-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/07/seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Speaking of tinfoil hats, blogging in Alabama is dangerous to your employment.
http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do;jsess...
Here is a snippet from WaPo yesterday:
"U.S. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will speak to Northern Virginia voters as part of virtual townhall meeting on Thursday night."
http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do;jsess...
He is DESERVEDLY getting a lot of flack for FISA, not because progressives are one issue voters-- we're not. He's getting flack because he should have stood up for our civil rights, hands down, end of story. He's getting flack because he PROMISED THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what he eventually did.
People are not nearly as upset with Obama about the 2nd Amendment or death penalty because he's in line with what he's said all along. These are not new positions with him. His FISA position is BRAND NEW, and a complete slap in the face for people that have been fighting against telecom immunity for nearly a year now. (NO, this FISA thing is NOT NEW. We didn't just pull it out of our asses as something to slap Obama around with).
His FISA vote is a betrayal to people that have been working against telecom immunity for nearly a year. Obama made a GRAVE miscalculation on this issue. Progressives may be able to take his other positions with a grain of salt, but FISA was the wrong issue to pick a fight with us on.
Yes, we are seeing Obama through new glasses. Yes, we are not as excited about him as before. Yes, we are not donating like we were. But make no mistake, there is no progressive even considering voting for John McCain. For as WRONG as Obama is on FISA, he is right about healthcare, education, the economy, the environment, and other issues.
I'm surprised that y'all think we aren't supposed to hold politicians accountable for their positions and promises. I'm particularly surprised at how little Black people seem to care about this issue, considering the problems we've had with 4th Amendment violations.
You're not progressive.
(Nor can you apparently read a book.)
Slither, slither.
Slither.
::
rikyrah, thanks for the shoutout!
An AP writer who covered Hillary's campaign has an article circulating that politics is boring without HIllary around.
Uh huh.
But I've still got pretty good eyesight.
I am so glad that you posted this message because after reading Rikyrah's post (I am quite fond of her and seldom, if ever, disagree with her.) and the responses of others here at Jack & Jill, I quite literally threw up my hands in despair. I am still supporting Obama; I attended a fund raiser held for him two days ago. His position on FISA, however, is not defensible and it represents both a reversal of his previous stance and a deep betrayal of a significant portion of his base.
Let me put on my tin foil hat for a moment. Black folks and especially those who champion issues and causes that have a direct bearing on the lives of black people should be keenly aware, based on history, that repressive laws of this type are often used to suppress, monitor and discredit black dissent. Secret intelligence units of the military were assigned to spy on blacks during and after World War I. The FBI regularly spied on leaders of the NAACP and other black organizations long before the Civil Rights Movement flowered.
The FISA bill is a direct threat to our civil liberties. It is disgraceful, in my opinion, for liberal and progressive African Americans to impugn the integrity of those who are quite justified in being angry and dismayed at Obama's reversal and his disingenuously cynical defense of his reversal. Obama is as wrong as two left (or two right) shoes on this matter. I will continue to support his candidacy but I can find no fault with others who choose not to continue to support him in response to his vote on FISA. Citizens in a democratic republic are not obligated to support politicians who they feel are too willing to play fast and loose with their civil liberties.
I cannot remember a time in my life when I was not opposed to racism and the intrusion of the government into my private life. If folks here believe that electing Obama as president is a more important issue for them than FISA I can accept their decision. By the same token, I wish that many of them would stop defending the indefensible because they are leaving no middle ground for those of us who are upset at Obama's actions but want to continue supporting him. They are making me feel as if I am running out of real estate.
I can't speak for people who post here, but for me, personally, I cannot afford to ignore the resistance to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. As for Kos' - most of them are kool-aid drinkers who make sense 50% of the time, and the other 50% is dependent on how Kos feels that day. While they may be rabid, they are right to roast Obama on his FISA vote, especially since he went on RECORD promising to filibuster any version that came down with immunity for the telecoms in it. He backtracked. Admit that, if you please, and quit trying to defend the fact he backtracked his position.
What bothers me more than Obama's FISA vote, is the sense that he believes we (Black People) are going to support him NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES, and has begun to take US for granted. It appears he's counting on Black People to want a brotha in the White House so badly, we'll do anything, including ignoring if or when he screws US over, comforting ourselves with "Wait until he gets in." For those of you who want to go that route, it is a free country, but if Obama does ignore the concerns of Black America, while the rest of America gets tended to, it will be our fault for not holding his damned feet to the fire when it mattered.
Many of you will disagree with me - if not involving yourselves in name-calling and whatnot. That's okay, but I have to say that now that Obama has closed the deal, I can't help feeling he believes he doesn't need Black People anymore, and even though Jesse Jackson was crude for wanting to make a brotha a eunich, when you wade through the remarks before expressing a desire to relieve Obama of his manhood, he may have been really expressing similar concerns.
As did Jeremiah Wright. As did anyone else who tried this and got summarily tossed under the bus by Obama's camp, just because he didn't want to be uncomfortable.
Guess What? Being POTUS is more than being uncomfortable; it is a job that ages the hell out of you from the stress and pressure to lead and do what is best for the country. The country includes EVERYONE; white, Black, Asian, Latino, Native American; rich and poor; young, middle-age and old. It will not be a pleasant Presidency for Mr. Obama if he spits on the base that got him to the dance and he walks off with the Quarterback that ignored him all year. (I'm an ex-cheerleader, LOL).
I want to know he's paying attention and that he's well aware of the consequences for ignoring US. That's it and that's all. The End.
::
Can you tell me how you get from A to B with this one?
I mean, I don't hear Barack talking specifically to Black people about his FISA vote and suggesting he believes Black people are going to vote for him no matter what.
If he has, please show me the light.
Why are you making this a Black thing?
Why, oh why, are you projecting this onto him?
You're an intelligent brotha - so being disingenious doesn't become you.
If you call that being disingenuous, so be it.
But you're wrong.
You said that Barack believes Black people will support him no matter what he does.
And since I don't see that at all, I'm asking you to point me toward the light.
If you can't do that, then own your statement as an opinion and leave it at that.
But if it's a fact, I'm open to seeing the evidence about what Barack believes about the Black vote.
Unless you have evidence that he has said something like, "I don't need to worry about getting votes from Black people because they will support me no matter what I do" then, suffice it to say, I'm not going to agree with you about this.
No disrespect.
I, too, think the FISA bill/law stinks. But I think attacking Iran stinks even more. Why the hell aren't people bitching about Bush/McCain's insistance on attacking Iraq? Nevermind that we would be paying $7/gallon for gas, innocent Iranians will be killed.
This whole "losing our civil liberties" meme I keep hearing from the left is bullsh*t anyway. It's illusory. We never really had civil liberties.
