Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics Boycott

And I often wonder, "If Dr. King were here, and Robert Kennedy were, what would they be doing?" So someone must continue to speak up and speak out, because they're not here.

Because Hillary Clinton took the lead in urging Pres. Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies, and because Barack Obama just can't follow her lead since Chicago 2016 means so much to his developer fat cats back in Chicago, the pseudo-left has decided to disappear the Olympics boycott movement in service to Barack Obama.

For example, here's everything on the Dailykos frontpage since Monday on Tibet and/or the Olympics:

. . .

Or check out Huffington Post. Here's the only thing (aside from a GG Bridge protest news note) on the front page:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
On the San Francisco Olympic Torch Relay
 
Posted April 8, 2008 | 05:08 PM (EST)

She tells people to be nice. She doesn't mention her and Clinton's call on Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies.

Here are the only two Olympics-related articles on the HuffPost politics front page:


David Wallechinsky
How to Protest the Beijing Olympics

Another 'be nice' article, it doesn't mention Clinton, or Obama's whimp out.

Adrienne Maree Brown
The Whole World is Screaming: Free Tibet

Doesn't mention Clinton or Obama.

Not a damn thing on alternet either.

As usual, a progressive campaign is disappeared if it's a negative for the fake progressive candidate. Anyone else think this reminds them of the pseudo-progressive stand down on Iraq during the Kerry campaign? Of course, in place of real progressivism, there are plenty of lies and other anti-Hillary gotcha crap available at both dkos and huffpost. Or is it anti-Bill-Clinton stuff that pseudo-prog readers, like their loony right sexist brethren, have been trained to think is anti-Hillary stuff?

The only good news on the "boycott the opening ceremonies" front is made by the very honorable John Lewis:


Lewis: Boycott Olympics opening ceremonies
By JEFF SCHULTZ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/09/08

U.S. Rep. John Lewis, no stranger to protests and boycotts during his career, has joined the growing list of those seeking at least a partial boycott of the Beijing Olympics.

"I'm not saying right now there should be a total boycott of the Olympics," the Georgia Democrat said by phone. "I just think we should not attend the Opening Ceremonies. At the same time, even if we attend, we should find a way to make it clear to the government of China that we are standing with the people of Tibet. Their civil rights and basic human rights shouldn't be trampled on."

Lewis was among 15 House members who last week signed a letter by U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), urging President Bush to not attend the Olympics. . . .

Lewis, 68, was a central figure in the civil rights movement. He was inspired by the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 as a youth and helped organize sit-in demonstrations at segregated lunch counters in Nashville, among other causes.

John Lewis is a real leader. In 1965, he led 525 marchers across the Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. State troopers attacked the marchers in a violent incident that became known as "Bloody Sunday."Here are some photos telling what happened:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

You can read more about the Selma to Montgomery marches here.  The marches and the worldwide attention they brought on the U.S. led directly to President Johnson signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. To read more about John Lewis and his inside view of the Civil Rights movement, go here. Here are some of his words to live by:

I still talk about the Beloved Community. I still talk about the one America, one family, one house. The American house, the world house, we all live in the same house. Sometimes I feel like I've passed this way once before. I think the movement and what I went through during the height of the Civil Rights Movement prepared me to stand up and fight for what I think is right and fair and just, but it also prepared me to be patient in a sense, to take the long hard look. That the struggle to redeem the soul of America, to create the Beloved Community, or to bring about change, is not a struggle that lasts for one day or one month or one year, but is a struggle of a lifetime.

The quote at the outset of this diary is also from John Lewis.

Take a stand Barack Obama. And pressure your hero, Obama supporters!

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Lewis, Olympics (all tags)

Comments

38 Comments

We're Progressive...

...Except where prohibited by law or not condoned by our preferred candidate.

by Andre Walker 2008-04-09 08:56AM | 0 recs
BHO has no time to address this now

BHO is busy counting the money he got from SF and
Murdoch's daughter ( fundraiser in UK)

http://www.zombieti me.com/obama_ visits_billionai res_row/

by indus 2008-04-09 11:48AM | 0 recs
There needs to be demonstrations against violence

Personally, I support Tibetan independence, but it is very sad and ugly when anyone, including Han Chinese in Tibetan areas, are hurt or killed. The Chinese are using those incidents in their anti-independence media barrage and in the long run it hurts the cause of Tibetan independance, I think.

