article tools: email | print | read more David Michael Green
If there's anything I've learned about American politics over the past decade, it's this: First, regressives will do anything - and I mean anything - to obtain power (the real purpose of which is to loot the public fisc of all items not securely nailed to the floor). And, second, just about everything they try works when employed against an American public possessed of stunning political immaturity.
It comes as little surprise, therefore, that two things happened over the last couple of weeks. One, that Barack Obama was swiftboated by means of a bogus inference in order to make him look like an angry black radical. And two, that a lot of dumb voters went for it.
It was pretty inevitable, really. I mean, the guy was getting rather, um, uppity, if you know what I mean. Winning elections and all. Mobilizing millions of voters. And so on. Plus he's talking like he might actually, really, seriously, shut off the government teat of Iraq war no-bid contracts, NAFTA/WTO-based cheap labor, and massive tax transfers for the hyper-wealthy. This shit had to end.
True, John McCain is not quite as reliable a special interests whore as, say, Mitt Ownme, but he knows where his bread is buttered, and sometimes it seems like he even genuinely believes all the crap they feed him. Anyhow, he's far more controllable than some Democrat, especially one who seems increasingly able to get voters (with a massive assist from the complete failure of Bush and the regressive agenda) to cease responding to the cues for which they've been so well trained these last decades. Hear that bell? Salivate now. We say "Jump"? Ask "How high?" See that grainy image of a black criminal? Vote Republican. Oh, and please be sure to hand over your wallet before exiting the building.
No doubt about it, people. The American plutocracy paid good money to create such a well disciplined voting class, and they're not about to let that investment go down the drain without a fight.
The damn thing about it, though, is that Obama hardly gives them anything to work with. I mean, the guy is mild-mannered to a fault. He's inspirational when he speaks, never angry and alienating. He was supposed to be vulnerable for opposing the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made, but instead all except the most low-wattage voters see Iraq as, well, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made. I mean, the guy doesn't even really seem black.
That only leaves one option remaining, then: Swiftboat the SOB. Find some tangential pseudo-vulnerability that goes after Obama's biggest potential asset and turn it into a negative. Is he coming off to a mesmerized public as some kind of post-ideological, post-racial-divide healer who could unite the country and return us to our sanity? Then he must be turned into Eldrige Cleaver. All that's needed to complete the picture is a big 'fro, a beret and an AK-47 with a menacing tilt to it.
Preposterous? Think it can't be done? So did I, until I saw a guy with three Purple Hearts and a Silver Cross turned into a weak, wimpy, lying coward, in order to make sure that a weak, wimpy, lying coward who went to Margaritaville instead of the Mekong Delta during the Sixties could be portrayed as some sort of macho tough guy, and thus steal another four years in the White House.
Fortunately, Obama is no John Kerry. The latter waited three weeks to respond to the attacks against him. He might as well have waited three years. Obama didn't make the same mistake. And when he did speak, what a tour de force it was.
The most stunning feature of his speech was the least overt. This was a speech about his pastor, but that was not its central motif. This was a discussion of race, of course, but that was not its deepest theme.
What really mattered most about this speech was the way in which Obama addressed us. American politicians have treated the voting public with barely concealed contempt for so long now, we've largely forgotten what respectful discourse looks like. On March 18th, Obama reminded us.
Forget about charisma, a very much overrated if not dangerous characteristic in politicians anyhow. What matters instead is this: It's been decades since someone spoke to the public with this much honesty and sophistication about our society and its choices. It was breathtaking just to witness that level of esteem pointed in our direction.
All the more so because of the epoch we've just survived. George Bush is far from the only contemptuous politician in recent history, but he is surely the worst of the lot, and his politics are instructive because of that.
In Bush's world, everyone is two-dimensional, at best. They're either good or evil. Folks is either with us or with the enemy. In Bush's comic book reality, no issue is ever nuanced. There's only right - which, remarkably, always happens to be his way - and there's wrong. Once asked if he could name any mistakes he'd made as president, a flustered Bush was unable to identify even a single one. (I wish I could have been there to assist him. We probably could have made a dent in it after a week or two.) He cannot conceive that anyone he's labeled evil could have legitimate grievances. He cannot imagine that America could ever have committed any crimes, such as using violence to achieve political ends.
