I myself have been surprised at how quickly and decisively I have gone, in just the past two weeks, from wavering about whom to support for the Democratic nomination to being crystal clear about my preference for Barack Obama.
For one thing, my enthusiasm for the whole field was quite muted because none of them is talking about the elephant in the room --that we've been governed by a criminal enterprise-- and thus have said nothing about what should be done about it, either now or by a new president beginning next year.
For another thing, I saw each of the three main candidates as each having strengths that I think desirable in a candidate and in a president, while none of them has all those strengths.
But then, in the Clinton attacks on Obama, and in what I began to see more clearly in Obama, I felt as if the fog blew away and showed me clearly where I should invest my hopes. I expressed this first, in a tentative way, in the middle of last week, in the article "Wondering if My Reaction to the Clintons' Recent Behavior is Representative" (at http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=1105). I then reinforced that message by posting a piece by Bob Herbert, "Questions for the Clintons: by Bob Herbert in the New York Times" (at http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=11200.
But it was really last Saturday night, while watching the outcome in South Carolina, and watching Obama's victory speech to his cheering throng, that the clarity dispelled the fog. That's what I described in "'So Did Jesse Jackson;: Clinton’s Tactics Backfire in South Carolina" (at
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.
Oh, I used to hope this fellow Obama was not of the neocon variety like Clinton, McCain and the others still in the running, and wondered if he could be the one to 'shift the correlation of forces', as you say. Until I learned the warmongers he has placed in his "cabinet" already. His foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brezinski - who's main project is the destruction of Russia - the surest path to WWIII. And his top terrorism advisor is Richard Clark, former terror czar of the Cllinton and Bush administrations - who's main project is originating the official myth of 9/11.
His top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, former Middle East negotiator for Bush and Clinton - whose main project is to play the Arabs against the Iranians to perpetuate Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Along with a few others who's objective is to perpetuate more war and fear amongst the American people (those lemmings who have not yet woken up yet, I mean). Obama just doesn't have what it takes and believe it or not, no matter how the Country may deny race or gender as a factor in this election, they really are.
He's a puppet, plain and simple. Just like Bush is, who just so happens to be just plain and simple by existing, along with being a warmonger.
I'm really sorry that you think Obama can change things. I seriously think it's a delusion for anyone to think this. It's not going to happen. Under him, Billary (who along with hubby are as corrupt as they come), 100-year war McCain, or flip-flop Romney. None of them. Except one Republican who the lamestream media has shut out - Dr. Ron Paul - true libertarian and American Patriot who wants to get us out of the war and get those on Capital Hill who go along with it out of Washington. The government is as corrupt as it has ever been in the history of America. And Obama is not part of the solution. His inexperience will prove this, as his cabinet (as it stands now) will only continue the wars, continue to eliminate our rights, and increase the fear tactics that warmongers do in an attempt to keep the public in line, all the while continuing to eliminate the middle class.
God help us if ANY of the current frontrunners makes it into office. I'm sorry to say and I wish I were wrong, but nothing will change, just continue to get worse. That's the way the neocons want it and that's the way it will continue.
by
MsTweetie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM
I think that to equate a group like Brzezinski and Clark and Ross to the kinds of neo-cons who have been running American foreign policy for the past seven years is a big distortion.
Just consider: Brzezinski was a major outspoken opponent of the Iraq venture from well BEFORE the invasion was launched; Clark's revelations about the Bushite handling of terrorism and Iraq (back in the spring of 2004) was one of the early powerful blows against the Bushite mythology and lies; and Ross has been consistently critical of the Bush approach to Middle East peace.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM
With respect to Clarke, I just found on truthout that Clarke has published an oped piece in today's Philadelphia Inquirer castigating the Bushites thus: <blockquote> In these still treacherous times, we can't afford to have a president who leads by manipulating emotions with fear, flaunting the law, or abusing the very inalienable rights endowed to us by the Constitution.</blockquote>
I don't mind the idea of having a president advised by someone with such concerns. Do you?
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM
My hope for the future comes from a disordered thyroid.
If Obama is any good, I expect that the Republican filth will shoot him. I don't expect too much because America consists of a vast tribe of crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards. Pretty poor stuff for even a minimally decent leader to work with. I'd just be glad to see him slow the almost inevitable decline.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 996 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 11:31:41 AM
This is exactly the problem! Everybody wants to be on the winning team, and this year people also feel the winning team will be the "first Black" or the "first woman" president. And Oprah and a million others are beaming with glory at the thought of being able to tell their grandchildren "I voted for the First Black President of America! I MADE HISTORY!" Yes, people are very, very excited and inspired.
Will they be as excited when he signs the order to bomb Iran? Will smiles fade then?
How about when he starts building a cabinet of theocrats who don't give a damn about the Constutution because they follow a "higher law"? If Obama talks about his strong faith during every action, will we happily say Amen to the new theocracy, one that will make the Salem Witch Trials look like a kids' game?
