Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Buffy the Cynicism Slayer: Behind the Obama Phenomenon
To really understand the Obama phenomenon, you should know Buffy Wicks. Yes, Buffy is her real name. Yes, she gets that question every day. Her job is grassroots organizer or in campaign lingo, "field operations specialist." More specifically, she is the Western Regional Field Director for Obama for America, and she personifies what the Obama movement is all about. I've known Buffy for seven years. We first met when she was a student and I was a guest scholar at a graduate program in Castellon, Spain. Although she was only 23 at the time and I was (in professional status only) her superior, Buffy's extraordinary self-possession both intimidated and fascinated me. We became friends, and over the years, my awe at her passion, eloquence, and conviction never waned.
When Buffy first sent out an email awhile back saying she had taken a job with the Barak Obama campaign, I remember thinking "I hope these people realize who they've got." Well, they obviously do. Buffy's primary task has been to help transform the support for the Obama campaign from a simple voter base to a movement. And as a longtime Buffy fan, it comes as no surprise that she's succeeding. Or for that matter, that her professional status has eclipsed mine.
Buffy is in some ways an anomaly. She is blonde, athletic, and pretty, but also disarmingly unpretentious. People are drawn to Buffy because they see themselves in her, much like they do her current boss. She is approachable, but Buffy has more than charisma; she has presence. She cares. She is both fearless and vulnerable. She's scarily smart, but down to earth. Hopeful but not jaded. Bold. Tenacious. Empowered. A feminist and an animal activist on one hand, tough but compassionate on the other. She combines strong conviction with open-mindedness. She's indefatigable. And she is totally authentic. Buffy has a way of getting you to examine your perspective by forcing you to clarify it. She doesn't just ask what you think, she asks why. She wants to understand you. She challenges you to inspire her. She embodies the concept of civic engagement. She walks the walk and expects those around her to do the same. Buffy is the only person I've ever met who has made me laugh so hard that it triggered an asthma attack. She's also the only person who had me crying so hard that I had to pull over the car I was driving at the time.
It gives me enormous confidence in Senator Obama that he has obviously seen- and appreciates- these qualities in Buffy, and more importantly, that he entrusts her with the task of linking his principles and platform to real people. Buffy is largely responsible for the campaign's assertion that support for Obama is personal (and by extension, more profound and committed than Clinton's support, which is largely based on pragmatic or strategic concerns.)
Obama's detractors claim that his campaign is overly idealistic and disconnected from reality. I'm here to tell you that with people like Buffy onboard, it's clear that what makes Senator Obama such a formidable candidate is that he is actually more connected to reality than anyone else on the political horizon. It's the movement's authenticity - not its idealism-that makes Obama's competition nervous. It's not about a slogan or rhetoric. Those things can be spun. People cannot.
In the face of - indeed, because of-her own tribulations (including having to comfort a friend after learning of his HIV diagnosis and his simultaneous confession that he couldn't afford health insurance), Buffy chose to engage with hope, rather than withdraw in frustration. In confronting an increasingly consumerist, self-focused, and cynical society, we need people like Buffy to remind us that we can do better. We need them to remind us that we can be better citizens and people, and that, as it turns out, we still live in a democratic society. Buffy, like Mr. Obama, didn't choose her work for notoriety or fortune, but because she thinks that we need her. And she's right.
Cynthia Boaz is assistant professor of political science and international studies at the State University of New York at Brockport. She specializes in political development, nonviolent social movements, and quality of democracy.
70 Comments so far
Show AllBuffy may be a great person but her candidate is no different than any of the others. They are all owned and managed by corporate interests.
Hoa binh
Behind the Obama phenomenon is record-setting campaign spending, i.e., mass marketing (and a half-way decent candidate.)
Ah,
But won't it be nice to have an intelligent and eloquent thinker in the white house! Sure its a hard job, and the state of the union is so busted it will be hard to achieve much! But how exciting to have someone there who MAY have the ability to actually understand or achieve something!
And words do count! Someone who can re-conceptualise and re-phrase and re-frame debates is the kind of leader we need to get the country moving in better directions!
I am really concerned that there are way too many "puff" pieces on Barak Obama on the CD site and not enough substance to help me make an informed decision. Posters seem to have more facts and links. Please don't ask me to be a part of the swell of good feelings - I have seen and there are way to many people suffering horribly from our policies (especially our foreign policies of war in the name of "freedom").
