Help In These Times raise $10,000 in three weeks! Donate now to support original and incisive journalism!

A Stunning Victory. Now What?

In These Times editors around the country react to Barack Obama’s historic victory

By In These Times editors

Obama’s stunning breakthrough election as the first African-American president — at a time when he is the only black U.S. senator — is a testament to his personal qualities and the sophistication of his campaign. It obviously owes a lot to the well-earned unpopularity of Bush’s policies, which contributed to the financial crash. But America had also changed: young white people… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (3)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    Public disgust over Carter resulted in the Reagan revolution. Clinton paved the way for Bush.

    In four years, after Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he really IS a lightweight with a flaky agenda the usual Nazi suspects will all be back.

    I got you, babe.


    FREE AMERICA

    REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

    China Posted by mschlee on Nov 11, 2008 at 4:57 AM

    If young white voters are “less racist” does that mean Obama was elected because he is less black? Why is half black/half white considered the “first black president”? I am half Swedish if elected would I be the “first Swedish president”?
    —————-

    Ok, with that nonsense out of the way, let’s look at real life. Real world results and consequences are not graded on the curve.

    This is what I see as grading on the curve:

    Obama the orator :  Following the guy who still says,” ‘merica” and “nuke-yu-ler” and whose principle segue is “aaaa”?

    Is it a mandate when following one of the least popular administrations ever?

    Is it a mandate winning a campaign against a competitor who looked like his concentration was elsewhere?

    Is it a mandate when so many first time voters have been promised cash payments?

    Obama ran a “good” campaign Ñ no question Ñ but McCain ran a “terrible” campaign. The guy I could gladly have voted for in the last election was AWOL until his concession speech. Could it simply be the Republicans decided the best strategy was to let the Dems take over this can of worms thinking nobody can fix it in four years (think Jimmy Carter)?

    I suspect the honeymoon will last in direct relation to the amount and number of personal stimulus packages which are passed out.

    I expect Obama will run true to form and, based on his past history here in Illinois, continue to do whatever it takes to capture the 2012 term. A guy with 140 “present” votes is more concerned with not doing anything to alienate voters than with solving problems.

    What is often seen to his advantage, a Democratic Congress, could work against him by removing a major excuse if the economic issues do not show rapid improvement. 

    Voters whose retirement has been halved and those whose jobs and/or benefits have been lost will not be inclined to be patient. They will remember that he voted for the bailout of the wealthy on Wall St.Ñ which they so loudly were against.

    United States Posted by whattheheck on Nov 16, 2008 at 7:27 PM

    Obama is a great speaker. But has anybody at ITT actually looked as his positoins on the issues? Obama doesn’t deviate from standard Democratic Party positions.

    David Moberg mentioned the appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as the ultimate political insider. That’s true as far as it goes. Rahm Emmanuel is also a big hawk, and fought antiwar Democrats. And he’s very close to the Israel Lobby. Quite likely Obama will appoint more former Clinton people. And nobody seriously called Bill Clinton a “visionary”.

    Neither Moberg nor any of the other ITT editors mentioned that Obama was able to raise a ton of money from Big Business, far more than McCain. That helped Obama run a campaign in normally Republican states. The vast sums of money flowing to Obama really ought to give pause to ITT writers and readers who assume that Obama is a wonderful progressive champion.

    By the way, I never said that there was “no difference” between Obama. I’m just saying that politicians protect the interests of their campaign contributors. So don’t expect Obama to be a leftist.

    United States Posted by Nevada_Ned on Nov 18, 2008 at 6:34 AM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Also by In These Times editors
Popular Discussions