Or so he acts when he speaks to us. I doubt he truly believes his own sorry shtick, which of course only makes it far worse.
Nor has the so-called opposition been much better. While their positions on issues might be slightly more thoughtful (and how could they be less so?), one has little sense from a John Kerry or a Hillary Clinton that they can say something just because it is truthful, as opposed to because they've calculated that it's popular. Theirs is different from Republican pandering in scale and destructiveness, but not in kind. It is still pandering for purposes of personal benefit.
And American politics have been deeply impoverished for decades now because of our politicians' contemptuousness. Worse, the effect has been cyclically corrosive. The more of it we get, the more of it we breed.
We live today in a polity characterized by the most unsophisticated public discourse, one where twenty-second scare ads win elections every time. And one where attempts at thinking through basic questions - such as whether our enemy resides in Afghanistan or Iraq - are ridiculed as effete intellectual elitism.
Look what it's produced for us. Whether it is the federal debt, falling economic standards, environmental crisis, or our diminished world standing that we're discussing - or, more likely, not discussing - Americans have dug themselves into failed policy holes of epic proportions. In very large part, this is because it's been mutually convenient for both politicians and voters alike to indulge in a Potemkin politics of fantasy.
But the stunning sub-text of Obama's speech is that we can think of these issues and the people involved in them as more than mere caricatures. In adopting this posture, he telegraphed to Americans more respect, and less contempt, than they've seen from any politician in three decades, ever since Reagan seduced them into assisting in their own looting.
When Obama reminded us that his former pastor had not only bad but also good ideas - like most anyone, black or white, emerging from the cauldron of American race relations might - he treated his listeners with a dignity and an intellectual esteem largely absent for a generation.
When he rejected the expedient route of completely disassociating himself from Reverend Wright, he demanded sophistication in our thinking. He asked us to use our minds rather than our emotional reflexes, and to invest more energy into determining our own fate than that which is required for passively imbibing deceitful television ads, cold beer in hand.
When he implored us to reject the divisions of race, religion and nationality that right-wing politicians have been exploiting for decades to divert attention from "the real culprits of the middle class squeeze," he showed a political courage that is as exemplary as it is rare.
And when he did all of these things - but especially when he showed us an intellectual respect that we frankly haven't often deserved - Obama demonstrated that he perhaps really might belong in that pantheon of American political giants that includes Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR and King, but precious few others.
He also made clear why those who peddle the politics of contempt have lately shown such desperation to somehow silence his revolution, a revolution not so much of policy - Obama is no V.I. Lenin; he's not even a Paul Wellstone - as it is of esteem. Think, for a moment, of the sheer absurdity of what they are asking you to accept on the face of their argument.
Has this man committed treason, like Scooter Libby, for example? No. Did he lie to the world at a cost of a million lives, like Bush and everyone else in his reprobate camp? Uh, no. Has he bankrupted the future of our children through his environmental, fiscal and foreign policies, like the entire Republican Party? No, he did not. Heck, is he even guilty of the heinous crime of screwing an expensive prostitute, like silly Eliot Spitzer? Nein.
Barack Obama's great crime, as the regressive noise machine (as well as a certain senator from New York) would have you believe it, is failing to quit a church where the pastor has controversial ideas. Let's say this again, because the absurdity of it is so astonishing (as with all regressive politics, once you look closely). This man is being excoriated for the crime of failing to quit a church whose pastor has ideas with which he doesn't entirely agree. That is why, it is being argued, Obama should be rejected as a contender to lead America as president.
This, by the way, while John McCain has been actively wooing televangelist (a modern euphemism for crook) John Hagee for his endorsement, despite that the good reverend has called Catholicism "a godless theology", blamed the Holocaust on Jewish "disobedience and rebellion", argued that Katrina was "the judgment of God against New Orleans", and claimed that the Koran gives Muslims "a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews". Notwithstanding any of those slightly controversial remarks, McCain sought this clown's support, got what he wanted, and thus stated at a campaign event that "I was pleased to have the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee yesterday".
