Remember the heady days leading up to the November, 2008 election? It looked to the nation like there was a clear-cut alternative to the dark days of the George W. Bush administration. The newly chosen candidate of the Democratic party had promised to bring change to Washington, to bring new faces to Washington ("you can't have change with the same old faces" he said), to bring openness and accountability back to our government. He had ridden a groundswell of antiwar opposition by saying he had been right on Iraq and the other leaders had not. As a person, moreover, he seemed a polar opposite to Bush: brighter, younger, more articulate (at least with a teleprompter), able to use the Internet to advance his cause, and again promising change and transparency. But something happened, almost within 48 hours of the election results coming in Barack Obama flip- flopped his position on FISA. In the last few days, we have seen two more major flip-flops (I know that Obama Bots are riled by that term, but that's what major policy shifts amount to): first, the reversal on publishing the photos of torture; second, the reversal on military tribunals.
Let me begin by saying that I worked hard to elect Obama. As a long-time progressive Democrat, I campaigned for him, I gave money to his cause, I took time off from family and friends to talk to other voters to bring them around to voting for Obama, I cheered at Obama rallies, and I celebrated like many others here when he won. But surprisingly soon, red flags begin to raise their ugly heads.
To me, one of the first such red flags was the selection of Rahm Emanuel to be Obama's Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a well-known commodity: he's a typical Chicago politician, a major DLCer (a group of people I despise since they are really mostly Republicans in Democratic garb). Emanuel, moreover, had been dead wrong in his overall strategy for the Democratic party when he had chided, criticized and attacked Howard Dean for his "50 state" strategy. My feeling then and now was, how could Obama put beside him as his right hand man a DLCer who had attacked the man more than anyone who had led to Obama's victory? That feeling still remains.
A second red flag led from the first: why was Obama stiff-arming the "democratic wing of the democratic party" in appointments to his cabinet and administration? Why was Howard Dean, for instance, never really considered FOR ANYTHING (but the pro-insurance, pro-keep-health-care-pretty-much-as-it-is, inexperienced in administering a large department-- Dr. Sanja Gupta-- was selected by Obama to serve as his Surgeon General)? Remember that? I think it tells a great deal about Obama's real plans for health care reform, but that story comes later. Another victim of the DLCer-minded Obama (for that's what he has turned out to be) was General Wesley Clark. Remember Clark had come to Obama's defense during the campaign (and been bashed by the Obama people for what he said) and had actively campaigned for Obama against McCain? Given his distinguished military background, Clark would have been an ideal candidate for a high position such as national security advisor to the president or even as an ambassador to an important country. But no, nothing for Clark at all and to top it off, Obama decided to keep George W. Bush's man on the job at Defense. Let me repeat, Obama kept a died-in-the-wool Republican, Robert Gates, W's pick, on as probably the second most important person in our government. (Now maybe readers have an idea why I called this Diary--"New President: Same Old Shit?). And it turns out, of course, that under Gates there has been very little change EXCEPT an expansion of the war in Afghanistan and carrying the war to Pakistan.
Let's continue looking at Obama's picks because they reveal a lot about the man (who I must say, we KNEW AND STILL KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT). Remember who Obama wanted at Commerce? Richardson even though it was common knowledge that Richardson was under investigation for possibly committing illegal acts. His second choice: Judd Gregg. Again, a very illuminating choice. Gregg is a hard-core, very right-wing Republican senator--who proved his stripes by even voting against Obama's own stimulus package.
Remember who Obama wanted to spearhead his "health care reform" plans? Yes, none other than Tim Daschle, the ethically-challenged, tax-dodging former majority leader of the Senate who was raking in millions of dollars as a lobbyist from the very insurance companies and pharmaceuticals that oppose any meaningful reform in health care. After Daschle crashed and burned, who has Obama turned to carry out his "reform"? None other than Max Baucus. Baucus, if you check him out on the Internet-- like Daschle-- is a major recipient of campaign funds from the current health care fiasco upholders. It was Baucus (and Obama) who said that "single payer" is off the table. It was Baucus, as Obama's point guard on health care reform, who in the last week or so had doctors and nurses arrested for daring to stand up at his Senate hearings and saying: why not consider single payer? And it was Obama HIMSELF who called a White House Conference about 2 months ago and FAILED TO INVITE a single proponent of single payer. Of course, as a politician in Illinois, Obama had once supported "single payer" (the guy will say anything to get votes) but now was not even remotely considering it as a policy option. The man who had proclaimed to the world that he would listen to everyone, that he could "reach out" could not even find the time to listen to progressive voices from his own party on single payer.
