OBAMA REALITY CHECK

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

GLEN FORD, BLACK AGENDA REPORT 鈥?[The Congressional Black Caucus]
split between Obama and Clinton supporters, has also abandoned all hope
that the next administration will move in the slightest direction toward
the goals near-universally supported by black America: single-payer
health care, affordable housing, revitalization of the cities, and
massive federal aid to public education. None of this is remotely
possible while the military sucks up ever-larger proportions of the
national treasury - and every CBC member knows it. Yet they form lines
behind Hillary and Barack, both of whom have repeatedly announced their
intentions to keep feeding the voracious war-profit machine

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=500&Itemid=1


MARGARET KIMBERLEY, BLACK AGENDA REPORT - Sadly, too many black people
with a lifelong history of supporting a progressive agenda suddenly
become tongue tied or verbal but nonsensical when they attempt to
justify their Obama love. Obama tells outright lies such as, "what ails
working- and middle-class blacks and Latinos is not fundamentally
different from what ails their white counterparts," yet the love fest
goes on without question. Obama supporters want him to be their man, so
they continue in denial and conclude that he is, even when he tells them
that he isn't. . .

Citizens should identify with politicians who believe as they do. Acting
otherwise is to be in a constant state of bamboozlement. Neither the
nonsense spread by hack pundits nor the grotesque smears of politicians
should play a role in our decision making. Simply put, voting for
someone who acts in opposition to our interests makes us dupes, chumps
to be quickly disposed of after the inaugural ball. They are already
prepared to send us to the political garbage dump. We shouldn't make it
easier for them.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR. Ms.
Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at
Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.Com. Ms. Kimberley' maintains an
edifying and frequently updated blog at freedomrider.blogspot.com.  More
of her work is also available at her Black Agenda Report archive page.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=492&Itemid=1


BLACK AGENDA REPORT - Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003, and by late May
declared "mission accomplished" and victory in "the battle of Iraq" from
the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. With the president
riding high in national polls, this reporter checked Obama's campaign
web site and noted that all the evidence of and references to candidate
Obama's prior opposition to the invasion of Iraq had been deleted. The
visionary Barack Obama appeared to be leaning rightward with the
prevailing wind, distancing himself from his prior opposition to the
war.

BARACK OBAMA'S RESPONSE: The only reason that my original anti-war
speech was removed from my website was a judgment that the speech was
dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire
to continually provide fresh news clips.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011525.php

OBAMA ON REAGAN - I do think that for example the 1980 election was
different.  I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a
way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. 
He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was
ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s
and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense
of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people, he
just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want
clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and
entrepreneurship that had been missing.

MARGARET KIMBERLEY, BLACK AGENDA REPORT - Not only did Obama praise
Reagan, but he used racist, conservative code words from the GOP play
book to do it. Obama's supporters should be the first to ask him what he
believes to be the "excesses of the 60s and 70s." Does he think the
Voting Rights Act was an excess? What about the Civil Rights Act? Were
the protests against the Vietnam War excessive? What about Fair Housing
legislation, was it all too much for the Republic to handle? Was
abortion legalization an excess?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81


SAM SMITH - What is the bipartisan solution for. . .

The Iraq war, which was started and continued with full support of both
the Republican and Democratic parties?

The destruction of the Constitution through such means as runaway
wiretapping and the Patriot Act, both of which have received strong
bipartisan support including from major Democratic presidential
candidates?

The harm done by the cynical No Child Left Behind Act, which received
broad bipartisan support?

The growing use of torture by the US government, support for which is so
bipartisan it hasn't hardly been mentioned during the current campaign?

Global warming, around which Republicans and Democrats have reached a
consensus to keep as much below the surface as possible?

If we have much more bipartisanship, it may prove fatal. Candidates
proposing bipartisanship or "post-partisanship" are really arguing for
merging two dangerous mobs even more than at present.

Bipartisanship does not end conflict, it simply strengthens the conflict
by those in power against the rest of us.

As Harry Truman noted, "Whenever a fellow tells me he is bipartisan, I
know he is going to vote against me."

