I just heard on television that Obama seems to have pulled out a rout over the CLintons, and this is interpreted --by Tim Russert, and by me-- to mean that indeed the Clinton's way of campaigning against Obama had produced a backlash. And yet still Bill Clinton is doing it, fanning the flames of the racial angle by responding to the news of Obama's great victory by saying, "Yeah, so did Jesse Jackson [win the South Carolina victory, in other words, that Obama had won this election by being a black man rather than by being a truly viable choice for America, affirmed by the 24 percent of the white vote that ended up going for Obama (up from only about 10 percent before the Clinton dirty campaigning).
One does indeed get a bad taste about the Clinton's, in their current manifestation. There are pieces about this on the web. Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles times talks about starting to wonder if the Clinton's are capable of being anything but divisive. And Bob Herbert's piece about the Clinton's making conflicts that are unnecessary.
I'll tell you what I think. I do not think this is the same spirit that the Clinton's brought to the presidency. But they went through some intense experiences with the assault from the vast right-wing conspiracy, and I think that a kind of traumatic learning took place which led to their internalizing a great deal of the spirit of the forces that had assaulted them. Call it "identification with the aggressor" or a vampire-like contagion or whatever. I think that they were changed into dirty fighters by their decade-long assault from a cadre of dirty fighters.
So I have compassion for them, having been victims first and being turned into a kindred victimizer. But regardless, this is not the spirit we want or need to rule America. As Bob Herbert wondered about the Clintons, at the conclusion of his piece:
Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?
The voters of South Carolina have decided apparently that THEY can look beyond the win-at-any-cost-and-by-any-means approach, repudiate the Clintons, and turn to Obama as the leader to take us toward that healing.
As for me, I now know --99.9 percent-- that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, for the same reason as it is conjectured that those 15 percent of white voters shifted to Obama in those last days. As for whether I will vote for Obama come Super Tuesday, or use my vote to strengthen Edwards, it will depend on what is the state of play in the larger game by then.
As for today, I am glad for Obama to have enjoyed this triumph. I continue to have my questions about his capability of achieving his purposes as the president of the United States, BUT I also have a basic trust in the goodness of his purposes. And methinks that Americans will be so relieved to have a president whose goodness of purpose one can trust that they'll be willing to put up with a bit of floundering, and perhaps ready to lend a hand and help this unripe leader use his considerable abilities --intellectually, legally, rhetorically, morally-- to achieve something of good for the country.
My prediction is that the Obama tide that got side-tracked by New Hampshire, for reasons of sympathy for Hillary (sympathy she has now altogether squandered, and not built upon), will now pick up momentum. I'm not sure I'm ready to say this is more than even money, but I think there's a genuine chance that Hillary Clinton has now squandered her advantages at the crucial moment.
She has squandered it by showing herself unfair and dishonest in seeking advantage, up against the upright Obama, whom she tried to goad into slinging it out in the mud of her level, reducing his asset of seeming to be a genuinely righteous and competent man who talks of hope and inspiration and what we can do together.
This is the crucial moment because now the new valence and momentum are imparted at a moment is when the NEXT big battle is the super-battle for all those delegates. What happens if the Obama tide rises all the way to Super Tuesday?
I heard it on the eve of the New Hampshire primary that the voters in Iowa had declared that they were not yet ready to have a coronation for Hillary and so they gave a great victory to Obama, but then in New Hampshire, the voters decided that it was too soon for them for an Obama Coronation, and so they gave the victory to Hillary, as if to say, according to the TV guy, we'd like for this race to go on for a while longer.
My guess is that, with the present force in operation being what the Clintons have disclosed about their present moral nature, this time the voters will be ready for a Coronation. I believe that Obama will come out of this night's election with a winning hand if he plays his hand as well as he's been playing it.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
Even if Obama did become President, he would still have the same issues we have today that he refuses to fix. That being his refusal to support impeachment, his refusal to get the truth on 911, his refusal to end the War in Iraq.
