EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Appears to Take Social Values Seriously
Beware of the campaign sound bite. Candidates live and die by clever one-liners. In Barack Obama's case, it is especially discouraging to see a candidate criticized for an off-the-cuff comment that hardly does justice to his own earlier and more careful reflections.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain have repeatedly attacked Obama for a response to a question regarding why he was not attracting more support in some rural communities. He responded: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," he said. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama could be read as suggesting that social values and personal and social identity are merely a rationalization for the "real" economic story. They are not to be taken seriously in their own right. To treat group and individual values as merely products of forces beyond our control clearly is to demean those who hold those values and to deny them an opportunity to speak for themselves. Yet much of Obama's campaign suggests that he takes values seriously and has more interest in understanding the subtle interplay between social values and the quest for economic justice than either of his opponents.
Even in his ill-considered remarks at the fundraiser, Obama's suggestion that voters "cling" to guns or religion can be read as the contention that in troubled times citizens can often become more dogmatic about their fundamental values, more convinced that they have the one, true source of truth and that their truths are all-embracing. Looking at the history of such movements as the Ku Klux Klan or a variety of xenophobic movements in the 1930s, one would be hard-pressed to deny some historical grounding for such concerns.
In his earlier and widely praised speech on race, Obama took values seriously in the truest and most democratic way. He regarded them as necessary and serious quests for broader justice but as also not above criticism. And he clearly saw himself as having a role both as interrogator and listener in such conversations. Thus he suggested that African-Americans had and still have reasons to believe that the legacy of slavery is not fully dead and to see themselves as inhabiting a different and lesser world. Equal educational opportunity remains elusive, and racial profiling and discriminatory drug sentences land too many African-Americans in prison. He reminds whites that the sense of oppression many blacks feel is not all in their head.
But such oppression does not, he asserts, define their entire identity, and both personal advancement and political quests for justice are possible. Toward this end, the most fruitful step lies in understanding that for many working-class whites, similar narratives of injustice in the past 30 years are apt: "Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor."
Whites need to acknowledge that injustice remains pervasive in many minority communities. African-Americans should consider their goals are best achieved by seeing their struggle as part of a broader effort, in which many whites are also engaged, to achieve good schools, jobs for all, and a voice within the workplace.
Greater economic justice surely creates better conditions for people to be able to acknowledge the partial, often not provable foundations of -- and even the limits of -- those values. At the same time, taking values people hold in the here and now seriously and engaging people in conversation about their values and yours is the key to forming coalitions needed for the just economic conditions that lessen the temptation to demonization of opponents.
What remains unclear to me is how far Obama will go in acknowledging the role the Democratic Party, even many so-called liberals, have played in fostering the very inequalities that exacerbate identity politics. In his infamous remarks, the reference to anti-trade fundamentalism was troubling.
Is Obama suggesting that all opposition to corporate trade treaties was based on xenophobia? Many who opposed these deals care deeply about labor everywhere and wish merely to extend labor rights to all signatories to trade treaties. Ultimately, Obama's success as a political leader will depend on his willingness to make these concerns a broader part of the conversation, and it will require the insistence by labor, immigrant and social justice advocates that their voices be heard.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


52 Comments so far
Show Allhillary won by 9.2% in pa... but she won in ohio by 10.4 % no hillary is NOT getting better and closing in as the media wants people to beleive
ohio had MORE blacks and less elderly .. so clearly obama progressed over hillary from ohio to PA... so this is nothing like the media is trying to portray this...
It is sad that freedom of speech in Amerika does not extend to associating the two sacred cows (guns or religion) with any word other than "freedom".
We know full well that the Clintons and McCain are supportive of global corporatization, dependent upon the efficient use of many and various "lower classes" along the way--while perhaps not in their own country, but somewhere--to achieve this end. Obama has not profferred this view. Also, while a living wage for everyone, everywhere, is a prerequisite for enjoying citizenship, Obama is less about working hard and buying stuff than he is about reaping the interpersonal and spiritual benefits of community participation. Whether he morphs into a Clinton (money) or McCain(guns) down the road remains to be seen, but I am willing to take a gamble, given his obvious gifts and message of inclusion (a basketball court in every neighborhood.)
