Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSitting in the crowd at the Exel Center in St. Paul, MN Tuesday night there was something transcendent in the air. I was reminded of a passage from John Phillips' biography about the 1960's rock group, The Mamas and Papas, that said when the four of them were singing in harmony it was almost as if you could hear a "fifth voice." Tuesday night there was a similar emergent quality to what happened in the Exel Center as Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. As he spoke you could feel a kind of synergy developing between him and the crowd, a kind of entrainment that resulted in a feeling that you were being carried along by something greater than yourself. I imagine he experienced that phenomenon as well.
Obama is one of the most congruent speakers I have ever heard. Deeply connected with what he says, words both matter and mean something to him and it is easy to hear that when he speaks. He believes what he says, and it is this basic honesty that resonates with the audience. More importantly, it is the visceral experience, beyond the text, that enables him to connect with people like he did last night. Most people describe this encounter as inspiring, but it is more than that. It is a deeply felt, transpersonal experience, that Abraham Maslow talked about, in which we are transported beyond our own small, isolated sense of self. In that peak state there are feelings of wholeness, unity, and, of course, a connection with something greater than oneself. It is the direct experience of the "fifth voice" that Phillips talked about. Moreover, in this connection to a greater wholeness, we do not lose our own identity. Rather, our sense of "I" is integrated with the "We." In other words, people become engaged and carried along, not in spite of themselves, but beyond themselves. This is in marked contrast to a cult in which one's sense of individual identity is submerged and lost within the group.
Reducing this overall experience to words is difficult if not impossible. I think what I am talking about here is the human spirit, that ineffable part of each of us that makes us more than the sum of our parts. It is expressed through our generosity, our kindness toward others, that willingness without hesitation, that allows us to put others first, to make sacrifices for our loved ones and even strangers. It is the call to service, to volunteer, to serve others, to give of oneself without expectation of getting anything in return. Because at some level of our being, beyond all of our apparent differences, we recognize that that we are all connected in spirit, and that what we do for another we do for ourselves.
Obama's call to service is framed and captured in the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the people...in order to form a more perfect union...promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...." It is transformative language that speaks to our higher good and asks us to sacrifice self-interest to something greater than ourselves, in this case the common good. Kennedy captured this notion in his now famous dictum "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Barack Obama makes that same call to each of us. He reminds us again of our basic nature that we are indeed one people, connected in spirit and capable of rising above our own limited sense of self. In the coming years we will need a leader who can engage us in this meaningful way and ask that we make sacrifices for the common good. It is one hope as we begin a challenging transition to a new way of living brought about by a growing scarcity of resources. At the Exel Energy Center Tuesday night, Obama gave each of us a glimpse into our higher nature and a sense that when all of us come together anything is possible.
Bud McClure is Professor of Psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He welcomes your emails at bmcclure@d.umn.edu.
64 Comments so far
Show AllOn June 10, Jerry D. Rose posted:
'I was actually responding to that person (RichM)"
"Actually I didn't write the words around which you placed quote marks and then attributed to me"
--- Joe Biden would tell you to be a tad careful. When you don't adequately elucidate your source of information to your readers, you own what you say. A conscientious writing teacher of mine thought me this in my high school writing class. Then again, I never had a chance to go to college. Perhaps you can educate me on that one. I would like to think that when you respond to something that is emotionally charged you have a vested interest in refreshing your readers with the comment to which you are responding. In that case you lost out on an apology.
ECOR (June 9 548 PM) Before you issue any more of your eloquent labels like "non-con ass" for people whose views you don't like, you might check carefully for the identity of the person you are so labelling. Actually I didn't write the words around which you placed quote marks and then attributed to me. I was actually responding to that person (RichM) and my post was a relatively mild mannered posting of the link to Obama's AIPAC speech. So thanks for the tribute, but it really was "earned" by RichM. (Probably no one is reading this string of comments by now, so: no harm, no foul.)
" What a load of pathetic bullsh*t & New-Age weepiness. "Oh, he's so inspiring!" Makes me want to barf. Note that the stupid article doesn't offer a single remark about policy. Anyone who wants to get beyond this drivel of "hopefulness" should read what Obama told AIPAC yesterday.
Jerry D. Rose June 5th, 2008 4:28 pm"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Man!
You call yourself a progressive fellow? You know quite well that if Obama says what I think you would like him to say, the establishment will hang him. A piece of advice: Stick with Kucinich and get nowhere. Do something productive. Move to Cleveland, Ohio and start your road to nowhere. You would feel at home there. Stop misleading us into thinking your are of a progressive mind. That would be a lie.
What do have up the sleeve doc? People of your persuasion should be called Neocons asses to boot. You should come out of the closet and show us your true color. You behave like a spoiled child who spits in his own soup to demand that his soup be served in the bowl his dad just took to pack some lunch to work.
If you can't see anything that would change the shameful path we are on, just sit back, listen to Coltrane's "love supreme", relax and shut up.
.
Nanoo????
.
RSJ (7:51) - Here are links to the Pam Martens & Cockburn articles I mentioned.
www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html
www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06072008.html
About your haughty tone in suggesting that I "should really pay closer attention to those (I) vilify. The reason (I) haven't seen any evidence of Obama's progressivism is because (I) have refused to look for it" --
- That's dead wrong. I simply don't take the claims of the Obama campaign at face value, as you apparently do. For you to cite Obama's own website as the definitive word on his real intentions in Iraq (for example) shows a remarkable guilelessness on your part. The standard game of Democratic politicians is falsely pretending sympathy with antiwar sentiment, & choosing rhetoric deliberately seeking to encourage this deception. This long-established pattern invariably ends in the Democrat betraying the antiwar voters that he manages to dupe. Obama gives every indication of playing this same old game.
