Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiReading The Election
Thumbing Pages With A Restless Geezer
Why does Barak Obama have my vote? In the book I'm reading, simply put, Barak Obama fits the picture.
Now, I sure don't want to fall into that old rose-colored, rear-view trap of back then we had it so good! A black friend caught me up on a version of that a few days ago when I was railing against the current regime in Washington as worst ever. "No", she calmly corrected, "it was bad long before." That's all it took: there flashed nameless decades of abuse and neglect I couldn't have known.
So what is so special about this vital, young candidate? Why does he resonate so with these aged peepers? I'll try to put a sober finger on just what comes up from my yesterdays when I hear Barak Obama speak . . .
There was a day when leadership meant something other than efficient calculations, catchy sound bytes, pointed poses. There was a day when you could, without runaway doubt, believe what they were telling you. It must have had something to do with the unquestioned integrity of a Truman, an Ike, a Kennedy, and largely too of the people with whom they surrounded themselves. Oh sure, we had our scandals in high places. But clearly, that's all they were.
There was a day when those stars-&-stripes meant something other than hijacked symbol of some ersatz patriotism. When I knew precisely what America stood for. And so, I figured, did everyone else here and abroad. We worked hard for what we got. But mostly we cared. We were there to step in when no one else would. People mattered, people everywhere. I know, many were nevertheless left out of that equation; I just happened not to be one of those. And true too, as a country we weren't about to be pushed around. But, unchallenged, we wouldn't, I was sure, dream, of pushing our own weight around. I could -and did- salute such a flag.
There was a day when shopping was just shopping, not a whole shamelessly self-centered ideology, impersonally, mechanically kept in motion. There were bigger things, much closer things, truer things to think about. Well, ok, the cold war took alot of that. But so did much more private values, those of the spirit, art, selfless deeds, generous friendship. My little world -all of it- was somehow vital to the whole. I believed it. Call it trickle up.
Oops, the grey hairs begin to poke up after all. Well then let's just leave it at integrity, patriotism, tolerance, and real values. How we've missed them all! We've been asleep. Worse, we've been led to fear one another. When we do have something to say, more than ever it seems to come out as teachy bumper stickers and incendiary emails. Which is to say we've not been communicating much at all. It will take history itself to remind us that yes, this was indeed that time in our two hundred thirty two years when we let the most disreputable -if not decidedly criminal- among us lead the way.
Did I mention decent? Now that the debates so-called are over, what comes through loudest for me is our future President's deep-seated, immovable decency. To be sure, not stooping to the slander and invective that come at him full thrust argues for a much needed steady hand on the tiller. And so much more: clearly this bridge building he's been promoting is no idle, temporary scaffold.
Speaking of the debates, one glaring omission begs at least a mention. What ever happened to the totally unjust, tragically ruinous, now more than ever unaffordable war we just happen to be waging? I fear that yes, it has fallen victim to campaign calculations: prudent for winning an election but hardly the forthright thing we've come to expect from a straight talking candidate. I'm left to hope that given all he does stand for, getting out of Iraq will be high on our promising candidate's agenda, once elected.
I welcome President Obama as the leader that opens us to one another, as well to the next chapter of this great and yes, noble work-in-progress called USA. In his policy pronouncements that (mostly) talk to the real & pressing issues of the day, in his unfettered clarity & focus, in his remarkably even demeanor and manifest kindness, and perhaps especially in what Barak chooses not to say -his always finding the higher road, our next president is reminding us that our story is very much more than a pretty tome for the shelf, that this American saga is still very much the book for today.
And that we need, all of us, to get back to the job of writing it.
30 Comments so far
Show AllSioux Rose
SAMSON: You make an excellent case (or several). For those who still stand by their man (Obama), it's probably a visceral fear of what greater calamities could take place if the ship of state is led by a warrior-madman, an old fart who may want to go out with one last big bang.
I got an email from a healer who lives in Thailand. It came from a fellow healer from California. She had not gone public before regarding an incident where she was vacationing at some remote Pacific island spot where McCain and Cindy were also vacationing. (This was several years ago.) McCain was obsessive about dominating every conversation, and since it was a secluded island, all guests basically dined together. He was insulting and controlling and just obnoxious. The guy is a rude, self-centered control freak with about as much spiritual consciousness as a snake.
Isn't it reactionary to blame the entire Democratic Party for what Republicans have done? To blame Progressive Dems like Kucinich, Feingold and Lee for what conservative Dems have done?