There have been numerous other Obama picks that could have been made by W.--like John Brennan, torture advocate, whom Obama first selected to be his CIA Director but had to back down because of the uproar. But again Obama showed his true stripes by picking Brennan to sit in the White House as his Deputy National Security Advisor. Or how about Obama's recent pick as top general in Afghanistan--General McChrystal? McChrystal, it might be recalled, was the man at the center of the Pat Tillman controversy, accused of having fabricated the account of Tillman's death and then whitewashing an investigation into his death. The Tillman family itself seems appalled at Obama for now nominating this ethically challenged general to a higher position and has asked publicly for his background to be reviewed. McChrystal, as S. Hersh and others have pointed out, was also the leader of a hit-man like assassination unit that has no accountability to our government at all. Andrew Sullivan also has reported that McChyrstal virtually told the Red Cross to f---k off from looking at torture allegations in camps under his control:
"Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. 'Will [the Red Cross] ever be allowed in here? {Iraq in the early years)' And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in: "they won't have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators." ...
SOURCE: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
So Rahm, Daschle, John Brennan, and General McChrystal are fine with Obama. What about a true progressive, like Dawn Johnsen, whom Obama initially tapped to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ (Jay Bybee's old stomping grounds)? You guessed it. In the last few days, Harry Reid has been quoted as saying that her nomination is in jeopardy (despite the Democrats having almost 60 votes in the Senate) and probably will be yanked. Obama's reaction: silence, nothing, nada. No call for support for her at all. Apparently, it was enough for Obama to give the progressive wing of his party the ILLUSION of being selected (Obama is very big on illusions and hope), that was enough of a sop to the people who helped to put him in power.
I could go on to speak at length about other Obama flip-flops. Obama's flip on FISA occurred with extraordinary rapidity, almost within the time the election results came in. Remember this:
Bill Burton issues a statement, October 24, 2007, reaffirming Obama's position and pledging to support Chris Dodd's filibuster on FISA:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Source: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...
But we all remember how this ended with FISA, don't we? Yes, Obama ended up taking virtually the same position as the Bush administration on this issue.
Or how about NAFTA? Remember the very close contest for the Democratic party nomination between Obama and Hillary Clinton? Remember when candidate Obama needed votes and support in labor union-rich Pennsylvania and possibly Michigan (it was unclear what would happen to that state's votes)? Candidate Obama made airy-fairy statements like this:
"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now. ...And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."
SOURCE: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...
Also recall that one of Obama's chief economic advisors was caught up in a flap in Canada for saying that Obama was just making these promises to cozy up to union voters and that countries like Canada and Mexico shouldn't take Obama's words seriously? Team Obama publicly reprimanded the economic advisor but it turns out that he described the situation for what it was. Obama later himself even said this about his own words on NAFTA (same source):
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified"
Well, Mr. President, we've heard a lot of "overheated" rhetoric from you in that case, rhetoric that you obviously didn't believe in but used to mislead people to get votes. In fact, years earlier on April 5, 2006 at the opening meeting of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, Senator Obama had spoken in glowing terms about that project and opening new trade through agreements just like NAFTA. Here are Obama's own words embracing unfettered free trade:
I want to thank Bob [Rubin] and Roger [Altman] and Peter for inviting me to be here today. ...We have all known for some time that the forces of globalization have changed the rules of the game—how we work, how we prosper, how we compete with the rest of the word.
We all know that the coming baby boomers’ retirement will only add to the challenges that we face in this new era. Unfortunately, while the world has changed around us, Washington has been remarkably slow to adapt twenty-first century solutions for a twenty-first century economy. As so many of us have seen, both sides of the political spectrum have tended to cling to outdated policies and tired ideologies instead of coalescing around what actually works.
...
