DISQUS

Gary Ogletree · 1 year ago

Well said. I started off hoping Obama would be who he claims to be. Now I feel he's the most contemptable politician we've seen in long time.

Lou · 1 year ago

Obama is a first class sham. He stole the election in every state. He lost NC by a half million votes and claimed over 400k votes from "dead people" absentee ballots.
Hillary got 1,188,961 votes in NC and approximately 685,000 were all that was counted

framecop · 1 year ago

You clearly get it, Adolph.

Neither Clinton or Obama has EVER had any chance of getting elected in November, which is why the DC insiders posing as unbiased news personalities shoved Clinton and Obama down Democratic voters throats from day one of 2007, to FOOL THEM into believing that their only two real choices for November were Clinton and Obama, the two candidates that the GOP wanted to face from the beginning.

They didn't want to face Edwards, which is why the media ignored him all of 2004 and made sure to pick away at him while pushing Clinton and Obama all of 2007 to make sure that he didn't gain any traction in the 2008 cycle.

Now, Democrats are done for.

I'm so glad that someone else is smart enough to see it, Adolph.

debrazza · 1 year ago

HA! Brilliant!

The truth is that the only person qualified to be President is Adolf Reed :)

Ralph_D · 1 year ago

I've been saying exactly the same thing since day 1. The shameful behavior of the media paid off: the electorate--black and white--has responded blindly and ignorantly like Pavlovian dogs salivating on cue. I think the label "progressive" has become almost as meaningless and brain-dead as the label "liberal". Given the choice between three evils, sure, I personally find Obama the least offensive, but the fact that the race has come down to this point means that American democracy is in even more mortal danger than it's been during the Bush administration. All of the pro-Obama drivel on this blog, for instance, is based on self-deceiving wish-fulfillment with absolutely nothing in the real world to back it up. It's sickening!

Mercurio · 1 year ago

Well said. When are people going to wake up to the Obama Con?

G. · 1 year ago

What was that old axiom again? Beware of false idols?

Geoff Arnold · 1 year ago

Obama is coming undone by his own rhetoric. If he believes his own propaganda, we are dearly in trouble. It is a fact that the way people vote in primaries is NOT reflective of the way they vote in the general elections. The primaries are their hopes and dreams, the generals are their pragmatic realities.

As Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia attest, Obama does NOT do well with rank and file average Americans, regardless of colour, though these three places are predominantly white working stiffs.

In 2004 the Republicans did poorly in the large urban areas, but fabulously well in less densely populated America, precisely where Obama has his greatest weakness. It is well known that major urban centers are liberal bastions.

But we also know that if Hillary gets the nomination, Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk will raise their voices of betrayal and blame white America for racism once again instead of looking at the real data and seeing that Obama just couldn't pull out the election, but that Hillary, if she is really good and convincing -- and McCain stumbles a bit more than he already has -- will win and put a Dem in the White House, the real goal of the DNC.

Deal with it.

decafe · 1 year ago

There are two main reasons why Obama's 'Hope and Change' theme is empty rhetoric": 1) America doesn't need it, and 2) He can't offer it.

I don't where all the American's live who think the country is sinking or diminished in the world's eyes or mean or the people are being "ground under" as the Rev. Wright said. Wake up, people. We're living in the golden age of the greatest nation that has ever existed in the history of Man. Do we have problems? Sure. Is there room for improvement? You betcha. But it's not Obama's airy prescription that we need to do do better, it's hard work, common sense and a clear sense of right and wrong -- something that Americans in the 20th century had in abundance. Our challenge going forward is to not lose hold of our fine American heritage but to embrace it and do our best to secure our own strength and prosperity while we advance the principles of liberty and democracy to a dangerous world, but one that is badly in need of America's aid and influence.

As for Obama's 'Hope and Change?' If you are currently under his spell, dazzled by his callow hand-waving and smarmy rhetoric, misty over the idea of a (half) black man becoming president, then I suspect no words will get through to you. But I see this as a more fitting slogan for him: "Whine and Blame." This local government dilettante is going to bring fundamental change to America? How? By tearing up the constitution? By snake charming the Republicans in Congress? By smiling at all those nasty “petty dictators?” Gimme a break. To steal a phrase from a past presidential campaign, "Where's the Beef?"

Looking for a Candidate · 1 year ago

An insightful and brave article in view of the media bias for this gentleman. Thank you for it.

anita · 1 year ago

After our citizens elected ?? our current President not once, but twice, why am I at all surprised at the degree of support for Obama over Clinton? I am a pragmatist- always have been. I want a President with the intellect, experience and grasp of the issues facing our country. Someone who can multitask, think on their feet, and who has studied the issues from all side. One who already has a comprehensive plan in mind to tackle these issues. In my mind, it seems so obvious that Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate of the final 3 in the race; and that if need be- she continue to run as a 3rd Party candidate. And even though I am a registered Democrat, Senator McCain will get my vote if my choices are so limited.

oleeb · 1 year ago

Thanks Prof. Reed!

I am so glad to see that other heretics are abroad in the land who don't believe in the miraculous healing powers of the soon to be anointed one!

I've been thinking and saying many of the things you write about for many months to no avail in terms of trying to alert those who have drunk of the kool aid.

People are snowed and they just don't want to deal with the reality of Obama or the reality that it's going to take more than electing more centrist/corporate Democrats to bring about change. I must say that much of Hillary's support, in my opinion, also consists of a nearly cultish belief that by simply changing the gender of the President a miraculous and sanctified change will come down from the heavens and bless our nation once again. Of course, that's pure rubbish, but that is what's going on. Look at the numbers of white women voting in droves for Hillary. It's the only thing that has kept her campaign afloat.

The most important point of all though, is that because he is just another in the long line of Democrats who have chosen to take the course Obama has, he is unlikely to win in November. The same is true for Hillary. But people, who are otherwise intelligent and discerning just don't want to be bothered with those inconvenient facts. They think if they just wish hard enough and long enough the miracle will occur. Winning Powerball is more likely, but still they dream of the mystic transformation of the man who is the physical embodiment of paradigm shift, etc...

Meanwhile, all of the "progressives" out there who abandoned every position they believe in to elect a symbol of change instead of someone who will bring about change will scratch their heads and wonder why the miracle did not occur. I envision this will be somewhat akin to the astonishment of Seventh Day Adventists who have twice waited patiently for the return of Jesus on a day specified by their leaders only to be dumbfounded when the glorious miracle did not occur. This is, of course, followed by profound disillusionment.

Dr. Reed's Student · 1 year ago

I'm sick of these shots at Dr. Reed's person. I expect to see this board full of people who disagree with him rather than childish one-liners by those who clearly don't know what they're talking about. For the record, Dr. Reed has spent his entire life as an organizer and political advocate. I'd be willing to guarantee he has more practical experience at "doing" than most of you self-proclaimed activists ever will. I'm truly shocked at how reactionary many of these Obama supporters appear in response to an intelligent critique of his candidacy. Granted, some selection bias undoubtedly plays a role, with respondents generally the most passionate (read, freakishly cultish) in defending their prophet. Nonetheless, it's quite disheartening that even among 'progressives' (and I'm not even sure what that term means anymore), a real, substantive debate is still absent.

There are a few people out there who actually care about the issues affecting working people's lives yet don't trumpet their name at every opportunity: Adolph Reed is one of them. And frankly, as a young person, that's the type of political figure I admire. Not some media-generated rock star with no discernible programmatic agenda.

Denise · 1 year ago

Can a I get an Amen. I saw the exact same things only to have the progressive universe fall all over itself proclaiming this fraud the second coming. Thank you. At least I know there is one other progressive on the planet who sees through this phony.

tony · 1 year ago

Great article. Black people have been ridiculously close-minded with respect to dissent concerning Obama. The white lovefest for Obama was the first sign of trouble for me. Having attended two Ivy league schools and working in extraordinarily white professional environments, I know the kind of black people white elites -- liberal or otherwise -- prefer, and these people usually do not share the political commitments of most blacks. Instead of scrutinizing Obama, the black community instead launched into "racism allegation mode" and blasted the Clintons for everything ranging from "your position on the war is racist," it took a president to pass the civil rights act," and Obama's success results from his race. All of these statements are true. The fact that Obama's are so alarmed that Clinton is supposedly hurting "the first viable black candidate" proves that people want him to stay strong because of his race. People who support Obama because his election is historic also legitimate Ferraro's point. At my job ALL of the white professionals love Obama, and refuse to even engage in critique surrounding him. And they are ACADEMICS. I fear the silencing of dissent. The black community trashed Tavis Smiley; I have heard people call Sheila Jackson Lee, Maya Angelou, and Maxine Waters "sellouts," even though each one of them have much deeper roots helping black people than Obama will ever have. Are we (blacks) so desperate to occupy the White House that we stop engaging in dissent? Are liberal whites so desperate to discharge racial guilt that they do the same?

Tif · 1 year ago

Given Obama's opportunistic ambition, what exactly did he accomplish as a community organizer and state senator? He may be, as Hillary states, inexperienced, but he is not young. 46 is middle age. What has he done in the past 2-1/2 decades that qualifies him to be president?

Martha · 1 year ago

Best article The Progressive has done the entire campaign seasons. Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Ralph_Melcher · 1 year ago

Bravo! Reed's piece sums up all of my own reasons for distrusting Obama and his Obamacrats and adds a few not at all surprising details from the candidate's early career in Chicago. The word that best characterizes my early and recent impressions of Obama is, 'shyster.'

Whitaker · 1 year ago

Reverend Wright issued the Last Wrights to Obama. The other issues that destroy his credibility and expose his lack of judgment have not even received attention yet. Would anyone be wringing their hands and agonizing over how can we fool them now, if this was David Duke?

Hilda · 1 year ago

A breath of fresh air. Are we all hypnotized. i don't get it. It's the American Idol in reality.

PJ · 1 year ago

Thank you for your insight into a man I have yet been able to completely define. Other than he is inexperienced, unqualified, and his resume is tissue thin, the hype that surrounds him has completely turned me off. His supporters are indeed cultish as they brook no criticism of their hero and the discourse from them, more than any other, has turned ugly. They treat him as the Second Coming, as if we are attacking a sacred entity. I feel much freer criticizing the pope than I do Obama.

Peter Gee · 1 year ago

This is an extraordinarily prescient piece that, coming as it does from someone who is I assume a black leftist, all the more likely to be true. It is fascinating that both right wing commentators and Mr. Reed seem to say almost the same things about the Obamassiah and therefore they are both right or both wrong and I happen to believe the former more likely. Particularly true to me is Reed's depiction of Obama as more at home with the University and Foundation soft left and his need to toughen his street image at Rev Wright's church, and his revelation that Michelle Obama's father was a Daley machinepol captain is also highly revealing.

show me · 1 year ago

Thanks so much for this article!

Cann · 1 year ago

Dear Prof. Reed Jr.

Thank you, sir, for this well written, articulate, and illuminating article. Why so many are not seeing this person for who is he dumbfounds me. I agree with one poster, a vast number of people supporting him have abandoned their own moral and ethical convictions to usher in Obama.

After extensive research concerning Obama, I am very distressed at the thought of him being in the White House. Is it because Obama is a part African American? NO, it is not! I refuse to support anyone who has so many views and stands that are contrary to my own. When this election is over, I will still have to live with my choice for president.

Why the media, reporters, magazines, political figures, etc. was perfectly willing to report on the Wright controversy, they refuse to report the scarier, more threatening situations and people is associates with. This whole process has been spun and assured by the "powers that be". For me, all of the insistence, maneuvering, under handed actions to get Obama elected should be very unnerving to the people in this country. Instead, they have contributed to and insured Obama remained the one and only choice.