He doesn't want to have tit for tat anamosity in his coronation walk up Pennsylvania Ave. But I say what good is it?
His victory will look as being that Americans have stamped out racism by voting for a black President, while the majority of Congress and the Senate are only 43 black or African-Americans serving in the 110th Congress out of 435 members, while only himself being the only black US Senator of 100 members?
This is quite astonishing when there are so few Black Americans serving in Government today! And so the election is becoming a test to America's resolve in conquering racism, by voting for a Black President? And if that is the case, isn't that itself racism? If we can't elect more black Congress members and more than 1 Black Senator, how does that amount to anything of concern to the real problems in racism verses the real other issues in front of us.
How does racism come before ending the war, investigating 911, and bringing justice to the War crimes of Bush and Cheney through the process of impeachment?
He wrongly believes:
*Paying more at Wal-Mart is worth it for having US jobs. Yet he doesn't like China, where all the goods come from to Walmart: he says:
Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor, Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade. Bring China to the mat for the currency barb.
*Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules
*Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report
*Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act
*Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
*Hopes to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge.
"He's a flip flopper"
*Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder, but says:
*Military action in Pakistan if we have actionable intel
*FactCheck: Yes, Obama said invade Pakistan to get al Qaeda
*Iran with nuclear weapons is a profound security threat
*Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix, which also means supporting the Depleted Uranium Industry, yet denies Iran the same.
*Extend welfare and Medicaid to illegal immigrants
*Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
*Real estate deal with felon was "boneheaded" but ethical
*Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already
yet says: All kids should learn about sexual abuse.
Whatever his ambitions he is going no where until this Iraq War is ended and we are out of Iraq, and Afghanistan. His anti impeachment stance is indicative of his War theme, which is nothing more than a Black Bush in the White House. I don't think Americans want another Colin Powell rerun.
We can go on about our choices toward awarding the office to a Black verses a woman, but wouldn't it solve the problem if we all voted for Oprah?
We are talking about a monumental realization that Obama an unchartered rookie 3 year Senator with no political establishment is going to step in after a major attack on the USA, that killed thousands of Americans, with his fresh administration that even lacks people support in Congress and the Senate and feel safe about the direction and attitude of the nation?
We have Hillary who does have experience since being with her husband for the 2 terms they served, and that institution is still intact waiting to be primed and retuned for the shift.
I think if we are to have a change of President it would make more sense at this time for Hillary. Now I want to be clear that Hillary has yet to come out in support of Impeachment either, and shows more of a willingness to end war, than Obama. Hillary does not mention invading Pakistan, and I would think she would not.
Absolutely oppose the war in Iraq. (Oct 2007)
Bring out as many combat troops as quickly as possible. (Oct 2007)
Goal to remove all troops from Iraq by 2013, but no pledge
If Bush doesn't end Iraq war, when I'm president, I will. (Mar 2007)
Require Bush to redeploy or seek additional authority
Cap troops in Iraq and no more blank check for war. (Feb 2007)
Cut off funds for Iraqi use, but not for troops. (Jan 2007)
Phased redeployment out of Iraq, beginning immediately. (Oct 2006)
Agrees with Newt Gingrich that Iraq policy is a mess.
In fact I am ashamed of both for not being more open to the people in solving the lies and using Impeachment to correct the injustices. They both ignore the thousands of lost lives of innocent Iraqis, and I would think if we brought justice to that it would heal Iraq much quicker, and give Iraq the justice it needs at this time in seeing that America is a nation of Laws. This would change the entire attitude of the Middle East, and I even think would change the terrorist activites of Hamas and the Israeli Palestinian issues.
When we ignore the rule of law, and continue on the war path we drain ourselves and lose the influence we so try to acquire.
Myself I suffer greatly here in China, because the Chinese people really look down on America because of the War. Americans can not really be themselves always looking over my shoulder to why this didn't happen, or someone is out to stop my ambitions toward success. It is really terrible. Here I did not support War, so I leave the US because the US really does not respect freedom of Religion, a religion that forbids war. They force people to pay taxes against religious values. And yet the very American Institution that supports the separation of Church and State think nothing about it in concern to Israels Religious State. It's highly hypocritical.