My life is devoted to service, I actively seek out the good in this world, I am one of those crazy people who believe in One Love and planetary awareness and healing. And I tell you in my gut I feel I am being force fed the "wonderfulness of Barak" and it is making me feel unwell.
Another poster posted that she wondered why Barak Obama has been given the go ahead politically and John Edwards, whom I really believe walks his talk, was allowed to fall by the wayside.
I feel as if it is becoming "unsafe" amongst my liberal and Democaratic brothers and sisters to say, "hey, this man is way too managed, way too polished and squeaky clean - like a shiny Lincoln penny. I wish he was more honest, let's see it warts and everything. That is what I judge a man and woman by, the "whole person", not some "isn't he just wonderful - he is our saviour" version, spun out by the best marketers and psych ops masters in the business. There is something about this man that is troubling to me. It doesn't make me not want to vote for him but it is causing me to hesitate. I feel he is being managed (and that makes me wonder of him as a leader) and I feel I am being asked to just "bite the bit" - the "hope" bit that is, and if we (I) have questions and and I am unsure, and dare to express it publicly, it seems as if it becomes an unsafe thing to do as there are those who feel it is their duty, who passionately feel it is their obligation, to attack our (my) unsureness.
Just some thoughts...
peace.
a planetary sister
Dear 1messenger,
Do you consider my essay a "puff piece" or an example of a CD poster who provides more substance? What is more substantive than character?
Just curious,
Cynthia Boaz
Dear Cynthia,
Your essay is well written, passionate, deeply researched, and it seems to me as the reader, to be phrased and titled in such a way that leaves me feeling "how could I not be in favour of such a wonderful candidate when a person who is as wonderful, dynamic, intelligent, and lovely as Buffy, is here to "slay" my cynicism.
Yes, I do feel as if this is a "puff" piece for Barak Obama. Whilst reading it made me feel like I am missing something within my 'self" for having my doubts. Kinda like, look at this wonderful, intelligent, enlightened, good person, if she is for him how can thou be against him?
But remember, this is only my opinion. I am only one out of the many. I admire people like Buffy, we need millions more like her. Thank you for sharing her with us.
peace.
1messengerofmany___ You have some good thoughts and worthy of consideration. There may not be a lot of difference in the total changes that Obama and Clinton would accomplish as they both would be a great improvement from the present fiasco.
The problem is that Obama is being made into a heroic idol, and it is not likely he will be able to produce all that his supporters are expecting, although he is an intelligent and thoughtful person.
On the other hand Clinton is being accused of being a warmonger with no principles that is entirely bought off by corporate interests and can not be trusted. That is probably just as far off in the other direction, as she is not that sort of person.
Either of these candidates will do a good job of turning things around, however it will be an enormous undertaking for whomever gets the job. The voters should support whichever one they prefer and stop this idol worship or trashing of a candidate. Their platforms are not that much different from each other`s, but are certainly far from the Repugs.
1messengerofmany, I started out lumping Barack and Hillary together as "centrists", but the more I learn about him, the more I want him to be our president. And this I believe, that he wants the power of the presidency to come from the people. That is, to have the backing of the people to promote the policies we support. This is the opposite of Bush bullying the people to go along with HIS policies. I think young people get this, they feel empowered by him, as I do. That this is OUR country, our leaders are our servants. When he entered the Illinois Senate he wanted to pass a single payer health care bill, but said he realized that we needed different people in Congress and the White House to do that. I've made this comment on other posts, but I say this because how many politicians do you know who want single payer health care?
And why isn't he coming out and saying all this? He speaks in generalities because the opposition (starting with Hillary) would twist his words and the media would jump on it. It's funny, there's something about him you don't trust. There's something about him I do trust, and I've spent many years being wary. But he feels authentic to me. I acknowledge I could be wrong, but look around, what have we got to lose? I want to take a chance, a leap of faith, and I don't feel uncomfortable doing it either. I watched Michelle Obama's UCLA speech, and I liked what she said and I liked her. Their parents couldn't afford to put them through college and she said they were just three years out from paying off their student loans. She essentially said we know what Americans are going through, we've lived in the trenches.
