Obama 50

"Martin, Malcolm, Obama, and Nader."
By Doug Tarnopol

November 11, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse"

Forty-five years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow I write tonight, gave a great oration in front of the Lincoln Memorial. This momentous speech came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of human beings who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end a long night of their suffering.But forty-five years later, African Americans are still not equal. Forty-five years later, even with an African American about to ascend to the presidency, African Americans still suffer from a lower life expectancy, a higher incarceration rate, a higher infant mortality rate, and from systematic prejudice, still sadly crippled by the manacles of economic as well as de facto segregation and the still-iron chains of discrimination. Forty-five years later, despite a growing African-American upper-class, real achievements in equality of opportunity, the end to race barriers at upper-class institutions from Harvard to the White House, far too many African Americans live on a lonely island of relative -- and absolute -- poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. Forty-five years later, an African-American candidate for president has exiled the poor -- black, white, yellow, and brown -- to the corners of American political discourse. And so I write here tonight to dramatize a shameful condition.In a sense, Obama has come to our nation's capital to cover a debt still owed. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men -- yes, black men as well as white men, women as well as men, gays as well as straights -- would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has still yet to make good on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color, too many of her women, and her gay citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given these people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is as bankrupt as our treasury. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, whether Obama prevails or not, we must cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice -- the freedom of economic justice and the justice of economic security.I have also returned to this hallowed speech to remind my friends of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of self-congratulation or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of poverty and discrimination to the sunlit path of racial, economic, and social justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of economic injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of our children.It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This electoral season of the legitimate discontent of the forgotten millions will not pass until there is an invigorating spring of freedom from fear; of the equality of opportunity, health, welfare; of a return of the rule of law; and of a retreat from imperial designs abroad. Two thousand and eight is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that Obama's ascension was all that was needed to blow off the steam of class warfare and legitimate discontent, sometimes expressed in ugly words, that Obama's reign will spread content among those classes who do not rule will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until all her people are granted their human rights: freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of expression, and freedom of -- and from -- religion. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.But there is something that I must say to my friends: In the process of gaining the White House for Obama, you must not be guilty of delusional thoughts. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for justice by drinking from the cup of image and propaganda. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into consumerist gesture. Again and again, we must rise to inescapable duty of meeting real injustice, whatever its source, under whomever's watch, with integrity and stubbornness.We cannot turn back.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21199.htm

General Smedley Butler 3

'Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
He joined the Marine Corps when the Spanish American War broke out, earned the Brevette Medal during the Boxer Rebellion in China, saw action in Central America, and in France during World War I was promoted to Major General. Smedley Butler served his country for 34 years, yet he spoke against American armed intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations.
Audio Documentary - Runtime 29 Minutes - Produced by Andy Lanset for HearingVoices.com

War Is A Racket
A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
Smedley Butler

WAR is a racket. It always has been
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm

General Smedley Butler 2

'War is a Racket Remembering The Victims of Those Who Profit From War:

