Wear Clean Draws  (because there’s 5 million ways to kill a ceo)

hee hee. back in Florida the *spit* progressives *spit* have quickly declared their next plan of attack is to take care of a couple of democrats that have “given us problems lately”. One is, of course, Joe the Bomber Lieberman.

I’m thrilled to death that the kossack progressives *spit* are going to get one of the first slaps in the face to wake them from their stupor. i told some friend yesterday that they should get a good seat next to me, I’d buy the popcorn and goobers, coz this is going to be a craptastically fun show:

AMNESTY FOR LIEBERMAN, as Politico’s Glenn Thrush calls it in today’s
‘Huddle.’ President-elect Obama is warning Democrats against ‘grudges’
against Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who caucuses with Ds but campaigned for
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Many on Capitol Hill had assumed he would
be kicked out of the caucus Whether or not he’ll keep his chairmanship
of the Homeland Security Committee is another matter.

bwahahahahahahaha

As Adolph Reed, Glen Ford, the Uhurua and others have been teling you people for months: he’s a right-leaning centrist who eschews partisan politics. Why did any of these wankers think otherwise? It was right in front of their nose.

And then there’s this, from the Note. Which is so totally true. My exposure to the campaign taught me that, with regard to who worked to support Obama, their reasons are as diverse as can be. Thus, there is no solidarity around anything other than the candidate and thus, nothing but a mass of isolated individuals waiting for a pony under the tree on 12/25 (figuratively speaking)

Doug Henwood’s comments preface the Note’s quote:

[A question from The Note, reminiscent of the corporate governance
literature - when you have millions of dispersed, unorganized
shareholders, management gets a free hand.]

Can you smell the conflicts coming? “Interest groups are furiously
drawing up wish lists for the incoming Obama administration, many of
them hoping to cash in on the investments they made — in volunteers,
political support, and campaign contributions - in Obama’s commanding
win,” The Boston Globe’s Scott Helman writes. “But given the nature of
Obama’s victory, which was propelled more by a grass-roots army of
millions than by traditional Democratic constituencies, is the
president-elect really indebted to anybody?”

But worse, as Sam Smith says, he’s a radical centrist:

http://prorev.com/2008/11/can-we-talk-about-real-obama-now.html

Over the past few weeks I’ve been a good boy. I’ve placed everything having to do with the real Barack Obama into a futures file and spent my time on the far grimmer matter of the real John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Now the party is over and it’s time for people to put away their Barack and Michelle dolls and start dealing with what has truly happened.

This, I admit, is difficult because the real Obama doesn’t exist yet. He follows in the footsteps of our first postmodern president, Bill Clinton, who observed the principles outlined by scholar Pauline Marie Rosenau:

Post-modernists recognize an infinite number of interpretations . . . of any text are possible because, for the skeptical post-modernists, one can never say what one intends with language, [thus] ultimately all textual meaning, all interpretation is undecipherable.. . . Many diverse meanings are possible for any symbol, gesture, word . . . Language has no direct relationship to the real world; it is, rather, only symbolic.

As James Krichick wrote in the New Republic, “Obama is, in his own words, something of a Rorschach test. In his latest book, The Audacity of Hope, he writes, ‘I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.’ ”

This is remarkably similar to Ted Koppel’s description of Vanna White of TV’s Wheel of Fortune: “Vanna leaves an intellectual vacuum, which can be filled by whatever the predisposition of the viewer happens to be.”

Obama has left the same kind of vacuum. His magic, or con, was that voters could imagine whatever they wanted and he would do nothing to spoil their reverie. He was a handsome actor playing the part of the first black president-to-be and, as in films, he was careful not to muck up the role with real facts or issues that might harm the fantasy. Hence the enormous emphasis on meaningless phrases like hope and change.

Of course, in Obama’s postmodern society — one that rises above the purported false teachings of partisanship — we find ourselves with little to steer us save the opinions of whatever non-ideologue happens to be in power. In this case, we may really only have progressed from the ideology of the many to the ideology of the one or, some might say, from democracy to authoritarianism.

The Obama campaign was driven in no small part by a younger generation trained to accept brands as a substitute for policies. If the 1960s had happened like this, the activists would have spent all their time trying to get Martin Luther King or Joan Baez elected president rather than pursing ancillary issues like ending segregation and the war in Vietnam.

Obama himself took his vaunted experience in community organizing and turned its principles on its head. Instead of empowering the many at the bottom, he used the techniques to empower one at the top: himself.

It is historic that a black has been elected president, but we should remember that Obama was not running against Bull Connor, George Wallace or Strom Thurmond. Putting Obama in the same class as earlier black activists discredits the honor of those who died, suffered physical harm or were repeatedly jailed to achieve equality. Obama is not a catalyst of change, but rather its belated beneficiary. The delay, to be sure, is striking; after all, the two white elite sports of tennis and golf were integrated long before presidential politics, but Washington - as Phil Hart said of the Senate - has always been a place that always does things twenty years after it should have.