Since you have had dealings with Obama that go back to the beginning of his political career, you are in the position to KNOW what you are talking about and I am thankful you have retained your values and self respect. Obviously, you haven't sold out or bought into all of the tactics used to convince the masses to vote for him. I truly admire your willingness to express your views and the honesty used in your article. I bet you are an awesome Professor!

Obama's connection to the atrocities taking place in Africa is too close for my comfort. He greatly respects and supports his brother and cousin, who are part of a faction trying to take over their country. The bloody, cruel, heartbreaking, and ruthless way this "revolt" is taking place should scare any normal person. Burning a christian church, with women and children inside, and having no hesitation or remorse for this despicable act leaves little room for doubt these people are not going to be receptive to "unity and peace". Their country is getting change. The change taking place has been made possible by killings, torture, unspeakable violence and totally heartless actions. To me, nothing justifies these killings. How then, could we support a President who supports these people? His brother is WRONG and a threat to the safety and well being of the people. The Kenyan newspapers (and others that know what is going on there) have denounced this faction and reported on the atrocities taking place.

I can't support a man who votes against the "Born Alive Protection Act" repeatedly and stands by that vote 100%. Do I want a man, as my president, who has no compassion or moral conviction to condone making sure a baby that was born alive, as the result of an abortion, DIES, is way beyond Roe V Wade.

The thought of watching an infant struggle for breath, being "set aside" in a closet or box or what have you, until "it" dies seems so barbaric. I can't imagine anyone participating in this horrid act, yet they have or there would have been no need to make this act illegal. Yet, Obama continually voted against this act. He even said it was the WOMAN'S choice to have an abortion and thus this "fetus" (completely out of the body and ALIVE) was a product of the abortion and basically his opinion boiled down to: the intent of the abortion was to end a pregnancy and the development/life of the fetus. So... the expelled fetus was supposed to die and no measures should be taken to aid this born alive infant . Thus, anyone complying with this "thought" would be aiding in the death of an infant by neglect. Thank goodness others DID think this was not acceptable and they passed the Born Alive Protection Act.

Are these the only issues that bother me? No they are not. But, I could write all day, even providing reliable source information and documentation concerning my thoughts and his actions, but it has seemed to make no difference. In fact, it seems to encourage others to vote for him all the more. So, again, thank you for your honesty and willingness to take the "backlash" and nastiness your honesty will invoke.

AfulCaucusSkew · 1 year ago

Mr. Reed, I hope several of your Political Science students will research the Awful Caucus Skew which has twisted History in this 2008 election. The punch line is that in Texas, Hillary's voters were plus 4 in the Primary and minus 12 in the caucus on the same day. A 16% swing! Suppose we had only seen the caucus results in Texas?

This Awful Caucus Skew ratified the results of my 2400 volunteer phone calls. 87-yr-old Vera in Iowa told me, "Oh no, honey, I can't caucus for Hillary. I'm a cripple." Taken aback, I said, "Well, you could vote-by-mail Absentee!" She said, "Not in a caucus state. No Absentee Ballot. If I can't get there in my body, I don't count." "I don't count"? In America? In the Democratic Party? 82-yr-old Ruth told me indignantly, "Just because I'm sick doesn't mean I can't think!"

I began to keep track. Every 8th phone call I made in a Caucus State got me Lorna, "Oh no,dear, I don't dare go out to caucus, I'm off balance." There is an epidemic of housebound older women in America who are cheated of their votes by their terrible fear of falling and because the appalling caucus system does not allow them an Absentee Ballot. No 'ride to the polls' helps these housebound and bedbound voters. Only the Absentee Ballot. It is a scandal of voter suppression. THEIR votes don't show up in those ballyhooed pledged delegates and popular vote.

Did you never wonder why Mr. Obama won mainly in caucus states? Hillary's core vote was prevented from participating in Caucus States. I wish Obama supporters would be honest. Suppose 15% of black voters were prevented from participating? Would there not be an outcry for voting justice. Of course.

This kind of Mockery of Democracy in Caucus States is exactly why superdelegates were created.(Non-lemming) superdelegates were designed to account for gross injustice like the huge voter suppression of Hillary's core voters in Caucus States.

Despite the Parroted Media Myth in pseudo-reporting, Hillary did NOT lose the women's vote in Iowa. She did NOT 'get back the women's vote' in New Hampshire because she teared up in a diner. Nonsense. Her voters were forbidden the Absentee Ballot in caucus Iowa. They got back the Absentee Ballot in primary New Hampshire.

The Math is NOT the Math. Your students could run the math and see that if Hillary's housebound voters were accounted for in Caucus States, she would be comfortably ahead in all the vaunted metrics.

Lou · 1 year ago

Don't forget to check the math in Guam and other state election sites.
Here's your tip:
Votes Cast:
Votes counted.

Marie · 1 year ago

You sound unbalanced yourself. Caucusing existing long before Hillary was the nominee. If it were as big an injustice as you say, and Dems believed that a primary, in person or by absentee ballot, would increase voter participation by a substantial enough margin to tip the country blue, Hillary would hardly be the first person to suggest it. Instead, you have a candidate who has convinced women, white women, that they are being "denied" their vote. "Blacks" include women as well, BTW.

Hillary lost. End of story. The DNC has rules for how the primary will be run. Those rules are promulgated long before the runs begin. Hillary lost. End of story.

Bemused · 1 year ago

You all do realise that Butterfly Ballots; Pregnant, Dimpled and Hanging chads also existed well before Bush v Gore. Coming to think of it, I recall someone, criticised for limited executive experience, who ran as a uniter given to reaching across the aisle and what not. Whatever happened to that guy?

Jas · 1 year ago

Thank you for this piece. I became a fan of prof reed after reading Class Notes. You have captured my views as a young, progressive women of color. I'm a political junkie and watching my firends make very uninformed decisions based on "goin with the flow," has actually pushed me at times to wonder why I was unable to find a connection with Obama. Was something wrong with me. I had watched the speech in 04, read both his books, and was often left with the feeling of watching someone who had mapped out their political trajectory well in advance, but couldn't similarly map out a political agenda.

I started as an edwards supporter, and m now supporting Hillary, mostly for similar reasons, but also because she comes across as tough, and a fighter. Ultimately we can only judge a candidate by the mandate they seek. With edwards gone, she's my choice.

Again thank-you and please keep writing.

Dan · 1 year ago

I'm always interested in the response to the critique that Obama's promise of change lacks substance or that his followers are cultists.

Invariably, someone will pipe up and vouch for personal groundedness - claiming he or she understands he isn't a prophet, or that his or her personal support isn't based on the hope rhetoric. Of course that doesn't explain why Mr. Obama resorts to the empty rhetoric. SOMEONE believes it - apparently quite a few supporters, or he wouldn't constantly repeat it.

Obama is vacuous. He is a neoliberal. He has no experience, and has spent his entire brief political career in personal aggrandizement. A major reason Obama has succeeded has been the adoption of the right wing war against the Clintons - either in the passive form (Clinton has too many enemies to win) or in an irrational attack on her as Rovian. In fact, Clinton and Obama are largely the same on policy. It just so happens that Clinton could execute the job of President, and Obama is likely to be a one term disaster - the challenges we face are too large, and his promises too large and too empty, to lead to anything else.

The American people voted an empty suit in 2000 and 2004 The Democrats want one for 2008. It's a shame - we could have had a President instead.

bbf · 1 year ago

The point is that Obama is less electable than Hillary Clinton, and a lot less electable than McCain. The majority of voters in the US of A are working-class whites. There is some very serious doubt that they would vote for a black man to be President. I suspect that just like the majority of blacks who want to see a black man in the White House, the majority of whites probably feel the same way about seeing "one of their own" in the White House. Looks like we might end up w/McCain and the GOP again. Where is Edwards when we need him?

Eyes wide open in Mpls · 1 year ago

I'm with Adolf.

One enormous story that Rev. Wright blew out of the media and Obama should be thanking him for is about Obama's backscratch and subsequent IL state money for Blackwell's Killerspin. Why in the world is that not a media worth story and certainly one voters should be aware of. Ping Pong Democracy we've had enough of.

Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA · 1 year ago

Well, looks like Obama ("The Mulatto Savior") might not be able to outrun his "Blackness" after all (he wouldn't even go to Memphis to commemorate MLK's death), in the DemoPublican/RepubliCrat "Good Cop, Bad Cop" presidential game -- in which *BOTH* political parties are military-industrial complex imperialist organizations (both among the most violent political entities on earth: in the Philippines, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Panama, in Granada, in Haiti, even in Iraq, not to mention covert *anti-democratic* overthrows/wars in Africa, Latin America, and even in Iran). Is Obama going to denounce most of Black America too? -- because Rev. Jeremiah Wright (in a city, having stiff competition, once called "the most racist city North of the South" and "the capital of racism in the North") hasn't said anything that Malcolm X or Martin Luther King said (especially in the last few years of his life, coming closer to Malcolm's political analysis) or that most of Black America believes (for example, about racism or U.S. foreign policy). Obama himself said that the racism that Wright describe (in one of the most segregated cities in America, again having stiff competition) was "in the past".

While the Clintons (whom novelist Toni Morrison self-deludingingly called "the first Black president" -- so you see we've already had one -- shows she's been around white folks at Princeton too long) are certainly slimey people (as must be evidenced by all their, I guess now former, friends, even from the first Clinton administration, who are supporting Obama) -- and who've been playing the race card since Bill's original presidential campaign attack on Sister Souljah -- an Obama presidency will be worse for reasons Adolph Reed didn't mention: white-America (even those whites who didn't/would't vote for Obama and even those who vote/d for McCain) will be screaming that, "Racism is over!! The rest of you Blacks quit complaining: we don't owe you (in educational, vocational, economic and other social upliftment programs) a damn thing anymore (not even the Katrina victims)!!"

Hillary was right about one thing though: "Before he was in the Congress, Obama said that, had he been in the Congress, he would have voted to oppose going to war in Iraq. When Obama got into the Congress, he suddenly said that he wasn't sure how he would have voted. Later in three successive years, he's voted for $300 BILLION dollars [at least a minimum that the govt admits] to *continue* the war in Iraq. So, where's the *change*???" [Do you *hear* that "Angus", below?]

There are those, self-deluded every four years, like "Angus" below (he actually thinks that a Obama, anymore than Hillary/McCain, is going to -- get this!! -- " run out the special interests"!!), who still think that a Democrat (or any conventional politician) is capable of running one way and ruling another way -- that, "once he gets in, you'll see" [yes, we will, once again]. But WHERE have we ever seen that in American history? Some people, like Earl Ofari Hutchison even believed this about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- one of the most anti-Black justices, since slavery -- that once Thomas got a judicial appointment for life, he'd turn into Thurgood Marshall.

There's not enough time and space for me to point out the most important lessons of American history, but MOVEMENTS have always been more important than presidents.

Obama is right about one thing (when he rebutted Hillary's attack on his lack of substance, by saying, "What's wrong with inspiration?"): America, in general, even in the worst of these times, just wants to *feel good* -- not to *think*. The Clintons are mad because Obama seemingly outfoxed them on empty rhetoric.

I say -- about both Democrats -- that if you want to just *feel* good, then get a teddy bear. If you want *inspiration*, then get a Hallmark card. And if you want trite *platitudes*, then get a "Chicken Soup for the Soul" book.

____________________________________________________________________

Joseph Anderson

occasional sociopolitical essayist
(see online)

Berkeley, CA

Sheryll T · 1 year ago

It's not clear what Adolph Reed wants. He says

Obama’s campaign .... is in some ways a Potemkin construction—......that will fall apart under Republican pressure.
And then where will we be?

