Brilliant summary and unpalatable truths in there for most of us I'm sure.

Yes, I had been observing some adroit side-stepping and back-pedalling from Obama and his seeming appeal to all groups for some time now, but I was clinging doggedly onto the dream.

You've pretty much shattered it now! And I have to ask what's left? If not Obama, who will lead us to a better world? Yes, the more hope we invest in our shining knights, the harder it is to watch their image tarnish.

Having said that, we're still in a better place than we were under Bush, and also where we'd be had Obama's rival won instead.

I am once again reminded of a saying that we had in the army when I was doing National Service back in the fifties. "Bullshift baffles brains".

David

The problem with progress is that it always comes with unintended consequences. Each time a new idea is promoted, it allows new people to come forward, but it displaces someone else in the process. This create waves which, if too big and abrupt, knock many people about too much.

So, the art to making change is to make change that people can partake in. That means not doing too much too soon, but doing things in bite-sized instalments while opening people's eyes to the idea that things can really be done much better. This, I think, is the real benefit of having people like Obama and Rudd in political power. Even if they don't actually achieve anything else, their political ideas will rub off on all those that come after. Out of the melange following will come a few who will be able to achieve some really great things. It's actually best we don't know who they are.

Are you sure we're in a better place Bronwyn. I think McCain would have been far more honest and transparent. Obama's glibness is his most dangerous quality.

If I may answer that, Graham. Yes, we ARE in a better place.

We would be in a better place if my Auntie Nellie's cat had been elected President.

(So-called Democrats/Labour politicians, are always the biggest disappointment for me, and I judge them harshly in their endeavour to be seen to be 'of the common man', when they are nothing of the kind nowadays. For me though, it's all relative. They are the lesser of two evils).

1 server error.
2 server error.

Ginx

"We would be in a better place if my Auntie Nellie's cat had been elected President."

LOL

Well I can't top that and won't attempt to, but in regards to your comment, Graham, on McCain being 'far more honest and transparent' than Obama, I would, after choking on my lunch (twice now) have to vehemently disagree.

McCain was never going to be able to hack the pace for a start. Not only that, but his campaign was an even more orchestrated front than Obama's in my opinion. He was sold as Mr Moderate, just as John Howard sold himself as a reformed centrist in the 1996 campaign. You can bet had McCain got in, his Mr Moderate position would have been ditched just as smartly as Howard's was. Even if he had attempted to take a genuinely moderate position on some issues, there were just too many conservatives and neocons within the party structure to ever give him much rope. The fact too that his main claim to so-called glory was a disputed war story says it all really, IMHO.

RobP

Good analysis and thank you for giving me back some small glimmer of hope to hang onto! :)

I think you're right, there is an element of incremental change. Let's face it, it's the only change possible in the face of the powerful vested opposition that both men face. Rudd is not a hope-inspiring example though, I don't think. His apology speech, his binning of Work Choices and his efforts to humanise the asylum seeker process are all welcome, but none of them have gone far enough yet. His capitulation to big business on the introduction of climate change abatement measures is totally unacceptable and a betrayal of all who voted for him. Giving away bucketloads of untargeted money to combat the economic downturn and now promising money we don't have on over-the-top defence systems we don't need are just about the last straws for me.

So no, if you tell me Obama is to follow Rudd's example, that small glimmer of hope will flicker very weakly. :)

Futurist Gerald Celente has been predicting the dissolution of the USA into separate regions. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2qDW34Fr64) Now that the USA's political establishment is so transparently hypocritical and in the pockets of the finance industry it is easier to see this happening. (They were in their pockets before - it was just not as easy to see.) Pilger is right - the eyes of the average Joe are being opened fast. Seems that looking for change and leadership in Washington is like looking for a sustainable lifestyle in Manhattan.

John Pilger's summary of Obama is the well reasoned and referenced article that Ted Bromund's rant never was.

A (cynical) look at politics American style. I pray he is wrong. I fear that he's right.

The Madmen weren't so mad that they couldn't see another term of Republicanism as imperial suicide, so they took an intelligent and charismatic man and applied every advertising trick known. I just recently finished with a discussion thread regarding the impact that media has on men and women, interestingly I was castigated for even suggesting that men are more moved by the visual than women; that women require an emotional 'hook'. Well Obama has it all for both sexes; he and his family are exceptionally beautiful charming people. Have we all been fooled? Or will Obama prove to be more than the puppetmasters anticipated?