Wouldn't it be more productive for liberals to join Progressive Dems to gain power within the system than to try to bring it down from the outside by joining a third party for 2% of the vote?
http://pdamerica.org/about/board.php
and
http://www.democrats.com/
To not do so is to retreat to the typical Democratic stance of ignoring history and its record. Of course, that's what the Democrats want. They want to go to DC, vote Republican, vote for corporate interests time after time. Then they want to come back to the voters and pretend to be an opposition that's on their side. This is the essential lie of the Democratic party today.
Today's Democrats vote in favor of launching any war that's proposed. They voted for the war in Afghanistan. They voted for the war in Iraq. They've constantly voted in favor of measures that push us towards war with Iran.
So, given these votes, how are these wars just something 'the Republicans have done?'
Today's Democrats vote in favor of every police state expanding bill that comes along. They voted for the Patriot Act, the FISA bill, and all the other little bills that keep expanding this. When the Republicans get caught breaking the law, the Democrats rush to give the Republicans and their co-conspirators immunity.
So, given these votes, how is this expanding police state just something 'the Republicans have done?'
Same for economic policy. Same for the trade deals that send out jobs overseas. Same for the tax bills. Same for bankrupcty reform and tort reform and telecom reform and bill after bill that favors corporate America. The Democrats are right there voting for them with the Republicans.
And think of the word filibuster. Now that Dems supposedly have the majority in the Senate, we see it being used by the minority exactly as it was intended. To keep the majority from railroading through stuff the minority doesn't like. Now think of the last 6 years before this. How often did the Dems use the filibuster in this way? Pretty much none. The basic fact no Dem wants you to realize is that the Dems had the power to stop almost any of this in its tracks. And instead, they stood with the Republicans to make sure it passes. And, since the Dems always bring the Supreme Court up as a hammer to try to force people into voting for their candidates, take careful note that both Alito and Roberts could have been stopped in the Senate with a filibuster if the Dems had wanted to do so. Since they didn't, the Dems get the same credit for these justices as does Bush.
The Dems lie. They pretend to be an opposition. But they constantly vote with and side with corporate interests.
And as long as we are stupid enough to keep voting Dem, then we'll keep being lied to and screwed over in exactly the same ways. Keep voting Democrat, and nothing will change.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Note also that you see Mr. Kucinich's role in the system fully outlined here. Mr. Kucinich's views are in opposition to the Dem leadership in almost everyway. So, the obvious question is why does he stay in a party that constantly fights him and blocks him and attacks him and funds primary challengers against him?
Here we see the answer. Kucinich serves two roles. One is that he distracts energy and enthusiam for change into a hopeless fight in a rigged game inside the Democratic Party. The other is that he can be pointed to on occaisions like this. See, the Democrats aren't so bad, there's Kucinich after all.
This of course ignores the fact that the Democratic party works hard to block anything Kucinich wants to do. That's the real face of the Democrats. The one of the people blocking and end to the wars, blocking impeachment, blocking any single payer health care, blocking any attempt to keep our jobs here, etc, etc, etc.
Kucinich should leave that party. But, its absurd of the Democrats to trot him out as a reason to support the Democrats when the Democrats actively attack everything Kucinich believes in.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
no
You are correct, ma'am!
Brilliant as usual, nannie. Time for your nap.
He writes his own speeches, something a President hasn't done in a long, long time.
Geezer seems to be a term for an old man--I'm the female version. I've been around a long time and I have seen the steady deterioration of the quality of life for the working people of this nation. When I was young, one income supported a family. Our children were cared for and had opportunities for education. I was one of five in a working class family and I went to college--no tuition charged. You had to have the grades, not the money to go to college. I got married and we bought a house on one salary.
Then came the 'Reagon Revolution' when working class people thought they were no longer workers. They had good union wages, owned a home and a couple of cars and took vacations and had a boat or a summer place and no longer identified as working class. They had the benefits of government programs like G.I. home loans, free admission to museums and parks, well baby clinics and now that they were doing fine they pulled up the ladder for the younger generation. They wanted less government. Big government was the problem. And that's what we have now. Government small enough to drown in a bath tub. Our nation is basnkrupt and the wars go on and we reward the crooks on Wall Street with billions of our scarce tax funds and still talk about cutting taxes.