I have voted for Nader the past two elections, and will do so again should Obama not win the Democratic nomination.
Obama = Clinton = McCain
Just ask the campaign financiers
Great post, Samson, and most likely true. Many Obama followers, like Daniel David, seem to believe that he will do a turn around and act against these powerful interests once elected. As for myself, I will not be holding my breath.
sarajeanne:
"Whether he morphs into a Clinton (money) or McCain(guns) down the road remains to be seen, but I am willing to take a gamble, given his obvious gifts and message of inclusion (a basketball court in every neighborhood.)"
It doesn't really "remain to be seen" whether Obama "morphs" into a Clinton or a McCain. He is already there, the hand-puppet of same "money" (Wall Street) that supports Clinton as well; and an unquestioning supporter of the same military belligerence and bloated Pentagon hardware budget that Clinton (as well as McCain) supports. All these efforts (including Buell's) to make these hairs-breadth distinctions between three representatives of the same Corporatocracy are part of what makes the current campaign so wearying to the soul. A "basketball in every neighborhood;" now THAT would be better than an Israeli bomb in every Gaza kid's bedroom!
He was the last Corporate-Approved Candidate I was still willing vote for, but now cnn.com is reporting that Obama is "outraged" over Rev. Wright's remarks at the NPC. His outrage may have just alienated me to the point of voting 3rd party or write-in.
Will Obama shrink the military? Will he raise taxes on the super-rich? Will he stop the defunding of American Higher Education? Will he advocate for single payer health care?
If you can't answer yes to these questions then you need to explain how Obama represents real progressive value.
andersdl Said on April 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm: It is sad that freedom of speech in Amerika does not extend to associating the two sacred cows (guns or religion) with any word other than "freedom".
Freedom of Speech is a bit of a misnomer. Sure, you have the right to say whatever you want... but after you've said it, the establishment WILL rake you over the coals for it. This is to discourage others from exercising their right to free speech. Therefore, the sheer nastiness which your statement will be met with, will intimidate others into exercising self-censorship. Scared people keep their mouth shut.
The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hiding behind innocence. Passed in 1791 by Congress, it provided that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Yet, seven years after the First Amendment became part of the
Constitution, Congress passed a law very clearly abridging the freedom of speech.
This was the Sedition Act of 1798, passed under John Adams's Administration, at a time when Irishmen and Frenchmen in the United States were looked on as dangerous revolutionaries because of the recent French Revolution and the Irish rebellions. The Sedition Act made it a crime to say or write anything "false, scandalous and malicious" against the government, Congress, or the President, with intent to defame them, bring them into disrepute, or excite popular hatreds against them.
This act seemed to directly violate the First Amendment. Yet, it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, sitting as an appellate judge, held it constitutional.
There was a legal basis for this, one known to legal experts, but not to the ordinary American, who would read the First Amendment and feel confident that he or she was protected in the exercise of free speech. That basis has been explained by historian Leonard Levy. Levy points out that it was generally understood (not in the population, but in higher circles) that, despite the First Amendment, the British common law of "seditious libel" still ruled in America. This meant that while the government could not exercise "prior restraint" - that is, prevent an utterance or publication in advance - it could legally punish the speaker or writer afterward. Thus, Congress has a convenient legal basis for the laws it has enacted since that time, making certain kinds of speech a
crime. And, since punishment after the fact is an excellent deterrent to the exercise of free expression, the claim of "no prior restraint" itself is destroyed. This leaves the First Amendment much less than the stone wall of protection it seems at first glance.
People's History of the United States: Page 74.
Why does Obama look more and more like a nice party balloon two days old with the air inexorably leaking out?
Obama:
"Wright's Statements "Offend Me, They Rightfully Offend All Americans"
"There's Been Great Damage"... My Relationship With Him "Won't Be The Same"... He Was "Never My Spiritual Mentor"... The Press Misconstrued Our Relationship..."
from HUff post headlines: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
I can understand that he has to say that to get elected in this media circus, but still... Wright is right!
