Since VL's thinking in offering his endorsement of Barack Obama is apparently premised on a cliche ('the lesser of two evils'), allow me to suggest that there is another, even more apt, cliche available...
Better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don't know.
Does this constitute an endorsement of McCain -- no. McCain's record has been all over the place...he, like Hillary Clinton, has been running for President for the last eight years. Clinton, of course, spent the last eight years with her eye on November, because Democrats are supposed to be smarter than Republicans. McCain knew he had to go way right -- and "support the President" -- if he expected to win the GOP nomination.
Ultimately what we know about McCain is that he does not show symptoms of being a sociopath -- that he will be fairly predictable in what he tries to do.
Obama, on the other hand, has demonstrated that he is just as much -- if not more -- of a narcissistic sociopath as George W. Bush. We don't know what Obama will do -- but we do know that he is willing to sacrifice every principle he has to achieve what he wants, regardless of what is best for the nation or the party.
Amd the potential danger represented by Obama is much greater than than represented by McCain. With McCain in the White House, there can be resistance against him organized through the democratic party -- but resistance to bad ideas of Obama will be nearly impossible to organize, especially when those bad ideas are simply GOP ideas in Democratic party drag.
Furthermore, Obama's complete lack of preparation for the presidency is likely to mean the loss of the House in 2010, and the loss of the Senate and White House in 2012, and the discrediting of the Democratic Party for years to come.
Each of us must act according to our consciouses -- and my conscious tells me that the appropriate stance to take at this point is one of resistance to Obama, and refusal to vote for McCain.
And while ultimately a decision to endorse Obama once he has become the actual (rather than the presumptive) nominee is morally defesnsible, to fail to resist while resistance is still possible is a sign of a lack of moral conviction.
- Paul_Lukasiak's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
"bad ideas of Obama"
Watch what you say, Hillary shares 98% of Obama's ideas.
Dogooder
"OBama shares 98% of Hillary's ideas."
Fixed that for ya.
And, BTW, you completely missed the point of Paul's post.
Go Global!
Thank you Paul
Obama's scary affinity for unitary expressions (i.e., moving DNC operations to Chicago, suppression of other fundraising, etc) is another W-like attribute I find unacceptable in addition to his open embrace of race-baiting.
You hit the nail on the head with "resistance to bad ideas of Obama will be nearly impossible to organize." One of the most frightening events of this primary season has been the transformation of the liberal blogosphere into a mob mindlessly shouting out right-wing talking points and buttressing positions with libertarian arguments. The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the left should not be given the reigns of power.
Oh, great. A disturbing post to read just before logging off for
the night! Thanks a lot!
Well, actually, a real t/u for the info, Paul.
mob aspect
The mob dimension of this does make it really scary to me.
Mob + malignant narcissist = man on white horse
has frequently been the equation, historically.
Horselover Fat
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
- V. I. Lenin
H F
What do you have in mind...
to fail to resist while resistance is still possible is a sign of a lack of moral conviction.
...in terms of resistance?
(BTW, I can't help myself, I'm an editor: The little voice in your head is your conscience, not your conscious. I see this substitution all over the place these days. Conscious is an adjective; the noun form is consciousness, meaning "awareness.")
FrenchDoc,
they share the same ideas. So what are these "bad ideas" that Paul talks about?
Saying that Obama doesn't have executive experience doesn't mean much when neither McCain nor Clinton have any either (as far as I know). All Paul has is baseless assertions that Obama's "a narcissistic sociopath", and that he's "willing to sacrifice every principle he has to achieve what he wants, regardless of what is best for the nation or the party". Where is the evidence for this? It's simply taken for granted here, never examined.
I mean, his ideas are 98% in line with Clinton's ideas, and as such are in the best interests of the nation and the party.
Dogooder,
"Saying that Obama doesn’t have executive experience doesn’t mean much when neither McCain nor Clinton have any either (as far as I know). All Paul has is baseless assertions that Obama’s “a narcissistic sociopath”, and that he’s “willing to sacrifice every principle he has to achieve what he wants, regardless of what is best for the nation or the party”. Where is the evidence for this? It’s simply taken for granted here, never examined."
Where have you been all through the primary? For FSM's sake, just go read TalkLeft or this blog all the way back to February. This is a topic that has been discussed to death and to show up here at this point, demanding evidence that's been provided time and again is only a distraction.
I'm sure Paul won't fall for it.
