill Richardson, would demoralize our newfound Sunni allies, enable al-Qaeda to regroup, lift the lid on Shi'a extremist groups and abandon, yet again, Iraq's Kurds.

Progressive Policy Institute

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=124&...

you might wonder what the PPI's definition of "progress" is... i don't *really* wonder why these reports invariably characterize the Iraqi people as so inept at governing themselves...I think there's enough unethical selfish U.S. interest to harbor; but the U.S. should genuinely involve the international community to prove some integrity about the whole affair, if indeed this *really* is about the "Iraqi people" and their "freedom." With all that oil, you'd think the Iraqi people could be as rich as the Saudis and afford to hire a military force to preserve the "peace" and rebuild their infrastructures, but I think we probably already have a pretty good idea where all those bilked resources are actually going...(Cheney's Haliburton etc.)

just seems to me though that 96thdayofrage's synopsis of "corporatacracy" is so freakn apt to our day as to leave me speechless =P i think we can count on corrupt leaders and just have to "deal" with each one... i guess....what the hell else can we do.

and bill richardson is a long-time political whore...he's never been representative of the state he supposedly governs, pushing his own personal crap. I guess as a diplomat he's done a couple good things for Americans abroad, but on the national stage he's not worth even mentioning (thank god...he'd be dangerous there) although it appears some blogs think to merely name drop I guess....

Yeah, echoz, when I was reading the articles in the PPI i kept getting the feeling that the website was a front for right wing propaganda under the guise of progressive thinking, I could be wrong, but what I was reading didn't jive with my gut instincts....hmmm confusing indeed.

I feel like this article does nothing to advance the point it's trying to make. Especially those about the military and Iraq. We can't leave Iraq now, we just can't. The US is standing with it's finger in the dike, and if we leave many thousands will die.

The troop surge isn't working. It just roughly coincided with the Al Anbar Awakening, which is basically just Iraqi leaders deciding Al Queda had worse intentions than the US. Maybe it was the torturing of people for using ice cubes (Mohammad didn't have ice cubes). So there are basically just fewer people shooting at us, and in Baghdad they've been walling neighborhoods off, literally, with concrete slabs. I would hardly call that success.

Iraq may be the dirty laundry of one of the worst administrations in memory, but it is the country's laundry nonetheless. Calls for immediate withdrawal are absurd and irresponsible. Are American lives worth more than the many thousands that will be lost in the ensuing civil war? I hope you think not.

Pity about John Edwards. The media never really got delve into his history long enough to expose what corporate skeletons lay in his closet.

The article is propaganda at best. It asserts facts that are not in evidence based upon conjecture, inference and speculation. I could only stand to read the first three or four paragraphs.

JanForGore, I'm a little disappointed with you.

It would be extremely naive to think any politician at this level could be there and be a free thinker and an independent man. It is an opportunistic attempt to slander Obama by playing on the naivete and ignorance of readers.

For general purposes, those who have a self-serving agenda use several techniques that should be taken notice of; 1) they attempt to give their biased assertions credibility by presenting voluminous writing which wanders into the extraneous, hoping you won't notice - as in the article presented herein; 2) they attempt to gain credibility by association with others, most likely others who have garnered some credibility thru similarly hallow methods.

this is cute. Did Hillary write this? She's getting so desperate these days. I would like to disagree with the poster. What is this trap that supposedly people fell in with bush? I hate this code language used by Hillary and her supporters to some how match up Obama with Bush, an absurd comparison. They have absolutely nothing in common. For one thing, Obama can speak English. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, so no one fell in any trap, and they still haven't with 30% approval ratings.

The trap I am afraid that Hillary supporters are falling into is the trap of fear. And THAT is what led some to vote for bush in 2004 over Kerry. Kerry was too new to the game, unpredictable, but at least with bush we knew we would get a shitty presidency. So we do the same with clinton, keep up the status quo so we can feel safe. This is highly disturbing.