That is what I hope we will see from The Hamilton Project in the months and years to come. You have already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia and policy circles.... So I know that there are going to be wonderful ideas that are generated as a consequence of this project.
I think that if you polled many of the people in this room, most of us are strong free traders and most of us believe in markets... ."
SOURCE: (emphasis added)
http://firedoglake.com/...
Obama cleverly hid this statement and position from the press (not hard to do from these people) and the public but now we know he's an unabashed freetrader which is one of the Golden Rules of the Goldies. His campaign statement in Pennsylvania were pure BS, purely designed to get votes against the tougher Hillary. In all of this, it's a situation of "New President; Same old Shit".
Don't believe me? Then have a look at these other major areas of concern:
1) Iraq. It turns out that Obama's "withdrawal" plan looks very much like Bush's. There will be a "residual force" there for an unspecified time period. Here's what Bush's ex-press secretary said about the situation:
[Obama] "should acknowledge his campaign criticisms were wrong. ...With some minor changes, he really is following the same path President Bush pursued."
SOURCE: http://www.reuters.com/...
2) Torture and the unwillingness of Obama to execute his pledge to uphold the Constitution and follow the law.
It is now crystal clear that major US laws and the Torture and Geneva Conventions were violated by Bush and Cheney and others acting within the Bush administration. Cheney has admitted as much. Yet now, Obama is carrying water for these torturers and torture enablers.
I've written several Diaries with lots more information on this subject (like this one http://www.dailykos.com/... ) so I won't expand on this issue. But let me just add the thoughts of DK's own superb McJoan (whose last name is McCarter) who was interviewed by Der Spiegel on this subject recently:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Obama is reluctant to push for more investigations or a truth commission. He wants to turn the page.
McCarter: There should be more investigations, not just about how the torture policies were conceived and implemented, but also about how that policy played into the (George W. Bush) administration's efforts to find justification to go to war with Iraq. There have been credible reports in the media resulting from the Senate Armed Services Committee report that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and Khalid Sheik Mohammed were both tortured for intelligence about ties between al-Qaida and Iraq -- in other words, to secure false confessions. There are other issues that need to be explored as well, such as the illegal, warrantless wiretapping of Americans and the politicization of the Department of Justice. There should be criminal investigations into those activities. I think a truth commission could have real value in illuminating for the American people what the Bush administration did in our names. But in order to deter future executive crimes, there should be a criminal investigation and, potentially, prosecutions.
SOURCE: http://www.spiegel.de/...
One other commentator deserves to be brought in here--Stanley Kutler-- the University of Wisconsin, Madison History & Law Professor Emeritus who did so much to expose Nixon's abuses of powers:
President Barack Obama dramatically changed course twice on May 13 when he announced he would not release photos of American military personnel "abusing" detainees, reversing the Pentagon’s statement on April 26 that it would comply with a court order—with the president’s own prompt and emphatic support for release. And thus the second reversal: the president would "do business" in Washington in the "old way," and with the in-your-face exercise of presidential actions reminiscent of his predecessor. In returning to old ways, Obama has done business with the most unreliable of his "friends" and the worst of his enemies.
SOURCE:
http://www.truthdig.com/...
3) The Military Commissions:Within 24 hours of flip-flopping on the torture pics, Obama also flipped on the military commissions at Gitmo. Here is the Executive Director of the ACLU's Anthony D. Romero's take on this:
"We need President Obama to reassure Americans that these troubling signs are not indications that he's willing to compromise our fundamental principles. He must permanently end the flawed military commissions that allow evidence gleaned from torture, hearsay and coercion and are an assault on due process and the rule of law. These proceedings cannot be "modified" or "improved" – they must be scrapped – as in R.I.P."
Source: http://www.newsobserver.com/...
The New York Times today is even blunter about Obama on both the issues of the pictures and that of the military trials:
President Obama’s decisions this week to retain important elements of the Bush-era system for trying terrorism suspects and to block the release of pictures showing abuse of American-held prisoners abroad are the most graphic examples yet of how he has backtracked, in substantial if often nuanced ways, from the approach to national security that he preached as a candidate, and even from his first days in the Oval Office.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/...
