Election Watch

I'm starting a new thread about today's Super Tuesday primary elections in the USA. I thought about just continuing on the Barack thread, but I don't want to assume everyone's voting for him.

So, please feel free to shoot the breeze here without much regard for staying on-topic. Consider it the party you'd go to if we all lived in the same place.

I'd like to hear what people's favorite election-related websites are, first of all, since I'll only have internet access this evening, no television.

Liz

P.S. I'll make it unsticky tomorrow.

edit: I'm retracting that statement. I want it sticky.

Re: Election Watch

I tend to use MSNBC, not from loving Microsoft mind you!, but since I think they have pretty good coverage and… I'm Magenta enough to support them since my baby sister is an Associate Editor for the NBC Newsdesk in London. Well, not so baby anymore I guess.

Re: Election Watch

Thanks, Pelle, I'll have a look.

So I went to vote today, and the polling place is a church on the other side of the park from me, about a 3 block walk. I stopped by a couple of neighbor's houses and brought them with me. Julie, who is perhaps a bit unclear on the concept, brought her absentee ballot to turn in, and my friend Glenn, who is campaigning for Obama and is a true believer. He had also already voted, so I was the only one doing any actual marking of my ballot. It's very Califonian to vote absentee. I like to vote in person. It's like the difference between sending a letter and email. Feels much better with real paper.

So, I take my ballot over to the box, which is black and has a slot much like a paper shredder we just got as a wedding present. I say to the election workers, “So, I just put my ballot in this paper shredder here, right?” And they all cracked up. Satisfying, yet a sad state of affairs for Americans, who have to wonder if their vote is even counted.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Okay, I'm putting on my boots to walk over to the polling station on foot cuz  there won't be a parking space available anywhere near that place.
And I'll generate a lot of “I am accessible” vibes in case there are long lines, so we can chat a little with whoever else wants some connection, some sense of community in this class-conscious town.

And then I'll vote for Obama, even though I understand it's a charade organized by the corporate Kleptocracy to keep up appearances. Yes, that dampens my spirit, but not enough to stop doing what I would do in an ideal world.

Hope… it's not entirely useless, no matter what those Zen guys say.  Just visualizing that half-black, half-white man sitting in the Oval Office, picking up the phone to apologize to the Palestinians (for starters) gives me a big-grin smiley face.

Re: Election Watch

Mascha: Hope… it's not entirely useless, no matter what those Zen guys say.  Just visualizing that half-black, half-white man sitting in the Oval Office, picking up the phone to apologize to the Palestinians (for starters) gives me a big-grin smiley face.

~~~

I'd love to see him use the campaign slogan “Hope - it's not entirely useless!”  It appeals to my sense of irony, or something, heehee.  :P

As for the half-black, half-white guy…wouldn't it be cool if it was like that old Star Trek episode?



spiral out where no one has gone before,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

Prescient, Arthur!

If Obama wins and becomes President, lots of people will want to look that way. Hair-and-make-up industries thus see a boom which helps lift the economy out of a recession as a new era begins where there will be restitutions made to every country the US has ever illegally…

Yeah, hope – it could cut new grooves into the fabric of our reality if we all lean into the curves with enough conviction to really get some upward spiralling action in the collective resonance field.

Just think how groovy we can be,

oh man, it's awesome how imagination moves energy.

m

Re: Election Watch

Happy voting you guys….

Mavericks, or whoever gets your vote – because you can bet your bottom dollar
that when the two lucky feet finally walk the plank into the Whitehouse at a later date, our big family - oh yeah, the rest of us out here, will be with reaping what you sow!

Be careful now!

It does seem somewhat exciting from afar….

Lisa :)

Re: Election Watch

A number of us, Lisa, feel pretty bad about the “impact” a bad president can have on the rest of the world.  I for one want to help rectify that.

For this time around, Obama gets my vote.

Re: Election Watch

As important as this day is, not everyone may know that the way the Democrats run their primary make it unlikely that either candidate will come away with a decisive “win.” On the Republican side, it is “winner take all,” like the general election in November, meaning if John McCain wins California, he will win all of California's 440 delegates. So McCain could more or less lock up the Republican nomination today, even though he won't do it officially. But on the Democratic side it is not winner take all; it is divided up into districts. So the delegates will be split, making it much more difficult to accumulate a majority (as far as I know, the formulas are different in each state; in some states it is possible for one candidate to win all of the delegates). One candidate could come away with a big lead, but probably we will have a close race for some time.

This is a great website to follow the election. It gives you all the latest polls, head-to-head polls between Republicans and Democrats, and other good stuff.

David

Re: Election Watch

Yeah, it's really a horrible mess, our national elections. Someday it would be great to just have a system where each person gets, you know, a vote. Then the person with the most votes wins. I've heard it actually works in other countries…

Here is a current tally.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Looks like Clinton is winning in California. Ugh.

A Clinton/Obama ticket might be enough to unite the needed vote…or alienate pretty much everybody.

Is there somewhere we can hide for the next few months?

Honey, have my beer ready when I get home!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

I think I know what is going to happen. Clinton will win the election. Obama, if he gets too close, will be scammed out of the election with black box tampering to make sure Clinton gets in. Shes got too much money at stake for the big boy corporations. Haven't you seen her tight lipped when Obama talks about cutting back on lobbiest influences…she just doesn't have anything to say about that one. (I could be wrong, but I think I see the writing on the wall).  

Who am I voting for? Ken Wilber with Oprah as Vice President!

Dan

Re: Election Watch

I just keep telling myself that it's important to have a woman president someday. Or a black person. So…I'll vote for either one. But I really don't like the idea of Clinton in office.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Liz: I just keep telling myself that it's important to have a woman president someday. Or a black person. So…I'll vote for either one. But I really don't like the idea of Clinton in office.

