When Senator Edward M. Kennedy and members of his family endorsed Barack Obama in Washington last week, the real meaning of that torch-passing was defined by where it occurred.
John F. Kennedy is remembered as having given an important speech at American University, and that was noted. JFK’s future orientation, his rhetorical flair, his knack for drawing out the young, his own youthfulness - these were the highlighted points of connection between John Kennedy and Barack Obama. But the content of the 1963 speech suggests what really is at stake when a 21st century presidential candidate steps into the aura of the slain president. At American University John Kennedy laid out an urgent vision for this country. He did not live to advance that vision, and it remains unrealized to this day.
The most telling fact about the commencement address Kennedy delivered on June 10, 1963, is that Kennedy wrote it in secret. A small circle of trusted aides contributed to the text, but Kennedy kept the national security establishment in the dark about his intentions, which is surprising, given his subject. He came “to this time and place,” he said, “to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.”
In those days, the language of peace was used by idealists, not realists - but it was exactly that dichotomy that Kennedy targeted. “Too many think peace is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief.” Indeed, Kennedy’s speech was an end-run around his national security experts, a direct appeal to the broad public, an attempt to break the iron grip of Cold War militarism that imprisoned the White House and the State Department, as much as the Pentagon. Kennedy had been preparing the speech ever since he had stared into the abyss of nuclear war the previous October, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He knew that, but for his own lonely opposition to the nation’s most “realistic” defense leaders, the nuclear holocaust would have happened. “I speak of peace because of the new face of war.”
Awareness of the new face of war defined Kennedy’s wisdom. His speech, addressed as much to the Soviet people as to the American, was a breakthrough. Gone were demonizing paranoia and saber rattling. Instead, he honored the virtue of the Soviet people, and suggested that the Cold War standoff was as much his nation’s fault as theirs. “We are both caught up in a vicious cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.” Beyond rhetoric, he offered concrete steps to improve the situation, from something as specific as a new “hot line” communication system to something as ambitious as new structures of international law. He pleaded, especially, for a time-out in the arms race.
Nikita Khrushchev ordered Kennedy’s speech rebroadcast throughout the Soviet Union, the first time an American president’s voice was heard by average people there. It worked. Six weeks later, Moscow and Washington agreed to the long-sought Partial Test Ban Treaty, the beginning of the arms control regime that, eventually, enabled the Cold War to end nonviolently.
But Kennedy’s vision, in fact, went unfulfilled. Arms control did not stop the arms race from 25 more years of irrational escalation. Washington’s national security establishment tightened its grip on politics, economy, and culture - so much so that when the Cold War ended, America maintained its Cold War stance, even through Bill Clinton’s administration. This happened because our leaders, together with the American people, grew complacent about the dangers of the nuclear arsenal on which US power still rests. We lost change-the-world urgency that so seized Kennedy only months before he died.
To rekindle the flame of the American University speech would be to restore a preference of negotiation over confrontation, to build self-criticism into policy making, and to affirm the utter realism of idealistic hope. Ted Kennedy sees the possibility in Barack Obama of the realization of his brother’s greatest vision.
That vision, conceived negatively, boils down to this: If humans do not change the way we resolve international conflicts, the planet is ultimately doomed to nuclear devastation. The abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with our own, must be at the top of the new president’s agenda.
Conceived positively, the American University vision means that humans are poised, by necessity, for a great leap into a new and better world. Yes, we can.
James Carroll’s column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company
I’m afraid that I’m seeing a left wing rush to hop on the Obama bandwagon, as if the man has suddenly morphed from a timid representative of the status quo unwilling to take a stand or express an opinion on anything more controversial than sunshine to a combination of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John & Robert Kennedy. Remember, folks: this guy is no better than Hillary. He refuses to de-fund the war or set any time limits on it. He is against single-payer health care reform or anything resembling fair taxation. He has never put himself on the line for anything. His mindset is clearly the middle-of-the-road, don’t rock the boat, protect the elite mindset that has controlled American politics since FDR. Using a little polish on a broken down pair of sneakers will not turn them into patent leather dancing shoes, and the endorsements of a few members of America’s broken down royalty won’t make Obama a progressive.