Now I face a dilimmena in which I have no renewal to my contract here because of the non-confidence and I am left without a job, having a wife and 2 children to support, and no house to live in. I am looking more and more to climbing a tall building to jump off the world because of this unseemingly unjust mess. There is too much pressure. I am at wits end, and left believing that ......dead is somehow better?
In fact many of these issues I think is why China keeps the unchanged currency locked, because making China part of the lawlessness in America is something they don't want to do in the eyes of the world.
Can you imagine if they increased the yuan value to promote US trade? It would give more money for Bush and the war effort. They don't support war, and that's why we have this trade and currency dispute.
Granted the China government supports the US while the US allows trade from China, but they certainly do not accept the injustices of the Bush Administration and the idea that the US can simply ignore the unjust War in Iraq. So all the blaming of China from the US, needs to be retracted and the US bring justice to their own situation. This means Impeachment and its success.
I know once the war is ended, and justice is brought to the thousands of victims in Iraq; better relations will come, and trade with America will be of utmost concern. They will make China currency more in line to American and vice a versa.
So the issue is bringing justice. Barack is clearly opposed, in which I have his letter of non support to impeachment, and Hillary has yet made a committment, although I feel she would be more inclined to favor impeachment since the fiasco that happened to her husband. The bet is she would favor impeachment. If not...we are in for a long grueling unhappy state of affairs of the same neglection of Justice for the innocent.
Obama is not the Answer, and with his reluctance to protect the rights of the innocent victims in Iraq, really proves how discriminatory and racist he is. If it's not about Race Barack, then are you in this campaign only for yourself or for others who died by the hand of Bush?
Clearly you are pushing a hypocratic democratic agenda.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 10:03:48 PM
I can't think what else you might have intended to say, so let me respond to that. I will leave out what I might say to document all the reservations I myself have expressed about Obama over the past many months. That's not relevant to what I feel it is important to say.
What seems important is that it is really not constructive to be quick to accuse people who have come to different conclusions from one's own of being hypocrites or otherwise morally corrupt.
Particularly in political matters like this --where there is so much complex information to be processed, where it is so difficult to infer the true nature and intent of candidates from their public presentations, where there are so many goals to be considered, and so many uncertainties about how things will unfold-- I think it is wise both to be slow to assume the worst about those who reach different conclusions and to be a bit uncertain about the absolute validity of one's own.
(When it comes to the evil nature of this BUshite regime, I make an exception. That's because I believe that the evidence about the dark and destructive nature of this presidency is SO PERVASIVE AND ABUNDANT AND CONSISTENT that only a willful refusal to see it, or a kind of trance that disables one from seeing it, can account for failing to do so. Hence my calling my website NoneSoBlind.)
None of these candidates is presenting the message that I had hoped for. So I am not thrilled. At the same time, based on what I know and what I don't know, I can IMAGINE any one of these three remaining Democrats making a reasonably good president, and could make a case for each one, stressing the different strengths I believe I perceive in each.
But as I argue in the piece above, I felt something become "clear" in my mind over the course of the past week, crystallizing especially last night. I could be mistaken-- certainly about how things will unfold (the markets still consider Hillary the strong favorite), and also about how it would be best for them to unfold.
Right or wrong, however, I can see no basis for any "hypocratic agenda" being imputed to me. And I think it problematic for anyone to jump to such a conclusion and make such an accusation.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (302 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 11:37:39 PM
It is right Mr. Schmookler. Hypocratic. It is the realization of Democratic principles. Hypocrisy + Democracy = Hypocratic aka Hypocracy.
And I was not inferring you to be promoting the hypocratic agenda, but Barak Obama as being the one. Although your article leans toward his ideas, you did say 99.% you would not vote for Hillary, and yet you do not like Bush, while Obama is wanting to carry the Bush torch into the Democratic party.....makes me wonder why you may not like Bush the man, but like his policies? Because Obama in my view is another Bush.