Our political parties have melted into one for the benefit of the corporations. We old geezers have health care and our Social Security pensions, but not you young ones. You got shafted and I bet you can feel it. And even us old geezers will suffer in the economic collapse of our country. I'm growing veggies where my lawn used to be.
All this talk about cutting taxes is wrong!! We need to pay taxes for the costs of having a community. We do things together---educate our children and care for the sick and elderly. We have rules to protect workers and the consumers, to protect the environment. These are things we do together and pay for with our taxes. Our tax rates need to be changed to make the wealthy and the corporations pay their fair share. Don't cut our domestic programs, raise the taxes on the wealthy and end the wars.
Old Jim has fog on his spectacles when he sees Obama as the guy who will end the war. Obama who said he wants to kill Osama and invade Pakistan even is Pakistan says no and so does the United Nations. Obama will attack Iran in support of our dear ally Israel. This war is wrong and we have no right to be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The sooner we get out the better. OUr military budget is obscene. If we don't like nuclear weapons let's get rid of ours not attack Iran.
If you want to heed the advice of an old geezer listen to me and vote for Ralph Nader.
Good advice from a shrewd old geezess!
OK, let's go vote for the Green Party.
Insane McCain will win, then what? Bomb Iran? Someone will come out of Pakistan with a real Nuke and the Right will get what it wants, a Nazi Amerika.
Obama may have feet of clay, but in the end we all do. He may not be able to get us out of the mess we are in but McCain will just drive it further over the cliff.
When the wagon is going over a cliff don't give the reins to the guy riding shotgun...
First, who says McCain is insane. That's just a smear the Democrats have been spreading. Its as vile and nasty as the Republican smears against Obama.
Second, Obama says he'll bomb Iran too. He's clearly said that he believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons (contracting both the CIA and the IAEA), and he's clearly said that unless this is stopped we should attack Iran.
Third, Obama is just as beligerent as McCain and Bush in wanting to spread the wars into Pakistan, thus causing exactly what you are afraid of.
The big problem is that both Obama and McCain are riding shotgun on this wagon. So, your last statement is entirely correct. Where you are mistaken is in that you don't seem to realize that Obama is sitting there right next to McCain, and giving him the reins is just as bad.
If you are correct in not wanting to give the reins to the guy riding shotgun, then the only sensible course is to vote Nader.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
The US has a One-Party system. If this system wants to bomb Iran, it will bomb Iran. The candidates are only the representatives of the corporate empire. You are being led by the nose into the pen. Remember, this is the most brutal, out of control empire the world has known. They kill innocents for no other reason than to steal their resources. Obama included. He's been vetted, folks. Do you think the empire would be giving him so much money if they didn't trust him? He bailed out corporations and turned his back on you.
I can't wait until this election is over. If I'm wrong, we can all sigh a great relief as Obama finally turns towards the people in solidarity with them rather than against them, as he often does now. He will not bomb those countries he now says he will bomb and things will get better. He will put a stop to the obscene militry spending, give us the health care we need and want, not the one the corporatist want us to have. If he does change in our direction, it'll be because we voters have held him accountable.
Oh, Happy Day!
But, if I'm right and Obama is just another charismatic snake oil salesman, we're back to square one. Let's work together not in opposition. That's the most crucial thing we can do.
If you're right and Obama is simply more of the same, and the entire election is a farce anyway, than we have nothing at all to lose by voting for him. If you are wrong, and Obama is a decent person after all, but the margin of votes was small enough too allow the Republican criminal machine to steal the election and install McCain/Palin in the White House, than the world will never forgive you.
You can think about Obama whatever you want, but I challenge you to deny any of the following three propositions: First, that Obama/Biden cannot possibly be *worse* than McCain/Palin. Second, that a McCain/Palin presidency would be catastrophic in every conceivable respect. Third, that Ralph Nader (or any other third-party candidate) isn't going to win this election, no matter how much you wish for it.
If you agree with these propositions, than I cannot possibly understand why you refuse to support the lesser evil. I do understand your frustration with a crooked and broken political system. I do understand that the two established parties treat you for fools and ignore the will of the voters, that these election between D and R are for a good part a circus to distract the people from examining their powerlessness. I agree with all of this. And yet, I think it is reckless and foolish to throw one's support behind a lost cause, instead of working to elect the most progressive candidate who actually has a chance of winning, even if he ist way too imperfect for your taste.
