Former President Barack Obama told Zohran Mamdani “your campaign has been impressive to watch,” and suggested that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election.
Former President Barack Obama called New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Saturday, praising his campaign and offering to be a “sounding board” into the future.
The private, roughly 30-minute phone call, which has not previously been reported, was described by two people who participated or were briefed immediately on what had been said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private conversation.
Mr. Obama said that he was invested in Mr. Mamdani’s success beyond the election on Tuesday. They talked about the challenges of staffing a new administration and building an apparatus capable of delivering on Mr. Mamdani’s agenda of affordability in the city, the people said.
I don’t think I’ll ever really get over Obama letting the banks off with zero repercussions in causing the 2008 meltdown. He proved himself a true corporate Democrat at that point and even though he did many other good things, it’s a truth that sticks in the back of my mind forevermore.
Bush bailed out the banks. Obama handled the auto industry, who had to give up some control of their companies and pay us back with interest, and they did so.
I couldn’t find the one in the rose garden (that is burned into my brain), but this is how they sold it at the time. I understands they were “worried about making things worse,” but those banks got away with complete bullshit. It wasn’t Bush.
Obama had the kind of mandate Trump thinks he has and he did nothing with it because he didn’t want to ruffle feathers.
And they still called him an anti Christ money.
So, he did absolutely nothing radical, and he energized the moron redneck as though he was Satan himself.
Leaving is us with the worst of both worlds. No change, and Magats foaming at the mouth.
I think he disenchanted an entire generation. People have lowered expectations from government here because of him and it sucks.
I’m not trying to defend Obama, especially I abhor his drone warfare, but politics is known to be cut throat, and politicians are beholden to campaign donations. Election campaigning is an expensive endeavour, and those who could throw more money have increased likelihood of winning. There are exceptions to the rule of course, and sometimes those who spent less still wins, but the candidate increases his/her chances of winning by having more campaign funds.
With all that said, this means playing ball with the campaign donors and their lackeys, or else they will gang up on you. Obama is all too aware of this. Consider that Lena Khan’s aggressive FTC investigations under Biden on tech giants pissed off the oligarchs. Musk, Zuckerberg and Bezos threw their weights on supporting Trump and now we are here. Apparently, Obama told Bernie in 2016 that he “can’t be the president and be the good guy”.
What is required is someone who is not afraid dip their hands into the mud and throw some, without being in the mud pit itself. People villainise Machiavellianism for good reasons, but evil don’t play by the rules and evil never sleeps. Why still be nice if they already stabbed you? You definitely need to be Machiavellian when the situation requires it. We had that with the Roosevelts, and the fact that they were already wealthy insulated them from being beholden to the whims of campaign donations of the oligarchs and their attack dogs, made them have more free reign to pursue actually more progressive policies. Some people say JB Pritzker has those qualities-- an already wealthy politician willing to be Machiavellian to pursue progressive policies, although I don’t know much about the man to warrant the observation.
Edit: JB not Joseph Pritzker
similar thing with the Canadian Liberals and electoral reform
honestly the cons and liberals are virtually the exact same party of corpo teet suckers with a few slight personality differences.
they both use identity politics to mask their corporate agendas.
Im tremendously disappointed in carney for his anti privacy bills, and expansion of a surveillance/ police state in canada. while also sharing our private data with the US.
the liberals and cons are corporate sellouts, they dont give a shit about our rights or well being. just the “economy”.
edit: for those who cant see this, and are disturbed about me making this comparison. do what i did for the last twenty years. pour over voting records, policy changes, proposed policy changes, and foreign investment trends between cabinets. economic trends in general around housing, oil and gas, grocery chains, telecom, vehicles, lack of proper funding to public healthcare, deliberate underfunding, proposed private alternatives, lack of action to undo damage caused by these antics. why the overwhelming majority of representatives on both sides are landlords, or are invested in realestate funds.
the reason parliment is so crazy and fun to watch is because it is political THEATER. its meant to distract and entertain. both parties are constantly auditioning for corporations, to see who would better keep us docile and productive.
the cons and the libs are pepsi and coke. both distinct in flavour, yet both owned by the same company who manufactures their rivalry, and they make a profit no matter which side you pick. because they will always support the status quo, and protect investment. doing the bare minimum to improve our lives. they wouldnt be allowed to get to that level of government if they werent groomed and prepped for their positions. virtually guaranteed to not rock the boat.
neo liberalism loves consistent returns on investment. regardless of the drawbacks to the public.
They’re pretty different still
For me Obama will always be the US President that did the drone killings.
If Obama wanted to give a fuck about the future of the party, it was in 09 or 13 when he could name literally anyone he wanted as DNC chair…
The first time he just flat out didn’t give a name, 13 he just went with the neoliberal because he had basically ran all his stuff himself out of spite of the DNC siding with Hillary.
Because he didn’t understand how fucking powerful naming a chair is.
Because of those two (non) picks, the DNC was “broke” for the 2016 primary and took Hillary’s deal stopping Bernie and setting up trump as the Republican candidate so voters would hate both and Hillary might win.
Like …
Sure, second best time to plant a shade tree is today, but the entire country rallied together to get Obama and he let his ego hand the party back to neoliberal.