4) Obama brings pressure on U.K. to alter torture policy:
This issue is treated at length by the observant Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com and also by the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan. But since we find the ACLU's Romero on a roll let's stay with him:
On Feb. 4, the British High Court ordered that documentation of the torture and rendition of Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed must remain secret – not because releasing it would endanger national security, but because of a "threat" made by the Bush administration that disclosure would endanger intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Britain. The High Court said it was "difficult to conceive that a democratically elected and accountable government could possibly have any rational objection to placing into the public domain such a summary of what its own officials reported as to how a detainee was treated by them and which made no disclosure of sensitive intelligence matters."
With the "threat" still in place, the Obama administration's reply, thanking the U.K. "for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information," spoke volumes. Not only did an administration that prides itself on transparency and accountability fail to condemn the withholding of information about an already well-publicized rendition program, but it applauded it without qualification.
Same source.
5) Obama Administration takes same court position as W:
Again, here is Mr. Romero:
Next was a Feb. 9 San Francisco federal court hearing in another case involving Mohamed in which he and four other rendition victims, represented by the ACLU, are suing a Boeing subsidiary for organizing the rendition flights that facilitated torture. A lower court threw out the lawsuit last year, indulging the Bush administration's improper use of the "state secrets" claim. Given Obama's stated commitment to transparency and opposition to torture and rendition, observers thought it was a given that his Justice Department would pull the plug on the over-broad state secrets claim in this case. Shockingly, a Justice Department lawyer stood up in court and fully adopted the Bush administration's position. To date, no torture victim has had his day in court.
Same source.
So too, Senator Russell Feingold (Dem-Wisconsin) a frequent and outspoken Iraq war critic well before Obama was, and the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act came out with this statement attacking Obama's position:
Statement of Sen. Russ Feingold on the Obama DOJ's brief in Jewel:
I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program.
SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/...
But then, Russ Feingold is known for standing up for the principles he believes in and is not known for shifting positions on the war, on torture, on the importance of the Constitution and its being upheld, on FISA and a host of other issues. And you know what? The people of Wisconsin (including lots of Republicans and Independents) love and respect Russ Feingold. He'll be up for his 4th term as a Senator in 2010 (unlike the 4 years served by Obama, 2 of which were spent on campaigning for the presidency). In short, Russ Feingold proves that a candidate can be popular who takes thoughtful but tough positions and sticks with them, even in a battleground state like Wisconsin.
- Obama takes single payer "off the table":
I've made extensive comments about Obama, single payer, and Max Baucus already. But have a look at this devastating analysis of Obama's health care "reforms" from the Black Agenda Report's Executive Editor, Glen Ford:
President Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to suppress advocates of single-payer health care. He has choreographed a grand theater of faux-change, in which he "seeks to create a façade of unity along lines that do not threaten corporate power." The goal is to "sidetrack, possibly for decades, the most broadly supported idea in American politics, today." This "requires elaborate reconstructions of reality," starting with "methodically erasing single-payer advocates from the picture, with the enthusiastic collaboration of the corporate media." Thus, Obama and compliant Democrats on The Hill stage "summits" and "public roundtable discussions" on health care from which majority U.S. opinion is totally excluded.
SOURCE: http://www.blackagendareport.com/
And that's just the synopsis of Mr. Ford's article; it's well worthy having a look at all of his article. (thanks to comment writer Psalongo for pointing out this website to me).
7) Obama cuts funds to Black Higher Education
Again from Blackagendareport:
Barack Obama encourages people to believe that he deserves to be remembered as the "Education President." However, Obama will definitely not go down as a friend of historically Black higher education. Historically Black colleges and universities – HBCUs – take a $73 million hit in Obama’s educational budget. The cuts are even more disturbing, since education as a general category is a big winner in the president’s economic stimulus plan.
SOURCE: http://www.blackagendareport.com/...
Interestingly, there were a number of posts/comments to the above article and the following one from Eric is typical:
Mr. Obama by a continued train of abuses against Black
America has proven that he is an enemy to African American
life in the USA. We must declare our independence from any
vicarious satisfaction that some have by his occupying the Whtie
House. Clearly his White House is for Whites only!