"tnathant April 29th, 2008 3:48 pm
Will Obama shrink the military? Will he raise taxes on the super-rich? Will he stop the defunding of American Higher Education? Will he advocate for single payer health care?"
Would he be allowed to?
Why is it that no voter gets why the corporate owned media is trying to take down Obama? Since Americans are so passive and gullable that we allow a President to be appointed, look the other way while our heads of state Sell out America for their own personal profit and tell us to continue to consume in order to fuel the stock market and their personal wealth we continue to take the bait and pick apart the only candidate who makes you feel like he may be influenced by the people more than the corporations. Sure he takes money from some corporations but not like the others. Any politician who does not adhere to some objectionable behavior necessary to become a viable politician does not stay in the game long enough to make change.
As a two-time Kucinich supporter (and putting my hard-earned bucks in each time, not just my opinion), Obama is hardly a substitute for Dennis.
Still, I support Obama, as he is by far the best candidate, and I believe he could be a remarkable president.
I do not expect him to change everything. I am realistic. But one thing he can do, and it is not a small thing, is to present a new American face to the rest of the world. I'm not sure the American people have considered how helpful this could be.
As for Clinton, I stick by my pledge, made before the campaign began, that I would not vote for anyone who voted for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Unlike her, I keep my word.
Further, in my 55 years I have never seen a Democrat promote a Republican foe over their fellow party member or stoop to the basest Atwater/Rove-like tactics, tactics designed not just destroy a fellow Democrat, but the party itself.
So smear Obama all you want. Clinton will not get my vote, and I am legion.
Before he dropped out, I was a huge Kucinich supporter. I was passionate about his platform and values. At the time, I thought Obama was full of hot air.
Then Obama (especially next to Hillary) started to sound better to me, and I voted for him in the primary.
Obama's response to this Wright thing is making me sick. He is revealing that he has no conviction. He should have the guts to embrace his own past. Wright didn't sound so wrong to me..."he was just doing what pastors do," as he said. Obama's press conference today made him sound so weak. He is as superficial as I initially thought.
I hate to say it, but I may have to vote for Nader.
Yesterday everybody got me convinced that Jeremiah Wright was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now that Obama has denounced him and is "outraged" about what he has said, I am going to sadly have to vote for Hillary.
A passing thought...
I heard the other day that Elaanor Roosevelt was a driving force for the New Deal, so perhaps we should wonder if Michelle Obama is more concerned with social values than Bill Clinton?
I don't think we'll know what Obama will do unless he becomes president, but even then he will have many puppet strings attached to the corporatists -- unless we get enough of the people aware and organized to cut them. It will always come down to we the people.
Obama has supported infanticide and made sure that the Born Alive Infant Protection Act would not pass in Illinois. He did this 'even' after it was testified before him .."As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide."
Obama voted against mandating that these babies be protected and recieve the medical care they needed. And this is the guy you think will help bring health care to those that needed? He actively denied it to babies that were the weakest and defensless.....wow...how compassionate. (please note dripping sarcasm punctuated with the hope that eyes will be opened)
The Bosses don't want Obama, so they are stoking the fires and trying to assassinate him by proxy.
The Bosses don't want Obama. That's enough for me.
Go Obama!
we can prove just how corrupt the clintons are and the media who is trying to keep this race close by showing how its impossible for clinton to win.... which proves she is just trying to lessen obama so that the clintons can get as much influence as possible and maybe run in 2012...
first this race is set for the winner to win delegates ... this is like setting up a football game to win by getting points instead of gaining more yards.. so they both agree and set off to work and play this game..
also they agree that both mich and fla is not part of this game cause of problems ... and one honors this agreement that both made the other doesn't...
now there is ALOT of spin about changing the winner to win by popular vote instead of delegates coming from the one that is behind...
now lets see about the popular vote totals .. remember the ones that win in caucus has less a popular vote win margin cause less voters vote but is used to average which gives the correct delegates... if one wants to count popular votes then the ones who won in caucus should get more...which would be obama.