Please don't kid yourself in imagining that you're "more informed" than I am. I know this stuff very, very well. The last time you challenged me on the facts, I immediately proved you dead wrong in 2 respects: you doubted my claim that Gene McCarthy endorsed Reagan in 1980, and you falsely claimed that McCarthy "dropped out" of the Dem race in 1968 in the spring (which he did not). To refresh your memory, see www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/04/7466/ , the last 2 posts on that page.
RSJ (7:51) - As I have pointed out here many times, Obama's promise to withdraw "combat troops" is a midleading word-game, because "combat troops" does not mean "all troops." When Obama promises this, he is careful to leave himself enough wiggle-room so that the end result could still be most of the currently-deployed US troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely. The end result might be no more than shifting a modest number of troops out of Iraq & into Kuwait or elsewhere in the M.E.
Furthermore, as time goes on, he adds qualifications that keep whittling down the committment to withdrawal. His most recent statement in St Paul Tuesday night, for example, used only vague language, describing the goal as to "start leaving." That is setting the bar very low, & absolutely not the same thing as "ending the war."
In St Paul, he talked in the language of standard American nationalism. He said, "We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy." IOW, he referenced the Democratic presidents who led the US in WWII, the Korean War & the early stages of Vietnam.
Then he delivered a suck-up speech to AIPAC the next morning, which could easily have been delivered by John Bolton. He also sucked up shamelessly to the anti-Castro fanatics in Miami this week. His exact words were (see Alex Cockburn on CounterPunch today):
"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. … This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century—of elections that are anything but free or fair.… I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba,… I will maintain the embargo."
That kind of talk is no different from that of any American rightwinger.
Your claim that Obama takes no PAC or lobbyist money is ridiculous. There are tons of articles all over the net documenting that he leads all candidates in donations from Wall St. He's simply playing a word game here, parsing the definition about what legally constitutes a "PAC." The point is that he leads in corporate donations, whether or not it's technically "PAC" or "lobbyist" money. (See Pam Martens' recent articles on CounterPunch.)
Copied from the website of Project Vote Smart:
"Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
Urge Senator Barack H. Obama Jr. to fill out the Political Courage Test"
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490
Will Obama fans be "urging" their hero to do this? The campaign Fact Sheet we are urged to examine is really no substitute for the candidate's specific responses to specific questions. Absent a real "debate" (which never yet has happened) PVS-style questionnaires to candidates may be one of few opportunities to compare candidates not just in their rhetorical skills but in their stances on matters of public policy.
rebelnow [June 5th, 2008 8:18 pm] wrote: "Lofty, articulate, passionate oratory is fun to listen to (and yeah what a relief from listening to that dumbass Texan frat boy), but I ain't fooled by it."
So we can assume that FDR, JFK, and Martin Luther King were also fascists because they were inspiring orators? I'm glad you think you can't be fooled, but don't fool yourself with your own cynicism.
I'm cynical, too, but the problem with cynicism was pointed out by even dedicated cynic H.L. Mencken, "The cynics are right 9 times out of 10." The problem is that tenth time where the cynic is wrong. If cynics were always right, we'd be living in caves gnawing bones, or sharecropping the fields for the landed aristocracy and living in thatched-roof huts. That most of us are not these days shows the occasional failure of cynicism. Even the fact that you are typing on a computer keyboard and posting on the Internet belies your overwhelming cynicism -- an oppressive over-arching plutocracy, fully in control behind the scenes, would likely not allow that.
If the cynics had been right over the years we'd never have had a Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, successful American and French Revolutions, democracy as the predominant form of government in the world, public education, the New Deal, the longest human lifespan in history, and other innumerable signs of progress. Aside from that, we all would have been already cooked into ash in the thermonuclear exchange between the US, USSR and China that was cynically forecasted to happen forty years ago. And you definitely wouldn't have a dark-skinned man as a the Democratic Party's candidate for the presidency of the United States. (Imagine a stone cynic predicting that four years ago.)
This is the problem with blanket cynicism; it's sometimes dead wrong.
Jerry D. Rose, Rich M, Rebelnow, Nanoo, et al, try to be humble and allow that you may be mistaken, everything you choose to believe may not be the absolute truth, and your every presumption may not be etched in stone. Unless, of course, you are all neocons, and then it's completely understandable.
off22 [June 5th, 2008 8:27 pm] your arguments would be more convincing if you knew what the hell you were talking about. At least read Obama's website before going off half-cocked -- to not do so is, ahem, intellectually dishonest.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/14/obamas_strong_reco...
Dichterfreund [June 6th, 2008 12:22 am], is correct. Obama is not going to commit political suicide but, as he's proven in Illinois, he'll find a way to get the job done. FDR, I might add, did precisely the same thing.
RichM [June 6th, 2008 1:47 am], Obama has said many times, and it's on his website, that he will withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq and close all US military bases there within 16 months of taking office, leaving only a contingent of embassy guards. He has also said repeatedly that he will negotiate with Iran rather than go to war with them. You should really pay closer attention to those you vilify. The reason you haven't seen any evidence of Obama's progressivism is because you have refused to look for it.
RichM [June 6th, 2008 11:36 am] wrote: "Let's assume here that 'progressive' refers to ideas falling into at least one of the following categories: positions that rein in corporate power, positions that are seriously anti-war or anti-imperialist, and positions arguing for holding Bush administration top officials responsible for war crimes and/or violations of the Constitution."
The Obama campaign does not take PAC or lobbyist money and now he has convinced the DNC to follow suit. That helps rein in corporate power. I have already covered his plan to withdraw from Iraq and negotiate with Iran above, so that addresses your anti-war, anti-imperialist question. Obama has said that his AG will investigate anyone in or out of government who may have violated the Constitution and, if a case can be made, they will be prosecuted. That covers your third category.
If you want more specifics, go to the Obama Fact Check URL I posted above.
Jerry D. Rose [June 6th, 2008 9:55 am] wrote: "It's fascinating to read all the comments about how Obama, slight though his 'progressive' stances in foreign and domestic issues may be..."
Again, read the Obama Fact Check page URL posted above. It's not that 'slight.'
Thank you, earthian, for your defense of we evil "cynics" who have been infesting this string of posts and creating discomfort for those who are so inspired by Obama. I look forward to seeing Paul Street's book on Obama. My local newspaper just this morning ran a story on the spate of Obama books soon to come out, mostly highly laudatory if not worshipping, with several targeted as inspirational story books for children. You mention Black Agenda Report, which provides a great antidote to Obama "narcissism" as you would call it, focussed of course on how Obama has "resigned from the black nation" as part of his political ambition to re-assure white America by distancing himself from "radical" blacks who, even 30 years after the race riots of the 1960s put a mortal fear of blacks in their hearts. In the current postings on BAR http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&... is an editorial interview with Janice Pence on Ophrah Winfrey, Obama's great supporter, featuring another celebrity personality who has to my mind epitomized the narcissism of which you speak, every Oprah show being framed around cheering and applauding for someone who has done some incredibly good deed or survived some insurmountable obstavcle: look at me, how great I am! (thunderous applause). In Pence's book she apparently doesn't mention narcissism, but rather her view of Oprah as the "cultural icon" of neo-liberalism, every one of whose "good deeds" is done as an act of individual charity, and every piece of advice to the troubled is to take "personal responsibility" for one's own troubles. When Extreme Makeover goes to New Orleans and rehabilitates one school to the rapturous cheers of the kids, the scandalous betrayal of civic responsibility for the victims of the disaster is swept under naricissistic rug.
So yes, earthian, we have a lot of work today as progressives regardless who wins this election, because we have a "culture war" (having nothing to do with gays, guns or abortion) to fight: a re-rehabilitation of no less than the public space that has been privatized away from the neo-liberalism that began with Reagan and has been followed through every administration since, be it Republican or Democrat. And yes, Nader and McKinney with our help must have an influential role in this election to get that ball rolling. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the Commission on Presidential Debates, owned by the two parties, will let them in, but why should that stop us? AIPAC has what amounts to a debate or forum when it invites all candidates to visit a conference in which they vie for support of that constituency. Aren't there as many progressives as Jews in America (some of them the same people)? Why couldn't Democracy Now! or the ACLU for example sponsor such a forum? We don't have to wring our hands and sit on the sidelines this year.
I don't have much to add to the efforts to see Obama accurately by RichM, Off22, Rebelnow and Jerry D. Rose, and a few others above. Bravo to you for seeing through the deceptions of propaganda, and feeling through the drug-like-rush of charisma.
As the article points out, Obama IS a gifted speaker. But that doesn't mean he believes what he says. And it doesn't mean he is progressive in his worldview and in his policy solutions. We do know that any good actor can pose as a Great Person who will make things better, who seems progressive. Obama COULD BE a progressive in corporate-regime disguise. He COULD BE a real corporate-regime Democrat. We can't know. Nor can we know if he will change while in office. A poster above mentioned the progressive appointments of FDR. That makes sense. But we need also remember that FDR also had Eleanor. She was a true progressive her entire life. She pushed Franklin towards some true progressive policies. Michelle Obama may be like Eleanor. If Obama wins, we'll find out who Obama really is and who Michelle really is. Is Obama the corporate-regime Democrat who spoke to AIPAC this week? Or the progressive Democrat who advocated for Palestinian rights a few years ago (as some have claimed) when he was a community organizer? We don't know.
So my take on so-called cynicism, accurately assessing Obama and figuring out what progressives need to actually do, is this: define cynicism; understand narcissism; accurately assess Obama; determine progressive tactics for this election; and THEN determine a long-term progressive strategy for dealing with Obama as president or McCain as president. I'll be brief:
Narcissism is the personality disorder which creates a false, grandiose self (Heinz Kohut) in order to compensate for underlying feelings of inferiority and inadequacy. (If anyone cares, I have a doctorate in Clinical Psychology and have practiced for 30 years.) This manifests as a person who has little real empathy for others, a sense of entitlement, a need for greatness and adoration to bolster the false, grandiose self to hide from the real self, which feels small, inferior and inadequate. Narcisissists who play the upside, dominance position of narcissist relationships need to be adored and not criticized. (Obama is known for not wanting young, radical Blacks at events in Chicago in community organizing days. This comes from a reliable source.) Narcissists must have their uncritical adorers. They submit to the greatness of the dominance narcissists. (Read Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm in reference to Hitler.) The author of this article appears to be one such uncritical adorer. That said, Obama *may* have a case of narcissism. It may not be as full-blown and flaming as the Clintons' case, but the signs are there.
Charisma is a natural outgrowth of narcissism. (But not always.) Charisma attracts those submissive narcissists who have a feeling of inferiority and inadequacy that is temporarily replaced by feelings of (big surprise) transcendence, confidence and awe, in the presence of a Great Person in whose light they can bask and feel better for a while. These feelings hide the normal inferior, weak, inadequate feelings such folks feel.
Cynicism is a psychological defense of weakness to power. It is self-fulfilling. It leads to inaction. To be prevented and confronted whenever it happens. RichM and the other posters I mentioned are not cynics as far as I can determine. They are accurate seers. And they are NOT adoring folks occupying the underside of dominance/submissive narcissistic relationships.
To accurately assess Obama means to do as the posters mentioned above have done: look at policies. For Obama, there is no better set of sources than Paul Street at ZNet and Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report. Street has a book on Obama coming out. It will be a fantastic summary of the Obama policy situation and its implications for the US.
What do progressives do during this election? The only two known progressive candidates will be Nader and the Green Party candidate, likely McKinney. If THEY make a good tactical strategy, we can support them in that. They COULD push Obama if they get in the debates and make a pre-election pitch to Obama to offer policy and appointment concessions in return for supporting Obama in swing states. More likely they won't. So we may be, as progressive voters, on our own. We'll see. (If someone knows McKinney or Nader, DO pressure him or her to offer a deal of some kind to Obama, something substantive like a Department for Peace, a true progressive in the Cabinet, or Green Party appointments somewhere.) If we are on our own, don't waste time on the lesser-evil versus vote-your-conscience argument. It is an outgrowth of our corrupt two-party system and both sides have a valid argument, one long-term, the other short-term.