But -- Where will we be if he doesn't win?
Your 'debate' companion on Democracy Now (apology for not remembering her name, a very bright woman) this morning suggested 'What about hope?', tongue in cheek but serious. You've left no room at all for possibilities. This is very depressing indeed.

BARB F · 1 year ago

So, what about hope? As Barbara Reynolds wrote (according to an article critical of her non-support of Obama in ProRev.com), When commenting on Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time."

Am still looking to see if I can find Obama at the Jena 6 March, and at the State of the Black Union Forum. I understand that Tavis Smiley, his brother, and his mother received death threats because he made some negative comments about Obama not attending the forum. I did watch most of the forum, and what was most disconcerting was the discussion from the OH Representative about the threats made to the Super Delegates who are members of the CBC who had not come out in support of Obama.

RCM · 1 year ago

Hilary is the lesser evil????? That seems to be a stretch.

Tish · 1 year ago

Very revealing article. This has confirmed what many critically-minded voters have observed about Obama. I, too, do not think that he can win in Nov for the above reasons. It is unfortunate that through the suspect caucus system, the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida, and a biased media, Obama has been able to garner more delegates than Hillary. I'm afraid most of the Super Delegates are enthralled by this new-comer. Do they really think he will "change" politcs in Washington DC?

KenBurch · 1 year ago

It goes without saying that Hillary would've changed nothing. That's what she had to commit to to get the votes of racist whites in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. You can't change things when you've been elected by appealing to people like that with messages like that.

PhD · 1 year ago

I couldn't agree with you more. I for one, don't respond well to threats and intimidation to force me to vote for someone whose policies are abhorrently liberal to me. I am not a racist because I don't support Obama any more than I am an anti-semite for having the nerve to disagree with the actions of Israel on certain matters. I don't agree with every action of the American government either. Does that mean I'm anti-American? Hardly.

I'm still waiting for more than "hope" as a message from Obama, and how in the world he'd going to magically get all of Washington DC's political scene to go along with is "new way".

marshall · 1 year ago

yea the logic is that we shouldn't support Obama because he won't win the election. good argument.

Alan_B · 1 year ago

Senator Obama's denunciation of Jeremiah Wright was an act of initiation, a proof that he was prepared to sever any tie, abandon any loyalty, betray any trust as the price of acceptance. It is a ritual that shocks the conscience when a street gang wannabe banks cred by shooting an innocent stranger, or when a film director supplies names of friends and colleagues to an inquisitorial body that holds him and them in contempt. It is the moment described by Matt Taibbi in his Rolling Stone article on vomiting devils in an Encounter Weekend with the adherents of Pastor John Hagee. Dalton Trumbo described it in Time of the Toad. Trouble is the acceptance purchased by this act of self-degradation never satisfies. The inquisitors - the editorial writers, the members of HUAC, the hooded sadists breaking the limbs of the grandchildren of conversos - are interested only in noting the level of self-degradation to which the aspirant sank.

debrazza · 1 year ago

I think Wright did that first when he mocked his Philly speech and left the implication that it was phony, inauthentic.

Callie · 1 year ago

Awesome. Thank you for this column.

donnadarko · 1 year ago

Wake up before it's too late.

NYCDIVA · 1 year ago

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am tired of being called a faux progressive just because I support Hillary Clinton. Obama has run a negative campaign that has also used race baiting to divide our party. Not only do I think Hillary, despite all of her negative characteristics, is a straight shooter who will fight for what we need to accomplish. Obama is not a fighter and he definitely does not like confrontation. Ironic since he likes to associate himself with controversial radicals. Another issue is electability. Obama is damaged goods with Wright, Ayers, and Rezko. At least we know who Hillary is and all of her dirty laundry is old news that will surprise no one. Obama should've been asked to leave the race the moment the Rev. Wright videos went viral on YouTube. I have no idea now how Obama can win over the Reagan Democrats and non-progressive whites in the general election in order to beat McCain. I don't think he will be able to.

m_magana · 1 year ago

Finally a writer who challenges people to open up their eyes, right? Reed best describes Obama as a "vacuous opportunist." He practically took the words right out of my mouth. At last, something interesting to read.

Someone other than McCain or Obama 2008

Ghassan · 1 year ago

It is shameful that someone like Reed is allowed to propogate his naive and corrupt opinion in the progressive. Reed is a well-known Right-wing illeterate. I knew him. he is a very dishonest individual, and untrustworthy.

Ghassan

Right-wing illeterate · 1 year ago

Oh no! The Right-wing illeterates are coming! The Right-wing illeterates are coming!

Pamster Pam · 1 year ago

Oh that was too easy, right-wing illEterate! hee hee hee.

Ralph Dumain · 1 year ago

Just heard my hero Reed on WPFW-FM, the crackpot afrocentric branch of Pacifica Radio. He stuttered too much, but otherwise uttered some rare good sense puncturing the delusions of Obamamania. This election cycle has been flawed from the beginning, and the public has responded to media manipulation like Pavlovian dogs. Once Edwards dropped out, so did any substance to the primary season. The left has been as disgracefully shallow and delusional as the rest of the country in assessing the political situation.

F. Rogier · 1 year ago

I couldn't agree more with your last two statements. Edwards was already forgotten by the left before he dropped out, and that is something. It's as though we have to be content with either Clinton or Obama - no other platform was ever possible.

Helmut · 1 year ago

The problem of course is that the Republicans dictate the agenda. Every politician feels he/she must mollify big business to ensure that America is 'competitive'. The Clintons, like Tony Blair in the UK , felt compelled to take this line. Hence in the UK we have New Labour and in the US it's no surprise that the Democrats presided over the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. Tony Blair is called the greatest Thatcherite since Thatcher herself. The Democrats have a confused agenda which renders them vulnerable to division within their own ranks and their portrayal as ineffectual by the Republicans.

If the Democrats decided on a clear set of objectives and values rather than pandering to an imagined backlash against their being 'too liberal' or 'not religious enough' and were forthright about their beliefs AND proud of them, they might be seen as possessing a bit of spine and may thereby attract uncertain voters. As it is their invertebrate nature renders them easy targets for aggressive Republicans who are unapologetic about their (mostly) despicable and socially regressive views. What did it mean for example when Kerry was called the 'most liberal senator' in the US? It provoked defensive denial rather than preening pride in the Democratic Party. They have to be willing to risk losing in order to win convincingly. Maybe the Right has to make an even worse mess of things than the current administration ( if that can be imagined), before people finally really wake up and begin to mistrust them in a way that they truly deserve. Then it will be possible for Democrats to speak as one and point to all the failed policies without having to convince people. They will hopefully have a genuine alternative to offer . For it is the lack of this that creates the 'swing voters'.

hettie · 1 year ago

I became a Hillary supporter while listening to the debates. When she warned Edwards and Obama that they should not be attacking each other because one of them would have to face a Republican in the general election, they both ignored her like spoiled little boys. While her fellow Democratic candidates attacked her, the media cheered them on and added their own attacks. God, you have to admire the lady for still standing with the onslaught she has faced from them all. Go, girl.

james · 1 year ago

The hypocracy that is Hillary, she warned that they should not attack each other, now who is lauching a full out war aginst whom?

No_Obama · 1 year ago

Very clear and well done. Although, i do think we will have a HIllary Clinton president. Maybe even two terms.

I am impress by the way peole feel inlcined to justify supporting or not attacking Clinton in the same way that they feel uncomfortable with rejecting Obama simply because they disagree with his agenda and his portray of himself and his campaign.

I hope more so journalists feel compelled to develop the kind of honest work such as this that is so needed.

mitchellmichael · 1 year ago

As an American living abroad and with a bit more distance from the media bombardment parading as a political campaign, I am relieved to read someone who also appears to have an enlarged perspective on the more general trends in American politics and not simply what happened yesterday on television.
I too doubt that either candidate could beat out McCain, but Obama's wining of the democratic candidacy would be ultimately detrimental to the cause of true progressive thinkers for the very reasons described in this article. Bravo. Furthermore, his denunciation of Wright this week is the first glaring hole in his armor, underneath we find a scared politician whose skin is thinner and whiter than any video enhancement could doctor.

Avery · 1 year ago

First, I am somewhat surprised that Reed would invoke Krugman’s “Obamistas” formulation to describe Obama supporters. In his essay “Kiss the Family Good-bye”, Reed cautions against the use of constructed rhetorical terms such as, “the family”, “the community”, or “empowerment” because they homogenize an entire category of people or groups, while simultaneously obscuring the complex and often differing interests at play among those same individuals and groups. While I am not an Obama supporter, I have met hundreds upon hundreds of them and have rarely encountered any two who have some cultish allegiance to Obama as formulated by Krugman and Reed; rather, their support of Obama stems from a pragmatic, rational decision made in light of what the other two candidates represent.

Second, Reed, himself, has done an excellent job of documenting and denouncing Bill Clinton’s embracing of a Rightist agenda during his eight years as president. So, I am unclear as to how Hillary is the lesser evil? Similar to Craig, I view a potential Hillary presidency as only furthering the neo-liberal project at the expense of poor and working people. Does anyone recall that Hillary’s response to the current sub-prime and foreclosure crisis was to advocate for Greenspan, Volcker, and Rubin to convene a working group to address the problem? These are the very people responsible for laying the very foundation that led to the crisis! So, how exactly is Hillary a viable choice?

Finally, as Reed notes it’s likely that neither Hillary nor Obama will be able to beat McCain in November. For years now, the Democrats have failed miserably in creating or articulating an effective opposition. The likely scenario will be for McCain to win with the Democrats gaining additional House and Senate seats with the outcome another four years of gridlock and do-nothing Congresses. Perhaps, this is merely symptomatic of an Empire and petite-bourgeois democracy in its last throes. In the meantime, progressives must continue to mobilize and build a political block that can put real pressure on local, state, and federal policy makers.

Drew Astolfi · 1 year ago

This article made me mad. Implict in it is an assumption of powerlesseness, and an internalization of hopelessness that leads to inaction. IWhile Dr. Reed is well known for his academic work he is not an organizer, nor a politician, and it shows in his misreading of the poltical oppurtunity that Obama's canidicy represents.

Dr. Reed is also wildly off base about Obama's community organizing. He worked with the Gamaliel Foundation which has impeccable "progressive" credentials. They build power for low income people, and work primarily with churches.

To see the results of their work Dr. Reed need only look as far as his own backyard - in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood which has been transformed from a place that struggled with all of the worst problems of urban Chicago into a sucessful, Mexican immigrant neighborhood that is thriving wo/ sucumbing to the gentrification that many other neighborhoods face.

DollarBrand · 1 year ago

Dr Reed, as much I might disagree with some of his arguments above, actually has a long history and present as an organizer.
He was a GI organizer during Vietnam, a leading figure of the Labor Party's (who worked tirelessly on the campaign for free higher education and other progressive causes). Just because he does not constantly advertise himself, does not mean he is not a lot our there as I am doing and probably you. But since I don't know you I have to keep that a guess.
So engage with his arguments rather than his person.

jrochkind · 1 year ago

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Pilsen isn't gentrifying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um07FAU1V5w

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/pilsen-gentri...

BrunoBehrend · 1 year ago

Excellent piece. But then, I'm a McCain supporter. You do an excellent job of pointing to Obama's weaknesses.

For my part, Obama may yet pull off a win, assuming McCain makes some big mistakes. If Obama does win, it will be proof that angry blacks and rich, lilly-white liberals soaked with liberal guilt make up a big enough portion of the population to elect such a callow and self-absorbed cipher.

Such a nation may deserve Obama, but I don't.