Come on, guys. The man hasn’t suddenly changed. What has changed is that, once again, the left is being suckered into supporting a center-right “liberal” because he’s the best we can get. I’m just not buying that crap. Just being better than Hillary does not make a candidate palatable. I’m sorry, but vague promises of “change” and “leadership” just don’t cut it for me anymore. I’m writing in Nader.
I’m sorry but all you Obama fans are in for a big upset. Obama “talks” alot. That’s all it is though is “talk”. As soon as he is elected he will turn around and stab you straight in the back. Even more unfortunate is the face that he is the BEST out of the possible choices. Just heed my warning and don’t get your hopes up too high. (And watch your back)
All politicians have to answer to their supporters. By supporters I mean financial supporters. Obama is in bed with corporate America the same as Hillary. Both are political whores who pimp themselves daily. Articles like this only enable the whores to raise their prices.
Hoa binh
Obama is not my ideal candidate either. I can’t disagree with doughyden or TheLorax on substance. But let’s remember that people are more often swayed by appearance than by substance.
I say let Obama energize the youth, let him talk about the audacity of hope, let his perhaps hollow rhetoric inspire us. Then demand action when (if) he is elected.
Too often we forget that America’s most progressive presidents did not start out that way. JFK’s own record of progressive accomplishment is sparse. His inspiration to a generation of Americans, though, made many of us believe that change was possible. Now, as faded - even cynical - adults, we lash out at similar attempts to inspire us.
And inspiration is what we need. Change will only come when we demand it. We will never make that demand if we think that some perfect leader will come along to save us. John Lennon knew this: “Ain’t no Jesus gonna come from the sky. Now that I found out, I know I could cry….” We all can cry - but mostly the petulant tears of what my generation (the Boomers) have become - exactly that which we swore on the altars of sex, drugs, and rock and roll never to be.
Let Obama raise hopes, for from hope comes the possibility of change. And remember, “…a man’s reach should exceed his grasp…”
Now, more than ever, “i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder”
What Kennedy wrote was his death warrant because he was going up against the Military Industrial Complex and you do not do that and live. In that regard I fear for Obama, because unlike doughyden, I see a man who is determined to change the direction this world is going. I don’t agree that he’s center-right. His stated views are progressive and his past actions prior to being elected to the US senate have been progressive. But he is pragmatic and politically astute. And that is something progressives have in short supply. I know I do and so do the politicians I support. But they aren’t going anywhere and I think he can. Not as fast as I want to go, but maybe ultimately as far. I like what he said “If you want to go to the moon and you don’t have enough gas, you go as far as you can”. At least he wants to go in the right direction, unlike that lying sneaky Hillary.
Here is Obama’s stated position on health care coverage: There is video of Obama telling the AFL-CIO in 2003: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. … A single-payer health care plan, a universal health plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.”
Hillary: In 1993, as first lady, she proposed a drastic overhaul of the health-care system that would have established mandatory insurance-purchasing alliances, but not a single-payer system.
At least Obama knows it isn’t reasonable to expect the poor to be able to make mandatory premium payments. But that is what Hillary’s current plan would mandate.
For the first time since 1972 I am voting for a Democrat for President and I won’t be holding my nose either. I also think it says something that for the first time ever, Joan Baez has endorsed a candidate, Obama, for President. Doughyden, I think he’s real. Maybe too pragmatic for you, but not for me. I suspect any less pragmatic and he wouldn’t be where he is.
kathyodat
We are all part of the system.
If you stick your neck out too far into the traffic, it is likely that you it will be rolling on the street.
Kucinich has turned into the headless horseman.
Therefore, it is important to go atleast a little bit with the flow.
I think that is what Obama is doing
A word of caution.
Mr. McCain and his crew are seasoned folks.
If there is a McCain-Romney ticket, the Democrats will have a hard time beating the zealots.
John Edwards real time of conquest will be hear in about 12-14 years.
He is the only one on the up, and he is gone.
I am hoping McCain runs so far into debt that the he can not run in November.
Astrologically speaking, he is supposed to do that.
So let us rally around Mr. B.H. Obama.
Give him an aura they cant look away from.
Okay, so Obama might be all talk and no action. We won’t know for sure until well after he is elected.
But does anyone of a liberal/progressive bent really think Hillary or McCain won’t be ten times worse?
kathodat hit the nail on the head - Obama is for real and we’re in the midst of a revolutionary change in direction for this country. Obama is smart and won’t tip his hand too much before elected, but trust me: there are profound changes coming, and they will happen because Obama is a consensus builder. Would suspect he’d sit down with Limbaugh if he thought he could at least get him to see through his hate for everything “liberal” (i.e. everything not “conservative, whatever that means nowadays). Am worried the military-industrial complex will take him out like they did JFK.
