Today (hour 1 8-30-11) Thom was talking to, I think, John Podesta and I caught him saying..."we need to get Obama reelected"...

That is so wrong on so many levels. "We", if you include most real Progressives, will NOT be working to get this corporatist sellout reelected. In fact, it's imperative that he be defeated.

Look: Obama has paralyzed the Democratic Party, just as he was put there to do. Why on Earth would Thom want them paralyzed for another four years? What possible gain does Thom think will be realized by putting him back in? (And no, I am not so afraid of the Republicans that I will fall for that lesser-of-two-evils scam.) And that comment was in the context of clean energy, if I recall; he wants to reelect a guy who is doing everything the fossil criminals want him to do? Watch, the Gravestone XL is coming--the "fuse to the carbon bomb that will mean game over for the atmosphere"--and it will be at Obama's hands.

And I've noticed that Thom will not give a meaningful set of reasons why we must suffer another 4 years of economic decay and not-so-creeping corporatism. The only thing he's mentioned is the Supreme Court; but that is a logical fallacy--Obama has never done anything that would in any way detract from the power of the oligarchy, and he never will. When that 5th vote comes up he will give us an Anthony Kennedy instead of an Antonin Scalia--but the difference there is mainly in the packaging, and either will suit the neofeudalists just fine.

Thom, Thom. What's happened to you, man? You moved to Washington, put on a suit, and now you're shilling for the Democratic branch of the Corporatist Party. As one who's followed you since your early days at Air America--it's heartbreaking. We need your voice. We need a challenger to Obama in the primary. Yet you work against us by bolstering the Blue Sh*t branch of the Democratic Party--right when the whole Clintonist menagerie needs to be kicked out.

It is--it's heartbreaking, man.

Comments

Zenzoe 3 years 12 weeks ago
#1

Tell me what you think of Kagan and Sotomayor, please. Any positives there? And negatives?

alamac 3 years 12 weeks ago
#2

Who knows? They are not as bad as the hard-rightists, but we don't know how they would vote if, say, the Unitary Executive horror ever came up for constitutional consideration.

But that is not my point. The issue is: When that 5th vote comes up for appointment, does anyone think for a minute that Obama will appoint another Thurgood Marshall? No, we're much more likely to get is another Anthony Kennedy, someone who will throw the good guys a bone every now and then, but who, when real issues of corporatist power appear, will be reliably cryptofascist. And besides: It is much more important to have a fired-up population than to have a 5-4 Supreme Court. Sacrificing the possibility of creating this motivated progressive majority on the thin hope that Obama will change direction when it comes to this 5th vote is self-defeating and doomed to failure.

The only thing we have to go on is evidence. Obama has shown clearly, time after time, whom he serves, in every possible way. You know, a good hypothesis is able to use past evidence to predict the future. I have made numerous ones based upon the hypothesis that Obama is a corporatist/rightist whose interests are aligned with the oligarchy, not We the People--and the hypothesis is confirmed again and again, practically on a daily basis. I recently predicted that 1.) Obama WILL sign the Gravestone XL into law; and 2.) Obama WILL NOT produce any meaningful jobs program, because he deliberately threw away his power to effectuate real change during his 1st two years--it's just an election ploy to try to fool what Progressives he can, in hopes of squeezing out a victory over the Republican.

Obama is an obstruction, a means by which the corporatist class paralyzes the Democratic Party and removes it as a meaningful tool for turning this tragic mess around. It is simply beyond reason that anyone would want him reelected so he can continue to work the same obstructionism, in a time when progressive politics is needed more than ever--far better that a Republican take the office and leave Democrats to kick out the Blue Sh*ts and rebuild, in hopes of putting forth a real option in 2016. If Obama is in, though, then the destruction will continue, and Democrats will be worthless until at least 2020--and that will be too late (if it isn't already--and I really think that 2008 was the last chance).

I am concluding by the day that they've "gotten" to Thom; that he, like so many others, has been coopted. Unless Thom unexpectedly changes direction, I won't renew my podcast subscription, as much as it breaks my heart to say it. Thom doesn't need my money--once you go over to the Dark Side you don't lack for filthy lucre. I am just saddened beyond words to see another progressive stalwart fall to the bad guys--particularly Thom, who was a real hero to me.

Zenzoe 3 years 12 weeks ago
#3

I agree with "who knows?" and don't disagree with much of the rest of your opinion. With regard to Obama's appointments to the court, it's a bit soon to tell. However, consider this: "Justice Sotomayor’s replacement of Justice David H. Souter last year turned out to do almost nothing to alter the court’s ideological balance. She voted with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer 90 percent of the time. Some liberals had feared that her experience as a prosecutor would make her skeptical of some claims from criminal defendants, but she voted in a reliably liberal direction in those and other cases. Her first major dissent was in a case narrowing Miranda rights"

I don't know if Kagan will also side with Ginsburg and Breyer 90% of the time; but if she does, I'll be satisfied. A friend of mine insists she's a "Zionist," but even if she is a Zionist, I'm not convinced she cannot put that aside for most of her decisions.

I don't think one can dismiss the importance of not allowing the Republicans to pack the Court even further with right-wing ideologues.

Is there anything on this list that might temper your ire? 244 Obama accomplishments: by this guy: http://www.lynn.edu/about-lynn/campus-directory/RWatson


Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

Community Archive

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.