This 2008 presidential race has not just been about who would become the Democratic presidential candidate. It has also been all about the future leadership and control of the democratic party.
Obama's win means a major change in the leadership of the Democratic party, policy, direction and people. I've interviewed Ed Rendell, Joe Trippi, Ned Lamont, Markos "dailykos" Moulitsas, Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Katrina vanden Heuvel, Christy "firedoglake" Hardin Smith, and more to see the future of the Democratic party.
In 1992, Bill Clinton and his team led a takeover of the Democratic Party. The DLC emerged as the new policy leader and Bill Clinton was its Don. The DNC head was its consigliere.
The DLC moved the Democratic Party further and further to the right, trying to make it look more and more like the Republican Party. They embraced open trade policies that betrayed workers and unions. They encouraged anti-choice candidates and embraced and went to bed with big corporations.
Now, the campaign of Barack Obama will probably end much of that"- and more.
Hillary is one of the current top leaders of the DLC, according to the DLC website. Her loss to Obama is a major blow to the DLC, the Clinton dynasty and all the former staffers from the Clinton presidency waiting in the wings for high paid, high power jobs.
Bill Clinton has been the most powerful Democrat in a good 40 years, at least since Lyndon B. Johnson.
Now, Obama is not only presumptive Democratic presidential candidate. He is also the new leader of the Democratic Party and will continue to be so, if he wins the presidency in November.
I've long felt, as a progressive, that the DLC, pulling the Democratic Party to the right, was bad for the Democratic Party. They were attempting to make Democrats look more like Republicans. This was my main reason for opposing Hillary, as a DLC leader and icon. But I wanted to get a feel, from leading thinkers within the Democratic Party, what the new leadership of the party would look like.
I started interviews for this article around the time of the last debate, in Pennsylvania, doing face to face interviews with Governor and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell and Iraq veteran, Blue Dog congressman and Obama Supporter Patrick Murphy. After the debate, I either interviewed by phone or email Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas, FiredogLake's Christy Hardin Smith, the Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Cindy Sheehan, consortiumnews' Robert Parry and at a conference, spoke with Joe Trippi.
I generally asked questions along the lines: "What's the future of the Democratic leadership? What's the future of the DLC?
Personally, I'm thrilled with the idea of the DLC and its right-leaning policies fading away as soon as possible. The question is, does that mean that the Democratic Party will start moving to the left? Some say Obama is the most liberal member of the senate. I have not been impressed with his progressive credentials, nor have most of the progressives I am in touch with. But I like the idea of someone who starts to the left of the DLC and Clinton. And at least he doesn't characterize a liberal group like moveon.org as the bad guys, like Hillary did.
The question is, who does he bring in to the party? Will he open it up to people who are further left?
Who will gain power? Who will lose power? With the DLC fading out of the picture, will some of their right wing darlings take a powder? Will Bush-hugging incumbent democrats start to fall, like Al Wynn, who was beaten by progressive Donna Edwards? There are a lot of those DLC and right wing dems out there.
But even among the Clinton "team" there will be people who see the light, smell the coffee and figure out that their political survival will depend upon landing on the right side when the final vote is in. I give former Clinton staffer Donna Brazile a lot of credit for her deft handling of her role as superdelegate and pundit during the primary season.
This article provides relatively untouched transcripts of the interviews and email exchanges I performed. At the end, I'll throw in my two cents worth of opinion.
* * *
Minutes before the Philly debate started, I asked PA governor and former DNC chair, Ed Rendell, "It's not just a contest between Clinton and Obama, it's really a contest between two different parts of the Democratic Party, isn't it?"
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
An excellent article, Rob. However, I must agree with both Rady and Steve. There'll be no change with Barack Obama.
Just listen to the bellicosity he blathered today to the AIPAC committee."Danger from Iran is grave, it is real?" After which he received a standing ovation. That doesn't sound at all like diplomacy. Unless it was all a charade?
Iran is about as much of a threat as Iraq was. They were'nt and now "We the People" are paying the price of Nation Building.
If they attack Iran (and I believe they are crazy enough to do this) America will never, ever recover.
But I digress.
Obama vows to stop Iran from having nuclear arms
Wed Jun 4, 11:17 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday Iran posed a serious threat in the Middle East and vowed to stop it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group.
"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.
Obama also vowed to vigorously support Israel's right to defend itself and pledged an active effort to pursue a Middle East peace agreement in a broad speech on the region he delivered a day after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination.