One little fact for the gristmill:
In the fall of 2006, Senate Amendment No. 4882 to a Pentagon appropriations bill would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. This was a vote that would be highly unlikely to turn an election, so future presidential candidates would have had some latitude to allow them to vote according to conscience. HRC voted against the ban while Obama voted for the ban.
How on earth could anyone with even the slightest pretense of holding progressive values vote against a ban on cluster bombs? That can only result from an oversensitivity to the concerns of defense contractors and to far-right propagandists. Of course this one vote cannot prove that Obama truly has progressive values or that he will stick to them, though it should remind everyone that HRC clearly holds no such values.
I agree with doughyden and the Lorax.
Furthermore, I find the whole Second Coming of JFK tempest to be pious Happy Horseshit. It’s caught on in the corporate media and blogosphere like wildfire– check the trash-tabloid Huffington Post.
When I read phrases like Obama being “endorsed by John F. Kennedy’s last living heir”, I gagged. It strikes me as still another example of crypto-royalism, which is still intact beneath centuries of dust. Of course the infotainwhores will spout no end of purple prose arguing that it really matters who each and every member of the extended Kennedy clan is supporting.
It’s just another sad example of what passes for political thinking in dumbed-down, atavistic Amerika.
Bdrube, that’s the kind of crap we fall for year after year: vote for candidate X, because candidates Y&Z are so much worse. Sorry, fella, as my favorite governor, Ann Richards, said once, “That dog won’t hunt.” We fall for that crap every time, and the Obama/Clinton wing of the party (and they ARE both part of the same wing) just laughs their asses off at us. We get no respect. Why? ‘Cause we got no backbone, that’s why! And we accuse the Dems in congress of being spineless. How can we accuse them of not standing up to the shrub when we won’t stand up to the Obamas and the Clintons? I say, okay, let’s put up with a McCain presidency–at least he’ll be honest and better than the shrub. We KNOW he’s against torture. Maybe that’s the price we have to pay to finally be taken seriously. Maybe the democratic party will finally get the message that it can’t win without the progressive wing of the party, and maybe they’ll give us some respect. As it is now they have nothing but contempt for us.
By voting third party at this time, we would be enabling and solidifying the takeover of our government by far-right extremists. If we have not already passed the point of no return, I fear that we are in great danger of a slide into facist dictatorship (with an over-lay of democratic forms with no real substance) if we do not turn things around now.
I am supporting Barack Obama. His personal charisma has energized people who have not participated in politics before (such as my 3 young-adult children and my low-income, African American neighbors). His platform does not come close to my ideal. If it did, he would not be a viable candidate in these times, in our system as it is. However, I believe that many of his positions are vastly superior to those of any of the republicans who will gain the Whitehouse if ALL of us (center-left all the way to far left) don’t close ranks and shut them out. And I believe that if we do so through an organization like Moveon, we can magnify the strength of our voice in policy decisions (much as the religious right did with the republican party).
LET’S JOIN TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THE RIGHT DOES NOT KEEP CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY. SUPPORT OBAMA NOW. SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN NOVEMBER.
I have always admired James Carrol as a thinker and an author with exceptional clarity of thought. Among many books, his unquestioned classic is “Constantine’s Sword”.
Any ways, the personal impact of Carroll’s article MAY have moved me from a Third Party vote to Obama.
Thanks James Carroll.
That giant sucking sound you hear is left wing brains being vacuumed away from their owners. Think about this in 4 years. Then hear me saying, “I told you so.”
So Obama has personal charisma. So what? Reagan had personal charisma. So did Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. Personal charisma means that its bearer is popular, period. It does not mean he is good.
Jesus Christ, people, listen to yourselves! You sound just like you did in 2004. And 2000. And 1996. And 1992. And 1988. And . . .
From the article:
“We lost change-the-world urgency that so seized Kennedy only months before he died.”
From BeForKids February 4th, 2008 2:30 pm:
“What Kennedy wrote was his death warrant because he was going up against the Military Industrial Complex … ”
exactly .. he didn’t “just die a few months later” ..