Long-term progressive strategy? It will be different depending on who wins in November. I think our job will be easier if Obama wins, as long as we see "transcendent feelings" for what they are: the underside of narcissism. (A true progressive gets inspired by implementing real progressive solutions in the real world, not by soaring but empty rhetoric. When a US president starts holding up Chomsky books and speaking of the rule of law in US foreign policy, I'll feel transcendent feelings.) If Obama wins, progressives will need to organize like never before. If McCain wins progressives will need to organize like never before. On how to do that, let's figure that out after the election. We now need to get McKinney and Nader into the debates, and perhaps, help Obama win. Either way, we'll need to go beyond progressive business as usual.
this is a test... (because I now suspect that if you add HTML tags to a comment, the comment is blocked by software)
joneden (5:03 am) & others above write like love-struck puppies about Obama's supposed "brilliant oratory," making the claim that (for example) "....This guy has a collection of skills which is off the scale. And his true genius is ability (to) employ these skills to present himself as both a traditional Washington player and at the same time run as an agent of progressive change."
I readily acknowledge that Obama is an agile & smooth-talking politician, & give him credit for having taken the high road in his struggle with Hillary. But I cannot fathom why you guys are naive enough to fall for the idea that he seems like "an agent of progressive change." I see no evidence of that whatsoever. On the contrary, he upholds all the standard lies about America ("the last best hope of mankind, blah blah blah") and is advocating no more than a superficial image overhaul for this utterly demented militaristic consumption-obsessed society.
I challenge you Obama supporters to name a few specific policy positions that are "progressive" about this guy. I have read his AIPAC speech, and watched his St Paul speech, and am certain he didn't say a single thing that deserves to be called "progressive."
Let's assume here that "progressive" refers to ideas falling into at least one of the following categories: positions that rein in corporate power, positions that are seriously anti-war or anti-imperialist, and positions arguing for holding Bush administration top officials responsible for war crimes and/or violations of the Constitution.
Will Obama (possibly the first non WASP to become US president) be able to cure the greed and paranoia of a nation that has with impunity for far too long been living at the rest of the planet's cost? The timing is perfect and if they don't kill him and more importantly if he isn't Al Jolsen, a mummer like Rice and Uncle Tom Powell before him, then maybe the world and amerika will be saved from the viral creed that has been spread all over the planet: amerikan Lebensraum demoKracy as evil and vicious as the NAZIs before it.
JONEDEN: You nailed it!
RICH M & DICTENFREUND bring a fascinating discussion--equivalent of a mental gymanstics match--to this forum, and I am grateful for it.
JERRY D. ROSE: You raise some valid points, but it seems you would seek something to argue about just for the sake of debate in just about any situation. I think you rather enjoy the mental equivalent of sword play.
To the breech once more on this contentious "discussion" of the Obama phenomenon. I'm one of those who has committed nasty negative and cynical comments in my remarks: as if calling people by these names were not a tad bit negative. No matter, I've been called worse, even a Republican on another posting string. Sticks and stones, etc.
It's fascinating to read all the comments about how Obama, slight though his "progressive" stances in foreign and domestic issues may be, will "hopefully" be another Roosevelt and be a far more liberal President than he was a candidate. Being a "wily" politician, he knows he cannot get elected with Kucinich-like straightforwardness, but must "triangulate" his rhetoric and, with the appropriate "push" from grassroots progressives, move in directions that people fancy is in the heart of Obama as well as themselves once he is in office. Well, I have a lot of problems with that. Politicians who are responsive to the demands of the people who help elect them are likely to be responsive as well to those who can help them winre-electio: unless you're claiming that a President can only express his "true" policy preferences during a lame duck administration; and isn't this called "lame" for a reason?
The other thing about this better-as-President-than-as-candidate idea is to wonder why the same standard seems not to be applied to John McCain. Yes, he sounds very belligerent and very McBush in his support of the President's war, but is McCain just being "wily" enough to realize he can't win without the President's support and, more importantly, the support of that maybe 40% of American yahoos (including some that don't like the "job" Bush is doing) for whom the red, white and blue are the colors that don't run, and who will support that candidate they THINK will pin a "cut and run" label on the Democratic nominee?
But wait, all you folks who give Obama so much slack to be "wily" and then revert to his "true colors," with a push from his friends, after he becomes President. Let's say President McCain doesn't become McBush, that he is realistic enough to realize that the war has to end: and if a "victory" is required, he just "declares victory and goes home." Wouldn't the troops get home about as quickly under a McCain as under an Obama presidency? I have long thought that the termination of the Iraqi war does not depend on the actions of a U.S. President or Congress, but on the actions of a fellow in Iraq named Muqtada al-Sadr. When and if al-Sadr decides to create a situation in which the U.S. has no choice but withdraw (I'm guessing after the puppet Iraqi "government" accedes to U.S. intimidation and bribery and accepts the "status of forces" agreement to keep the U.S. indefinitely in Iraq), the U.S. will leave Iraq as it left Viet Nam: essentially in disgrace and defeat.
Hope this isn't too negative or cynical to those who just want to continue to cheer the Obama miracle. This country has a lot of work to do in the upcoming campaign, if it is to have any influence at all on the future of our country and planet.
referring to Obama, RichM says:
"In sum, he didn't say a single thing challenging any of the assumptions of the corporatist/militarist status quo."
Yes, that is the bottom line on Obama, in terms of his "stated" positions on the campaign trail. We can only hope that he has been politically deceptive enough to get elected, and then will prove to be what we hope he will be.
joneden says:
"Dennis Kucinich's values represent those of many of us progressives, but he did not know how to be a player on the national stage."
He certainly knew "how" to be a player, and he certainly had the intellect as well. What he lacked was the "presidential look" and the "charismatic appeal" of Obama.