Until we have publicly financed elections, we will not get proletarian politicians unless they game the system - say the right things and persuade the big spenders. But like Harry Truman said, you can take their money, but you don't have to reward them after you're elected. If Barack Obama wins, and if he lives up to his promise of change, he won't need their money to get reelected, and maybe we will see some real change. Congress may be full of shitheads, but they probably wouldn't dare overturn the veto of an extremely popular president with midterm elections coming up.
kathyodat
Thank you for clarifying, 1messenger. I admire the exercise in self-reflection you are engaged in. I don't agree that this profile is a puff piece, but you are correct that I don't discuss Obama's policy programs or prescriptions here. I think there are enough people (including Obama himself) taking care of that, and since I have some unique insight into at least one actual human being behind the campaign, I'd thought I'd share it. My motivation was only to provide some evidence that the Obama phenomenon is--in fact--a movement and that it seems to run much deeper than the usual election-time voter realignments. As political scientists, we try to measure these things using variables like voter turnout and polls. But there are some things, like simple human character and authenticity, which cannot be measured in the traditional sense. So I thought I'd help widen the discourse by attesting to the character of at least one significant person in that campaign. My essay is more about Buffy and what she represents (as my ideal of civic virtue) than about stirring up sentiment for Obama.
Sincerely,
Cynthia
kernel, Clinton has shown herself to be without scruples in her campaign against Obama. She is securely in the corporate pocket, and that is where she will stay. Look at her husband's track record. Look at hers. She voted for the bankruptcy bill, she voted against banning cluster bombs. That was a freebee. I would love to hear her defense of that vote. Obama voted against the bankruptcy bill and voted to ban cluster bombs.
kathyodat
If Barack can trust and pick the specialness of Buffy for important responsibilities in the campaign, I am looking forward to his picks for VP, cabinet positions, ambassadors and judges. Perhaps it was a fluke of good fortune for Barack to get some people like Buffy, but once they appear on the scene, identifying and promoting them is not a "fluke." And it's not a "skill". It's a TALENT.
I recently attended an Obama event. Positive energy from the campaign workers was all over the place like a blanket. That, like any really good management, is not an accident. It has to do with who is surrounding the candidate as volunteers as well as paid staff, and how those folks were "handled" by the official campaign.
Cynthia,
You wrote,
"Obama's detractors claim that his campaign is overly idealistic and disconnected from reality".
Huh??? Who are you hanging out with?
That's the biggest fallacy since the one about US politics being too "divisive" (the reality being it is far, far too monolithic in its agenda)
All the detractors of Obama I know of and other are disturbed at his _lack_ of idealism.
He refuses to support single payer healthcare, he refuses to call for a moratorium on all coal-fueled power plant construction, he refuses to take on the horrifcally bloated war machine; his unconditional support of Israel's ethnic cleansing in Palestine; he refuses to speak on corporate malfeance and so-called globalization and it's devastating impacts on US wage earners..., ...
I'm just curious: which special interests, exactly, have Obama in their pockets?
Cynthia, I liked your piece very much and appreciate learning about the individuals in campaigns. It helps to round out the picture to see who the candidates choose to be around them. I think you made a good point, 1messenger was looking for something else in your article. Perhaps if the title had said "inside the Obama phenomenon" she might have had different expectations. I know I did. But I'm not making a criticism.
kathyodat
doughyden, we will find out when he's president if he is in their pockets. That's the chance we're taking and I for one am willing to take it.
kathyodat
Wherever Buffy goes, I go.
thanks Cynthia.
Character is all to often ignored these days.
PJD-
I should be more specific in who I meant by detractors. I was referring to the Clinton (and now McCain) campaigns and their mouthpieces in media. I agree, when it comes to the progressive left in the U.S., there is a concern that Obama isn't hopeful enough. Perhaps my essay about Buffy-- the epitome of progressive-- will assuage that concern nominally.
Interestingly, I just got an email from a colleague in Spain who, after reading this essay, wrote me to say "I want to tell you and all the US citizens to believe that "Yes YOU Can"!!!!!!! And the rest of the world want to believe it too!"
Cynthia
p.s. I hang out with the best of 'em, obviously. :-)
Thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments.
And thank you again Cynthia for sharing Buffy with us. I meant what I said, we need many millions more like her. Thank you also for participating in this discussion with us, for me it actually has helped me feel more connected to who you are and your intentions in writing this article.
I am grateful to be a part of a "safe" political discussion, (safe in this case, meaning a circumstance where I can, through thoughtful discussions with others continue on in a process of discovering what my truth is.
peace to all my planetary brothers and sisters.
At this point America needs the strongest person possible for President. That is Hillary. She knows Washington, she knows the world leaders, she is tough skinned (Obama will be one day - he's not there now), she can sit at the table with all the world leaders and work with them.