Hey, I'm Black, I get the hoopla. I'd love to have a president who truly wants to fight for the civil rights of Blacks and all others. But that is VERY DIFFERENT from simply wanting "a Black President." Obama is no more a champion of civil rights and human dignity -- for Blacks or anyone else -- than Clinton is a champion for equal rights for women -- or anyone else.
This is why this is the scariest election of my entire lifetime. Everyone is so excited about having a First This or a First That, that they are blind to the platform of the individual they are bumrushing the polling places to vote for.
This isn't jr high soccer, where you just need to kick the ball to someone wearing your color. And then cheer real loud.
This is the future we are planting for our kids. And if they are enslaved by Armageddean-based foreign policy and the placid smile of "we did all we could, this is the best democracy possible," I'm not sure they'll care how proud we were about punching that little hole for the sake of making history.
by
Mars Caulton (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 81 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 1:11:05 PM
What I saw in the faces is not captured in your musings here. This was something more than "We're # 1" as one's team leaves the field victorious. And it was not the same as in a Nuremberg rally in the 1930s.
Take a look.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 1:28:30 PM
I have been staring at this blank space for 10 minutes trying to write something good.
The truth is I do not know what to say to a fellow patriotic American who truly thinks that Mr. Obama, member in good standing of The Council on Foreign Relations, is actually going to change anything.
If you do not know the policies of war come DIRECTLY from this body, and if you not know that control of our currency guarantees control over everything else to our ruling elites, than you will continue to believe in the erudite and charming illusion of Mr. Obama.
Which is tragic, because an authentic American hero has stepped forward to run for president who DOES understand these things. We have maybe our last chance at real change in our lifetimes, and so many of my fellow Americans go once again for the handsome fairytale.
There is no benign patriarch coming to save us. It must be us who learn about the instruments that bind us all in modern feudal servitude. They are the central banks control over the issuance of our currency, and the income tax.
If your candidate isn't going straight at these issues, than you are falling for a pretty lie, again.
by
Bob Tracey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 41 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 2:09:14 PM
Obama is, in fact, a lot like JFK, in the way he appeals to people, especially youth. And being old enough to actually remember JFK's campaign and Presidency, that scares me. Now it is true that Obama isn't running the same kind of war mongering campaign as Kennedy did - most readers were not around and don't know that Kennedy ran on "the missile gap" and that Nixon would not be strong enough against the Russians.
However, Obama has made very clear from the time he initially questioned the Iraq War that he is no peace person. He has consistently said he would not hesitate to use military force, has consistently voted for high military budgets, and has official campaign positions for even larger military spending and even larger standing army. If there is danger of a President getting us into wars, the worst thing is for it to be a charismatic President.
Kennedy was so scary that our family, like many other Americans, planned to emigrate to the Southern hemisphere (it was then believed that the atmospheres of the two hemisperes didn't really mix, and the Southern hemisphere would probably survive nuclear war, which was later disproven). My dad actually got a job in New Zealand, but we couldn't scrape up enough money to get there, so wound up staying in Amerika. Now I don't know that Obama would bring us to the brink of world destruction, as Kennedy did (fortunately Kruschev had more sense than JFK, and saved the world), but parallels frighten me as Kennedy was the most dangerous President in my lifetime.
On domestic issues, Kennedy just didn't do a whole lot. Like Obama, he was basically a conventional establishment politician.
Schmookler didn't explain how Obama would "shift the correlation of forces" but that appears to be just gobblygook to cover being overtaken by Obama's charisma. I see no evidence that Obama has had an original idea, or would stray outside of the establishment mainstream. We need change, and Obama shows no inclination whatsoever to provide change.
by
Bill Samuel (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 225 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 7:33:43 PM
With politicians in general we’re dealing with what the scientists would call “black boxes.” They give out information, and from that information we’re trying to infer what’s really inside the box. THe nature of politics is that what they put out is in a great many ways not intended as a clear window into their souls. So we have to decide when do they mean what they say, and when do they say things because they feel they need to produce certain effects and beliefs in their listeners.
With Obama, those progressives who don't care for him can cite the things (the messages of genuine change) that he has failed to say, and they can cite the things (like tough words about terrorist bases in Pakistan) that he has said that they think show that Obama is too much like the Bushites.
But there is always the alternative interpretation, since a politician who said all of the things we who are not at the center of the spectrum want to hear, and said none of the things we don't want to hear, would likely thereby completely marginalize themselves.
We each make our interpretations based on a whole complex of information, verbal and otherwise, about where the person is really coming from-- but up against the obstacle of the black box, i.e. of the politician necessarily being accomplished at the task of SEEMING to be what they choose to seem to be.
With respect to Obama, I will bet on my interpretation-- according to which he believes more than he is free to say in the kinds of change that you also would like to see.
I generally do pretty well with my bets, but I also acknowledge that I don't win them all.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (297 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 9:34:31 PM
