Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTo 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 AllIn support of Cynthia against the Clinton camp who simply wants more of the same "failed policies of the past", in support who those who want change at any price because it can't be worse than these past seeven years, nothing can, I submit a letter requested by the Obama's campaign director. It is an open letter to the super delegates. We all know that the entrenched congress is opposed to Obama and the will of America. They are afraid of change, which is necessary for global survival. I am opposed to the infrastructure of the Greens since the level of anarchy dictates against any real positive direction. Or for that matter a run by Nader, not enough charisma to attract sufficient voters, not that his message lacks importance. But should the decision of the the Democratic Super Delegates go against the the will of the people than a switch to a third party would be a move that Obama could make in defiance of political control and undemocratic decisions putting the party on notice that this kind of back room politics is over. we are all sick of it!
Change is the only hope for this country and the world!
There is an open response from a European blogger, Included below, is an open letter to the director of Barak Obama's campaign director and to Barak Obama. The media continues to do what it can to cast Obama in a secondary position but many of us are aware of this tactic to diffuse his candidacy. I think the party and the public should be put on notice that this is the election that affects the young people and with this new support this tactic will not be tolerated. THIS ELECTION WILL BE BASED ON THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
European Blogger
Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realize that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do affects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessant bickering amongst yourselves. The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life. What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists. Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote don't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy. 

My exception to my own recommendation to Obama below. The Green party is a mess and so was Greenpeace when I was involved with them but despite this problem what they do for all of us is superb. They offer a clear choice. But like this blog it is a mess of individuals without "PARTY CONTROL" in itself that kind of anarchy is a two edged sword but it allows for different points of view, Isn't that what democracy is and the political parties of this country are not? However Barak Obama could control the Green Party mechanisms since he has the populist vote, unlike Nader, should that become necessary to put the Democrats in their place. Each day however it looks like they will not vote for Hillary, a good thing.
Dear Mr. David Plouffe,
Thank you for your request, although by e-mail. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.
There are some who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the Democratic Party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda should the Democratic Party not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who have a hope of change and believe that change is necessary-risk an upheaval that could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.
Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country. The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office; this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party.
Further, should he be forced to that position by the party, he should leave the Democratic Party and form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This is what every one who is really thinking in this country and abroad wants and thinks the USA very much needs. Should that occur I think he should attempt to attract the Green Party and other great thinkers, who believe as he does, and his rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations.
He has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president.
He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take these courageous steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party change and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift and direction, if necessary! By doing this he would serve notice to the Democratic Party that democracy is lost to America, by creating a third party should the first place be denied. Should the party be given to Clinton, we all lose and the possibility of change and it goes down with her selection. Should he follow the Clinton policy as suggested by some pundits by accepting the VP we all fail.
If he takes half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress represented by the Super delegates. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place.
This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing the second place the congress and CNN want. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the position of many "super delegates" would be to overturn the national-will, regardless of Barak Obama taking the popular vote. This would cause the disaffection of the youth of America. No one has a right to do that since the older generation through "the failed policies of the past" has put the USA and the World in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.
In the final analysis the USA did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage necessary for this time by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. The media and the democratic establishment suggests this scenario by supporting the status quo and have the temerity to think it can choose the way the people's will and nullifying the very democracy they espouse, the height of cynical belief. Wolf Blitzer on CNN is the scourge of presumption and simply a clone of the establishment.
These policies, if continued will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could, by default, elect John McCain and with him a continuation of war for another hundred years. This is a moot point since thirty years remain before environmental disaster takes hold because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics, environmental direction and economics.
Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realize that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do affects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessant bickering amongst yourselves. The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life. What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists. Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote don't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy. 

rocyahsoul-
Of course Buffy is on Obama's payroll. Duh. She works for the campaign.
I, on the other hand, am naive enough to do all this writing and contributing simply because I'm interested. If only I were on someone's payroll...I could finally upgrade from that 1999 Golf I've been driving for 8 years (and just paid off-- woo!)
Cynthia
rocyahsoul, 1:44 a.m., thanks for that link to Barack Obama's speech, god he is INSPIRING! Speaks meaningfully and from his heart.
Thanks agains, Obama! Yes.
You, rocyahsoul, on the other hand, need to TAKE YOUR MEDICATION, maybe call 911 if it gets just too overwhelming...that's why they are there, it is okay.