And as much as there are similarities in policies, there are significant differences (also discussed to death) such as the non-trivial universal health care, social security, LGBT rights, the importance of religion in politics.
Go Global!
They disagree on 2%, I’m
They disagree on 2%, I'm not dismissing that. I actually lean more towards Clinton on health care, although I think single-payer is the way to go. And I wish both of them would support gay marriage. But these differences don't constitute anything close to "narcissistic sociopathy".
I really would like a couple of examples, even if it's been beaten to death. What's happened, I suspect, is that the media or some Obama supporters have made objectional statements, and then these have been transfered (in Paul's mind) to Obama, when he's not actually responsible.
Yes, there's been a lot of sexism in the media coverage, but what has Obama personally said that was sexist? The only "example" I can think of is when Obama used the word "periodically"...
Clinton's RFK comments were horribly taken out of context, but it was the media (especially Olbermann) who manufactured the controversy, not Obama.
The DNC/RBC changed the rules midgame, but many of the Clinton supporters on the committee agreed to the changes (not to mention that Clinton herself said that the Florida and Michigan contests wouldn't count, until she realized that she needed them to have any shot at the nomination), and even if the delegates were seated at 100%, Obama would still lead in pledged delegates. Oh, and don't forget that the RNC imposed the exact same penalties.
I know Obama's not perfect, but it's real hard to see what Paul (Obama = the Devil) gets so outraged over.
The very fact that
You're repeating this lie:
"Clinton’s RFK comments were horribly taken out of context, but it was the media (especially Olbermann) who manufactured the controversy, not Obama."
Which was exposed by, among others, Joan Walsh of Salon: the Obama campaign (and yes, that's him, if he can't control his campaign, that's troublesome) was at the source of the slander.
This tells me you're not interested in honest discussion. You're trolling.
Go Global!
Outrage
Perhaps the modus operandi? Hate
to get Tom Godwin's knickers in a twist, but the same as pioneered by Benito Mussolini, later used by chaps with names like Franco, etc?
Charismatic leader + mob + bullying tactics + centralization of power + personality cult =
??? Where is this going???
Horselover Fat
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
- V. I. Lenin
H F
the facts are
that they responded immediately by saying it was "unfortunate", but then quickly backed off. Obama said:
"I have learned that, when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that this is what happened here. Senator Clinton says she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."
Saying that her comments were "unfortunate" is a fairly tame, and Obama's response here has the goal of quelling the controversy.
You might want to read about how the story spread:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050...
The facts are that
the Obama campaign sent the video all over the place, made a comment as to HRC's statement "had no place in the campaign". Then, they sat back and watched it go viral through their accomplices on the Big Blogs and the media, with special comment by KO.
Then, when they got all the juice they needed from it, the Great Wise Obama comes back from the mountain to make a wise pronouncement to appease the masses and look above the fray.
It's a pattern that we observed months ago for every slander they threw at HRC.
You must think we're really stupid around here.
Go Global!
I watched
the Hardball segment Walsh references, and it was pretty ridiculous. But I still think that you're placing too much of the blame on Obama. As noted in the Politico piece, the media was already primed to bash Hillary, and the only piece of the puzzle they were missing was a response from the Obama campaign--which, I think, was the lone sentence:
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Who really attacked Clinton? The media: The New York Times' editorial board, Washington Post's Chris Cilizza, Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder, Howard Fineman, Keith Olbermann... (from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23... )
If you note the timeline, Clinton made her remarks on Friday, and Obama's response (that I quoted above) was on Saturday--that is, the next day.
I don't think that you can object to their initial one-sentence response, or Obama's subsequent attempts to downplay the story. So your issue is only that his campaign sent an email (which I haven't been able to find via google) to reporters with Olbermann's Special Comment--which I agree was a stupid thing to do (although Keith had lots of good points; the RFK "gaffe" just wasn't one of them).
One single email... But fine, I'll give it to you. That's one example of Obama being a "narcissistic sociopath". Can you give me a second one?
here's the real timeline
1) Clinton gives interview
2) AP article based on interview goes out on wires without any sense that she's said something wrong
3) New York Post publishes on-line piece critical of the statement
4) Obama campaign emails Post piece to its list of media contacts - with disparaging comment
5) Media goes crazy criticising clinton
6) Olberman goes crazy
7) Obama campaign sends out 2nd email, with Olberman 'special comment' attached
8) Obama makes mild statement
That's a symptom of Obama's sociopathology -- the complete lack of a sense of limits when it comes to getting what he wants. The race-boating of Clinton is another example, as is what happened on May 31st.