"I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world," Obama said.
Some of Obama's critics have sought to undercut his support with Jewish voters by suggesting that he would be more inclined than the Bush administration and Republican presidential candidate John McCain to put pressure on Israel to make concessions in any peace negotiations.
Obama has been seeking to dispel that notion in campaign events that include the AIPAC speech and a forum with Jewish voters in Florida last month.
McCain has criticized Obama's call for talks with Iran, a state Israeli leaders consider a threat to Israel's security.
(Reporting by Caren Bohan, editing by David Alexander)
by
Munich (0 articles, 66 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 830 comments)
on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM
One of my downfalls as a writer is to be outspoken and tell it like it is, which sometimes brings my commentary into areas that are somewhat taboo, but fact is fact, and I don’t like sugar-coating what I believe is the truth.
When Obama was interviewed by Attytood’s Will Bunch, this exchange followed:
Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race — and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to “immediately review the information that’s already there” and determine if an inquiry is warranted — but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as “a partisan witch hunt.” However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because “nobody is above the law.” LINK
When we consider the amount of corruption that has occurred during the Bush administration, to say it is monumental would be an understatement! The sheer number of people and corporations that have been cheating the government and ripping-off the American taxpayers is enormous, and if investigations were started that actually delved into the wrongdoing by the thousands of people who have been greedily lapping-up money through every type of corruption imaginable would take years of legal action to adjudicate - and after it was all said and done, could result in the conviction of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people that have been given free reign to rip-off America’s wealth by the Bush administration. In short, some of America’s most influential lawmakers and corporations could be found guilty of theft and corruption - and as we all know, America’s elite will not allow that to happen!
If Obama actually plans on following through with those intentions, then I believe it’s safe to say that his personal security needs to be unparalleled; what he describes needs to be carried-out to send a message to those who wish to use their power to steal from taxpayers, and it’s a noble endeavor, but in my opinion, one that is dangerous and could present a real danger to Senator Obama’s health and welfare. To ignore the danger that such a statement by Obama presents is denying the obvious - and while the public would welcome and support such an investigation, the forces that have been ripping us off will do anything and everything to stop such an investigation, and we need to face the reality of the danger that it poses to Obama - and act accordingly to safeguard him and his family.
Further, the statements he made would seem to indicate that a Pardon is not likely for Bush and Cheney if Obama wins the Presidency, which Clinton probably would have done within her first few weeks in office. Our nation could be on the verge of bringing accountability to Washington, something we all yearn for and are desperate to witness. True accountability would help to improve our economy and throw-out those who seek office only to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense, but in reality, such an endeavor may be a pipe-dream, albeit one many of us share and hope for each and every day of our lives!
Right now, if Obama wins the Presidency, the stage is set for one of the most remarkable political shake-ups in the last hundred years. I’m all for it, and I only hope that if Obama really is going to investigate the crimes of Bush and Cheney, that he lives through it and doesn’t succumb to the forces of evil that run almost every aspect of our government.
William Cormier
by
William Cormier (127 articles, 7 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 307 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 6:48:59 AM
The US is a hugely diverse collection of people with liberal and conservative views. No leader can embrace one end of the spectrum and hope to lead a unified nation. Obama is not as liberal as some would like, not as conservative as others might like, he is a pragmatist. His stated policy goals for the Democrats mirrors Clinton's. It is a more liberal agenda than Republicans want, but it reflects the direction that most Democrats and many Independents embrace.
The questions Rob posed to these various individuals struck me as based on a liberal/progressive agenda of us against conservatives. In reality, the real goal is to move the US forward against a conservative resistance to change. A movement we believe is in the best interests of this country in much the same way as Conservatives feel their direction is in the best interest of the country. If we get it right, the country moves with us. If we screw up, the country rebels, conservative Republicans take over and the pendulum swings back in their direction.
The Regan Democrats were largely the rebellious Southern white Christians angry with the Civil Rights efforts of the 1960's Democrats. Republicans used these recent converts to push their own agenda for a more business friendly approach by government and outsourcing of government functions to business. White Southerners voted their emotions instead of with common sense. This has culminated in the GW Bush Presidency which has by all accounts been a disaster.
