Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
Popular content
Today's Top News
Exit Poll: Your Enthusiasm and the Media's
"Drawing from the best resources on national and local platforms, Fox will bring together America's two greatest passions -- politics and football." So said Marty Ryan, Fox News executive producer of political programming, describing that network's addition of a three-hour "Super Tuesday political preview" to the usual day-long football festivities. In that way did Fox News manage to catch the zeitgeist of the moment, creating a 24/7 spectacle of super-entertainment by merging the number-one top-draw extravaganza, Super Bowl Sunday, with the mid-week surprise of a writer-starved TV season, Super Tuesday.
Each was guaranteed to be a dawn-to-midnight entertainment spectacular. Each was to be a talkathon of experts and pundits (including the Las Vegas odds-maker Fox interviewed Sunday who was "handicapping" both events in more or less the same breath), interspersed with mega-ads and mega-ad stories, as well as some thrilling action, leading toward results that, in each super-case, we, the viewers, would sooner or later have known, even if no one had said a word. Don't be surprised, if, on this Super Tuesday, you see Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw, and Jimmy Johnson calling the shots alongside the Fox News crew. After all, the "showdown" under the dome of the University of Phoenix Stadium was to be followed two days later by what ABC News termed a "showdown coast to coast." (Normally, O.K. Corral-style "showdown" logos have been reserved for cruise missile shoot-outs on Main Street with global perps like Saddam Hussein.)
By the time you read this, you'll probably already know more about the immediate American political scene than I do. You may know whether Barack Obama, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney was the Eli Manning (or Tom Brady) of politics. Maybe you'll have stayed up as network news and cable outfits analyzed the election into the morning hours as if this were November 4th.
That, in itself, will be unprecedented. In 2004, the networks relegated (somewhat less) Super Tuesday to intermittent news updates. This time, with Charles Gibson anchoring ABC News' five hours of coverage, it will be another "historic occasion" in the "election of our age." There's already been the Huckabee ambush in Iowa, the McCain return from the politically dead in New Hampshire, the fall of America's Mayor in Florida, and round-the-clock Obamania, not to speak of endless media and pollster mis-predictions, which only provided yet more riveting stories for the race of the century.
Let's face it, for media and candidates alike Primary 2008 has been Survivor, The Amazing Race, American Gladiator, The Apprentice ("You're fired!"), and American Idol rolled into one -- and a ratings wonder as well in which nothing fails. Two testy opponents meet elbow to elbow in a debate in Hollywood -- with the camera flicking to the star-studded audience as if it were the Oscars... Gasp! Is that really George from Seinfeld? -- and no sparks fly; yet the story has wings anyway. Barack and Hillary were cordial! Were "a black man and a white woman" the "perfect future running mates"? Could they team up as "a Democratic dream ticket"? Or would they be back at each other's throats, just the way John McCain and Mitt Romney have been?
It couldn't matter less, not when everything in Campaign 2008 glues American eyeballs to screens without a writer in sight. Who needs on-strike vendors of fiction when a teeming crew of stand-up pundits is eternally on hand to produce political fictions at a moment's notice? Can anyone deny that more of them have been predicting, projecting, suggesting, insinuating, bloviating, and offering authoritative conclusions than at any time in our history? If that isn't "historic," what is, even if so many of their predictions prove wrong in the morning light?
It's been feeding-frenzy time in medialand -- and it's your enthusiasm off which the media's been feeding.
The Enthusiasm of the Young
Let me take a shot at creating a minor countercurrent in the flow of superduper-commentary by taking The Pledge. Here and now. On this very spot.
In this piece, I swear that I will not "handicap" any primary race, nor predict who is going to win Super Tuesday in either party. I will not handicap the race to the conventions. I will not speculate on who will be the vice-presidential candidate for whom in the fall, or who will win the presidency in November and enter the Oval Office on January 20, 2009, and I will not discuss polling results, nor mention a margin of error.
