Go Barack! Go!
As I read through political blogs, so many times I come across fellow supporters who, like me, left their youthful dreams of America back in that kitchen pantry in '68...
Since then, I have never witnessed anything like the excitement Senator Obama is generating across the country, across generations.
Do we dare to dream again? Will they take this away from us as well? Back in the 60s, media didn't ruin candidates with dis-information, distortions; the sophisticated manipulation of consciousness and opinion by means of neurolinguistic programing was beyond our capacity to even conceptualize.
I was 16 when the world as I knew it ended at 6:15 am on June 6, 1968. I had fallen asleep on the east coast before the results of the California Primary were announced. My clock radio woke me; it was the tone of the words that signalled a catastrophe well before the nature of the news; heavy, hushed, shocked and anguished sorrow. I rushed to my mother's room. "Mom, they shot him." I was crying.
For years I wondered who 'they' was? Now I know. We all know. "They" are now so everpresent, so omnipotent they have accomplished much more than assassinating presidents; they have staged wildly successful 'false flag' ops, dismantled and shipped our economy overseas, bankrupted our schools, shredded our constitution, stolen elections, blatantly engaged in the overthrow of governments to accomplish nothing short of ruling the world. The list goes on.
But the worst thing, the worst thing they have accomplished is what they have done to our souls. While we were sleeping, they have systematically robbed us of the freedom of thought. They are the body snatchers. They have lobotomized America.
And so here is my daughter, like so many of yours. A young college student who called me the other day to tell me she watched Obama's 2004 address to the DNC and remembered how she thought at the time "I want him to be president." She was one of the first members of the Facebook Obama contingent, she has had an Obama 08 sticker on her car since Christmas. My daughter, who is going to Uganda next September after graduating with a degree in International Relations to help connect a small Ugandan village to a regional water system. She is working with the Rotary Club; she does not trust the Peace Corps becase 'they' control it now. My daughter, who has travelled solo internationally for 3 years, engaging in political discussions with students and residents in Barcelona, Rome, Prague, Paris, Galway, London, Vienna ... ashamed of her country.
And now? What we all dispaired of ever experiencing again ... an electrifying political figure who has the opportunity to awaken and ignite our dream of America.
How can we allow them to break these young hearts too?
This is my message. My 'pitch.' A few months ago, I called a piano tuner to set up an appointment. He asked me to go to the piano and hit "Middle C." At first my mind went blank, a famiiar term, to be sure, but it was so many years ago, I was a mere child when I last sat at a piano. But when I walked over i knew without thinking which key to strike. It was intuitive.
Just from hearing that key over the phone, he knew he would only have to tune the piano two times. How is that possible?
I think this is what Obama '08 is all about, this explains the phenomenom that has already so energized hundreds of thousands of us. The Senator is that Middle C which sets the tone around which all the other keys harmonize. We know him, we recognize him.
Obama is resonating at 261.6. We are captivated in the quest for harmony. We are seeking perfect pitch.
In this quest, there are no differentials, no distinctions between ages,world views, gender, skin color, economic or educational background. There is only the reality.
Keep your eyes on the conductor. He will lead us. He's in 'flow.'
Organize. Unite. Don't look back.
Not again.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Art and Culture Pundits | Culture | Election 2008 | Politics | Presidential Candidates | 2008 Elections | Barack Obama | Democratic Party | Democrats | Hillary Clinton | Independent
the new generation
Submitted by boatsie on 24 February 2007 - 4:40pm.
boatsie
so right ... i remember the first time I took my then 19 year old to DC; she had been raised in a boomer household and was already a traveler ... my god, when she went to the FDR momument, saw the White House, Supreme Court and Congress ... the whole panorama and I told her about the vietnam demonstrations and the March on Washinton ... wow, to see that look in her eyes, that blooming realization of what was now missing and why we were so infuriated. That's something I never will forget.
Did you check out the Austin for Obama website? Incredible the amount of organization that went into yesterdays rally; bus roots, tips on biking there, urging people to come even if they didn't have a ticke... the pre-publicity, the outreach.
