Barack Obama: Progressives Beware!

Barack Obama is nobody's progressive politician, and proves it in his latest book. The Senator's vision for the future, writes Glick, more closely resembles the Clintons' than it does Rep. John Conyers or Dennis Kucinich.

“Such wisdom might help us move beyond ideological bickering and serve as the basis of a renewed effort to tackle the problem of inner-city poverty. We could begin by acknowledging that perhaps the single biggest thing we could do to reduce such poverty is to encourage teenage girls to finish high school and avoid having children out of wedlock. . .” – Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, pps. 255-256

Last month, and ever since, following a trip to New Hampshire by Barack Obama, the mass media has been full of stories about what a big hit he was, how not just Democrats but Republicans and independents are excited about this man, this black man, this man of mixed ancestry, this dynamic speaker. What many of them are talking and writing about is his apparent ability to transcend ideological differences, to connect and draw support from liberal and conservative voters across lines of race and culture.

Hearing these reports, I wondered: what’s the real deal about Obama? Does he really stand for anything? Is he more than political smoke and mirrors?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29802

Reducing teen pregnancy is a progressive value. It means giving women and minorities equal opportunity, not shoving them into marriage the way the right wants to do.

the entire thing.

That is the first one of the first four paragraphs.

Is it now progressive to want high school girls to be single parents?

Of course not. But their finishing HS is not "the single biggest thing we could do to reduce poverty" either.

Think of it this way: US econ policies such as the WTO, NAFTA, IMF, etc have enriched the few at the expense of the rest of us. So should everyone all over the world get better educations and race to the bottom in wages so as to compete, or should we get together and do something else such as shut down the exploitation? Which would be "the single biggest thing we could do"?

the single most beneficial change, with the longest lasting benefits, in communities around the world, has been educating the women. In any population. We arent' talking about Ph.D.s here, though that would be cool. We are talking about literacy.

From an economic and human development standpoint, he is completely correct.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Many people, both professional and lay, have concluded that it doesn't; that it's at best warehousing and at worst kills off any desire to learn. See, for example, the works of John Gatto, NY's 1991 Teacher of the Year. See, too, books like "The Way It 'Spozed to Be", and the introduction to Foxfire 2.

Sadly. Still. Literacy.

the single biggest thing we can do without changing or challenging the system and status quo. :hide:

I'm a bit snarky and pessimistic at the moment, politics aside :evilgrin: :spank:

At least you're in touch with reality :evilgrin:

I'm not dogging on any of our candidates, as I know that they are all much better than even the best 'puke, but I was hoping for some campaigns of substance this time around. Sadly, even the best candidates are being shut out of the system. :shrug:

with the quote? I don't understand the problem with the quote either - but am willing to consider its problematic side if someone points it out to me and lets me consider the weight of that position. But on the surface, I don't see anything un or anti-progressive in that quote.

You are the one that's paranoid.

Would "inner-city" girls want to have children so young if they were guaranteed a free university education like they are in the majority of the world? How about some of that audacious hope he's so fond of talking about? But no... we get more scolding.

Scold. Scold. Scold.

It's not a question of them getting a free university stopping them from having children out of wedlock. Some have not placed a priority on education for a number of reasons. There are many single parents who do go on to get an education because they have placed a priority on education.

Sometimes scolding is needed. I think if the emphasis is placed on changing mindsets then getting an advanced education would be more of a priority.

He does propose that. You assume he's scolding them, but he didn't say that at all.

Is that the best you can do? Great follow up to your post about *gasp* college students (those little beasts) voting in Iowa.

:rofl:

can't do that can you?

Seems intellectually dishonest. I'd like to hear what you both have to say.




              Edwards '08 tees!

reducing unwanted pregnancy is a fine thing. babies out of wedlock is a religious concept. babies outside of a supportive environment is another creature altogether.

Msongs

but I say to many... LOOK closely, look very closely at what he is saying now, and how much he seems to be talking a close "Repuke" message!

And no, I'm not a sore loser, he only gained 1 more delegate than Edwards last night according to a letter I received from Michael Moore. I still support Edwards and will do so fervently!

As African American author and activist Kevin Gray has written, there should be no doubt about it: Obama is cut from similar cloth as Bill and Hillary. He’s a Democratic Leadership Council man. Progressives beware.

Ted Glick works with the Climate Crisis Coalition and the Independent Progressive Politics Network. His seven years of Future Hope columns are archived at www.ippn.org. He can be reached at indpol@igc.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or P.O. Box 1132, Bloomfield, N.J. 07003.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29802

It is a very good article that articulate what many of us have been feeling.

with moving center/right.

