Comments on: Did Barack Obama Just Appoint An Under-qualified Stooge and Privatizer Secretary of Education?

By: Rene Levesque

Rene Levesque — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:56:07 +0000

Wait, wait….you mean to say that the old boss is the same as the new boss?

Who really thought that Barry was going to be different?
Oh wait…. it wasnt as much as they believed in his BS as much as they despised the other side.

I still have gay friends who truly believe that Obama is for gay weddings just like I have hippy friends who think he is ‘anti-war’ even with the hawks in his administration and the stench of the Clintons on him (I was in europe when the democrats had their own Iraq BS and bombing in support of muslim terrorists when Bin Laden was our friend and there were mass demonstrations against the US throughout the continent that my family back home never heard anything about. We didnt start getting hated because of Bush the idiot.) I heard tech shows who rave that teh new prez is tech savvy yet their own research gave him a lower mark on tech issues that the old crusty McCainausorus.
Its not what you say or do but what people THINK you say or do.

Its going to be the exact same thing as before but with better PR spin and if we bomb and kill people it will be because of humanitarian bombings (Im looking at you Sudan and teh billions that the chinese have invested in your oil. Were gonna come and save you soon)

The color of a man’s skin is of no importance if he can do the job but I despise the idea that somehow your skin color makes you better or different than others.
We had Condi Rice and Colin Powell in high power positions and blacks can be as big d**ks as whites.
Barry is a smooth SOB but he wont be different than any other in his position.
Dont confuse Ron Paul with Barry.

As much as Bush was bad, we sort of knew it (sure, no one said a word inpublic until 2006). Barry will be able to finesse his way into these kind of decisions and have it slide off him in a way we would have never allowed Shrub Jr to do.
In other words, were screwed.

By: kalidas

kalidas — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:27:44 +0000

Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
Mencken

By: bozh

bozh — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:35:02 +0000

angry paesano,
i, too, shook when i read that the socalled leftists were advising people to vote for socalled lesser evil.
to me, voting for O meant voting for samecons and sam evil or even greater evil.
thse people r closet leftists. thnx

By: kalidas

kalidas — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:16:59 +0000

“A society of cheaters and the cheated.”

By: HR

HR — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:11:54 +0000

Michael, more pseudoprogressive rationalizing. People who turn their backs on candidates who offer REAL hope for change in favor of snake-oil-selling machine politicians get the government they deserve. All your rationalizing and excuse making won’t change that.

By: The Angry Peasant

The Angry Peasant — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:32:15 +0000

I have listened to the likes of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, both of whom I admire, say that we should vote for the lesser of two evils, and hope for the best. This is baffling to me, that great thinkers like these can subscribe to this sort of defeatism. Nobody should vote for a Republican or Democrat. Period. No, it doesn’t negate the efforts of progressives to do so, but it does send a message that we’re willing to play the corporate rulers’ corrupt game. Better to vote your conscience, I say. Perhaps the argument to vote for the lesser of two evils might have held sway twenty or even ten years ago, but let’s face it—the Democrat Party has been utterly, shamefully corrupted by wealth and power. They are Republicans for all intents and purposes. No good will come from Obama, I assure you. None. And who knows? Maybe after the shit finally starts hitting the fan in regards to the general public’s tolerance of this horrid system (and I believe it will; probably after the people see that Obama is the very antithesis of what they thought they voted for), you may just see a third party candidate finally get some substantial voting returns. Maybe three or four elections from now, a Nader or a Gravel or a Paul might just have a shot. Everything is spiraling down so fast now in America, it probably won’t take even that longBut one shouldn’t give up and vote for a war-mongering monster like Obama. It’s inexcusable.

