Comments on: Obama’s Mistake

By: wsws

wsws — Tue, 06 May 2008 00:54:21 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Siun

Siun — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:40:53 +0000

It’s worth remembering that Obama was an Alinsky trained community organizer … class is not an alien concept to him. I’m not saying he’s lining up to bring socialist salvation but I find that interesting and potentially more promising than the usual candidate. The more I follow his campaign – and since I have the opportunity to speak with them at times – the more I am impressed at the potential of the movement he’s chosen to use as his campaign model.

For the folks who made comments about the “people” not being able to hear truth – quite the contrary. Obama’s numbers in PA rose after this was leaked and his national numbers climbed as well.

Perhaps – and since I’ve been disillusioned ever since LBJ reneged on his promise to “bring the boys home” I hesitate to even say this – but perhaps the “people” are quite ready to hear and speak truth … and in Obama we may have a candidate who will say a few sentences of same.

Not enough – not even close to enough – but a whisper of hope.

By: bigmike

bigmike — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:29:13 +0000

It is nice to see someone telling the truth for once.

A week or so ago, one of the Dems (I think Clinton, but I am not sure) prepared a commercial advocating doing something to protect people having their mortgages foreclosed. Immediately McCain made a commercial saying that she (or he) was planning to do this with your taxes. I would have immediately responded by admitting that was true—if you were earning more than $200,000, but not if you were ordinary middle (not to mention lower class). I would further make an attack campaign on McCain, asking if you were better off then you were 8 years ago. And if not, why would you support a candidate whose main compaign promises were more of the same: endless war (to be paid for by mortgaging our children and grandchildren), make the tax cuts for the rich permanent, and balance the budget (which has to imply ending all social programs).

Oh where is Harry S, now that we really need him?

By: JP Timko

JP Timko — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:12:06 +0000

The WSWS’s take on this is kind of refreshingly funny. Hellooooo….

Alienation is a pretty nearly universal reality. “Locke supplanted Habbakuk” so completely that we don’t even know it. Rulings ideas of any age, and so forth.

While it’s so much more comfortable to be alienated when one needn’t worry even the least smidgen about providing for one’s continued existence (rent, food), the essential condition is unchanged. We are our own jailers, with no organic intellectuals in sight.

As to what Obama has said — not just about class but also race/class — it would appear to owe more to Saul Alinsky and self-reflection than to any ideology per se. And that, I argue, is a good thing.

The system is so out of whack now that an enlightened and fully self-interested master of capital would be a damn sight better than a bumbling fool of any ideology. At the present stage of politics, one can only hope one gets a shot at choosing someone who turns out to be the former.

By: Michael R. Grindle

Michael R. Grindle — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:38:49 +0000

Why some people might become upset is that oftentimes a certain type of people want to label anyone who has a belief in god, or believes that it is important for the people to retain the right to bear arms, or who feels that abortion is wrong is some sort of uneducated backwoods illiterate hick. Are there some people who think these things merely because they were raised that way? Sure. Are there some people who like to throw out labels like “reactionary” and “bourgeois” every chance they get because they feel that it enhances their pseudo-intellectual socialist pontificating? Absolutely. Until a revolution comes, we are most often left with which candidate will do the least harm. And I’m in no hurry for the purges, so I will cheerfully vote for Obama. He has to at least pay lip service to helping working class people.

By: Lewis Himelhoch

Lewis Himelhoch — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:55:39 +0000

Despite what everyone says what the average person wants is pretty much for tomorrow to be just like today. People will claim they want change but what they really want and need is stability.

The whole reason communites and governments are set up is to insure stability. We don’t want change we want things changed BACK ie back to when we were at peace and relatively prosperous.

By: Katie

Katie — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:30:08 +0000

I think that his comments are interesting and somewhat refreshing. To hear a candidate for a political office state his views so clearly (whether or not I agree with them) is a positive sign in the political arena.

By: greenie

greenie — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:52:28 +0000

too much help.
I fixed that once, durn burn it!

By: greenie

greenie — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:50:59 +0000

Some of this might come down to the fact that there are too many different definitions of “truth”.
It is very hard to take your own needs/desires etc. out of the equation when evaluating what is real. Both parties can look at a situation, and see totally different scenarios. It is not possible in this party system that we have now to get a leader that doesn’t have his own axe to grind, because to get there, you have too pull in to much help.
I don’t believe that most of the country is REALLY for any of the 3 losers that we ultimately have to choose from. It’s just that we aren’t really given a choice.
Then there’s all the conspiracy stuff out there that renders our ability to comprehend the truth nigh impossible.
To quote the Joker, “Who do you trust?”

By: Chris B.

Chris B. — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:32:17 +0000

I think this is highlighting a different, but equally important (if more subtle) issue; the growing inability of the “masses” to hear plain speech, or at least the growing unwillingness of the media and our leaders to use it.

Problems are hard to fix when they can’t be clearly described or discussed.