Don't know what Pilger is up to, but if proven true, he has exposed the biggest socio-political trick in history.

Obama even looked like the first American leader prepared to share the blame which many of us believed in.

Of course, the trouble with Pilger he's never been really able to work out what's best for a better world, anyhow, so I'm still more of a mite suspicious?

Cheers, BB, WA.

I guess this article shows the difference in intelligence between
journalists like Pilger, who need to write something to make a
living, and a politician like Obama, who actually thinks through
the consequences of his actions.

Let's say that Summers had simply let the banks collapse. BTW,
it was insurer AIG which has received most funding so far.
What would be the consequences? How many dominoes would fall?
How many of you could survive for months, if your bank shut its
doors tomorrow? Could your employer even pay you?

Its highly likely that the US Govt will get its money back from
banks, less likely from the MV industry. The economy can function
without GM, but not without a banking system.

The same principle applies to Gitmo, Afghanistan, etc. You have
to think through the consequences of your actions, which is what
Obama is wisely doing. All credit to him.

I don't remember Murdoch backing Obama too much. He seemed to think
that he lacked understanding in economics. The Fox Channels are
still his largest critics today.

Yes, Axelrod organised a great campaign for Obama, using people
power and the net. It shows ability to organise and think outside
of the old square. Once again credit to him.

Sounds to me more like Pilger was having a bad hair day and needed
to fill some lines, to earn his living for the day. Hardly a well
thought out article.

Obama will prove to be more dangerous tham Bush because of his messiah status.The corporate elites will pull the strings and Obama will dance to their tune.

After I read Arjay's last post, I can breathe a sigh of relief, Arjay's continuous conspiracy theory is aired once again. All is right with the world.

He regularly makes these unsupported statements like the above, and I think maybe Pilger was just having a "bad hair day" after all.

Obama does not now or at any time in the past present as someone who is easily manipulated. He does, however, have to tread a very fine line and I never expected that I would be happy with every decision he has or will make.

Yabby's point about Murdoch not being entirely on board with Obama during the election campaign is pertinent.

Thanks to all for restoring my optimism meter to it's former high level.

Good article.

I think the whole 'left' and 'right' dichotomy is a big furphy, as Obama is now proving once again.

The fact is that there was not really much significant difference between the policies of the Democrats and those of the Republicans, just as there is not much between Labor and Liberal.

For example, Cain was in favour of America acting as the world's policeman, and so is Obama. Cain was in favour of more bailouts for billionaires, and so is Obama. Stimulus packages, war on terror, war on drugs, federal government takeover of education, medicine, pharamaceuticals, the militarisation of the police, increasing governlment control of anything and everything... What difference was there between them? Oh yeah. McCain wanted to bomb shop-keepers in Iraq, while Obama wants to bomb goatherds in Afghanistan.

The only consolation is that all the people who voted for Rudd in the hope of more social engineering just keep on getting disappointed when it turns out he was lying and pandering. As if that wasn't obvious! You put faith in politics and now you got what you deserved.

What never seems to occur to people is that it doesn't have to be this way. We don't have to live in a society in which most significant decisions are made in back-room deals by politicians. But you have to be prepared to surrender the fantasy of total control of your fellow citizens through the political process. You have to be able to imagine a world in which people are free to make their own decisions without you trying to dictate them. If people choose to enter into contracts that you don't like - tough luck! If people choose to live their life without paying obeisance to the religious cult of the environment - tough luck! I'm glad these laws are failing, because they are just an expression of modern-day religious intolerance and officious meddling.

Has there ever been a government of which Mr Pilger approved? Or does it somehow always seem to happen that every government turns out to be wicked, in his view?

I tend to agree with one of the early comments:- Obama's record so far is far short of what some of us on the left would ideally hope for, but come on, do you think he could magically re-shape the whole US political system & balance overnight? Remember that over 40% of the country still voted for McCain, and some of those number are very conservative. There is a distinction between being owned by the Mad Men & money men, and carefully taking into account their massive influence as you plot a way forward, however small it may seem sometimes!

For me, Obama shows a fair bit of moral leadership at least, and of broad intelligence. If you've got time, check out his speech to the national academies of science and engineering, where he among other things he called on young people to "create, not just consume":
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/obamas-call-to-create-not-just-consume/

I guess it's very subjective the line between "leading as much as politically possible" versus "being a coward & not living up to your mandate for change". I am giving Obama the benefit of the doubt for now, but Rudd generally falls into the latter category, especially after the ridiculously flawed approach to climate change here.