And Hillary needs a better attack then: "His speeches are way too good." Everyone of our greatest presidents was able to deliver a good speech and unite the country, that is NOT a negative, get over yourself. Jeez. And there is plenty of substance riding being his words just look at his history as a community organizer, as a lawyer, as a senator in his state. Hillary never took it to the streets.

And what is this language he is being given the "coronation?" May we remember that the american people were told before this election even began that HIllary Clinton would become the next president. SHE was coronated, and Obama has smashed the crown and the people have said wait a minute. Obama has had to prove himself again and again, and some people don't like him only because some american people fear different things, they fear something new.

I am fine with scrutiny on obama's record, be my guest, but don't just give me the "his speeches are way too good" line. It's sad, we've all lowered the bar of what an american president can do, so we're ready to settle for a clinton rather than an obama. We've gotten so used to bush that we think a man who could be the new kennedy or fdr is somone we should fear, is somone who is part of the establishment???

Please don't play the fear card, don't play the cynical card, get over yourself and start believing again. This train will only come once and we could lose it.

disappointed in Jan? pfff! oh please you guys... i for one certainly beg to disagree. I think it's a pretty accurate report on the media's handling of obama. I've neither heard nor seen any critical assessment on any of the positions this guy takes....the media coverage is practically all a glorified Oprah show on this guy. the report correctly calls this into question, questioning the very unknown accountability of this man in the lack of "gift-wrapped" media coverage we're getting. I certainly hope for the best, but no one should blindly trust this guy either.

I *still* don't really know who he is and he's inches away from the presidency... the skepticism is healthy in my honest opinion.

Skepticism is good. Criticism on unrelated points is desperate.

I read the article BECAUSE he hasn't been scrutinized and I'm on the fence between him and Mccain. It's just a shame the author couldn't do any relevant RESEARCH to make Obama the bad guy, and it seems like it would be pretty easy for someone from Chicago...

yeah there's stuff on youtube critical of obama from people from that area...one guy said obama hadn't done shite for them. I'm not so sure about the host of that program or whatever but the guy had a little bit to say about his "record" in Chicago...lemme see if I find that link....

but jeez..McVain??? he's so pathetically Bush-hugging promising even more wars and less jobs! he's SO phukn OUT of the question for me!!!...there's no fence! lol

dam...there's so much Obama crap on youtube...but i finally found it... thought it might be worth a listen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BhbsJOTch4

96thdayofrage: it would also appear that some didn't understand the point of posting this but they made the point pretty well. If you post anything even remotely critical of the media darling in this election you get jumped on and told to 'get over yourself.' He has not been vetted properly by the media, and I for one question that. I don't have a candidate in this race, so I looked at it objectively as Clinton obviously has been vetted (and they really are quite similar,) and from what I see, yes, some are falling into the same trap many fell into in 2000 regarding Bush. The same 'man you want to have a beer with' meme can be applied to Obama by many as well... only they won't admit it. As to the quality of the writer of this article, there is nothing to be disappointed with me about... I didn't write it. Whether you agree with the content or not, the basis for it is something I believe is a valid concern (especially as DLC leader Al From did recently praise the fact that both Clinton and Obama were the remaining candidates.) I will more than likely have to hold my nose in November to vote against McCain instead of for someone, so I would at least like to know more about him than I do should he be that person. So if anyone can refute anything written in this article, feel free. If he truly also believes in upping the military budget and continuing to lobby to the coal and nuclear industries, that will be two big strikes against him with me.

GunnarHeinrich, There were none. They would have drug him through the mud if there were. He is clean so they just ignored him. They are afraid of an honest man.

Aright JanForGore, I take it back, I'm not disappointed with you, you're right, didn't write it.

Nevertheless, it is a hallow attempt at smoke and mirrors to make Obama look the way "they" (who ever they are) want you to perceive him.