And I wish people would stop making excuses for Jesse. I commend him for his civil rights work years ago, but he has been wrong for a long time now. First of all, I'm still missing the connection with how faith based initiatives, or discussing issues that are relevant in the Black community equate with talking down to Black people. Second of all, if a White Obama supporter had been caught saying the same thing, in the same manner on Fox, would people really keep saying, yeah well it was ignorant, but he had a point. I highly doubt it. Jesse and Al would both be leading a march in the street.
And Jeremiah Wright. Please don't get me started. Obama did not throw that man under the bus, he let his ego plant him firmly under that bus when he went to a public forum and started talking reckless. The problem with the whole Rev. Wright issue, is that there were things that I agreed and disagreed with about his sermons, but as Obama said, I did not feel that a couple of sound bites was an accurate portrayal of who he was. But when you start going off about how the government invented AIDS to infect members in the Black community, that's when I tune out. That is absurd. And even if the government has done horrible things in the past, with the collusion of Black people, without evidence that it has infected Black people with AIDS, why spread that lie? Rev. Wright is an extremely intelligent man, and he knew exactly what he was doing. If Obama wanted to "throw him under the bus" he would have done it a year and a half ago when the press first started asking him questions about it.
Barack's vote on FISA is NOT indefensible.
That's your very strong opinion.
But it's not the truth.
My opinion is also just that.
His position is not defensible. We are not arguing about truth here. I am not asserting that he (you or anyone else) is lying.
All respect.
Truth isn't the opposite of lying. Sometimes you have to lie in order to tell the truth.
But that's another discussion.
Peace.
Gun control is just not that simple of a cure for violence. Look at all the killing with knifes in London, I just read a London newspaper and the horrible murders by knife make NYC look like a utopia.
Most of the people acting so surprised on line must not have researched or read any of Obama's books. Or they are just posers working for the Rebullycans, maybe even Hillary. Her vote against FISA is proof that she's still playing the game, hoping and wishing for another chance, or at least, the VP.
I hope like hell you are wrong about this, but that is exactly what I thought when I saw that she had voted against it, particularly in light of the fact that she gave only a tepid response when the vote came up previously.
I still think she's going to pull something in Denver.
I think FISA is important too, but I am also aware that the MSM and McCain, and all the pundits, are loving the inhouse turmoil, and will twist it anyway they can. I watched a writer from Salon on tv the other night, she was lying away about this issue, and glorifying the dissent.
I have an idea: Maybe JJP could start a "SSSSSSSNAKE List" to include people who act like one, e.g., Joan Walsh, hillary clinton, shelby steele, now the Rev. JJ,
Just a thought.
The Democratic nominee gets beat up on. That's how it is. Its annoying and ridiculous when you talk like all these white liberals are just airing their secret hatred of the black man.
Spend a little more time on the net, you'll see a lot of white liberals who just like feeling good about themselves by calling themselves liberals.
It seems clear that most of the progressive blogosphere has not read The Audacity of Hope or was not paying attention during the primaries. Every single one of Obama's so-called "flip-flops" or "moves to the center" are things he has said before, in most cases years before.
It seems like a lot of the people crying the loudest over FISA were Clinton or Edwards supporters during the primaries. Sounds like crocodile tears to me.
::
Now you're talking.
The new talking points go something like this: "If the primary season continued, Hillary would be the nominee because she was the better candidate at the end. (Nevermind that she raised the specter of assassination so blatantly, nevermind that she called on her base of hardworking Americans, white Americans to give her blowouts in the Appalachia primaries.) The Democrats will continue to show more buyer's remorse as the summer goes on. Baracks support will continue to fall off, the big Democratic donors wont open their pockets to Barack, especially if Bill doesn't appear with him and give his blessing, his base will stop donating, etc........"
And this is just the beginning.
.
I agree, Zoe. Not about Hillary hate in particular (what's not to hate?) but about believing that Obama is "one uf us."
I think there was lots and lots of thoughtless not-paying-attention not-listening projection from progressives who thought they were supporting Senator Obama -- combined with the rigid limited white-progressive worldview in which someone is either "one of us", "someone who needs to be educated by us," or "The Enemy."
No gray areas and no need for insider-progressives to actually learn or listen to others who don't already agree with them.
As much as I would like to blame all this on people who didn't "support" Senator Obama in the primaries, it seems to me that it is not accurate to do that.
Of course, various groups are taking advantage of this situation (or trying to), and very strategically. But this weakness begins in the white-progressive movement as a whole, including Obama supporters in that group.
Obama's campaign needs some fresh people in Chicago. Right now, the headquarters has devolved into a group think where no wrong can be done because Hillary Clinton was defeated. It's not serving the candidate well. The FISA vote, the failure to consider the reaction in the netroots, lagging fund-raising, and daily beatings in the press is showing it. Specifically, Obama needs a new press shop--one dedicated to actually fighting the spin battles. It's dirty, nasty work that the candidate rightly disdains, but it's needs to be done in order to win. I want to change the rules of the game, but to do that we have to win by playing the game under its current rules...
We know it;s a good politics because Dubya Bush is trying his damnedest to pressure German leadership to squash it.
Speakers at the Brandenburg gate are a dime a dozen.
It's acting as if he already is the President before he is the President. That makes him appear to be arrogant, which is something he cannot afford. to project. Also, if the reporting on the trip goes negative, they've just shot themselves in the foot on national security, which is already their weakness.
Ideas like the Bradenberg gate fly in the blogosphere. They don't fly in Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Butte, Helena, Denver, and Reno--the places where this election will be won or lost. It's *STUPID* politics which has to be avoided at *ALL* costs. Barack can do a goodwill tour in February, as the sitting President. In July, it will equal the moment the election shifted in McCain's favor...
At all.
Being excessively humble will do nothing for O.
Dress for the job you want.
Don't you find it odd that the Chancellor would oppose having a hugely popular speaker like Obama? Think of the tourism, the publicity for the city. Why would she care? As Craig said, lots of groups speak at Brandenberg Gate, far less prestigious than Obama.
Worse, the Obama campaign has deluded themselves into thinking this is another Kenya moment. Far, far from it. There is a totally ignorant of the different dynamics at play here, and they're doing their best to piss away Obama's chance to get elected.
I'm not deluding myself about this (or anything else) but I disagree with you across the board on this.
What I would like to know is what member of the Obama campaign explicitly said that Obama was looking to give a speech at this Gate? From what I can tell, this started as a blog post on Ben Smith's blog at politico. And as I recall, even this blog post was a "rumor" and the Obama campaign itself gave no confirmation that Obama was planning to do this, it was reported, but not confirmed by the camp. Oh sure, the German side of this story seemed to confirm that the Obama campaign and the Secret Service was scouting locations in Germany, but no official word from the campaign.
The details of Obama's trip abroad has not been and will not be released until right around the time when he goes. Until the Campaign officially releases information all the analysis and "political advice" is just conjecture.
Yes some people see it the way you do, but just as many others don't.
The problem is that you seem to be trying to force feed your view to the other side.