But that isn't why I called obama a narcissist -- that can be seen in his reaction to the debates...
If you want to see that, look at Obama's reaction to the PA debates -- MOST of the questions were legitimate... they involved controversies that had emerged since the previous debate (Rezko, Wright, bitter/cling), and this was the first time the media had to act about these things in a debate format -- and THAT was Obama's fault.... Clinton had suggested more debate and Obama had refused.
Now Clinton had been subjected to this kind of treatment in the past without a word from Obamam -- indeed, Obama had encouraged and participated in this kind of treatment of clinton. (See Obama's leading role in the September Clinton snuff debate.) Obama never complained about a lack of substance -- indeed, he didn't want substance because his campaign wasn't based on substance and Clintons was.
Obama and his campaign went all out attacking the press, attacking Clinton ("mud"..."she was in her element") and acting like a spoiled child. Obama locked himself away from the press for 10 days afterwards. Clinton suggested additional debates in a different format -- Obama refused.
Other examples of Obama's narcissism is his treatment of blue collar/working class voters in West Virginia and Kentucky, and his treatment of the Wright and Pfleger affairs.
I'll also add this:
"The corporate-controlled media nonetheless made the most provocative interpretation of her remarks—beginning, significantly, with the New York Post, owned by right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch, which did not even have a reporter following the Clinton campaign. From the Post it was picked up by the Drudge Report, the right-wing gossip web site that first came to prominence in 1998 during the drive to impeach Bill Clinton.
Both these publications have a vested political interest in fomenting internecine strife within the Democratic Party, something which screaming headlines suggesting Clinton wishes Obama dead were calculated to achieve. The rest of the major media, regardless of their political predilections in the presidential race, obediently followed suit."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may200...
Who let the dogs out?
stirring up the RFK assassination stink against Hillary Clinton? Obama did.
Stephanopoulos challenged Axelrod about the matter and got a non-answer:
AXELROD: Well, in fact, she—a few minutes after we issued that statement seemed to say she herself felt it was unfortunate and was misinterpreted. We accepted that, as Senator Obama said yesterday. She said, you know, that's not what she meant, and we take her at her word and, you know, it's—we're beyond that issue now, so certainly we're not trying to stir the issue up.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): Senator Obama did say that we should move on. You say you're not trying to stir the issue up. But a member of your press staff yesterday was sending around to an entire press list, I have the e-mail here. Keith Olbermann's searing commentary against Hillary Clinton. So that is stirring this up, isn't it?
AXELROD: Well, Mr Olbermann did his commentary and he had his opinion. But as far as we're concerned—
STEPHANOPOULOS: But your campaign was sending it around.
AXELROD: As far as we're concerned, George, as far as we're concerned, this issue is done. It was an unfortunate statement, as we said. As she's acknowledged. She has apologized. The apology, you know, is accepted. Let's move forward.
...
STEPHANOPOULOS (continuing directly): So your campaign won't be sending around any more commentaries like that?
AXELROD: As I said, as far as we're concerned this is—this issue is done. There's so many important things going on in this country right now, George, that people are interested in that we're not going to spend days dwelling on this.
Who's hosting campaign fundraisers
for Obama. Someone named Murdoch.
What does Rupert say about Obama? From The Guardian:
...
Speaking at the Wall Street Journal D6 conference in Carlsbad, California, Murdoch was asked by veteran tech correspondent Walt Mossberg if he had played a part in the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama.
“Yeah,” he replied, candidly. The select audience of entrepreneurs and digital business executives at the conference earlier this week cheered, as can be seen in the accompanying video.
More praise for Obama at The Guardian link.
The Guardian article is dated May 30, one week after the May 23 NYPost assassination insinuation against Hillary Clinton.
IMO, this was an orchestrated effort by the Obama camp using the RW-smear machine to force Hillary out of the race. The May 23 NYPost article quotes the Obama campaign:
"Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," Obama campaign spokesman said in a statement.
Also on May 23, the Obamasphere erupted with the same smear. AmericaBlog headlined, "IT'S CONFIRMED: Hillary invoked Bobby Kennedy's June assassination as reason it's too early for her to concede in May," posted a timeline over the faux outrage and issued a call to action... "Call the following uncommitted Senator-Superdelegates..."
