Barack Obama: You need to vote because our democracy depends on it

cramer

Here is an abridged version of the speech which Former President Obama delivered at the University of Illinois on Friday. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/08/barack-obama-you-need-to-vote-because-our-democracy-depends-on-it


GL2

Let me be the 50-millionth person to say how refreshing it was to hear a speech by a statesman.

"How hard is it to say Nazis are bad?"

I do, however, share the fear that BHO is a rich target for DJT's scummy brand of politics. And a motivator for the racist segment of his following.


ml1

Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 


Morganna

He looks drained and frustrated. How does he comprehend how people could vote for him and then vote for this crass inarticulate man?

One of the little things that drives me crazy, is Trump's vain attempts at humor. He fancies himself as a wildly entertaining guy, and remarked that he fell asleep during Obama's speech. I searched for any vague response in the crowd behind him. Most people look disinterested, as if they forgot their cues to laugh. Like Lonesome Rhodes in Face in the Crowd, he probably sits in his room with a laugh track and rehearses. Or has a basement with cartoon cut outs like Rupert Pupking in King of Comedy.


LOST
ml1 said:
Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 

 What does it mean to have "moral standing" to criticize evil?

Can a thief criticize genocide?

As to the specifics of your comment what "moral standing" do "Right wingers" have to even comment on Obama or anything he says. To a great number of "Right wingers" the color of his skin disqualifies anything he says or does.


cramer

Hopefully, some on the left won't start criticizing Obama. That is exactly what is not needed. Obama is asking people to get out and vote and every Democrat should support this. 

Sadly, I don't think this will happen. 


ml1
LOST said:


ml1 said:
Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 
 What does it mean to have "moral standing" to criticize evil?
Can a thief criticize genocide?
As to the specifics of your comment what "moral standing" do "Right wingers" have to even comment on Obama or anything he says. To a great number of "Right wingers" the color of his skin disqualifies anything he says or does.

 it doesn't invalidate his criticisms. It's just that we are really lowering the bar when we just want someone to criticize really obvious racism and bigotry, and to speak like a sensible person. We need our next president to also repudiate all of the authoritarian policies of the last few decades that were a product of both parties. 

We keep getting fooled into thinking that Trump is the  problem and if we curb him in the midterm and remove him in '20, it's all good. The problems go way deeper than that. And we need to remember that. 


annielou

More mental gymnastics. Let’s also remember that whatever shreds of unity that are left in this society, Trump is doing his best to obliterate just to consolidate his power.


annielou

No problems will be solved with a worsening division in this country.


PVW
ml1 said:
Obama's terrible policies on civil liberties and whistle blowers are coming back to bite him. Right wingers are saying he has no moral standing to criticize Trump's authoritarianism. Unfortunately, to an extent they are correct. 

 I've long felt that the key to understanding Obama is that he really truly believes in American institutions, and as such, I think folks who are more ideologically motivated have often been disappointed in him. His being a black man in the office of the presidency was revolutionary, but he himself was never a revolutionist.

You cite civil liberties and whistleblowing here. I think another good example is on immigration, where he was very slow on coming around with DACA. I think he legitimately felt he did not necessarily have the legal authority to act, and it took a lot of pressure before he was convinced otherwise, even as I think that he personally believed in the justice of the aims of immigration activists.



nan

This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.

Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  Maybe while he was running the first time and then forgotten.  What workers are getting seats on corporate boards?  And does "higher minimum wage" mean "living wage." And what did he do for college students?  



nohero

nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:


So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  

From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/

Never rely on Jimmy Dore.


DaveSchmidt
nan said:

And what did he do for college students?  

He overhauled the student loan program and cracked down on predatory practices by for-profit colleges, for two examples.


paulsurovell
nohero said:


nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  
From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/
Never rely on Jimmy Dore.

What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.


BG9
paulsurovell said:


nohero said:



nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  
From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/
Never rely on Jimmy Dore.
What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.


Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.

As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.

So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?


dave23

Obama was for single payer before he was elected. Obamacare was the result of negotiations with right-leaning Dems. 


LOST
ml1 said:



We keep getting fooled into thinking that Trump is the  problem and if we curb him in the midterm and remove him in '20, it's all good. The problems go way deeper than that. And we need to remember that. 

 Of course we must remember that. But the problems of this country are not new. They go back to the beginning of the Republic and even before. Slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, capitalisn, class divisions, zenaphobia. But we also have ideals, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the speeches of Lincoln, FDR, etc. We never completely live up to those ideals of Freedom, Equality, Justice and Democracy

BUT TRUMP DOES NOT EVEN PAY LIP-SERVICE TO THE IDEALS. He mocks them and threatens them and that is what makes him and his followers so dangerous. Their triumph will eliminate any possibility of obtaining the professed ideals of America and thwart all progress. What Trump and the Bannons and Millers seek is a radical transformation of America.


paulsurovell
BG9 said:


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:



nan said:
This is the part of the speech that dropped my jaw open:

So Democrats aren’t just running on good old ideas like a higher minimum wage, they’re running on good new ideas like medicare for all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate.
Suddenly he is for medicare for all?  When did he think that was a good thing?  
From 2009: "First, at several town halls this year, Obama has been asked by single-payer supporters why he doesn't propose a single-payer system. Obama's consistent answer has been that if he were designing a health care system 'from scratch,' he would go with a single payer system. So that certainly indicates philosophical support for the idea, even if Obama has also consistently concluded that single-payer is not politically feasible."
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/
Never rely on Jimmy Dore.
What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.


Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?

 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"


DaveSchmidt
paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.
Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?
 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"

The PolitiFact article that nohero quoted from cites a 2003 forum in which Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program.” (He didn’t use the term “Medicare for all,” but at the time, Kucinich was pretty much the only politician who did.) 

Of course, Obama wasn’t president then, with a Congress to account for. Then again, neither is Sanders.


nohero
DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.
Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?
 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"
The PolitiFact article that nohero quoted from cites a 2003 forum in which Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program.” (He didn’t use the term “Medicare for all,” but at the time, Kucinich was pretty much the only politician who did.) 
Of course, Obama wasn’t president then, with a Congress to account for. Then again, neither is Sanders.

 Mr. DaveSchmidt - You have to realize that unless someone says the magic words "Medicare for All", they fail the progressive purity test.  Your explanations and resort to facts mean nothing if the person doesn't utter the incantation.


BG9

That other party, the one Obama does not belong to, certainly knows the importance of votes:

He was a proud Korean War veteran. He was also black and lived in Texas. That meant that by 2013, Floyd Carrier, 86, was a prime target for the state’s voter suppression campaign, even though he was “Army strong.”

 In an election that year, when he handed his Department of Veterans Affairs card to the registrar, he was turned away. No matter that he had used that ID for more than 50 years without a problem. Texas had recently passed a burdensome and unnecessary law that required voters to show a state-approved ID with a photo. His card didn’t have one.

The North Koreans couldn’t break Mr. Carrier, but voter suppression did. “I wasn’t a citizen no more,” he told a reporter last year. “I wasn’t.”

Voters across the country are now realizing that they, too, have crossed into the twilight zone: citizens of America without full citizenship rights. The right to vote is central to American democracy. “It’s preservative of all rights,” as the Supreme Court said in its 1886 ruling in Yick Wo v. Hopkins. But chipping away at access to that right has been a central electoral strategy for Republicans.
Block people of color from the ballot box. Consider the brutal clarity of Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which eventually helped write voter suppression legislation that spread like a cancer across the country: “I don’t want everybody to vote,” he said in a 1980 speech to conservative preachers in Dallas. “Our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.” The Republican Party learned that voter suppression, done ruthlessly and relentlessly, could deliver victory.

Lets Stop THOSE PEOPLE from Voting


paulsurovell
nohero said:


DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.
Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?
 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"
The PolitiFact article that nohero quoted from cites a 2003 forum in which Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program.” (He didn’t use the term “Medicare for all,” but at the time, Kucinich was pretty much the only politician who did.) 
Of course, Obama wasn’t president then, with a Congress to account for. Then again, neither is Sanders.
 Mr. DaveSchmidt - You have to realize that unless someone says the magic words "Medicare for All", they fail the progressive purity test.  Your explanations and resort to facts mean nothing if the person doesn't utter the incantation.

 @nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.

Historical context -- before Obama Care was adopted, the Dems were one vote short of moving toward Medicare for All through a bill that would have lowered the eligibility age to 55. Joe Lieberman killed it.


paulsurovell
DaveSchmidt said:


paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

What's important is that Obama is now behind Medicare for All, one of Bernie's top priorities, an idea that makes sense on so many levels. But adopting Medicare for All will require The Resistance to resist the health insurance industry and put people over profit.
Now? Obama now following one Bernie's top priority? A put down on Obama? Typical Bernie cult put down.
As shown, right above you comment, in 2009 he said that be best. But Obama was also realistic in knowing it would not pass congress.
So, in 2017 Bernie came out in favor of Medicare for all. Did he do so before then?
 Can you provide an earlier citation where Obama advocated "Medicare for All?"
The PolitiFact article that nohero quoted from cites a 2003 forum in which Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care program.” (He didn’t use the term “Medicare for all,” but at the time, Kucinich was pretty much the only politician who did.) 
Of course, Obama wasn’t president then, with a Congress to account for. Then again, neither is Sanders.

 As I said earlier, what's important is that Obama is endorsing Medicare for All now. Will The Resistance join him and resist the Health Insurance Industry?


DaveSchmidt
paulsurovell said:

 @nohero doesn't like the phrase, because it was Bernie's slogan, which is why he won't embrace it. "Single payer" is not the same as "Medicare for All" -- in form or in substance.

More historical context ...

Bernie’s slogan, as described by Denny 15 years ago in a debate at Pace University: “I've introduced legislation that provides for a totally new change, that has health care for people, not for profit. It's called Medicare for All. It's a single-payer program.”


DaveSchmidt
paulsurovell said:

Historical context -- before Obama Care was adopted, the Dems were one vote short of moving toward Medicare for All through a bill that would have lowered the eligibility age to 55. Joe Lieberman killed it.

A caveat: Under that proposal, people ages 55 to 64 would have had to purchase the Medicare coverage if they wanted it.


BG9
paulsurovell said:on.

Historical context -- before Obama Care was adopted, the Dems were one vote short of moving toward Medicare for All through a bill that would have lowered the eligibility age to 55. Joe Lieberman killed it.

 Lieberman's wife had a very lucrative career in the health industry.

It seems whenever we get close to REAL change there always seems to be enough votes to block, both Republican and Democrat.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.