~~~

Don't worry - if she gets the nomination Republicans will likely come out in droves to prevent her from being elected; plus that side appears to be way ahead of the curve in election fraud.

I guess I'm having a cynical moment…<sigh>

By the way, glad you liked the black/white Star Trek picture, Mascha - after I posted it another interpretation occured to me: the two figures could represent the Republican and Democratic parties…two sides of the same team?   >:0

Oh well…may the somewhat less psychotic candidate/party win…

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

“Don't worry - if she gets the nomination Republicans will likely come out in droves to prevent her from being elected; plus that side appears to be way ahead of the curve in election fraud.”

Arthur are you sure? And they won't as much if Obama gets the nomination? There's a question as to how much Obama could really accomplish in office and how much cooperation he will get if he sits in the Oval Office. I am not saying he isn't capable, I am asking how much will he be “stone-walled” (old civil war term) from what he wishes to accomplish. If he makes it, it will be very interesting to see what happens.

I will not vote race or gender. The best needs to be elected. What the integral choice is for the greatest good is the question.

From a friend:

“The powers-that-be will do everything they can for a Hillary presidency.   She and Bill are SO DIRTY, deep in bed, with Bush and Gang – and yet they can make it “look like” a change has occurred!”

I'm wondering if the powers behind the power has plan “B” ready with those tricky memory cards that leave no paper trail at the voting booth.

Link to “Hacking Democracy” and “Black Box Voting”


http://drs1958.gaia.com/blog/2008/1/hacking_democracy_-_its_election_year_2008

Re: Election Watch

“The powers-that-be will do everything they can for a Hillary presidency.   She and Bill are SO DIRTY, deep in bed, with Bush and Gang - and yet they can make it “look like” a change has occurred!”

This looks like the pluralistic perspective to me rather than the integral one. Hillary takes a lot of flak from pluralists for being a corporate democrat, but that's what an integral democrat will look like: pro environment, pro labor, and pro business.

I had thought Obama might be better on the ethics in government question, but I have doubts about that after reading this story. The story has circulated pretty widely, but the author of this article has an excellent point when she says it would have been blaring out of every outlet if it had been Hillary.

David

Re: Election Watch

>>”I had thought Obama might be better on the ethics in government question, but I have doubts about that after reading this story. The story has circulated pretty widely, but the author of this article has an excellent point when she says it would have been blaring out of every outlet if it had been Hillary.”


“A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.”
~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–~–




A person can only do so much as a senator.  Here I see a person sincerely trying to do something good (fighting to advance bill), failing, and pursuing an alternative long-term strategy. 

As a president I think it's a reflection of how he may handle himself in compromising situations( and who wouldn't? ).  To say it's a reflection of his general drive and moral standing would be ignoring his apparently sincere desire and capacity to bring good to the country.

Re: Election Watch

“pro environment, pro labor, and pro business.”

Agreed David, but there is a big difference between good healthy thriving business and pathological corporate behavior. Check out “Grunch of the Giants” by Buckminster Fuller
G.R.U.N.C.H “Gross Universal Cash Heist”

He predicted that not only would corporations grow bigger than giants, but that “predatory transnational capitalism would lead us to a very bad end. i.e. An interlocking corporate/government structure.”

This country had a very bad time in the past with transnational corporations before it was even a country. That namely being the East Indian Trading Company. We dumped their product into the Boston Harbor (1 million dollars worth by todays standards) and brought on the Revolutionary war over it.

I've got nothing against good old fasion business, in its healthy state. I like making money just as much as the next guy. But look at it Globally. Is that 20 cents a day to make this shirt I am wearing? Thats not a wage, thats slavery. But this is another topic to chew on another time and place.

If Obama is going to kick some of the lobbiests off the gravy train along with the corporate influences it buys, then this could spell trouble for him…especailly with the medical industry and drug companies. And Iraq, those military deep pockets might get rather shallow and empty and there will be a lot of grumbling with that. National Security always hits us below the belt at the bottom of Maslows Hierarchy, hits us low, keeps us down (when it takes trillions of dollars to do the job…supposedly). Can't have too many self actualized people like those hippies in the 60s cropping up again by God! Scare the crap out of them and keep them working hard to survive (the middle class that is).

Re: Election Watch

A person can only do so much as a senator.  Here I see a person sincerely trying to do something good (fighting to advance bill), failing, and pursuing an alternative long-term strategy. 