but lets stick to the numbers of pure popular voters voting... with mich... obama was given NO votes cause with no name on ballot same with edwards no vote... so mich's totals should never be used in any way one angles all this..
so then its fla .. where one campagined some and the other not and where one lied to the voters to increase that candidates vote totals.. but lets go ahead and let that count stand... and if so we have 206,500 more votes for obama over hillary..
lets go to nc and indianas voting....
it looks like obama will win at least 12% over hillary there nc ... they will have a million voters so add 120,000 to obamas pop vote edge.... and indiana will have about 700,000 voting and hillary can not expect more that a 5% win if she even wins.. so lets substract 35,000 from obamas lead.. which then with 120 + and 35- gives a lead of 291k...in popular vote..
now lets go to the others left... oregon will have more voters barely over ky oregon will go strong for obama like washington and idaho did.. ky may go just as strong for clinton so thats a wash no gain for either..
west virgina has slightly less voters than the combination of SD and montana voters..... sd and montana will go strongly for obama like ND ...west virgina will go maybe just as strong for clinton so again a wash here...
that leaves obama with a pop vote lead of 291,000...
then we have a terrirory puerto rico that don't even vote in the general election with about the same as arkanasas that may vote... clinton won by 137,000 votes in ark.... but obama won by 93% to 7% over clinton in the virgin islands.. so one will wonder how puerto rico would go.. even if it went to clinton at the same rate as ark she will still be behind by 150,000 popular votes and well over 100 delegates coming from the voters.....how could anyone spin this as not an obama win??? impossible unless one is a CROOK..
the clintons know they can't win they are just trying to lessen obamas infleunce so their influence can stay as strong as possible and maybe run in 2012..
the clintons are the most corrupt politicians in all of american history.... their supporters are either crooks or dumb as a rock people !!!
You know, every time I hear Rev. Wright speak, I think "He is absolutely right." There is no question but that he is right. However, his emotional delivery, while appropriate for the pulpit, will only serve to incite a visceral, as opposed to an intelligent and compassionate, response. An intelligent and compassionate response would speak to the heartache and misery and unfairness of at least 3 centuries of murder and theft, sincerely and calmly, and then it would offer a deeply personal, heartfelt apology.
This can all be accomplished without raising voices and risking re-creating the same angry, hateful environment under which the previous trauma was able to thrive.
Isn't this the same state of heart and mind and behavior that we try to model in our own families, in our neighborhood Sunday schools and kindergartens?
The damage is real and the anger is rightful, but we cannot allow our negative emotions to dictate our response. If we do, we shall not move forward, only continue to fester and stew. Rev. Wright is about the past, Obama is about the future. They are not inextricable, but they are separate.
Puleeeeze! A wonderful dog and pony show produced by Obama and Wright these past few days. The Rev. has been the gum on the shoe of Obama for a long time and probably cost him a lot of votes in PA and could cost him in IN and NC. In Obama's first speech re the Rev he explained him away as an old schoo AA. Didn't work, so colluding with Obama Wright became SO outrageous in the past few days which gave Obama had yet ANOTHER chance to distance himself from the pastor - for votes??. On the one hand we cannot believe that Wright is such an intelligent and perceptive man re race relations and the American Gov't and on the other also believe that he is so stupid as to make such reckless remarks about a man he previously professed to admire. I feel "bamboozled"!
It's possible that Obama is slightly more progressive in his ideas than Hillary. It certainly doesn't show in his actions, but it may explain why the corporate media is going all out to attack him.
I have always believed that Hillary will be our next President, but that they couldn't unveil that too early in the campaign, because how could they keep our interest for two years otherwise?
Obama became too popular, though, so he's now being attacked so that Hillary's "win" won't look too suspicious.
brontoburger April 29th, 2008 7:12 pm
Where are your references? This sounds like a right wing urban legend to me.
ezeflyer April 29th, 2008 4:20 pm
Not only is Reverend Wright right, If you listen to his statements in context, he has said nothing along the lines of what he is being accused. Obama denounced him for things he never said! I was feeling pretty positive about Obama over the past few weeks, until he decided to denounce this amazing man, Obama's comments today show him for the same old same old politician he truly is. So much for a "New Kind of Politics". If we elect him what we will get is someone who will sell out his own pastor, a truly great man, for the sake of political expediency.