I would not look on the Obama Presidency and DLC control as a sudden shifting of it to the far left of center. You can't or you lose too much of your support base. Rather, Obama's win creates some new opportunities, some new potential for change. Perhaps a more favorable approach to the overall political process where average people have more input and more relevance in it. If Obama has done anything it is to show the country for the first time that people can define their own destiny. They can rally behind q good/great candidate so they do not require a political establishment and monied interests to ensecure success. He/she can appeal directly to the US public and through their help and support, win. Future success requires not giving in to the temptation to do what one wants, but to carry out policies that benefit the broader interests of the general population (liberal and conservative). One must keep an open mind, listen to all sides and not just assume one knows what is best. The problem of both Liberals and Conservatives in the past -- is thinking they know what is best instead of listening to all sides and moving forward in a constructive/deliberate manner. Obama provides the leadership that I believe will steer the head of state with due diligence and caution, not sharply in a new direction, but carefully changing course so as not to lose too much support during his time in office.
by
Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 164 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 9:58:38 AM
You are one fourth right concerning the rebellious South's reasons and turning them into Republicans:
integration of Blacks into the school system by "forced busing" is one;
however, just as big was the drugs era which seemed to be supported only by Democrats (LSD, heroin, cocaine, marijuana and the push to legalize all of them) in which they saw all liberals as Hippies not much unlike the Manson Gang;
the third was pornography in the new age of XXX rated theaters and massage parlors which they saw as being supported by groups such as the hard rock bands all the way to the long-haired Beetles;
the fourth issue probably became the main driving force was abortion as in Roe vs Wade. Most devout Christians see abortion as no less than murder; since the women's liberation movement with "ban the bra" up in your face demanding "right of choice" vs "right to life" became the lynch pin of driving the South into the ninety percent Republican bracket. They saw abortion on demand as an evil method of birth control which supported the evilness of sex outside of marriage.
There were some sub-issues such as removing prayer in school decisions, movements to take "one nation under God" from the pledge and the absolute refusal to consider "creation" in any form.
These just made the chasm between Liberals and Conservatives, the devoutly religious and the devoutly irrereligous almost impossible to bridge. The senseless war in Iraq, the arrogant incompetence of Bush and Cheney, the 800 million dollar national debt, the cost of four dollar a gallon gasoline probably has bridged the gap; that is if radicalism does not fill it right back up.
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 9:29:18 PM
Obama will bring no more than an attractive new packaging to the policies of empire. To wit, his speech to AIPAC yesterday showed no real difference from the position of the Bush admin's. He will allow the insurance companies to play a dominant role in any health care reform. He is not seriously opposed to NAFTA. He will not bring any of the Bush admin criminals "to justice." He will continue the pressure on Iran. There will be no letup in the ongoing militarization of the US.
All of this will take place while hosannas are being paid to how wonderful it is that the USA finally elected a black president.
Long before Obama became a household name, filling stadiums and attracting small contributions by the millions over the Internet, his candidacy had attracted the support of a significant section of the Democratic foreign policy establishment, including figures like former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake.
They were drawn to Obama not so much by his critique of the Bush administration—which was not particularly vigorous, even by the toothless standards of the congressional Democrats—as by the symbolic effect that the election of the first African-American president would have in terms of reviving illusions, both internationally and within the United States, in the democratic pretensions of American capitalism.
With Obama’s nomination effectively secured, the American media has now gone into overdrive to peddle such illusions.....
The Obama nomination is not the product of a popular insurgency against the Democratic Party establishment or of a mass movement from below, as some of Obama’s more self-deluded supporters on the liberal left now proclaim. The role of the masses in the Obama campaign is best demonstrated by the rallies like that held Tuesday night in St. Paul, Minnesota—the people serve as extras in a well-developed, highly skillful marketing campaign. The purpose of this campaign is to refurbish American capitalist politics without touching its rotten foundations.....
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 1:27:28 PM
I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from a McCain administration and I really don't at all like what I expect. I expected better from a Clinton administration, but I could pretty well predict that it would be business friendly and middle of the road, leaning to the right.
I knew what to expect from a Kucinich administration and I liked it, but it was pretty clear that anyone who was so open about having such a progressive agenda would not be allowed co compete fairly. He didn't stand a chance and neither did Edwards.
I don't know what to expect from an Obama Presidency and unfortunately we can't seem to expect much more than that from a successful presidential candidate. He seems cautious enough about what he says that he has generally left his options open while still being allowed by the media to win the nomination. He seems smart and he seems to seek out advice and take good advice into consideration. It is almost impossible to imagine that he would be as bad a president as Bush has been but he could possibly be as good a president as any we have ever had.
