“How hard can that be, saying that Nazis are bad?” – Barack Obama
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
16 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day Five: The Fascist Regime Came for the Inspectors General
- Day Four: Fascist Regime Comes for the Transgendered and Native Americans
- Day Three: Fascist Regime Assaulted Health Information and Agencies
- Day Two: Fascist Regime Shuts Down Spanish Language White House Website
- Day One: Fascist Regime Gets Laken Riley Act
I’m glad Obama is taking on a tough schedule and promoting Democrats in advance of the midterms. He’s saying what should have been said all along, but I’m glad he’s out, pulling no punches. Just hearing him speak publicly again is a refreshing treat.
Trump was asked about things Obama said, and he sneered and said he listened to it, but fell asleep. *massive eyeroll* He possibly did fall asleep because he has the attention span of a gnat and didn’t understand monosyllabic words. But his attempt at throwing shade fell quite short of the mark.
Will Obama make a difference? I sure hope so. We need to reactivate interest, hope, and determination. Obama can do that.
Unfortunately he also said this:
“The former president said both parties had, at times, been ‘infected’ with the kind of politics he said the nation should abhor. He praised Republicans who in the past had helped expand civil rights and other protections and said neither party ‘has had a monopoly on wisdom.'”
. . . It’s “true” of course, over a long timeframe, but completely unhelpful and irrelevant to the present.
Over a long period of time, sure, especially if you are talking the pre 1950s democratic party. But then we’d be talking about the same ideological group you find in the GOP causing all the strife and division we see today, of whom Trump is a symptom and a logical conclusion.
Democrats may piss some off because of “identity politics,” but that is in no way comparable to the racism, bigotry and hatred that the republicans have made their bedrock.
Its frustrating to no end that the democrats have this knee jerk impulse to try to mitigate any adverse effects of calling out the evils of the GOP by finding fault, however incomparable, in themselves. How do you win like that?
. . . slur: Banana Republican politics are the ultimate identity politics, i.e., white-identity politics. (Or, most specifically, i.e., “the base” (and boy howdy are they ever base . . . the basest!) older, less-educated, male, evangelical, white identity politics.)
How could anything be more obvious than that right now? Evidently not obvious enough for the Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media, though.
Further proof of Obama’s real, neocentrist position.
This is not necessarily a criticism at this point in time, because Trump is such an ass. But…understanding that Obama is not by any means a “progressive” should be emphasized at all times by people who want real change in this system. Otherwise? The same old same old is on the horizon once Trump is defeated. Election cycle after election cycle of “competing” DemRats and RatPubs…competing for office, not competing for real change.
The only real change possible lies kicking the corporate, multinational, military-industrial, permawar complex out of its controlling position in U.S. politics.
Gotta hand it to Obama, though.
He’s a very smart guy.
A realist.
The chances of that happening anytime soon are pretty low.
But dreamers have a place, too. Obama probably thinks that he is doing all that he can, acting with the best of intentions.
Only…as has been established many times before:
A cursory look at what followed Obama’s presidency is all we need to know about the truth of that proverb.
A Trumpish hell.
Amen.
Later…
AG
A lot of Amerian soldiers died fighting Nazis so this shouldn’t be controversial. Never mind the many millions of civilians and other soldiers that died, especially the Holocaust.
Too many Americans have no understanding of history much less the dangers of authoritarians. Authoritatians are no friends of libertarians.
Well, truth be told, Trump and his deplorables are a lot like Hitler and his brownshirts, maybe not by degree, but certainly by kind.
Interesting how in this speech he promoted some of Bernie Sander’s core issues such as universal health care and graduation from college debt free. For which Bernie was ridiculed. Those folks now going to make fun of Obama for speaking out on those issues?
It helps to have amnesia.
. . . Bernie “was ridiculed” for those proposals . . . by somebody (e.g., obviously, rightwingers, Worse-Than-Useless Corporate Media). Just not, to my knowledge, significantly by anyone who matters to this context, e.g., liberals/”progressives”/Obama/Hillary, or even Dems, unless maybe a smattering of Blue Dogs/Conservadems here and there.
In my world, he was ridiculed by a lot of Hillary supporters. Those proposals were impossible, unrealistic, etc. Never mind that at one time California had free college. Until Reagan, that is.
So you decline request for evidence. OK, that’s fine.
I’ll just set this down here: the 2016 Dem platform (it’s inconceivable the party’s nominee had no or insignificant input to its final form!) included these planks:
Provide Quality and Affordable Education
Making Debt-Free College a Reality
Providing Relief from Crushing Student Debt
. . .
Ensure the Health and Safety of All Americans
Securing Universal Health Care
While not precisely Bernie’s proposals, they came pretty close (and also were obviously influenced by Bernie’s). They certainly don’t add up to “ridicule” of them. “Homage” would come closer.
To descend into “both-siderism” for a moment (it’s not always, automatically invalid!): a fair amount of pretty stupid shit was said by some Bernie supporters and some Clinton supporters in the heat of the primaries (the more so, the more “fringe” the supporter, e.g., the Bernie diehards who voted for Stein or abstained, thereby handing us the catastrophe we’re now living; or — since I’m temporarily in “both-sides” mode — some diehard PUMAs; though I’m only aware of the former still here in our local vicinity on a regular basis).
The insistence on continuously re-litigating the 2016 primaries remains, imo, one of the main obstacles to Dems forming the effective coalition that’s urgently required to mitigate the rolling disaster we’re living. The “insisters” on that on “both sides” really can go fuck themselves at this point, as far as I’m concerned. There’s far too much (i.e., existential threats) at stake for indulgence in that luxury.
I found it interesting that Obama is now bringing up those issues. In a sense, he was re-litigating their importance and validity by doing so.
So, you want evidence?
My community and county, as well as most of the counties in my state, supported Bernie Sanders by over 60% of the caucus “votes.” Our local, small town newspaper carries (and carried) pages and pages of LTEs in the lead up to elections. Many letters supporting Hillary claimed that Bernie’s proposals for universal health care and free college educations were unrealistic, too expensive or grand standing to gain votes.
I was my precinct’s secretary/recorder in the spring caucuses. In a caucus gathering you can openly campaign for your preferred candidates. The Clinton supporters made similar claims in that forum.
Unfortunately the divisions still run deep here. As recently as a week ago a Hillary supporter wrote an LTE claiming Sanders supporters lost the election for the Democrats, for which an analysis of voting patterns here gives no support.
More importantly, most of us have moved on and are ignoring the 2016 controversies and insults. We’re focused on creating a Blue Wave by registering voters and working to GOTV. As you point out, this is what matters at this critical period in our public life.
Being ridiculed for the specific proposals Bernie presented is not even a little bit the same as being ridiculed for advocating single payer healthcare and debt-free college.
I voted for Bernie because I was willing to cut him some slack on his lack of policy chops and I supported the broad outlines of his proposals, but frankly when you looked at the details what he was presenting was a total joke and the people who supported Clinton had every right to ridicule him for it.
Had he been able to convince more people to vote for him he would have gained access to an army of people who can actually craft workable policy, so I didn’t think his lack of command over the details was disqualifying, but it was certainly fair to criticise him for it.
Answer: Really hard, if you and everyone you know is one.