It is abundantly clear in the way the thing is written. Any one writing a worthwhile piece, had they any integrity, would not write like this. They would present the facts and not need to use conjecture, the facts would speak for themselves.

If facts aren't speaking, or one very logical argument being made, they ain't worth listening to or reading - word to the wise.

JanforGore, You are right we need to know more about him. He doesn't tell much about himself or his platform and there is little of substance written about him. Charisma doesn't do it for me. My hope is that he is not so mired into the corporate mud we can't pull him out. I hate his stance on nuclear power.

I read the article posted, and I agree with somebody's point (echoz maybe) that skepticism is healthy. But this article is weak. If the worst thing you can say about the man is that there was a period of time when didn't have the transcript of a speech he made up on his website, a speech which nobody denies he made, then I'd say he's in pretty good shape. The writer sets up the article by asserting that nobody is critically examining the candidate, and then goes on to brag about how he "held Obama's feet to the fire" back in 2003. It's pretty self serving, and tends to refute his own point. This guy was clearly looking for dirt; and this is all he found? I find the lack of substance telling. Don't get me wrong, this guy is entitled to his opinion, but there is very little more than "opinion" here.

I agree that Obama should be looked at critically, and I get a little itchy when I see people blindly defend anyone or attack people for asking questions about candidates. But I'm also getting a little sick of the "he hasn't been vetted and Hillary has" argument. Obama has been running for president for over a year. There has been plenty of time to research the man, and don't think for a minute that the Clinton campaign waited until he announced to start. Isn't it at least possible that there aren't any skeletons to find?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4613479&mesg_id=4613479
I found this on a Democratic site regarding why the poster is now a Hillary Clinton supporter and I thought it was well presented and it seems to have engendered much discussion.////// And krag: Since you say he has been vetted and you then have obviously researched the man, why don't you then tell us about him? Did you know his climate change plan is not even as good as the others' and more resembles the Republicans in as much as it supports nuclear power and liquid coal? Did you know he voted for the Syria Accountability Act that could one day lead us to war with Syria as Bush is now pushing sanctions? Why would he do that if he is against the war in Iraq? And why would he then also vote fo fund this war if he is for ending it? Did you realize he would lead an attack on Pakistan if he has "reason to believe Bin Laden is there?" Did you know he basically wishes to keep Bush's dismal failure the No Child Left Behind Act in tact and actually favors charters schools, which on the whole in this country have been reported to be rife with corrpution and failing grades? That charter schools were used by Jeb Bush in Florida as a lead in to school vouchers? Did you know he was reportedly for partial privitzation of social security? You see, I HAVE reasearched him a bit, however we don't see this in the MEDIA, as well as his relationship with Tony Rezko (whose trial is supposedly starting soon) who he denied knowing in a debate but nevertheless had enough of a relationship with to buy a million dollar home from. And I am not posting this to "get him" because I am a Clinton supporter. There is plenty over the years I have spoken about regarding the Clintons, especially their ties to CFR, and hers to the DLC and her votes that are hypocritical. And of course, Obama has done a pretty good job of trashing them, Al Gore, and any other Democrat born before 1980 by calling us "excessive". However, as someone new to many now as Bush was in 2000, I question why we haven't heard more about him in the media. What it comes down to is, I am sick of being lied to and having smoke blown up my butt in lieu of only seeing this "messiah" image, and I don't care how many women "faint" at his speeches.

I don't accept that there is a comparison to bush. Sure, everybody likes him, but not because he's a jovial (fake) southerner that seems like a nice guy. Charisma is essential in any national leader and it's pretty sad that the leader of the free world for the past 8 years can't deliver a decent speech. That charisma is a part of good leadership, and although his platform is not very specific, it's pretty clear from the way he conducts himself and his campaign that he's a natural leader. A natural leader is what we need.