Don't think this is easy. I'm just as addicted as any other red-blooded American. After all, this election is the media equivalent of a barreling train. And not Amtrak either. Think the Japanese bullet train or the French TGV. If I fall off the proverbial caboose, it's going to hurt and yet it's so hard not to. Just the other day -- and I had already vowed to reform -- after checking out a range of reliable reportage and punditry, I assured my bored wife and son, with all the authority that the political wisdom of our age bestowed on me, over dinner no less, that John Edwards would be in the election for keeps, no question about it; that he could well be the kingmaker at the Democratic convention. It was a slam dunk -- until, that is, he dropped out so that history could "blaze its path"! But, hey, even if he didn't oblige, there were always those superdelegates! They could still save the kingmaking day and keep the media express rolling right into the Democratic convention.
Anyway, think of this dispatch as an exit poll of a different kind, starting with this question: What exactly do most Americans want to exit from?
Recently, the Washington Post's online columnist Dan Froomkin noticed this little tidbit: While George W. Bush proudly exhibits Saddam Hussein's captured pistol in a small study off the Oval Office, his pal Dick Cheney has "on display at his residence a piece of the house where Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, was killed."
Call that exit-poll symbolism. The imperial President and Vice President, the "one percent solution" guys, the we-don't-torture waterboarding folks, exhibit as memorabilia a gun and rubble. That pretty much sums up their legacy, the one that, on January 20, 2009, they'll dump on a populace only 19% of whom believe their country to be "on the right track." When it comes to guns 'n rubble, give them credit: They managed to set the oil heartlands of the planet ablaze, ensuring that oil prices would go sky high; they turned the two countries they tried their "nation-building" hand at -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- into the world's leading purveyor of opiates and a charnel house.
If they had had their way, they surely would have left much of the planet in ruins. As a hurricane showed, facing ruins at home, they were incapable of rebuilding even a single city, no less whole nations. Everywhere they turned, they proved not builders but dismantlers; not investors but looters (along with their crony corporations and private security firms). Domestically, they ruled by a politics of fear. They committed crimes with alacrity and -- possibly the greatest crime of all --- fiddled while the glaciers melted. They were the Republicants -- and darn proud of it -- in a country that had once prided itself on its can-do tradition. (And, since 2007, a Democratic Congress, voted in to do something before the rubble spread, turned out to be a body of Democraticants as well.)
You want an exit poll? Well, here it is: Americans are now stuck in the world that George W. Bush had a major hand in crafting and a sizeable majority of them, sensing doom, want out.
All of this, however, can only be blamed on Bush and his pals at our peril. After all, they simply tapped into a deep vein of American exterminatory fears. In the "good times" of the 1990s, those fears were less obvious. In a sense, most people probably didn't know they had them. But look at the young today and you can sense how they've been ensnared in an exterminatory grid of some sort. For them, dreams of the future have essentially been replaced with dystopian fears of global warming, global pandemics, global depressions, and other forms of planetary doom and disaster. Through no fault of their own, they have been living without hope.
In this election, Barack Obama in particular has seemed to show a number of them a possible exit and, beyond it, a little daylight, a tiny swatch of blue sky (as, for a smaller number of young people on the right, did Republican candidate Ron Paul). If, of course, you can't imagine building, or saving, or investing in something for your children or grandchildren (no less someone else's), then it's hard to imagine doing anything lasting. To lack a future is to have an enormous weight of despair placed squarely on your shoulders. If, even for a moment, it seems to lift, you suddenly feel free to dream; hence (I suspect) the burst of enthusiasm and hope seen this year -- and the outpouring of new primary voters which has gone with it.