Susan · 1 year ago

If it comes down to a McCain vs Obama McCain will win. Those of us who are Democrats but don't trust Obama will be out there helping you guys get McCain elected. Hillary in 2012!

Discpad · 1 year ago

Professor Reed's article is interesting; but alas he ignores the 800 pound gorilla in the room: The job of President of the United States carries with it the constitutional duty of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. For this reason, a large percentage of citizens believe Senator Obama is not qualified for the job due to his lack of relevant experience.

Senator Obama claims that much of his "experience" for the job comes from him being a "community organizer." Prof. Reed -- correctly, I might add -- deflates the value of Obama's previous job duties with respect to his qualification to become CIC.

[As a side note, many of us conservatives were also turned off by Congressman Ron Paul, due to his stated desire to not uphold the constitutional duties of CIC.]

Jeff · 1 year ago

"Progressives" for McBush - Good job Adolhp - you've done you're little part in helping to keep the Bush policies living for at least another 4 years. Typical old-school neegrow - attack and destroy - no matter the price to pay - similar, I think, to the way blacks burnt down their own neighborhoods in the late 60s.

Anyone see how those neighborhoods were never rebuilt...

rozannamendoza · 1 year ago

WOW! Thank you for your analysis. I'm just a regular everyday voter from Texas. I have become obsessed with this election.

My initial fear was that Obama would win the nomination. Now I am not so sure. From the beginning I just did not feel "right" about the cult following, the "umbrage" politics (you are racist if you criticize Obama) and the chameleon aspects of his "personality". It was like the entire bi=opic movie of Obama the candidate was filmed with vaseline over a long range lense.

I was not and have never in the past been a Hillary supporter. However, she was infinately a better choice.

What gets me is the battle at the elite level. You have Pelosi-Reid-Dean propping Obama up as the epitome of the "new democratic party coalition" ....suburban/urban, eduated, white collar. Couldn't believe Donna Brazile's meltdown on TV last week. You have the "old guard" fighting all the way to the convention. I hope Hillary DOES take it to the Denver convention floor.

Perry Logan · 1 year ago

This is the definitive article on Obama's dirty tactics on the race issue, and the false meme that Hillary's campaign played the race card (an accusation which defies simply logic--but that has never stopped the Obamites):

"How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton"
http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0...

P.S.: If you ever get the time, I'd love to hear what you mean by "the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous," which makes not a word of sense to me. I dream of a day when people back up their comments on the Clintons.

DNic · 1 year ago

I really do understand your hopeful idealism. However reality, where consequence of action resides although not as pretty, should be the basis of your decision relating to your vote.

EyesOpen · 1 year ago

Mr. Reed, this was a great read. Every intuition in my body tells me this man is bad news, worse than most politicians. Shelving the vacuous opportunist personality issues for a moment, I am deeply concerned that this guy does not do his homework and on the most crutical issues facing our country. They all pander; but I hear strategies and plans behind McCain's and Clinton's customized to demographic speaches - plans that are built on years of study, experience, and being surrounded by the best political and economic minds. As I hear more, Senator Obama does not appear to have a plan, a plan that is his own that he knows inside and out, left from right, right from wrong. I am left to beieve he is either dangerously niave or a radical socialist. I am frightened by the thought of him as our leader. Please keep writing on this topic and I'm interested in more information on the earlier part of his career, his decision making, and his associates.

Martel · 1 year ago

Adolph is outraged. After all, Obama isn't black enough and says things that white liberals want to hear, while Hilldog is the real black candidate, as anyone can plainly see. Of course, both of them will lose to the most black candidate of all, McNutjob, because he's a man of substance with a real good plan for America.

Clearly, Adolph's enlightened view that hope and change and new directions is just an evil neoliberal ruse must, by his own definition (and we must all agree that the good professor is certainly better positioned to create such a definition than anyone else), disqualify this fake black candidate. Equally clearly, Hillary's apparent lack of interest in such nonsense and support for the same policy positions qualifies her to be the good neoliberal who will lose to McCain; because, let's face it, McCain is a Republican and Republicans will obviously win because, well, they aren't neoliberals.

Professor, you clearly need a better job. They aren't paying you enough or you might be able to buy a clue. Hillary has lost. The fat lady was doing a sound check in the middle of March and her singing performance took place before the middle of April. Beyond that, McCain doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November. He may be worthy of sympathy for the treatment he received as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, but he's certainly not a hero. If he had been a hero in that situation, he'd be dead...as many of his fellow comrades in those hellholes are.

As a politician, McCain claims to be a proponent of 'straight talk' but anyone who does just a bit of research will come away with the inescapable realization that he believes straight talk encompasses espousing diametrically and blatantly opposite positions on the same subject depending upon who he thinks might be listening to him at the moment; and that such straight talk includes the amazing ability to flip-flop not just once or twice or three times but as many times as it takes to achieve the desired self-serving result without ever having to explain why he's done it. (McCain straight talk means never having to say you're a more than obvious bold-faced liar.)

Some aspects of this primary campaign do remind me of an earlier one, though. At the risk of ruining my newfound (see above) credibility as a naive teenage Obamamaniac black man who knows nothing that's happened prior to falling of the turnip truck last week, the campaign of which I speak occurred in 1960. An exceptionally power hungry and extremely cynical politician with experience in the Senate (more experience than a certain ex-Whitehouse resident) ran a campaign which achieved a lot of success with partially veiled race-bating comments coupled with obvious denigration of his opponent's religious affiliation and lack of experience in said Senate. In reply, the opponent ran a campaign that has such obvious multiple parallels to that of a certain current Senator from Illinois that one can only assume that the Senator from Illinois in question has done his political homework quite assiduously. The experienced Senator lost, in case you're just now keeping score.

Those parallels will break down entirely, though, when it comes time for the general election because the 1960 election was not characterized at all by a completely failed presidency which had seemingly embraced policies specifically designed to destroy America. Instead, we'll have a general election in which the candidate of the party in power is a more extreme proponent of such failed policies than even the most discredited and disliked president in our history. In short, Kennedy barely defeated Nixon because there was no great impetus for change, but Obama will crush McNutjob because the hunger among the electorate for change is so clear that only the most delusional can ignore it.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not only not actually a naive brainwashed teenage Obamamaniac - when we're over 60 we aren't teenagers anymore, right? - but I'm also not black. I voted for Obama in the primary after initially supporting Edwards and I'm going to do so again in November, because I've had enough of insane lunatics in the White House and I truly appreciate his intelligence, policy positions, AND his style.)

------------------------------------------------------

BTW, one comment here regarding health plans reminds me that most of Hillary's rabid fans have no clue what her plan is all about. She wants the insurance companies firmly entrenched in the health care loop...which is a really good plan if we want to proceed down the same road that is about to bankrupt the country now. Of course, if you believe that 20-25 percent of the gross domestic product of the nation's economy should be gobbled up by the health care and drug lobby (which is what will happen within 10 years if either nothing is done or Hillary's plan is adopted) then you can safely, if not intelligently, just ignore that annoying information.

jlxn · 1 year ago

Hey, go ahead and disband the insurance companies. The hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their jobs will thank you.

Babzter · 1 year ago

Your personal attacks say a lot about you. If the truth is on your side, you need not use pejoratives and loaded rhetoric. These statements are hurtful to Obama -- it chips away at potential support from the HRC campaign.

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

jlxn · 1 year ago

Thank you Adolph Reed. It has been clear to me from the beginning that Obama is being all things to all people and avoiding any kind of commitment.

Obama No.

R. Lapidus · 1 year ago

That correction is all you need to know about this article.

valkyrie607 · 1 year ago

As an Edwards supporter who voted for Obama after Edwards dropped out, I try to keep an open mind. I don't like the way Hillary's run her campaign, and her repeated blunders do nothing to inspire my confidence in her ability to be an effective president. So I came here hoping to find a substantive critique of Obama. Instead, you take him to task for the way he negotiates racial politics in America.

You say that once he gets on the really big stage of the general race, his contradictions will be too big for him to conceal any longer. But you've done a very poor job of convincing me that his contradictions are really that huge. Basically, it seems to come down to the fact that he says different things to African American audiences than to white audiences. But every politician does this.

Vacuous? Possibly corrupt? Fixated on image? Promises more than he can possibly deliver? Capitalizing on public concern over serious issues without offering real solutions?

Congratulations: you've identified a successful national politician in America.

I really do wish you'd had something more substantial to offer, but oh well.

rasorenson · 1 year ago

Gosh. You mean Obama has elbowed his way through a national campaign with manipulative, misleading, gratuitous, be all to end all grandstanding and legend building? Shocking! Surely you would not expect anything less from a national party candidate for the White House. Is he the hero warrior of Progressivism? Of course not. But I'm willing to give him a try. He can't do any worse and I doubt a true progressive will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania anytime real soon. I would have voted for Hillary (also not a progressive saint), but the campaign was her's to lose and by god if she didn't step right up and do just that.

Babzter · 1 year ago

Thought-provoking and of course controversial. Thank you for a fascinating essay.

Jennifer · 1 year ago

What a brilliant piece of satire! Sometimes, people have to see such ridiculous things in print to realize how silly and unfounded their beliefs are. Kudos!

spider · 1 year ago

Trishpots says: "Your argument that Barack Obama is superficial making Hillary Clinton the "lesser evil" follows the same line as the Clinton campaign which is that Obama can't win because he's too conciliatory; he's pandering to audiences. "

Your obviously offended that someone didnt call Hillary the "big evil".
Obama is superficial..meaning he lacks substance and relies on image.
Clinton's argument against Obama was that he lacks experience, and she is better able to beat McCain because she has that substance.
The truth hurts. .so please enjoy your Obama delierium now, because McCain is going to run him over with the straight talk express!

kevin · 1 year ago

I was voting for Hillary Clinton but now this is the first time in 44 years, I will vote for a republican.

Pete · 1 year ago

No wonder ..how can anyone ever have voted for someone so ridiculous a Hillary and
be " surprised " that she is also "full of herself,just like this Bush-clown of president" !
President Barack Obama will do just fine for the majority of Americans...trust me.

John · 1 year ago

.....well, I`m almost sure all this non-sense was written by some " AIPAC lunatic" ....right?

Rick Proctor · 1 year ago

I think the writer of the above article is full of beans.

L Arneson · 1 year ago

That's the best analysis of Obama I've read. Thank you.

colista · 1 year ago

Cynthia McKinney is an African American woman who will be on the Green ticket.
I suppose Obama doesn't like that she is running.

SmartestBlackWriter · 1 year ago

This is a great article. I, too, grew up around Obama's district-- five blocks away from Altegeld Gardens and my adopted mother was in the DCP. The DCP is just an extension of the Daley Machine throwing a bone to poor black folks.

Cudos to the Progressive for running this. There has been such a one-sided treatment of Obama in the media which is run by a bunch of spoiled, dumb rich kids who do not read. If one has not read Mike Royko's Boss and writes about Obama, they are stupid to me. That book illuminates how sinister it is that Michelle Obama's father was a Daley precinct captain.

At least, I will be able to use the Obama candidacy to make a great deal of money through lawsuits. I was a journalism major at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I left school because of money. I was not readmitted to the journalism school because my previous time at the school, I was the only Black editor at the Daily Cardinal and complained about racist treatment at the newspaper, where I was asked about the size of my penis because I was black and asked to demonstrate Black dances. I was also called a race traitor by white progressives because I refused to run articles about gangster rap because having done gang intervention on the South Side of Chicago, I found it harmful. I brought this up to Dean of Students at the University of Wisconsin and they refused to do anything.

This is how propaganda starts and institutions like the UW contributed to this uniformed ascent of Obama, which this article does a good job of illuminating as ill informed.