You cannot foster a succesful progressive movement by voting for a candidate who is known to loose. America doesn't work that way. Nobody gives a damn about third-party votes. Policy in your country is entirely determined by those who can actually win an election. Support the most progressive candidate who stands a real chance of winning, *and* try your best to create a progressive movement that will hold the President and the Congress accountable for their actions. Losing the election won't get Nader anywhere. It didn't work in the past, and it won't work in the future.
Its getting awfully funny. I keep seeing this constant assertion that Obama is better than McCain. But the Democrats can never, ever back that up with anything. They just keep shouting this same bull over and over, apparently in the hope that if they say it often enough, then it will be beleived.
Also, there's been a nasty smear campaign against both McCain and Palin. The Democrats obviously have nothing else to offer. On policies from war to economics to police state spying, Obama is the same as McCain. So, all you get is these nasty smears about McCain being insane or having a temper or old stories about his first wife. Its all crap. Its all crap identical to the crap Faux News puts out against Obama.
Then, from that you see these unsupported statements that Obama must be better than McCain. But all that is doing is believing the smears the Democrats put out.
In some ways, Obama would be worse than McCain. We saw this during the Clinton years. So many Democrats in Congress only vote on party lines. So, as soon as we get a Democratic President promoting war, bailouts, spying, globalization, etc, we also get a lot of Democrats in Congress who might oppose these today suddenly turn into supporters. You'll see large majorities in Congress supporting all of these policies, and what opposition we have today will be weakened.
But basically, I'm just sick of the junk the Democrats offer as bad excuses to vote for their bad candidate. They put forward a candidate that is truly awful on policy, and who is almost identical to McCain on all the key issues. But then we are given this pablum as the reason why we just half to go vote for a candidate that supports every policy we think is dispicable.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
If you want the NEXT election to be a farce, then vote Obama.
If you want to put the nation on a course towards real change, then vote Nader.
If you keep voting for the Democrats, they'll keep giving you worse choices in each election. That's because what they really want is the big money. And to get the big money, they keep moving right. The only way to stop that is to stop voting for them. As long as you keep voting for them, they'll 'high-five' each other for successfully grabbing the corporate money AND keeping the same fools voting for them.
The year you stop voting for them is the year they realize they've gone too far in grabbing corporate money and voting Republican and start to come back. Or, a strong Nader vote would help energize a real opposition movement.
But, as long as the people on the left keep voting for right-wing Democrats under the strange belief that they are 'winning', it will just keep getting worse.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Manifold October 19th, 2008 9:27 pm
"I do understand your frustration with a crooked and broken political system. I do understand that the two established parties treat you for fools and ignore the will of the voters, that these election between D and R are for a good part a circus to distract the people from examining their powerlessness."
And yet you still advocate voting to continue the same broken political system. Change will never occur as long as people follow what you advocate.
Lobo Gris
Another sickening & frightening pro-Obama idiotic article on Common Dreams. WAKE UP people! I'm hoping that millions of you WILL become so disillusioned by the smiling cobra (Obama) that you will forever renounce the Democratic party and start the REAL WORK of developing a progressive majority - tinkering with a broken system does not fix the system; only progressive reform will do so. I see this as a sad election, with millions of ill-informed stupid people blindly following a neo-con pro-war pro-corporatist bad candidate (and worse president; wait & see). Perhaps it will be for the good as people get heartbroken and start to really MOVE a progressive majority - BY VOTING FOR ONLY PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES!
You are both right and wrong. Americans should get a clue and understand that a two-party-system is profoundly undemocratic, and that it naturally leads to a wedge-issues horse-race type of election. There won't be a progressive America unless the two-party-system is broken up and delegated to the dustbin of history. Any American with a bit of civic responsibility should understand this and try to establish a truly democratic multi-party state. Electing progressive candidates at every opportunity is a no-brainer.
Then again, the important word is ELECTING progressive candidates. That's quite different from voting for them. You cannot elect Nader. You cannot elect McKinney. You cannot elect Barr. If you vote Nader but McCain wins, what have you won? Absolutely nothing. People will blame third-party candidates for another four or eight years of epic failure. It is a shame that you are stuck with a political system where voting for progressives helps to elect regressives. It's disgusting. But that's the system you have, and you can't abolish it by handing victory to Bush or McCain.