The Blog Boyz of the SCLB parroted the smear--from DKos to Oliver Willis. Guess they had a vested interest in spreading divisiveness amongst Democrats like the RW noise machine does. Curious that. Obama cha-ching must be good for them, eh?
Dogooder, you just put gasoline on a flame.
Did you really think events that happened less than a month ago would be forgotten -- or was your task today to test whether the anger was still there, even though we just went through a definition of what Going Too Far meant for this blog?
Piker. I can tell the difference between an organized smear from the Obama campaign, and a ratfucking supervised by VRWC
operatives. That difference was at the heart of our examining the morality of using the nuclear ratfucking weapon for positive ends.
P.S. What Paul said
Thanks for your commentary, Paul. You, too, FrenchDoc.
Paul,
Is Hillary's public support of Obama, "while resistance is still possible ... a sign of a lack of moral conviction"?
VL....
I don't know.
It may well have just been a tactical retreat -- you will note that she has not released her delegates.
As to your larger implied question -- I don't expect much in the way of 'moral conviction' from any politician, much less Hillary Clinton. I'm not so much a 'Clinton supporter' as a 'Clinton settler'.
Way back in February, when I first decided that Clinton was a better choice than Obama, I would have happily voted for Obama. It was Obama's actions in the subsequent months that convinced me that he wasn't just 'not the better choice', but a WRONG choice.
BTW, I really think your use of the PUMA logo to endorse Obama is inappropriate -- PUMA is about people who are refusing to support Obama -- using it in conjunction with your attempt to have it both ways is an abuse of symbolic language -- if you want to start your own "lukewarm supporters of Obama" party, get your own symbol.
Though I may be voted off the PUMA island...
I consider myself a card-carrying member.
I am a never-forget veteran of the '08 Primary Wars who has made a decision about how to vote in November, a decision simpatico with what HRC has asked of her supporters.
I am committed to never pretending away the bullshit that went on this campaign.
I may not be as pure as a member of People Who Fucking Despise McCain for McCain, etc. But, while the hostilely taken-over Democratic Party has my vote, it does not have my trust, my donations, etc.
You're responding to this differently, as is your right.
Impugning my morality is your right as well, I suppose....
Then have the courage to step off the PUMA platform,
and openly state that what you want and what PUMA supporters want are different things.
PUMA means leverage. You gave yours up, for reasons that are sound. Still means you gave it up.
Read the update
Does it look like I'm:
a) Kissing anyone's ass?
b) Not helping deliver the PUMA message?
The update here, I mean
http://www.correntewire.com/just_askin
I think the essential PUMA message is that the Obama camp pulled some serious shit during this campaign. We noticed, we're not forgetting, and we'll individually and/or collectively decide what to do about it.
Since our betters in the media...
...have shown no compunction about playing amateur psychologist (see: "Clinton, Hillary" and countless diagnoses of "delusional," "multipersonality disorder," etc.), I'll indulge here as well...
I would not argue with someone who sees signs of sociopathy in Obama. He is preternaturally detached and devoid of qualms about what means justify his ends. However, he hasn't presented as being completely unconcerned with the foulness of ends.
I can't agree with you here:
A man who literally embraces a "leader" who smeared his family. A man who was tortured... and who signs torture into law. A man who cheerleads a pointless and disastrous preemptive war, possibly just to curry favor within the GOP so that he might one day become president. Means at least as ill as Obama's, and ends -- continuing the Bush agenda -- that may be far worse.
So, the question is: which sociopath is less malign than the other. My guess is Obama, but I could be wrong.
This is America at its best!
I am so happy!
Broken, hypocritical supporter of torture.
Embezzler, with the Keating Five. Adulterer. Switcher of party platforms for convenience's sake. The man who embraced the winner who smeared his family with the lowest of ratfucks.
Yeah, sane. Sure.
paul: huh???
you say:
Ultimately what we know about McCain is that he does not show symptoms of being a sociopath —
wtf? really? is that what you think? gosh, that surprises me. yes, we "know what to expect from him," but no- he's not what i would call 'mentally balanced.' men who feel free to call their wives "cunt" in front of reporters are pretty close to what i'd call 'sick in the haid.' don't get me started on a POW who wants to keep our troops in iraq for 100 years. that's pretty twisted as well.
now on to read the rest of this post.
I would never call McCain the picture of mental health....
but that doesn't mean he's a sociopath, CD.
There is a difference between political expedience, and narcissism. McCain made a lot of bad choices in the name of political expedience -- he has done what he had to do to get the GOP nomination.