It is all subjective, either view of the situation could be right or wrong.
That there is a debate is why it shouldn't happen. It practically invites Republican attacks and a media crapstorm. They really want to do that? The campaign is totally clueless and very listless at the moment.
How right you are. One reason I was such an ardent Obama supporter during the primary was because his shop seemed so tightly run. His message was ALWAYS on point, and slip ups were immediately addressed.
Nowadays, his campaign seems a mess. FISA was a huge political miscalculation. Progressives are used to being eventually fucked by the Democratic candidate, but Obama didn't even use lube.
Sorry for the crassness, but that's how it's feeling these days.
He seems all over the place. The Access Hollywood interview for instance. Certainly, he may think it was a mistake, but why make a public statement about it? It's not a policy issue that needs some sort of explanation. If in the future, he wanted to keep his family out of the limelight, few people would object. Making a statement about it, though, just neutralizes his "judgment" argument.
This statement is deeply contradicts my recent actual -- though quite limited -- experience with a Chicago staff member.
I'll share the info, but first I have to ask you, Bag of Health and Politics -- where are you getting your information about what is actually going on in the HQ? This question is both a challenge and real curiosity, since my own experience is quite limited. I wonder if you have direct experience with this group or some of its members ... and if so I would like to add those details to my own information to help me see the whole picture
My own limited experience is this. I complained about a national LGBT conference call they put on after Senator Obama became the presumptive nominee. I don't know anyone on the staff at all, am just a random person who got upset about it.
I ended up being contacted by a staff member from Chicago who genuinely and openly and directly admitted they had made mistakes ... and thanked me. Not BS bureaucratic thanks, but the real thing.
That same staff person told me in a phone conversation a few weeks later that my concerns/complaints, along with others, had (this is a paraphrase from me) pushed the staff to look critically at what they had been doing and bring stuff to the front burner that had been too long on the back burner and they are still working on it all.
I have a feel for this kind of thing, I have always been focused on this area (whether people and groups are truly open to learning or are closed) and I want to say -- most ACTIVIST groups I have been involved with would not have responded so openly or with such a clear and non-defensive capacity and willingness to learn from their mistakes.
Further, when I received a silly robotic response from another part of the staff (I assume in Chicago, but not sure) on this same issue, I emailed this staff person, he understood exactly why it was inappropriate, spoke to them, apologized to me with no drama and that was that.
Here is the email I sent him after our phone conversation -- the date of the email is July 4 and it was about a week after we spoke on the phone. I don't say stuff like this lightly -- and, I usually don't get to say things like this at all because normally I don't see this kind of response to criticism:
I am really deeply supportive and impressed by your responses to what I did and said re: that LGBT conference call.
I have been involved in various kinds of social movement/activist contexts for the past 20 years. In the last year, I have had to question my own involvement in activism, for a very specific reason: critical experience-based questioning functions in practice as a threat in a lot of these contexts, and yet it is an inescapable part of the core of who and what I am.
In my experience, it's really really hard for people and groups in this society to deal with direct experience-based critical questioning. Defensiveness is extremely common and too often functions as a barrier to learning.
I would not even have bothered sending my initial upset email to the LGBT listserve if I hadn't read Senator Obama's books, watched the campaign over months, and seen in him the capacity to attend and learn in (what I would call) a real way.
Your response to my emails was, in my perception, very direct and honest and clear. No energy-wasting defensiveness or other BS -- that is extremely rare in my experience. And when you told me in our phone conversation that critical responses to the call brought issues to the forefront that needed to be brought there, I was extremely impressed.
I am writing this email to thank you and the other staff for this, to thank all of you and Senator Obama for fostering a culture in which it was possible for you to respond as you did to me and to any other criticism of that call. To make a learning and dialogue experience of it rather than to put shields up and just defend and avoid -- I can't tell you how rare that is in my experience, and how impressed I am.
Please, all of you, please keep it up. Please stay honest and grounded and open to learning in situations like this. And thank you. It's hard to express the significance of this to me, but it goes deep.
So when I see a comment like the headquarters has devolved into a group think where no wrong can be done it goes 100% against my actual experience and I want to both share it and also ask for details on where you are getting your information; if you have direct experience also, I would like to get the details and add them to my own information to develop and shape my own understanding further.
(If you have information you would prefer not to share publicly, please say so and I'll post my email address or post your email address and I'll contact you.)
To me, it's quite apparent, they didn't allow themselves to think about the general election as long as Hillary Clinton was a candidate. They have no plan for the general election. John McCain has been handing one election altering moment after another to the Obama campaign, but they don't push it to the media. They just sit back and say they don't care. The problem is that the candidate doesn't watch the cable news, which is fine. But people think that spin is unimportant then. Far, far from it.
This has long been a problem with the campaign. They've long refused to fight the spin battles. (The right thing may not have taken off the way it did had the campaign done a better job of fighting it before it got onto the air. Bittergate was another example of letting a media story get out of control).
They need to wise up and do a better job of thinking ahead. That they had to apologize to you is the problem. If that happens with the Bradenberg Gate, no apology can undo the damage...The campaign needs to shape up now. The only way to do that is to bring in new people.
You wrote:The problem is there in the "make mistakes and then apologize for it" mode.
...and
That they had to apologize to you is the problem.
I totally and completely disagree. I mean with every single fiber of my being I disagree. And it hurts that you say that. But I understand why this perspective would make sense to you or anyone else.
But then, that's because I have specific priorities.
To me the single most important attribute any person or group can have is the ability to learn as they act.
The culture of this society creates HUGE egos and personas and walls of defensiveness. Everyone so busy defending themselves and saying what they did is right even when it's not. Better to look like you're doing right than actually do right.
Everyone is so busy trying to never make a mistake (impossible) and project a seamless flawless image (bullshit and deceptive) that they get all rigid and unresponsive. This leads to attempts to create reality to mask what is going on and the inability to respond and adapt to what is actually going on. Instead, in this rigidity people start to insist that reality conform to them. Which only works til the planet, for example, says -- UM NO. You don't control reality. It's complicated and learning to attend and listen and learn and be part of rather than trying to control is actually a survival mode in the longer term.
Everyone and every group makes mistakes. The variable is whether we admit it, learn from it, act on that learning ... or not.
The fact that Senator Obama and his staff knows how to learn while doing asnd to act in the midst of that dynamic process is valuable and extremely rare.
And of course they're going to get shit for it from people who think they know how the campaign "should be" run. Their approach contradicts a major aspect of the way this society operates. It is in my eyes a huge strength on the part of Senator Obama and his staff and it is what will make him an excellent President if he is elected. But I understand that it is not the usual way to do things in this society.
The problem isn't that they made a mistake. It's that they're making them daily...Today's mistake: they fought back on the WSJ story about lagging fund-raising. They had a golden opportunity to get the netroots to shut up about FISA and fall back in line, but they pissed it away because *staff* didn't want to look bad. If they hadn't fought back, people on the left would've been forced to realize they're doing real harm with their tantrums. But the campaign can't see the tree through the forest.