If it seems like a helluva logical conundrum that Obama gets trashed for comments his pastor makes, over which he has no control, while McCain goes scot-free after seeking the endorsement of a king-size bigot, well then welcome to Swiftboat Land. Park your brain over there, to the right. By the same 'logic', John Kerry, who went to Nam, became our national security wimp, while Wee Caligula, who couldn't even stay sober enough to show up for the faux service Poppy arranged to keep him out of the jungle, became our tough commander-in-chief.
Of course, logic has nothing to do with swiftboating, apart from the crucial requirement that it must be murdered in more ways than Rasputin was, and buried deep on some distant continent, lest anyone in America should actually awaken from their regressive-induced stupor long enough to ask why that emperor dude is running around in his underwear.
In truth, what Reverend Wright said is of as much actual concern to regressives as was John McCain's supposed black love-child or Willie Horton's crimes. Which is to say none at all. The point is to swiftboat Obama by injecting race into the campaign and frightening away closet racist voters. The point of doing that is to win power. And the point of that is to steal your money and your country.
That's why Obama's 'revolution' represents that most threatening commodity of all for those who employ contemptuous deceit to mask "economic policies that favor the few over the many," as he accurately labeled it.
It's a revolution, ultimately, of respect - and that's really dangerous. For the first time in a very long time, a presidential candidate is speaking to Americans as if they were grown-ups.
We're about to find out if anyone is listening.
_______
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
It isn't just Bush
The madness isn't GWB. He's only the latest front man for the rabid reactionaries who want to eat the planet whole. The madness is capitalism and the virulent pandemic disease of wealth accumulation at any cost. What has happened over the last few decades is only the removal of the few chains put on the beast after the Great Depression of the 1930s. Well, the chains have been cut and the animal is on the rampage. In order to end the madness, the rabid beast of capitalism has to be put down.
_______Zwoman
"The party that leans upon the workers but serves the bourgeoisie, in the period of the greatest sharpening of the class struggle, cannot but sense the smells wafted from the waiting grave.
" -- Leon Trotsky
good metaphor
however, I am a bit more circumspect.
If we reapply the electrified genital cuff and control it's feeding, we can still make use of the "beast's" manure as fertilizer for our crops.
_______"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Valid points and metaphors.
Valid points and metaphors. But also, getting back to Bush: There is definitely a certain part of me that wishes he would swing at the end of a rope. But maybe he could be better put to use, working on somebody's farm somewhere, cleaning pig pens or something. I just wouldn't want him on my farm, however.
One footnote about pigs....They're smart and relatively clean animals in some ways, but they are CARNIVOROUS and they are the one farm animal that I've known that WILL EAT YOU. So maybe if he were to slip and fall...and they were extra hungry.
wrong skill
he only clears brush...
_______"There's always more to it. This is what history consists of. It's the sum total of all the things they aren't telling us." Don DeLillo
cute little fantasy
cute little fantasy, if that sort of thing consoles you.
But there really IS a pigpen-cleaning line - and we're in it. Bush is watching and smirking - from far far away.
And ask not for whom that rope dangles.
add
It wasn't dumb voters who fell for it, it was dumb white voters. They liked him as the black guy everyone can agree on, but as soon as the thought was implanted in their small brains that he might actually dislike the way America continues to marginalize black people, they balked.
It's disgusting that Obama's pastor's words, taken out of context and perhaps a little strong, are suddenly Obama's words. It only changed the minds of those who have a racist streak barely concealed beneath the layer of denial. To them, black people should be happy with their lot, they'd rather not know about any continuing displeasure.
When Falwell and company were blaming Americans (gays, abortionists, the ACLU) for 9/11/01, and suggesting we had it coming, where was the backlash against Republicans in that camp?