I hear little to no substance from Obama. Hope just isn't enough. I can go to church for that.
But thanks for mentioning that Buffy is pretty. I would have wanted to know that.
Someone missed the point. It's probably my bad for not making it more clear. So here it is: the Obama campaign is not just about hope- it's hope rooted in substance, in the form of real and amazing people. Just the kind of people that progressives would- I imagine- like to see in positions of authority.
BTW, I noted that Buffy is pretty in order to underscore her lack of pretension. Plus, she is.
Cynthia
Cynthia,
I also want to thank you for your essay. I would also like to ask any and all of you that are connected in any real way to Obama (know people that work with him) please continue to inform us. With spin and political angling at an absolute maximum its hard to know what people are really like. For me it is very telling to hear stories like these that come from people that are close. We will probably never know what Obama really thinks and that is the way of politics but we can hope that he is a good man and will work in the correct direction.
Cynthia, I commend your patience. It's interesting to be sitting back "up here" in Canada just "watchin' the show." And to the rest of the posters -- yeah, yeah,I know, we'll have to deal with our own stuff "up here" soon enough!
* The Clintons are to professional criminals, as are the Bush family. Obama is yet to be vetted, but Billery is a proven crook!
Do some reseahttp://www.fourwinds10.com./siterun_data/government/fraud/us_government/news.php?q=1202852702rch before you vote.
Here is a starting point.
Cynthia,
Just how much can we expect from Barack Obama when:
1. He refused to vote against an interest rate cap of 30% on credit card interest, but now says he supports one at 35% 35 PERCENT??????. Paulie Walnuts of the Sopranos would have been embarrassed to collect that much on juice loans!
2. Voted for a severe limit on awards granted in class action suits by citizens against corporations.
3. Allowed the Exelon corporation to get away without any penalties for polluting the DesPlaines River with tritium. Now Exelon is one of Obama's top campaign contributors according to OpenSecrets.org website.
4. Opposes single-payer universal health care in favor of an insurance-company driven alternative which would leave many Americans without insurance.
5. Talked brazenly about bombing Pakistan and violating its sovereignty to pursue terrorists, increasing the already negative attitude toward American of the citizens of that country.
6. Is a member of the free-markets-loving Hamilton Group which puts the interests of corporations over everyone else. He only started his populist talk with his Janesville speech of this week. All of a sudden, he needs ordinary working stiffs like us, even though he wasn't talking to us before.
7. Refused to support Illinois Senator Richard Durbin when he spoke out against the abuses of prisoners at Guantanamo, calling his remarks "a mistake."
That's quite a lot of neoliberal baggage for Mr. Hope to overcome in my book.
We are being deluged with Obamamania, sorry but you folks are simply cultists and your leader a phony hypocrite who takes corporate monies and slams Senator Clinton for doing the same. Just like he harps about always having been against the war while his voting record is screaming his support for every funding bill to continue it....bah.
Never could figure out - what is scientific about political science?
This is a correction to my previous post. Obama is a member of the Hamilton Project, not the Hamilton Group as previously stated. This group has always been about free trade over fair trade. As said previously, Obama only started talking about fair trade in his Janesville, Wisconsin speech of this week. Somehow, Obama's getting all populist so late in the day doesn't impress me much. I also echo ardee in my contempt for his continually flogging his 2002 opposition of the Iraq War, while religiously voting for every blank check for it that came along in Congress. To say you are against the war while voting to continue it is like continually having sexual intercourse so that chastity may result!
At this point in this country, we are not going to get anyone but a corporate backed candidate. That's reality. I've thought long and hard about all of this, and while I was a serious Kucinich supporter, I had resolved to write in a vote for him rather than help get the lesser of two evils. In the course of the past few months, however, I have come to the conclusion that moving in a better direction is more important than taking the extreme stand.
It's probably true that Obama is too polished, too steeped in corporate interests, too centrist, and too willing to go along with war funding. But if one thinks about it in perspective, it has long since become obvious that there's still a big difference between a Bush-republican presidency and even a Bill Clinton-Democratic presidency. Clinton was not be perfect. He brought us many of the policies that are hurting us today.