Well, it's not like the campaign has won anything recently, is it.
So far what I see is that the Obama campaign WON the Democratic nomination. Despite all odds and against an amoral heavily favored huge name recognition husband was the president for 8 years front-runner.
If you're going to focus so hard on what they do "wrong" by your standards, please also focus on what they have done right.
You're right this is the big leagues. I don't consider myself an expert on this stuff. I do know what I see and so far winning the contest in front of them seems to be the outcome of the Obama campaign's actions.
But of course YOU know better than they do about how to win. You know better because ... um, what exactly are your credentials for knowing better, that you will put up against the actual observable fact of what the campaign has accomplished so far?
I understand you and I totally disagree on the value of what I would call "learning as they act," and what you call "not thinking ahead." But no matter where you stand on that, you do see that they acknowledge their mistakes (even though you think they should and could have avoided them).
The words group think suggests a closed-ness and rigidity that is totally not accurate even from the POV of what you are saying. Group think would be closed to outside criticism. Group think would have led them to either ignore or BS away my criticisms, or to respond by trying to change my mind and show me I was "wrong." That is NOT what occurred.
The more I think about it the more it makes my stomach sink to consider that word you used, its inaccuracy in relation to what you are actually criticizing them for, and what it connects with -- the "spin" of it given that it is not even accurate to what you yourself have observed.
You may not be doing this on purpose, but in mis-naming what you are criticizing as "group think," you are drawing on some threads of deception that go way way back in this election season (remember the whole "cult" theme, for example?)
------------------------
And also, you wrote: I warned the campaign about that 2 and a half weeks ago, but they're still pushing this stupid idea and keeping negative reaction to it in the press. Why? Because they can't admit they had a bad idea; they can't admit that Barack giving a speech to a giant rally can be a bad idea. As I said above, giving a speech to a giant crowd of Europeans has no benefit and massive risks. It's stupid politics. From what I see, I get the sense that there isn't a dissenting voice within the headquarters. All is *too well* there).
Either that, or they just disagree with you on this particular issue. Your particular perspective not running things is NOT the same as total lack of dissent. People in this society often get confused on this point. Just bc they're not doing it YOUR way ... that doesn't mean it's group think. It means they're not doing it your way, that's all.
You may be right, or they may be right or someone with a different perspective may be right. We'll see. The actual reality is that the long-term outcome of this is not apparent right now. They are seeking to win a presidential bid. Will they or won't they? We'll know in November, despite any efforts to project into the future and say how things should happen. In the meantime, we all have our opinions on what should and should not happen.
Sometimes there will be disagreement -- and them not doing things how you or I or whoever wants it done in a given moment or on a given issue is not the same as group think. That's just an ego fantasy IMO.
So far they have done great work in defeating the huge insider well-funded Dem frontrunner for the nomination. That I know from actual observation and experience.
And now I am wondering: What IS it with the backseat drivers -- it was huge during the primaries, practically everyone with a keyboard and an opinion acting like they knew what Senator Obama's campaign "should" be doing. The blogosphere would go off regularly and in various directions about what was wrong with their approach and what they should do differently.
I need to think more about this in particular, it seems pretty significant to me as I write about it now.
I get the pattern here. The pattern is that when people are running off of their individual egos they don't know how to be part of a group with varying perspectives.
Being a useful part of such a group is not group think. It is acting from an understanding you and whoever agrees with you are not the only ones who have an opinion and that not doing what YOU and your faction wants is not the same as not allowing dissent.
Dissent does not mean "I get my way no matter what" or it's not dissent.
It means having your perspective taken into consideration along with other perspectives, and you might not get your way even so.
Ugh. People in this country are taught to be so freaking selfish and individualistic, this is so ugly to me.
This isn't about what my faction wants. It's about *BASIC* politics. This is a potentially campaign-ending mistake. There's a reason I'm being so damn insistent about it. If this happens, Obama's perceived weakness on national security will be *CEMENTED*. No matter how much people want to relive Kenya in 2006, or no matter how eager people are for a fresh President and uplifting symbolism from Europe *NOW IS NOT THE TIME*. The Brandeburg Speech can happen--in February.
The point is that all of the things that has gone on in this campaign as in life in general is subjective. We all see things from different prism and experiences. That's all. It doesn't make anyone else right over another because we view things differently.
The problem occurs when we try to force feed others our righteous indignation when they don't agree as you seem to be trying to do with miss Michelle.
It is your opinion and assessment, shared by some and not shared by some. It may be right (true), it may be wrong (false). It may be some of both mixed up all together.
But people disagreeing with you -- that is, not accepting your assertion of Truth to guide their actions -- is not group think or prevention of dissent.
You and those who agree with you are not the end- all and be-all of what is True.
Eh, never mind. This whole long conversation with you -- and others I am seeing in which you are engaged and people are not in agreement with your view -- feels to me sort of like talking with an aggressive self-righteous Christian evangelist (but without the faux "charm" of them trying to convert me).
The interesting thing is: I don't really have an opinion on the Bradenberg Gate thing, myself. One way or another.
I do know that I tend not to trust people/groups who are this rigidly convinced that they Know The Truth and this rigidly closed to the reality of others' perspectives.
People and groups coming from this rigid space, whatever their actual opinion or assessment is on any given issue, IMO lack good internal checks and balances on their perspectives. They are so rigidly certain that they are correct that it is very difficult for "dissenting" information to get in, and thus a self-referential feedback loop is a real serious risk.
So to me this stance is less trustworthy as a process of getting to actual truth and reality than are more open and flexible approaches.
Therefore, I would tend to respond to what you're saying about the Gate with a slight movement toward distrusting your assessment (though again I don't have a firm opinion one way or another), since I don't trust the core process you're using to make your assessment in the first place.
People are over anxious. The long primary has confused Obama's staff and supporters that their victory in the primary means victory in the general election. So they're running around desperately trying to look Presidential--the seal, the Bradenburg Gate speech, etc. All it really does is make Obama look phony.
The information I sent the Obama campaign was respectful. It contains some stuff which shouldn't be discussed publicly, so I won't post it here. That this is still smoldering in the press is a big problem. It's indicative of MAJOR problems with Obama's Press staff.
One would think that if Hillary were the nominee, then, well, his tactics were, well, effective.
But she's not.
So why would you call him effective?
I'm scratching my head at all of this.
Except for that little inconvenient fact that his candidate LOST despite having almost every possible advantage.
But don't let that actual living fact get in your way! Facts don't matter.
Ridiculous.
Barack will speak in Germany to massive, adoring crowds of Germans....the optics will be terrible for McCain.
Finally, don't put it past Bush to interfere on a bad idea, and bait people into believing its a a great idea and getting his enemy to walk into a trap...
I think he's also trying to help his party and to a lesser degree, John McCain. The media is comprised of a bunch of underachieving baboons. Their impressions are not worth a hill of beans.
There's no trap here. Bush knows Obama's visit would be attended by people from all over Europe. He knows that Obama would be greeted by huge, adoring crowds. It will make Republicans look even weaker.
He's trying things out. Learning as he goes. Which is why he's perfectly fine with stopping with the stuff that doesn't work.
I believe he's already receiving some fresh perspectives, but because he's a man of deliberation, we may not see a radical facelift.
That said, I trust his deliberateness. I'm not suggesting he's running a flawless campaign, but he's privy to much more than I am. And I simply can't imagine all that he's up against
Sometimes I get the feeling that many of his supporters who happen to be Black forget that Barack is, well, Black.
All I mean by that is that he can't possibly do all things the same way a white candidate could.
I'm rambling now, but...
As for this statement
"CPL pointed out that the entire holding up the money for Obama is to pressure him to take Hillpatine on his ticket"
She is not even getting vetted, but I sense that HRC and Bill are still trying the negotiate behind the scences and her debt is not the only thing being discussed. These Hillraisers are used to running the show, I read somewhere that HRC had several 100K rooms or suites reserved thinking she would be the nominee, LOL...They are used to getting their rear ends kissed, titles, access and then some...Obama is not doing this so it is pissing them off.
If FISA is their Dread Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson, then let them have it. Barack is demonstrating daily that taking a moderate position on issues can not only be a good thing, but a Black thing too.
Yes you did.
Spot on.
i think that people superimposed what they wanted obama to be onto him and then got mad because he has a mind of his own. shoot, that's what i like about him. granted, there are times i wish he was even more assertive about his decision making. but there is a forest/tree problem that people need to get over in order to keep mccain out of the white house.
i've been wondering when people would finally get around to seeing that obama wasn't ever the uber-liberal the media kept saying he was. didn't all those overtures made to the republicans and independents during the primary tip anyone off but me? i don't see a sudden shift in obama, i see a sudden shift in the media's understanding of him.
I find it interesting to read that "mcancient" is trying to define Mr. Obama! Did he try to look him up in a dictionary?? I don't get this! Mr. Obama is who he is! That's that! Now, how would you define "mcancient". Look up "the age of dirt"!!
I am so glad that you posted this message because after reading Rikyrah's post (I am quite fond of her and seldom, if ever, disagree with her.) and the responses of others here at Jack & Jill, I quite literally threw up my hands in despair. I am still supporting Obama; I attended a fund raiser held for him two days ago. His position on FISA, however, is not defensible and it represents both a reversal of his previous stance and a deep betrayal of a significant portion of his base.
Let me put on my tin foil hat for a moment. Black folks and especially those who champion issues and causes that have a direct bearing on the lives of black people should be keenly aware, based on history, that repressive laws of this type are often used to suppress, monitor and discredit black dissent. Secret intelligence units of the military were assigned to spy on blacks during and after World War I. The FBI regularly spied on leaders of the NAACP and other black organizations long before the Civil Rights Movement flowered.
The FISA bill is a direct threat to our civil liberties. It is disgraceful, in my opinion, for liberal and progressive African Americans to impugn the integrity of those who are quite justified in being angry and dismayed at Obama's reversal and his disingenuously cynical defense of his reversal. Obama is as wrong as two left (or two right) shoes on this matter. I will continue to support his candidacy but I can find no fault with others who choose not to continue to support him in response to his vote on FISA. Citizens in a democratic republic are not obligated to support politicians who they feel are too willing to play fast and loose with their civil liberties.
I cannot remember a time in my life when I was not opposed to racism and the intrusion of the government into my private life. If folks here believe that electing Obama as president is a more important issue for them than FISA I can accept their decision. By the same token, I wish that many of them would stop defending the indefensible because they are leaving no middle ground for those of us who are upset at Obama's actions but want to continue supporting him. They are making me feel as if I am running out of real estate.
Dr. King knew that he was being spied upon. But he didn't have the luxury of being indignant about that. He knew that his duty was to be righteously indignant about disparate healthcare, education, employment, housing and voting.
So while you and yours wail and gnash over the principle of spying, the rest of us must grapple daily with the practical issues of home foreclosures, and choosing between gas and groceries.
The principle of spying? The government actually engaged in illegal acts here.
A lot of folks, even our enemies, are dealing with practical issues. Please don't put yourself on that shop worn pedestal.
Seems to me that McCain's camp is routinely making fools of themselves, the latest from his economist that the economy is fine and we're all a bunch of whiners is simultaneously stupid and hilarious.
But the Democratic capitulation on FISA is still very bad news. Back in the 60s, our government eavesdropped on domestic political opponents, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X. The bad old days of Nixon and Hoover are something that nobody here wants to see again. But if Congress rips out all the safeguards against government surveillance, we're pretty much guaranteed to see another COINTELPRO. It's like when Congress deregulated the financial industry—they revoked the Depression-era reforms, and we got Enron and oil speculators. Deregulation is dumb.
Now, during the primaries, Obama was clearly opposed to any FISA bill that included immunity. But once the primaries were over, he promptly voted for just such a bill. And when asked why he voted for it, Obama said that the bill was compromise, and (1) that it would make FISA the exclusive mechanism for spying on the American people (which FISA already _was_, according to a Federal Court), and (2) that it would prevent certain important surveillance programs from lapsing (programs that Obama strongly opposed six months ago). Not a wise compromise.
Now, I'm not the least bit surprised by Obama's recent statements on abortion, gun control, or government funding of religious organizations. Those positions of his were clear from day one, and anybody who's getting upset over that now shouldn't be surprised, and shouldn't be accusing Obama of "moving towards the center."
But man, that FISA vote was depressing. It won't keep me from working for Obama, because—as I said above—this election is all about McMain, and McCain is a menace. And Obama is still way better than Kerry and Clinton, and he's definitely going to get more of my money than Kerry did.
They are a dime a dozen.
Look it up.
Center-right? You sure about that?
I have been a reader of Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional law litigator, at salon.com for quite some time, and his bell ringing on FISA has awakened me and many others to what Congress and the President have been trying to do. I highly recommend his articles, generally, because they are cogent and pull no punches. He does not endorse particular politicians, but does advocate calling, emailing, or contributing to representatives on particular issues.
Today's article details interviews he's had with the ACLU and adds a little insight about why the FISA bill is so bad. Please read it, and take note of the following passage:
This is why it is so important to hold ALL politicians accountable for FISA, not just Obama. This is an incredibly bad law. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the MSM has not picked up on how terrible this law is, and that is why it is even more important that progressives and anyone else who cares about civil liberties act to try to get this thing repealed. As I've said before, if you think this law won't eventually be used against people in the Black community (if it hasn't already), you've got another think coming.
Till then, your words don't mean a thing.
Be it formal institutions like Congress & the DNC, or informal like pundits, brahmin, and hustlers, Yes I'm looking at you Jesse!