This is a lowdown dirty smear and attack, not a swift-boating. I don't call this swift-boating, because I'm sick to death of these cliche labels that lose all meaning once removed from their original use (including employing the tiresome -gate at the end of every scandal). I'm tired of the lazy, goddamn lazy hacks who employ these trite phrases, along with words like "um". Let's remember, speaking and writing are actually separate, yet related forms of communication. Good writing has the power to transcend our lazy speech patterns, not emulate them. Imagine how poor we'd consider Obama's speeches/writing, if he dribbled them with "um" and other witless sarcastic inanities.
_______Rational apprehension of dangers is necessary; fear is not. - B. Russell
error
I agree with your language argument
But there are perfectly legitimate words in our language that have come down from strange sources, such as boycotting (named after a man), gerrymandering, named after a man and a salamander, and lest us not forget sandwich, named after the Earl of Sandwich.
If the term Swiftboating is used in years to come then it will eventually become a permanent part of our language, at this point it can go either way.
I think it is a good word because we all know what it means and it describes a concept that has recently been created, there may be synonyms but I can't think of a word that actually captures it's meaning and nuances.
_______treee-mendous
with one little thing:
of saint king dumbfuck: "I doubt he truly believes his own sorry shtick, which of course only makes it far worse."
No. the saddest thing about this wee little dipshit is .. he really does believe his shtick. Worse, he believes stuff even HE knows he cannot admit. he believes that his god bestows upon a few favored humans with wealth (that's how we all know who is on god's good side) and that favor makes everything they do sanctified. he also believes that public opinion, being of the many non-sanctified, is worthless. he also believes that history, ultimately, *MUST* vindicate all that he's done because he is rich, favored by god and, thus, his decisions are sanctified.
And, if I had to predict, I'd say that masses of voters will avoid voting for Obama for one reason only. They're morons.
poll quoted yesterday showed 10% of democrats BELIEVE that Obama is muslim.
another poll says that 16% of hillary supporters will vote for mccain if obama is the nom.
same poll also says that 28% of obama supporters will vote for mccain if hillary is the nom.
I cannot remember the number who said that they'd vote for mccain because now they think obama is eldridge cleaver-ish.
When a majority of voters (who vote) are dumber than shit, how could the electeds be any more than charismatic shit?
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
I don't believe those numbers
I look with skepticism at the polls which say X% of Obama voters will vote for McCain and Y% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.
My sense is that Obama supports are not McCain people. Some are solid Dems who simply like Obama and who will support the Dem nominee -- or at least vote against a Republican.
A certain percentage are people who were dissatisfied with the system, had dropped out of it or hadn't entered it, and came into it or back into it because of him. They will not automatically fly to McCain. They will probably just stay home -- disillusioned. But, they probably wouldn't have voted anyway had Obama not been in the race.
The Hillary supporters, on the other hand, are mostly tried and true Dems or left leaning older women. They will definitely not go to McCain. They will most likely vote for Obama, although a few might stay home with their noses out of joint, but I doubt it because they have eight years of anti-GOP animosity driving them. I think their threats to vote McCain are just bluster and scare tactics.
The 66-year-old woman down the street is a tried and true Hillarybot Dem and can't wait to say nasty things about Obama. But I know for a fact she would gnaw her own leg off before she voted for McCain.
_______"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks!"
From 'Barry to Barack'
Interesting observation in the latest issue of Newsweek (cover story, 'From Barry to Barack') about this whole kerfuffle and Obama's background in reference to it.
The point made by one Univ. of Chicago professor was that NO politico or wannabe in his right mind would have joined Wright's church (assuming they'd had due diligence and done background homework) - if they had any remote future aspirations to higher office, especially the presidency.
Of course, as the article notes, Obama didn't join because he foreasaw competing for the presidency 20 years down the road. He joined because he was searching for an identity - a black identity- and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church provided that for him.
What does all this show? Perhaps that anyone with future plans for the WH had better make sure - to the greatest extent possible- they aren't generating fodder along the way for anyone to use in the far future. And if they do, seen in retrospect, then they have a full tilt plan afoot to counter the inevitable 'swift boating' that their early life choices will invite.
This is why I'd entertain no dalliance with ANY political office (even the local school board) now, having dallied with communism in my youth- to the extent of actually writing the Soviet embassy in the 1960s for "educational material about the Soviet Union". (Which they sent in droves, and which I am sure the FBI and Hoover recorded every last tidbit of).