Obama Appears to Take Social Values Seriously
As with all of the establishment's candidates for public office, the key words are appears to. But what else would one expect in a country that takes its "historical" foundations and the lessons taught thereby from the products of Hollywood and Disneyland and that thinks actors make great heads of state.
The more important question is always what will Obama actually do to alleviate the suffering of us americans?? What are his economic policies? I've read them, and they favor the rich, corporate interests that fund his campaign.
Obama always has pretty words. But watch his actions.
Obama is backed by the same Wall St types that have made themselves rich by destroying the lives of these people he now describes as 'bitter'. Note very carefully that while Obama has done the Bill Clinton "I feel you pain" act in this case, he hasn't actually proposed anything that would help these people. That's important to note because to do that would mean he would be crossing the Wall St types who've been funding his campaign(s).
Likewise, while Obama sometimes mouths words critical of NAFTA, he has not proposed any substantive changes to world trade (now controlled more by the WTO than the old NAFTA agreement that's been Obama's easy target). Again, to do so would be to cross his Wall St backers.
So, its no surprise at all that
1) Obama is talking about this not to small town voters in PA, but to rich Californians at a fund-raiser. That tells you a lot about who's President Obama will be.
2) Obama tends to describe opponents of the 'free-trade' agenda that's wrecked so many American lives as 'xenophobic'. That again is the attitude of the Wall St backers that fund Obama. And I think its very indicative of where Obama's real priorities will lie once elected.
As always, watch Actions and ignore the pretty words.
Obama has the substance, but Hillary has the form. People think its the other way around, that he's the speechmaker and she's the worker for people. But the truth is opposite of that. Listen to how often Hillary says "I", and how often Obama says "we". That alone is your clue.
If Hillary had any REAL substance, she not only would have bowed out, but would be working her heart out to get Obama elected. Instead, what do you see her and Bill doing?
As of now, you had better be working for the team-up of the two of them----so that McCain and Huckabee do not steal your country, your rights and your future.
Yeah. Right. You certainly wouldn't want "your country, your rights and you future" to be stolen by the wrong party. It would be a tragedy if the proceeds ended up in the hands of the wrong corporate sponsors.
Obama Appears to Take Social Values Seriously. Sure. George Bush appears to have a brain and a heart and has neither. Obama, the opportunist, has jettisoned his "spiritual" leader because it will cost him votes. It will cost him either way. Stand by Wright and he'll lose Republican votes, dump him and he loses progressive votes. It's just one more example of just how unprincipled the man is. Just yesterday the CD posters were fawning over how great and wise Obama is for having Wright as a paster. I almost posted a prediction Sunday that Obama wouldn't have the spine to stand by him when the controversy heated up. I wish I would have because it would have been either prophetic or more likely, just predictable.
Clinton is even worse. Dump the Dims, go 3rd party! Greens!
The word "APPEARS" in the article's title is most appropriate.
~BUBBASOUTH~ 4:05pm. Because that's what he is Bubba.
Personally I thought Wright's speech at the NAACP meeting was very impressive. Not so hot at the press club, but he gave some excellent answers to some hard questions. I was amazed Obama shit-canned him. Obama messed up and showed himself.
He also said at his first speech in Indiana last Tuesday, that he favors nuclear power for clean enrgy, and has endorsed Betrayus. He's perhaps the finest orator we have ever seen _____ and he's a super good con-artist also.
Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party leadership would rather McCain be elected than adopt progressive values.
Neither democratic candidate spoke up when Kucinich and Mike Gravel were excluded from the debates, which ran against basic democratic principles.
Now Obama is jettisioning his pastor. I'm not a religious person, but Mr. Wright is probably speaking more truth than any of the three mainstream candidates combined.
I'm not forced to vote for Nader. I want to vote for Nader. I want to vote for someone who represents my sense of fairness and leadership.