I'm excited, so excited that Obama is giving these kids something inspiring to work towards, giving them a sense of identity and significance in a culture which has so narrowly shaped their options, so disempowered the development of their identity and so limited their opportunity and outlook.
It will be great chatting with you here over the next months....
Dream Again? Guess Again
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 1:52am.
I find it interesting that MSM can so easily manipulate the publics view of Obama as a progressive while he:
* receives major funding from the nuclear energy industry
* advocates for the coal industry, a top global polluter
* contributed and campaigned for Leiberman against Lamont.
You did get something right, "They have lobotomized America".
Excuse me...
Submitted by mole333 on 25 February 2007 - 10:36am.
If you want to participate here, may I suggest backing up your assertions with citations. Whether or not you are right, you need to back up your assertions. If not, you are going to get a pretty hostile and harsh response.
And I want to emphasize that I am not necessarily for Obama. I just find your approach to be needlessly antagonistic.
Kool aid? No. People have reasons for supporting who they support and if you want to present a counter view, do so with facts and your personal opinions, not by attacking those you disagree with.
Cherry Picking: half empty vs. half full
Submitted by boatsie on 25 February 2007 - 4:30am.
Well, let's just do a little more detailing on your points.
1. In terms of Obama's position on both nuclear and coal energy, he voted to guarantee loans to numerous alternative energy companies nuclear and "gasified coal" were just two and included loans for hydrogen cell cars, wind and solar energy, etc.
2. Obama donated to Ned Lamont's campaign after he won the nomination, but yes, he did ultimately support Lieberman. But his PAC also supported EVERY democratic candidate to help them maintain their seats.
Oh, and before we move on to Obama's support from corn farmers, lets note that the Senator is supporting cellulosic ethanol, a significantly more energy-efficient conversion system
"Lugar and Obama introduced the American Fuels Act, S. 2446, which would take a four-step approach to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. First, the legislation would spur investment in alternative fuels by increasing the production of cellulosic biomass ethanol and create an Alternative Diesel Standard. Second, it would help increase consumer demand for alternative fuels by providing a short-term, 35 cents per gallon tax credit for E85 fuel and by providing automakers with a $100 tax credit for every FFV produced. Third, it would require the U.S. government to increase access to alternative fuels by requiring the government to allow public access to alternative fueling stations located on federal government property. Finally, it would create a Director of Energy Security to oversee and keep America focused on its goal of energy independence." February 2006: Senator Lugar's Energy Legislation
The glass is full - with KoolAid
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 10:08am.
Likewise, lets do some more detailing on your points.
1. Obama didn't just vote in favor of nuclear. The nuclear industry is his 4th largest contributer.
(BTW, your attempt to label nuclear as an alternative fuel is inaccurate but very Bush-like. Kind of like Peace-keeping missions in Iraq.)
2. Obama did contribute to Leiberman, but Obama also went out and campaigned for Leiberman. This extra mile to defeat Lamont could only come from a politician that is firmly entrenched in the status quo. Who's Leadership PAC (a gaping loophole for crooked, powerful contributers) is and has been one of the best funded for years.
I didn't bring up corn-you did. (No surprise from a Midwestern Senator. Kind of like building bridges in Alaska.) Corn-based fuels require nearly as much petroleum energy to produce as it ultimately provides. When one considers the additional resources necessary and the effect this has on corn food prices, particularly to the dietary needs of poor Latin-American countries, the net effect is devastating. Of course this is great for giant Hillary/Obama/Bush supporters like ADM.
Coal gasification, as well as corn based fuels are great for the powers that be but a sad solution for the publics health and pocketbooks.
This is no time to time to be supporting compromised candidates just because of their race, gender or oratory skills and mellow voice. The stakes are way too high.
One Thing
Submitted by JJ Ross on 25 February 2007 - 11:53am.
we can all agree on?
This is no time to time to be supporting compromised candidates just because of their race, gender or oratory skills and mellow voice. The stakes are way too high.