I had my own youthful moment in which a sense of doom lifted and it was indeed a liberating feeling. Back in my day, there was only one danger to life as we knew it -- nuclear war (which, in the twenty-first century, has to elbow its way into a roiling queue of world-ending possibilities for its 15 seconds of exterminatory fame). When the Atomic Test Ban Treaty of 1963 finally drove nuclear tests out of sight and out of mind, the nuclear issue disappeared from political debate and popular culture. The last end-of-the-world films of that era appeared in 1964, just as bomb-shelter and civil defense programs were heading for the graveyard. By 1969, the National Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy had even eliminated "nuclear" from its own name. And, for a brief period, you could look to the future with a sense of hope, which was exhilarating.
Think, in this context, of the import of that affirmative call-and-response chant Barack Obama so often uses with crowds of young supporters at his rallies: "Yes, we can...!" "Yes, we can...!"
At my age (63), I tend to be struck by the lack of objects in Obama's uncompleted sentences: Yes, we can... what exactly? But who can deny the chant's appeal, conjuring up as it does a can-do future and, implicitly, a past America in which "we can" seemed like a given. These days, newspaper headlines like this one from the Washington Post are commonplace, no matter what part of the government is under scrutiny: "U.S. Park Police Rebuked for Security Lapses: Force plagued by low morale, poor leadership and bad organization has failed to adequately protect iconic landmarks, government report shows." (And remember, it's the Washington Monument, the Statue of Liberty, and the Lincoln Memorial we're talking about.) So the sense that "we" can "do" anything is bound to be refreshing.
You can't help being moved, because you know that, underneath a rising tide of youthful enthusiasm lies the vortex -- a United States, and possibly a planet, transformed beyond recognition. In such a situation, even a hint that the burden of futurelessness might be lifted should send anybody searching the sky for a good omen, for a dose of -- in the mantra of every candidate at this moment -- "change." That's why another vague Obama formulation -- that he represents "the future," not the "past" -- is potentially so powerful. When was the last time an American presidential candidate invoked the future and seemed to mean it?
That perhaps helps account for the upwelling of enthusiasm in our electoral moment, even after the elections of 2000 and 2004.
A Torrent of Enthusiasm
None of this, however, can account for the media enthusiasm that has accompanied it and is easy enough to mistake for its matching mate.
The media is, in Todd Gitlin's classic tag from his book Media Unlimited, "the torrent." Its images, its soundscapes flood through our everyday world, a surging river that never stops even when we officially turn off our machines. In a sense, the media has neither future, nor past. Instead, it devours both in an eternal present and still remains hungry. In our Super Bowl/Super Tuesday culture, all those pundits, talking heads, reporters, and entertainers collectively might be thought of as if they were the mad spawn of Anne Rice and Rupert Murdoch, swarming to a source of blood that, in this election season, is your enthusiasm, as well as any momentary hopes you may have for the future. Their enthusiasm is to bite deep into your enthusiasm and suck it dry.
They, too, are chanting: Yes, we can...! Yes, we can...! They'll happily chant it until a new administration enters the White House in January, inheriting that pistol and that piece of rubble, inheriting an American world in deep trouble and a planet spinning on a dime. And then they'll take their enthusiasm off to another eternal present where children are being shot up by some maniac, or giant buildings are collapsing into dust, or some celeb is heading for the nearest dry-out clinic. They'll walk away happy into another present, leaving the rest of us high and dry. Yes, they can...!
And now, yes I can... pop the popcorn in that hot-air popper, melt the butter, and settle in front of my TV with my crucial electoral tool, the channel zapper, in hand to prepare for the most epic battle of all, Super Tuesday, not to speak of all the epic, historic, thrilling battles to come. Don't call me for the next few months, I'll call you.
Just for a moment, though, let me turn that screen black, step out, head for my local polling place, and... well, you know... make the epic gesture.
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com, is the co-founder of the American Empire Project. His book, The End of Victory Culture (University of Massachusetts Press), has been thoroughly updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq.
Copyright 2008 Tom Engelhardt
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

13 Comments so far
Show AllBut Obama doesn't represent the future and doesn't mean it when he says it.