Obama to me does not make the case he is the guy to be in the White House. If there was a choice between Bush and Obama, I fail to see a difference. He would carry on the same War, as he has said.
Hillary has a real motivation to end it, and do things opposite of Bush, because of the rotten things they did to her and Bill when he was in office. She has a real reason to straighten out the record. Obama really does not. He's like a fly on the window sill, buzzing and bouncing around, while other greater issues need to be addressed instead. I think the dramatic shift to Hillary, would really inspire not only the Demcratic controlled house, but the people and the institutions that get America back on the real right track. At least Waterwater was about a troubled Savings and Loan. Seems to me that is experience in knowing how to fix our current Housing Mortgage Crisis. Obama only knows how to make deals with Felons, and I sure have no faith in his ability in budget issues, and bringing America toward fiscal responsibility.
"while Obama is wanting to carry the Bush torch into the Democratic party"
So, you DO mean "hypocritical." After I posted that, I started wondering if you meant "hippocratic," after the Greek doctor, Hippocrates-- "hippocratic" being the oath that doctors still take, to do no harm, to do their very best for their patients, etc.
But I was right that you are accusing me of hypocrisy. But even if I'm wrong about Obama, I maintain that I am right in protesting that doesn't make me a hypocrite. And I still say that it is not clarifying, or useful, or healthy for discourse, to aassume that someone who doesn't see things one's way is guilty of hypocrisy.
Let's assume, for the moment, that you are right about Obama, for example in that passage of yours I've quoted above. You see Obama as representing the continuation of Bush's policies and ways of governing. I think that's absolutely absurd, but let's assume that you are right about that.
If I interpret what Obama is calling for as being more fundamentally different from Bush than what Hillary represents --whether it is true or not, if I BELIEVE it to be true, which I do-- then hypocrisy has nothing to do with my defects.
Hypocrisy is defined (on wikipedia) thus: "Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to support a belief or behaviour while holding the opposite beliefs or behaviours at the same time."
Hypocrisy is not an honest error. It's pretense. Even if one considers UNCONSCIOUS hypocrisy, the charge wouldn't stick, because it's not that I refuse to notice my inconsistency: my perception of Obama is quite the opposite from what I condemn in Bush.
You have listed various things that Obama has said about various issues --Pakistan, for one instance-- which you interpret as revealing his true nature. You apparently think from some of this that Obama is just another warmongering imperialist who'd be quite at home with DIck Cheney and the rest.
I interpret those comments completely differently, not as showing his true nature but as gestures a politician like Obama may reasonably feel he has to make in America today in order not to be dismissed as "soft on terrorism" after the Bushites have cultivated the fear of the American people for more than six years.
Again, my interpretation may be wrong and yours right --I would bet the farm that this is not the case-- but even if you are right, that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
I am consistent in my opposition to America being ruled by war-mongering, lying, bullying, law-breaking, power-lusting, sadistic, divisive, fascistic people and forces. And I do my best to judge which potential leaders might be most effective at undoing the profound damage such forces have already inflicted on this country.
Best to speak your truth without impugning the moral integrity of others who do not share all your perceptions and interpretations.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (302 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM
I told you I did not accuse you of hypocrisy. What don't you understand in that? I told you that I think Obama is a HYPOCRITE, and a big mouth dumb Hippopotamus, if we want to go further in the Hypo, Hippo, what's hip word associations game.
He is against Impeachment which tells me supports Bush and Cheney crimes. Now excuse me for association of words and action. He's against the war, yet supports Bush and and Cheney. He is against the War but votes to continue it, and speaks about expanding the war path into a new territory in Pakistan. He's against the war but supports the same Iran Bush policy....Somehow I fail to see how that is not hypocrisy?
Whatever you think is your business, whatever I think is mine. When I see people following a guy who clearly is a hypocrite, don't assume your daily bread was not foretold beforehand. Only you can decide if you are or not.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 9:55:52 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