The established forces in Washington could grind him down and spit him out, but so far he seems to handle himself well, so there is hope that this will not happen. He could be just what this country needs, but we will just have to wait and see... and hope. It seems clear to me that he is our best hope and as of now, we should count ourselves lucky to have him.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:27:51 PM
I'm sitting in a Flying J Truck Stop in Wisconsin, having just driven from St. Paul where I attended the Obama event. I started on the campaign trail over 5 months ago, in the ice of Iowa. Now summer is here and I'm sweating in the back of my van.
I'm ecstatic the primary is over. And I'm pleased Obama won.
But what are our minimal benchmarks for us not to be disappointed with an Obama Administration? No president can deliver everything, yet there are changes from every administration. But will there be enough change in an Obama Administration and in the direction that progressive and liberals want?
I think we should focus on, say, 4 or 5 specific goals that we "demand" from an Obama Administration within a time frame. For those who say nothing will change and for those who say there will be a huge change, I don't believe either. But what I want to know what should change or we will then say Obama has failed as president.
by
Stewart Nusbaumer (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 3:50:06 PM
The biggest change that I want is a president who will resort to reason and insist on evidence and a consideration of consequences when making major decisions. If Obama can make this one change that will be enough for me.
Some big bonuses would be:
End the war in Iraq and wrap up the one in Afganistan. Help rebuild these countries, but more important, get out of the way so the people there can sort things out.
Reverse the Bush tax cuts. Don't just end them but institute reparations in the form of excess profits taxes.
Institute a single-payer health plan.
Pass a new independent prosecutor law and appoint prosecutors to oversee investigations of 9-11, of prosecutor-gate, of the Pflame affair and of Bush Administrations violations of the constitution.
by
PrMaine (10 articles, 8 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 329 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 5:51:20 PM
Obama will never be President. He learned politics Chicago style from Antoin Rezko, and has already shown he can and will go dirty. People have been blaming Clinton for all the negative attacks she launched on Obama, but it's simply a planned Obama talking point as a leaked memo from HIS campaign proved. His campaign sought Hillary hating Republicans and Independents in his Democrat for a Day program. His volunteers committed fraud in the Texas caucus which is still being investigated, 200 cases with 2000 complainants. His supporters have even gone so far as to physicaly attack elderly female Clinton supporters in Ohio. The RBC flagrantly violated at least 3 of their own rules to give Obama the delegates they GAVE him in the Michigan decision.
Then you add in his ties to Antoin Rezko, now CONVICTED on 16 counts in his trial. He has ties to Obama going back to when he went to meet Obama at Harvard and offer him a job. A job Obama says he didn't take, but upon leaving Harvard Law School, where did Barack go? Did he go to a strong law firm representing minority issues? No he went to work for a small law firm who's major client was Antoin Rezko! Rezko launched his political career, and Obama pushed for the restructuring of the hospital boards that allowed Rezk's corrupt board members (The same corrupt board members Obama helped get on the boards) to help Rezko commit the fraud he was convicted of. Why did no one pay attention when Chicago reporters have been saying since 2004 that Obama is not what he portrays himself to be. He is the typical dirty Chicago politician. One Chicago reporter even released a book on Senator Obama yesterday, which contains an in depth look at the real Obama, which the author claims is a true eye opener that will make everyone not vote for Obama.
by
POdVet (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 5:23:38 PM
I have a friend who thinks Ralph is still the guy, and why would anyone vote for the "same thing" over and over every 4 years; that's the sign of insanity, she says. (maintaining that Obama would be no different from McCain; ie, not Progressive enough. )
I submitted carefully that voting for a guy who pops up every 4 years to LOSE is pretty insane, too!
by
Bia Winter (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 323 comments)
on Friday, June 6, 2008 at 9:31:37 AM
Don't count chickens - what Obama is facing - what Story?
Rob,
Much as I agree that obama has promise and find your analysis fascinating, I think you are counting your chickens before they are hatched, viz: that he will/would 'crush McCain at the polls'.
I think the Rove gang running the elections will ensure :
a) more and more corrupt polling companies and news management so that phoney 'reasons' for sudden shifts to the right are spun, c.f 'moral majority concerns' which turned out to be bogus as a psephological factor, but good enought to give plausible 'cover' for election theft.
