DHFabian's Comments (18)

“Sorry, but America functions on a strict scapegoat policy. We scapegoated welfare recipients, then got rid of welfare, so we needed a new scapegoat. We came down hot and heavy on cigaret smokers, but this is starting to fall apart, too; under 20% of us smoke, very few will develop a disease as a result, most of us have absolutely no exposure to tobacco smoke, and this lays bare the miserable fact that escalating rates of disease (not to mention the destruction of the entire planet's environment) is because of our cars... and we don't want to quit driving as much as we wish. Well, you can't scapegoat a majority, right? We need a different scapegoat. With conditions as bad as they are today, no one really wants to scapegoat those who drink. So, what are our choices? We choose over-weight people because they are instantly identifiable, sparing us the bother of thinking at all. If we're over-weight, we simply point a finger at someone who is fatter. All things considered, I think Americans really, really want someone -- anyone! -- toward whom they can feel superior.”

“Are Americans as ignorant as many of these posts would indicate? Are they really so incapable of interpreting political satire and symbolism?

The chimp symbolizes the bill, NOT Obama. It's rather shocking, in a Freudian sort of way, that people would see a drawing of a chimp, and conclude that it signified Obama. My understanding of the cartoon is that the bill, like the chimp, was handled by Republicans in a manner ("Shoot first, ask questions later") indicating that the only response that occurred to them was to kill it.”

“On thew "star treatment" that has the Republicans all a-twitter, have the forgotten about the endless adulation showered on Reagan? From the (mindless) mainstream press, one would have thought Reagan wasn't merely a star, but a deity!”

“Does anyone reading this believe that Jackson has an obligation to be in lock-step agreement with
(obedience to?) Obama, simply because of race? And what will count in the long run"; the color/gender of the president or the policies of that president's administration?”

“No, the granting of sainthood to Obama is nothing more than a media thing. Beyond that, people are just desperate for a change, a way out of the incredible mess we're in now.”

“Huh? Can you name a single issue on which the Dem Party is "ultra-left"? Or even "slightly left of center"? How about one piece of mildly progressive legislation passed by the Dems over the past quarter century? On international policies, there would be no war(s) today without solid Dem support of the militarism promoted by the Republicans.

On economic issues, the Dems have been fully supportive of those policies that crushed unions, suppressed wages and gave corporations taxpayer money to move our jobs to foreign countries, creating the unprecedented economic disparities we have today.

Here's a quiz for you: Which president emphasized America's responsibility to aid those in poverty? It was (Republican) President Eisenhower. Which president hiked welfare benefits to their highest level, creating a full range of education and job skills training opportunities? That was Republican President Nixon. Next, which president fulfilled the greatest dream of the ultra-right when he took an ax to the New Deal? That was Democratic President Clinton.”

“Actually, the "personal responsibility" speech has come to mean nothing more than a justification for our own greed, indifference and judgmentalism. There would be no winners without losers, no rich without the poor. It's in the best interests of those at the top to keep the bottom firmly at the bottom. For the middle, it's more personal: they're afraid that the poor who are able to work their way out of poverty will take their jobs, pushing THEM into poverty. And we all want government to target someone, anyone, other than us.”

“Hmm.. Maybe it's that they see Obama as SAFER, more likely to protect those cherished gated communities, to fight for the right to well-kept golf courses, to ensure public safety when it comes to imported caviar.

But seriously, yes, we do have personal AND social responsibilities, as Jesse Jackson has maintained for decades. Jackson's message has always been one of fearlessly trying to achieve one's own potential. That's something no one can do for you, but what they can do is unlock those doors that so effectively keep the poor in poverty today. At the same time, we have a moral responsibility to help those who aren't making it in spite of their best efforts. It is in the best interests of the US to bring back the education and job skills training programs that are key to enabling people to obtain family-supporting jobs while re-building the world-class workforce that we once had. The survival of this country depends on it.”

“Silly, these tactics are so old they're covered with dust! Of course politicians rely on audience plants, etc. They always have. Face it, those in the media are not America's "brightest and best", so to avoid anything as strenuous as examining political platforms, researching policies, etc., they rely heavily on quick sound-bites and those titillating "gotcha" moments.”

“You're grievously misinformed. Jackson worked VERY hard for decades to bring the changes needed to reduce US poverty, sometimes (in the early days) risking his own life. Without Jackson's (and others) dedicated work in the civil rights movement, Obama probably wouldn't have had a chance of even getting elected as a local dog catcher, because of his race. You should spend some time studying Jackson's life, work, speeches, etc.

Jackson already knows what works. Take our "failed" welfare programs, for example. While providing aid (at or below the poverty line), it gave families the stability and means to move forward into family-supporting jobs, often via welfare education and job training programs. It worked. Some 80% of welfare recipients voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years, many working their way up to the middle class, repaying (via their income taxes) all the aid they had received. Jackson figured out decades ago that people are poor when they are cut off from the means to work their way out of poverty. He fought to open those doors to opportunity.

The difference between Jackson and Obama: Obama attacks the poor while Jackson attacks the causes of poverty. Think: The US lost hundreds of thousands of jobs at the same time that hundreds of thousands of people were "moved from welfare to work". That adds up to a LOT more workers struggling for far fewer jobs. That's a problem that can't be solved by reciting over-used cliches.”

“Iraq is only one element, it gets a LOT of discussion online. There is a bigger picture. Since becoming president, Bush has threatened: Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South America (i forgot which country), Cuba, N. Korea, etc., etc. He intends to invade Iran in the very near future. Iran has responded by preparing its military, which Bush is now using as an excuse to invade...
Now, remember when Bush and Putin were buddies? Then they had san undisclosed falling out; the Russian press indicated that Bush demanded obedience that Putin wouldn't give. So, first Bush came up with a plan to move military forces just north of Russia... ONLY coincidentally within missile range of Russia. Bush's next plan was to set up missiles along Russia's western border on the pretext of protecting (whomever) from Mideast terrorists (ONLY coincidentally within missile range of Russia). Wouldn't it make more sense to put the missiles in, say, Greece or Italy? Maybe Israel? Russia views Bush's plan as a provocation of war.
Add all this up, and you get an obvious plan to launch World War III. Other countries have figured this out. We haven't, because we aren't looking at the whole picture.”

“Please apologize for your offensive comment about "damn children". No, children don't always long for two parents, and a bad parent isn't better than no parent at all. Many successful, happy people grew up in single-parent homes, like Obama.

You are misinformed. After the primaries, Obama reversed course, confirming that he will maintain the policies that have been so damaging to this country. You're fortunate if you're as unaware of economic realities as you seem. Consider what happens when there are more job seekers than jobs.

Obama's "solution": attack the poor. Jackson's solution: attack the causes of poverty. Jackson's ideas are grounded in reality. What the poor need is access to education and legitimate job skills training. Some need medical care before they can work. Today, the doors out of poverty have been locked shut. We DEMAND the poor to do the impossible.

In the past, one obtained skills training on the job.Today, you need to have the skills before you can get the job. Few can afford college, and are shut out of jobs that pay a living wage. Businesses whine about the quality of US workers, and export our jobs to foreign nations that DO provide people with aid, education and skills training (welfare). Why would a country help its poor? Because they saw that it works for the benefit of the country, creating a world-class workforce, increasing wages, consumer spending and government revenues. It's for the common good.”

“I take it you don't have experience with the "black community", much less with our poor. Do you think scolding a group of people for failing to do the impossible is "constructive"? Think a minute: The US loses hundreds of thousands of jobs annually while the number of job-hunyers grows. If every job opening today were filled, there would still be thousands without work. This never was a full-employment economy. Very few can afford college, and nearly all the rest will remain in bottom wage jobs. Is the solution to America's economic disaster to scold young black men for abandoning their families when they can't secure family-supporting jobs? Financial distress is, and always has been, the leading cause of families breaking up. (And most impoverished families are white.)