And Cynthia, it's a blazing full moon,....c'est la vie, mucho gracias again for your article and time.
Regarding Rainbow Whigs Finding:
The Charisma Mandate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.html?hp
This article is GarBage.
This ignores the fact that the economic collapse was set on and intent by banking interests. It further ignores that this was the single worst give away of financial power the American people ever suffered. The fed is a conglomeration of privately owned banks that are not even fully declared as to their membership, devalue American holdings by printing cash on a constant and tempt the devilish figures in the monstrous federal government to spend away for the fed will cover all bills by printing money. So this article, really about a multitrillion dollar near century long scam having taken advantage of now about a billion Americans places emphasis on one corny wholly unsubstantiated phrase about fear. This is what passes for journalism today.
Google this:
site:commondreams.org ice age
Or how bout googleing this one:
regenerative medicine "fountain of youth"
And then connect the dots to these life crack addicts, Bush and the hell bent hypersexual media...
I get the feeling Cynthia, that you're the slickest. At first I was thinking you and your buddy the cynical slayer were just duped. Now I'm pretty sure your on the payroll.
Getting paid, getting paid, big money getting paid, getting paid bug life?!
FYI Obama talking about the new way of teaching kids, makes a throat slashing gesture.
At the end he talks about "attracting young people" then points at his crotch.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/defending-h...
That's life in DC.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-...
Judicial watch places Obama as the 8th MOST CORRUPT politician in the beltway. Guess who is their #1, of course the other big money democratic front runner.
www.writeinvote.us is a REAL solution.
www.ni4d.org is a petition to establish national referendum, another real solution.
Don't vote BIG money!
This from the Boston Globe:
In Illinois Obama Dealt with Lobbyists
Excerpt:
When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.
The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.
FYI, Obama last night defending hope:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/defending-h...
Thank you rainbowhigh01 brother - these excerpts really resonated with me. What an interesting interview.
SS: That's right. It's a tough one. He's a bound man. Bound, I think on many levels. If Obama has made a mistake, it is that, I think he never should have bargained in the first place. He should have presented himself as an individual. I think back to the nineties; '96- Colin Powell had an opportunity to run. He came very close to running against a weak Bill Clinton in '96. My sense is that he would've won, and he would've won as an individual, not as a bargainer. He would've (said), "This is what I stand for, these are my convictions, these are my principles, take me or leave me, but I'm not offering a bargain one way or another, I'm not challenging, I'm just an individual.
SR: But is that realistic in politics? You are trying to create a tribe, a constituency. As an individual, that seems even harder a challenge.
SS: If you play the race game in politics, it's going to come back to bite you in some way. In the subtitle of the book I talk about why Obama can't win. That's one of the problems I think he's going to have. This is the one thing bargainers never do: bargainers never tell you what they really and truly think, what their deepest convictions are. Obama has yet to do that. We don't really yet know who he is, and what his deep principles are. So he's, in that sense, not giving us a reason to support him for the presidency. We need to know: when will you take this country to war, when would you not take this country to war. What is your feeling about equality under the law and racial preferences - where do you stand on all of these? What principles are guiding you as you confront these issues? So, he's saying: 'Give me power without me telling you what I'm going to do with it'. That is something that's got to catch up with him at some point.
SR:What do you think he represents to all the people, because the other part of your title is "Why we are excited about Obama"? Why are we excited?
SS: This is what interests me. We are excited about Obama because of what he represents, rather than because of who he is. We don't know, really, who he is. You go to the Republican side, pick any one of those candidates, John McCain seems to be ahead at the moment. Well, you know who John McCain is. You know what his convictions are, you can take them, you can leave them. With Obama you don't know that, you don't know what his convictions are. He never articulates them. So he basically, again, is using bargaining to get this basic excitement going, to give himself a certain kind of charisma. But how far can he go with that? At some point you've got to do more.
And thanks for the Charisma Mandate link. I resonated with this also -
Alan Wolfe, the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Political Life at Boston College, says Mr. Obama is simply — understandably — making an emotional appeal to those yearnings. "Politics is about policy, but it's also about giving people some kind of sense of participating in a common venture with their fellow citizens," Mr. Wolfe said.
"What is troubling about the campaign is that it's gone beyond hope and change to redemption," said Sean Wilentz, a historian at Princeton (and a longtime friend of the Clintons). "It's posing as a figure who is the one person who will redeem our politics. And what I fear is, that ends up promising more from politics than politics can deliver."
