Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama histeria watch

vastleft's picture

Each day, we see how many items Google News finds that include the words: "Obama" and "Historic."

11/22/08: 66,672
11/21/08: 65,687
11/20/08: 64,551
11/19/08: 65,523
11/18/08: 62,639
11/17/08: 62,297
11/16/08: 57,868

Uh-oh, here's another dragonfly-diddlin' apostate* — Dr. Jared Ball, communications professor at Morgan State University:

Obama did not rise to prominence on the wave of an upwardly moving social movement or revolution. He has been delivered from above by the most elite and powerful (and white) elements of this country and his initial steps so far (not to mention what he has already said regarding domestic or foreign policy) have shown him to be in their service....

As Obama said himself, King would not have voted or supported him or his policies and would have worked to organize a movement challenging this presidency.

About OHW....

* Note: unlike yours truly, this person is not, in fact, a notorious bugfucker. This is just an honorary designation for those who offer something other than the narcotized mellow of pat historicism.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

over 1000 NEW entries found in Google News in the last 12 hours (including duplicates)
142 NEW entries found in Google News in the last 24 hours (without duplicates)

483 NEW blog posts found by Google's blog search

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

who back up your "point"? John Pilger whose hero is Penn Jones, Jr., the primary architect of the LBJ,vast government conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Jared Ball who couldn't even get the Green Party nomination? Seriously? Nice try but I think most people don't really get your point here.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Those are just the first posts I found, while looking through the "historic" news reports, that suggested that the "historic" thing might lead people to be too uncritical.

Oh, and I imagine that lots of people were unable to get the Green Party nomination.

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

Your credibility is being called into question. Oh, and Jared Ball like really tried to get the Green Party nomination (unlike lots of people).

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I haven't endorsed them for anything but heretic bugfucker. If that honor is too great for them, you have my profound apologies.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

... entitled to fail to engage VastLeft in the manner of your own choosing!

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

What ever will I do without your approbation?

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

But I just did not understand what this means:

"I haven't endorsed them for anything but heretic bugfucker." I still don't. My point was that the sources being cited were arguably on the fringe of rational discourse. Which is what I prefer to engage in.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

... tomorrow (when the indexing is done) you will be able to look for "heretic bugfucker" and see that in fact there's a context to all this (although the context is right there in the "dragonfly-diddlin" link.) You just logged in today, right? So you might not have seen the earlier posts.

Gentlemen prefer arthropods!

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

so, yes I do. However I have no control over Kevin K. nor does he have any control over what I say. I have tried to engage vastleft purely on the merits of his position that the election of Barack Obama has no historical merit and his citing of, frankly, fringe loonies, to uphold that position. OK? And I still don't know what "I haven't endorsed them for anything but heretic bugfucker." is supposed to mean. Like, how does that advance the discussion other than nyah, nyah, nyah? Seriously.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

I personally am honored to be called a "heretic bugfucker." Indeed, I believe it advances the discussion! We are all heretic bugfuckers!

UPDATE Amazingly, YouTube does not have an "I am Spartucus!" clip. Arthropod lovers everywhere weep.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

in the manner of a troll.

You challenged the credibility of the heretics I linked to, and I gave a full accounting for how I found their posts and my "relationship" to them. But, being a troll, that couldn't possibly dampen your enthusiasm for making something out of nothing.

Je répète, they're a couple of contrarian items I found in the "Obama+Historic" searches. Period. I've never heard of these guys before, and they're not my new best friends.

If you want to make my linking to them a referendum on me, knock yourself out. "Vastleft pals around with radicals I disrespect." String him up!

Similarly, I quite explicitly answered Kevin K's question about whether Obama's election is "historic" with "an unequivocal yes."

Vastleft, I’ve got two very simple questions for you:

1) Was the election of the first African-American president, decades before most people thought it was possible (see: the Bradley Effect), “historic”? Yes or no?

The question’s dubious framing notwithstanding (see: Somerby. Conventional Wisdom of yore had it that Colin Powell would have been an extremely viable candidate.), the answer is an unequivocal yes. One of the two reasons I swallowed my considerable objections to Obama’s candidacy was to make history by voting for a black president (the other was to say “fuck you” to the Repubs, which I rationalized a vote for him would still accomplish, despite his calling them “the party of ideas,” people who had a better idea on energy policy, etc., etc.).

2) If Hillary Clinton was elected as the first female president in US history, would you have run a series at Correntewire called “Hillary histeria watch”? Yes or no?

That depends on whether there was a palpable risk that she was being unduly shielded from progressive pressure, in part due to the glow of “historicism.” If she were widely treated like a messiah, then yes, absolutely.

Kevin K's response: "Ponderous." Wow, he really nailed me there, huh?