Not only is the political system at fault, but so it the economic system, the social system, and the value system.
Definition of a liberal - Someone who tries to protect the poor republicans against the actions of the rich republicans.
so it goes...
Rev. Wright for president! He's the only one who has the courage to speak the truth and not bore us to death with tired political speeches like the three hawks, Obama, Clinton, and McInsane.
To my fellow Kucinich-supporters among the posters here: Months ago, Glen Ford of Black Agenda report said that Dennis was the most "black" among the presidential candidates, meaning that his views were most supportive of improving the situation of black Americans. This statement came back this morning with another Ford piece which is his personal post-mortem on the Wright/Obama exchange. His view: that Wright drew a "line in the sand" separating the views of most whites from that of most blacks and, in his latest denunciation of Wright, Obama came down firmly on the "white" side of believing in American exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny to rule the world. I'd advise anyone with a modicum of concern for the fate of black Americans (or native American ones, for that matter) to read Ford's post:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=603&Itemid=1
Jerry D., thanks for the Black Agenda Report post. I am saddened by all this, on so many levels. When I heard Wright speak at the National Press Club, I applauded him, because he had the courage to say things to the national media that no one dares to say. For example, poor people are fighting and dying in Iraq, whereas the privileged are not. Another example: Wright served 7 years in the Marines, whereas Dick Cheney did not, so who's the patriot?
I also recognized, however, that Wright's statements to the National Press Club would be very damaging to Obama's campaign and might well be the beginning of the end for Obama. How ironic that the first black candidate with a realistic shot of winning the presidency may be brought down by his own black pastor, because that pastor has spoken some truths that this country cannot bear to hear and because he chose to speak up instead of remaining silent in the face of the onslaught against him. Ford's article in BAR is exactly right: intentionally or not, Reverend Wright drew a line in the sand and forced Obama to choose sides. Obama chose the white side, because choosing the black side would have been political suicide.
But in the process of doing so, and renouncing Wright completely, and also failing to speak out forcefully against the verdict in the Sean Bell case, Obama is alienating not only the America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd but also African Americans and progressives.
He's in a no-win situation. He has walked a tight rope throughout this campaign, trying to straddle the color line and to be all things to all people. It's not possible. Had there never been a Reverend Wright, Obama might have squeaked through and had enough supporters to win. But if it hadn't been Reverend Wright, it probably would have been something else (as evidenced by the "flag pin" BS, the "bitter" BS, and all the other BS).
I'm afraid that this all proves to me that a black candidate cannot become president in this racist country unless he's so "white" that he leaves his black followers, and the truth, in the dust. And that's what saddens me the most. What also saddens me is the realization that truth tellers like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Cindy Sheehan, and others have little if any chance of getting elected in this screwed up country of ours. Which means we're all screwed.
Wright simply let the attention go to his head and showed his clay feet. The truth is if you want to take Obama down you won't allow Obama to be his own man and you will hang Wright around his neck permanently. Otherwise you would understand that these are actually two separate people who don't speak for each other. Just think to yourself, would you want to be held responsible for your Rabbi's views, your own minister's? Would you want to be held responsible if it was your priest who was the pedophile, or if your church leader was more conservative or more progressive than you are? That would be nonsense.
All these peripheral people are brought in because there's not much to go after in Obama himself. The more inconsequential the basis for attack, the more views of others he knows are brought up as his views, which is patently idiotic, the more they are appealing to illogical emotions without any facts.
Go ahead and pander, Sen. Obama. Throw Rev. Wright and any of your other closest friends under the bus in the process. At this point I have no choice but hold my nose and vote for you or Sen. Clinton anyway. Campaign spending limits, now!
I think we all realize that unless we are willing to (cringe) tolerate four or eight more years of Republican blitzkrieg, Democrats are all we have for now.
And unless we can beat Republicans at their game of buying and manipulating their operatives to high government positions, a dubious task, we the people should start thinking about taking our power back from politicians via the referendum.