I see you.
i'm taking my anger and working like HELL to get him elected.
We need a NEW definition of "left" and "right," one in which my (and your, I'm assuming) values are considered "centrist." Not because we've moved the country along the same, tired axis, but because we've turned the dial on what it means to be "progressive." The New Deal is dead. But free markets haven't been a solution either. What's the new way?
Still, for all that, here's my problem with FISA:
"We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States." -- Obama 2004
You know Sen. Obama did not write that 2004 Dem. Conv. speech, right?
Anderkoo wrote: the self-styled "progressive" heads are spinning here. I refer them all to Gail Collins' column yesterday -- exactly what did they think they were buying?
And then you responded (I think you responded to that, correct me if I am wrong):
Gail Collins' column also addressed Obama's reversal on FISA
But PTCruiser, which Gail Collins column are you talking about?
Anderkoo referred to "yesterday" which in my understanding would be July 10's "The Audacity of Listening".
I looked through it again and saw no mention of FISA. Even did a text search for FISA and it came up nil. Did I miss it? (always possible)
The reversal she is critical of that I could see is on public financing.
So, could you please offer a quote from that column that supports what you are claiming? Or a link to another column that you are actually referring to?
Thanks in advance for the information.
I am feeling an increasingly strong need for evidence and accuracy these days even in small things. Usually when I feel this way it means that there is a lot of static/noise/bullshit flying around that needs to be cut through. Not necessarily from you, PTCruiser, but all around the issues that this post today is discussing.
And actually, I just read each line very carefully and came back to post that she did say this: It’s not his fault that we missed the message — although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics” involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.
I'm not clear what that tangential reference to wiretapping means, though, especially given the context of the whole paragraph. But I also was wrong -- she did mention FISA, just not by name.
She ain't the only one.
We are faced with a serious public policy issue and the answer(s) cannot be found in excoriating white liberals and progressives. I don't think there is a person posting on this site who intends to support John McCain. I doubt that there are few of us who do not support Obama. What is bothering me is the growing sense among more than a few of us that the sun rises and sets in his behind.
You can say that again. I am ALL FOR having a Black man in the White House, but that doesn't mean that I have to think Obama has moon beams shooting out his butt.
Someone (here?) recently quoted LBJ: Americans will forgive anything but weakness. When liberals were giving him hell over Donnie McClurkin, he didn't shrink or change course. He went straight to the Advocate magazine and explained his support for LGBT issues and that McClurkin would stay with his tour. When Jeremiah Wright became an issue, he stood up and gave a great speech about race in America, but didn't throw anybody under the bus (at least not then). He got flack, but most importantly, he got respect as a leader.
But FISA . . . . FISA was a weak-ass vote. It just was. He didn't take a leadership position on it, he just capitulated. Every argument he gave for voting for it was easily rebutted. It was transparently political and not a position to be respected.
In fact, if Hillary were the nominee, there certainly wouldn't be any organized opposition on her own campaign website.
Nope.
I'm not seeing that at all.
What I'm seeing is a base of netroots screaming "Hallelujah!!" because they finally had a nomine who was willing to fight those Republicans with all her might.
Don't get it twisted.
"
I think that's because Hillary would not have allowed it. Barack makes room for people to disagree with him. He makes web space for them to do so and doesn't try to censor.
When I get like this, almost obsessive about exact evidence and details, it usually means there is substantial effort to blur and deceive flying around an issue. Not specific to the two people I responded to -- just in general.
If Ms Hillary and her Bill are seriously back in the mix making noise, it would explain this feeling on my part. The Clintons are chunks of walking talking deception, and mind-f******.
If that is the case -- The good news is that Senator Obama knew how to deal with them in the primary while many of us were understandably freaking out. They are all about the drama and he and his staff plan and do and move steadily along. People have always felt okay posting on blogs telling Senator Obama he should do this, or isn't doing that right. I saw what happened in the primary. I saw his strategy WORK. So am saying to myself now: here we go again.
It seems significant but I am not entirely sure what it means. Would appreciate any critical insights anyone has to offer on this phenom.
I don't think Obama is in any trouble right now but his backsliding and talking out of both sides of his mouth about FISA (There is no other way to describe his behavior.) is extremely disappointing. FISA, is my opinion, cannot be subsumed under the heading of "Campaign Strategy" as if that, and that alone, is all that matters.
I hope that Obama wins the presidency but I don't believe for one moment that he will do anything to change FISA once he is elected. Politicians don't enjoy shooting the rapids again if they have already made their way to calmer waters.
You have some who want to keep hammering with a particular meme, ex FISA. The argument and points to validate their position are never really strengthened with any new evidence or POV. Rather, it seems the sheer objective is redudancy and repeat the meme over and over and over again. Say it enough times maybe it will stick, cause dissention and confusion in the ranks. Of course, the posts always starts or ends with the disclaimer "but I will still vote for Obama" or "I just donated money" as if that negates their multiple posts of Obama bashing.
Of course, I have read "dissenting" opinions that have given me food for thought. It is the ones who basically say, FISA Bad, Obama Bad, Germany Bad, everything bad, BUT......I will still vote for him (times 50). How about you find something good about this candidate? If he is so undeserving of your vote and so untrustworthy, then there ARE other options. Excercise them and be on your merry way.
I feel as if there are some trolls trying to stir up trouble. I almost prefer our resident racist troll who likes to drop links outta of his a** . At least I know where he is coming from. This subliminal crap is for the birds.
Of course, I know there are actual supporters who genuinely disagree with Obama on issues , I am one. I am up for discussing those issues as well. However, you will not me hear saying crap like, "I am witholding my donation" to teach him a lesson!
The left is forming the circular firing squad . . . right on schedule. And all parties bear some responsibility (the progressive community included).
As far as race goes. I don't know if it's the driving force behind some of the criticism, but I do see it as a factor. I've seen far less worthy Democratic nominees get far better treatment and far more support from the Democratic establishment than Obama has. I've also seen them get far more respect. And that's from black and white critics alike. I still can't imagine hearing a Republican say he wanted to cut John McCain's nuts off . . . or imagine another former President tell the nominee of his party to kiss his a*s. That's more than unprofessional, it's highly disrespectful . . . and personal.
And while I also oppose Obama's FISA vote, I'm fully aware that the 4th Amendment has been dead to the black community for a long time. Conservatives have been chipping away at those rights for decades. Doesn't excuse the vote, but black folks weren't fully protected under the 4th before FISA to begin with. "Reasonable suspicion" is a weak threshold to cross . . . juries and judges often err on the side of trusting law enforcement and the government when it comes matters of security; especially with unsympathetic defendants (i.e., black defendants who are presumed guilty in the court of public opinion).
The Supreme Court is just as political as any other branch of government. And a conservative court will find a way to allow such intrusions onto the Constitution so long as they can identify a public policy/governmental interest. National Security is that interest. You can almost invision the Scalia opinion off the top of your head. Just the same, I'm confident that a liberal court can, perhaps, find a way to reverse the damage of this FISA vote . . .
But we'v got to get sympathetic justices on the Court first . . . and that starts and ends with this 2008 election.
The left and Democrats are not in a powerful bargaining position. But we have the opportunity to start swinging that pendulum back to our side if we don't screw this up! Sadly, the Democratic Party is just tone deaf enough to alienate its base. . . and the base is self-righteous enough to cut its nose off to spite its face . . . and the Republicans are waiting for it all to happen. Like clockwork.
The PUMAs and McCain trolls are having a grand time over at kos stirring up much strife about FISA as a way to embarrass and undermine Obama. And the Kossacks seem more than willing to play along rather than consider the source.
That should have been data collection sources.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/salon...
I don't think Obama is in any trouble right now but his backsliding and talking out of both sides of his mouth about FISA (There is no other way to describe his behavior.) is extremely disappointing. FISA, is my opinion, cannot be subsumed under the heading of "Campaign Strategy" as if that, and that alone, is all that matters.
I hope that Obama wins the presidency but I don't believe for one moment that he will do anything to change FISA once he is elected. Politicians don't enjoy shooting the rapids again if they have already made their way to calmer waters.
But, on these other issues (death penalty, gun control, faith based intiatives, etc), I am in total agreement with the post. It seems that many of Obama's supporters either heard what they wanted to hear, or didn't do their research, because he has been in the center before this election and now people are trying to act like he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He was NEVER a progressive on all issues. Sorry, but he just wasn't. So for people to throw a fit and scream bloody murder over some of these things, is downright embarrassing.
I didn't expect to agree with Obama on a lot of issues, and I don't. But that's politics. You are either going to get an ideological purist that you are in total agreement with, but who ultimately won't get elected, or you are going to get a politician that you may agree with 50%-70% of the time if you're lucky. It's just a fact. This country is too diverse to demand purity. So instead of the nashing of teeth and pulling out of hair, maybe people should redefine what it means to be a liberal/conservative, democrat/republican. Because what you will find is that the lines are blurred. It just makes me think of Chris Rock's stand up (which is surprisingly on point in a several different context). People act like being a Republican or a Democrat is like being in a gang.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the Hillary VP thing. Why, people, why?!?! Yes, she is an extremely smart, and capable politician. But the two of them governing together? It is not a good look, especially with Bill Clinton in the mix. And anybody who speaks up and says he won't try to impact decision making is deluding themselves. HRC made it clear that she had no interest in riding shotgun during the primary season, and I respect that. So for people to act like she is this great asset as second in command is troubling. I mean, you have audio of the woman saying that Obama is not ready to lead, and has not passed the Commander in Chief test. She basically did the Republicans' job for them. How stupid would it look, if she was then touting them together as a ticket? I hope, pray, wish, that this never comes to pass.
With all that being said, I can't believe that Barack is being blackmailed into paying off her debt. Yeah, I said it. I know they have had fund raisers where they say glowing words about each other, but let's be real. Both of them wish that the situation was different. Most of Obama's small time donors (i.e. one of us possibly) don't want to fork up any money to a millionaire when our own pockets are hurting, and many of the big time donors that can afford it, won't hold their nose and write a check. On the other hand, Hillary's donors think that Obama should be more vigorous in his fundraising activities, and want recognition, ambassadorships, and are still putting the pressure on the Hillary VP thing. So, I don't envy Obama at all. He has a tough balancing act to deal with and it looks like he will be getting it from all sides for the next couple of months.
the white progressives are class chauvinist jack asses pushing a recreate 68 demonstration at the convention and blowing this out of proportion but the white progressives in power have a long history of hurting anyone not in their clique
My sympathy for Obama on this tip is less than zero. He is not obligated to help Clinton pay her debts and he had the opportunity to make that plain. My wife and I have contributed more than our fair share to Obama and we were happy to do so but Clinton's problems are Clinton's problems.
heartsandflowers, would you email me at michellesbells at myway dot com if you get a chance? I have a reply to this but not for blog discussion, at least not at this point.
michellesbells@myway.com is what I used and it bounced back
If you see this I am at fldow@yahoo.com
"It seems significant but I am not entirely sure what it means. Would appreciate any critical insights anyone has to offer on this phenom."
The short answer is that there is little or no presumed competency when African Americans are in leadership roles.
I'm not disagreeing with you...I'm just saying, I don't think he had prime pickings when he first began.
Yes he is hiring people who are affliated with the HIlary campaign, but other than Solis Doyle, most of the former Clintonites may not even be considered high ranking Clintonite. From what I undrestand, the most people who voluntarily or through design who went over to Obama were from the Edwards campaign.
because i no longer trust him, i am not confident that he will do anything to preserve the supreme court, but i know mccain will not and that's the sole reason for my vote. otherwise i'd sit this one out because principle matters and if principle is subjugated to political expediency, then we get what we've had for the last couple of decades, at least.
i did not start out distrusting him. he made promises about fisa, about filibustering the bill and he broke them. the check i was going to write to him just up and eloped with those broken promises. i'll vote, but not support.
the constitution is not a "white" or "progressive" or "liberal" issue. i can't quite believe that's being said here. i am heartened by the enormous groundswell of people rising up to fight this grotesque violation of the constitution.
it is interesting and hopeful to me that the coalition developing to get this travesty of justice overturned is made up of right wingers, left wingers, socialists, libertarians, centrists, and folks all across america, running on a continuum from extreme left to extreme white.
i expect there are african american people within that coalition too. i find it incredibly insulting to blacks that people here insist this is a "white" or "progressive" issue.
you're making it out to be an anti-obama stance, that there's something else afoot, when the fact is that we are a nation of laws and without that we have nothing. or we have george bush. and i, for one, am heartily sick of george bush and have had enough of his running roughshod over the constitution, of his law violations.
because i'm sick of george bush doesn't mean i will support another running roughshod over the constitution and legitimizing violations of the law. i don't care who they are or what party they're affiliated with.
this issue matters. it does. it's not black-white-native american-asian-hispanic-whatever. it is a profound, democratic, foundation of this country issue.
that's all.
http://healthybagofpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/0...
