Obama: Nothing New and Another Trap for Progressives

Today AlterNet featured part of a speech by Barack Obama delivered to the Take Back America conference. It seemed to offer hope to progressives - here is a lefty website that features hundreds of articles against the war in Iraq, for workers' rights, environmentalism, reproductive rights and even many critical of the Democratic Party - such as an article today by Norman Solomon critical of Hillary Clinton. So why is Obama's speech, described as "impassioned" and offering hope, the main story on their page? Isn't he more of a Democratic Party insider than even Howard Dean? The content of his speech, besides some jabs at Bush and some stated concern for the lower class, didn't really match the ideology of alternet, so what made it relevant to their readers, other than the fact that it provided false hope?

First some of his speech: He goes on about a 105 year old woman who he met once and how she inspired him, even though he only met her briefly, once. But he waxed eloquently about all she has seen in her life - the progress and the peril - and how she still believed in the political process (she met him to tell him she voted for him). That meeting gave him hope and shook him out of his frustration with politics where he sometimes feels that

every two years or fours years maybe we do our bit and we knock on doors or pass our literature, or we go into the polling place and hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils, but we don't feel in our gut sometimes that politics and government is going to improve our lives. At most, we hope it does us no harm.

This was a nice story, but it just seemed to emphasize the electoral process - connecting it to an elderly woman is a worn and hackneyed political ploy, like when George Bush points to some woman from Georgia in the crowd at his State of the Union address who he met and who told him she's proud of her son who died in Iraq. He alludes to "marching" and the civil rights movement, but for him it all comes down to having hope in electoral politics and ultimately the two party system, because sometimes he even gets down and hates picking between the lesser of two evils. But then he finds hope ... in himself.

No more can we count on employers to provide health care and pensions and job training when their bottom lines know no borders. We can't expect oceans that surround America to keep us safe from attacks from our own soil.

O.K. so he lets a bit of the truth out even at a supposedly "progressive" conference. He supports the War on Terror, it's just not being handled correctly. And, maybe he is a bit of a protectionist. He goes on ...

That if you say "plan for victory" often enough and have it pasted -- the words behind you when you make a speech, that nobody's going to notice the bombings in Baghdad or the 2,500 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at Dover Air force Base.

Right, so he doesn't want a withdrawal of troops, just a better plan for victory. He makes it official later when he says:

We understand, as progressives, that we need a tough foreign policy, but we know the other side has a monopoly on the tough-and-dumb strategy; we're looking for the tough-and-smart strategy - one that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism but understands that it's not just a matter of military might alone, that we've got to match it with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances and the power of our ideals, and that when we do go to war, we should be honest with the American people about why we're there and how we expect to win.

Wow, he could write speeches for Condaleeza Rice if he doesn't get the presidential nod - he did vote to confirm her after all. That's about how much his rhetoric and ideas seem to contrast with Mr. Bush's - only as much as a more nuanced member of his cabinet.

He gives us a peek at his revolutionary plan to solve the very serious health care crisis in this country. With millions uninsured and millions more underinsured, with hospitals admitting that they wouldn't be able to deal with something like a bird flu epidemic, and while hospital companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies make record profits he proclaims:

We know we're the party - we know that as progressives we believe in affordable health care for all Americans - and that we're going to make sure that Americans don't have to choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families, the party that won't just throw a few tax breaks at families who can't afford their insurance, but will modernize our health care system and give every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

Exactly what health care plan would bankrupt the government? That's the insurance company's rhetoric. Notice he mentions "the party."

I can't tear apart his speech any more or be frustrated with the actual progressives who read or heard this speech and felt inspired or hopeful. It's more of the same - and there is a decent analysis in The Nation about this, including Obama's support of the Hamilton Project - "an organization formed by Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to fight back against growing populist outrage within the party."

In the end, even if he has more lefty or progressive rhetoric than some of the other Democrats, he will excite a few people and then when the primaries are over, he'll tell them to vote for Hillary Clinton or which ever conservative, pro-war candidate makes it that far along. And we'll all be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils as always. (Unless an independent, genuinely progressive 3rd party emerges which can survive attacks from liberals and conservatives of course.)