By: Michael Hureaux

Michael Hureaux — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:56:30 +0000

Thanks for the snotty dismissal of the concerns about public education expressed here, HR, lthough I have to add to your commentary that the rough equivalent of what you call a “pseudoprogressive” is righteous posturing from people who presume that the ultimate end of a radical democratic effort is casting a vote for a third party candidate. Assuming that national elections are the be-all to end all of what is called progressive politics in the United States, you might have a point. But suppose there are those of us who view the presidential election and a “third party” presence in that election as little more than a propagandizing effort for independent radical politics? Suppose there are those of us who continue to rally for independent radical politics at the base in between election years, as well as during the big contests? Suppose we’re people who actively support the ideas engendered by a third party campaign, go out and support that candidate, argue against the mainstream, and build a continuing base of activists for an independent radical politics? Does an errant vote for a “democrat” once in a blue moon cancel out all our other work?

Given that the topic here is mobilization of a working class base of teachers and parents opposing privatization in the public schools, and the further development of such a base beyond any national vote, I think your critique of George Schmidt is pretty cheesey. I don’t think Schmidt is looking for the sympathy of any of the hardliners here, you can do whatever you like. I think he’s talking about the looming destruction of public education. He’s not whining. He’s in the trenches if he’s been teaching in the urban schools. Where do you teach, HR? How come you don’t have to engage with any of the concrete problems Schmidt poses here? How come you’re allowed to look on from a distance and condemn his mistakes? Do you have some magic bullet for organizing teachers and parents that we urban teachers need to get hip to? If so, where are you? Your input is welcome. But not if you begin by condemning all of the hard work put forward by Substance, and other militant efforts brought forward by working teachers. Christ, isn’t there anything he’s got right here? How come you know so much you don’t have to grapple with the problems he’s outlined? If you’re so concerned about the problems the candidacies of Nader and McKinney brought forward, what do you have to offer during these years we try to hold a resistance together against the more sophisticated wave of reaction represented by Obama? It’s great you can see the larger picture. But your take on this stuff sounds top-down to me, since you don’t have to talk about the issues posed here by what you’re critiquing. And why should any of us trust that?

In fact, the task in front of us is

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:41:07 +0000

Thank you, George, for excellent analysis.

Sadly, the NEA, has endorsed this horrible choice.

By: HR

HR — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:15:17 +0000

In fact, my characterization of this article is that it is nothing more than pseudoprogressive whining, which I have come to expect from those who rejected the real change offered by the likes of Kucinich, Nader, and McKinney in favor of the meaningless babble of “hope and change” and “yes we can” offered by the maintainer-of-the-status-quo-elect.

By: HR

HR — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:07:32 +0000

To anyone who actually listened during the campaign, it was clear just exactly what sorts of people Obama would appoint. This article provided no new information at all.

By: Tree

Tree — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:59:53 +0000

It may be obvious to many that Obama is not what his supporters believe him to be, but it’s still good to be informed of who he appoints and what their agendas are.

By: HR

HR — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:47:47 +0000

Ho, hum. More buyer’s remorse. I have little sympathy for those who bought the snake oil Obama peddled.

By: Venerable J

Venerable J — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:57:29 +0000

We got clowned by Obama’s pick of Duncan. A school district and larger community should be judged by the real support it gives neighborhood schools to become high performing schools. Duncan and the Chicago School Board follow the script written with the Chicago Commerce Club to ensure neighborhood schools fail and that their cronies are able to build charter schools. The Duncan recipe is to not give neighborhood schools in Chicago a longer instructional day that is necessary and not an option!!! Neighborhood school staff need time built in during the day to look at student work and other important data to strategize the next steps. A staff as a whole needs to be on the same page and work together. While CPS asks much of their neighborhood schools, they do not give the most needy schools the freedom and support they need, but do the opposite, put shackles on staff and the curriculum are told to offer our students. It is a crime on some of the curriculum that teachers are ordered to implement in the classroom in our neediest schools!!! Sorry, but I think Obama clowned us on his choice of Duncan. When you look at Duncan’s record from multiple perspectives, he comes up way short!