Thank you JanforGore, you are a saint. Thank you echoz for the utube link. I thought that Current TV would have alot of environmentalists interacting. Aren't we supposed to be saving the planet? Al Gore and Ralph Nader need their voices to be heard. I called Obama's DC office about FISA and he wasn't even there to vote- out campaigning to be president while the most important vote re: our civil liberties apparently meant nothing to him. He's a white patsy who will "unite" us right into the Republican agenda. (And already has, see below). He'll also make sure Cheney/Bush are let off the hook. See NYT front page article Feb 3 2008. When I lived in Maine the nuke plant had to report all emissions (the citizens could call an 800 number updated daily) and all citizens surrounding the plant had radiation detectors in their homes, paid for by Maine Yankee. State Representative Maria Holt of the Citizens Monitoring Network helped to get the legislation passed. That is protecting citizens. We finally got Maine Yankee closed which further protected the citizens. But what does Barrack Obama do in Illinois, the state with active leaking tritium in the water supply (and into the Braidwood water tower) and increased pediatric brain tumors and other cancers surrounding the plants????? He caves in to Exelon (presently his major presidential campaign contributor) and the new nuke industry pushed by Cheney and Bush. He's no environmentalist and could care less about the people. He also could care less about healthcare other than ensuring that there are plenty of cancers out there so GE can keep selling its CA treatment machines to the hospitals. All the nuke plants in Illinois are old and leaking. The citizens need to organize and protect themselves as the leaders, including Obama, have failed them.

Who leads the lemmings?

Janforgore
I want to be clear about something, I didn't say I had researched or vetted him. I simply said that he's been a candidate for a year and if there are major skeletons in his closet, I'd think they be exposed by now. I feel like I've done more of my own research than most people on the subject, but I'm not volunteering to do the job for you or anyone else. I made a comment that the article posted here was full of opinion and light on facts (as is the link you posted). I stand by that.

I don't agree with everything he stands for anymore than you seem to agree with everything Senator Clinton has done or said. I find the Rezko relationship troubling, though you have the facts wrong (he didn't buy a home from Rezko or his wife). But your claim that the Media isn't reporting it just isn't true. It's been widely reported. He's admitted it was a big mistake (he used the words bone-headed). I don't expect anyone who is running for president is be beyond making some mistakes. Something I'd think a Clinton supporter would agree with.

Where did you get the idea that he's for privatization of social security? I notice you said "reportedly", do you have any citation there? This is an important issue to me and I'd love to know if there's some meat behind that one. If there is, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Again, not saying people shouldn't look hard at all the candidates. I am, and I'm glad you are too. I just think facts are better than opinions.

I think when the dust settles Obama is going to be the Democratic candidate. We better be looking at ways to steer him in the direction we want to go. Just because he wants something doesn't mean that's what he gets. I hate his health care plan. So I intend to work as hard as I'm able to get the plan I want. Start figuring what you want to change about his platform and then start organizing or find a group that is already organized around what you want and work with them. I still prefer him over Clinton. We do need some fresh faces in Washington. Clinton will not do anything about NAFTA, and it's killing the middle class. That's us.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0507/Whats_on_Obamas_Social_Security_table.html
Apparently, one of his economic advisors, Jeffrey Liebman is a proponent of it. Now, Obama has decried private accounts in one breath while also in another saying that ALL options should be on the table, so I don't really know where he stands. And that is the problem. That is what we got with Bush...saying one thing to not lose votes, then going with the opposite once he got installed. And I have no reason to trust anyone at this point, and that includes Clinton or Obama. I definitely don't trust McCain, which is why I will vote against him in November... however, it is quite a letdown to feel as though you are always voting for the lesser of two evils in a system that really doesn't care about you, which is why after this November I'm done with playing these games unless we see real change, and I don't mean the status quo disguised as change. Obama's view on nuclear and coal and his healthcare plan that does not lead us to universal health care and actually does leave millions out are two points I cannot reconcile as "change", along with his view about NCLB, and I simply believe if you are going to call for it you have to be willing to break from the old advisors and old guard. I don't feel he has, and will continue to question it.

Marilyn: Exactly what I am doing regarding the climate crisis. NONE of their plans go far enough.

Okay. I'll check out the social security thing. Obviously that's a huge concern, maybe there's a way to pin down his position on that. Especially if he has an advisor who is a proponent. Thanks.

I'm sorry you feel so let down, but I'm glad you are still engaged in the process and asking questions.

The only one that would have fixed things and been on the right track suspended his campaign because the corporate media would not allow him the coverage we deserved. Now we are going to have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Clinton is too firmly entrenched in the status quo to fight her platform. There is a chance with Obama that he might to steered in the right direction. We have the best chance of doing that by insisting immediately in public campaign financing. We will never have a truly representative government until we do.

http://current.com/items/88811803_dlc_leaders_cut_edwards_out

And again, if DLC leaders are happy that Obama is in this, what are we to think?

Jan, We still have Al Gore to back their ignorant asses into a corner. With the majority of the population backing him that counts for a lot. Why, do we have to choose between these dip sticks? Because the Project For The New American Century is being implemented and the part where they dumb down the citizens is very successful.

Don't take it all onto your shoulders. You can't carry the weight of the world, and you must have faith.

Well......"Jan"......do you want to know more about Obama or do you think I need to know more about Obama? Thats the definition of condescension. That's why you're making some of us uncomfortable. Did the media check out Al Gore well enough to suit you before the 2000 election? He came to our town and spoke in the park. I liked him. But I thought he stumbled a bit when he found out the vote was being close. Looked to me like he was really fast to concede.

We have a real problem in our country, with the news media. You seem to have a lot more confidence in them then most of us do. I can see little to feel confident about. The candidates who step up and lay it all on the table and tell us just what they are going to do if elected, almost always get slaughtered by the media.

Obama is aware that there are lots of ways to communicate with the constituents. If you like for YOUR candidates to lay it all out for everyone to see, then I feel you may have been greatly disappointed in the results of the elections YOU have been involved in.

We are in downstate Illinois. And Dems don't come to down state Illinois asking for the confidence of the people of THIS part of the state. This is a highly Repub area, and Obama came down here and made a few speeches, and then promptly began campaigning for other candidates. Support began pouring in, so much he just didn't need to campaign for himself. He had so much support, he just started helping other Dems with their campaign.

You insisted on comparing Obama to Bush. Are you serious? Bush campaigns by character assassination! I contend that Obama has much charisma, and that he is able to communicate to us what we need to know about him without leaving himself vulnerable to attack by the news media. So now, you and your buddies can begin comparing Obama to Hitler, because HE was so charismatic.

I think some who are easily led by fancy words over substance in this country need to do more research and keep demanding more from this media. Take that as condescension or anything you like. And charisma doesn't lift people out of poverty.

Jan, the comparison of Obama to Bush is preposterous. Even if you could make the weak
case that there existed any kind of personality cult for Bush based on his being an evangelical Christian -- Bush simply had no substance, was a poor decision maker, and was driven by serving the greedy special interests with whom he had strong ties.

Obama on the other hand, is far more substantial in character and wisdom than Hillary, he has been an elected official longer than Hillary, and his special interest is the interest of ordinary American citizens. Obama's net worth was less than $1 million a year ago. How much is the Clintons' net worth? How about their rich connections to the Saudi Royal Family visa vie the Clinton Foundation of Uranium mines in the middle east? What about Hillary's vote on the war for political expediency vs. having any moral courage to avoid killing 1 million innocent Iraqis, 4,000 US Soldiers, 30,000 US amputees, and nearly $2 trillion in borrowed money plunging the value of the dollar and making Haliburton richer in the bargain?

How about all that? Sounds great! Sounds just like the "experience" and "wisdom" and "real solutions" we need to put this country back on course!

Give up your support for Hillary -- people are not opposed to her because she's a woman, it's because she's a Clinton.

I want a leader I can trust.