However, under Clinton this country was not vilified by nearly the entire world. We were not immersed in a seven-year-long horror show that not only devastated our military but nearly destroyed huge parts of an ancient civilization (not to mention the unimaginable death toll of innocent civilians). The Clinton administration was well aware of the threat of terrorism, but did not use it to control our population through fear. Our national deficit was under control. Although the economy did not address the needs of all our citizens, there were more jobs and the economy was reasonably sound.
No, it wasn't paradise or anything close; it just wasn't absolute hell. No one could possibly assert that if Gore had won (OK, he did, but aside from that, if he had gone to the White House) in 2000 and a democrat had remained the "leader of the free world" for the past 8 years this country would be in the same shape it's in.
The people who have been in charge recently are like junior high school bullies who have somehow managed to take over the playground and get rid of all the adults. The adults might not be the most moral or the most compassionate (anyone who has been to school knows this), but they are at least adults and are more likely to use their experience and expertise for the general good than the bullies are.
So I've come around to the decision that either of the top democratic candidates would be an improvement. Neither is perfect and may not even be really great, but Obama or Clinton would be an adult to our incumbent emotional 12 year-old bullies and ignoranuses. Watch 10 minutes of Bush making a speech (if you can stand it that long) and then watch Clinton and Obama. If you really still think it will be more of the same, at least you have to admit that neither will be a complete embarrassment. And does anyone believe either one woud not be better - in fact far, far better, than McCain (and whoever his running mate might be with the danger of that person becoming president)?
I'm willing to take a chance one more time and hope that a democrat will improve the lives of Americans more than he or she will stomp us into the ground. We are not going to go from batshit loopy nutjobs to ideal candidate any time soon. Maybe we need to get over some of the idealism and pin some hopes on simply having it get better.
It won't be Kucinich who becomes president. It won't be Ron Paul (for which I am grateful!) It won't be a populist or a green party candidate or any other third party candidate. For me, Obama seems more likely to do what is needed than Clinton.
Impression of headline/first paragraph: Gimme a break. O'Bama is a corporate construct designed to manipulate the public, yet again, to ignore their individual potential, to keep them as cogs in the machine - gimme some evidence to the contrary.
Third paragraph, first sentence: CBuffy has charisma, presence? Oh yes. Today she's involved in O'Rama's campaign, tomorrow she'll run her own campaign for RULER OF THE WORLD. That's what you're getting at, isn't it?
Third paragraph, last sentence: What does Buffy think about the idea of building an egalitarian society starting with severe restrictions on the pursuit of concentrated power, influence, mass manipulation, disinformation, enslavement, death and destruction? I didn't find anything in the first three paragraphs. Should I waste my time with the rest? Explain to me how Cynthia is not simply holding more cheese just out of reach for the rats running the rat wheels of empire. I've shown you how Cynthia failed so far to address the root of all evil/destruction on planet Earth.
The rest of the article is more of the same so to summarize: Cynthia, the corporate machine figured out a long time ago how to make a nest for you inside the machine where you can feel the "audacity of hope", etcetera, but you're still inside the machine, and that's still a problem, a growing problem. We can't live under delusions any more. Sorry, but you'll have to sell your General Electric stock or whatever tethers you still to the machine, and get a progressive clue if you want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
And this kind of cyncism is exactly why we need people like Buffy.
That I've failed to "address the root of all evil/destruction on the planet Earth" in a 600-word essay is disappointing, sure, but certainly not worthy of this kind of hostility. Did I do something to offend you personally, rtdrury? Did you even bother to look into my "progressive" credentials before you launched into that harsh tirade accusing me of all manner of complicity in the downfall of contemporary civilization? Sweet jebeezus, at least I'm trying.
And on that note, pax tecum.
Cynthia
"there are seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality. For if everybody is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank and an inherited social order," Obama asked, "how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?"
- From Obama's "The Audacity of Hope"
Obama Quote #2:
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing"
- from Obama, while on the campaign trail in Nevada.
Cynthia Boaz wrote that her friend Buffy is "A feminist and an animal activist on one hand, tough but compassionate on the other."
Why do you place being "tough but compassionate" on the other hand from being a "feminist and an animal activist"? I think they are on the same hand. In particular, being an activist on behalf of non-human animals is the epitome of compassion, and if you hope to be effective at it, you need to be the epitome of toughness too.
As for Obama and Clinton: I am a registered Green Party voter, and a strong Kucinich supporter. And I don't see much substantive difference between Obama and Clinton. Both of them are heavily dependent on corporate funding, and both of their histories suggest that neither of them will seriously challenge the rule of this country by the ultra-rich corporate aristocracy.