The Military Industrial Complex wasn’t about to give up the Cold War Boondoggle.
We shouldn’t make the mistake of eeing the military-espionage-corporate establishment as omnicompetent. They aren’t. If they were, the only reasonable response would be to commit suicide — which has been increasing in the US in the last few years, partly because of that sense that these forces are eternal. They can be resisted, challenged, even defeated place by place, bit by bit. They won’t fall from a single blow, even by one which is self-inflicted like the occupation of Iraq and the attempt of the US to do in the Middle East’s inhabitants what it did to the inhabitants of North America. No one group or one individual will be responsible for bringing it to an end.
As far as the historical comparisons with JFK are concerned, he won a squeaker election and was under constant criticism from right-wing generals who wanted a Hot War in place of a Cold War, and managed, barely, to steer the country & the world around the flash points. Nothing in his RECORD would have shown that ability; what signalled it was his tone, his approach to people and to problems, the sense of potential, personal and national, that he epitomized.
Obama’s politics are not mine, but he’s awake to the vast neglected potential of the country; that potential has always been much greater than the carnage and cruelty of our imperial past & present. He’s awake to that potential himself, and he wakens it in others. He does so not by confrontation with a brutally corrupt system, but by appealing to the many who do not believe in it but who thirst for a very different country taking on a very different role in the 21st century.
He, and we, have that potential; it’s unlikely to be realized save through a much more terrible path; but with respect to the Democratic nomination, it’s worth giving Obama that chance.
Zimmie53 @ 2;23p…Thoughtful post. We may be about the same age. I was a junior in high school when JFK was killed.
I don’t remember much in the way of his concrete accomplishments. But it was, dare I say it, a time of hope and belief that things could get better. I was devastated when he died.
When we think about what has happened since 1963 it is saddening indeed. Saddening too are the Democrats. Their record stinks and for years now they’ve been disappointing us when they lose and disappointing even more when they win, e.g. Bill Clinton and the 2006 Congress.
Thanks for the reminder of a what is was like back in the day. Please continue your thoughtful contributions. You might just convince me to vote Obama in Nov if he gets the nomination.
Kathodat @ 230p and dichterfreund @ 5;23p…ditto
McDee, I was 21, and also felt devastated. I was also appalled that the entire country swallowed the Oswald story line and felt like, that’s it. Our country has been taken over and no one is going to say a word about it. Of course, 42 people did, and died under mysterious circumstances. Naturally the rest shut up. As they were supposed to. I knew back then the Warren Commission was a lie. But they sure had some prestigious names on it.
On that day, our country changed. Deep down, people knew the truth and deep down knew it was unsafe to push for it. So they started living in denial of reality. And still are. I asked a friend my age if she saw the Zapruder film and she said she did. I asked her if she thought his head would snap back if shot from behind and she said she didn’t think about it. And there you have it, how denial works. But to do that changes people. They become willing to put up with unacceptable behavior. And the ruling class has run riot ever since. Obama is telling us we can straighten out this warped path. And young people are excited and ready. This was not a path of their choosing, the choice was made forty years ago and they were born into this alternate reality. They know intuitively it’s wrong, but don’t know how to fix it. Obama is offering them a solution. So they’re excited and so am I.
kathyodat
I did not make the connection to JFK’s American University speech until tonight, reading James Carroll’s essay. It truly was an inspiring and inspired speech. It’s the speech in which JFK said these words:
“So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
No, we have not done our part to “build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the just are strong.” But last week, for the first time in seven years, I felt that the dream wasn’t really dead.
doughyden,
“So Obama has personal charisma. So what? Reagan had personal charisma. So did Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, etc. Personal charisma means that its bearer is popular, period. It does not mean he is good.”
Of course ‘charisma’ is no index of soundness of character or of policy. But attributing ‘charisma’ to Stalin and Mao is bizarre; they were political tacticians, not great orators.
“You sound just like you did in 2004. And 2000″
Not really. Gore and Kerry ran patrician campaigns from the patrician class. Obama may be an opportunist or adventurer, but he is not patrician.
I agree with doughyden & TheLorax.
On this thread, one can easily see that even people astute enough to know better, are beginning to lose their heads to Obama-mania, & are looking for ways to rationalize it to themselves. (For example, now we see that having Brzezinski as an advisor is supposed to be a big “positive,” relative to having Richard Holbrooke. This is not really so. Brzezinski is also a consummate DC insider & advocate of empire. The fact that he disapproves of GW Bush does not make him a “good guy.” He’s mainly upset that Bush’s crude unilateralism has damaged the empire’s prospects.)
The perception that Obama is a personally appealing chap is not a sufficient reason to get enthused about him. He’s politically no different than Hillary; he’s simply a nicer package for the same policy. (If he were any different, the powers that be wouldn’t have let him get as far as he’s gotten.)
The perception that Obama “energizes people” is also no reason to believe that the guy himself will challenge a single one of the mainstream orthodoxies that need to be challenged. He has given no indication of an intent to challenge anything important. (The last time he “spoke out against the war” was in 2002.) The fact that he “energizes people” speaks mainly to the population’s increasing desperation, & also to Obama’s personal charm — which however (just like Bill Clinton’s charm) is a quality that has nothing to do with his politics.
It’s one thing to say that Obama is less evil than Hillary. It’s something quite different to get starry-eyed about him, & claim he’s offering a “solution” to the trends of militarism & corporatism relentlessly pursued by both parties ever since WWII. The truth is, he’s being very careful to avoid messing with either one of those burning-hot subjects.
It makes me sick to see the Kennedy family compare Obama to JFK.–JFK had a plan all Obama has is a gift of gab.Obama is as bad as Bush and just as unqualified.If people are stupid enough to nominate Obama John McCain the high tempered old fool will be the next president.With all of the highly qualified intelligent people in America all the people running except Hillary will be a disaster. I guess the smart ones don’t want to try and clean up after the moron Bush.
How can some of you say Obama is the real thing and will change everything. Do you not know that when Obama was a state Rep. in Illinois he voted present 118 times That’s not voting for anything. If people are so uninformed as to nominate Obama John McCain the old high tempered warmonger will will strip and field dress Obama. Hillary is the only one to get this country back on the right track she knows all the world leaders and will appoint intelligent people for her administration.Obama is all talk and no substance he preaches change but never says what or how he will change anything.People around the world think the people in America are stupid for allowing Bush to be president nominate Obama and they will be proven right.
RichM:
Brzezinski is an Atlanticist and a capitalist, and neither of these positions are viable over the next decade; but relative to the neocon dominationism and christozionist apocalyptism, he represents a return to an admission that nations have to deal with each other, and not simply menace each other. It’s still hegemony, but a non-messianic one, and one which, pursued, would undo the single-pole, single-power madness.
In terms of what’s needed in government, we need people who are capable of letting reality outpace policy, of encouraging progress rather than trying to manage it. Just as Bush opened the door to the most reactionary and most destructive qualities in the American character, an Obama candidacy and presidency would open the door to the most constructive, and even revolutionary, possibilities. I was extremely reluctant to speak out for Obama, but those I do speak with are not sheep who are content to nominate and then follow a leader blindly.
“the national security establishment” is an appendage of the political power of the corporations. you cannot destroy the one unless you destroy the other. please make my year and show me how Obama gives evidence that he has the will to do either. Clinton of course is a total loss.
A lot of concerns will disappear as we watch bushworld disentegrating along with his economy in the coming weeks, months, years. Obama will be the right man to re-assure the huddled masses, as he cruises through the rubble, cherry picking the most precient repairs to emplement a new and SANE return to America and CONSTITUTIONAL law…. Of course that does mean bringing some long over-due charges of Treason to as many of the offenders as will satisfy We The People.
To paraphrase, I knew John F Kennedy and Obama is no Kennedy. Actually Kennedy was no Kennedy. So maybe Obama is a Kennedy. You know, mostly glamor, feelgood and legend.
Really - he almost caused nuclear war in a confrontation with Cuber. My life growing up in the projects of the Bronx was in no way better due to Kennedy as far as I could see. The Camelot treacle made me gag. Malcolm X and MLK on the other hand…
The best we can hope for is getting rid of the Cheney branch of neo-cons and that all those young inspired people continue to pay attention and hold Obama to his hype. Same goes for Clinton, only more so. If she wins we will have a true Republocrat with entrenched habits.
