Obama didn't abandon anything. Since the primary campaign heat is off and he no longer has to differentiate himself from Clinton, he can now be open about what he really stands for: going after Iran, Jerusalem as Israel's alone, support for domestic spying and secret courts, etc. No doubt more to come.

Posted at June 21, 2008 1:47 PM in response to Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

Loved, missed - politically by whom? Given the disgusting role he had come to play in American politics as a journalist, and how much that aspect of it's been harped on at TPM and other blogs, it's hard to understand the sympathetic reaction to his sudden death as anything more than political cretinism masking as journalistic solidarity. Interestingly enough, in all the condolences I've seen so far no one has offered examples of any good he contributed to the world, anything that's better because of him. It's all about him being a nice and loyal guy, and a hero of Buffalo (like the Times' Tom Friedman is to Saint Paul). Let's note that Russert gladly worked for the reactionary Moynihan, the godfather of Clinton's anti-welfare/workfare policies and laws. While respecting the loss to his friends, I don't see how his passing merits a sympathetic coverage.

Posted at June 14, 2008 3:04 PM in response to Tim Russert Has Passed Away

It's been well known all along that Obama is a Wall Street guy, so Baker's disappointment is the result of self delusion. But then, he hasn't wised up a lick since he was a grad student at Michigan some 20 years ago.

Posted at June 12, 2008 7:46 PM in response to Why Obama Should Have Picked Me

But the problem is not confined to Appalachia. Take a look at the rural vote in Oregon.

Btw, CincyCapell, Appalachia is not only electoral votes for several states, the last known victorious militant strike in the U.S. occurred there, the UMW in 1978.

Posted at May 26, 2008 3:59 PM in response to Newsweek: Obama's Appalachia Problem Is Real

It just does not seem to have dawned on a lot of liberal bloggers and Obama supporters that Barack has two big things going against him in terms of electability: 1) the central issue of American domestic politics is race and he's so far shown himself unable to win lower middle class and working class white votes; and 2) the fact that Barack has such a hard time winning them, especially in states that would be likely to go Democratic, is in substantial part because by background and personality he's not - or at least doesn't present himself - as a down-to-earth guy. He's more John Kerry than Bill Clinton. He's intelligent, thoughtful and level-headed, and certainly election of a black man to the Presidency would be historic, but there's more to getting becoming President than that.

The position at hand is election of the political leader of U.S. capitalism. There is no apparent Establishment consensus that current circumstances call for someone of Obama's background to run the country. While one never knows how this election cycle will turn out, or how the political and economic situation might change in the coming months, right now it seems as though his role is most likely to be as the candidate to keep younger within the Democratic Party and thus the two party system, much as McGovern did in 1972. If Obama does get shunted aside, whether this summer or in November, it will not be the breakdown of the Democratic Party or American democracy, but business as usual. Anyone who is looking to the Democrats to be a model for dealing with racism is definitely in the wrong place.

Posted at May 7, 2008 4:34 PM in response to Hillary Chief Strategist: North Carolina Loss Represented Progress Because We Won Among White Voters

There are some things big missing here:

1) Given the way Bill and staff treated Jesse Jackson like the backgate gardener after getting elected in 1992, what did you expect?

2) Given that the Clintons are singularly known for "ending welfare as we know it," finally leading the Democrats (along with the Republicans) to adop Senator Moynahan's (sp) racist propositions from the 1960s, why did you expect anything different of them?

3) Given the depth of the hypocrisy of the Democrats that you point to, why are you hanging around them and concocting schemes for supporting them?

4) Given the U.S. ruling class' (big business + government leaders) virulently racist history, why exactly do you expect anything different from candidates running now to be its CEO? Even Obama Barack has to present himself - or self-select himself - as a 'post-race' candidate to get a foot in the door - and a race bashing.

I very much appreciate your strong anti-racist principles, but what the hell hanging out with these people for? There's a disconnect, and it has to do with your illusions, not their deceit.

Posted at May 6, 2008 8:40 PM in response to Hillary Clinton Has a Palmore v. Sidoti Problem, and Now We Do Too

Nice digging. Let's assume for a second that Assad was really up to something nuclear. The only rational explanation I can think of is that Assad sensed he could provoke the Israelis into peace negotiations. Which means he must have assumed that an attack on any facility was a probable outcome. With the U.S. Administration screaming about Iran, he wasn't about to get by unnoticed. Otherwise - arguing that it's all made up - the whole thing makes no sense, since unlike North Korea, Syria is neither a closed society nor able to protect itself against some substantial level of spying, even if from the air. Moreover, unlike No. Korea, Syria is right in the middle of an active regional war zone with the Israelis, who don't cower or have the restraints that Washington does. That's why there has to be either much less or much more going on here than meets the eye.

Posted at April 25, 2008 9:14 PM in response to 5 Comments on the Syria-Israel-North Korea Revelations

The reason the Democrats haven't shut it down is because this campaign is really not about the Democratic Party nomination, but who is going to be the next political CEO of American capitalism. On one hand, the Democratic Party fight is a contest about who will be able to fool a disgruntled population the best - the typical Democratic Party role - and that's clearly still up in the air. At the same time, if Barack and Clinton eat each other up a bit, the candidate of the base party of U.S. capitalism, the Republicans, will stand a better position come November.

Posted at April 21, 2008 2:04 PM in response to Why Hillary Clinton can't be stopped

Could it be that the 'progressives' really are more afraid of the economy collapsing and ruining their own lives, while the liberals like Baker screaming the most have secure jobs and incomes?

Posted at April 21, 2008 1:56 PM in response to George Will Moves to the Left of the Democrats

Why is it that when a candidate disagrees or exposes a policy difference with another candidate it's called an "attack," as in "attack ad?" The idea that pointing to differences in politics is attack and that controversy is a pejorative, is the propaganda of the status quo.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:05 PM in response to New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania Attack Clinton