This is relevant because if people fuck around and let a neoliberal name the next chair, we’ll never get it back. We need to be cognizant that we’re not just picking a presidential candidate, we’re picking the future of the party if they win the general.
Between this and another comment on the same topic in another thread, I get the impression you think Obama is progressive and failed to appoint a progressive DNC chair out of ignorance. Have you considered the possibility that he’s actually neoliberal and refused power to progressives on purpose?
His political career up to that point, considered alongside his campaign and the absolute din of his first two years in office, to me paints a picture of a sincere but outspoken dreamer whose tropical personality was much better at whistling up a storm than steering his ship into it.
I think it’s fair to describe many aspects of his platform as “progressive” but ultimately he took no for an answer too often to actually be one in hindsight. I won’t diminish the good work he did, and respect the many firsts he achieved, but his lingering imposter syndrome kept him from using the mandate we gave him while he had the chance.
He could have fought to seat a judge instead of letting Mitch McTurtle shit all over him
deleted by creator
I understand where you’re coming from, but Obama is not left, at all.
Calm down buddy. No one is saying that and you are obsessed, get some help.
Mamdani is what we need to get on the right track. That and dems that have a spine. Hell we probably need a new party for progressives. The 2 party system is messed up
Getting rid of the 2 party system would require a crisis of such magnitude I cannot in good conscience wish for it.
Losing world war 3. A pandemic 10X deadlier than covid, hostile Aliens, something at that level.
Nothing less will do it.
I don’t think the issue is that kind of crisis. It would take some type of crisis for one of these parties to fail though.
The great recession didn’t touch it. Covid didn’t touch it. Jan 6 didn’t touch it.
Ending the two party system would require changing the way national elections work. That would require a constitutional amendment.
That would require one party taking full control of Congress and more importantly 2 thirds of state legislatures. The most plausible path to that I see currently is trump taking his coup to the next level, interfering in elections nationwide and placing maga in control all over the country.
Then they start passing constitutional amendments changing what it means to be a citizen and who can vote.
“Wait, not like that” you are probably thinking.
That’s why I think there would have to be mass death. The pandemic is probably the next most likely, Democrats seek safety in distance and Republicans cheerfully host parties and deny the threat. The administration blocks efforts by the CDC and other researchers to study the disease. but it’s somehow both deadlier than covid and slower, so by the time hospitals and morgues fill up, way more people are infected than with covid. 120 million Americans die before the crisis stabilizes, 2 thirds of them right leaning and one 3rd left leaning or apolitical.
The next election sweeps democrats into power nationwide, a 50 point swing as so many more right leaning voters have passed and the living turn on the party that refused to address the crisis.
That scenario makes constitutional amendments possible. Maybe not plausible though, they would be rushing to address the crisis, the mass graves, the shattered economy. If the plague somehow hit the billionaire class hard, maybe then.
Things get less likely from there. The US arbitrarily declaring war on the rest of the world, alien invasion, etc.
Ending the two party system would require changing the way national elections work. That would require a constitutional amendment.
There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution, and elections are mostly left up to the states. It would take an unbelievable amount of will to change them but it wouldn’t take an amendment.
All the good will in the world would collapse before the mathematical reality of single member districts.
Ranked choice voting can be done without amendments, and it might move the needle, but a true multiparty system cannot survive single member districts for representation.
Canada and Britain both have single member districts and functionally 2 party systems. Britain is in flux right now due to the collapse of the conservatives and Labor, but they will shake out with a 2 horse race just like Canada does.
you are probably right… I cannot wish for it either
This is basically an endorsement
That’s the end for Mamdani. Prepare for disappointment.
Mr. Mamdani thanked the former president for the call, the people said, and told him that he had drawn inspiration for his own recent speech on Islamophobiafrom Mr. Obama’s speech on race during his first presidential run.
This is literally the only reaction from Mamdani cited in the entire article. It seems like the kind of thing you would say if a powerful person in your industry endorsed you. He even pivoted to Islamophobia.
Seriously, your take is so braindead. You’re editorializing like crazy and you just sound like some kind of establishment dem bad actor.
It was obvious that he derived that speech from Obama. It was the first thing I thought of.
Am I missing a joke here?
Obama needs to fuck off. Democrats will do everything they can to co-opt what he’s created, ride his coattails through the midterms, then neuter the entire thing.
What?
The current DNC chair has a better progressive track record than Obama.
And Martin didn’t wait to hype up Mamdani either. He won’t endorse before a primary is settled, but within days he was saying Mamdani is what the party should be because that’s what Dem voters want.
Obama’s big progressive claim to fame, is a more progressive version of a health are bill than Mitt Roment was gonna pass.
And what is this about?
to co-opt what he’s created
Obama abandoned the DNC rather than put someone who would run it how he wanted at the helm, which led to a bankrupt but neoliberal DNC who took Hillary’s offer of funding for control of the DNC during the primary.
Which blocked Bernie.
And led to Hillary losing in the general to trump.
For fucks sake “co-opt what he created”…
Do you know how much better we would be if Obama had just named anyone who wasn’t a neoliberal as chair of the DNC in 09 or 13? We’d be coming off two Bernie terms and probably in AOCs first right now.
Covid would have been handled rationally, healthcare actually sorted. Climate change and wealth inequality addressed, even police abuses.
It ain’t simple cause/effect but it’s not rube Goldberg either, people should be able to put this together