I have more knowledge about Obama than any other journalist and will be suing every news organization that has a former Daily Cardinal editor who blocked my hiring as his ascent and my early little read coverage and interviews with him proves that I am a much better journalist than most out there, white or black.

This will be fun. Especially watching this trope grow from this article and the Democrats realizing they made the biggest mistake in their history.

Obama is sending true progressives flocking to Nader.

citizen477 · 1 year ago

Mr. McLarty, that is my point exactly. I feel as though those who oppose Barrack Obama's candidacy are doing so because he is amazingly popular, and it is always the "in-thing" to appear inconoclastic, yet I am more than certain that these nay-sayers are not brave enough to vote for Green candidates whether in the presidential or local races. Reed seems to agree that if Obama wins (Though he vehemently doubts this), it would be more of the same because he doubts that Obama will be able to bring about the changes that he promised while campaigning. Is he saying, then, that if McCain wins, the thousands of people who have become mobilized and inspired by Obama's candidacy will just shut down like an automaton unplugged? Absolutely not! We will lose many, but a large majority may actually shift more to the left and help beef-up the Green party. In other words, I am encouraged. I am HOPEFUL (the new word to hate, it seems) because even if he does not win the presidency, I sense that a huge CHANGE has already taken place. Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can! There, I said it.

nova · 1 year ago

About 80% of the public wants a change from the NeoCon approach to governing. We have been set up by our enormous discontent for someone proclaiming change. We are so frustrated, and/or stupid, no details need to come forth about the change.

I submit, that Obama represents absolutely represents no change of substance, just a younger, slicker package. Just look at his stand on FISA, his turn-around on campaign finance and his fealty to Zionists.

If he can support the FISA bill with retroactive immunity to telecoms for violating our Constitutional rights, he is no different than what we got.

I am a liberal, and proud of it--no apologies. With that said, the only candidate that was running this year that would have made a difference was Ron Paul. As scary as he was on social issues, he is a genuine, card-carrying Constitutionalist. That is the pact the government has with We, the People. The U.S. Constitution is THE important document that has been recently labeled antiquated by politicians who do the bidding of corporations, rather than We, the People.

I agree with the author, Obama is a NeoLiberal. A vaguely different package, but still the same ole, same ole.

Jim_Stinson · 1 year ago

Dr. Reed is one very indignant professor, as his rhetoric suggests:

“Vacuous opportunist.” “Repugnant stratagem.” “Makes so many lefties go weak in the knees.” “Young minions.” “Hysterically indignant reaction. “Horribly opportunistic approach.” “The babble about Obama’s transcendence...”

Prof. Reed starts off by saying “I’ve known [Obama] since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago.”

Hmmm. Wonder what went down during that campaign and what Reed’s part in it was. It apparently scarred him for life.

Googling the Professor indicates that he gets his living – or at least his tenure and reputation – as an analyst of Black/White race relations. Advertising a clambake in which he was to participate, the Petersburg People’s News of 03/24/08 probably reproduced his own handout:

“Dr. Reed is a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the editor of Race, Politics, and Culture and With Justice for All, and author of The Jesse Jackson Phenomenon, W. E. B. DuBois and American Political Thought, and Stirrings in the Jug. He is a longtime and frequent contributor to The Nation, The Village Voice, The Progressive and other publications.”

This article is too apoplectic (and too lacking in specifics) to reveal where the professor stands on race relations in general, but a couple of sentences suggest where he’s coming from:

“[Obama] actually goes beyond Clinton and rehearses the scurrilous and ridiculous sort of narrative Bill Cosby has made infamous.”

and

“[Obama’s] Philadelphia compromise speech—a string of well-crafted and coordinated platitudes and hollow images worthy of an SUV commercial.”

I’d have to guess that Prof. Reed is Black, if only because no white professor would be permitted his fulminations against prominent African Americans. In academia as in tassel-twirling, ya gotta have a gimmick; and Prof Reed seems to have developed a profitable line of professional racial truculence.

BARB · 1 year ago

Professor Reed is an intelligent and honest man, as are his comments. Sometimes the truth hurts. Especially if you are an Obama supporter.

Lycurgus · 1 year ago

Dr. Reed is indeed black.

DaveBerger2004 · 1 year ago

Professor Reed makes a number of good points. In recent days, Mr. Obama has stated very clearly that he favors capital punishment; giving tax payer money to religions for faith based programming; and possibly keeping our troops in Iraq a lot longer than he has suggested in the past. Mr. Obama is not a progressive. He is, very much like the Clintons in much of his platform. I think it would be fair to call him a conservative Democrat. But, as professor Reed points out, that might be giving him way too much credit. I have seen a number of politicians just like Mr. Obama. The phrases con artist and empty rhetoric come to mind. Of course, McCain is a terrible alternative. He has the same con artist feel as Obama. Unfortunately, no matter how much "change" Mr. Obama discusses and claims....he is yet another half in the long line of the "lesser of two evils." I will be voting for a third party candidate in November since neither of these two corporate major party candidates are progressive. I think it is very important to remember that "the lesser of two evils" is still evil.

DianeGrassi2008 · 1 year ago

Finally some honest discourse about an "image" candidate. There's just no telling, however, which Obama image will prevail come November.

DianeGrassi2008 · 1 year ago

Finally some honest discourse about an "image" maker. No telling which Obama "image" will prevail come November.

BARB · 1 year ago

Two days ago I got a notice from my supposedly "liberal" site that there had been complaints about my criticism of Obama, and it was suggested that I find another website which was not "liberal" to post my views and that perhaps I should find a Republican site. Sad, very sad. Of course I have no intentions of following this "advice". Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I am wondering if some of the paid Obama bloggers have infiltrated the pretend "liberal" website.

humanperson · 1 year ago

I had the same sinking feeling about Gore and Kerry, and I still voted for them, as the lesser of 2 evils. The same thing this time around. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would

humanperson · 1 year ago

I had the same sinking feeling about Gore and Kerry, and I still voted for them, as the lesser of 2 evils. The same thing this time around. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would TOTALLY OBLITERATE Iran if it attacked Israel. In her mind, the genocide of 66 million people was the correct response of a 3rd party country to one mad politician committing an act of aggression against a sovereign state. With that logic, any 3rd party country could apply the same logic and decide that the USA was worthy of obliteration for our invasion and bombardment of Iraq. 66 million is a lot more dead people than died in all of WW 2, or under Mao, Stalin, and Hitler. Would a Hillary Rodham Clinton president, capable of the world's worst genocide, be more acceptable than Barack Obama? Or John McCain?
Not many got behind Dennis Kucinich when he was still running as a candidate. Nor any of the other hopefuls that could have proved better than Obama or Clinton. We are stuck with Obama, who has betrayed us, but he is still the only remaining option. I see a future filled with other FISA vote type disappointments. But there is not any doubt that he will be less of a disaster than McCain.
We still have a senate, house, and supreme court. The damage that Obama could contain might be checked. You cannot say the same about Hillary attempting to totally obliterate the 66 million people living in Iran. You lose, but you don't lose as badly as if Hillary or McCain had won.

DAE · 1 year ago

Huh? Who amongst the democrats could beat McCain based on this flawed logic? The other candidates all had their own deficiencies which derailed their candidacies. So given an unpopular war, a dysfunctional economy and a discredited Republican party, the Democrats are bound to lose? I'm far to the left of you or the democrats but will vote for Obama, only because one of his granny's lives in the Kenyan outback. That should give him some sort of alternative perspective lacking in any other potential candidate.

F. Rogier · 1 year ago

To answer your question: John Edwards could have beaten McCain. The polls - run by corporations who didn't like the results - said so in January. And so did a lot of Bushed conservatives. Edwards should return to the race.

I'd be happy to vote for Obama's granny, but not Obama.

MLT · 1 year ago

Don't work for McCain (surely never an option), don't work for Hillary (continue the neo-liberal agenda) and don't work for Obama (per this article). Work for change. Not the change of parties in elections but change the way the very government works, change the government / governance. Our free time and money are limited; don't use your money to pay for air time for a candidate; don't waste you time on a minor change in direct from the Democratic middle. Find a cause, make a real and substantial change the brings about democratic change.

scottmclarty · 1 year ago

So are anti-corporate and anti-war voters, including Professor Reed, going to allow elections to be held hostage by awful Democratic candidates forever? Does Prof Reed see no alternative to the two-party system?

If the Green Party's national candidate can win 5% in November, it'll be on its way to becoming a major party. If we elect a couple of Greens to Congress in 2008, it'll throw such a scare into the Dems that they'll sign on in droves to single-payer national health care, repeal of Taft-Hartley, quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and a lot of other things that we all wish they'd do.

Why was there no political will to challenge the Bush agenda when Dems gained control of Congress in 2006? The Democrats have no reason to pursue any of the above goals because their only real competition is from the GOP. They're very happy to keep the public debate on every issue as narrow as possible, with media coverage limited to Republican vs. 'moderate' (i.e., corporate-friendly and pro-military) Democrat, even marginalizing their own progressive voters & officeholders.

Every excuse that progressives use to dismiss the Green Party (including the craven 'spoiler' accusation) only serves to maintain the political status quo and ensure that progressive, populist, and ecological goals never see the light of day. The US is heading in a very destructive political direction, and will continue to do so whether we elect Dems or Repubs to the White House and Congress. As in the 1850s, when a new abolitionist third party (the Republicans) emerged, the only way to disrupt the current political direction is to help a new political party gain power.

There are four candidates running for the Green Party's presidential nomination: Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift. Their web sites are linked at the party's web site (gp.org). There's a growing list of Greens for Congress and state legislatures, too.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and their fellow mainstream Dems in Congress voted in favor of President Bush's request for more war funding. None of them lifted a finger for impeachment of the most criminal administration in history. What more do you need to know?

Let's stop wasting time!

Scott McLarty
Media Coordinator, Green Party of the United States
PS See my "America needs a drastic change of political landscape" posted at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_scott_m...

Yas · 1 year ago

I am not electing a prophet. I am electing a President, a human being that has many qualities and many flaws. I will vote for Obama because I like the fact that he realized early on that the war in Iraq spelled disaster for the US and was opposed to it, because he has repeatedly blasted at the special interest groups' stranglehold over the government, that he will give a prominent role to Al Gore on environment, that he looks to the future and to possibilites there may be. I think Obama will restore the best in America, and can garner a huge amount of goodwill internationally, something that I doubt Hillary Clinton can ever do.

Lou · 1 year ago

Obama doesn't need ANYONE'S vote. He can count the votes in his favor if he chooses and no one will say anything not even state elected officials. Are they afraid of him like most everyone else is. After all, Obama's true % of votes is not more than 25%. Do the research.

Joseph Anderson, Berkeley, CA · 1 year ago

SYNTACTICAL CORRECTION (see, Joseph Anderson, earlier post, below):

Is Obama going to denounce most of Black America too? -- because Rev. Jeremiah Wright (in a city, having stiff competition, once called "the most racist city north of the South" and "the capital of racism in the North") hasn't said anything that Malcolm X or Martin Luther King *didn't* say (in words or substance, especially in the last few years of his life, coming closer to Malcolm's political analysis) or that most of Black America *doesn't* believe (for example, about racism or U.S. foreign policy).

Addendum:

And as for U.S. foreign policy, as another Black minister and prestigious university professor once said: "No Black person in America woke up on 9-11 wondering, 'Why do they hate us [the U.S.]?'"


Joseph Anderson

Berkeley, CA

spider · 1 year ago

"And as for U.S. foreign policy, as another Black minister and prestigious university professor once said: "No Black person in America woke up on 9-11 wondering, 'Why do they hate us [the U.S.]?"

