Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Glen Ford tells it

Glen Ford, the executive editor of Black Agenda Report, offers what may be the most comprehensive brief analysis of the Obama administration available anywhere. I must offer a few long quotes:
As of this writing, the Progressives for Obama website still exists, a relic of Left delusion that should have died of embarrassment months ago. Barack Obama has, indeed, grown in the presidency – but not into the FDR-like figure of his leftish supporters’ imaginations. Nor has his presence in the Oval Office served to spur Blacks and progressives to dramatic action, creating the “push” that Left Obamites had predicted would allow their champion to act on his more “liberal” instincts. Quite the contrary. The “Obama Effect” has led to the near-total collapse of the Left– both its white and Black wings – and made the nation safe for rule by finance capital and militarists.

The military, finance capital and healthcare corporations (insurers are a branch of finance capital) are winning every important battle because, on fundamental issues, President Obama is on their side.
So let us give President Obama his due. He not only smashed the Left opposition, he humiliated them.
There is no longer an anti-war bloc in the U.S. Congress. It began to evaporate when Obama took office. The Out of Iraq Caucus has dissolved. The Progressive Congressional Caucus cannot find a mission. And the Congressional Black Caucus can claim only eight members worthy of the label, “progressive.”
Kudos, again, to the president, for such adroitness in killing a dream whose time appeared to have come: single-payer healthcare. Obama made non-persons of healthcare reform’s best friends in the Democratic Party, barring them from White House-sponsored healthcare events. The president erected a big tent that included everyone except single-payer advocates who, from Obama’s perspective, are the enemy. Instead, he wheels and deals and even invents nonexistent agreements with Big Pharma, Big Hospitals, and Big Insurance, all the while vowing to slice huge chunks out of Medicare and Medicaid.
Only 20 percent of respondents oppose a Medicare-for-all-type plan. It would require the awesome power of a still very popular president to hold back a mob that is composed of damn near everybody, but Obama is up to the task.
Obama’s sham banking regulations were unveiled to great fanfare – and bombed, colossally, on the front page of the New York Times. In language that an economics columnist for the “gray lady” of corporate media seldom deploys against sitting presidents, Joe Nocera wrote:
“Everywhere you look in the plan, you see the same thing: additional regulation on the margin, but nothing that amounts to a true overhaul…. Firms will have to put up a little more capital, and deal with a little more oversight, but once the financial crisis is over, it will, in all likelihood, be back to business as usual.”
Based on his record as candidate and president to date, it is plain that Obama sees the world as the bankers see it. He accepts their advice because he agrees with it. He shares their core ethic, and is therefore always forgiving of their “excesses.” The fate of his presidency is entwined with theirs.
I don't think I've ever recapitulated so many points made by another author. My apologies to Mr. Ford. But the man is right, and therefore demands to be read and quoted.

I honestly did not think that Obama would be this bad. I honestly did not think it would be this easy to stay mad at the guy.

11 comments:

RedDragon said...

Joe:

There was a brief window in time when I was willing to give Obama time to "sort" the mess we are in out. That window has been sealed shut.

I hoped against everything I knew and felt, that somehow I was wrong about the man.

i am sorry to say that that window has been nailed shut! nothing this man does and says can ever make me believe that he would have the best interest of the "common" man at heart. The only thing this man cares about is his reflection in the mirror and the sound of his own voice.

Anonymous said...

"Only 20 percent of respondents oppose a Medicare-for-all-type plan."

This, from the NYT's poll, was so shocking to me. The media makes it sound like the country is evenly divided and the Dems couldn't overcome the Rep opposition. In fact, about the same percent back the popular fear of gummit run socialist healthcare as supported GWB to the end.

It is quite a clever castration that Obama did on the huddled masses' mojo. Now we party on like GWB had declared a third term, specifically without hope and without change, but with gobs of audacity.

Glen Ford, like many here, knew the GS candidate was a populist fraud all along. Hell yeah, I'm pissed.

Anonymous said...

Joe, can you provide a link to the actual post? Thanks much.

And yeah, I wanted to be wrong too. I hate that this pretender is running the show.

Anonymous said...

I just love the places you get your source material. The article right next to this editorial you linked to and pasted so much from is written by Ford's partner and basically denies that there has been any genocide in Darfur, calling such speculation lies. Personally, I'm still with Amnesty International on that one, or are they too now a puppet of the Man?

--I3

Anonymous said...

I honestly did think that Obama would be this bad. I've long considered him to be a Manchurian Candidate put in place to neutralize the left. His rise was too meteoric, his list of accomplishments too thin.

Just remember it wasn't the "whiny boomers" (those who expect to receive the SS that they pre-paid and (horrors!!!) expect to receive medical care come 65) who were the fanatical O supporters.

old dem

A little night musing said...

The NYT poll question is not really about Medicare-for-all. Here is what it asked:

"68. Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?" [My emphasis]

There is, alas, no question explicitly about single-payer. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Instead of McBush we got Obamareagan.

kenoshamarge said...

My loathing for the little poser probably colored my thinking so I did think he would be this bad.

Why not? He has a supine, slobbering in adoration media, he has an ignorant color-obsessed fans base and he has his own little nacissism going on. Why would he be anything but terrible?

Has the man ever shown even one tiny sign of caring about others? Has the man ever shown one tiny sign of being a leader?

So he could stand on a stage and crack wise and lead the folks in a sing along; "yes we can, yes we can, yes we can". Are those the signs of leadership? The qualifications for President of the United States? If so someone should nominate Mitch Miller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY9gtYeHhk

andrelee said...

Yeah...he's bad and about to get badder...but CLINTON would have certainly been worse. Absolutely. No doubt. About as much doubt as Obama would be this bad a president. Yup.

Anonymous said...

Clinton, worse? Bwah hah hah! Typical Obot delusion, with a big steaming pile of Obot misogyny thrown in.

Guess you don't know in congress Hillary had a consistantly more progressive voting record on every single issue- a quick check last year on Progressive Punch would have wised you up on that. Hillary also had over 25 years working as a lawyer for the Children's League Defense Fund- rescuing children from abusive homes.

Hillary's first job as a lawyer was for a law firm run by real socialists- the idealistic types, unlike Obama's buddy Ayers who was a fake socialist. Hillary fought to protect migrant workers from exploitation by employers. The Hispanic community still remembers this and they overwhelmingly backed Hillary during the primaries.

Obama's one act of progessivism- the so called community organizer lasted less than a year and only involved getting people registared to vote. Funny how he decided to run for office right after that... Also funny how his record shows he consistantly favored the big corporate interests over the people both in IL and in DC.

Hillary actually would have been our most progressive president, and when she promises something she fights for it.

This is why the corporate owned news media hates her. They are owned by millionaires, and the reporters are millionaires as well, and that goes for Olbermann as much as Hannity. Air America, Huffington Post, Daily Kos- all feed at that trough too. You could tell last year who the real progressive news sites were over the fake. The fake trashed Hillary and praised Obama.

You got conned andrelee, now wake up and admit it and admit you don't what the heck you are talking about on Hillary Clinton either.

andrelee said...

Dude/dudette, the intent was sarcasm. Bad sarcasm but sarcasm all the same. I'm with ya.