Mr. Obama has continually distanced himself from Black America by
word and by deed. The pattern is clear. If you are Black, get back,
get back.
We must get in the street and loudly voice our disaproval
We must demand that the CBC serve us and not Obama. We must
register as independant voters.
This cut to higher Black eduaction was foreshadowed by his
appointment of Arn Duncan. His basket ball friend and proponent of
privatizing public education. If Arne will not educate our young ones,
Obama will certainly not educate their older sisters and brothers.
Protest.
Same source as above.
It appears that there is a seething amount of anger in the black community for policies followed by Obama, a subject that I have never seen discussed in the mainstream media or even in progressive blogs on the internet.
8) Obama's Bush-like position on Wall St.
Need I go into detail about this? Timothy Geithner's pathetic record is well-known. He was even appointed and served in the New York Fed under Bush. He wrote Tarp along with W.'s Paulson with whom he had worked. Geithner's a Goldie, Paulson was a Goldie, and Obama's a Goldie friend and friend of "Bob" (Robert Rubin) who was head of Citibank and Goldman. If you don't believe me, Google "Hamilton Project" and see the laudatory speech Senator Obama made to "Bob" the head of Goldman Sachs. Bush and Obama have the same position to the Wall St. fiasco: give the banks and big financial firms as much $$ as they want. At the same time, Obama is screwing and undermining the auto industry and the people who work in it, especially in Michigan. I'd write more but Obama's record in the financial bailout but frankly it gives me heart burn.
==============================================
Many other instances exist of Obama and his administration flipping, in almost every case taking a more conservative, Bush-Cheney-like position. I'll let posters comment on them because this diary is getting long.
But it adds credence to an insight by perhaps America's most famous writer and best essayist: Gore Vidal. In his American Empire series of historical books, Vidal once made the claim that America has really only 1 political party: the corporate party and it has 2 wings--Democratic and Republican. At the time I read that, I chafed but now I know the wisdom of Vidal for pointing this out long ago.
Let me conclude this diary with something equally startling that substantiates my theme: "New President: Same Old Shit?" Conservatives are now crowing that Obama's flip-flops actually show the wisdom of George W. Bush and Cheney and rehabilitate the dynamic duo. Hard to believe? This is from Commentary Magazine Online's Abe Greenwald and his story: "Obama Flips Rehabilitate Bush: It's a Good Time to be George W. Bush":
Let's face it, this is shaping up as George W. Bush's best month in years. The last time the 43rd president enjoyed this kind of vindication was when a bedraggled Saddam Hussein was pulled from a hole in the ground by American soldiers in 2003. All of Barack Obama's efforts to cast the Bush administration as an immoral stain on American history have not merely collapsed, but collapsed on the heads of Bush's most public and vocal critics.
...
And speaking of Dick Cheney: Not only has he proved to be an important and articulate defender of the Bush administration's national-security policy; his repeated interviews and statements have done Bush the service of drawing fire away from the former president. Bush not only looks wise these days; he looks modest and thoughtful as well. And Cheney's (denied) request to declassify more CIA interrogation memos explodes the myth of the "most secretive administration in American history."
...
On Iran, the Obama administration is veering from its stance of bottomless "respect" and "perseverance." This week Obama set early October as a "target" to determine whether Iran is really deserving of all that extended goodwill.
...
Finally, there's the strange and frankly unsettling image makeover of the Saudi royals. The Bush family's alleged intimacy with an extremist monarchy formed the very backbone of the anti-Bush industry. Yet, upon taking office Barack Obama commented on the bravery of King Abdullah and went on to virtually adopt the Saudi Peace Initiative as American policy. The administration is also seriously considering sending released Guantanamo detainees through the Saudi "jihad rehab" program.
...
President Obama, and the country at large, is finding out that George W. Bush's most controversial policies were not born of ideological delusion, American arrogance, or missionary zeal. They were imperfect but sound (with the exception of our ties to Riyadh) responses to complicated threats.
SOURCE: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/...
Ouch! It was really painful to read that and apologies to you readers for putting you through that torture--but it had to be done. It is with profound sadness that I say and write this, "New President: Same Old Shit?"
NOTE: Some who think "shit" is profanity might prefer this:
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss