If one candidate and their followers are now so utterly sure the nomination is in fact over they should act like it and start to lead instead of a knifing a Democrat.
Go, Paradox! Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Posted by Bluegrass Poet at March 22, 2008 07:38 AMI think you're wrong.
I think Obama does represent fundamental change on a couple of these fronts, and even Hillary's desired health care reforms offer fundamental changes also on a couple of these front. If an offer to unconditionally talk to our "enemies" in the Mid-East isn't at least a sea change in promised foreign policy and military posturing, what is? On top of which, an African-American/European-American president with a non-western, Arab name? You can dismiss this as window dressing, but I say that's bunk. That represents nothing less than the complete and final overturning of Western imperial rule for going on 600 years, turning into something brand new entirely that the world has never seen before, a world leader not rooted in an ethnic identity but a legalistic, abstract one -- a TRUE American, the melting pot come alive.
As for Hillary's health care, we're talking about reform of over 1/5th of the U.S. economy. That's a massive proposed change to our financial system as well as to the social safety net and the social contract. And Obama's health care isn't that different a proposal. Of course, on the militarism front, I don't see Hillary's ideas being so different than the current administration, but still, choose one Democratic candidate, massive change in one direction, and the other has changes in other directions.
Again, to some up, paradox, I respectfully disagree with you on practically your entire diary. Sorry, but I do.
Posted by Brian Bell at March 22, 2008 07:49 AMSay it again! There is no winning until this administration and this congress are part of the past.
Posted by Jackalope at March 22, 2008 07:52 AMObama would love to lead, but he keeps getting knifed by another democrat.
Posted by at March 22, 2008 07:56 AMViewing the post after a break of two weeks still in a far away magic land, the commenters seem to be January's story. The post may be too optimistic about the media, but is forceful and on point with respect to the needs of the US.
Posted by koshembos at March 22, 2008 08:10 AMParadox,
Very thoughtful and provocative and issue-based presentation. I agreed with much of what you said, excepting: “If one candidate and their followers are now so utterly sure the nomination is in fact over they should act like it and start to lead instead of a knifing a Democrat”.
I’m assuming, of course, that you are referring to Obama supporters. IMHO, your case is weakened by the above comment. Do you really expect that Obama’s folks are not going to speak up when Mrs. Clinton has been trying to raise his ‘negatives’ for the past 6 weeks as a clear strategy to deflate him with the superdelegates (the only way she can win).
That said, I think that you have tried to be fair and impartial in your posts for the most part; other bloggers on this site have not.
Please humor me for a moment…
____________________________________________
Identify the Biased and Intemperate Blogger
by tfitznc (in the manner of eripostal)
Let's see if you can complete a (not so fun) exercise today. Identify which of the following individuals is a biased and, at times, irrational blogger; who is wasting his or her obvious talents by focusing on petty advocacies and ad hominem attacks, instead of:
(a) calmly discussing the important issues of the day and how Senators Clinton and Obama might differ with respect to their policy proposals to effect change; or
(b) advancing the sociopolitical awareness of the readership; or
(c) explicating the profound differences between the eventual Democratic nominee (whomever) and McCain (e.g. Irag, economic policy, global warming and pollution, relations with other countries and peoples, health care, the impact of intolerance and prejudice, social justice, educational reform, Social Security, etc. etc. etc. ).
Person A:
“… I don't have a candidate … and your anger should be directed at your candidate's campaign team for behaving like idiots”.
Person B:
“… Your Dear Leader Saint Obama and his blogger supporters who cite Bob Novak and Matt Drudge and other miscellaneous frauds on the right to smear Clinton using false stories”.
Person C:
“…dimwitted Obama supporters … more
dimwitted Obama supporters… dimwitted Obama supporters”.
I am not good with hyperlinkages [the answers are:
Turkana, erispostal, and Turkana, respectively]
Amen Paradox. Thank you.
Unfortunately, if we the people want to see the actual policies, plans and stances of the candidates, we are not going to get them from the media.
We have to be diligent enough to read them from the actual candidates' sites.
