Friday, October 31, 2008

Critique of the Obama infomercial

Crimes Of The State art by Grant

Obama opens with a gas pump filling up an oversized SUV. This is the image he chooses to start the discussion. No hint that gas-guzzling behemoths (and those who buy them) are part of the problem, just that the "middle class" is struggling.

Obama's obsession with the "middle class" is pure Clintonian "triangulation."

In his pandering to the "middle class" voters he is nearly shameless. No mention of the poor. And he goes one further, he literally says that:

"Ten years ago, she bought a house outside the city so that she could send her children to good schools."

What about inside the city, Barack? The bad schools? Not even an acknowledgement. * Shameless pandering it is.

Moving to "the economy," it's "eight years of failed policies" which allegedly caused the recent collapse in the financial industry. But, Barack, what about going back another couple of years to how Clinton changed the regulation of the industry by repealing Glass-Steagall?

Another glossed over, cheesy political point replaces a true understanding of the problem: the bi-partisan nature of the beast.

Regarding foreclosures, Obama promises the "help" of "freezing foreclosures" for those trying to pay, "for 90 days."

What about 91 days, Barack? What about restructuring the loans so they can pay them? This band-aid solution will not have much effect on real foreclosed upon families, but it sounds like he cares, I suppose.

In a more outrageous bonding session with the working man, an elderly gentleman describes how $19 Million of his company's pension fund was stolen by the company on their way to bankruptcy, Enron style.

Obama's response, time and time, companies are: "shedding those obligations."

No, Barack: They stole it. This was a crime. This is a crime that should be investigated, punished, and the money recovered on behalf of the injured parties.

Finishing up, Obama says: "Those (pensions) aren't idle promises, they are promises that should have the force of law."

They don't? There's no regulation or oversight of pension money? These pension funds were robbed. Why isn't it a crime, the same as robbing a convenience store? Why isn't there some legitimate outrage on Obama's part, no call for investigations, nothing, just another photo op.

In the medical segment that follows, it sounds a lot like the woman is taking 12 different drugs for "arthritis," and going broke as a result. I've got to say that the problem might be the doctor(s). This counts as a pretty poor example, fitting in mostly because of their "middle class" economic situation, rather than as an indictment of the ridiculously dysfunctional medical establishment (which Obama has no plan to substantially alter).

Obama should have taken a hint from Michael Moore's Sicko -- or perhaps that's all he took, a hint.

"Clean coal" and the "domestic production of oil" get plugs in the energy plan. That's expected.

Then the big subject of Iraq is brought center stage. How does Barack tackle this massive war crime with over one million murdered Iraqis, countless injured and maimed, including a substantial number of American troops, all who were sold a bill of goods by the lies of the Bush gang (and Obama VP pick Joe Biden, too).

I felt a bit nauseous, for here is "Iraq" as per Obama:

"We're currently spending $10 Billion dollars a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus."

It's all about the money. No morality enters the equation.

Does "they" refer to the Iraqis, who have wanted our invading armies out for the last 5 years (excepting the puppet regime we installed)?

What is the implication? Is this the neocon argument about making the Iraqis pay for their own imperial subjugation?

Obama does, to his credit, say that the "war" should "close." That's a step, but does it mean removing the invading armies, air force, navy and mercenaries from their country completely? Hmmm. If this is a position change, he hasn't spelled it out as clearly as he claimed he would at the beginning.

Obama highlights some faux populism next, but he does it in such an obviously subservient manner:

"So, I'm not worried about CEOs, I'm not worried about corporate lobbyists, I'm not worried about the drug companies or the oil companies or the insurance companies. They'll be fine, they can look out for themselves."

Oh, better than fine, Barack. As a corporate stooge you fully understand how they're doing, and how you ought not disturb the business as usual. "Corporate lobbyists?" Not a word about changing the culture where "corporate lobbyists" create corrupt legislation to ram down our collective throats. The "insurance companies?" Your health plan evidently wants to enroll more uninsured on the corporate, privatised medical insurance rolls, with US government graft. "CEO's?" The fraudsters of wall street won't need your attention, send them another $700 billion of our money if they complain. The "drug companies" which use public research and development funds to create private patents on new drugs? Why bother looking into that, Barack?

The dismissiveness is smooth and fluent now. And the coded triangulation is clearly in play. Is this the best America could hope for? Willful deception?

And now the shocker:

Barack Obama is seductive, is clearly not on the level of John McCain or Sarah Palin in terms of psychotic malevolence.

You can almost believe his naive attitude about the wars in the Middle East.

Perhaps Obama truly does not know the backstory about Al Qaeda, those intelligence assets created by our "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, and Musharaf's Pakistan. He may be completely ignorant as to what the CIA and Mossad and MI6 have been playing at for the last few decades. He may have good intentions, as he presents, and on day one of Obama's presidency, he may find out there is no Santa Claus.

What then?

More to the point, should I reconsider my vote, and throw it Obama's way despite a long list of reasons to withold it? What if my state really is in danger of flipping for McCain?

What if my vote actually does matter this time?

These are weighty questions.

Seeing how the third parties have no chance of winning the 2008 presidency, whatsoever, is the risk worth it? Could the McCain/Palin wrecking crew start a nuclear holocaust?

* Obama's later school proposals, vaguely mentioned, did include "all" schools, and were not solely directed at the middle class areas. Several key issues were just vague and without substance, contrary to his introductory claim.

For a balanced perspective on Obama's ties to the Washington establishment, and his shoddy record to date, see:

Twelve Reasons to Reject Obama and Support Nader/McKinney
- by Prof. James Petras

What Do They Have to Do to Lose Your Vote?
The Trail of Broken Promises

posted by John Doraemi

No comments:

Post a Comment