Nonviolence will eventually work if they keep things nonviolent.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Its a very ugly situation. I think that is why a lot of Tibetans are now demonstrating for PEACE in Tibet.

by architek 2008-04-09 12:26PM | 0 recs
Nonviolence works only with media attention

And one way you get media attention is when the leaders of the only (sometimes) progressive party in the U.S., the Dems, speak out on the matter. And the progressive blogosphere and Obama supporters can exert at least A LITTLE pressure on him to speak out now.

Otherwise Tibet is disappeared.

(I don't support Tibetan independence, but I do support freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and limited autonomy).

by fairleft 2008-04-09 12:38PM | 0 recs
Obama is trying to be all things to all people?

Its disturbing when a politician tries to remain silent on as many issues as possible, and do as little as possible, which is, it seems what Obama is doing in a lot of areas.

Has he said anything at all about Tibet or China?

Obama has a half-brother (I don't think they are that close, though) who lives in China and his half-brother's wife is Chinese so he actually has far more of a connection to China than any other previous US candidate. Perhaps thats why he is not saying anything.

I understand how he must feel.

Obama's father had several families and they don't really know each other that well. Obama's main sibling connection is to his sister who lives in Hawaii and teaches school, I think. I don't know if he has ever even met his half brother? (does anybody know?)

(of what little I know, she seems like a positive, good person)

by architek 2008-04-09 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

Would these be the same pseudo-leftists who have already forgotten about Burma?

When their diaries no longer get recs or mojo, they move on to the next zeitgeist, never changing a god damn thing.

by pinche tejano 2008-04-09 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

It's really a battle right to disappear this story from public awareness. And the bad guys are winning, as usual with the help of the pseudo-left blogosphere and 'alternative' madia.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

Uhh, does anyone here think China would really care if Bush doesn't show up to the opening ceremonies? Would it make any difference to them? Does China actually care what other people think?

If Clinton were serious, she'd suggest boycotting the entire Olympics. That might actually do something. Though I seem to remember Obama railing against China for supporting Sudan by proxy with that Darfur fracas, even trying to get some action done to this effect.

But, pfft, who cares about that, right?

by ragekage 2008-04-09 09:07AM | 0 recs
Since the event is being put on for prestige,

and prestige attaches to the Chinese leaders who are able to bring all rest of the world's major leaders to them. So, uh, the answer is yes.

Not that it will matter a huge amount, but it may matter enough to get some conciliation and compromise on Tibet.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

China does care and the world also cares. Every country notices the significance if the President of USA is boycotting the ceremony.

Olympic is the biggest stage which draws all countries attention. A Bush boycott will be a great symbolic step for a free Tibet one day. Atleast stand up for the innocent unarmed people being beaten up by Chinese army.

by Sandeep 2008-04-09 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

With very few people remaining in this world who have any respect for this particular president, I don't see how the "symbolism" of his non-appearance would positively effect anything having to do with Tibet.

We're in China's pocket.  Bush isn't going to tick them off.

Besides, symbolism isn't going to free anything.  

by asherrem 2008-04-09 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

I'm boycotting the Olympic opening ceremony.

by benmasel 2008-04-09 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-Hillary Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics B

They're always boring as hell, so I join you!

by fairleft 2008-04-09 10:13AM | 0 recs
Me too.. You won't see me there..

...

by architek 2008-04-09 12:29PM | 0 recs
I won't even watch 'em on TV!

But only cuz they're so damn boring, I can't claim to be doing it for righteous reasons.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 12:39PM | 0 recs
I'd like to boycott the entire Olympics

China's got such a long history of human and animal suffering, why should we condone it with our presence?

Oh wait, money, money, money !

by catchawave 2008-04-09 10:06AM | 0 recs
Unfortunately..