Go barack Go: Less than 1 month on
Submitted by boatsie on 12 March 2007 - 11:53pm.
Well, this fool's eyes have been opened.
I have been doing my homework. So far, nobody really wants to engage in any creative criticism on the official website. But I am posting my concerns -- the "joshua generation," the AIPAC speech, the inability of the Senator to openly side with the Democratic Party's withdrawal from the Nevada Debate (he wasn't offended by Ailes' comment) and his politically safe position on Iraq. (im registered there also as boatsie)
Soooo, as painful as it was, JJRoss, thank you for your warnings. I'm still right now backing Obama, but I am eagerly awaiting some answers and some backbone. At a meeting last night of volunteers to help with this weekend's Oakland rally, it was clear that other supporters are also now asking for more substance and less exhilerating rhetoric. e.g., what health care plan? what mideast policy? what final stand on ethanol..
I still am holding on to the hope that should he receive the nomination, he and the Republican will opt for public financing, although I don't yet know how that effects fundings from pacs but that is on my list to review.
More than welcome!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 13 March 2007 - 12:01am.
My purpose really isn't to warn against anyone, only to critically and openly ask lots and lots of questions, rather than picking one pony and riding it to market. I am SO glad there are other thinkers here . . . 
Fresh Air
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 12:11pm.
There is an old saying, When you want to know the truth as badly as drowning man wants to breath, it will come to you in an instant.
The facts on Obama have been and are readily available for those that really want to know. One source is Harper's.
Things I find nasty are global warming, health care that bankrupts families, war profiteers, stolen elections and that reportedly "all the taxes paid by those earning under $100K per year goes to private contractors providing services to the US government".
And when the two leading Democrats are willing to continue down this path without true substantive reform on these issues, I consider that nasty.
Excuse me
Submitted by mole333 on 25 February 2007 - 12:56pm.
As a managing editor of this blog (which you are welcome to post at as long as you play by our rules) I am telling you that when you make an assertion we highly encourage you to back it up or you will probably not be taken seriously. I am also telling you that I would prefer you to not be nasty when it isn't necessary particularly if you aren't doing us the courteousy of backing up your statements. Sure, heated arguements and considerable sarcasm are part of the business. But if someone comes on, acts nasty and refuses to back up their assertions, we are not likely to be welcoming.
If your key issues are what you state, you can easily determine that most on this site (myself in particular) agree with you. So, perhaps if you approach it in a way to CONVINCE rather than alienate, you might actually convince people. Is that your purpose or merely to vent? I personally think you are partly right about some of the candidates, but I would still expect you to back up your assertions and I still think keeping a perspective that we all are on the right side against the far, far, far worse Bush Republicans is worthwhile.
Speaking for myself (and not as a managing editor) I for one am far more likely to listen to someone who keeps some perspective on what we are fighting, backs up their assertions and shows at least initial respect to those who they are discussing matters with. You do what you like, but I am already wondering about your once you start saying Obama supporters are drinking "Kool Aid" and defending your right to make statements without clear citations or links.
This is the
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 1:32pm.
This is the link
http://www.harpers.org/BarackObamaInc.html
As stated in the article," one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.†The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?â€
Re backing up assertions: How about in the original piece, "She is working with the Rotary Club; she does not trust the Peace Corps becase 'they' control it now."
How easy to disparage a 50 yr old global philanthropic NGO started by JFK dedicated to helping the impoverished in third world countries, without any explanation or editorial comment. But the word KoolAid is offensive. Interesting, coming from a guy who chooses to be portrayed with an ax in his hand.
What's with the axe???
Submitted by mole333 on 25 February 2007 - 2:11pm.
Wow, you are the third person to be put off by that. Most people love it. I honestly don't see that it is offensive (your assertion). Someone else found it threatening and though I find it odd to be threatened by a small photo of someone holding an axe, at least I understand it. Look, that photo is from a friend's wedding. It was a great wedding. We all had a wonderful time. I wore that outfit because it fit the theme of the wedding. I like the photo and so I used it.
