Talk Elections

Today  "Rolling Stone" just published an article by Matt Taibi named "Obama's Big Sellout".

 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print)

It's a must-read, eye-opening piece that will make sick almost everyone, even those that didn't vote or didn't believe Obama's words and good intentions.

 

The only thing surprising about this is that anyone who pretends to anything about politics is surprised.

I think what's really shocking is the degree of betrayal and the whole I-couldn't-care-less-about-the-optics attitude towards the base that got him elected.

What? Don't you remember the Clinton presidency? Same thing really.

Why is this surprising? He's a machine politician who has repeatedly demonstrated himself before and after the election to be a myth, a fraud, a charlaton who only has gotten ahead for his potential, not his deeds. I, and many other conservatives, could have told you that two years ago.

Just reading that last paragraph makes me laugh my ass off.

You know that one of my Brazillian friends (now lives in America) always dreamt of voting for Ralph Nader but gave up on that dream to vote for Obama because he believed that "Obama was a true progressive". I told him that if I was in his shoes I would still vote for Nader because Obama will end up being Bill Clinton the 2nd whenever he wins.

God I hate it when I'm right.

Where exactly is the "about-face" here? Clearly these idiots at Rolling Stone weren't paying attention.

 Barack Obama as a man of the people against Wall Street? Is that why Obama's total top campaign contributors included Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Inc, JPMorgan Chase & Co, UBS AG, Morgan Stanley, et al.?  

Is that why Obama was one of the leading shills for the passage of the Bush-Obama-Paulson Wall Street 'bailout' scheme?

[Conservatives] hate him, sure, but they don't hate him for any reasons that make sense. When it comes down to it, most of them hate the president for all the usual reasons they hate "liberals" — because he uses big words, doesn't believe in hell and doesn't flip out at the sight of gay people holding hands. Additionally, of course, he's black, and wasn't born in America, and is married to a woman who secretly hates our country.

These are the kinds of voters whom Obama's gang of Wall Street advisers is counting on: idiots.

lol, ouch.

About-face?  Obama had to have assured those of money his intentions the whole time, otherwise we would have never even been allowed to gain the Democratic nomination, much less the Presidency.

Dreamt of voting for Ralph Nader?

That has to be the strangest dream ever.

I don't have time to read the article right now - hopefully I'll remember to read it Sunday, but normally Rolling Stone articles aren't all that great, IMO.

Obama epic failed on TARP. But this was before the election, and McCain even more epically failed on it. American politics is an election between those who help the elites, and those who help the elites even more.

And Obama was the latter. That's why he got (s)elected. As I recall Ralph Nader pointing out, 2008 was the first election in history in which the Democratic candidate got more corporate money than the Republican candidate.

Another thing I pointed out to some of my self-identified socialist friends before the election, yet they still voted for him.

anyone who becomes president has to stand for the Presidency not his partisan ideology. And Nader would be no different. But I dont like Ideologues, they live in a world all to themselves. And Nader would be like reagan, old and senile in the White house, just without the sense of humour. And Obama is nothign like Bill, he is faithful to his wife. lol. I could just imagine Nader running against Ron Paul. Two extremists on the tickets...fun , fun.. 

Nothign wrong with the President beign pragmatic.

Just stream of consciousness rambling here? Is there any point to this?

Old news, really.

The main problem here is that the article takes Obama to task not so much for what he actually claimed during the campaign; but the strawman ultra-lefty that the right wing tried to portray him as.

Bill Mahr had it right - we have the conservative party (the Democrats) and the way out there wacko party (the Republicans).  Liberals may not be happy with this state of affairs, but that is the way things are right now.

Having the bankers who caused the financial crisis running your Treasury and supposedly looking for solutions that involve tough regulations of their own business, isn't really a matter of ideology.
Just of plain logic and ethics.

when the Nader voter says, "I told you so"

"The most dramatic political about-face in our history"   

No, that would be Lieberman's healthcare position :P

I wish I could say that I'm surprised.

Knott County, Kentucky (median household income $20,373, 31.10% below the poverty line):

McCain: 52.75%
Obama: 44.88%

McHenry County, Illinois (median house income $64,826, 3.70% below the poverty line):

Obama: 51.77%
McCain: 46.44%

I have a lot to say about this at some later point, but I agree with Libertas here.


Of course, it's not like McCain was any different in this regard.  But for McCain to support that crap and not have the support of the beneficiaries would make him pretty dumb, right?  At least Obama was smart enough to get their full backing (and then rely on the stupidity of no one to notice).