like it or not Obama is the only hope America has for a future ! On Sep 29, 5:48 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Obama-McCain debate: Right-wing politicians agree on bailout and > militarism > By Patrick Martin > 29 September 2008 > > Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author > > Friday night’s presidential election debate between Democrat Barack > Obama and Republican John McCain demonstrated that there is no choice > in the 2008 presidential election within the confines of the official > two-party system. Two candidates stood facing each other, espousing > nearly identical positions in defense of Wall Street and American > militarism which would, in any other country in the world, immediately > identify them as representatives of the ultra-right. > > Both agreed that all possible resources must be mobilized to prop up > Wall Street, regardless of the cost to working people. Obama declared, > “We have to move swiftly and we have to move wisely,” although he did > not explain why speed was required to save the banks and speculators, > but not to stop foreclosures, layoffs and the destruction of working > class living standards. > > McCain praised the bailout talks in Washington, saying, “We are > seeing, for the first time in a long time, Republicans and Democrats > together, sitting down, trying to work out a solution to this fiscal > crisis that we’re in.” > > Two days earlier, President Bush went on national television, to all > but declare the bankruptcy of American capitalism, warning of an > “imminent collapse” of investment banks, “the gears of the American > financial system ... grinding to a halt,” “a financial panic” and “a > long and painful recession.” > > Obama and McCain presented no such dire picture, and evaded answering > the question of what impact the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street > would have on their future policies should they win the election. The > discussion of the financial crisis, which occupied the first half of > the debate, seemed intended more to put the audience to sleep than to > define the candidates’ positions. > > On foreign policy, both candidates agreed that American imperialism > has the right to deploy its military forces worldwide, attacking and > invading whatever country the “commander-in-chief” deems necessary. > Obama said that the lesson of Iraq was “we should never hesitate to > use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the > American people safe, never hesitate to use military force.” > > The two candidates clashed mainly over which countries should be > targeted for American aggression, with Obama favoring Afghanistan and > Pakistan, while McCain remained focused on Iraq. Both threatened Iran > and Russia. The Washington Post noted the consensus on foreign policy > approvingly in an editorial published Saturday, declaring, “Barack > Obama and John McCain don’t differ as much as they may lead voters to > believe.” > > The most notable feature of the debate was the extent which Obama, > marketed as the proponent of “change,” declared his agreement with > McCain. After an extraordinary week of upheavals in the financial > markets, Obama had every opportunity to go on the offensive against > his Republican opponent. Instead, he repeatedly declared McCain was > “absolutely right” on one point or another—a statement that recurred > 11 times in the course of the debate. > > It is worth citing some of these declarations of agreement, for they > demonstrate the completely conventional and right wing political > orientation of the Obama campaign. > > On the financial crisis: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right > that we need more responsibility.” > > On spending: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks > process has been abused.” > > On taxation: “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are > high in this country, and he’s absolutely right.” > > On the federal budget: “John is right, we have to make cuts.” > > On Iraq: “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has > been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our > troops and our military families.” > > On threatening military action in Pakistan: “John ... you’re > absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say.” > > On Iran: “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a > nuclear Iran.” > > Obama thus acknowledged that he and McCain share a common framework, > which is the defense of the interests of the American ruling class, > both at home and abroad. If he had been debating a socialist > candidate, he would have had no agreement on anything. > > Given this level of consensus, the media obsession with which > candidate “won” the debate takes on an unreal, even absurd, character. > The decisive factor in the election is not the popular response to the > candidates, but the attitude of the financial and political > establishment, which has swung behind the Obama campaign in the last > few weeks, particularly as Obama took the lead in supporting the > bailout of Wall Street. > > There are two interpretations for Obama’s behavior: First, a > considerable degree of political cowardice in the face of McCain’s > strident defense of militarism and big business. Obama seemed abashed, > and allowed McCain to interrupt him almost at will. > > But given the highly contrived and orchestrated character of > presidential election debates, it is likely as well that Obama was > following a script—and there were reports that the Democratic campaign > made a deliberate decision to include statements of agreement with > McCain at regular intervals to present Obama as a seeker of bipartisan > consensus. > > This is more than a matter of electoral tactics, but expresses the > fundamental character of the Democratic Party, an imperialist party of > big business that nonetheless is assigned the role, in the American > political system, of appealing to working people, minorities and the > oppressed in general. > > This is what gives the declarations of leading Democrats such a half- > hearted, tongue-tied character. Obama & Co. are always tripping over > their own internal contradictions, as they seek to posture as the > “people’s party” while reassuring the ruling elite as a whole and > making conciliatory gestures to the ultra-right. > > It was noticeable in the course of the debate that Obama avoided any > sort of populist appeal in his comments on the economic crisis. His > remarks were targeted, not to the mass audience, but to the most > critical constituency that his campaign must seek to satisfy: the > major financial interests and their media representatives. > > While McCain has occasionally indulged in demagogic sallies against > Wall Street greed and corruption, the Democrats have made it clear to > big business that they will not seek to mobilize or stir up in any way > their nominal “base” among working people. > > Obama does not represent an alternative to the right-wing program of > the American ruling elite, but rather a cosmetic change to permit this > program to be continued and even escalated. An alternative to the > policies of imperialist war, economic austerity and attacks on > democratic rights will only come from below, from the political > mobilization of working people, independently of and against the two- > party system, and on the basis of a socialist program. > > On Sep 27, 9:16 pm, "mike532 [ Republicans for Obama ]" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Six Short Takes on Why Obama Came out Ahead in the Debate > > >http://www.alternet.org/election08/100565/ > > In the first head-to-head debate of the 2008 campaign, the financial > > crisis dragged what the McCain camp had hoped would be fought in the > > GOP nominee's comfort zone -- foreign policy and national security -- > > squarely into the realm of domestic policy. > > > Moderator Jim Lehrer made a smooth transition to the voters' top > > concern in this election, saying that we were facing a potential > > meltdown of the global economy, which was by definition a matter of > > "national security." > > > What followed was a microcosm of the 2008 race: Barack Obama dominated > > John McCain when the focus of the debate was on the domestic sphere > > and a fast-deteriorating financial sector, but ceded an enormous > > amount of political space to McCain on national security, accepting > > much of the Arizona senator's overarching neoconservative narrative > > that the United States is surrounded by mortal danger and evildoers > > and has a moral duty to maintain our forces in Iraq and elsewhere in > > order to defend the homeland. > > > McCain appeared twitchy and out of touch as the debate began with the > > banking meltdown and the Bush-Paulson plan to reverse it. He blinked > > rapidly and avoided eye contact with Obama, Lehrer and the audience as > > Obama came out swinging against McCain for enabling the "root causes" > > of the crisis to develop during decades in the Congress, including a > > long stint on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and > > Transportation. > > > Obama articulately condemned what he called a "philosophy that says > > that regulation is always bad," and blamed its pervasiveness for the > > economic mess. McCain, moments before saying that we have the > > "greatest workers in the world" (and that the United States is > > simultaneously the "greatest importer" and "greatest exporter" in the > > world), tried to shift blame from Wall Street to Main Street -- from > > predatory lenders and fast-and-loose brokers to those who find > > themselves with a home on the bubble today. > > > It's a losing strategy. > > > Obama, on the other hand, must be extremely confident that this > > election will be decided on the economy, as he failed to challenge > > McCain on his belligerent stance toward the rest of the world. > > > He conceded that the "surge has worked" -- it has not. He tried to go > > toe to toe with John "Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain on the evils of Iran. He > > called Venezuela a "rogue state." He engaged in a bit > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