As to the rest of your comment, thanks for giving the link. Since you were making a solid assertion and accusing someone else of, in essence, being equivalent to a suicidal/murderous cult in Guyana, I felt you needed to back up your statements. And you did and I appreciate that. When I make a statement like that I (usually...I think) make sure I give some kind of citation for people to find out more or at least see where I get my info. Probably I get sloppy sometimes and don't, but if I am then called on it I fully recognize the right of someone to call me on it.
Now, I found parts of the original diary odd in my view (mainly the "them" references) but, as and editor, felt comfortable letting the author run with it. Since her comment was not directed at another reader, accusing another reader of being the equivalent to a suicidal/murderous cult in Guyana, I was content to see where she went with it and how other readers responded. Had you challenged her in much the same way I challenged you (asking for clarification, more information, citations, etc.) I wouldn't have said anything. That would have been cool. But you went right to an insult (and one that right wingers throw around alot, raising a red flag) and a strong attack of Obama without any backing info. So, I felt the need to challenge you. Thanks for replying.
And by the way, I have some stories about Peace Corps. I don't know about being controlled by "them," but they do have some problems. But if you disagree with the author, feel free to ask for clarification and such. But let's START by recognizing we're probably mostly on the same side. After that we can form a circular firing squad.
I would just point out...
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 25 February 2007 - 2:10pm.
...that post-9/11 and with a view to climate change, nuclear energy is getting more support than it used to in some unlikely quarters; I recall reading about that in, I think, The Nation or the NYT Magazine.
Whether that's good or bad isn't for me to decide, but just thought I'd put it out there. Nuclear energy has one critical advantage in being carbon-free.
(ducks)
Yeah
Submitted by mole333 on 25 February 2007 - 2:19pm.
I am pretty much against nuclear energy. NO ONE has EVER given me any convincing arguements that the waste can be dealt with safely long term. Safety issues have been greatly improved, but remembering three-mile island and chernobyl (and a much more recent near-disaster in Japan) I am still very uncomfortable with the safety of the plants. But...
Given the issues of global warming, I wonder if environmentalists (which I consider myself one of) might not have to compromise regarding nuclear energy. I'd rather not! And I would like to see a serious effort to work with wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. before we put too much hope in nuclear with its waste issue. But, I recognize nuclear might unfortunately have to be part of the solution. Again, I'd rather not and want to see a lot of other things tried first and addressed first. But we may need to consider technologies we aren't fully comfortable with if we are going to end our addiction to oil with ITS waste issue (carbon dioxide and air pollution).
True.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 25 February 2007 - 2:24pm.
It does seem, and note I'm not arguing either way, that global warming is changing the picture. That said, the safety issues are what they are, and the trade-offs - drown New York City on the one hand, more Chernobyls on the other - aren't very inspiring.
consider your sources Cotterpin
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 25 February 2007 - 3:13pm.
Cotterpin, you linked to magazine article by a conservative writer in a fairly conservative magazine (Harpers isn't American Spectator, but its a lot closer to that than it is to say The Nation or Mother Jones) You should have questioned the judgement of this writer purely by lines in the story like saying "the “blogger community,†which by now is shorthand for liberal Democrats" You think someone who thinks something ridiculous like that MIGHT have a biased conservative view? Next time when you are asked for sources, don't quote columnists with political biases or new stories from sources with political biases (drives me up a wall when somebody quotes for instance from the Washington Times newspaper or the New York Sun as if they are remotely credible)
In his rally at Austin, the reports said Obama was asking the young people there for donations of $5 or $10, saying he specifically doesn't want to be running his campaign off of donations from rich people and lobbyists. That it is not the kind of campaign he wishes to run. I think that speaks well of him. Also your source doesn't point out that Obama supported BOTH Lamont and Lieberman at the same time through his PAC.