Watch out for Nader and maybe others to reprise his 2000 role ... remember he took a lot of money from Republicans who wanted him to split the vote, and even if in reality he only takes half a percent in key states, that can be spun as a reason why the Dem lost due to a late swing to Nadir...
Watch out for another appearance of Emmunuel Goldstein (1984) aka the late OBL - or even a serious false flag assassination (lone Iranian nut, anyone?) and or false flag terror scares and maybe actual 'bombings' (directed energy attacks) coupled with audio-video fakery, probably in apparently 'real time' .
b) The Rove gang will also ensure more and more horrible stories about Obama and his wife (Hawks Cafe are developing this line of attack to link her to 9/11!!) and even if the mud doesn't stick, lots of attempts to articulate a populist 'why bother, they are all the same' mentality to discourage poor folks from voting....
c) lots of other voter suppression techniques, perfected even further from those described by Greg Palast and Mark Crispin Miller - the latter drawing attention to the Christian right's ability to project whatever dirty tricks they themselves are up to on behalf of the Republicans/God/Amerika onto the Democrats, who are going to do it 'first' and onto 'voter fraud'.
d) lots of tight disciplining of the state and company crooks running the e-voting and e-counting swindles so that there are a lot fewer slip-ups [or was that a leak by one of us?] like releases of exit polls - which allowed Steven Freeman to calcualate Kerry won by 6 million votes, not lost by 3 million.
e) further Frat-bully tactics backed by corrupt lawyers as per Florida and 2000 and Ohio in 2004, etc.
Even if Obama weathers the Swiftboating and isn't assassinated, the question arises - By how many percentage points in the polls [assuming unrigged opinion polls] would he have to be in order to triumph at the election?
Even if Bev Harris and friends continue to build a cadre of terrific election integrity watchdogs, I think Rove sees them coming and will be plugging lots of obvious leaks so that he will still have huge room for manouvre in most states - unless the denial ends and voting integrity somehow goes mainstream in the meantime ....? (see below)
If real public opinion [among voters and want-to-voters/think-they're registered-voters] is split 60-40 for Obama, McCain could still triumph at the polls.
If and when Obama starts to mainstream election integrity concerns in a very determined and by Mainstream Media standards 'transgressive' way, but hopefully in a non-partisan statesmanlike way and without too much flattering of 'the American Way/Ego/'wego', that would give some grounds for real hope - both that he might get elected and that if he did he might find a way for the centre to dance with the grassroots for real change. (True conservatism - back to the paper and pen voting system with transparent counting of votes).
But he will still have to weather huge storms which will break around his campaign to do with 'terrorism' connections, 'corrupt inner city mafiosi' links, 'too friendly to Palestine/Iran/Muslims' , Rev Wright stuff, Michelle a raving feminist, etc.
Here again he needs to 'speak truth to people' as he did the first time the Rev Wright stuff blew up. Go deeper, dare to be complex and nuanced. And go on the offensive - have a huge list of dirt about McCain and co and whack back without too much mea culpa.
Most of all he needs to project a story, agreed entirely Rob, this is vital.
My candidate for the story will go something like how he learned to be soft and found strength in that from his relationship to womenfolk (and 'true sons' [of all ages] such as caring male role models in his neighbourhood, college, etc) and for his love for his wife and children.
So that Obama stands forward as the candidate of the 'matrisphere'/softy community, unlike McCain as the candidate of the Lost Sons aka Real Men Fraternities (Big Money/Fed Reserve/Big Oil, Military-Industrial Complex/Big Pharma/Energy Utilities/Insurance gougers/Intel-Media complex, etc, etc) ...
Our filial Hero appeals that he wants to borrow/draw on the strength of the Matri-sphere further and help to empower them and work with them to raise up skilful coalitions for change - not based on hate, dualistic Left frats v Right frats, etc - so that he can defend the Motherland of caring community life/Pax Gaia/Mother Earth whenever deluded lost sons hallucinating themselves to be 'real Men' gang up in warring fraternities to bully and deceive and extort and spread panic and apply double-standards.