He's a heavy supporter of the Israeli said in their conflict with the Palestinians. Continuity there, no change. The illegal occupation and massive oppression of Palestine will continue should he win.
He wants to increase the size of the army. The past.
He wants to increase the bloated military budget. Old School.
A top advisor is Zbig Brzezinski. Remember the Afghan-Soviet war? Zbig claimed credit for starting it; says he wanted to give the Communists their own Viet Nam. This horrible tragedy of death didn't just end with hundreds of thousands dead it ended with blowback on 9/11 in New York City. What a guy to bring on board your foreign policy team. Talk about the past. Then there's Obama's support from 13 members of the very conservative, elite, pro corporate Council on Foreign Relations. These guys desire stability, not change. They draw on years of experience doing things the way they've always been done. Obama is their man and they expect him to be for continuity, not change.
He'd consider nuclear power. Would someone tell him we tried it and as one business magazine said, it was the greatest financial disaster in U.S. history.
He favors the death penalty. Been there.
He wants merit pay for teachers. Done that (doesn't work).
He wants to leave to HMOs in charge of health insurance and has flip flopped on his support for the widely popular single payer proposal. (Barack was in favor of single payer before he came out against it---shades of one of his endorsers, John Kerry, who you'll notice even with the help of NCLB champion Ted Kennedy AND the MA Gov. couldn't help Obama from being creamed in MA last night.)
He's free trader. Old news. Why are so many immigrants from the south fleeing their devastated economies to take jobs here? Free trade, really corporate managed trade. Making their economies scream, these policies annihilate local economies leading to all the immigration here. El Salvador is so ravaged 45% want to leave their country. You'd never know from his talk on immigration policy that Obama gets it. Reason is, he doesn't.
Fair trade is the future; Obama's model is the past.
He says blacks have achieved 90% equality with whites when it's actually 11%. How can a guy who can't get the present right, understand the past in order to actually lead us into the future.
Obama has relied on massive amounts of corporate money to run his campaign, much of it in 2300 dollar checks. As one lobbyist who likes Obama said to writer Ken Silverstein, big money wouldn't be contributing to him if they didn't see him as a player.
Obama has the endorsement of 18 leading corporate lobbyists. This from a guy who says lobbyists won't influence him. One of them is the ineffectual Tom Daschle. Remember that guy? View the list over at rollcall.com
So when you add it all up Obama is really just a good speaker who's very attractive, but his associations, writings, and proposals are very much within the corporate mainstream consensus. And that equals status quo.
Boy, does he have a lot of progressives (and college kids) fooled.
formernadervoter, it sounds like you want to be dumbenoughtobecurrentnadervoter again this year. If you're going to spend your time knocking Obama while Clinton and McCain are the two main alternatives, why don't you just extoll the virtues of your guy? Ralph, after all, has the advantage of being so electable. Right?
Funny thing how age contemporaries can witness and live through the same events and view the recent past so differently.
I really must dissent from Tom's broad characterization that "the nuclear issue disappeared from popular debate and popular culture" in America shortly after ratification of the 1963 Atomic Test Ban treaty, and "the last end-of-the-world films of that era appeared in 1964."
Maybe my old timer's disease is acting up or I'm provoking a senseless quibble over when one era ends and another one starts, but I could swear Stanley Kubrik's brilliant "Dr. Strangelove" was part of the 70's cultural upheaval. More important, I recall perpetual pandering by Cold War domestic politicos and pundits to stereotypic fears that females, liberals, and people lacking military service credentials generally, failed the would-be White House litmus test of having gravitas sufficient ever to qualify as The Guy With His Finger on the Button.
Rumor has it Nixon and Kissinger tried to use good cop/bad cop nuclear blackmail on the North Vietnamese at various stages of the secret Paris peace negotiations.