Another reason I am leaning towards Obama is that both Clinton and Edwards are DLC members, they are on the wrong side of the internal war going on for the heart and soul of the democratic party. They would have supported James Carville's push to remove Howard Dean as DNC chair and replace him with Harold Ford Jr., who since they couldn't get him the chairmanship, has instead opted to be chair of...you guess it...the DLC. Obama has never been a DLC member. He was a Dean Dozen member in 2004 because he was a Dean supporter and supportive of the left wing (anti-DLC) faction of the party. Supporting Obama sends the right message about where you think the future direction of the Democratic Party should be and who should control it. James Carville is hoping you support Hillary or Edwards, either of his DLC folks. Preferably Hillary of course, but with either of the elected, the DLC gets control of the party back and Dean and his folks trying to change the culture of the party are 86'ed. It is something to consider. As much as I like Hillary, and I like Edwards too for that matter, I don't want to see all the positive changes in the party of the last several years undone.
Ok, new rule for Wallner.
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 25 February 2007 - 8:13pm.
"They [Hillary and Edwards] would have supported James Carville's push to remove Howard Dean as DNC chair and replace him with Harold Ford Jr., who since they couldn't get him the chairmanship, has instead opted to be chair of...you guess it...the DLC."
OK, new rule: from now on, when you make a claim like that, you'll either back it up or see it deleted without comment. This because while evidence suggests Hillary would like Dean removed, the same is not true of Edwards, who has an excellent working relationship with the governor and in fact defended him against Carville. The DLC, meanwhile, is denouncing Edwards' policies, such as universal healthcare for all Americans.
So, no more made-up propaganda, Wallner. That is now over. Back up your assertions above, or they're gone.
Sources Considered
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 3:30pm.
This past Fall I attended FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) annual event in NYC. Along with Amy Goodman, Jeff Cohen the keynote speaker was Lewis Lapham, Editor Emeritus of Harper's. Hardly a conservative and certainly NOT a conservative magazine. Both the Nation and Mother Jones, publications I have personally worked with, are proud to be associated with Harper's in the "Liberal Media". Silverstein the author, has written for both Mother Jones and the Nation and to consider him conservative is laughable at best. He may be a journalist but he is way to the Left of Obama.
Your comment that Obama doesn't want donations from rich people and corporations is meaningless, verified further by your misrepresentation of the publication and author. How does that saying go? "Your actions speak so loudly, I can't hear what you're saying."
Obama's massive, record setting corporate fundraising speaks for itself.
This agrees with
Submitted by JJ Ross on 25 February 2007 - 3:33pm.
my take on Obama, I'm afraid. It really is hard for any of these contenders to make that case convincingly, and certainly not from Harvard or Hollywood!
correction
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 25 February 2007 - 3:45pm.
I mistyped, I meant to say that Obama said at that rally that he does not want his campaign run ENTIRELY by donations from rich people and corporations. The fact is that you can't get elected president in this country without taking corporate donations. It can't be done.
Also I didn't call Harpers a conservative magazine, I said "fairly conservative", and thats only in my view because I see any magazine to the right of Mother Jones as "fairly conservative" Silverstein I am not that familiar with, but when he makes a ludicrous statement like the "blogger community is shorthand for liberal democrats", it shows that either he doesn't get online much or he has a bias. Also he lays into Obama with a question about "pork barrel spending"? Tell me that doesn't sound like one who has a bias?
The fact is you didn't quote a responsible news story, you quoted this guy's column in Harper's, and that story didn't back up much of the other things you have been claiming.
Still massively dumb
Submitted by Michael Bouldin on 25 February 2007 - 8:08pm.
Anyone who describes Harper's as 'fairly conservative' needs their head examined, no matter what the yardstick is. Especially if that happens to be a sometime HillaryBot who approvingly quotes David Brooks (!!!) and doesn't mind that she's getting money from the guy who puts out The Weekly Standard. Now that's a 'fairly conservative' magazine. Harper's is so conservative that they devoted a full issue to impeaching Bush. S I think, frankly, that this shoot-the-messenger line of attack is kinda, well, goddamn fucking stupid.
Harpers & the Peace Corps
Submitted by boatsie on 25 February 2007 - 4:51pm.