This wouldn't be a dualistic simplification because he would all the time be appealing to the loyal or 'filial' core of relatively undamaged men' (sons) and women in the various male-dominated institutions (from the CIA and national guard to the medical and pharmaceutical industries, etc, etc), asking them to find ways to leak to and link with the communities which are fighting back for dear life against the most deluded fanatical Frats/race-to-the-bottom logic of 'the market' which only responds to those with Money and is set to allow a billion people to die off in the next decade unless the military-industrial complex which brought us 911 and is burning up and poisoning the Planet wholesale is stopped in its tracks.
Obama could also usefully remind military folk that their own military code, as also the Nuremburg code that many Americans died to bring into force, mandates non-compliance or even active resistance to 'manifestly unlawful commands' - such as firing nukes (poison-scattering devices) - and also mandates civil obedience resistance to the lawless Crusading frats like Blackwater/Knights of Malta, etc, etc.
Maybe they'll slaughter Obama, but if he builds the rainbow matri-nation and if he evokes and gets in supportively behind the Womanist myth of building colourful communities (nobody is 'white') which care and which resist the dominance habits of The Man/the White/America the Pure Victim, blah, blah, then when he dies his death could add powerful Mythic juice to the story of the loyal sons and daughters reclaiming our true identity as children of the Matri-sphere, The One (and many) diverse Motherland/s, returning as prodigals to our first , true and native loyalty to Mother Earth.
('Camelot' never quite had that juice, and anyway JFK's own inner circle was extremely dominated by hard Frat values, not least screwing around and egging each other on to reckless deeds of derring do (Bay of Pigs) - 'who is the realest man of us all?' - like Frat leader Rumsfeld and co say 'Wimps go to Baghdad, Real Men go to Tehran' which is exactly the Frat logic which McCain (son of Cain?) is enthralled by, albeit with a little avuncular Patriarchal gloss.)
This Myth of Filial commitment to the Motherland may seem like a weird vocabulary to start to spell out - or subtly evoke, but I reckon everyone over the age of about four already understands the grammar of frats versus peaceful community in an implicit way, and therefore finding a way to give that untalked about common understanding explicit validity (linking personal and political, local/regional/national/global levels) could find a huge resonance - notwithstanding that it doesn't obey the official Truth verison of 'Reality' (Pravda) that the various Frat Media pump out - and our Internet can increasingly help to subvert. [see on this John McMurray's fine essay, Speaking the Unspeakable, on the Regulating Group Mind of Western Capitalism, in The 9/11 Conspiracy - the Scamming of America, ed james H Fetzer, which is much the best book on 9/11 so far. There are serious votes in 9/11 truth if Obama can only grasp the nettle, refuse the racist Hijacker nonsense, and resist the reverse Lysenko-ism of those who want to row back from the Laws Galileo established governing the speed at which Floor 110 of a steel framed/concrete building should fall, a) through the air, and b) through 109 steel/concrete floors. but I digress ... ]
Obama did really well on the Racism built into the history of the US - helping to educate people, not flatter a phoney sense of Americansim. I pray that he and lots of women and true sons aides/teams in every state will wqant to project a nuanced pro-feminist gender-coded myth of the Motherland - anti-Real man/Frats, but very much pro-true-sons [and daughters obviously] of all ages, ethnic backgrounds. This would help many Regular White guys find their bearings again and also do the most to woo white and Latino women away from McCain and/or away from defeated, cynical abstention or distractionist candidates and 'terror scares'.
by
Keith Mothersson (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 6:44:53 PM
I do not know about the coming change in the Democrat Party. Senator Obama is a untried, unproven commodity. There is a difference between Progressive Liberalism and ranting, raving, rabid radicalism. Time will tell whether he is the former or the latter or if he will cave to the corporations that run this country.
Just remember only Senator Clinton pressed for a universal, single pay national insurance program which is the only way you can get "medicine for profit" out of the death grip of the AMA (American Medical Association) who are over ninety percent far right wing Republicans, the drug cartel and the insurance industry. Senator Obama's program was much less Liberal than hers.
There are issues facing this country that could very well change the course of history or the USA and most of it worse. The insane dependency on the Near East oil, this senseless hatred of Argentina, the blind bellying up to a small minority in Florida who controls our Cuba policy. These people supported Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II, and will support McCain. The Democrat Party owes them nothing.
People are pipe dreaming on this site if they think Obama or McCain will extract us from Iraq in less than two years. Afghanistan will probably be more like four just to keep the Pakistan tribes in control.Obama knows this, Clinton said it while McCain wants a presence there for the next hundred years to get every drop of oil we c