Accounts of the campaign's "Camp Obama" sessions, to train volunteers, have a revivalist flavor. Volunteers are urged to avoid talking about policy to potential voters, and instead tell of how they "came" to Mr. Obama.
"If you don't talk about issues in great detail, if you do it in a way that is not the centerpiece of your campaign, of your rhetoric, then you become a blank screen," Mr. Wilentz said. "Everybody thinks you are the vehicle of their hopes."
Now more than, ever after the hundreds of signings statements and Presidential privilege's, and the President not Congress taking us to war, we have to be so very, very careful of who we as a tribe, a nation, give all this power to. We didn't know about George Bush's foreign policy - we sure do now. I am not saying George Bush is Barak Obama, or vice versa, what I am saying is that we have to be careful who we give this much power to.
I guess wisdom and gut feelings come with experiencing life in time and space, as civic minded as Buffy is, she hasn't experienced and seen as much death and destruction as I have in my 48 years on this planet. We are going to hell in a hand basket, I need more substance, more than slogans and the promise of change.
I just watched the Barak Obama at the Wisconsin Democratic Party Founders Day Gala on C-SPAN and I wanted so very badly to hear substance. What I felt I heard was a well intentioned man promising things he will not be able to deliver without the Congress, Senate, corps and lobbies.
Round and round I go.
peace.
thanks for the great discourse.
Thank You Cynthia Boaz, As a Barack Obama supporter, it's neat to hear about this real person working with him.
You've been very kind to give of your time, interweaving with the thread.
Grazi.
Just found this in the NYTimes.
The Charisma Mandate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17zernike.html?hp
Cynthia, I appreciate your response…. fair points indeed. Thank you. I too think excitement/enthusiasm to be crucial in a democracy… in any society… particularly one on the brink of possible profound change. Yet I feel quite strongly that excitement should be informed by clearly articulated substance. For me, a melding of the two is imperative. It is this 'substance' I am trying to track down, if you will… The 'substance' that explains clearly and realistically how 'hope' can be transformed into positive change for all of us. And this is a huge order for anyone. So far the Obama campaign's message is seductive. Now give me the brass tacks.
A clearer articulation may in fact emerge in the coming months from the Obama camp. I sincerely hope that it does. At this point, however, it isn't quite there for me and no amount of enthusiasm standing on its own can fill the void, however 'good' many of his current supporters may be. I do acknowledge those good people, btw, lest you think I don't.
May I recommend a QA that I stumbled upon while trolling for other things online. It is an interview with Shelby Steele regarding Obama, his candidacy and the excitement factor. He offers some interesting perspectives.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d2a822...
I don't necessarily agree with the title of the article (which is the title of Steele's book). However, he makes some thought-provoking points during the QA worth adding to the mix.
I do appreciate Cynthia's hanging in for the discussion, I'm cynical yes, but immovable: God No !!! Give me a good reason to move and I'll do it, that's all I'm asking for.
That's it Cynthia ! ! !
"I don't know if Obama has it, (goodness), but I know that many good people believe he does."
What I am really concerned about, what bothers my "gut" is the question, "has Barak Obama has learned how to surround himself with idealistic, spiritual, hungry for change, really good beings usually in their 20's and 30's, (but his charisma has the ability to cross many age, gender, race, cultural - barriers. And without a more detailed history that occurs in time and space, that brings with it wisdom learned through service, I can't tell how this much power will effect him as a whole person. OMG look what happened when George Bush got a hold of the "Power of the Presidency.
And your right that is not the question on this board.
But now I have a better understanding of what has been bothering me, and I can hold that as one perspective as I watch and learn.
peace, thanks.
Hello rainbowhigh-
Once again, my essay was not intended to stir up support for Obama. And I agree that intelligent discussion is tantamount to democratic citizenship. But it's not mutually exclusive with enthusiasm. Gandhi and MLK Jr. were also righteously angry, but never let the anger turn to hostility or hatred towards those who had wronged them. Can we think of any truly progressive ideas or people who have been victorious without that kind of discipline and compassion? "Goodness" is not an empty virtue- quite the opposite. I don't know if Obama has it (that discussion is beside the point of my essay), but I know that many good people believe he does.
Cynthia
mikepeters-
I was just noting that it was Buffy's idea to promote the concept that support for Obama is personal.