By Chycho
November 11, 2008 "Chycho" - -

Remembrance Day (Australia, Canada, United Kingdom), also known as Poppy Day (Malta and South Africa) and Armistice Day (France, New Zealand, and many other Commonwealth countries; and the original name of the day internationally) "is a day to commemorate the sacrifices of members of the armed forces and civilians in times of war, specifically since the First World War. It is observed on 11 November to recall the end of World War I on that date in 1918.”
How unfortunate that we have a need for such a day, especially since “War is a racket It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” So stated Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, the most decorated Marine in US history.
Today, and every day, we should remember why we have sent our children to die, and to kill. We should remember that war is meant to consolidate assets for the oligarchy. We should also remember that the majority of casualties of every War have been civilians. That not only soldiers, but countless innocents have been caught in the line of fire between warring corporations to increase the wealth of the privileged few.
One of the best summations of war that I have ever found is given by Major General Butler in his book, WAR IS A RACKET:
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
The above book should be mandatory reading and part of every curriculum, in every school, in every country around the world.
Today we should remember that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in over 1.2 million civilian deaths as well as creating over 4 million refugees. We should remember that our present wars are expanding beyond the boundaries of containment.
We should also remember our recent history and the legacy of war, maybe then we can prevent it from repeating itself. The following websites contain images that will be a part of our history for future generations to come, after all what better way to remember history then with photos:
- Hiroshima, the pictures they didn't want us to see and why
- Photo journal of a German soldier on the Eastern Front
- The Iraq War as a Trophy Photo
- "War against Terrorism" in Afghanistan
- A Vietnam Photo Essay
- The War to End All Wars: World War I
And with all wars there is genocide, so we must also remember the end result of war:
- The Canadian Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples
- Native American Genocide in the United States
- Armenian Genocide
- Rwandan Genocide
- Genocide in progress: Darfur
The above is just a sample of our deeds and why it is important to have a ‘Remembrance Day’. But today should not be just about our children that we have turned into killers, it should also be about the innocent civilian victims created due to our ignorance as to the true cause and cost of war. We have sacrificed millions so that we can remain apathetic.
We should remember that war is neither about honor, duty, justice or peace. War is about money, greed, power, and death and destruction. It is about sacrificing our children to propagate fear.
We should also remember that we have the power to stop Preemptive Wars of Aggression that are being waged in our name and with our children’s innocence and blood - after all, there are over 6.7 billion of us... for now.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

postCount('article21196.htm');
Comments (36) Comment (0) '

Zie: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21196.htm

Oil 50

Hier ging het al die acht jaar Bush Bende om, de grondstoffen met voorop natuurlijk de olie.

'In Final Days, Bush Pushes for Iraq's Oil
Tuesday 11 November 2008
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t Report

As the Bush administration rumbles to an end, it is pushing with increasing urgency for a commitment to a long-term US presence in Iraq. Though the military aspect of this "commitment" has garnered substantial publicity, the administration is equally invested in the economic aspect: securing US control over Iraqi oil before Bush leaves office, according to experts in the field.
A leaked version of the US-Iraq status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), supplied and translated for Truthout by American Friends Service Committee Iraq consultant Raed Jarrar, states that the US will indefinitely "continue to protect Iraq's natural resources of gas and oil and protect Iraq's foreign financial and economic assets."
According to Jarrar, the Bush administration and the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are in basic agreement on the SOFA, probably because an American presence in Iraq would keep Maliki in power. However, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people oppose the pact and reject US control over Iraq's resources.
In October, just as the Bush and Maliki administrations were attempting to finalize the SOFA's terms - under the wary gaze of Parliament - the Iraqi cabinet dropped another big one in Parliament's lap: the Iraq oil law. The law would set the rules for foreign investment in Iraq's oil industry, and determine how oil revenues are shared within Iraq. Many in Parliament say both the SOFA and the oil law would prolong the US occupation, allowing American control over both its people and its resources. Parliament will debate the oil law this week.
Cleric Hashim al-Ta'i, of the Iraqi Islamic Party, captured the sentiments of many in a late October sermon on the Baghdad Satellite Channel, saying, "There is a unanimous Iraqi voice which says: No to an agreement that consolidates the occupation and prolongs its life; no to an agreement that consolidates sectarianism and racism and fragments the country into groups and cantons; no to an agreement that mortgages the country and its resources for many decades."
However, that unified voice clashes with another, very powerful voice in Iraq: American and British oil companies, which share the interests of the Bush team, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow with both the Institute for Policy Studies and Oil Change International.
"US and British oil companies and the Bush administration have been circling their wagons in Iraq over the last few months to bring both the SOFA and the Iraq oil law to a conclusion before Bush's term in office officially comes to a close," Juhasz told Truthout. "The Bush administration, US oil companies and the al-Maliki government are all on the same timeline for trying to lock in the continued presence of the US military in Iraq, which is the al-Maliki government's only hope of holding on to power - and US oil corporations' only hope of securing their long-sought control over Iraqi oil."'

Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/111108A

Paul Brill van de Volkskrant 6

In Taking the Risk out of Democracy. Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty schreef de angelsaksische sociaal wetenschapper Alex Carey: 'a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of social control will tend to retain a Manichean world-view, a world dominated by symbols and visions of the Sacred and the Satanic... Reflection inhibits action, while a Manichean world-view facilitates action.'

Ik moest aan die zwart/wit verdeling van de wereld denken toen ik afgelopen zaterdag in de Volkskrant-bijlage het Betoog artikelen las van drie voormalige VS-correspondenten van de krant over de verkiezing van Obama tot nieuwe president. In superlatieven schetsten ze een groots beeld van het land in termen van 'De wereld heeft weer even het gevoel: wij zijn allemaal Amerikanen' en in oud testamentische bewoordingen: 'Zie, daar ligt het: een ander land.' En: 'Wars van zwarte verbetenheid.' Blanken weten uit ervaring hoe bezeten zwarten kunnen zijn van 'verbetenheid,' zoals de terminologie van Volkskrant opiniemaker Paul Brill suggereert. Die 'verbetenheid' van de nakomelingen van Afrikaanse slaven zit Brill niet lekker. Hij huivert ervan. Dat moet anders. Net als de Palestijnen en anderen van hem niet langer meer moeten zeuren over de Israelische terreur moeten de zwarten niet zeuren over het verleden maar gewoon aanpakken. Brill constateert dan ook tevreden over een optreden van Obama: 'Hier was de representant van een nieuwe generatie aan het woord, die allereerst namens zichzelf sprak. Indringend, maar zonder het opzwepende ritme van de traditionele dominee. Je kon hem makkelijk voorstellen als inleider op de jaarvergadering van de Kamer van Koophandel.'

Het lucht natuurlijk geweldig op dat Obama eerder op een blanke inleider lijkt dan op zo'n zwarte schreeuwlelijk. De boodschap is duidelijk, een traditioneel 'opzwepende ritme' is zonder meer leuk zolang die zwarte jongens en meisjes soul-muziek spelen, desnoods rap als ze niet anders kunnen, maar dat 'opzwepende ritme' moeten we niet hebben zodra een zwarte de door blanken gedomineerde politiek ingaat. Dit benadrukt Paul Brill nog eens wanneer hij vervolgens stelt: 'Wie door de geschriften van radicale zwarten als Stokely Carmichael en Eldridge Cleaver (geen familie) van dertig, veertig jaar geleden bladert, beseft hoe ver Obama van die verbeten denkwereld afstaat.' Ik schat zelf, net zover als Paul Brill van zijn linkse opvattingen van dertig, veertig jaar geleden is afgeraakt, zo concludeer ik al bladerend door het boek Israel: een blanco cheque? en lees dat volgens hem 'Het joodse volk zijn zelfbeschikkingsrecht verworven [heeft] ten koste van het Palestijnse volk.' Een feitelijk gegeven dat vandaag de dag de woede van Paul Brill opwekt zodra Amerikaanse wetenschappers als Mearsheimer en Walt in hun boek De Israel Lobby hieraan consequenties verbinden voor de pro-Israelische politiek van de VS. In zijn 'recensie' van het boek van Mearsheimer en Walt besluit opiniemaker Paul Brill met de opmerking dat hij er een 'nare smaak' aan heeft overgehouden, een nauwelijks verhulde manier om deze gerenommeerde hoogeleraren van antisemitisme te betichten. Kritiek op de 'joodse natie' werd door hem bij gebrek aan argumenten onmiddellijk gestigmatiseerd.

Ondanks het feit dat Obama zelfs in de ogen van Brill geen radicale opvattingen erop na houdt is Paul toch niet helemaal gerust over deze 'eerste zwarte president'. Hij schrijft over hem: 'Toch luisterde hij (Obama svh) twintig jaar naar een dominee die' let op, tijd voor een kwalificatie 'fanatiek van leer trok tegen zijn blanke landgenoten en de powers that be.' Om bij de les te blijven, Paul Brill verwijst hier naar een zwarte 'dominee' die zich publiekelijk uitsprak tegen ondermeer de Amerikaanse inval in Irak die in strijd is met het internationaal recht. Het is niet duidelijk of het feit dat de 'dominee' deze schendingen afkeurde hem in de ogen van Paul Brill 'fanatiek' maakte of dat het eerder het 'opzwepende ritme' van die zwarte man was. Ik denk dat ook Paul dat zelf niet weet.

Hoe dan ook, Brill is er niet gerust op, want hij vervolgt: 'Dat blijft een vreemde paradox, ondanks de sympathieke uitleg die hij daarvoor zelf heeft gegeven.' Hieruit spreekt twijfel uit, ernstige twijfel zelfs, gezien het feit dat de opiniemaker het over een 'vreemde paradox' heeft. Zoals bekend zijn paradoxen van nature vreemd, maar dat moest dus nog eens extra benadrukt worden, vandaar dat dubbelop.

Het spreekt voor zich dat er een verklaring moet komen voor zoveel onnatuurlijk gedrag van Obama en Paul Brill gokt op het volgende: 'Zou de verklaring zijn dat hij onwillekeurig toch ''de drager van een raciale code" is en zich heeft opgewerkt in ''een politieke cultuur die hem meer als icoon nodig had dan als mens," zoals Shelby Steele, een van zijn weinige critici, schrijft?'

Laten we stilstaan bij deze woorden, het begrip 'raciale code' moet na vibreren. Spreekt u het eens hardop uit: 'raciale code'. Het klinkt allemaal wetenschappelijk verantwoord, maar toch, ik weet niet, het bekt niet lekker. Het suggereert iets dat onvervreemdbaar is aan een bepaald ras, iets dat als het ware biologisch opgeslagen ligt in de genetische codering van de 'zwarte president.' Raciale code, bij nadere beschouwing lijkt het wel een woord uit een neonazi boek, waarin antisemieten joden bepaalde onvervreemdbare eigenschappen toedichten.

Laten we dit begrip onthouden. Dat gaat terugkomen. Raciale code waarmee Obama en natuurlijk alle andere zwarten en misschien zelfs wel alle kleurlingen op aarde behept zijn. Omdat Volkskrant-opiniemaker Paul Brill een vraagteken achter zijn zin zet, gaan we ervan uit dat hij het nog niet zeker weet, maar hij vindt het belangrijk genoeg om als mogelijkheid aan te dragen. Ik denk dat Brill sympathiek staat tegenover de raciale code-verklaring, een raciale code waarmee Obama, die upstart, die social climber behept is, een zwarte die na eerst in een zwarte getto te hebben gewerkt zich 'heeft opgewerkt in "een politieke cultuur die hem meer als icoon nodig had dan als mens."' Ik denk dat de opiniemaker van de Volkskrant sympathie voor deze redenering heeft aangezien hij zijn artikel eindigt met deze woorden: 'Misschien moeten we ons (Paul en zijn lezers tezamen svh) simpelweg neerleggen bij die behoefte aan iconen. En dan kan zo'n icoon maar beter Barack Obama heten.' Want 1 ding is zeker, en die zekerheid is voor Brill een hele opluchting, en dat is dat Obama 'wars van zwarte verbetenheid' is en dat hij de failliete Amerikaanse binnen- en buitenlandse politiek niet radicaal zal veranderen. En zo blijft Paul Brill's manicheistisch wereldbeeld toch mooi in tact. Ik bedoel, wat moet hij anders? Zo blijft er voor hem werk aan de winkel. Immers, 'a society where propaganda is extensively employed as a means of social control will tend to retain a Manichean world-view, a world dominated by symbols and visions of the Sacred and the Satanic... Reflection inhibits action, while a Manichean world-view facilitates action.'