I agree with RickM and Rebelnow. I thought, wow, after his tear provoking speech for an America we can be proud of, the very next day he is sucking up to Israel.
Obama did not survive 19 round selection process to become president of the Harvard Review for no reason. This guy has a collection of skills which is off the scale. And his true genius is ability employ these skills to present himself as both a traditional Washington player and at the same time run as an agent of progressive change--he knows how to play both sides of the boundary.
Dennis Kucinich's values represent those of many of us progressives, but he did not know how to be a player on the national stage.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Equivocating and pandering are now justified flanking maneuvers? indicating integrity?
Dichterfreund 12:22am- Great post, especially the last sentence: "I suggest the people condemning us as "kool-aid drinkers" stop drinking their own battery acid." Well said. Obama is a wily politician, of course. He's not going to make puritan idealists happy. But I think he has integrity and will lead the country in the right direction... especially if we push him. It will be very important who he surrounds himself with. It won't be the same oil-smeared bunch at the top rungs of power now. That by itself will be a huge change.
RichM, for someone who is being censored, you seem to get a lot of postings. Maybe it was the sameness of the posts that caused twenty not to be let through? So, what can be done? In November someone will be elected. Any suggestions on how to further your agenda for the way the country should go? Is there anyone who could be a foil to whoever gets the nod?
I agree wiht the flanking stategy. He looks as if he is practicing Tai Chi with the movement of diverting the energy away instead of trying to send it directly back. I am thrilled that there is a person who is mixed race and a first born generation American mixed with the good people of the heartland. He has an experience that will give his presidency flavor. He will not go to the automatic conclusion when something happens. Obama has been attached to a movement, not the other way around. I am not even sure that it was his intention but he has tapped into something larger than himself.
- "and then, as we saw in just these past two days, when he has it, he begins to speak unequivocally."
What exactly are you talking about? I didn't hear him "speak unequivocally" on a single enlightened position. I heard him defend Israeli military aggression, omit any mention of Israel's crimes, threaten Iran, & reinforce the lie that the US "needs" to make absolutely sure that Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons. He criticized Bush's Iraq policy for "asking nothing of Iraqi politicians" -- in other words, he blamed the Iraqis themselves for the hideous mess in Iraq. He said the US policy "isn't making the American people any safer," thereby accepting the false premise that "security of the American people" is really the intent of the policy (as opposed to getting US forces in position to control Iraqi oil, build bases, & attack other countries to control the entire region). He had only praise for the Clintons.
His St Paul speech was not an antiwar speech in any sense. He committed only to "start leaving Iraq" -- but left the terms of that completely undefined. That could mean to withdraw a few hundred troops -- with no other change. He said "terrorism" was one of the main threats we face in the world today. He said the US should "have the courage and conviction to lead the Free World." He said, "We may be Democrats or Republicans, but we are ALWAYS Americans first!" He talked about the US being "the last great hope of mankind."
All of these things might well have been said by any Republican.
There were a few token remarks about a "middle class tax cut" and a "clean energy policy." He promised to "reduce the influence of lobbyists." He used about 1 sentence to quickly take a slap at "tax breaks for corporations", and made a shallow verbal riff about America not needing to "favor Wall St at the expense of Main St." But that was the extent of his thin veneer of "populism."
In sum, he didn't say a single thing challenging any of the assumptions of the corporatist/militarist status quo.
Canuckchuck,
Your use of the word "bitchy" at the very least shows a lack of awareness of how offensive this term is in regard to any woman. You may not agree with Senator Clinton's policies or tactics. But, this does not give you the right to attack her in this way. It would also seem obvious that this kind of language and attitude understandably puts women on the defensive, accounting for why many women supported Hillary unconditionally. In addition, to use inflammatory expressions could undermine Obama's efforts to reach out to Hillary supporters and detract from his message of hope and common purpose. So, how about following Barack Obama's fine example, at the very least with respect to a thoughtful use of language ?
Obama did make the speech to AIPAC; and then laid down the rule that he'll take no money from PACs and neither will the party.
If you don't realize yet that Obama is a master of flanking strategy, then you haven't been watching closely. He won't directly assail slogans or accepted pieties; what he does is to take them and then turn them enough to take them into new territory. He didn't directly attack Reagan's policies; instead, he pointed out that Reagan changed the direction of the country by appealing to optimism of Americans. When people attacked that speech, he didn't back down -- he used it to point up his own life spent opposing the POLICIES; in the meantime, he took the rhetorical mantle of Reagan. But he adds substance.
There are too many Pickett's-Charge-style leftists, who want to bravely charge across an open field straight into the enemies' guns. Obama inspires people, but he avoids the frontal charge, but slowly builds his strength; and then, as we saw in just these past two days, when he has it, he begins to speak unequivocally.
Maybe people who've lived so quixotically for decades, this mixture of an idealist and canny rhetor is baffling those who think that direct formulations and jeremiads will propel a large nation into action.
I suggest the people condemning us as "kool-aid drinkers" stop drinking their own battery acid.
- I just read Obama's speech given at yesterday's AIPAC conference. This same exact speech could easily have been given by Bush, Hillary, or McCain, or any neocon. It contains precisely the same definition of enemies. It's based on the same tacit assumption that Israel & the US are always morally justified in what they do; that they are veritable "lights unto the world," & that they have every right to define who is "good" and who is "evil," and to batter the bad guys (Iran, Syria, Hamas, & Hezbollah) into submission. There was no mention whatever of any of America's or Israel's horrid crimes of aggression.
Read John Walsh's article on CounterPunch.
———–
I note here again that CD is censoring my attempts to post — about 1 in 20 of my attempts to post are getting through the block.
whateveryousay June 5th, 2008 10:01 pm
"Do any of these cynical mystics, who apparently feel that a candidate who agrees with whatever they are thinking actually stands a chance in hell of being elected..."