BeForKids,
Obama hasn’t indicated anything to be hopeful about. I am confused about Joan. What does she know that I don’t? I want some Obama Koolaid. You and Joan are voting for him based on what? His good looks? Whatever happened to your Kucinich standard? Obama didn’t even speak up on his behalf after the media locked him out of the debates. What kind of leader can watch a man be completely disenfranchised, know he can do something to stop it, and decide to let a fellow party member fall by the wayside? JFK, RFK, MLK, and Joan Biaz were about something better than that.
Nearly all of the candidates’ recent speeches are archived on c-span website. Obama’s clearly the best that’s left, and just maybe what they’re saying he is.
My daughter called from Boston tonite while I was watchin the Barack rally on C-Span. I could hear Obama speaking in the background, and thought she had it on too loud. It was because she was at the event live. She’s a salutitorian & phi beta kap; but, this is the first time she’s been excited about politics. He’s bringin in new people!
Ahh, the young people. Yes, they know what’s best. This is a common story regarding Obama’s youth attraction. People with kids around college age and even a bit younger are rallying their parents to Obama’s side. Sensible, educated, well-read intellects all around our nation are doing a double-take on Obama at the behest of their darling children. These indulgent parents are coming home to roost one last time to dump their unconditional love into the ballot boxes. That’s comforting. So, that makes Obama the equivalent of what?…Barney or perhaps Barbie’s Ken. Corporate America’s suckling babes have begun their legacy.
ruthru, rumiluv’s point about bringing in new people is critical. Obama says we must build up from the bottom and he’s right. But the bottom has been running on empty. Now we have a surging force of young never before voters and even older voters like me who haven’t voted for a major party candidate who want to support him. And the Obama coattails will swamp the Republican Congress. They will get their super majority. Chances are they will be choosing progressives in the primaries. Obama’s roots are progressive. Of course Hillary could put a jinx on all this. She’s trying.
His record as an Illinois state Senator is impressive, and in 8 years he cast 4000 votes. The following is from Stateline.org:
The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.
But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.
“The ‘present’ vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
It’s easy to take things out of context for your own purposes. ruthru, don’t take other peoples’ word for things. Check them out for yourself. I learned that when I was 22 years old and LBJ started bombing North Vietnam and I wanted to know what was going on. The more I found out the more horrified I was. And that’s why I’m voting for Obama. The more I look him up the better I like him.
kathyodat
BeForKids,
Well, it’s about time I got a response. I will address your comment, “ruthru, don’t take other peoples’ word for things. Check them out for yourself.” at another time. I’m off to bed. Thanks for the response.
ruthie
There are people who have commented here who seem to genuinely believe that Mr. Obama will “fix things”. Some even write sentences that begin with the words “Obama says…” as if the Word of this person they have only recently heard of, and never met, is somehow necessary to legitimize they’re opinion.
This is pathetic, Royalist bullshit!
When your King decides to keep all the Kingly powers his predecessor accrued to the Throne, look to those who have remained Awake, they might help you.
-matti.
We watched Senator Obama tonight on C-Span2.
Tomorrow he may win in our primary. I hope so. I am tired of the horror of war, the shame of this country, the evil being done in our name, the harm being done to millions here and abroad, the fear, and the endless lying.
I understand the cynicism of some. I have felt it myself at times. Given the assault on every fabric of our lives by the crime family, it has been understandable.
That time for me is over. Hopeless cynicism leads nowhere and accomplishes nothing. Worse it turns people off or away. We get it, we have heard it. It is not unlikely that rovelimboughcheneyoreily et.al are quite happy to have us feeling that cynical, dead-ended and defeated. The question is what are the best logical choices and strategies now?
I believe Obama is honest, has integrity and means what he says. Some he say he is vague in his promise of hope. Wrong. Hope is not vague. We need hope. Those of us who care deeply about this country have been beaten up pretty badly.
Offered hopeless circular cynicism and hope;we choose hope.
For me Obama offers more than hope. He has well documented and articulated positions which we can explore and discuss in days to come. He is a Constitutional scholar. He has moral stature. He elevated the discussion. He has manners.
These things matter to us. There are reasons that he is attracting so many young people and independents and even some Republicans. We cannot afford to turn any citizens away
A very moving article by James Carroll, so moving that as I read it with tears welling up, I was hoping that what I suspected wasn’t true: that the American University speech, preceded the Berlin Wall speech. JFK gave that profoundly beautiful speech at American University June 10, 1963 and about two weeks later gave another speech at the Berlin Wall in which he said:
“There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.”
