It’s Not Enough to Cry
Published in El Universal
(Venezuela) on 9 November 2010
by Jose Gomez Febres (link to original)
(Venezuela) on 9 November 2010
by Jose Gomez Febres (link to original)
Translated from
by Arie Braizblot.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Will the Opportunity for Change in the Other America Survive? Obama Has the Final Say.
The post-midterm election debate in the United States has begun since the dawn of Nov 2. Very diverse articles and opinions have filled the print media to help us understand a result widely predicted, even when in the depths of our hearts we yearned for the American electorate to give Obama a second chance. They didn’t. The only consolation is the conservation of the Senate, by a narrow margin — far from the magical 60 [seats] that allow for the obstruction of the Republicans’ flagrant filibustering.
A tour of some of these opinions shows that Obama and the Democrats contributed to this disastrous result for change in the other America. Timothy Egan — The New York Times contributor for political and social issues in American life, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001 — offers an analysis of how Obama saved capitalism and lost the midterm elections in his first two years in government.
Egan’s opinion is shared by Economic Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, who accuses a group of complainers, the “Blue Dog” members of Congress, of interposing to obstruct Obama from intensifying his activities. In Krugman’s opinion, Obama didn’t utilize enough political capital, and upon losing it, he has been blocked.
Many believe that the Democrats lost by being timid, allowing their message to be demonized [and] permitting Republicans to dictate the terms of the debate. Over the course of two years, the Democratic electorate was demobilized, while the Republicans successfully advanced an agenda that considered any leftist a thug or a socialist.
Will the opportunity for change survive in the other America? Obama still has the final say.
The post-midterm election debate in the United States has begun since the dawn of Nov 2. Very diverse articles and opinions have filled the print media to help us understand a result widely predicted, even when in the depths of our hearts we yearned for the American electorate to give Obama a second chance. They didn’t. The only consolation is the conservation of the Senate, by a narrow margin — far from the magical 60 [seats] that allow for the obstruction of the Republicans’ flagrant filibustering.
A tour of some of these opinions shows that Obama and the Democrats contributed to this disastrous result for change in the other America. Timothy Egan — The New York Times contributor for political and social issues in American life, who won the Pulitzer Prize in 2001 — offers an analysis of how Obama saved capitalism and lost the midterm elections in his first two years in government.
Egan’s opinion is shared by Economic Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, who accuses a group of complainers, the “Blue Dog” members of Congress, of interposing to obstruct Obama from intensifying his activities. In Krugman’s opinion, Obama didn’t utilize enough political capital, and upon losing it, he has been blocked.
Many believe that the Democrats lost by being timid, allowing their message to be demonized [and] permitting Republicans to dictate the terms of the debate. Over the course of two years, the Democratic electorate was demobilized, while the Republicans successfully advanced an agenda that considered any leftist a thug or a socialist.
Will the opportunity for change survive in the other America? Obama still has the final say.