First of all, I want to apologize for even bringing my daughter's opinion of the Peace Corp into this discussion. My initial posting was I admit an idealistic excited rant; I was one of those Obama rally atttendees who came away so utterly psyched.... undoubtedly, that was my vent. It was not professional and as thus I wasn't expecting attacks because it was over emotional.
With that said, I'd like to clear up the Peace Corps and "Them" in hopes of ending this sidebar. My daugher was discouraged from joining the Peace Corps after reading Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and discussions about how the CIA and the US Government use the PC to pursue an imperialist agenda. I don’t believe this is something she chose to really investigate extensively – I just know that she is currently an intern on a small (i am sick of the word "grass roots") Ugandan project and is currently planning to work in Uganda next fall.
Corn energy
"The best way to meet this goal is to produce cellulosic ethanol, according to Chris Somerville, professor of biological sciences at Stanford University and director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Plant Biology. Cellulosic ethanol is distilled from the fermentation of sugars from the entire plant, not just the grains and therefore can create much more biofuel per acre. However, the production of cellulosic ethanol is in its infancy" from http://www.alt-energy.info/archives/258
It's my understanding that we are talking about corn husks, switch grass, etc here. I am not an expert on alternative energy, but I was really upset with Obama's ethanol position (like who doesn't know traditional corn ethanol is NOT environmentally friendly) until I investigated and found out his joint legislation calls for funding of ALL types of alternative energy (and I don't like nuclear either ...or coal). But looking at the record, Obama is behind a signficant amount of legislation regarding alternative energy with a keen eye towards our need to disconnect from reliance on Mideast oil and to address global warming. I am not saying he has the perfect solution or that he's not conveniently supported by his corporate backers.
But some $70,000 from a nuclear company as opposed to millions from public supporters?(see http://opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00009638&cycle=2006) So who is more powerful here?
Yesterday I read on Hotline that the FEC has issued a draft statement in support of Obama’s request to solicit funding for the ’08 general now. He does not want to opt out of public funding at this time, but rather should he win the nomination, have the option to suggest that both candidates select this option. Obama has to leave all such monies untouched in a specially designated fund and is required to return all money should he win the nomination and opt for public financing. This sounds pretty good to me.
There is no doubt that Obama has his hands in the pockets of big money. In this respect, it is more of the same. But I hope that we have a chance here to put forth a candidate who truly seems to be seeking to be a unifier, who doesn't seem to have a problem speaking his mind, and who has not yet been totally swallowed by the corruption rampant in both political parties.
I don't think Obama expected to extent of this astonishing outpouring of support. I do think that he is intelligent enough to realize that he does have an opportunity here to run clean. I want to do my part to make that happen.
It seems that whenever anybody meets Senator Obama they act like a smitten schoolboy who just discovered he has “special feelings†for the girl sitting next to him in class. Heck, it even happened to America’s second richest man, investor extraordinaire Warren Buffett.
In Nov 05: The Tribune reports about a small meeting ...
Warren Buffett sits on the edge of a soft brown sofa, closely watching as Barack Obama navigates the well-appointed living room. He moves his square glasses closer to his face, unfolds his arms and springs to his feet when the time comes to welcome his guest to Nebraska.
"There he is," Buffett says with a wide grin, pulling Obama toward him with a hearty handshake. "You're the hottest ticket in town today."
(see for whole story http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=s&NewsID=...)
This scares me..
Dear Rwallnerny: Your
Submitted by cotterpin on 25 February 2007 - 8:21pm.
Dear Rwallnerny: Your original comments were,"you linked to magazine article by a conservative writer." Than follow up with,"Silverstein I am not that familiar with".
You say, " Harpers isn't American Spectator, but its a lot closer to that than it is to say The Nation or Mother Jones." And then follow that with "I see any magazine to the right of Mother Jones as "fairly conservative".
Not to be nasty, I find your original comments bogus and your follow up comments disingenuous. No one would ever describe Harper's as anything near conservative. No one at Mother Jones would describe Harper's to their Right. Your comments carry no weight and are driven by enthusiasm or willful ignorance. I am sorry but anything else you say in this direction is not worthy of my response.