Having said that, either one of them is clearly preferable to John McCain. We may reasonably hope that either one of them will pursue a "kinder and gentler" sort of corporate governance from the ruthless and rapacious kleptocracy we have experienced under the Cheney/Bush regime. We may reasonably hope that either one of them will roll back some of the worst Cheney/Bush excesses of totalitarian corruption and criminality. We may reasonably hope that either one of them will run a more "competent" and less reckless and destructive corporate-imperialist foreign policy. We may reasonably hope that either one of them will break ranks with the fossil fuel corporations and take sides with those sectors of America's corporate ruling class who recognize that something needs to be done about global warming before it endangers even the wealthy and powerful.
I don't think we can reasonably hope for any of that with John McCain.
There is a lot of bitterness between Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, and frankly I don't get it. If you think you'd be happy with the things that a President Hillary Clinton would do, you will probably not be terribly unhappy with what a President Barack Obama would do, and vice versa.
Having said that, it seems to me that the supporters of Senator Clinton have a more realistic view of what might actually be achieved through her presidency. The supporters of Senator Obama seem to be really carried away with his rhetoric (which to my ear is pretty much like any other politician's rhetoric -- big on flamboyant high-flying verbiage targeting whomever he's talking to that day, and low on substantive content), and to have unrealistic expectations about what he'll be able to achieve (even if there is a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress). I think that Obama supporters are more likely to be disappointed with an Obama presidency than Clinton supporters are likely to be if she becomes president.
So how is this lovely, though unfortunately named, Buffy going to take it when she realizes that she's been duped by another predatory politician? Cuz really, to reach this level of 'office' in the United States, you HAVE to be unsavory in some aspect or another. Mr. Obama is no different.
Why do you place being "tough but compassionate" on the other hand from being a "feminist and an animal activist"? I think they are on the same hand. In particular, being an activist on behalf of non-human animals is the epitome of compassion, and if you hope to be effective at it, you need to be the epitome of toughness too.
Yes, exactly. That is what I intended to convey- to show the breadth of this woman's character. My wording could have been better. I should have written "and" instead of "but."
Cynthia
Cynthia,
Good answer to rtdrury. Hang in there. I don't see mr. drury offering anything constructive, just more gloom and doom. Anyone can see that the ills of the world as enumerated by the good mr. drury have been made far worse under the fascist criminals who now run the U.S. executive branch. Either of the Democratic frontrunners, and all of the new faces they would bring into the administration, would be a great step in getting us out of the pit we find ourselves in. And yes, cynics, all of the candidates have a lot of baggage and corporate support (maybe some of the corporations want to change too, ever think of that?), but to change that we will need a parliamentary system, and/or public financing of elections, and/or instant runoff voting.
Down at the lower levels of the Dem party, there are lots of great people. Its a shame they waste their time on the Democrats.
Here's a sure bet for you. When Obama is President, he ain't gonna be asking Buffy what to do. He's going to be asking the Wall St types who've flooded his campaign with money. Or he'll be asking Exelon about nuke power plant policy. Buffy, like the rest of us is going to be sitting out here thinking WTF.
------------------
Has Obama said anything about supporting public financing or instant runoff voting? I thought not. Same answer about whether the Dem majority in Congress has been pushing something like public financing. Nope, they were too busy going to K-street with their hands out collecting payments.
If you want the same thing every four years, keep supporting candidates who aren't about to make any big changes like that. If you want something different, you gotta go support candidates who would give you public financing or instant runoff voting. Hint, those are in the Green Party.
For those interested in facts about Obama and Hillary
voting records go to www.thomas.loc/gov
barackobama.com lists his policies and has his most recent speech in WI on economy
Google Hillary for her sites.
For Mccain go to bush' s site.
"She is blonde, athletic, and pretty, but also disarmingly unpretentious. People are drawn to Buffy because they see themselves in her, much like they do her current boss. She is approachable, but Buffy has more than charisma; she has presence. She cares. She is both fearless and vulnerable. She's scarily smart, but down to earth. Hopeful but not jaded. Bold. Tenacious. Empowered."
OK; I guess...but;
1. Does Buffy support universal Medicare for all?
2. Does Buffy support a 1000 percent cut in defense spending - which would still leave the US far above any other nation in per-capita defense spending - and redirecting these resources to education - including free university education, rebuilding of our blighted cities, and a global climate Manhattan project, including the development of a carbon-free transportation infrastructure?