Right on. And if elected, what chance does he have of actually implementing the necessary changes, of canceling the mountain of immoral and criminal "laws" and directives?
Does anyone seriously believe that AIPAC, the MIC and the banksters will just roll over and let him get away with it?
There are too many entrenched interests, from the very top down to the last HLS thug, that will do all they can to prevent meaningful change.
I wish I could be more hopeful.
correction; strike "and who apparently" from my previous post, improper phrasing.
His speech to AIPAC tells me that he knows the score.
For all our sake, I hope that I am wrong.
Well, the choice is Obama or McCain. Locally, there is a lot more choice. That is where you can get more people you believe in elected. Who do you want those people to deal with? Yeah, Obama. Just make sure he's talking and dealing with the things you deem important. It is so easy to be crochity but it takes real nerve to do something.
If he turns out to be even close to what most of you want him to be, he'd better pick his VEEP very carefully.
As we've all seen in the past, the 'nasties' have their ways.
My my, no shortage of pundits today.
"collective hypnosis", "no better than under G.W. Bush", "What a load of pathetic bullsh*t & New-Agey weepiness. "Oh, he's so inspiring!" Makes me want to barf.", "stupid", "drivel", "rhetorical hat", "lofty rhetoric", "Obamabot", "tool for the elite", "he sounds like Clinton, McCain and more of the same.", "Obama kool-aid", "prepare for disappointment", "Hitler or Mussolini (as comparisons!!!)", "pathetic", "a show", "a great deal of trouble"
Do any of these cynical mystics, who apparently feel that a candidate who agrees with whatever they are thinking actually stands a chance in hell of being elected and who apparently feel that anyone who doesn't drink their "kool-aid" (God I am so tired of that disingenuous and unintelligent term) should be condescended to?
Your negativity is not reality, it is spite.
the most popular person in politics soon coming!!!!
marcy kaptur is the REAL franklin roosevelt democrat.. she is just as strong on fighting corporate greed as nader.. just as strong as dennis K.. and with the added plus of also fighting the other GREED harm.. abortion..
with her on the ticket she will become the most popular person in america.. even more so than obama... she will bring back the yellow dog democrats that left the party because of the GREED of abortion.. she is what sn bob casey of pa's father was... they are exactly the same... she will deliver pa.. ohio.. mich very easily.. BUT she will also bring back the yellow dog democrats and ga.. nc and sc may flip to democrats..
she will become the most popular person in govt and politics... she is BETTER than nader or dennis k since she is totally consistant on going after greed harm....
corporate greed harm of stealing the weaks money is one greed harm.. she is equal to nader and dennis k on this.. BUT she is consistant whereas nader and dennis k is NOT they over look the OTHER greed harm of the innocent and weak abortion makes one wonder if dennis k or nader is really REAL!!!
with marcy kaptor and bob casey of pa.. those 2 are REAL against all GREED harms..
marcy voted no to this greed war for oil for the robber barons and is strongly against the robber barons nafta and gatt greed harm whch lowers americans wages..
marcy kaptur is the REAL DEAL!!!! she is CONSISTANT!!! her judgement has been near perfect more so than anyone other than bob casey sr..
My posts are being blocked by CD. Occasionally one gets through.
A great post by off22 (8:27).
Obama? The common good? Are you serious?
Voting for free trade agreements, not advocating single payer, funding the war, wants to increase the military? The common good? Spare me the pathetic fawning. Cracking down on class action lawsuits, favoring corporate abuse of the citizenry -- the common good? This article is intellectually dishonest, but to say it was intellectual in the first place would be, well, intellectually dishonest.
Sacrifices for the common good? The only sacrifices being made here are Obama's own intelligence. His lack of attacking the constitutional breaches by the Bush Administration as a student of Constitutional Law is pathetic. He will make you feel special inside. Fantastic. He is charismatic. Spectacular. But will the policies he is advocating make the slightest dent in the status quo? Absolutely not. Sorry guys, count me out. As others have pointed out, his speech to AIPAC was pretty indicitive of the rightward turn most Dems take before an election. Obama is good enough to win with this strategy, but if the last six months have been a show for liberal voters, we are in a great deal of trouble. Reality check.
Sometimes when I watch old newsreels of Hitler or Mussolini, they seem so inspiring. I can't understand a damn thing they are saying but wow, they sure inspired hope didn't they?
Lofty, articulate, passionate oratory is fun to listen to (and yeah what a relief from listening to that dumbass Texan frat boy), but I ain't fooled by it.
Canuck Chuck--
I think the title of your post above ought to be:
"Creep Alley" and it is definately a keeper.
****************
As for Barack Obama--I am not yet sure he is the answer but maybe he will make a path for thoswe who can be which translates means: "Note who he names to an Obama adminstration."
Three of the smartest things FDR ever did were to name Henry A. Wallace to be Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Morganthau Jr. as Secretary of Treasury, and Francis Perkins as Secretary of Labor.
Wallace almost single handedly saved the American farmer from bankruptcy and foreclosure and forestalled the corporatization of agriculoture by his programs of education and relief for farmers.
Morganthau defended the value of the dollar in the chaotic pre-WWII era of financial mischief on the part of chiefly the Nazis who saw destabilization of currency as a useful weapon for undermining coutries they wished to either conquer of neutralize.
During WWII Morganthau created and led the war bond drives that raised billions of dollars from Americans of all walks of life (for which they received interest instead of just fat-cat bankers and financiers) to help finance the war effort.
Francis Perkins, beside being the first woman ever appointed to a cabinet position in the US government, fought tirelessly with a deep commitment to improving the lives of workers and creating a legitimate role for labor unions in American society. It was no accident that the greatest gains for Labor in America came during her watch at the Department of Labor.
It remains to be seen if an Obama presidency can match the quality of such appoinbtments but let us hope so for these are the people and not Barack who will get things done in an adminstration.
I see that most of you have drank the Obama Kool-aid... Prepare for disappointment.