Shows how trapped in a USA bubble you are. Newsflash...this has nothing to do with race. NO Person OUTSIDE of America (black white hispanic chinese etc..) woke up wondering why they hate the US! Im Canadian and theres a strong anti american sentiment here because of US political policies and arrogant interference and exploitation of other countries and people. (Thats why anywhere you go in the world..they hate american tourists!) That goes for all of your people trapped in the "bubble" whatever colour they may be.

Craig · 1 year ago

While I share much of Reed's general skepticism and support reality-based thinking when it comes to Obama and his potential as a would-be president, I think his "lesser-evil" decision is flawed. First, a Clinton victory will assure the continuance of the Clinton political dynasty, both nationally, but more importantly, within the Democratic Party. The Clintons are most to blame in my book for shifting the Dems to the right since the mid-80s. You want neoliberal, you are guaranteed it with a Clinton victory.

Obama, on the other hand, were he to win the presidency (the big X factor making this quite possible is historically high voter-turnout, inspired mainly by his campaign), the power base within the Democratic Part would be upended. Sure, still in the neoliberal camp, but much less solidly so than the Clinton's. Obama's real political mission is still unclear -- he knows he must form a new kind of coalition to win the presidency (one that must win over Reagan Dems, and moderate Republicans) but his true political agenda remains less clear.

Obama's effect in creating new political beings at the very least opens up the opportunity for new energy and life in social and political movements in this country. If 5% of the new Obama supporters stay involved in politics AFTER the election, and many become dissillusioned by the slow pace of change in an Obama administration, then these folks are ripe to get involved in other ways.

These may seem like many "ifs", but I can guarantee you that Clinton and McCain are not having the same effect as Obama in getting more people to participate and pay attention to political issues. It's up to us already committed movement types to see this opportunity and to seize it -- regardless of what Obama does or does not do as a president.

The "hope" that Obama so often invokes, in my view, is less about him and much more about the thousands of new folks he is inspiring to get involved. There's no guarantee these folks will stay involved, but we can't ignore the fact of their interest right now. To write it off like Reed does here suggests our time would be better spent doing thinigs like watching more TV. This, we know, is a bad idea.

Michele · 1 year ago

I'm still voting for Obama!

iamyo · 1 year ago

I will be honest. As an Obama supporter, I am curious to hear an intelligent and progressive critique of him. Unfortunately, this is all about your perception of Obama and sadly, quite fuzzy. Much of it is false as well. Everyone knows that Michelle Obama comes from a black middle class family. There has never been any claim that she comes from a poor family. Are there any important embroideries in Obama's autobiography? What are they? Do break the news here. What the heck are you talking about with the community service? He worked with housing issues as well. Yes, they were hardly groundbreaking but what you mention is community organizing work, is it not?

Please, do give some facts.

As for the fuzziness: You have some kind of general impression that Obama supporters are fanatics. Therefore, do not trust Obama. This is quite odd. Do you have any evidence for this claim? I initially became interested in Obama because he unequivocally ruled out any tactical use of nuclear weapons. He also clearly repudiated the refusal to negotiate with heads of states we disagree with. He was accused by Clinton of being naive for making both these claims. Then, he criticized the U.S.'s absurd Cuba policy. All of these play directly against the deeply problematic rhetoric and sabre rattling that Democrats do in order to seem 'strong' like Republicans. I could go on. I would say that this is primarily the reason people support Obama. He says things that many Democrats believe but our politicians are too afraid to say these things, because they are afraid of being targeted by the right. I was happy, I admit, to hear his position on nuclear weapons. No one running for major political office has had the guts to state such a position. His views are simply sensible and would not be as remarkable if other presidential candidates would make such claims. The enthusiasm for him is often for these kind of sensible claims he makes--claims which are standard moderate liberal positions, usually, but which run counter to the safe (but really quite mad) line other Democrats so devotedly espouse.

Every Obama supporter I know is quite aware he is a politician and that he is not in a position to make radical changes to the status quo. It is obvious that anyone hoping to be President would have to have a great deal of personal ambition. He got considerable support, of course, for his early speech on the Iraq war. This speech is responsible for a lot of support for him from young people, who are disturbed by the war. I realize the usual rejoinder to that claim is that there were no political costs to making the speech for him. However, this isn't a non-substantive reason for being in favor of a candidate. If the enthusiasm for him seems very strong, at least part of it is that many are desperate to get out of that war. I'm not even sure he can get us out of the war but given the political options open to us, it is hard not to support the candidate who didn't support the war from the beginning.

I also can't wrap my head around your idea that whites support him because they are somehow hoping to be acceptable to blacks. How do you account for the deep support he has among African Americans? Why would it not be a positive thing that 'white liberals' are actually in favor of a candidate that the vast majority of African Americans are in favor of? You yourself seem to be very dismissive of what African Americans say they perceive as racism. Perhaps you know better than they do?

Goddamn, you are one cynical man. The only way that whites could actually support a black person is because they want to become black in some safe theme park way? This is the only part of your argument I find rather offensive. You realize your conviction that whites won't vote for a black candidate is simply another way of saying that black people shouldn't run, don't you? Is there some kind of natural war going on between blacks and whites that I haven't been told about?

Your impressions of the way the campaign has gone are also very idiosyncratic. What Geraldine Ferraro said was so nutty it had to be commented on. But it also took off of its own accord. Very little in the campaign has turned around whether anything Clinton has done is racist. The way the media has taken up the issues is playing to white fears but I hardly think that Obama's campaign can be blamed for noticing that.

It worries me that you are a professor. You don't seem to know what a contradiction is. There is nothing contradictory about people thinking a black president would be historic and also hoping for racial reconciliation at the same time. Unless somehow you think hoping for racial reconciliation somehow makes a person non-black. What do you think exactly? Where is this contradiction? There is no reading of what you wrote in which I can find that holding both views is 'having it both ways.' He is black. His being president would be historic. Jesse Jackson, had he become president would have been historic also. But are you really so confused as to think that the fact that Jackson got closer than anyone else before Obama somehow makes a black president non-historic? And no matter what he says, it would be historic. Is there some reason why supporting the idea of racial reconciliation makes him non-black?

However, I agree with you about these things (1) Obama's race speech did not delve into the deepest problems of racism and (2) He has not repudiated neo-liberalism. I don't think he's claimed to. He has, however, pissed off both the anti-Castro lobby and the far right of AIPAC as well as made some fairly bold claims (in this absurd ultra neo-liberal context) on military policy. These aren't things people are even paying attention to, for the most part. He's not doing this to win the election. That kind of thing never wins elections. I fully expect him to hew somewhat to the neo-liberal line as I don't think there are many alternatives at this point. I hardly think this makes him a con man. (That is one of your more absurd claims.) Clinton wants to bomb the hell out of Iran. Obama might but he's less likely to. Only self indulgent college professors who voted for Nader would think there is no difference between these two things. Or that we should sit this one out because Obama is imperfect. Who's being unrealistic here?

God, by all means let's have McCain because we can't get someone progressive enough.

If this is the best you can do, you've really done Obama a service. You certainly haven't shown there is something wrong with him that wasn't obvious already. Is this weak and sloppy reasoning really the best you can do?

tony · 1 year ago

I would actually love to hear an intelligent progressive argument FOR Obama. Why rebut a case that has not been made yet? Wanting to end the war is not progressive. Even Republicans and moderates want out. Declaring your opposition to the war in 2002 is not all that impressive either. Given Obama's aspiration for the presidency, one must wonder whether he would have been as vocal in his opposition as a Sentor, when the president, his security advisors, the vast majority of the House, 80 percent of the Senate, the UK, and a majority of the public favored the war. Where has he ever demonstrated such political courage and dissent? In 2004 Obama, our only black Senator, refused to bring the matter of black vote suppression to the Senate. But in 2000, a year without a black Senator, the Congressional Black Caucus made a very bold decision to disrupt the Senate meeting to contest the Florida vote. That's courage. There is nothing in Obama's resume demonstrating that he has a similar commitment to bold and progressive politics.

Returning to his platform, I am still unable to locate progressive policies. If universal health care is progressive, then Clinton tops him. Neither candidate is anti-trade. Obama has not said much at all about affirmative action , which is already a watered down remedy. Obama believes in "outreach" to our enemies. OK. And when they still disagree, what next? Obama wants to unify the country. But he has not even unified the Democrats. Also, is it really "progressive" to unify the country, when doing so requires massive concessions to right and centrist politics? Obama and Clinton have occupied the center during the nominating process. Don’t expect to see a left-turn later. .

Blacks learned long ago that simply getting elected is not enough. It's the politics that matter. Otherwise, we could elect Rice, Powell, Keyes, Thomas, Steele, and call it progress. Symbolic change does not elevate the material status of persons of color. Instead, it just makes liberal whites feel good about themselves and purge a little white guilt. And my wealthy black comrades say that they want to tell their kids they can be president too. I’m going to cry...What about the poor black kids who desperately need quality education, safe homes, and job opportunities?

Blacks always coalesce around one candidate. Gore and Kerry received about 80 percent of black votes during their primaries. But race operates in Obama's favor with both black and white voters. Blacks have so silenced dissent on this matter, that it is difficult to understand what blacks for Clinton think about Obama. But most blacks have not claimed that Obama's success means that Americans are post-racial or nearly post-racial like whites have. To blacks, Obama is just another step toward the "mountaintop,” but whites think we are just about to plant the flag.

I believe that liberals and so-called progressives in the party like Obama precisely because he does not have any blueprint for progressive change - particularly on race issues. They are a bunch of hypocrites, who live in all-white communities and send their kids to all–white public and private schools. They resist the equalization of school funding and busing “inner city” kids to wealthier white schools. Most “re-segregated” schools are in the BLUE states, and most are poorly funded with students drawn from areas of concentrated poverty. Despite all of the rhetoric about change, the candidates have not discussed this serious problem. Phony liberalism prevails.

rucyrious · 1 year ago

"What we need most of all, though, is to articulate a politics steeped in a vision like that of the industrial democracy that fed the social movements that pushed the New Deal to be as much as it was." A. Reed, Jr. (Mar 20, 2008) Race and the New Deal Coalition, The Nation.

This statement above is from Dr. Reed's article in the April The Nation magazine. It's a great statement that comes at the end of the article leaving me hanging. OK, Dr. Reed, go ahead an articulate.

His pessimistic, spirit killing and 'vacuous' statements opposing Obama seem again to be his style. He slashes and burns with ad hominem arguments but presents no evidence, no logic to convince one of the saliency of his own thinking. I wish political folks who disagree could express their disagreement with substance and without burning the village. Dr. Reed needs to heed his own advise and not depend on "selling [his] image rather than substance."

RevK · 1 year ago

Yes! Amen!

spider · 1 year ago

Your whole post was full of image:" pessimistic, spirit killing and 'vacuous' statements opposing Obama seem again to be his style" and unfair assesment.
Dr. Reed puts Obama in context, he doesnt just "fancy namecall" , unlike you Obama nuts.

rucyrious · 1 year ago

Spider : Don't take it personally. It's just a point of view. "Obama nuts" is an example of ad hominem arguments. They're fallacious and useless.

Frank Church · 1 year ago

The point about Obama is not that he is a typical politician, but that he may change the karma of our country. Call me naive, but a change of focus is better then nothing.

oleeb · 1 year ago

Okay, you're naive. There will not be any change of focus and there won't be any change in the Karma of our country. That's just wishful thinking and nothing more. That's the problem.

Keysey42 · 1 year ago

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from your column, Mr. Reed.

You point out that you are on record in last November's issue as saying you would rather sit this election out than vote for either Obama or Clinton. Now you're saying Clinton is "the lesser of two evils," and that you don't believe either one can beat McCain.