Reagan taunted and mocked Walter Mondale mercilously for supposedly favoring the doctrine of mutually assured destruction in the Presidential debate when his Star Wars snake oil antiballistic missle system was first market tested to the electorate.
The Gipper was later assailed on his right flank for even sitting down to talk disarmament with the conniving Godless Commies, only to then be bestowed with sainthood by those same critics, for having the balls to call the Kremlin's bluff and put total abolition of all nuclear armaments on the table.
There is an outstanding article by Jeremy Schell in the January Harper's that traces the four phases of US strategic thinking on what justifies possessing and/or using the bomb, and how the dangers of nuclear proliferation should be addressed.
The Manhattan Project was apparently the first of what came to be many "black budget" projects in which Congress appropriated millions of public tax dollars in total secrecy, with absolutely no accountability. It began in 1939 very simply as a race to build an atomic bomb first, before Hitler did. Far better to have a nuke and not need it, than to need a nuke and not have one.
Phase two, after Germany had been knocked out of WWII, involved completion of the research and testing, followed by immediate first use of the technology upon Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the icing on the cake of unconditional surrender. I mean, what good is the thing if you're not going to use it?
Phase three lasted half a century: the bipartisan nuclear balance of power theory, with atomic bombs (and more bombs, and ever more sophisticated delivery systems) deterring the outbreak of conventional war, or its escalation into global holocaust. Peace is our profession, intoned legions of Cold War think tankers shuffling their throw weights and MIRVs, think tanking endlessly about the unthinkable.
Then suddenly, down comes the wall and the evil empire is no more.
In a post-Cold War environment, what justification could be advanced for maintaining a triad delivery system on perpetual alert, with over 10,000 nuclear warheads in the stockpile, if the Soviet Union was no longer there as a towering, all purpose boogeyman?
Schell's article essentially views the Clinton era as a decade of drift - sensible, much needed international efforts indeed were taken to secure and mothball much of the former Soviet Unions' a-bombs, and the American nuclear arsenal was modestly downsized largely through attrition. But the strategic doctrine to justify the continued existence of such Doomsday weaponry in the first place was simply never addressed.
Unfortunately, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their neo-con brethren have now articulated the new, fateful phase four doctrine tailored to fit the post-911 world. They've put it down in writing, calling it full spectrum dominance, by the world's only superpower.
The spread of nuclear weaponry from the current nation state club to rogue states aspiring to get the bomb (and perhaps from there into terrorists' hands) will be deterred henceforth by use of the doctrine of preventive war. Unilateral decisions may be made by the United States of America and her allies to bring about regime change any time, anywhere on the globe, that a threat of nukes falling into the wrong hands is perceived and declared to exist. The invasion of Iraq stands as Exhibit A of this new American strategic doctrine in action.
I certainly hope the nuclear issue returns to the center stage of public debate in the United States, sooner rather than later. The ramifications and dangers of the Bushies' new doctrine are all too apparent.
Time to take the toys away from the boys.
Bill from Saginaw
Support for Obama or Clinton is like saying, "Bush and Cheney, you are free to go home come January 2009." Neither of these two candidates will hold the Bush Administration accountable for their crimes.
If Obama weren't a right winger, he would have been given so much money for his campaign. The BBC here keeps repeating that the USA is hungry for change, and illustrating this with images of Obama (not so subtle, but as you can see, the media mania has crossed the Atlantic). But if the USA were hungry for change, a man like Kucinich would be the one getting the donations and the delegates - a man whose manifesto is real, concretely defined change. Which in truth most Americans don't want: not if it means abandoning those very attitudes and priorities which have got the US, and with it the whole world, into the current crisis. Obama is actually offering more of the same impossible dream of never-ending consumption and growth. And everyone voting for him expects to profit, to get a bigger slice of the cake. Because that's how it has always been. Change, of course, will happen anyway - and then as a species we adapt or die.