The Berlin speech is a thrilling one and one with which is it hard to argue (read the full text here: http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/berliner.htm )
But it is also a hawkish speech given by a politician who was, in the parlance of the day, a “cold warrior” and the Berlin speech reflects this.
The people brought JFK along his evolutionary path to detente and civil rights. “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”
This is the important thing to remember is that the movement can and does belong to us. It is not Obama’s movement. It is not Hillary’s.
Obama is for the Death Penalty as is Hillary. Therefore, it is up to us to bring them along the way Kennedy was brought along on Civil Rights. We must remember: Yes we can. The operative word is ‘WE’.
We can own the movement that is Obama.
We can own the movement that is Hillary.
If the movement belongs to us then maybe it doesn’t matter that both Obama and Hillary support the Death Penalty.
Because we can.
Yes We Can.
We can abolish the death penalty.
We won’t let Obama and Hillary and McCain and Romney stop us.
Because the movement belongs to us, because we’re not in the Obama/Hillary camp so much as they are in ours.
So what if Obama and Hillary and McCain and Romney have no inclination to end this war and bring our troops, all our troops home? We won’t let them stop us.
Because we can.
Yes we can.
So what if Obama and Hillary and the rest want to pursue Nuclear Power? The movement belongs to us.
Yes we can.
Peace~
Tresca: Bullshit.
Tresca: Yeah sure. Just like we LED the bush movement.
Ah, doughyden and TheLorax: the alpha and omega of this thread.
Obama looms like a rain cloud on the desert horizon, and some of us doomed and dehydrated wanderers are tottering towards it. They can smell the rain in the air; they taste the glorious wetness; they can feel it!
And some even have umbrellas up already!
I feel the same frustrations and anger as many who post here. Indeed, it is almost impossible to hold out any hope for a better future. Nevertheless, I must.
Consider Faulkner: “Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit….[However] I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.”
And also Ayn Rand (though I am no fan of hers generally): “There is nothing so naive as cynicism. A cynic is one who believes that men are innately depraved, that irrationality and cowardice are their basic characteristics, that fear is the most potent of human incentives—and, therefore, that the most practical method of dealing with men is to count on their stupidity, appeal to their knavery, and keep them in constant terror.”
(The tactics of our current “leaders”? No doubt. But many who post here seem to me to be equally as guilty of the same attitude.)
And I know one thing: Politics ain’t Burger King. We can’t all have it our way. But we can work together, with hope and without cynicism, for a better society and a better world. It’s refreshing to hear a politician speak to these ideals. Hollow words? Perhaps. But words that challenge and may unite.
As always, “…i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder…”
A true movement is the only way this country is going to see real change. So why are people so afraid of Obama? I get the feeling that many on the left (including a lot of the members of my party- The Green Party) enjoy being in the super-minority. As though they know something that no one else does, or possibly could know. These people are a real drag on our real lives, and I have started to ignore them. Yes, anyone that thinks that Obama, himself, will make real change is fooling themselves. But anyone that believes that bringing in millions of new voters with new ideas and idealism the likes of which many of us once had– if you think that is a bad thing, then really what do you propose? What other method is there? How do we get from here to there? Honestly. I am fairly certain it won’t happen by demanding that anyone who talks about politics needs to be ideologically pure. There are people on these forums everyday saying that the arguments for Obama are the same arguments we heard for voting for Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Really? Really, are you that tone deaf that you only hear what makes you feel superior in your own little bubble? 75% of the Americans that vote don’t know anything about specific policies, they do not connect the dots between defense contractors owning the media and our rush for illegal wars. It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they don’t know and the reality is, life is hard right now for working Americans, so you know what, if Obama will get them interested again, if he’ll bring them back in to the political ring (even as outside viewers) then GOOD! We need more people to give our movements any power. We will accomplish nothing if we continue to make the circles we talk in smaller and smaller. And that is what a very small number of posters are doing to the CD community. I suspect they are all part of “The Worst Generation”- the Baby Boomers. I am not going to vote for Obama, as it stands, but to deny that this is a different candidate with a different worldview than John Kerry is an amazing stretch of the imagination.
[R]ealitychecker, check thyself!