There is an informative precedent to Obama’s rise. Forty-two years ago Edward Brooke became the first black senator to be elected with a majority of white votes. Brooke was chosen from Massachusetts as a Republican in a state that was 97% white.

Jason Sokol, who teaches history at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in History News Network:

|||| On Election Day, Brooke triumphed with nearly 60 percent of the vote. Newspapers and magazines hummed with approval. The Boston Globe invoked a legacy that included the Pilgrims, Daniel Webster, and Charles Sumner, offering the Bay State as the nation’s racial and political pioneer.

Journalist Carl Rowan was among the unconvinced. For whites, voting for Brooke became “a much easier way to wipe out guilt feelings about race than letting a Negro family into the neighborhood or shaking up a Jim Crow school setup.” Polling numbers lent credence to Rowan’s unease. They showed that only 23 percent of Massachusetts residents approved of a statewide school integration law; just 17 percent supported open housing. ||||

That’s the problem with change coming from the top, as Obama might have heard when he was involved in real community organizing. It also helps to explain why there have been no more Catholic presidents since John Kennedy. Symbolism is not the change we need.

Getting at the reality of Obama is difficult. He performs as the great black liberal, but since he is one half white and one half conservative, that doesn’t leave him a lot of wiggle room.

To be sure, in the Senate he got good ratings from various liberal groups, but two things need to be remembered:

First, liberals aren’t that liberal any more. Thus getting a 90% score merely means that you went along with the best that an extremely conservative Democratic Party was willing to risk. This is not a party that would, in these times, have passed Social Security, Medicare or minimum wage. In fact, many liberals aren’t much interested in economic issues at all - especially that portion of the constituency that controls the money, the media and the message.

Second, politicians reflect their constituency. Obama’s constituency is no longer Illinois. He has a whole new set of folks to pander to.

There is one story from Chicago, however, that remains relevant. A citizen walks into his alderman’s office looking for a job. “Who sent you?” he asks. “Nobody,” he replies. Says the staffer: “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.”

Who sent Barack Obama remains a mystery. He has risen from an unknown state senator to president in exactly four years and that only happens when somebody sends for you.

The black liberal image falters on a number of other scores including Obama’s affection for extreme right wingers like Chuck Hagel and an obvious indifference to anybody who votes like, say, a state senator from Hyde Park. Think back over the campaign and try to recall a single instance when Obama reached out to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or to the better angels of the Congressional Black Caucus. Instead his ads attacked as ‘extreme’ the single payer health insurance backed by many of his own supporters, he dissed ACORN and Colin Powell was as radical a black as he wanted to be seen palling around with.

The key issue that has driven Obama throughout his career has been Obama. He has achieved virtually nothing for any other cause. His politics reflects whatever elite consensus he gathers around himself. This is why his “post partisanship” needs to be watched so carefully. If Bernie Sanders and John Conyers don’t get to White House meetings as often as Chuck Hagel, Obama will glide easily to the right, as every president has done over the past thirty years. If liberals, as they did with Clinton, watch without a murmur as their president redesigns their party to fit his personal ambitions, then the whole country will continue to move to the right as well.

Since the real Obama doesn’t exist yet, it is impossible to predict with any precision what he will do. But here is some of the evidence gathered over the past months that should serve both as a warning and as a prod to progressives not to take today’s dreams as a reasonable facsimile of reality:

<...>
[Smith outlines the many policies that we've discussed here, but many more. So there's a list of Obama's rightwinginess for B, already started. :)]

As things now stand, the election primarily represents the extremist center seizing power back from the extremist right. We have moved from the prospect of disasters to the relative comfort of mere crises.

Using the word ‘extreme’ alongside the term ‘center’ is no exaggeration. Nearly all major damage to the United States in recent years - a rare exception being 9/11 - has been the result of decisions made not by right or left but by the post partisan middle: Vietnam, Iraq, the assault on constitutional liberties, the huge damage to the environment, and the collapse of the economy - to name a few. Go back further in history and you’ll find, for example, the KKK riddled with members of the establishment including - in Colorado - a future governor, senator and mayor after whom Denver’s airport is named. The center, to which Obama pays such homage, has always been where most of the trouble lies.

The only thing that will make Obama the president pictured in the campaign fantasy is unapologetic, unswerving and unendingly pressure on him in a progressive and moral direction, for he will not go there on his own. But what, say, gave the New Deal its progressive nature was pressure from the left of a sort that simply doesn’t exist today.

Above are listed nearly three dozen things that Obama supports or opposes with which no good liberal or progressive would agree. Unfortunately, what’s out there now, however, looks more like a rock concert crowd or evangelical tent meeting than a determined and directed political constituency. Which isn’t so surprising given how successful our system have been at getting people to accept sights, sounds, symbols and semiotics as substitutes for reality. Once again, it looks like we’ll have to learn the hard way.

Maybe I should make a new tag: liars and the lying lies they tell you?