The difference between Obama and McCain is evident when one looks at how they deal with constituencies within their own party that do not support them. McCain tries to find ways to appeal to them -- Obama ignores them, and treats them as if they were deficient for not recognizing how wonderful he is.
McCain is your garden variety politician with a few extra quirks that are probably the result of spending six years as a POW. Obama, on the other hand, is dangerous in the exact same way the Bush hs....
I don't think the psychologizing is useful
Paul:
Absent evidence that Obama tortured small animals as a child -- like Bush did -- I don't think it's useful to look at him as any kind of a *path; Occam's razor really does take care of this.
The tendency of all politicians to boundless self-admiration is well-known; we don't need a *pathy to explain it. Ditto throwing people under the bus; Obama is not the first and will not be the last politician to engage in this pleasant practice. Obama's conforming to Village
norms; but that's not the same thing as "having a diagnosis."
The devil you know vs. the devil you don't is the killer in all this. Basically, I thought that the downside risk with Hillary was far less than with Obama, although the upside potential was less. And now it's the same choice with McCain or Obama, except that McCain's "known knowns" are a lot more, well, evil than Obama's -- enabling torture, for starters.
It's not the "known knowns" that are the concern with Obama, it's the "unknown unknowns," and the nature of the intra-party struggle this time hasn't helped reduce that uncertainly (online behavior; 527s; RBC; DNC to chicago).
The way to reduce the "unknown unknowns" is, I would argue, to engage with all points as presented. Unfortunately, that may be a policy that some Obama supporters will find untenable or even disloyal and destructive. We shall see.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
If China bombs Taiwan, or if Vietnam acts up, *in any way*,
would you trust McCain's finger on the nuclear button?
Really? He still calls them gooks, for pete's sake.
Those are not a few extra quirks, nosireebob....
this is what i love about blogging:
we can agree on almost all the points, and come to utterly different conclusions.
here's where you lose me, paul:
Amd the potential danger represented by Obama is much greater than than represented by McCain.
i just can't agree with that. obama may be nothing more than GOP lite as prez. i have no doubt that's a real risk, given what i know about his policies, advisors, and history as a politician so far. but as i said on another post: we have a chance at influencing him, pushing him to the left/progressive side, getting him to stand up for our values, etc. we have NO CHANCE with mcstain. i'll pick a chance at some influence and power over none, every time.
also, as a gay brown woman, i shudder at the idea of more like Roberts on the SCOTUS. obama may appoint a bunch of nambypamby moderate mushy types to the court, but i'm almost completely sure he won't go for the Total Fascists. right there is my motivation to pull the lever for obama. b/c the SCOTUS choices are going to affect our lives for decades, where an obama admin is something we'll only have to endure/enjoy for 4 or 8 years.
also, let me make more clear our differences: i *want* to see the current organization known as the 'democratic' party to fail, not get elected/reelected, not pass legislation. i was just chatting this point up with a friend last night: i hate ~75% of the current national dem set. hate them. i expect today's republicans to be murdering, hatefilled fascists who lie, cheat, steal and kill. but i'm am sofa king tired of people like Harry and Nancy. or even HRC, and all the rest of them who believe things like "we need to keep some troops in iraq always" or "insurance companies must play a role in health care."
the dem party as it is is made up of only about 25% of actual democrats who believe and work for truly democratic values as outlines in things like the party platform. the rest are republicans. the ONLY solutions to our myriad problems today are truly progressive ones. this bunch of dems will *never* support those policies. i'm not saying i want another republican administration. what i want is for americans to finally and utterly perceive the failure of "third way" and "moderate/centrist" democratic policies. in the meantime, i'd like to prevent a 50 year dominance of the SC by fascists. yes, my expectations are low. but i'll say this: we will get to the point where progressive policy is enacted. the only question is if we will do so as a poor, wartorn nation of sick and starving people, or as slightly less of those things.
yes, i'm that pessimistic about our shared future. anyway, may i ask you this last: if you're so serious about how much obama and his ilk suck, how about getting Serious
about some primary challenges and electing some true progressives? you do such excellent work, i'd love to see people like you stop wasting so much time on the national race, and devote more effort to scaring the shit out of blue dogs and other traitors to our Values. because where i perceive that your efforts have failed to have an impact on the prez race, i believe they could have a very great impact on house and senate races. i believe this to be true for most of the blogosphere, if it could ever get its head out of our collective assi and focus on something other than what the SCLM
tells us is "important."