Moral of the story? Make goddamned sure of what choices you are making early in life, and always keep the alert up for the possibility it may well "tangentially" whack you in the ass decades later - and whether you consider those who use it dumbshits, or nefarious is immaterial.
What it really shows
What it really shows is that we need to get religion (as well as corporate funding) out of politics. Until we do, we're saddled with this crapola.
And the "Barry to Barack" thing really gets my goat. What a nonsense issue. Many of us are saddled with childhood nicknames (I was), over which we have no control. Some of us ditch them as we move into professional life. I had a friend whose family and little friends called him "Gee gee," because that was how his younger brother pronounced his name. He later started going by Gerald. I can't see any respectable journalist (I know -- oxymoron) wasting a single syllable on that transformation. Somehow, Barack's name --whether his middle name or a childhood nickname, neither of which he chose -- has become an issue.
This country is truly moronic.
_______"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks!"
Not a "nonsense issue"!
Many of us are saddled with childhood nicknames (I was), over which we have no control. Some of us ditch them as we move into professional life.
You're missing the point! (Did you read the referenced article?) As it notes (p. 31) it was OBAMA himself who chose to use the nickname 'Barry'. He chose it as a "means of simplification" - a "small compromise" so he wouldn't have to keep repeating his given name ad inifinitum.
But at some point, as his friend Wahid observed (ibid.) he wanted a more authentic identity and the continued use of the nickname "Barry" gave away too much, compromised too much. Hence, the decision to consistently use the name 'Barack'.
In itself these names are neither here nor there, you are correct. But the point of the article was in invoking the name change as a metaphor for Obama's consolidation of his (black) identity.
As I noted, Obama himself circulated the name 'Barry', no one "pinned" it on him. But at a more mature stage he realized he'd have to ditch it if he were to get anyplace and become his own person. For that I commend him.
Btw, as an atheist I DO agree we need to lose the religion BS and the sooner the better. Then none of this would have been an issue. It is past time religion were removed from politics.
That is the true moronic underpinning of this country. Using antiquated belief systems to judge the qualifications of a candidate.
You are correct, sir
No, I didn't read the article -- thanks for straightening me out on this. I simply assumed it was a childhood name.
Still, people change their names all the time. I have several friends who've not only gone from nickname to full name or vice versa, but who have changed their names entirely as part of some spiritual advancement.
But it's still nonsense in the sense of whether it has anything to do with his suitability for president. Who really cares, except the nosepickers who decide that we need to be discussing people names instead of issues.
_______"Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks!"
Who cares?
But it's still nonsense in the sense of whether it has anything to do with his suitability for president. Who really cares,
Indeed! I don't give a bald shit whether he calls himself 'Barry', 'Bagwan' or Barack. Doesn't make a dime's worth of difference.
What bothered me was the comparable article in TIME ('Why Obama Has a Pastor Problem', March 31, p. 39) and Obama noting (in his own words, p. 41) he might never have become a Christian, if not for the special character of the black church". (The article notes his dad was an atheist, and his mother a "skeptical secularist". Folks right up my alley!)
Personally, for my two cents, I wished he'd never found his black church - and had not become a Christian in any form. Then he'd have my unqualified support - but, of course, not that of 66% of the country who assert religious affiliation (especially Christian) as an essential for high office.
The same TIME article, btw, quotes Dwight Hopkins (also a Trinity member, and professor in University of Chicago's Divinity School) as saying:
"If you're black and you're trying to get ahead in politics, you're not going to join Trinity. Not because it's radical- it isn't radical in its context. But it would be safer to join a North side ecumenical church- the sort of place where people are quiet"
For me, I just wish religion wasn't in the picture, period.
You Forgot Something Else
You'll need a crystal ball so you can see 20 years in the future so you'll know exactly what the puplic has been conditioned to respond to, and which way politics is leaning, and which way the media wind is blowing...