The US has been going deeper and deeper into debt during the Bush years and a lot of our doller-denominated debt is held by Asian nations. I think China holds a LOT of it.

I have lots of opinions on China, but the fact that they in some sense are helping prop up the US economy gives them no small amount of leverage I would think, because if they were to start selling that debt, the value of the US dollar would fall.

Another reality is that a HUGE number of Chinese-born Americans ARE Americans now, and our countries are increasingly 'related' because of that. Its not the 60's or 70's or even 1989 when China was first competely isolated, and then later, became semi-isolated again for a time. (although I am sure the Chinese leadership sometimes might want it that way.)

I was watching the YouTube videos of the demonstrations in Tibet and western China and I couldn't help thinking to myself that the demonstrations looed unruly, but they were nothing like some riots that I have seen on TV occurring here in the US or in other countries.

Less violent, not more.

They seemed much less violent than the 1989 events, which were incredibly terrible and bloody.
Maybe they learned something from that, I don't know. They haven't learned how to give a little or how to compromise on some important issues. Still, I think there has been progress, whether they like it or not, part of it has been because of the increasing numbers of connections between the rest of the world and China. Whether those connections will ever lead to democracy there is anybody guess, but if they do, then I think China will be much more of a real participant on the global arena even then they are now. But, also, wages will have to rise, the migrant system will have to end and Chinese will have much more freedom to demonstrate over working conditions and safety.

They have had an incredibly tough history and now the growing Chinese middle class is still dwarfed by the huge number of rural Chinese who are still quite poor and have terrible access to medical care.

That is as much of a heartbreaking situation for them as it can often be for us here.

by architek 2008-04-09 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Ironies Abound

A lot of Obama's supporters here in New England are progressives who are mostly just ignoring the fact that his plans are the least progressive of all the 2008 Dem candidates (including those who have dropped out).  Or they idealistically think his plans now aren't progressive, but if he gets elected those plans will then become more progressive.

It's all kind of weird.  Especially when it was HRC who stood up for MoveOn when the Republicans voted for condemnation.  BHO didn't even vote (as usual).

A lot of Obama's supporters here at MyDD surprisingly don't even seem very progressive though -- from their comments anyway -- especially for health care.  (don't force us to have health insurance, etc.)  Maybe they're a new breed of anti-government libertarian progressives.

by moevaughn 2008-04-09 10:08AM | 0 recs
Imagine him a progressive

and ignore the massive cognitive dissonance. Or, like you said, a lot of pseudo-progressives are in fact anti-populist, and sort of in favor of privatized retirement planning (cuz they do it themselves) and don't think health care for all is such a big deal (since they've got there's already). You can see this in the fact that the higher income folks in the Dem party seem to be inordinately attracted to Obama.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 10:17AM | 0 recs
I have heard a lot of hawkish Dems say that

they are afraid Hillary will spend so much on health care and that will be such a popular program that that will put a lot of pressure on Congress to lower the military budget.

They don't want that, so, they are leaning Obama. (who has said he wants to raise military spending.)

by architek 2008-04-09 12:32PM | 0 recs
it was Clinton who stood up for dkos

too.

It was Obama who went there and lectured everyone.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-09 10:55AM | 0 recs
Ofcourse BHO would lecture

as he is a hononary professor

by indus 2008-04-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
lecturer...

But he was offered a full professorship, he says, and turned it down because it would be too demanding on his time.

by architek 2008-04-09 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: lecturer...

He Says - Just words

by indus 2008-04-09 01:21PM | 0 recs
Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics Boycott

look, if it doesn't help obama, they're not interested. and obama's still "conflicted" about his position on boycotting the olympics.

by campskunk 2008-04-09 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics Boycott

But how does Hillary's calling on Bush to boycott the opening ceremony "help" her?  People aren't going to vote for her explicitly because she called on someone ELSE to boycott the opening ceremony.