Je répète
http://www.correntewire.com/eureka_habea...
i shudder at the idea of more like Roberts on the SCOTUS. obama may appoint a bunch of nambypamby moderate mushy types to the court, but i’m almost completely sure he won’t go for the Total Fascists.
I'm taking the same bet you are, CD, but I think the odds look even worse than in your low-expectations scenario.
"your efforts have failed to have an impact on the prez race"
I agree wholeheartedly with your agenda on primary challenges.
But I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to point the finger of failure at those who supported a cause that brought unprecedented numbers of Americans to the polls, in direct and surprising defiance of the conventional wisdom.
I see what we (or shall I say "some of we," should others not want to be included in that number) have done on Hillary's behalf as a primary challenge.
What impact we've had in the scheme of things? Probably not much.
This is "tiny strokes fell great oaks" territory, methinks.
When the oaks are propped up by both the media and a suddenly groupthinking leftysphere, we're going to lose sometimes.
Lessons learned and alternative tactics are fine, but I think we're too quick to turn on each other when we get screwed (as we often are) in a squeaker. In fact, I see over-reaction to screwings past as a huge reason why Obama keeps throwing us under the bus and why the DNC powers that be coronated him.
See, what scares some of us is really unknowable
- the possibility that the Obama "movement" is real and could take us somewhere we've never been before - to a homegrown version of fascism or a Cultural Revolution. As long as I can believe that after Obama is elected it will be business as usual, voting for him seems like a responsible choice. But my lenses keep shifting, as they do in an abusive relationship, where at one moment the other is just a regular old flawed human being and the next moment he/she is trying to wipe you out.
On the one side I see a charismatic leader, people fainting at rallies, supporters who honestly believe he will do impossible things, a (to me) surprising ability to rally power to his flag, a determination to control all resources and eliminate other power centers. Scary stuff.
On the other side, I see a rather centrist politician, a man of obvious intelligence, a thoughtful man of great ambition who has risen perhaps too fast for anybody's good. Not so scary, just not inspiring.
Where is the truth?
Policy not party!
Well said
I tend to think that once Obama takes office, assuming he does, he'll mostly muddle about, have to eat humble pie on occasion, etc.
There is the risk that, fueled by his supposed divinity, there will be frightening acts of hubris.
Also, his hostile takeover of the party may have dramatic long-term implications -- possibly good ones, either through beneficence or grandiose failure (such as losing the election), or quite terrible ones.
Of course, not knowing what his agenda really is makes everything a crystal ball exercise.
I'm just sufficiently aware of how bad McCain and the GOP are that I feel compelled to take that flier, now that all plausible options have been closed to me.
"his hostile takeover of the party "
-- i think that's kinde key here when we talk about consequences to his presidency--and the future of the party--the Clintons never ever did take over the party, and always had resistence from the permanent DC Democratic Establishment--and the media.
Obama is wholly being propped up by that permanent establishment, meaning that the takeover is willing from all of them, and you must ask why that is---given that they are spineless and far more concerned with maintaining than with stopping bad things or implementing good things, as we see.
We've always had different factions jostling together and demanding their share at different points--now we don't, and won't. And we also never got that "more and better Democrats" they called for--we simply got more conservative, status quo ones--with a "not-at-all-in-any-way-better-Democrat" as the presidential nominee, and actual "head of the party" by their actions (for the first time in ages to my knowledge).
Geez, anybody know a good therapist?
Tell me what I wrote above is just delusional.
I'm going out to talk to my tomatoes now.
Policy not party!
I disagree
but as i said on another post: we have a chance at influencing him, pushing him to the left/progressive side, getting him to stand up for our values, etc. we have NO CHANCE with mcstain.
I see no reason to think that McCain will govern as a right-wing ideologue; rather I think that he'll try and govern as a moderate -- and will try to reach accomodation with "progressive" Democrats in congress on most issues -- we'll have much more influence pressuring a Democratic majority that McCain has to work with than with Obama.
With Obama, I see just the opposite -- someone who will completely ignore the progressive wing of the party, and will betray every progressive principle there is in order to claim that he achieved a legislative victory. Much (if not most) of "the party" will stand behind Obama whatever he does --- and progressives will be sold down the river in pursuit of greater glory for 'dear leader'.
As to your suggestion that I work on electing other progressives, etc....
The fact is I'm lazy. I'm not a big brain. Copying and pasting polling data from the web onto a spreadsheet, then adding up the numbers is not a special skill -- and all I do is take what everyone knows is intuitively true, and show that its objectively true.
The meager skills I have don't translate well in terms of what you suggest -- and quite frankly, given my history and willingness to express my opinions without regard to who it offends or pisses off, I'd likely get 'thrown under the bus' by any campaign that I tried to closely associate myself with. ;)
You're talking about President and Congress, but
there's also the vast number of Presidential appointees to consider, and I'm not thinking of the judiciary alone. I'm thinking of the regulatory apparatus, for one thing. Assuming an Obama administration would be Democratic business as usual, there would be a vast improvement in the administrative arena.
This can have an impact on policy that I was unaware of, according to Allen Kukovich, the former PA state senator who spoke at the health care forum I went to last Wednesday. He said that one reason corporate executives continue to work against single-payer health care, against their own interests, is that they don't want to antagonize the people in the executive branch who exercise regulatory power over their business. (There are other reasons, obviously, but this is a biggie.)
Implication: a Democratic administration would create the potential for a softening of corporate resistance to rational health care solutions.
Policy not party!
James Roosevelt?
You know who he is right? Co-chair of the RBC.
Know what his day job is? CEO of Tufts Health Plan.
Which operates in Massachusetts. And with Deval Patrick's approval is now offering cut rate insurance -- by denying people access to the best hospitals.
Under Roosevelt's leadership, Tufts nearly doubled its 3rd quarter profits (22 million in 3rdQ 06, 41 million in 3rdQ 07) -- while laying off 100 health care workers and eliminating 50 other positions.
...so, if you think that we are going to see anything that approaches "rational health care solutions" because of "softening of corporate resistance"...well, lets just say that there is some conrary evidence, and leave it at that.
Both parties are steered by big corporate interests
- we all know that. But there's no point in going with Naderite arguments over this. I'm only pointing out that traditionally Dem administrations shift a little bit more to the side we like, and a lot of that happens in relatively undramatic effects of small changes in the big bureaucracy, which is to an extent controlled by White House appointees. Political changes happen by millimeters, not miles, contrary to the expectations of some Obama followers.
Policy not party!
Regulatory policy and the civil service....
... is actually a stronger argument than the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS really can be solved if the SJC grows a spine.
Not so regulatory policy and the civil service. That really does take control of the executive branch.
Can somebody bring this to Axelrod's attention to the new meme gets blastfaxed? Thanks...
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"Sofa King" -- gotta use that one
Maybe even make up a logo!
1. CD, excellent point on the local races. Note that DCBlogger's stellar work on HR 676 has given us a good place to start on the UHC issue that concerns many of us.
2. You write:
Er, I hate to say this, then, but doesn't that mean you ought to be supporting PUMA?
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
oh no you don't, VL!
you can't out-pessimist me. i'm just playing nice today and not in the mood to write the 'coming horrorfest that is your future' post. ;-)
let me be more clear:
i'm not "blaming" or mocking Paul for "failing." not at all. i utterly resepect his work, and enjoy it a great deal. i believe it has value, in and of itself. there's so little 'hard math' employed in the blogosphere, and Paul is right up there with the Big Brains.
it just didn't achieve his goal (not nominating obama). so je repete: i think he can make a real difference on the downticket level, and i beg him to find a couple of true progressives who are challenging blue dogs, and give it a try.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Worth Googling. Haven't tried "malignant narcissist," but might also be illuminating.
Horselover Fat
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
- V. I. Lenin
H F
Again, the psychologizing is not useful
Anybody can Google and come up with some terms.
One thing I remember very clearly with Bush is the gradually dawning sense of horror that yes, the administration was indeed evil as theologians understand the term, and psychologists too; the animial tortur is such a clear sign of that.
This is not analysis you throw around to make a polemical point. This is a serious matter.
[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Public persona
All we see with most politicians is the carefully crafted public image. How real is it? hard to say. All we can do is peer through the dark obscured glass, try to make some sort of subjective assessment. I don't know much about Obama's childhood, not well documented and his memoirs seem more fictive than factual.
From what I can see, though, I am not all that reassured simply by the absence of documented history of small animal torture.
I do get the impression Obama is secretive about this personal history, and tends to fictionalize/embellish it - I do not find that reassuring.
Horselover Fat
"A lie told often enough becomes truth."
- V. I. Lenin
H F