Glad to be able to agree with you on something :)
oddly, i can hold many concerns within a single brain.
not concerned about the economy? hardly. i spend more on health insurance ~ out of my pocket, because i'm self employed ~ than i do on mortgage and two car payments combined.
my husband is totally disabled. i am 51 years old and the pittance i've been able to save for retirement has been reduced by half because of the misdeeds of bush and his predecessors who thought deregulating the financial industry was a good thing.
my stepdaughter can't get it together and i am guardian of her two children and their primary financial support. the kids are of mixed race, living in a home with only her and no one involved with them who isn't white. i have to supervise their education, her progress, everything. one kid's dad is dead and the other is in prison. there's no child support, she can't/won't/doesn't work.
i am working ~ right now, actually ~ to try to keep this business afloat because three other families rely on it being a success as well as mine, and two of those people are virtually unemployable anywhere else.
my 91 year old father has dementia and is probably looking at a nursing home in the next year. i don't have an extra $4,000 a month and the fact that he has a home paid for and some money he lives off of eliminates any public assistance. so he'll have to spend the money he lives off of, which will leave my stepmother in a home with no money to live on while the assets they have go to his care.
and then she'll come and live with me, i guess. i don't know. i don't know what to do in this world when it seems impossible to make any progress, when the cliff if one step to the right, when financial ruin is one illness or one job loss away.
but does that stop me from thinking about the constitution? the same criminals who are assaulting the constitution have created the crisis in this country. they need to be locked up, but at a minimum, the constitution needs to be protected from these bastards.
Civil liberties are not a figment of our imaginations.
The Constitution may be a flawed "piece of paper," but it is the thing that has allowed me to vote and slavery to be abolished and civil rights to be codified into law for all people.
I don't understand this: because white liberals believe that something they never had (civil liberties) is being taken away from them.
Could you explain that further? I want to understand your viewpoint, but I'm missing something there . . . thanks.
i don't know why i come back. i'm a fool for doing so, i think.
but i'll tell you this. it bugs the shit out of me that i live in a world where a white man can say to me, as one did just a couple of hours ago (because i am a white woman and he makes stupid assumptions), that if barack obama wins the presidency, "north tulsa will think they can just live anywhere they want to."
because you don't know this, i'll tell you that "north tulsa" is a predominately african american neighborhood.
and then he continued by saying that "they will think they do anything they want, go anywhere, live anywhere." when i said that anyone in this country is legally allowed to live anywhere they want to, he said "not on welfare, if they earned it, it would be one thing, but they didn't earn it."
so that's why i'm here. because i give a shit and there is too much wrong in this society for any person or group to handle unless we all join together. you think i'm shitting on your candidate, but to me, he shit on the constitution ~ along with the other 66 or so fuckheads who voted on this bill ~ and that is wrong. just as the man who spoke to me this afternoon is wrong.
people like that jackass are the enemy in getting obama elected, not people like me, who question him. i don't know when dissent became a crime in this country, but speaking up and talking about what's wrong is the only way to change.
so i'm torn. just hush up and go away? try to add to the conversation here? i didn't notice anything exclusionary on this blog. did i miss it?
Did this person tell you how he knew that everyone in North Tulsa was on welfare?
he was indoctrinated, as so many wretched assholes have been, with the view that black = welfare recipient. though it started before him, ronald reagan used that meme to win the whitehouse.
he knows nothing, yet his racism and his prejudice informs and infects his entire life and his political views and it will cause him to vote for john mccain, despite the fact that mccain will continue the unchecked globalization this asshat started talking about. he's just a fucking idiot and it breaks my heart and it seems completely hopeless. i keep thinking if all of us ~ the people not like him ~ join together, that we'd be unbeatable. i don't think that will ever happen.
Only in America do a significant number of people equate expressions of outrage and indignation du jour as somehow being akin to the hard work of political activism or participation. And I hate to say it, but this delusion is worse, much worse, on the left side of the dial where reaction is the standard operating procedure in place of authentic action. I speak, therefore I act is the great American illusion of politics.
(PS A thunderstorm is coming in so I need to turn off the computer now, but I saw your other comment and will email you when I can get more computer time. I have no idea why your email to the address I posted above bounced.)
only in america does 80% of the population stay so disengaged as to not even know what's going on, let alone express an opinion about it or, lord knows, take any action.
only in george bush's america, do people try to squelch the dissent upon which the nation was founded.
only in this america would people all across the spectrum from left to right cavalierly dismiss the very thing that makes us a nation, as if it's nothing more than used up toilet paper.
where does it stop?
what can he do that will cause you to withdraw your support?
do you have a limit?
if you don't, then i can only assume that getting this man into the white house, regardless of what he stands for, regardless of what he does, is your only aim, for whatever reason.
if you do have a limit, then what is it? where do you draw a line?
as i've said and said and said and said and i know you all are tired of hearing it and i don't even belong here because i'm white, but i keep coming back anyway, this is my line:
the constitution
the bill of rights
the amendments
that is bedrock, an absolute for me. how can we live in a nation where our leaders are criminals? that is the case right now, and to align oneself with those criminals is simply unacceptable to me. that's my line.
where's yours?
but thank you . . . you're right.
If you want to get really worried, sign up for the FISA group on my.BarackObama.com -- a good number of the posters there claim to be Hillary supporters who are heightening the existing sour feelings. The Obama campaign is making a big mistake not planting a few of their own in there with some good online mediation skills to cool things off. I think that the majority of the group's members, like myself, are reasonable and just want to register their displeasure. But a few smart operatives can really break off a chunk of that group and turn them against Barack.
I do wonder, given the predictable response, what Obama thought he was gaining by voting for the bill. I don't see who he'd be picking up, so I'm not sure how I much I buy the "sellout" story versus an honest policy/legislative weighing-of-the-merits. One of the more intelligent posts from the my.BO FISA group points to this blog entry's comments,
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/07/c...
and
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/07/c...
Do we need to accept the "common wisdom" that in voting for FISA, Obama was "selling out"? Or is this that phenomenon of the legislator's task being compromise, which is in turn compromising for someone who wants to be an executive?
Obama promised to filibuster a different FISA bill in January. This is what legislators do -- they bluff and cajole to get a better bill. Obama plays poker. For all we know, his threat to filibuster may have improved the bill.
Some on the left, like Dave Winer today, argue he should have staked his whole campaign on telecom immunity. This is lunacy. I could care less if telecom carriers pay off a few plaintiffs lawyers, only to later get reimbursed by their insurance carriers. What good does that do? The revised FISA law is better, but the Patriot Act is what gutted the 4th Amend. It was passed in 2002 before Obama became president. Who's going to fix that -- McCain or Obama? Some purity trolls on netroots are acting so crazy, it's like they think McCain will be better for them on these kinds of issues. It's crazyass Russian roulette.
The Kos folks, and Rachel Maddow, and Greenwald, are pissing me off by completely misrepresenting and over-blowing the importance of telecom immunity. They're sloppy on the facts, and wrong in how they're carrying out their anger. All they're doing is giving Sean Hannity something to talk about ("Hey look, even Obama's supporters are angry!"). I suspect most of these angry folks weren't true Obama supporters in the first place, otherwise they'd keep it in perspective and stop being such narcissistic spoiled brats.
fourth amendment.
constitution.
Not.
Paying.
Attention.
By the way, have you ever heard of a little thing called "COINTELPRO?" I believe blacks learned more than enough about civil liberties when that was exposed. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how removing our ability to sue the telecoms in civil court actually violates our civil liberties.