I admire the fact she called for Bush to boycott, but the fact of the matter remains that this, in no way, is going to help Tibet.  Symbolism will not free Tibet, and quite frankly we're in no position to start demanding things from the Chinese government.  

by asherrem 2008-04-09 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics Boycott

"Freeing" Tibet is certainly not any realistic person's goal. But the people of Tibet should be treated humanely, and there should be a right to protest abuse or unfairness. In that direction -- not the utopian one -- this kind of painful but not all-encompassing boycott (if china doesn't do anything) might push the Chinese to make some moves that will let up a little on Tibet.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pseudo-Left Disappears Olympics Boycott

But they won't!

If China gave a rat's butt about what the world thought about them, they'd have "let up on Tibet" a long time ago.  We are talking about a communist country here.  

I wish it were as easy as Bush not showing up at the opening ceremony but it isn't.  His boycott of the opening ceremony would be in direct contrast to his policies regarding the country, and that's what matters--policy.

by asherrem 2008-04-09 12:19PM | 0 recs
Freeing Tibet could equal return to theocracy..

does that matter to anybody?
It was a popular theocracy, though, one that didn't believe in killing anybody or anything, even bugs.

(perhaps that's the main reason why Tibetan Buddhists were so malnourished. It also has a short growing season.)

Its a complicated situation. I think ths situation should really be theirs, not ours in any way to decide.

The Chinese think the US is agitating on this issue because we want the uranium.

by architek 2008-04-09 12:37PM | 0 recs
They obviously care about their world image

Or they wouldn't be putting on a very expensive Olympic Games for our awe and entertainment. Anyway, this is a threat of a limited boycott for obviously limited but humane goals. That's why I support it.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 12:42PM | 0 recs
I'll I have to say is...

What!?! I don't get how the possible suspension of protests in SF are Obama's fault.  You cite no evidence of his having any role in supporting or opposing the protests.  The only evidence you cite is that he has not taken a position on whether Bush should go to the Opening Ceremony.  I don't see how such evidence demonstrates his disapproval of the protests.  

Moreover, you attribute him vast powers that I did not know he had.  Apparently, he has (without saying so or otherwise making public) stopped protests by a vast group of people who were so determined that they climbed up on the Golden Gate just the other day.  If that's the case, then I'm not even going to worry about this election anymore.  B/c if he could use his mental powers to stop a protest, then he must be easily able to use his mental powers to command a majority of the U.S. to vote for him. /snark (if it necessary to say so).

Is it possible that there were other reasons behind a diminished or no protest (a fact that you did not demonstrate in your diary)?  Is it possible that the increased police escort, the change in the route of the torch, the violence in Paris and London might of had an effect on the protest?

This Obama hatred is getting weird.

by nklein 2008-04-09 11:28AM | 0 recs
How did you read that into my diary?

I didn't mention suspension of protests or anything similar.

I'll accept a "Never mind!"

by fairleft 2008-04-09 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: How did you read that into my diary?

Please excuse me.  I misread Olympic boycott to mean protests.  I still don't your point though.  The Olympic boycott is still something that is pushed heavily by the left.  Pelosi has been calling for it for weeks.  

by nklein 2008-04-09 11:47AM | 0 recs
I see a lot of similarities between Obama and

Gavin Newsom.

You know, the guy who made gay marriage a national issue right before the 2004 election.

by architek 2008-04-09 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: How did you read that into my diary?

I think Hillary has suggested an excellent, and limited, way to pressure China to be a bit more humane to the Tibet protest movement. We need all the pressure possible on Bush to take a pro-human-rights stand right now. He should humble himself and follow Hillary's lead on this issue. Or follow John Lewis's or Nancy Pelosi's lead if that feels better.

Hillary is not calling for a boycott of the entire Olympics, which would be an unrealistic leftist or a 'hate China' rightist position.

by fairleft 2008-04-09 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: How did you read that into my diary?

Can he decide on policy in his own timeframe or must he follow your timetable?  China's a complicated issue.

by nklein 2008-04-09 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: How did you read that into my diary?

He's had plenty of time. In any case, he came around last night and I'll diary on that.

by fairleft 2008-04-10 07:26AM | 0 recs
Hey GE:

I won't be watching ANY of the coverage.  

by Si Ella Puede 2008-04-09 11:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads