[Peace-discuss] Comments on Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A longer version of the piece on Obama and AWARE that
appeared in the News-Gazette has been published on
Counterpunch <http://counterpunch.org/estabrook09292005.html>,
and I've gotten a number of interesting comments.  Here are
some. --CGE]

[1] Thank you for pulling back the curtain on Barack Obama,
one of the greatest political disappointments I've ever voted
for.  Following his support for Condoleezza Rice as Secretary
of State, I swore never again to vote for Obama.  Also, some
months ago I was shocked to see that a unanimous majority in
the Senate had voted for a supplemental appropriation to
continue financing both the illegal incursion into Iraq and
the highly questionable invasion of Afghanistan.  Obviously,
both Durbin and Obama voted in favor of additional funds.
	We have to come up with ways to hold our elected officials
more accountable.  Obama's votes on both Rice and these
murderously stupid wars were absolutely the reverse of what
his constituents wished him to do.  He's in there another 5
years, but Durbin's re-election effort will soon be getting
underway.  Peace groups across Illinois have to organize to
either find an alternative candidate, or to hold Durbin's feet
to the fire over these issues.  (I recognize that Durbin did
vote against Rice, but he's been consistently wishy-washy on
Iraq.)
	The position of the peace movement must remain an immediate
pullout, no if's, when's or but's.

[2] It is really disturbing how easily activists can be
coopted by smooth talking fakers who stroke our sensibilities
while supporting policies dimentrically opposed to our power
interests.  People want to identify with power to legitimate
and validate their aims, even when the aims of people and
power fundamentally diverge.  It is this tendency that has
helped political leaders sell out their populations throughout
history.  No fundamental change will occur in power systems
unless the population understands and resists this tendency. 
But how can this be done?   

[3] Frightening when the ‘one party’ system reveals itself,
but the ‘AWAREs’ of this country are beginning to pack a more
powerful punch, besides, to borrow a Rumsfeldism, ‘we have to
wage politics with the party we have’.

[4] As a very prominent member of the African-American
Community recently told me: "He ain't one of  US." 

[5] EXACTLY! He's what I call a 'top-percentile follower.'
You've got him perfectly: a member of the enabling class.  
	I remember when I was first trying to figure him out. I
listened to a C-SPAN archive recording of him speaking on his
book tour in New York. He said "his salvation was tied up with
the salvation of the country." My god.
	This fellow is dangerous because he can play his Clintonesque
style to the influential, still, DLC left, as well the
ignorant left, and the corporate and social conservative
right. And obviously he's riding his black skin, though he's
being used for it as much he is using the right groups, sects,
power people on his way to power (I'm black myself). Like
Clinton, he has displayed from earlier in his career he wants
power for power's sake. Of course, you have to like power to
want to be president, or senator, or ceo, but those who only
seek power end up selling out whatever it takes to get it and
maintain it. Hence Clinton. Really don't know why black
people, or any working person (PNTR, NAFTA), thought he was great.
	This is a guy, Obama, who I read in the New Yorker said "he
wants China to succeed", and that the union worker here in
America was really just interested in cheap sneakers. The
writer of the article revealingly portrayed him ability to
morph into whatever he thinks works with the person who
happens to be in front of him at the time.
	My fear is that the white left, happy to have a black skinned
Harvard graduate as an example of who they would like all
black people to become, will unwittenly yield to a servant of
economic injustice that will affect all but the top 20
percentile, white, black, yellow, brown.
	I actually thought Kweisi Mfume gave a better speach at the
DNC Convention last summer, and let's hope he wins as Senator
in the state of Maryland.

[6] When Mr. Obama was elected senator there was quite a lot
of excitement among my friends in Illinois concerning his
Democratic identity.  I found their enthusiasm engaging but I
was privately skeptical.  Your piece colorfully illustrates my
doubts about Mr. Obama.
	The Iraq invasion -- and its consequences -- will eventually
be judged even more criminally irresponsible than the American
experience in Vietnam.  I am of that generation, as are the
decisionmakers in the White House that invented it and those
in congress that support(ed) it.  I cannot comprehend the
stupidity -- there's really no other word for it -- that
persuaded them to re-create the horror of the Vietnam War for
themselves and their children in an otherwise peaceful United
States.  I remain amazed at the absence of resistance among
what must be the better-informed members of our national
government.  If politics is their only excuse for supporting
this disastrous adventure I can only conclude that my
representatives are irresponsible cowards.  
	And Mr. Obama seems to be fitting-in well among them.  So
this private message seeks to encourage your exposure of his
Harvard-inspired tendency to equivocate in his own interest
while ignoring that of the United States and his constituents...

[7] Nice piece on the Counterpunch web site. Obama seems to be
the newest in vogue Democrat. As you point out, he seems to be
parroting the same line on the war as a number of other
prominent Democrats in the Senate and House (HRC & Nancy Pelosi). 
	Unfortunately, the war in is a military, political and
economic disaster for the and I would go so far to say that
this may well go down as the biggest foreign policy
catastrophe in the 200+ years of existence. 
	What options does the have? We consume 25% of the world’s oil
but have 4% of the world’s population. We are also running
astronomical deficits ($500 billion federal and trade
imbalances). These are not sustainable positions. The path
that Bush has taken is to invade, threaten (and maybe attack)
. . . etc. Given our relatively weak economic position, I
would argue that these policies are actually a sign of weakness. 
	From my vantage point, the Democrats, while having some
tactical differences with Bush, are basically in sync with his
policies (witness the latest vote on Roberts). They are
determined to stay the course in Iraq, to insure control of
Iraqi oil reserves -- this is one of the major components of
the new Iraqi constitution 
	The US is losing the war in and will be forced out. I think
this is going to have negative consequences for the US --
dollar is going to drop, and oil is going to continue to get
more expensive. 
	Obama is a photogenic and articulate establishment
politician. The last thing he wants to do is deny Exxon-Mobil
the chance to take over some Iraqi oil fields. I suspect he
will come out against the war when the outcome becomes more
apparent. Until this time, expect more wishy washy positions
from Obama, Feinstein, HRC, Kerry, etc. 

[8] I just read the subject article on Counterpunch.org. Thank
you for the insights about Senator Obama. The Democrats have
been a BIG disappointment vis-a-vis Iraq and myriad other
issues. Sadly, at this crucial point in our history, We the
People have NO opposition party to fight for us.
	If I still lived in IL, I would have voted for the
independent candidate, not Obama, based on issues alone. I'm
tired of being asked -- no, expected -- to vote for the
supposed lesser of two evils...

[9] I am an African American Myself The Media which can’t be
trusted made it seem as if Obama had progressive views Know
That I know He’s just like The Rest. He should be condemned
for his actions. As should Condi Rice and Even Though he’s
gone now. Mr Powell also in his lies that led up to The War.
They should all be held accountable. And given no slack just
because of their race. If your not for The Withdrawal of The
Troops Now. Then You’re an enemy to The Anti war Movement and
should be treated as such regardless of Race Religion or
Gender. Keep up The good work...

[10] Good job in calling out Barack Obama.  This guy is
exactly what the antiwar and justice movement doesn't need:
another liberal shill for war and racism. We also took him to
task for his opposition to marriage equality for same-sex
people. Obama was noticeably absent from other Black
politicians rightly condemning the obvious racism revealed in
the New Orleans debacle.

[11] Many thanks for your column on the Obama personality
cult.  My hackles started to rise when the media was
presenting him as the best thing since sliced bread, when the
cat is to the right of where Edward Brooke used to stand as a
republican senator from Massachusetts decades ago.  His speech
at the convention was nauseating and pretentious, and he got a
free pass because he played the race card.
	But as another light skinned black, I can tell you it's an
old game, shameful to the nth degree.  I come from a family
that has played it for generations, and when the working poor
do it, it's a ticket to insanity.  I won't go into any
details.  But Obama is trying to prove to  the most 
retrograde elements in white America that he can be trusted
with a fruitful aggression on behalf of mom, applie pie, and
the gross national product.  He wants to be president?  He
thinks himself as one like Lincoln?  Well, Lincoln had a lot
of problems, but he also was able to re-create himself in 
the right order when the heat was on.  Obama is just about
shine and polish. 
  He is a shit.  I truthfully hope he has gone as far as he
can go, but the ruling elite of this country are desperate,
and unfortunately, all too many blacks are hungry for any
evidence of black power.  Obama is not that, but it may take
hard experience and pain for many of us to learn otherwise...

   ###