Brilliant piece, Tom. I haven't seen many that skewer the media with more aplomb. It's evident reading this how hand-in-glove they've been with the Bushites and of course the corporate masters of both parties. Watching them spin and bloviate, predict and strain for nuance, is like waiting for the next litany of justifications for the freshest crime spree of Bush-Cheney. The whole campaign carnival reminds me of nothing so much as American Idol, as well as The Apprentice and the other "reality" shows now polluting the airways, as Englehardt says. It's the enthusiasm of the ill-informed as a studio audience in one of those insipid venues. And it reflects a culture that is, "if you will, in its last throes."
BILL FROM SAGINAW & EPHRAIM: Excellent postings.
FROM ANOTHER BLOG:: THIS IS WHAT WE NEED
interesting: Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate. Here is a reminder of what that record includes: - As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.) - Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.' - Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn. - Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign. - Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies ("Filegate") and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years. - In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. - Another of Hil lary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense: —- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. —- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. —- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all. —- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury —- And Bill was impeached by the House. —- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath). - Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint. - Hill ary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support. - Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen. - In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her. - Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11. - Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed. Quite a resume'. Sounds more like an organized crime family's rap sheet.
Bill the 70's cultural upheaval was really the mid to late 60's upheaval; approximately 65/66 through 69/70 and then tailing off rapidly.
By the early 70's I had seen Dr. Strangelove about 5 times as it came out in 64 and would make the rounds of the college art film theaters every year or so. For years I made every new girl friend take in this epic satire with me. Like you say it seems to never go out of style. Oh, if Peter Sellers and Kubrik (or going further back Charlie Chaplin) where still around to make a mocking bio drama of the the Bushman.
re: Daniel David February 6th, 2008 12:24 pm
Injecting ritualistic Nader-bashing added nothing. It did not address any of the hard facts of the article or the post to which it responded. It was empty, as though political analysis required no thought.
Tom Englehart and formernadervoter offered actual analysis of Obama's positions and rhetoric.
I argue that as progressives, we have an obligation to reason. Let's leave reflexive bile to the right-wing crazies and their bipartisan cohorts.
"Support for Obama or Clinton is like saying, "Bush and Cheney, you are free to go home come January 2009." Neither of these two candidates will hold the Bush Administration accountable for their crimes."
Well, I think it is important to first get any of them elected and only then start pressurizing them to hold the Republicans accountable. This is too sensitive a subject to come up with now. You can vote for Obama or Clinton, but they must know that we don't regard them as our friends. We will give them the same treatment as the Bush gang when they are in office as long as they keep avoiding the real issues.
Well, I think it is important to first get any of them elected and only then start pressurizing them to hold the Republicans accountable.
_____________________________________________
I understand what you're saying, but no amount of bottom-up "pressurization" is going to induce Presidents H. Clinton or Obama to hold the Republicants accountable.
Never happen. Hillary will "let bygones be bygones" exactly as her husband did, on the managerial grounds that it's counter-productive to invest energy into "divisive" issues when the citizenry is suffering from "scandal fatigue" (or criminal oligarch fatigue) already. Obama will strike his usual pseudo-Lincolnesque pose and Rise Above the unpleasant business of recrimination in the name of Spiritual Reconstruction. You know, with malice toward none and all that.
PS: Lacking cable TV, and not bothering much with YouTube, I could care less about "Obama Girl" and the like. So I just today learned about "Yes We Can". I find it ironically amusing at best that Youth is apparently all spazzed out with a slogan that reminds me an awful lot of the ghostwritten autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. Very hep!
"When the Atomic Test Ban Treaty of 1963 finally drove nuclear tests out of sight and out of mind, the nuclear issue disappeared from political debate and popular culture."
I see Tom is immune to history today. Dr. Strangelove appeared in 1964, and I can easily recall as a student in the mid-1960s being drilled in what to do in case of nuclear attack. It was an ongoing topic of debate in college in the 70s, and so on.
Or, if I had read the thread before writing: what Bill from Saginaw said...