Your response, since you've wisely begged off being Kevin's keeper: claiming that my position is that "the election of Barack Obama has no historical merit"

Et encore: The point of Obama Histeria Watch is "to push back on the pervasive and unproductive tendency to treat this pending presidency as a ready-made museum piece."

I had been planning to retire OHW, but in your honor I'll post one final edition today.

Now, go fuck yourself. I've got a date with some dung beetles.

P.S., You're a blogger at the site that called me a "bugfucker" in multiple posts -- specifically for writing this series -- and you're feigning ignorance about the reference? Good grief!

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

If that is really what you want to be called. I would have been happy just to learn how any of this really changes the fact that Obama's election truly is an historic event on so many levels. There are so many things I could say but I truly do want to keep the discourse on a civil level. So let me leave you with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WQ6Q_65qck and I look forward to continuing the discussion at a later date.
Auf wiederstein and good night.
marindenver

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

I haven't seen anyone at Corrente, least of all vastleft, claim that Obama's election is in no way historic.

You're trying to goad vastleft et al into defending a position they did not take. As I understand it, VL, lambert and others are cautioning against getting so carried away enumerating the historic-ness of his election that Obama is excused from any and all criticism, or allowing any and all actions by Obama to be excused because, hey, He's the Historic President!

Although, I'm not sure his election is historic on 'so many levels' myself. He is the first AA (or part AA) president, and he ran a huge marketing machine off the internet (the marketing machine has been seen before, off the internet not so much). What else is there, really? He's not the first candidate to have run on 'Change'. He's not the first president from Illinois (although probably from Hawaii). He's not the first male president. His political beliefs, as far as they can be discerned from his actions, are unremarkable.

It's not that his election isn't historic, it's just that at the end of a day he's a politician, and to grant him some sort of infallible status just because of the historicity (?) will hurt everyone.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

He's not even president yet. I'll reserve my judgment about this historic presidency until he actually does something. I'm hardly going to praise the primary he ran.

BTW, Bush has achieved historic status -

WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Infamously historic.

Let's see what Obama manages to accomplish.

Submitted by jawbone on

president of the US--OR--he can be famous for that and for progressive, liberal accomplishments which help all citizens.

That's his choice. As for all presidents, he must be able to work with and move the legislative branch. He is lucky to have a majority of his own party in both parties. But he must deliver.

Submitted by jawbone on

Examiner.com: In what ways do you believe an Obama presidency will help and/or hurt progressive causes in the United States?

Ball: I see this as being of little help. This will do more (and has already) to help those who would argue against race or class being primary issues or lines of division. Obama did not rise to prominence on the wave of an upwardly moving social movement or revolution. He has been delivered from above by the most elite and powerful (and white) elements of this country and his initial steps so far (not to mention what he has already said regarding domestic or foreign policy) have shown him to be in their service.

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

My thoughts exactly. Whether his presidency will prove historic will be decided down the road. Whether or not you like Obama does not change the fact that the election of an African American, given the history of racial relations in this country and the fact that millions of people who voted in this election, including myself, remember active segregation being the law in many, many states is, in and of itself, an historic event. One that will be studied by schoolchildren in years to come. Again, the impact of his presidency is yet to be known. But the stance that people lauding this historic event are mainly hysterics strikes me as petulant. And to back up his position by, as he says "a couple of contrarian items" that he found, without bothering to evaluate the merits of their arguments does not advance the case.

Vastleft, I did not say I didn't understand the reference to "bugfucker". I said I didn't understand what this sentence means: "I haven't endorsed them for anything but heretic bugfucker." You're calling the authors of the pieces you referenced heritic bugfuckers? Otherwise I don't get it. Also I never aimed any epithets at you and I find it very offensive that you aimed one at me.

Submitted by jawbone on

were not on the Obama train, a "bugfucker." The term was so hysterically funny in its attempt to put VL down than it became a badge of honor. Skeptics are bugfuckers. We are all bugfuckers now (if we have any skepticism in our thinking).

It's a wee hoot, mon.

admin's picture
Submitted by admin on

"Let's see what Obama manages to accomplish."

Rather:

"Let's set standards, try to get Obama to meet them, and hold him accountable if he does not," which, as VastLeft points out, progressives -- whatever that brand may mean after the primaries -- are only now figuring out that they need to do. If only somebody had warned them!

Based on the evidence of Obama's legislative record over the last year (FISA [cough] reform; the Bush + Reid + Pelosi + Obama + Paulson bailout bill) there is every reason to adopt a policy of "Hope but verify," with the hope cautious and the verification aggressive.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Thank you for commenting. Your comment is very important to us. Please don't hesitate to comment again.

marindenver's picture
Submitted by marindenver on

Come by and see me sometime. Oh, you already have! http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/... Isn't that you , 8th comment down, saying I had fabricated my post? Forgive my confusion for assuming you already associated me with Rumproast. Ta.