5 thoughts on “Clarification

  1. Today Obama said that “partisan politics has no place in how we move forward.” He feels free to say this kind crap because he knows that his re-election has been guaranteed to him by the oligarchy. The 2012 election is all about getting Democratic House and Senate members un-elected and Republicans elected. With Congress controlled by the Republicans, Obama will have the cover he needs to “compromise” the middle-class into oblivion. Bye Bye, Social Security and Medicare. Bye Bye unions and good paying jobs. Hello war. Obama is a con man.

  2. Why do people keep trying to make excuses for this man? He should be saying is that the corporations have spent the last thirty years crushing the unions and the pension security they offer workers in private business, and now the public worker unions and their benefits are the last bastion against breaking the entire working class of America. And he will defend the people and never allow this to happen.

    That is what he should say, instead of promising that he will try to make the process nicer and more polite. I am so mad that I could spit!

  3. Pragmatic Realist, those are things he should and would say if he weren’t a Republican dressed in Democrats clothing. This guy has been working a con for years. All the way back to his time at Harvard. The oligarachy loves him because he dances to their tune.

  4. Ahhh, Joan Walsh keeps on plugging, just another pundit who was wrong about mostly everything, apparently not contented enough that she turned Salon into a narcissistically self-reflective site of irrelevancies, distractions and soft-pornography for the upper middle class (Glenn Greenwald being the exception that proves the rule).

    It’s not what Obama says. It’s what Obama does. With one false promise and deliberately deceptive campaign speech after another, the context of the speech is irrelevant. You can’t trust his word.

    From Paul Street:

    …Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Weisman observed in the second week of the remarkable Wisconsin protests, in an article titled “Obama Sits Out State Fights,” Obama stepped back from the state-level battles after initially seeming to support labor in Wisconsin. Top Democratic officials told Weisman that this was because Obama “is eager to occupy the political center…to forge a bipartisan deal on the nation’s long-term finances that could strengthen his position heading into the 2012 election.”

    “Sitting out” may not do full justice to the depth of Obama’s conservatism in relation to the ongoing public worker struggle. Yesterday (I am writing on Friday, March 4, 2011), national New York Times correspondent Jackie Calmes learned that the White House actually intervened in anger against the national Democratic Party’s initial efforts to support the Wisconsin labor protests, which administration officials saw as contrary to their happy and neoliberal message:

    “…the White House mostly has sought to stay out of the fray in Madison, Wis., and other state capitals where Republican governors are battling public employee unions and Democratic lawmakers over collective bargaining rights. WHEN WEST WING OFFICIALS DISCOVERED THAT THE DNC HAD MOBILIZED MR. OBAMA’S NATIONAL NETWORK TO SUPPORT THE PROTESTS, THEY ANGRILY REINED IN THE STAFF AT PARTY HEADQUARTERS…Administration officials said they saw the events beyond Washington as distractions from the optimistic ‘win the future’ message that Mr. Obama introduced in his State of the Union address, in which he exhorted the country to increase spending for some programs even as it cuts others so that America can ‘out-innovate and out-educate’ its global rivals.”


Comments are closed.