Zo brother and sisters, en nu ga ik luisteren naar Freedom Highway van de Staple Singers. Men, they are really black. Ben ik blij dat ze 'dragers zijn van een raciale code.' Een blanke bleekscheet kan nooit zo zingen. Die heeft geen, hoe zal ik het zeggen... geen 'opzwepend ritme van de traditionele zwarte dominee,' om de woorden van Brill aan te halen. En weet u hoe dat komt? Simpel, ze hebben geen soul. En iedereen die soul heeft past niet in de zielloze politiek van de blanke cultuur. Suck it to me baby.

Obama 49

Leest u nog eens wat de zwarte wetenschapper Shelby Steele over Obama schreef in de Wall Street Journal van March 18, 2008

'OPINION

The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE

Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.

But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.
The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.
How to turn one's blackness to advantage?
The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.
This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.
His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.
Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?
Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.'

Lees verder: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120579535818243439.html

Obama 48

'Hey Barack, Don't Forget: 'You Gotta Dance With Them What Brung Ya'
By Don Hazen, AlterNet.

Posted November 11, 2008.

Blacks, Latinos, single women, young voters, union members and gay people elected Obama. How will he represent them in his staff and his policies? Barack Obama was elected by a broad array of constituencies, more diverse and less white, than any candidate in American history, and arguably the most progressive. A new majority, sure to grow in the future, has emerged in this election, as minority voters registered and turned out for Obama in record numbers, led by 95% of African American voters, as younger voters become more engaged in politics and voted decisively on behalf of the new president, as union members and gays voted for Obama in high numbers, and as the single women vote, which included a huge share of minority women, came down overwhelmingly for the new president at the rate of 70-29%, (compared with married women who went for McCain 50-47%) creating a huge, record breaking "marriage gap" of 44 points among women.
Furthermore, the decisive Obama victory should put the rest the enduring myth, perpetrated by innumerable media pundits, that the United States is a conservative country. Poll after poll, as well as long-term research, underscores that on every issue, the electorate is far more progressive -- and getting more progressive all the time -- than what people have experienced over the past eight Bush years, and even during the Clinton Administration.
If the Obama administration is going to be in tune with its voters, there will need to be massive policy changes in every aspect of government. The power of lobbyists, corporations, and over represented constituencies, like gun owners, senior citizens, white males, married women, and the wealthy, are by necessity going to need to cede ground to a more populist and rainbow confection that is the Obama coalition.
On the other hand, the pressure of the multiple international and national crises Obama faces is motivating him to staff up as quickly as is feasible. This combined with his penchant for smart, savvy, experienced insiders, is leading Obama to bring in a host of Clinton administration operatives into his administration, with many more on the queue. This early trend is so obvious it lead the New York Times writer Peter Baker to observe that Obama "faces the challenge of building an administration that does not look like a third term for former president Bill Clinton, as Obama reached deep into the Clinton fold naming John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff to lead his transition team, and former Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff, and is said to be choosing between two former Clinton veterans to be his National Security advisor. "
Molly Ivins, the late and revered populist Texas journalists and humorist was fond of saying, "You Gotta Dance With Them What Brung Ya." Time will tell how well Barack Obama knows how to dance with his constituencies. Will he stay true to his change oriented supporters who brought him to his crowning moment, who are ready to do any number of dances with him from the funky chicken to the mashed potato, from crumping to salsa, from the jitterbug to the lindy. Or will the Illinois Senator stick to the old insider dance card and slow dance with those who have enjoyed the fruits of the dance floor for so long?'

Lees verder: http://www.alternet.org/election08/106472/hey_barack%2C_don%27t_forget%3A_%27you_gotta_dance_with_them_what_brung_ya%27/