Crystal balls
You'll need a crystal ball so you can see 20 years in the future
What is more important is that you have that "crystal ball" to determine or approximate WHAT PATH you plan to take! If it's in politics, and there's even a remote chance of wanting to go into public office some day - your best bet is leading a "vanilla" life all the way. No remote racial, political or other (sex?) controversies locked away in the closet!
And be sure your associates, friends are as vanilla as they can be too- to the best of your assessment.
Those are scary stats, jtree...
but I believe you. Even some educated Dems are taking the bait on Rev. Wright's sermon. My brother (not the Rushbot Vietnam vet) was saying that Obama would "look bad" if he didn't disavow his pastor's remarks. I replied that he (brother) probably didn't agree with everything his priest says in church. "Well, no..." And he's still a Catholic despite the silly shit Pope Benny says.
Methinks a lot of people freaking out over Rev. Wright were probably not inclined to vote for Obama anyway. Like my chiropractor, for instance. Last time I discuss politics with him! Americans really need to grow up on the issue of race. Sure, some blacks are really angry at whites. Is it any wonder? And some whites still hate blacks. Nothing new there. Thank God Obama could give such a speech. I pray he is our man in November and we can kiss the Bush mindset goodbye.
_______If you vote Republican, does that make you an accomplice to their crimes?
Bongo, "Life in Hell"
One small difference....
The sad, sad, difference to me here, is that, although I'm well aware of the manipulative banalities of which the Republican right is capable, this attempt to waylay Mr. Obama seems to come from within the family, so to speak. Mark me down as one of those who would NEVER, under any circumstances, cast a vote for a Clinton again.
Look At Some Actual Swiftboating
Just scroll a few articles down, to the "piece" by Evelyn Pringle.
She may not be the captain of USS Swiftboat, but she's definitely on the crew. I call her Gilligan.
A different reaction
The author of this article and virtually all of those posting below it seem to agree with me that America is huge mass of morons led by thugs and criminals.
My reaction to that is to disentangle myself from it as much as possible and to be indifferent to its fate. I find the American people (and I am one) unlovable - despicable in fact, and fully deserving of any misfortune that they may have brought upon themselves in their moral laziness. Nearly half of them voted for Bush in 2004 knowing what he was. That was inexcusable and unforgivable.
I find it impossible to care about America, and under the circumstances, I certainly have nothing to offer it. I wouldn't rescue America if I could, and I can't. Nor am I willing to share in its condign fate.
If ever there was a cursed nation, it is this one. America doesn't deserve your energy or affection, and you can't help it anyway. It's made its bed. Save yourselves. There are better places to be, and other people more worthy of what you have to offer.
if only it were that easy.
There are times when I really want to get the hell out. I sure felt that way in Nov. 2004 and many times after. But dammit, it is MY country too. My DH and I didn't deserve the current occupant, nor do my friends who are working to end the war/occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. has been through some terrible times before; we will get out of this. If we don't vote, we guarantee exactly the outcome we don't want.
Okay, call me delusional. But to sit on our butts and wait for The End is unworthy of us.
_______If you vote Republican, does that make you an accomplice to their crimes?
Bongo, "Life in Hell"
I don't get your code
DH?
What, designated hitter?
I never liked that rule...they should do away with it...I agree.
get out, maybe, but where do you go?
There may well be dire consequences ahead for all of us, regardless of where we reside.
Global climate change, worldwide economic depression, the fallout from nuclear war, pandemics, famine....all things with absolutely no respect for international borders.
Yes, it's possible to put a few more miles between yourself and the people who would trade all of our lives for their own personal enrichment. Problem is, unless we get off the planet altogether, we remain inside their sphere of influence.
I'm just thinking that, watching crops wither and die from the window of a cardboard box in shanty town, will be unpleasant, no matter what country we do it from.
I realize that some problems
I realize that some problems cannot be escaped. But this country's culture is so sickeneing, plus the chances of having my wealth stolen by this government (I've already had pieces of it stolen twice) or being put in jail for no reason (I've already been harrassed inapprporiately by the "law" once) is too great. This country is like an ex-wife. I don't want to be living with it.
Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide
"You can't run away from trouble, 'cause there ain't no place that far"
--Uncle Remus--
_______"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
--Steven Wright--
The thing most people on
The thing most people on either side of the political isle don't understand about Obama is that he's only gotten better the longer this campaign went on. If you look at old tapes of him before Iowa you can see the rawness and even hesitency in the way he spoke durning debates. Now thanks in part to the constant stream of Clinton attacks he was able to grow and adapt to the way things work. He's tough, confident, direct, and assertive but at the sametime flexable and accomidating. He's definately become this presidential figure that has this heir of dignity around him. The man has become unshakable and the Wright controversey continues to be handled in such a way by the campaign that the people who continue to bring it up are actually the ones who look like assholes when they confront him directly. When he was on the view today, elizabeth hasselbeck fell into this trap by constantly harping on the issue. Obama has become this Kennedy esque figure that has this combination of charm, charisma, and strength that people feel attracted to and if he gets the nomination I think he'll finally be able to hand the republicans their asses by finally making liberalism what it hasn't been for the last 40 decades- cool. All he has to do is tie mccain's old age into the out of date policies of the conservative republican party. And the best thing about Obama is probably the fact that he's proud to be a movement democrat and is the only real candidate who's talked about creating a workable majority in Congress.
I think this could very well
I think this could very well be an accurate observation by gregmatic. There is an ebb and flow in life covering so many things, including the enormity of evil vs. good. In America, we've been treated to so much evil lately. So much EVIL (though carefully concealed in finely crafted rhetoric, and still, for that reason, unseen by many--the 'unaware'), that the more 'aware' segment of us has become so blatantly cynical as to be blind to actual possible shifts toward good. This may be happening. Think it over, watch closely and, participate.
Thanks to all here at SC.
The Final Battle of the Civil War
Timeline: central KY, 1993.
I was working construction, on my lunch-hour, listening to the casette tape of Al Green I had in my car. I've been a Rev. Green FREAK since I first heard him at about the age of 12. I was minding my own business, when came a tap-tap! on the window.
Uninvited, a guy on the crew plopped down in passenger seat, "Whut're yew listenin' to, buddy"? he asked, toning "buddy" as something dispicable.
Turns out he was gravely offended that me, a white guy would be listening to "nigger music" when I should be-a-listnin' tew Country-n'Western, by Gawd!!
I politely told him to stick the entire grand old opry up his ass. A long story short, they started calling me "nigger lover", then, just shortened it to "lover", read in the gay implications. Harassment? YOU BET!
I didn't last too long at that job, really, I found my revenge when I found a better one. The point I am making (and if you don't believe me, go to AOL's political blog), there are bunches of those ignorant assholes still out there. You know the rant "Obamaisablackpanther-muslim-druggie-hates-murica-whatabouthispreacher-can'tcontrolhiswife-I'llvoteforMcCain-he's going to turn our nation over to Al Quaidablahblablahblah"
TIMELINE: AMERICA: MARCH 29 7:00 AM EST
THIS MORNING, the commentator was calling Obama THE TEFLON CANDIDATE, in that he has a strong national lead over EITHER republican he faces, McSame OR Hillary (check her record, I do not retract).
PEOPLE CAN SENSE THAT HELL NO BARACK IS NOT PERFECT
HE IS NOT THE SAVIOR, HE HAS NOT LIVED 100% ABOVE THE FRAY
BUT HE IS NOT WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. Yes, I too am electrified whenever I hear him speak, or even answer questions. YES WE CAN is WHAT AMERICA NEEDS NOW. IT CAN HAPPEN, and Hillary, stop ripping him off. This nation is hanging over a cliff, holding on. We are offered a gamble, or a sure trip over the falls. Call me crazy, but I say KICK UP THE AL GREEN CD, I'M FOR TAKING THE GAMBLE. Hillary and McSame are just MORE REAGAN-BUSH, the only difference is in the degrees.
I don't personally agree with 100% of Senator Obama's platform, but I have heard enough to know, He is what we need now.
And the beautiful thing is: The day he puts his hand on the Bible (AND NOT THE KORAN, you blogging dipshits!), and becomes President Obama, it will truly be The Final Battle of the Civil War.