Boatsie:
I appreciate both your original intent and thorough response. I am happy for both your enthusiasm for the candidate, your obviously wonderful daughter's thoughtful compassion and energy and relieved to finally read that you find many big donors suspect.
I've been just been offering my 2 cents from decades of experience in progressive politics and at times from "deep" within the DNC. It ain't pretty. Even when it looks, sounds and acts pretty.
Soon, as the facts trickle in, there'll be a lot of rationalizing going on as to why some of us are still supporting Hill or Obama. - Peace
This isn't a newspaper
Submitted by rwallnerny2007 on 26 February 2007 - 3:43pm.
Bouldin this isn't a newspaper being published, it is a message board. Thats all it is. It is people posting notes on a bulletin board. This is not the New York Times and people aren't using posters as source information in the way they would a news story in the Times. I should have and meant to have said "I think" before saying "they would have supported James Carville's move to...." .etc And I do, even knowing Edwards defended Dean. Because of course he defended Dean at the time as he is running for president and has no desire to piss off the netroots whose support he is trying to get. But it doesn't change his past connections. He has also got David Bonior, a staunchly pro-life and protectionist former michigan congressman and one of the organizers of the DLC's think tank (Progessive Policy Institute, look on DLC's web page or various links including http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1995/10465063-10470461.htm
), as his campaign manager. Not that this indicates anything. Maybe Edwards tell the DLC guys to go take a flying leap if he got elected. It is one of those things he could clarify on the campaign trail if he chose to do so. Of course we do not know for sure what Hillary or Obama would do once elected in that regard either. What James Carville wants does not have to be what Hillary wants I suppose.
Not a bulliten board
Submitted by mole333 on 26 February 2007 - 3:51pm.
Actually this is neither a newspaper or a bulliten board. We do have certain standards and we have editors whose job it is to enforce those standards. We do get cited, we do interact with more mainstream media (BBC, NY Times, Pacifica Houston, etc.) in various ways. That is why information has to be either clearly marked as opinion or supported in a clear manner.
Unsupported accusations are a problem. And we are responsible for the content here so we have to enforce standards. Otherwise no one will take us seriously.
Many different opinions are presented, most of them challenged by others. That is all good. Francis Holland, JJ Ross, Michael Bouldin and I don't agree that often. But I think we all recognize the need for certain standards of supporting what we say. You need to do the same or clearly label everything as your opinion for which you have no solid support. In otherwords, if you DO have support, cite it. If you don't, then make that clear.
Obama-mania
I really like Obama too. I was supporting the Howard Dean campaign in 2004 and he was one of the original Dean Dozen members, the group of political reformers that Democracy for America endorsed as its first act of being a post-Dean campaign group. Obama came to a DFNYC event at Cinema Classics, he's a very charismatic guy but what you realize is that he's one of us, he's a longtime political activist/organizer who has been working to make progressive change in the political culture and the community.
I also saw Obama twice at book signings at Barnes and Noble Union Square, one the week after the election in 2004 and one last October, and both were totally mobbed. Instead of entering through a side door from the green room to the fourth floor event space, like others do, Obama came in through the front entrance downstairs and took the escalators up, and you could hear the cheering as he made his way upstairs, high fiving people and shaking their hands. It was a rock star entrance, one I've not seen when the Clintons or other VIPs have appeared there.
I think there is a whole demographic of younger voters, under-35, who do not relate to most of the washington power-elite because they are of older generations. Obama is playing that up, in speeches where he puts out that his formative years were the seventies and eighties, not the fifties and sixties, and that a lot of people are tired of baby boomers who act like nothing has been relevant since 1968. Tired of people who say they are the "greatest generation" and generation x and y who came after are just lesser generations eating their dust and enjoying the fruits of their labors. There is plainly a desire for younger candidates whose world view is more contemporary than 1968. Obama is the candidate who appeals to those who have that desire.