3. Does Buffy support a moratorium on all coal-burning power plant construction, to begin the first day of the Obama administration?
4. Does Buffy support a national living wage, and the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act?
5. Does Buffy support criminal proceedings against Bush and key members of his administration for contempt of the US constitution at home and high crimes against humanity around the world?
6. Does Buffy recognize, and has criticized the state of Israel for it's ongoing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people?
7. Does Buffy recognize the so-called "war on terror" could be ended tomorrow if we simply followed William Blum's advice - end imperial ambitions, apologize, pay reparations the the nations we've exploited?
What, exactly, does Buffy believe in?
So, when Obama, in his Inaugural address, rattles sabers at Iran and Pakistan, talks about all the coal we still need to dig up and burn here in the US, tells the poor they need to pull themselves up and stop having so many babies, will people like Buffy or Cynthia, and all these other confused Liberals cheer him on?
Thinking back to all the liberals happily ignoring Clinton No. 1's bombing and starving of Iraq, then positively cheering on his bombing of Serbia on lying pretexts, I think I know what the answer will be.
I don't think you're getting the disconnection here, Obama is not a Clintonite, we are going to have a fairly progressive anti-war prez and for once in the last 28 years we will not have to watch in horror as bombs are dropped on mental institutions (grenada), americans are burned alive in their own dwelling (waco), an ecological disaster is created (yugoslavia), and entire countries and countless lives are destroyed for capital gain (iraq - twice and spanning 2 presidencies).
Screw that noise, I am damn tired of it, been tired of it since 1980, and really think now is the time to clean house and do something different, move forward and evolve.
This is the guy that's going to start it too, i have a feeling and its a strong one.
Buffy Wicks "is largely responsible for the campaign's assertion" etc...
A question if I may, Aren't Obama's assertions, not Buffy's, "the campaign's assertions?"
Just clarification. Buffy Wicks sounds like the very best. I believe in and am voting for Obama. Thank You Cynthia707 Boaz.
Puff, Puff, Pufff, Buffy!!!! I vote for Buffy as the cutest cheerleader for Obama of them all!
Interesting article, and one that points out the real essence of Barack Obama, which isn't about him but is, instead, about the people behind him, both his campaign people and the people who have and will vote for him.
His strength isn't his voting record or his oratorial abilities, but his ability to get people off their butts and into the voting booth, hoping and praying for change. And if he's elected, and if he doesn't do anything to make his "change" rhetoric more than just rhetoric, there are going to be one hell of a lot of disillusioned people out there, maybe enough of them disillusioned enough to vote for a candidate who's not a democrat the next time around.
So, if Obama gets elected, he'd better do something more than talk well, unless he wants to see his party lose a lot of support in 2012. And his party knows this, too, I bet.
I posted this with other Barak Obama discussions I have been apart of:
Look at all the stories on Barak Obama on the main page. The only time Hillary Clinton is mentioned is with Barak Obama in the headline.
Wow. I think the Common Dreams staff is for Barak Obama.
Sean Gonsalves:
"Understanding The Obama Surge"
"Obama Receives Official SEIU Endorsement" at the top of the main page with his picture.
John Nichols:
"Harlem Mystery: Did Rangel's District Go for Barack Obama?"
FRIDAYS 1st Story:
Barbara Ehrenreich:
"Unstoppable Obama"
Robert Kuttner:
"Obama's Voice, Edwards's Message"
Cynthia Boaz:
"Buffy the Cynicism Slayer: Behind the Obama Phenomenon"
Friday - 14 stories not counting headlines 3 stories on Barak Obama, no stories with Hillary Clinton's name in it. Hmmmm.... democracy? It seems more like "fair and balanced." lol
THURSDAY STORIES:
Paul Rogat Loeb:
"Behind Obama's Wave of Victories: The More They Know Him…"
Jim Goodman:
"Clinton, Obama Must Answer to Farmers"
TUESDAY:
Tom Hayden:
"Death of Reform, Birth of Reform: Clinton Democrats Face the Obama Future"
Listening to National Propaganda Radio this morning "the praise and adoration of Barak."
I feel like the left and the Democrats are force feeding me the wonderfulness of Barak, and the more they do this with little substance to his speeches, and the more people get frenzied about him, the more I worry.
Should Common Dreams be acting like the liberal version of Faux News?