PAUL KRUGMAN, NY TIMES - Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major
action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a "crisis" in Social
Security - most recently in an interview with The National Journal.
Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush
administration's attempt to panic America into privatizing the New
Deal's crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama's Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you'd
expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age
when that's neither possible nor desirable. . .

Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security - declaring that
the program as we know it can't survive the onslaught of retiring baby
boomers - is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of
showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.

Consider, for example, this exchange about Social Security between Chris
Matthews of MSNBC and Tim Russert of NBC, on a recent edition of Mr.
Matthews's program "Hardball."

Mr. Russert: "Everyone knows Social Security, as it's constructed, is
not going to be in the same place it's going to be for the next
generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives."

Mr. Matthews: "It's a bad Ponzi scheme, at this point."

Mr. Russert: "Yes."

But the "everyone" who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn't
include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole
Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is
misguided.

As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it
in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: "The
long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely
misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges,
such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country's
financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate
of per capita health care costs.". . .

I don't believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however,
someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of
our times - and in this case, that turned him into a sucker. . .

http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/16/5276/

DERRICK Z. JACKSON, BOSTON GLOBE - It is unclear if Barack Obama's
caution precedes consensus or cave-in. Asked if he would eliminate
discriminatory laws that punish crack cocaine possession so heavily that
it would take 100 times more in powder cocaine for the same sentence,
Obama started off by saying the law was a mistake. . .

Vacillation became evident as he kept talking about crack-vs.-powder
sentencing, which has come to symbolize racial injustice in criminal
justice. He said that if he were to become president, he would support a
commission to issue a report "that allows me to say that based on the
expert evidence, this is not working and it's unfair and unjust. Then I
would move legislation forward."

That was a puzzling statement because the US Sentencing Commission,
created by Congress in 1984, has long said the system is not working and
reaffirmed in April that the 100-to-1 ratio "significantly undermines"
sentencing reform.

NEDRA PICKLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS - Democratic presidential candidate
Barack Obama said that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to
hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival
has described his foreign policy skills as naive. . . "Let me make this
clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up
in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to
strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a
chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have
actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President
Musharraf won't act, we will."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_terrorism_7

AP- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama laid out list of
political shortcomings he sees in the Bush administration but said he
opposes impeachment for either President George W. Bush or Vice
President Dick Cheney. . . "I think you reserve impeachment for grave,
grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority,"
he said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/28/america/
NA-POL-US-Obama-No-Impeachment.php


FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST - [Barack Obama and Mitt Romney] have laid
out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released prior to
publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you
cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:

(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.

(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.

(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq
and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for
American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is
an operative word for both of them. . .

In both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but that
he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and there is no
substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees Obama: "We can be
this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils,
promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on America to
"come home," they won't find that candidate here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2007/06/03/AR2007060300951.html


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS - You've also said that with Social Security,
everything should be on the table.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it
the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came
together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I
know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a
problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Partial privatization?

OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider . . .

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/obama_brushes_a.html


PROGRESSIVE REVIEW - A 10,000 word piece in the New Yorker - purveyor of
the appropriate to the liberal elite - features Obama as the
"conciliator" with hardly a solid program or policy mentioned. The
message of the article - like Obama's - is that we don't need a
president, just a therapist.

Take healthcare for example:

"'We've got to put more money in prevention,' he said. "It makes no
sense for children to be going to the emergency room for treatable
ailments like asthma. Twenty per cent of our patients who have chronic
illnesses account for eighty per cent of the costs, so it's absolutely
critical that we invest in managing those with chronic illnesses like
diabetes. If we hire a case manager to work with them to insure that
they're taking the proper treatments, then potentially we're not going
to have to spend thirty thousand dollars on a leg amputation.' A young
man asked about health care for minorities. 'Obesity and diabetes in
minority communities are more severe,' Obama said, "so I think we need
targeted programs, particularly to children in those communities, to
make sure that they've got sound nutrition, that they have access to
fruits and vegetables and not just Popeyes, and that they have decent
spaces to play in instead of being cooped up in the house all day.'"

So just eat your vegetables and stay away from Popeyes and all will be
fine.