The media only wants to report that which divides. Nothing has been better for the media than the fight within our Party.
If our Party does not wake up and stop tying their participation to one candidate or the other then we will lose.
I never would have believed, after the damage done to this Country by the Bush Administration, that I would hear Democrats say "if my candidate does not get the nomination, I will never vote for ____!"
I have to wonder if these are even really Democrats, or just Dittoheads come to do the bidding of the RNC.
Posted by Anjha at March 22, 2008 08:27 AM"End the war in Iraq, yes...
No. Neither candidate has any intention at all of ending the so-called "war", and both have made that absolutely clear on numerous occasions. They both fully intend to continue the occupation (AND the exploitation) of Iraq with a smaller force and a lower profile.
Both candidates have clearly expressed their intention to leave a "residual force" of some 50-70,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely in order to, as Hillary has put it, continue the "military as well as political mission" there. That mission, as described by both candidates, will include combat.
"but nothing about militarism, imperialism or the massive military-industrial complex."
Taking a good look at Hillary's history, going back at least since her days in the White House, she has always been militaristic and imperialist. And if one looks at her corporate donors, one sees the military-industrial complex very, very heavily represented. So, what can you realistically expect from her?
Obama is a bit less clear when it comes to militarism, and imperialism mainly due to his much shorter tenure in national public life. However, his own statements, and his own plans as he has laid them out reveal that he is as steeped in American exceptionalism, and is as militaristic and imperialist as anyone else. His statement that he would bomb Pakistan against the will of its government should be more than enough to give one pause.
The political landscape has been the same since the 90s. Gore and Kerry demonstrated how it is today. Yet, to diminish the Wright controversy to "stories" is not to see that those type of sermons are disgusting to many. Only those who have endured the discrimination in this society can understand Wright. Those on the outside can only look the other way as not important and not an issue. I have no problem for regular people listening and venting their anger in church, but I do not see how a politician seeking POTUS can belong to a church whose pastor is politically divisive. It's not a story, but a glimpse of someone's inner being. I dropped a church when Reagan ran against Carter because the minister said that Reagan was the real Christian. I knew Reagan was using race to divide and conquer and did not care to belong to a ministry pushing a political view. I've followed the 2008 campaign very closely, and my view is that Obama was happy to get the benefit from the racial attacks against Clinton, but when the same coin was given to him, he spoke up. He must now realize that the coin has heads and tails. Obama was unique in that he really didn't suffer all the negatives most black people receive, any more than my kids whose father is white and their mother Hispanic with an accent. Did they get comments that were unpleasant? Yes. My kids upbringing was common, and like Obama, their parents held university degrees and their friends were white. I know that Obama was in a unique position to bring the races together, but he chose differently. He should have stopped the race bickering in SC and now his voice would not be hallow. Too bad for him. As a previous Edwards supporter, I chose HRC for her qualities, but would have been happy to vote for Obama in November. After SC I lost some of the respect I had for him. Now I see him as an ineffective divisive politician. He pushed for HRC to quit. He should take that advice and go away.
Posted by Prabhata at March 22, 2008 12:04 PMFunny, I see that it is Obama that has been knifing all along. It is clear that the only Hope he has is to disenfranchise voters and steal the nomination. Course, the only Change we will then see is the GE going from a Dem landslide to a Repugnican victory.
Posted by KathyVT at March 22, 2008 04:55 PMClinton, Obama and their patrons appear oblivious to the nation's closing circle. Either they don't see what's coming or choose not to speak about it.
In decline, our empire will meet again some people it stepped on while rising.
We'll border on insolvency, military fecklessness and won't create reality.
We want social, not military, spending and a matching foreign policy.
Our candidates' patrons should permit them to discuss this because it will be done. It can be done the hard way or the easy way. It's up to them.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at March 22, 2008 09:29 PMKathyVT: "Course, the only Change we will then see is the GE going from a Dem landslide to a Repugnican victory."
yep, if people like you act like children and don't vote in November
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 25, 2008 11:48 AM