Chad, when was the last time you saw ANY display of "unconditional praise and pretend empathy" for the poor??? Since the '80's, the US -- including progressives -- embraced an economic caste system. Americans don't like the poor. We embraced policies against them that are actually prohibited by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human . In defiance of facts and logic, we decided that poverty is a "behavior" issue, not an economic issue. As long as the poor remain locked out of the public discussion, we can remain blissfully ignorant, unburdened by any desire to examine the issues beyond embracing over-used cliches.”

“No, what they won't embrace is a false message of unity and hope. Obama stated his intent to continue the war(s) in the Mideast, and to maintain the economic policies that have so horribly failed this country. In short, he will maintain the Republican­/corporate agenda. Should Jesse Jackson march in lockstep with Obama solely because both are black? Jackson failed twice because it took time for the US to even consider a president who wasn't a rich white guy. Jackson led the way, opening doors that made it possible for Obama to move up the ladder. Do you know what conditions were like before the civil rights movement? Back then, Obama wouldn't have had a chance of even being elected as a local dog-catcher, solely because of race.

Here's what you don't get. When he won the primaries, Obama "clarified" his commitment to the Republican­/corporate agenda, including his plans to continue the current war(s) while maintaining the "Gilded Age" economic policies that have benefited the rich at the expense of everyone else. In short, Obama will maintain the most DIVISIVE policies. So much for unity...”

“The reasons the "old warriors" of the 60's are critical of Obama isn't hard to understand. We've seen enough to put political campaigns into historical context, we've seen the worst (and best) of govt, and we don't want to be fooled again by a "progressive" candidate. Issues/policies must determine your vote, not the race, gender or age of the candidate.

Upon winning the primaries, Obama "clarified" his agenda, in fact taking an abrupt right turn. On the two leading issues, Obama "clarified" that he'll continue the military wars as well as the economic wars against the poor/working class. These policies won't be less toxic if delivered by Obama instead of McCain

I was a surprised that a man as intelligent as Obama would make those remarks about black families. The leading reason marriages end, or don't happen in the first place, is economic. If either parent loses a job, the family can't afford to remain together. We've lost a few million jobs, most of which went to people without a college education. Before Reagan, one could secure a job immediately after being laid off, and climb back up the ladder. Those jobs are gone, the social safety net is gone. Scolding the poor for failing to do the impossible shows that Obama is out of touch with today's economic realities.”

“Opposition to H. Clinton is due to her policy priorities and agenda. No politician should be above all criticism. "It's the issues, stupid." Many oppose Clinton's stand on the issues. The Clintons are solidly conservative, advocating Republican goals, from increased militarism to repealing the New Deal to supporting NAFTA. It is irresponsible --indeed, downright anti-American -- to continue supporting "tax relief" for the rich, at the expense of common good programs, such as the infrastructure (watch those bursting dams and crumbling levees!), aid to our neediest, salvaging our health care and education systems, etc. The policies H. Clinton has supported since before B. Clinton's administration clearly show that she is a solid conservative corporatist. Indeed, on military and social issues, the Clinton's are to the right of (Republican) Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, modern history's most conservative Republican presidents.

Are we better off than we were before the "Reagan Revolution"? No, most are either just treading water or have already sunk. In this land of opportunity, we have only a fraction of the jobs we need (thousands outsourced, at our expense). In this Land of Freedom, with declining crime, we imprison a greater portion of the population that ANY other nation. Most of us are one step away from losing everything, and there is no social safety net.

Opposition to Clinton is based on the policies. Obama, too, is a corporatist, but we at least hope for marginal improvements.”

“Dennis who?”

“Ummm...How many more years does Cheney plan to stay in office?”