Pressed on the matter, Obama does go a little deeper:

"'If you're starting from scratch," he says, 'then a single-payer
system' -a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects
health insurance from employment- 'would probably make sense. But we've
got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as
well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult
to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that
people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is
thrown by the wayside.'"

Since ordinary people could adapt, say, to the expansion of the Medicare
system in a matter of days, who are these people of whom Obama speaks
who might "feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives
is thrown by the wayside?" Well, the insurance companies would be the
ones most affected, and Obama has just sent a clear if covert signal
that he won't be messing with them.

The right understands the centrist myth far better than liberals. They
know that the center is homeland security for inaction in public, lots
of action behind the scenes, and power staying where it should: with the
powerful. It's not surprising that some of them see Obama as their man,
the "black Reagan" as he has been called.

Yet he is also the liberals' Pat Robertson, and while the right can see
where they can cut deals with him, the liberal evangelicals are all
misty eyed by his talk of hope and faith. But Harry Truman was right:
that guy serving you the happy meals of centrism in the campaign is
likely going to be on the other side after election day.

PAUL STREET, Z MAG - Never mind that Obama was recently hailed as a
"Hamiltonian" believer in "limited government" and "free trade" by
Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for
having "a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS." Or that he
had to be shamed off the "New Democrat Directory" of the corporate-right
Democratic Leadership Council by the popular left black Internet
magazine Black Commentator . . .

Never mind that Obama has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton
Project, formed by corporate-neo-liberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin
and "other Wall Street Democrats" to counter populist rebellion against
corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. . . Or that he lent
his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to
neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman's ("D"-CT) struggle
against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has
supported other "mainstream Democrats" fighting antiwar progressives in
primary races . . . Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster
proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama "dismissively" referred - in a "tone laced with
contempt" - to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul
Wellstone as "something of a gadfly." . . . Or that "he posted a long
article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against
lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts."
Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have
capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time
magazine's Joe Klein last year that he'd never given any thought to Al
Gore's widely discussed proposal to link a "carbon tax" on fossil fuels
to targeted tax relief for the nation's millions of working poor . . .

Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly "tort reform" bill
that rolls back working peoples' ability to obtain reasonable redress
and compensation from misbehaving corporations. . .

Or that Obama claims to oppose the introduction of single-payer national
health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported
social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for
workers in the private insurance . . .

Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act.
Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice
to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he opposed Senator Russ
Feingold's (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the
president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that
he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator
Dick Durbin's forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at
Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike
nuclear weapons against Iran. . .

Never mind that Obama's famous 2004 Democratic Convention Keynote
Address - widely credited for catapulting him to national prominence -
expressed numerous reactionary and incorrect notions that make the
praise it received from the far right National Review (who called
Obama's oration "simple and powerful") less than mysterious on close
examination. . .

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

ROBERT KAGAN, WASHINGTON POST - Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on
Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John
Mearsheimer. . . No one speaks of the "free world" these days, and
Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world
affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who
even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow
and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent
hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we
restore our worthiness to lead. . .

His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't
meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a
dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a
strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant
civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." . . .

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to
Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground
will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now
face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest,
best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last
resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to
use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves
. . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests"
when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive
military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry
about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is
and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations
other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear
support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are
four words: United Nations Security Council.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular
alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about
how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world
anew." . . .

ABC - ABC's Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he'd
consider putting Republicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names
like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He's a added a new name to the
list of possible Republicans cabinet members - Arnold Schwarzenegger. .
.

Sen. Dick Lugar: "He's a Republicans who I worked with on issues of arms
control, wonderful guy. He is somebody I think embodies the tradition of
a bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible, that is not ideological,
that is based on the idea that we have to have some humility and
restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world,鈥?
Obama said about his Senate colleague."

Sen. Chuck Hagel: "A Vietnam vet, similar approach and somebody I
respect in a similar fashion"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "What (he's) doing on climate change in
California is very important and significant. There are things I don't
agree with him on, but he's taken leadership on a very difficult issue
and we haven't seen that kind of leadership in Washington," Obama said
of the California governor."

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||