And maybe now we can get beyond all that pain to get back to "WE THE PEOPLE"...
"I am obviously wrong" Rush Limbaugh Oct 19, 2006
I would encourage you to
check his voting record in the senate. He will be "business as usual." He and Senator Clinton have few differences. If anything his record is more conservative. By the way I have a cousin who loved to listen to Al Green in his heyday and he's STILL a racist. I have no clue what that means. I guess he just liked him. He's a big UK fan and he roots for "his blacks" and calls the rest n******.
Dear dirt, It is hard not
Dear dirt,
It is hard not to conduct 'business as usual'. I think you can observe us all, going along with authority, in various situations, even when we disagree with it. We have a tendency, sometimes it is good, to avoid a fight, a confrontation. We also know, now, that we are at a point, well past it in fact, where we have to confront our political 'leaders'. We have to FIGHT.
Obama was/is a young politician. He went along no doubt, didn't rock the boat. He's young, he's learning. Can we really blame him? He appears to be gaining personal strength, backed by authentic people--all wanting the boat rocked, hell, not rocked, we want the fucking boat sunk!
Let's just stay tuned here. I think we're helping him, and he, in turn, is helping us. It (business as usual) doesn't all change at once.
The situation with your
The situation with your cousin is the Spike Lee complex a good example of this is the movie "Do the right thing" when Lee has a conversation with one of the Italians who owns the pizza shop about why he calls average blacks the n word and some of his favorite black atheletes and entertainers aren't. It all comes down to a question of talent and people tend to look past the person's charactistics if their work is good they see the talent not the person. I think large percentage of people will come to see Obama's talents as a politician more than the man's race. I know plenty of rednecks that're hardcore repubs that have claimed to tear up when they heard one of Obama's speeches.
The Biggest Difference
Between Obama and Clinton is health care. She has a plan that would provide universal coverage, and he doesn't. He doesn't want universal coverage, since his personal fortune is dependent on the fortunes of the hospital industry.
Looks to me like he's even more "business as usual" than Clinton is. Like dirt said, check out his actual voting record sometime.
_______"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
--Steven Wright--
Obama
One interesting feature of Mr. Obama's speeches is the sense one has that he is actually using his own words. (Perhaps I'm naive here, but I doubt it.) And when he finishes, I have virtually no interest in what the pundits, writing or speaking, have to say. His gifts with the language equal (and, by and large, surpass) those of the commentators. How refreshing and unusual it is to have a politician (and this seems a limiting term for him) who is a master of the language! In the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, one of their commentators, about to respond to his speech on racism, said, "I feel afraid to approach my typewriter."
The Witch Hunts of Salem
And swiftboating is the perfect analogy, because both Obama and Kerry were the victims of pure corporate propaganda and organized defamation. The media, in both cases, manufactured the fake crises. Under the false pretense of "reporting", media shills collectively dropped a steaming pile onto our living room floors, told us how damaging the allegations were, and did not give anything approaching equal time to the even bigger story: what outrageous lies and fabrications they were to begin with.
Obama diffused the fake issue with his amazing oratorical skills. But the bigger story, how the horseshit that merely sitting in an audience makes one an automatic proponent of everything a speaker says, sits on the cutting room floor. Are we ALL answerable for every article and post EVER posted on the Smirking Chimp? EVEN when you didn't read it? Every teacher you ever had? Every rally or event you ever attended? Where was the similar media calvacade asking these basic questions and pointing to what unbelievable bullshit this is?
If you want to know what someone thinks, ask them. If you think they are lying, prove it.
_______“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." – Voltaire
I said this before in one of
I said this before in one of my more optimistic moments: Maybe the nightmare that is George W. Bush had to happen.
Maybe a certain segment of America is finally getting wise. And maybe this segment is getting big enough to make a real difference. I hope so....Lord knows there is plenty of work for all of us to do to restore health and balance to the planet. We don't need evil dictators and greedy CEO's getting any more in our way. God I hope this madness that is George W. Bush will come to an end...