So am I supposed to just crawl into a hole and not vote in November, and let McCain win? Am I supposed to accept at least four more years of incompetent, do-nothing Republican leadership.

I don't have a horse in this race. I voted for John Edwards in Florida's "does not count" primary. I'm under no illusions about either Obama or Clinton -- neither candidate is perfect. But they're both better than McCain.

I, for one, am sick and tired of Clinton and Obama supporters -- such as those whose comments I've read here -- sniping at each other. One of them will win, one of them will lose. I suggest the supporters of the loser get over it and get behind the winner, because there is only one other alternative -- a McCain presidency -- and that would be a continuation of the disaster that has been the last eight years. I, for one, do not want to go there.

We all seem to have forgotten something. The president does not make the laws. Congress does. If we elect progressives to Congress, we can advance a progressive agenda. But only if we elect a Democratic president.

If Congress passes a health care bill that's more progressive than that proposed by either Obama or Clinton, I have no doubt that both Obama and Clinton would sign it. I also have no doubt that McCain would veto it.

Whoever wins our the Democratic nomination, we had better all get behind the Democratic nominee. This one's WAY too important to sit out.

oleeb · 1 year ago

How on earth do you imagine the cowardly souls who make up the Democratic members of Congress will ever pass any kind of progressive agenda unless being forced by a strong leader in the White House? There's never been a more craven bunch of weaklings elected in the history of our nation than the Democrats who now "control" Congress and serve their corporate masters at every turn and who are such astounding cowards they fear the most unpopular and most corrupt President in the history of the nation. To imagine that either Obama or Clinton would provide anything more than the usual lip service to pregoressive legislation and then explain their inability to pass anything to the strong opposition of the Republicans and conservative Dems and that they need an even bigger Democratic majority, etc... is a fantasy.

bensupila · 1 year ago

those who can't do_teach.

Michael Hureaux · 1 year ago

I'm not sure if I could ever vote for Hillary Clinton over anyone else, including Obama, unless she did something really impressive like set herself on fire and ran down the street to hand out marshmallows. I do not like her or her bloody -jawed wolf husband. for whom I mistakenly cast a vote in 1992. I've come to dislike her even more intensely since her little comment about Obama's "elitism", which is a howler coming from someone who's only in the senate because her bloody-jawed wolf husband used to be fucking president of the United States.I guess I'd vote for Obama, if he ran against McCain, not because I expect anything from Obama but because he's not John McCain.

And isn't that really the only choice you get in boojwah politics anymore? Not substance, not mission, not message. Just notness. A fitting end to a system that hasn't had anything even halfway decent to offer people in this country for almost fifty years now.

SMS · 1 year ago

It apprears to me that Obama has been trying to bridge divides and transcend running as a Black candidate. The race issue is exploited by those terrified of a Black man as President to stoke neurotic fears based not on policy but on "what does he really think?". The "it's our time" comments are not about him being the first Black President. He is referring to it being time for all the people who have not felt they had a voice to actually activate toward solutions. Your bias is glaring and undercuts every argument you try to make, but good try.

RevK · 1 year ago

http://my.barackobama.com/VFCvideo

This is what it is all about. Stop complaining and get involved!

moonirams · 1 year ago

what about cynthia mckinick, one of the potential candidates of the green party. i would rather vote for her than either democratic front runners. isn't that better than siiting out the election. my personal dream team would be cynthia and maxine waters.

ellen_b · 1 year ago

As a new reader of the Progressive online I was surprised to see a piece which so thoroughly limited the boundaries of progressive political discourse to the confines of the Democratic Party. Many years ago I read the Progressive (in print) when prompted by my late grandmother. She also subscribed to the Daily Worker but this publication was not available at our local public library in Iowa . The Progressive was archived in the library and even ran a scholarly article on racism in Waterloo, Iowa which thorougly aired local dirty linen and suggested that what was happening with de facto housing discrimination in Iowa was probably repeated in other cities throughout the midwest.
As I read Prof. Reed's article, I kept expecting a nod to the vibrant grassroots Green Party activity in Reed's home state of Pennsylvania. By way of example, five Greens are running for US house of representative on the Green Party ticket in Pennsylvaniia.. http://www.gp.org/elections/candidates/index.php When the Green Party finishes its convention deliberations in Chicago(ironic venue for us old timers), Pennsylvanians will have a Green alternative to McCain or Obama(or Clinton), as well as many Greens further down the ticket, Straight ticket Green voting may be a real alternative in Pennsylvania for those who wish to express their total dissatisfaction with our two headed War Party as it lurches into 2009.

Blakk Man from Dallas, TX · 1 year ago

HA HA HA!!! Who is this guy? Does he even believe the BS he wrote? I keep hearing the same thing over and over and over again "Obama doesn't have experience". "Obama will never win the general election with the states he won in the primary". Obama can't do this, Obama can't do that. Experience is what got us (and the economy) in this mess we're in now. We need someone who has a different point of view. Not someone who caters to the Hispanics when the Texas primary is going and the "working class whites" when the Kentucky primary is going. Like it or not, Obama is already the Democratic nominee.

What do you call a 360-under the legs, behind the back slam dunk when you're down by 30? We call it an L, a LOSS. This is EXACTLY what your piece is.

David · 1 year ago

Obama lost my vote when he began cheerleading the war in Afghanistan and got on his knees before the right-wing death-squad Cuban community in Florida, telling them the embargo would not be lifted.
Obama doesn't get it. I'm voting 3rd party.

MONK · 1 year ago

okay, don't take this the wrong way Adolph, but I think you should try transcendental meditation. I hear you man, I REALLY do. But sheesh, you'll put yourself in an early grave with that attitude. I can't get with you on Hillary. And I can't sit this one out. Of course he's not perfect but I'm sorry, he's no more opportunistic than anyone else I know and the last thing he is is vacuous. Does he owe you money or somethin? I just don't see how you can conclude that SHE is the lesser of the two evils. because she might win? The last thing I'm gonna do is vote for someone who's asking for my support BECAUSE she's white. Which is essentially what the "electabilty" argument is. You can't change the system without a change in the mindset from the top down. And either a dem. or rep. will win. Until we get someone inside who is at least interested in some kind of campaign finance reform it will remain a horse race. And no matter what you say he has made millions of people feel excited and good about themselves and their country and eager for an America that lives up to that dusty old document them slave owners penned all those years ago. I think you're underestimating the very real and profound power of that. Seriously. Millions of people, even if you believe they are deluding themselves, all at once believing the world isn't shit? It's pretty pessimistic of yah to discount that and dare I say a little naive....that's right. I said it. If you think you can get an America that is more like the one described in the constitution by NOT inspiring Americans emotionally you're mistaken. But your article did make me subscribe to the magazine! and really, Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi...think about it.

EVA · 1 year ago

very entertaining and lots of good points!

jJohn Turngren, Santa Rosa, CA · 1 year ago

I think that your opinion piece, however intellectually savvy, is a passive exercise by a mind that seems to be disconnected from the heart. I don't believe that you truly feel in your heart the deep suffering and desperation that the Iraq invasion and occupation is creating for the young people in America. (You need to watch and hear with your feelings the series of "Winter Soldier" programs on Democracy Now several weeks ago.) The important question, which I don’t find you asking, is “which of the candidates before us has best chance of ending the Iraq disaster?” I don’t detect any urgency about this in your article or in your appearance on Democracy Now. My answer to the question is Barack Obama.

I agree with the other guest on today's Democracy Now program that you need a sense of hope. Paradoxically, hope stems from despair--so you need a deeper sense of despair about the situation I mention above. You need to sense it "feelingly" rather than only intellectually. Then perhaps you would realize that it is imperative that we elect a leader like Obama who has inspired a whole new group of American citizens to become involved with the political process, perhaps thereby having an unforeseen effect on the political behavior of those we elect. I think it's cynical and arrogant to label them as “Obamanistas,” "cultish," or a "fan club"--as if your images of past political history rule out new, unimagined possibilities. In politics, we create crystal balls—they don’t just sit there independent of our own perceptions. History certainly provides a reservior of knowledge, but it also is a “nightmare from which we need to awaken.”

When you tell your students that “no politician in this system is likely to be a person that you’d want for your sister-in-law or brother-in-law” are you prepared to provide evidence in every case? Presenting unsupportable generalizations from the classroom podium is not a way to educate students in critical thinking—a skill that we all so sorely need.

Preferring to sit out the whole election rather than vote for either Obama or Clinton is actually a vote for perpetuating the status quo of Bush/Cheney/McCain. (I.e., it is not possible to "sit out.")

Why spend so much energy debunking Obama? It seems that the real-time effect of this is to promote McCain. A McCain presidency will ensure an endless string of “Winter Soldier” gatherings, documenting the horrendous effect of our “warfare system” on the young people who get sucked into it and maimed as a result (how many of your students are among them?). An Obama presidency at least carries with it the possibility of a change in this dreadful situation.

terri · 1 year ago

Reed comes off as if he's jealous of Mr. Obama in this article and today on Democracy Now.

tony · 1 year ago

People who say that people who criticize a candidate are jealous come across as lacking an intelligent rebuttal to the critique

yasi · 1 year ago

I am not electing a prophet. I am electing a President, with many qualities and flaws. I will vote for Obama because he realized early on the disastrous consequences of the war in Irak, that he rightly has opposed the lobbyists and special interests' stranglehold on Washington, that he will invite Al Gore to assume a premier role on environment, that he represents the future and not the past, that he will restore the lost international community's goodwill for America.

debrazza · 1 year ago

ad homenim attacks do not help your case.

fimbo · 1 year ago

Professor,
With all due respect, do actually have anything to say about Obama that has any bearing to the challenges facing America?
This name dropping and juxtapositioning him against individuals who are not on the ballot is patently unfair.
Show me a politician who is not an opportunist! He is running for president, not for pope

Uma · 1 year ago

Wow! This is a bold and intelligent article. My only disagreement is that I am confident that Hillary can beat the Republicans in the Fall.

trishpots · 1 year ago

Your argument that Barack Obama is superficial making Hillary Clinton the "lesser evil" follows the same line as the Clinton campaign which is that Obama can't win because he's too conciliatory; he's pandering to audiences. If you've listened to Hillary Clinton speak lately, with her changing accent and all, I believe you could make the same argument only with more evidence. She has given up on getting the vote from young people and African Americans and now is pandering solely to the white working class male vote by slugging back shots and talking about the "elites." This is coming from a Wesleyan and Yale graduate who grew up with every advantage. The fact that she had to point out that her summer cabin in Pennsylvania was rustic is telling. Barack Obama has said from the beginning that he is trying to form bridges between different people and that requires some reconciliation and tact. Hillary Clinton is creating divisions based on race, class, and gender in her ads and in her rhetoric. Somehow by your argument that makes Obama a con artist and Clinton a good candidate. Race is an issue because Barack Obama is multi-racial. That is hardly his fault and the Clinton's have certainly had no compunctions about bringing up race in this primary. Clinton has not taken up the issue of what needs to be done to address past injustices either. So, is it Obama's responsibility to address racial injustice because he is black? Why shouldn't Clinton be expected to address race and gender inequality as well? Or is it enough that she can make history as the first female presidential candidate? You seem to express different expectations of these candidates based on racial issues and that, in itself, is significant.

RevK · 1 year ago

Why is Obama's talk of hope empty rhetoric. Where is the evidence. I don't accept that our situation is hopeless. If it is, shall we just go home and hang it up. I say, no!

Obama doesn't only talk tough love to Blacks. He talks tough love to all of us, in the sense that we all must come together and address what ails us and that doing so won't be easy. I haven't heard him ghetto bash like Cosby, so I don't know what specific statements the author is referring to here.