It is your responsibility to help and elect the most progressive candidate who actually has a chance of being elected. This year, that guy is called Obama. Support third partys at local elections, at state elections if you will, build a strong grass-roots movement. Voting for a progressive third-party candidate in a presidential election, especially in a close one, especially when the future of the entire world hangs in the balance, is reckless and foolish and a sure way to empower the status quo that you so detest.
Wow, how on earth can you possibly claim that Obama is a 'progressive candidate'?
If you want to elect a progressive candidate, you don't do that by voting for a right-wing reactionary candidate. That's just absurd.
Vote Nader, because Nader is the 'progressive candidate' who has the best chance of winning.
--------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
.
Anyone who supports Barack Obama has to ask themselves the following questions.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to raise the Pentagon budget?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not supporting single-payer healthcare?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for F.I.S.A?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Joe Lieberman?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the war in Iraq?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to escalate the war in Afghanistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Pakistan?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for wanting to invade Iran?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for barely mentioning torture?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning the poor and the working poor?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the $850 billion Wall Street bailout?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for not mentioning corporate welfare -- corporate welfare averaging BEFORE the $850 billion bailout $125 billion per year.
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting companies like Wal-Mart's?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking millions of dollars from Corporate America?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting Henry Paulson, the former head of Goldman-Sachs; or Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for voting for the Patriot Act as well as the reauthorization of the Patriot Act?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting the bankruptcy bill, a bill that punitively affects the average wage earner?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for supporting an increase in the US military presence throughout the world?
-- Why isn't Obama criticizing McCain for taking impeachment off the table?
The answer to ALL these questions is the same .. BECAUSE OBAMA IS DOING THE SAME THING!
What say you America ?????
VOTE NADER/GONZALEZ 2008… You’ll be glad you did and so will I…
.
Please come up with something new, nannie - you are really getting tiresome. If you can't enter the discussion without pasting your same old tired lines over and over please don't waste our time and space. You haven't had a new thought to add to the discussion in weeks - I wouldn't call that PROgressive.
Of course, you are the person who seems to think that keeping the wars going in the Middle East and expanding them to new countries is 'progressive'. So, you are the person who thinks that constantly killing more and more innocent people is 'progressive'.
You are the person who thinks that giving $800 billion or more to Wall Street is 'progressive'.
You are the person who thinks blocking impeachment and any post-election prosecutions of the Bush criminals is 'progressive'.
You are the person who thinks turning America into a police state with the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II, the latest FISA bill, etc is 'progressive'. And you are the person who seems to think that giving Bush and his cohorts immunity for his crimes whenever they are admitted is 'progressive'.
You also seem to be the person who thinks globalization and sending our jobs overseas for better corporate profits is 'progressive'.
Sorry, but I kinda doubt you are the person to be telling the rest of us what's really progressive. Because in your mind, 'progressive' and 'republican' seem to mean the same things.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
You talkin' to me Sammmy boy? Because I'm more progressive than you'll ever be; I just happen to live here in the real world, not the Naderite wet-dream you appear to wallow in.
Maybe its because there is the same constant junk and lies coming from the Democrats that need a response.
I think she's brilliant.
And she obviously has skewered the junk that the Democrats are spreading.
And speaking of nothing new to add to the discussion, doesn't all this 'you must vote for Obama because he's better than McCain' stuff qualify? I've been pointing out for weeks that its always just unsupported junk from the Democrats. But the Dems keep just posting the same bull over and over.
Keep up the good work Nannie. I just hope your IP address isn't blocked by Common Democrats the way mine was this weekend.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Speaking of spewing the same old junk, you could use a rewrite yourself, Sammy boy. Nannie is brilliant in the same way Sarah Palin is - able to regurgitate talking points given to her by someone else, while petulantly avoiding questions that would prove her own inability to think for herself. Your coming to her aid is the proof.
No loudmouth, self-promoting Naderite has yet stepped up to accept my challenge of acknowledging their part, however small, in the past eight years; none ever will. You ready to prove me wrong?
If you don't like what I have to say, sTROLL on by.
Keep going, keep going!
Excuse me, but what would constitute a progressive majority? Progressive reform? Do you mean a socialist or communist government.
Are you using progressive to mean liberal or to mean socialist, etc?
I agree Obama ignites people and I think that is exactly what America needs. But only changing the king isn't going to change the kingdom. We need fundamental change in our lifestyles to bring America back to a country, before we collapse as an empire.
Hoa binh