"I think Obama's campaign did a number on Hillary, they actually looked at the entire map, they looked at the rules of the game and played by them to their advantage."
Fair comment
"he is one of the best speakers I've heard in years.
That in itself is something to embrace. After almost 8 years of listening to a fool who can't string a sentence together comprised of polysyllabic words and who embarrasses our nation wherever he goes (where even foreign dignitaries speak better English)"
Really fair comment!
So we have a minority that thinks we better watch out for Obama, another minority that thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then the rest of us that don't have a clue about him yet or what/who he really is or contemplates doing.
He's off to a flying start again with the Minnesota speech. Beautifully done and hopefully in stretching out a hand to Hillary, an end to all the low comment about her.
Regardless of what any of us think about Obama's polices or how effective he will be at governing or how disappointed we are at his pathetic pandering to AIPAC, he is one of the best speakers I've heard in years.
That in itself is something to embrace. After almost 8 years of listening to a fool who can't string a sentence together comprised of polysyllabic words and who embarrasses our nation wherever he goes (where even foreign dignitaries speak better English) it will be a real joy to have a president that does not make me cringe the moment he opens his mouth, and who, in fact, is regarded as not the missing town idiot, but an intelligent, charismatic leader.
john c june......guess what ? your're better than bush !!!
"Obama is one of the most congruent speakers I have ever heard. Deeply connected with what he says, words both matter and mean something to him and it is easy to hear that when he speaks."
Yes, he could be a great actor, but it remains to be seen what he will do as president. After hearing him talk about our "great ally" Israel, and how we need a "strong America", he sounds like Clinton, McCain and more of the same.
Our only hope is that he will be better than Bush.
RE:"RichM June 5th, 2008 4:19 pm
What a load of pathetic bullsh*t & New-Agey weepiness. "Oh, he's so inspiring!" Makes me want to barf.
Note that the stupid article doesn't offer a single remark about policy. Anyone who wants to get beyond this drivel of "hopefulness" should read what Obama told AIPAC yesterday."
Right on. What he said should scare any obamabot back to their senses. He is not a savior for the people. Of course he is a tool for the elite. And if it serves their purposes when they are done with him he will go out in a spectacular fashion.
Yes, there is such a thing as collective joy, and a feeling on oneness with your fellow human beings.
I remember feeling it at the 1982(?) anti-nuclear march in San Francisco, when I was half-way down Market Street and the street was filled with tens of thousands of people ahead of and behind me.
The same emotion was used by Hitler at his rallies and is used at mass church meetings by the right wing today.
It's not cynical to point out facts to people who would sooner close their eyes and wish for good things.
Great job, canuchchuck.
RichM and JerryD are being realistic. Yes, our current nightmare will be over with Obama's election, but he is proposing halfway measures, at best, to deal with the crises we face. I view him as a stopgap. Hopefully, things won't get worse with him as president, but to really improve our situation, progressives need to seriously organize for the next election cycle. Lofty rhetoric is not going to cut it.
RichM & Jerry D: that's the hatin' we are talking about (and bloody well tired of hearing!). How the heck can you expect a better world if you don't take a vacation from cynism every now and then? What if Dr. King had listened to his fellow clergy who discouraged him from taking positive action? What if all those students decided that being attacked by dogs and firehoses wasn't worth it cuz "it won't change anything?"
Yes, Obama's brilliant oratory is NOT the answer to every problem we face, but dammit it all, it's a start! It's a good thing for folks to want to be a part of the process and it's about darn time that Americans wanted to be active participants in their political system!
CS
"... and no one's getting fat except Mama Cass"
That song is named "Creeque Alley".
RichM, speaking of new agey-weepiness and Obama before AIPAC, here's the exact transcript of that "inspiring" speech: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/prepared-remarks-obama-at-aipac-...
He pulls out of his rhetorical hat about every piece of emotional bond to the audience, including his great uncle's participation in WW II and his "horror" at the Holocaust. As far as a total bonding with AIPAC, it would seem to be "mission accomplished.
What a load of pathetic bullsh*t & New-Agey weepiness. "Oh, he's so inspiring!" Makes me want to barf.
Note that the stupid article doesn't offer a single remark about policy. Anyone who wants to get beyond this drivel of "hopefulness" should read what Obama told AIPAC yesterday.
whoa....well, i guess i'm just a cynical old man. this post and many of the comments on it are the reason why i go to counterpunch before i come here.
Obama brings me to tears also. It is the same feeling I get when I'm at anti-war rallies or pro-worker rallies or when I watch a community come together after a disaster or setback in order to help people who need it regardless of race, religion, sex or political preference. It transcends Obama. It is a connectedness, or perhaps interconnectedness, with the people around me. The idea that there is a common good and that I'm not the only one who feels it or is moved by it or is willing to serve it. Simply stated: the promise of a better tomorrow.
The old cynics can come on this site every day and talk down to people who are inspired but really why are you on Common Dreams if you can't even allow yourself to dream? At some point we need to begin the next phase of lasting, significant change. And too many of you on this site, will be talking in certainties about the future and things you can't possibly know to try and convince millions of us, that we worship a false idol. What you don't understand or can't understand or won't understand is that there are a majority of Americans who presumably want the same things as you and this time we won't remain cynical in the face of something that is obvious and different from every campaign in at least 4 decades. And we do not worship Obama or any politician. Rather we can acknowledge the obvious- this is the time, this is the place, we are the ones we have been waiting for.
I just want to say President Carter recently has championed himself as a President of Peace. He has traveled the Mid-East and Europe recently to stir a dialog of peace, especially between Israel and Palestine. Obama is no Carter but he and Carter are very close. I don't think Obama's presidency, if he wins, will reflect anything like W Bush's presidency in this regard at all. I just don't see him surrounded by the same people as Bush.
Secondly. I just want to say people commonly recite the Hillary argument, "oh its just rhetoric." FDR was elected on the sheer tenacity of his character and rhetoric, and is documented at saying to his son before his inaugural address something to the likes of, "gee what did I get myself into, I hope I don't let them down." My point is just because you might all be sitting in the stands beaming with these intoxicating emotions, don't think he is.