Okay, what about the "outfit"? What did it need to be in order to live up to the author's estimation of legitimacy? Was this somehow not grass roots organizing? Is the implication here that Obama is puffing?

I don't know the specifics. Did she grow up on the South Side or not? How poor must one be to meet the author's definition? There is such thing as the working poor. Or, is the implication that one must be poor and disenfranchised for one's poverty to count. I am aware of the alleged corruption associated with the "Daley machine" and with its far reaching tentacles, it seems everyone in Chicago politics at the time (with any power) was a part of that machine. I don't see how portraying Michelle Obama as poor is somehow more egregious than Clinton portraying herself as poor (which image she has repeatedly attempted to sell). The fact is that people vote based on image, even if you have substance to offer, it is wise that you wrap it in a favorable image if you expect to be elected. Again, merely creating an image does not itself somehow prove that beneath the image Obama lacks substance. That is like saying that because a brain surgeon wears a fake Rolex, he really doesn't have the necessary skill to perform surgery. Image and substance are two different things. Sadly, a bad image can keep one out of power, regardless of how much substantive value one may offer.

If being too enthusiastic equals being naive and ignorant, I'd still choose this over providing a jaded, cynical commentary that frankly misuses the author's obviously good education.

One can identify as a Black candidate and also be a unifier. These two are not mutually exclusive. And, surely racism has been afoot in this election. Can it even be argued that this business with Wright involved racism, the way that Obama is not given the benefit of the doubt for his statements, such as the one on bitter voters clinging to guns and religion versus the way that Clinton always is given the benefit of the doubt, including during her recent tirade on hardworking whites.

Clinton is race baiting. It doesn't matter how light or dark Obama is but it does matter that someone would attempt to alter his color in order to appeal to racists sentiments in this country. If I learned that Obama had lightened his picture, I would criticize him in the same vein.

As for Ferraro, a number of inexperienced Whites have been elected president, so it is inappropriate to say that Obama had he been a charismatic young white man touting a hope/change platform would not be where he is now. This is different from a discussion of the historic character claim, which has to do with the fact that Obama identifies as a Black man.

In short, Obama is positioned as he is because of his talents, skills, and abilities. To say that he is positioned as he is because of his race appears racist. Obama's candidacy is historical, because this is the first time that the talents, skills, and abilities of a man who identifies as Black, have landed that man in the position of being one of two contender's for the democratic nomination for president, to acknowledge this is not racist, it is factual.

How does supporting Obama makes one sort of Black? How does this work? Was I sort of white when I voted for Clinton or any of the other white presidents? Does everything in the world equal only race? I hear the "it's our time" line in a different way. Obama is appealing to people who share a common desire to move forward in a certain way, together. "Our" does not mean Black people or White people, it means people who share this desire. Yes, we may be idealists, but all change begins with an idea.

It seems the author is voting against Obama not for Clinton . Also, I think not voting for someone because you believe they can't win is the ultimate cynicism and a betrayal of the democratic process. It is the reason that image becomes more important than substance, because people want to vote, not for substance, but for a winner, or someone who seems like them, or whatever is the story of the day.

What will the Republicans do to Clinton? Voting for Clinton is making a determination based on fear and expediency, not on principle.

Obama is not all things to all people. He looks at the best each has to offer and trumpets the good. Our problem as a society is that we have been sold a false doctrine that tells us to hate and fight. Whether we see ourselves as the white hat or black hat, we are told that our opposition is all wrong. No one is all wrong and it is far more honest to acknowledge that there is some good and correctness in our opponents and to use that as a starting place for peace and reconciliation.

Does the author have a problem with the monolithic portrayal of Blacks or is his problem that the monolith portrayed is not one with which he agrees? Obviously, generalizations rarely are completely accurate. For example, it appears that the author disagrees with the notion that there were excesses in the 1960s and 1970s, though saying that there were no excesses is also a generalization. Finding nothing praiseworthy in Reagan is just another example of the philosophy that one must damn entirely those with whom one disagrees. This limited approach is dishonest. We can learn a lot from those with whom we disagree but first we must acknowledge that there is something worthy of being learned, which means acknowledging that Regan is not Satan.

I hear the author saying, be afraid and allow that fear to prevent you from voting for Obama, since Obama may not win and even if he wins, may not save the black race. I am not voting for Obama because I need him to save me. The best way to ensure that Obama wins is to engage the process. The best way to ensure that Obama does what we need him to do once he wins is to engage the process and provide him with the support and feedback he needs to be accountable. Or, we can stay at home or vote for Clinton , a strategy that is akin to saying: "let's stay out of white folks business, a presidential election ain't no place for little ol me to be sticking my nose."

Michael_K · 1 year ago

What's sicker? That Barack Obama threw his former pastor under the bus, or that he has as of today done it twice (I wrote my own take on this here)? Things such as loyalty, friendship, and integrity mean nothing to Obama—all that matters to him is his ambition to be president, and to that end Reverend Wright is expendable.

Obama officially disowned his former pastor, and for what? Because the man gave a speech, and defended his reputation.

eddiehaskel · 1 year ago

Let me guess, Karl Rove either wrote or at least inspired this piece of crap? This is my first visit to this site so it seems like "The Progressive" is meant tongue-in-cheek? Or maybe Obama has somehow personally wronged Prof. Reed and this is payback. I love the part about how we should just sit out the election because McCain is just going to win anyway. Excuse me while I go poke a sharp stick into my eye...

Timothy Beneke · 1 year ago

This is utter drivel; there are so many distorted comments throughout. Try simple objectivity: Obama's record as a liberal actively concerned with those who are at the bottom is strong and documented; they never pushed his wife as poor, only working class in background. The idealizing of Obama by young people may well be naive, but they are working for him, and supporting him. He's trying to appeal to common ground and to get universal medical coverage and an easier life for working class people.

RedSox04 · 1 year ago

The other thing, and as I read your post, I see that you're a classic Obama supporter: you've idealized him and created him into something he is not, while disparaging your opponents and calling for "objectivity".

Obama is not calling for universal medical coverage. You could plausibly claim he's calling for expanded medical coverage, or perhaps more universal medical coverage, but to claim he's calling for universal health care is a canard.

Also, when you say that Obama is calling for "an easier life for working class people", I don't know what you're referring to, but it's likely false. Obama's top economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee, a U.Chicago neolibertarian, and his response to the subprime mortgage crisis for about 7-8 months was to say let the markets work this problem out (which was even more libertarian than the Bush administration, which was at least tepidly wading into the waters of government regulation and intervention). Furthermore, Obama never talks about working class solutions. Instead he talks about hope and change, and the power of the individual. This is Republican rhetoric, that has previously been used to justify cuts in social programs that benefit working class people (such as OSHA, job training assistance programs, school lunches, welfare, etc.)

There is a reason that working class people are thoroughly rejecting Obama. Yes, part of that reason might be race, but to claim that is the whole reason behind Obama's failure to connect with these folks is lazy. Obama is the candidate of people who haven't felt the pains of the last 30 years (including, sadly, Clinton, although to a lesser extent than the others) because of market-based government: young people and rich people.

spider · 1 year ago

Interesting point about Obamas appeal to young voters and the rich because of market-based government. A rare astute comment, thankyou!

RedSox04 · 1 year ago

What record are you talking about? I won't speak to his record in the Illinois State Senate, other than to say that it seems fairly undistinguished (with Obama supporters pointing to individual instances of bills that are relatively uncontroversial and certainly not illustrative of any true progressive agenda), because I haven't followed this closely.

But his record in the US Senate has been undistinguished and certainly not representative of a "liberal actively concerned with those who are at the bottom". As far as I can tell, Obama has had 3 major voting differences from Hillary during his contemporaneous time in the Senate: 1) voting for tort reform; 2) voting for Cheney's energy bill (pushing ethanol, among other things); and 3) voting against the Democrats' primary amendment to water down the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill.

On 1), he has spoken the standard neoliberal mush about how higher litigation costs are ruining the competitiveness of American business. On 2), he has repeatedly tried since his vote to claim that he is a proponent of "alternative energy", without specifically mentioning ethanol, which environmentalists think is a disaster. You may also be interested to know that he's a big recipient of Big Corn donations. On 3) he initially lied about his vote, claiming that the Dem amendment would preempt stronger state usury laws. After this lie was brought to his face, he reversed course, and since then has disingenuously tried to equate the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill (which was bad) with the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill (which was exponentially worse). Yes, Obama fans will tell you, he voted against the 05 Bankruptcy Bill, but as an Illinois Democrat, he really had no other choice. Anyone who knows anything about bankruptcy knows that Obama was in the tank for the banks on this one, and his meaningless "no" vote on the final bill was far less significant than his crucial "no" vote on the Dem amendment.

Which brings me to another point: Obama has repeatedly misled the American people by claiming he doesn't take lobbyist money. What he fails to tell people is that he takes money bundled by lobbyists, which is far more important and significant as a source of cash. The $2,300 that each lobbyist (I think there are something like 1000 total registered federal lobbyists) can offer is not anything to sneeze at, but it's really a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) they can rustle up from their members, clients, friends, etc.

Obama has clearly been influenced by lobbyists: his votes on the bankruptcy amendment (he's a huge beneficiary of the banks, and has I believe now outpaced Hillary as far as financial institution donations (including hedge funds)) and ethanol (he's been a top recipient of donations from Big Corn, and is known around the Hill as being in their pocket). His laughable ban on donations from registered lobbyists alone hasn't stopped him from hiring lobbyists, or meeting regularly with them.

At least with Hillary, I know she's not making this ludicrous claim that she's immune from lobbying. And I know she can on occasion decide that principle is more important than political lobbying. I haven't seen anything from Obama yet to indicate the same. And the fact that he is basically lying about lobbyist money, by using the very narrowest definition of "lobbyist money" to imply that he's financially insulated from them, to me is very troublesome.

K-DocWV · 1 year ago

Obama, may not be the god that you portray his millions of supporters around the globe to see him as, but he's the best chance we've got at getting this country back on track. I find your hit piece to be quite disgusting. Talk about a snobby ELITIST mentality.. pot...kettle...black...

Mary Lou · 1 year ago

Obama is not the best chance to get this country back on track, he just says he is and you believe it... there's nothing in his record that backs this up, no reason on earth to believe that business as usual inside the beltway is going to change because Obama is a nice guy and wants it to. I believe that his kind of generic promises is pandering, and much worse than the gas tax kind.

Angus · 1 year ago

Your piece is as long and windy as a slithering snake... Your arguments at best empty AND vacuous. Nobody is forcing ANYONE to vote for anybody, that is democracy, I choose whoever I want to. If you are so convinced Obama will lose against McCain then, why even argue? That is your salvation right there!!!

The only viable hope that we have as a Nation is to run out the special interests in America, and start with a whiff of new air. In Africa they say "You do not show a bull the knife you intend to slaughter it with". Read the Art of War, you cannot show your true colors and position to the enemy and expect to win; for HEAVEN'S SAKE, that's why we built the stealth bomber!!!

You naively imagine that if a candidate came with the express intention of overthrowing the system it would let him? Ask Nader, he may be honest to his creed but he will have lived a wasted dream because the system will NEVER, NEVER NEVER let him get to within an inch of the levers of power.

I would rather a clever clear eyed intelligent operative who knows what he wants to achieve and works towards it for the greater good. Eve if it means seeming to sacrifice his ideas in the doing. Ask Dubya, he CONNED us all good time!!!

Obama is not the saviour, the system will not yield to a frontal wholesale attack, even he can only tweak it, but among all the candidates on offer only he can possibly tweak it. The others run with the system and are part of it. We will send our best hope, we will send Obama