Cause that is what I am beginning to feel agitated about. I feel like everyone around me is chanting and swaying together and that kind of behavior scares me...
Liberals can be just as manipulative through the media using marketers, pollsters, sociologists, psychologists, etc., and as conservatives, and it is my opinion, albeit humble, that we should as Democrats, Libertarians, and Liberals, have higher standards and not engage in the same type of psych-ops through the media as the Republicans do.
Yes Common Dreams, I am saying that I am feeling manipulated (not only by this site) and I don't like it. I am not saying you are using psychops. But you do have the power through placement of stories and photos to manipulate subtly. I like this site so much and have such a high regard for the ideas and ideals that are shared here, I guess that is why I am saying something on this site.
an agitated planetary sister.
Cynthia,
Your piece reads more like a sugar-coated letter of recommendation for Buffy than an honest to goodness article. To be honest, the tone annoyed me. My face feels sticky, like I've had cotton candy shoved into my mouth.
I'm glad you have a friend whose virtues you feel the need to extol. But Common Dreams seems an odd place to do so. It reads more like something you'd find on a personal blog… no offense.
1messenger's reaction reflects much of how I feel.
The truth isn't so much that we all need Buffy. The truth is that we all need to step up to the plate and BE good roll models through our positive actions and good will. Whoever inspires us to do so is a personal choice.
Interestingly, I supported Obama more strongly last summer than I do now. My conviction has cooled considerably in great part due to articles like this one. Also, I find the two remaining Democratic contenders very similar policy-wise. I would feel comfortable supporting either Clinton or Obama, actually.
The truth is, if something is good it doesn't need to be forced onto people. It becomes self evident.
I think we'd all do better to research the candidates ourselves… Read/listen to their policies and speeches throughout the years and decided accordingly. This rather than read opinion pieces full of value judgments.
:::Sigh:::: Pretty soon blogging will replace what passes as news… and that will be a sad day indeed!
Geez, I never thought of progressives as being so grouchy.
Obviously it makes sense to be skeptical until we see if Obama's policy prescriptions line up with his promise. For that we'll just have to wait and see, unless any of you have an oracle.
The larger point is that this phenomenon is a movement and movement's are- to a large degree- psychological. To be successful, they bring people together on a level that goes much deeper than slogans. Do you think the people of Serbia, Chile, Burma, the Phillipines, South Africa, and Poland sat around and discussed whether their organizing together to reclaim rights and liberties was rational?
I have never understood the need of so many progressives--- who I want to believe are amongst the most enlightened and compassionate people around--- to knee-jerk deconstruct anything that stretches outside the boundaries of their comfort zone. The reason Obama is getting so much press- including on progressive websites- is because he is signficant. And therefore, so are the people behind him.
Cynthia
As a survivor of a cultic relationship, I get a little nauseous when anything looks to good to be true. Obama's campaign, so far, makes me want to reach for the emesis bag.
Whether Cynthia intended it or not this piece smacks of the "us versus them" mentality that pervades our society, and has caused almost every inconceivable evil since the beginning of the human race. If our side is good the other side must be evil. I bet there's some really nice people working for McCain too. Does that make him a better candidate ?
Instead of taking offense at the cynicism of some people, I'd like to see Cynthia take it for what it is: abject disillusion with our broken country; and answer the difficult questions put to her here. If Cynthia can't/won't do it will someone please, I still have no idea what Obama really stands for other than "Goodness" and at this point that's a remarkably empty virtue.
Sorry Cynthia, I see we cross posted. Are you kidding me ?! Why are we grouchy, everybody should be irate, we've killed over 1 million Iraqis, a good majority as beautiful, vibrant and good as Buffy, and you want us to just buy the "New Coke" untasted.
Sorry, Coke gets lots of press and they have some slick advertising, but that never means it's good for us !?!
No, I'm not kidding. The essay wasn't intended to stir up sentiment for Obama. It was intended to be a profile about (and admittedly perhaps a bit of an homage to) one person who happens to be a part of the Obama campaign, but who- in a much larger sense- represents for me a paragon of civic virtue. I didn't write this as a defense of Obama; I wrote it to illustrate that the Obama phenomenon is, in fact, a movement- and to highlight one example of that.
If you read my essay as an example of "us versus them" thinking, then I think you've misunderstood who is the "us" and who is the "them." (Hint: you are part of "us".)
I think there's a difference between righteous anger and immovable cyncism. Buffy is angry too, you know.
Cynthia