Cynthia
Also, I agree with 1messenger about the press currently "crowning" Obama. I too am a bit disturbed by and wary of this.
I didn't like it one bit when the media uniformly gave little to no coverage of the other democratic nominees earlier in the process. I feel this exclusion certainly contributed to Edwards falling out. When MSNBC didn't allow Kucinich to participate in the Nevada debate, it seemed wrong full stop. At that time, the only two candidates being touted by the media on the Democratic side were Hillary and Obama. And guess who ended up making it this far?
So the hesitation to jump on the bandwagon of media frenzy is completely understandable in my view.
All of this, needless to say, gets away from the discussion of specifically who these candidates are, what they've done policy-wise and what they can realistically do in future should one of them become president.
But the playing field should be a fair one. And in many ways, thus far, it hasn't been. That too should concern us.
Hello Cynthia, I asked a question, 4:11 a.m., it was not about Buffy, it was a little more substantive. It was about Barack Obama; do you think if you get beyond Buffy you might respond.
It was quick, specific, and drawn directly from your article.....
Once Again, Thanks.
Grouchy? Really? Is this a pep club rally?
There are a lot of people responding to this post making some very good points and posing some very good questions. It could be the jumping board for a fantastic discussion where people might even learn something. All of us. You, Cynthia, included.
There will always be a post or two that goes too far.
But wouldn't you agree that intelligent discussion is paramount? And people will disagree. Have different opinions. Through this learning ensues.
I've known and worked with several people even more committed than your Buffy. Am in the process of working with one now. That isn't a slight, btw, to your friend. It just means there are many bright people doing good work both here and abroad.
But Buffy is not writing on this forum. We are. And many of us are striving for intelligent discourse. Trying to understand… to discuss… the fine points of who would make a better president. It is incredibly important. So, whether or not you intended the discussion to revolve around this, it inevitably will and probably should at this point.
Scheiber makes a very good point: "I still have no idea what Obama really stands for other than 'Goodness' and at this point that's a remarkably empty virtue."
Don't all of you find that remarkable? Interestingly, I can understand why scheiber would say this.
Wouldn't we all do better to talk more about this?
Hey Cynthia - thanks for hanging in there with us on this.
I confess that when I first read your piece on Buffy, I already had this gut feeling that I was being force fed Barak Obama by the media, and it had been agitating me, but I wanted to and continue to want, to find out what is going on behind the hype, to discern the truth. A lot of posters, including yourself in the many articles on Barak Obama have helped me learn more about him as a candidate.
AND I am sorry, I feel really uncomfortable with the numerous articles with titles that pay homage to his "his wonderfulness", which continue to proliferate in the news cycle in various media. Common Dreams, instead of 'coming out' and saying the are endorsing Barak Obama have been giving him really excellent placement and press coverage and it feels underhanded.
Maybe what people like myself are identifying is important for political scientists to look at. Perhaps all this Barak Obama homage is starting to saturate people and may turn them off to him in the future.
We are all human beings, and all of us are a mixture of many qualities of shadow and light in our persona's. For some reason, the media is complicit in the crowning of Barak Obama(this is my perception)as "his holy innocence and wonderfulness". And then to read another story related to Barak Obama's wonderfulness through your portrayal Buffy, who to me is just the epitomy of wonderfulness herself,you identified her yourself as "a paragon of civic virtue" well, this alienates me, it doesn't make me feel 'with', it makes me feel like there is something wrong with me for not "seeing and jumping on board with the wonder of "change" and the "wonder of Barak Obama."
The people who are crabby to me, seem to be those who attack those of us who are not sure, for being unsure and questioning. I have valid reasons for being cautious, I want more substance and even more so, I want fair media coverage of both candidates. This does not make me one of the cynical nor the immovable.
Perhaps as I said earlier in this posting, as a political scientist, you are getting an early glimpse into another side of the Barak Obama phenomenon before it manifests nationally, and perhaps you should let Buffy know...
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
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 !?!
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
Puff, Puff, Pufff, Buffy!!!! I vote for Buffy as the cutest cheerleader for Obama of them all!
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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!
Never could figure out - what is scientific about political science?
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.
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.
* 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, 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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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. :-)
Wherever Buffy goes, I go.
thanks Cynthia.
Character is all to often ignored these days.
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
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
I'm just curious: which special interests, exactly, have Obama in their pockets?
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..., ...
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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!