We will get no where doing that.

His book is one of the best third way/DLC policy manuals I've read.

but perhaps Obama is further to the right than Edwards.

I will look for the link, because it is really amusing.

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/healthy-families/

Fight Teen Pregnancy: Edwards believes we can build on recent partial success in reducing teen pregnancy. The U.S. still has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Edwards called for more support for struggling young people and investments in programs that help them beat the odds.

read the damn aticle and lets discuss.

if there is something more substantial, you should have posted it instead of this quote.

I want to have a discussion about how he is not a progressive.

that was the first four paragraphs of the article. i was following du rules.

The whole article is basically a boilerplate politically correct evaluation, primarily of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", almost a kind of paint-by-numbers critique that deepens our understanding of what Obama stands for -- to an extent of nearly zero.

First off, it isn't necessary for Obama to buy into the traditional liberal -- LIBERAL and not radical -- arguments about poverty policy, for example, criticizing his focus on race-neutral policies like job-creation, universal health care, and infrastructure, rather than on a both-and focus on race-specific remedies. He addresses the issue with a realistic recognition that there simply is no longer the popular base for further expansion of the latter part of both/and. I myself do NOT oppose affirmative action "quotas" in principle as is now the orthodoxy, having been convinced back in the pre-Bakke days (yes, I'm that old) that people use quotas (eg sales quotas) throughout American society when they are serious about results. But as a practical matter, even if these were the BEST possible approach (which I am not arguing), they certainly, as Obama RIGHTLY recognizes, politically unfeasible.

This notion of having to spout the orthodoxy of LIBERAL thinking over the past 40 years or stand accused of pushing 'rightwing' talking points of course puts EVERYONE who doesn't sound generic into the same box. Hence the supposed 'similarity' with Bill Clinton. But Clinton pulled the Democratic Party to the right, which led (other than to his own election) to 15 years of defeat, ending for reasons other than the shrewdness of the DLC 'let's drop the abortion plank of the Democratic Party' (Al From) types, the Democrats rebounded in Congress in 2006.

HRC, for example (this isn't cataclysmic but it is indicative) took the INITIATIVE to put forward a proposal on flag-burning when, as the NEW YORK TIMES (hardly a radical anti-liberal bastion) noted, was not needed given the absence of flag burning instances in NY that HRC's office could specify. It is this kind of wedge politics that clearly Obama opposes. And yes, school credit for Ebonics as a second language might also take the hit. I can live with that.

I know that Obama isn't Kucinich, and if he were, he couldn't win. But Kucinich had the choice of numerous other Democrats -- or none at all -- to recommend as a second choice, and picked Obama. That should say something - Kucinich after all DID read the Patriot Act before he voted -- AGAINST it.

The notion of supporting free trade in general was another twisted argument. The issue isn't opposing free trade, it's insisting that 'free trade' include teeth to enforce meaningful labor, environmental and human rights standards. I feel that Obama is most likely to successfully pursue that necessary change of all the leading Democrats -- if president.

At this point, the election is between Obama and Hillary on the Democratic side. I'd rather have someone who HOPEFULLY would be more progressive (as well as a STRONGER candidate in November), than HRC herself. Since THAT is the question now, those who don't want to keep on the Clintonian path should at least be willing to seriously consider, if not critically support, Obama.

Again, the issues raised in the article are issues that some have raised before, and need to be considered -- before yawning further and rejecting them as useless.

is rather paltry. You might want to elevate your rhetoric beyond factless one-liners.

"You don't know him".....boy, that's a convincing argument.

I am critically supporting Obama and Edwards both. I am aware of their warts, their bad votes, who they court, and who has been courting them.

Obama is not a DLC man...he repudiated the DLC after he used their influence to get him elected to the Senate. He is a hopeless goody-goody when it comes to the other side of the aisle, but he is a far cry from the queen of the DLC. Edwards has his warts, too, like his fervent belief in the daeth penalty and his socially-conservative bent, but he has also repudiated the DLC and stands a long distance from the queen of the DLC, as well.

All of this sudden "Obama is not your friend" talk smacks of sour grapes to me.

This article actually made me like him even more -- especially what it said about him not being a strong proponent of affirmative action, something I wasn't aware of. Excellent. :)

:eyes:

all.

It's interesting that the author seems to think he knows more about Dennis Kucinich's progressive values than Dennis himself does.

What might Kucinich, a pure conviction politician, see that the author does not?

Do you want to encourage dropping out and having children out of wedlock?

who encouraged Nader to run in 2004.
So why should I give a ---- about who he thinks is the real progressive?

Nice.