Thanks, RichM :)
Anne Faith and Rich M, I can't believe that there's quite so much of a "mess" as you make it out. At least wait, before you pronounce the death knell on a decent presidency, until you see whom the Green Party nominates in July and what that person's platform and record might be. We'll likely have a choice if we choose to make it.
Well ~Jerry D. Rose~. I fear the Green Party candidate MAY not have a prayer. In fact, I will state, not MAY not, but WILL not and what ~Anne Faith~ posted was as truthful and sad as it gets.
The Green Party is sometimesviable for city, county and state elections now, but for the presidency? We must accept reality, sad and cruel as it often is.
KEM PATRICK
"Nothing is impossible to a willing heart." Heywood
And, aye, there's the rub, the lack of a "willing heart" when it comes to the American electorate. "It's impossible," it's "sad but reality," "what can we do about it?" etc. etc....an endless string of what Sartre calls the "bad faith" statements by means of which we evade our moral responsibility to exercise our freedom of action. Of course it's impossible that, say, Cynthia McKinney could be elected President of the United States; but impossible as well that people would ever fly in airplanes or split atoms to produce nuclear energy. History is a litany of impossible things that have come to pass, with the "willing hearts" of those with the courage to do the impossible. Life itself, yours and mine, my friend, is a miracle itself, and miracles constantly happen. Dennis Kucinich used to say: "Can I be elected?" "I can be elected if you vote for me," and with that same willing heart I'm going to vote for that person who I think should be President, even while all the "can't do" whiners whimper and settle for their "lesser evil candidates." I've been there and done that and I'm 74 years old and don't want to close out my final days living in that state of resigned despair.
I'm 72 ~JERRY~ and I won't vote for a candidate just because I like their stands on many issues. I personally won't vote for a third party candidte who has NO chance to win, absolutely NONE and then have McCain win the swing state by a few thousand votes and win the presidency.
McCain, who will appoint Supreme Court judges, who may bomb Iran, who can't balance a check book and thinks global warming is a myth, among a few serious flaws.
"Nothing is impossible for a willing heart" are nice words. ___ Well, I'd bet Kucinich had the willing heart, but he ain't gonna be our next president either. Dreams are dreams and reality is reality and I have learned that the hard way in 72 years. Hope I don't lose that intellignet and common sense lesson in the next two.
I AM SO TIRED OF PEOPLE MAKING EXCUSES FOR OBAMA !! No matter what naive or hateful or egomaniacal thing he says or does, everyone makes excuses for him, claims his comments or actions were misconstrued, "He really meant ..." NO ! What he really did was make yet another incredible blunder, and he will continue to do so if constantly coddled.
A lifelong Democrat, I am extremely uncomfortable with the thought that this pissy chameleon will be our President and I will not vote for him, even if my action ensures a McCain win.
Spoken like a true American adolescent. Rather the destruction of America and the globe than vote for a black man. Rather eight more years of world ruin than the possibility, even if it is remote, of change.
The American preoccupation with purity where none exists for anyone is laughable. People parade their self importance in the face of a genuine global disaster that is in the making, not only for the USA but the world and all its people. Yes, indeed elect an irascible old man who has nothing but outdated Bush plans than something, anything different to offer.
I would prefer your local dog catcher rather than another Republicrat checking their 401k. These people who care only about stripping as much of the hard earned dollars of the poor and middle class. These Republicans who wanted to do away with social security and who cares only for more oil profits.
The above is the level of America. Disaster is simply a stone's throw away makes me nauseous. I once fought for this pile of nonsense when I was too young and inexperienced and unable understand what America had become.
These blogs are great gives me great insight in to the true thought of abut eighty percent of the average American mind. It also gives me some hope that there are people out there regardless of their individual prejudice able to think rationally, unfortunately not enough of them.
I personally believe that it doesn't matter at all who you vote for. Each and every one of them are establishment candidates. I can be no other way. Unless you will peddle the establishment line of pro-war, pro-business and maintain the status quo of the class wars, you have no chance in hell of even getting noticed by the general public. The choice comes down to varying degrees of evil... but even the lesser of two evils is evil.