No man ever has all the answers. But by golly, what is wrong with feeling inspired? What is wrong with acknowledging tired and exhausted principles (such as questioning a person's patriotism just because they disagree with government policy) as tired and exhausted?
True, these won't solve problems alone, but if the most close minded Rebuplican/whatever can not deny the power of speech and especially conviction.
I think Obama's campaign did a number on Hillary, they actually looked at the entire map, they looked at the rules of the game and played by them to their advantage.
I really think Obama should choose a VP, in the same way he chose to campaign, look at all the sides of the coin, and make a really informed deliberate decision about the matter. I don't really think he should or shouldn't ask Hillary to run. Because I don't know all that is involved. Nor do I think he should somehow give the electorate a "booby prize" in nominating some other female, just because she's a female. I really think he should do as he's done the entire campaign and go with his heart, go with his gut.
JaneM June 5th, 2008 1:37 pm
"Obama brings tears to my eyes, no kidding. I want to believe so badly that this nightmare could end."
Believe it or not Jane, I am very empathetic to your feelings and I know that the dreams inspired by Obama are "dreams your heart makes." But I feel as well very much like a father (I have two daughters) who is in love with a man in whom she very very much wants to believe. But I'd just say lovingly to her, don't get your heart too broken if he turns out to be less than you thought." And yes, "the nightmare could end" but it could also get worse with the "wrong" guy.
The first day after Obama "clinched" the Democractic nomination, he gave a speech at AIPAC. He was unequivocal in his (as president) long term support for Isreal as "a Jewish state" (his words!). This means that the Palestinians can expect to be treated no better that under G.W.Bush. Siding with a Zionist Israel is a good indicator for what his general foreign policy will be toward the Middle East.
This should give us serious pause in our hope for change through Obama.
Obama brings tears to my eyes, no kidding. I want to believe so badly that this nightmare could end.
Here here, canuckchuck, and even better when we read/sing your poignant ditty to that other old Mamas and Papas tune.
Can't recall the name, but still "hear" it----last line "And no one's gettin' fat except Mama Cass". Bravo for originality and thoughfulness.
Good post and canuckchuck says it for me.Tony
Hillary's bitchy and gettin' kind of itchy
Just to leave the poor folk behind
Bush and Cheney's , stealin' all the pennies
Tryin' to get a bin Laden on the line
In a coffee house Lieberman sat
And after every number he'd pass the hat
McCain and McHannity just a-gettin' stranger
In D.C., you know where that's at
And no one's gettin' fat except Haliburton
We're all broke, busted, disgusted, Government can't be trusted
And Bushy wants to drive muslims into the sea
Cheney can't make it, his wife says she fakes it
He'll shoot someone eventually
Waring on American Express cards
It's low rent, but keeping the oil price hard
the righties bad vibrations and their machinations
Can't go on indefinitely
And President Obamma is becomin' a reality
Thanks, glenn goodman, for your comment above, especially about Kucinich. Dennis told so much truth in plain simple talk that it was just as you say, "he couldn't advance those positions into corporate-controlled territory."
With Obama, there is a good chance we can elect a man of both popularity and substance and then get at least "some" of the Kucinich-type positions a sympathetic ear in The White House. (P.S. If we also elect a stable full of Democrats in the Congress at the same time, we might actually get "some" of them enacted, without veto, and without filibuster. If the majority is big enough, we might even find 2009 to be a head-spinning legislative year of groundwork for "change" that most liberals only dream of.
BTW, I was privileged to attend one event with Obama about 4 months ago. There IS a "magic" and an "energy" that follows him around in the enthusiasm of supporters and attendees. I think it's the "hope" part.
My dad expressed similar thoughts to me about Obama a couple of years ago. There is something huge about even hearing him on the radio. I have yet to hear him in person. The really positive aspect of this is that it will draw more people into the process, and that has to have positive results. Obama has walked the high wire, of balancing what he says in a way that allows him to be where he is. Some people have expressed the feeling that they favored the more forthright positions of Kucinich, myself included. That is of course why Kucinich didn't go further, he couldn't advance those positions into corporate controlled territory, but we can if we have a sympathetic ear in the White House, and a lot of people with us demanding change, which after all will benefit the wealthy as well as the poor and middle class. I am tremendously hopeful that we may be able to prevent this ship from sinking. Go Obama!
It is beginning to sink in that we have begun the long road back from our national nightmare. No cult this; we have been under the thumb of the greedmongers for so long that even as we saw ourselves achieving this substantial first victory we ourselves found it hard to believe that it was actually happening. The skill and integrity this has taken on the part of a candidate who most represents US is breathtaking and deserves the fullest expression of appreciation.
Well done, Barack Obama; well done!
Believe me, Barack Obama is no Dennis Kucinich! I say this as one of the "true believers" in Dennis' message. But Dennis STOOD for and has tried to legislature for very progressive actions like truly universal health care, not the faux-progressivism of the Massachusetts-style "compulsory" insurance that's another boondoggle for the insurance industry. I posted before on one of Bud McClure's quasi-religious, quasi-ecstasy induced odes to Obama's power of "Atonement" for our sinful society. It helps to get into one of these dissociated states of mind if you close your eyes and ignore Obama's provenance as the chosen agent of a Wall Street power elite that is driving the world to its economic demise; as one who genuflects as often as he needs to before the Israeli lobby; as one who hopes for a teflon coating for himself in connection with his shady "associates" in Illinois politics, some of whom are headed for jail. If Bud McClure is really a psychologist and knows something about hypnotism, he must know something about what I can only think of as a collective hypnosis in which people put aside their capacity for thinking for themselves and put themselves as the mercy of the leader. Whether his followers are a cult or not, they certainly display the "Dear Leader" complex that is so frightful when it's, say. a Korean leader.