Again, one sees on these threads the desperation of people who should know better. They are lashing out against “cynics” (ie, those who refuse to be duped by a Democrat), accusing the latter of “needing to be ideologically pure.” A moment ago on the Joan Baez thread I saw the classic, “Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
This is how people sound when they are preparing to compromise their principles. Many are looking for a Democrat to believe in — because they are (understandably) desperate for something (anything) to believe in. And when they look around on Primary Day, they discover that there are only 2 parties after all.
Guess what? That is exactly how lesser-evilism works, and is designed to work. The whole idea is to force you to turn to the Democrats, when you get desperate.
So all of a sudden, we hear increasing talk of the “inspiration” that Obama has created, and the fact that Obama is not John Kerry. Indeed, Obama is not Kerry. He’s much smoother — much more attractive packaging for the same basic orientation.
When a real defender of the public’s interest comes along, he won’t be a Democrat. He won’t be financed by Wall St & approved of by the MSM, the way Obama is. He’ll have more credibility as an antiwar voice than some criticisms offered 5 years ago while still a state senator.
i wonder what scares some people about hope, understanding and the possibility of success. why all the nay-saying? i think of it as an indication that we are not really “all one people,” but that there are folks living in one paradigm and other folks that are living in another.
our perception is our reality. what we see is what we get. for myself, i am not afraid to hope that this could be a real chance for change and therefor i have a sense of hope instead of cynicism.
sadly, the real proof of Obama’s authenticity will only be shown when he is “removed” because it turns out that he really is a challenge to the status quo and he becomes yet another martyr to the hopeful and peace-loving. i hope that day does not come, even if it means that he does’t get the nomination. his children need him more than we do.
Hilariously, arpedkedarki (12:07) already has Obama being martyred. This is one step ahead of the rest of the lemmings now rushing for Obama. Not only does he assume (based on nothing but hot air) that Obama is the “real chance for change,” but he assumes it so strongly, that he elevates Obama to the status of full-fledged “challenge to the status quo” requiring elimination by the national security state.
Another revealing bit of language used by those desperately seeking to rationalize their decision to stick with the Democrats after all: accusing those skeptical about Obama of being “frightened by hope and the possibility of success.” Umm, excuse me, but I don’t think my problem with Obama has anything to do with “fear.”
Obama talks a good fight and can be inspiring the first time you hear him, but he tells misleading half-truths and I suspect he doesn’t have either the knowhow or the stamina to get the job done.
Except for the speechifying, to compare BO to JFK is ludicrous. After Harvard, JFK managed to get into the Navy and do WWII service even after he had been rejected for a bad back. He returned home a highly decorated veteran (anybody remember the lives he saved as captain of the sinking PT109 in the South Pacific?) and went into politics. Served for 14 years in the US Congress (first in the House, then in the Senate) before he ran for President. In other words, he knew the ropes.
BO, on the other hand, did “whatever” (all we know is what he tells us) in Chicago until he was 36, then served 2 years in a state legislature, ran for the US House and failed, served three more years in the state legislature, ran for US Senate, and served a mere two years as a US Senator (during which time he took trips to 20 countries overseas at taxpayer expense) before he announced his run for President of the United States.
Can you say over-reaching job-hopper? Sure you can.
Worse: If you ask any twenty people whether BO voted for the Iraq War or against it, 19 of them will tell you he voted against it. THAT IS NOT TRUE.
The vote on the War took place in October 2002, but BO did not become a US Senator until January 2005.
Fact is, BO speechified in Chicago against the war but now mlsleads the American people into believing he actually voted against it. Never actually says it, but is clever enough with words to mislead people into believing it. LOTS of people.
How else will he mislead us?
In my book, though Hillary is not perfect, she has a much better grasp of the issues, knows the territory better, and is a much better choice.
My candidate, Kucinich, was not allowed to debate. My absentee ballot for the previous election arrived with a note informing me that although my candidate, Nader, was on the ballot, I may not vote for him as that vote would not be counted. Pardon my lack of enthusiasm for Obama.
My candidate must represent my views. I use the war on drugs as a litmus test for all candidates the same way as some use homosexual marriage or abortion as their issue. The candidate who wants my vote must oppose the war on drugs.
Each time we vote for the lesser of two evils, both parties move incrementally to the right, and the result has been a relentless political de3generation from Eisenhower to Nixon to Reagan to Bush. It may be that another 8 or 12 or 20 years or more must pass as society degenerates and the people grow poorer and more ignorant before my candidates can participate in elections. So be it.