As a president I think it's a reflection of how he may handle himself in compromising situations( and who wouldn't? ).  To say it's a reflection of his general drive and moral standing would be ignoring his apparently sincere desire and capacity to bring good to the country.


I think you have a point there about a Senator only having so much power, and I also wouldn't write him off for one mistake. But portraits of Obama as the man of change and Hilllary as a part of the old network do look a little unjustified in light of this story.

It's one thing to come up against a more powerful interest and having to give in, but in this case Exelon was a big contributor of his and his chief campaign advisor a former consultant of Exelon. I am just saying that if Hillary had done something like this, the media, Obama, and his supporters would be telling the story constantly as if Hillary had murdered 300 defensless babies–there is a real double standard here. 
 
I can't blame Obama for not having the power to push it through, though it does cast doubts on his ability to work the system in Washington and come clean on what happened. Was it an aberration, or is he always like that? We don't really know. We would have a better idea if we gave him more time in the senate before electing him president. I really am a big fan of his, but I think people are elevating him and devaluing Hillary in a way that isn't really justified, much in the same way conservatives don't like Hillary.
 

Agreed David, but there is a big difference between good healthy thriving business and pathological corporate behavior.

I agree Daniel.

Hillary could be more reformist, I think, but I think that often integral is mistaken for conservatism and “reform” a regressive attack on a lower value sphere.


~ ~ ~

My bet is that Obama will win the next few primaries and either be tied or in the lead by the end of February but that Hillary could have the advantage in March.

David


 

Re: Election Watch

>>I think you have a point there about a Senator only having so much power, and I also wouldn't write him off for one mistake. But portraits of Obama as the man of change and Hilllary as a part of the old network do look a little unjustified in light of this story.

I assume you're talking about his portrayal in media.  My main introduction to Obama wasn't through the images of primary elections marketing, it was through what his writing and early interviews.  He is the only candidate I know of that has given rational breakdowns of where he stands, how the world works, and how the world should work.  I remember watching him explain the process by which black students gradually get left behind.  There was some serious multi-faceted thinking going on in that head of his.  As election time got closer he has since dumbed down his message.  Unfortunately repeating vague general statements wins elections.  It's not about track record either.  What about the associated shift of the American identity?  Certainly either candidate is going to have that effect.  But which one has a more positive image?  Which one will be able to leverage their image more effectively in politics?





>>I can't blame Obama for not having the power to push it through, though it does cast doubts on his ability to work the system in Washington and come clean on what happened. Was it an aberration, or is he always like that? We don't really know. We would have a better idea if we gave him more time in the senate before electing him president.

You say that as if you'd follow what he does in the senate.  : )  I think you can have a pretty good idea of who he is in different ways.

Re: Election Watch

Yes, it is really difficult to know how someone will lead judging by their campaign. You really don't know until they get into office and begin acting and responding. Each one makes him- or herself more conservative or more liberal depending on the situation. What concerns me about Obama–in addition to the experience issue and what appears to be too much focus on American social issues–is that he may not be integrating enough conservatism. We can't really afford to have a leader too far on either extreme right now. It's time for a Teal president!

As for following him as a senator, yes I would, to the extent that I was able. Living in Illinois I would tend to see better coverage of him than in other parts of the country, and I always scan the New York Times and Washington Post for articles. But it is still difficult to get information.

David

Re: Election Watch

David.

Honestly.

Don't you think we've had enough “conservatism?” Conservatives don't even know what they stand for, anyway. Less government? We have the heaviest-handed government ever under conservative rule. Less spending? I don't think I need to remind anyone what we're spending on this war and various corporate welfare programs.

Personally, I'd love a wild-ass liberal president. We haven't had one in, um, ever, that I can think of. Maybe Carter, but he wasn't even that liberal. Todays' standards have gone so far to the right that we don't even remember what liberals do in office.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Thank you very much, Liz. I think that gets to the heart of the matter.

 

Don't you think we've had enough “conservatism?”

Well, for one thing, the Bush administration are not conservatives, they're neocons! They're radical conservatives; they're conservatives with Red, conservatives with impatience, conservatives who don't give a damn about the constitution, the environment, people, especially other ethnicities, non Christians–they're ideologues. A lot of conservatives–meaning the Orange brand, not Amber–are very unhappy with them for a number of reasons, the budget deficits for one thing: they have lowered taxes and raised spending, and they can't blame it all on the war. They're irresponsible.

But generally, with the budget deficits we have, we need more real conservatism, the kind of integral or near-integral conservatism we got from Clinton-Gore. They corrected the huge deficits left to them by Reagan-Bush. We need something similar now. Also, we could use a certain amount of certain types of those family values–things are a little crazy, a little Red. We need a refurbishing of Amber values like service, loyalty, fidelity, honor, honesty, etc. That would be a part of governement reform and corporate reform as well as social reform.

Of course in some respects I think conservatives simply need to be stood up to–on women's rights, birth control, abortion rights, etc., for example. A lot of the corruption, though, is really Red, in some cases aggravated by Green, and would benefit by a refurbishing of conservative values, though it would have to be done in an integral rather than a fundamentalist tone.

I am looking forward to a more liberal sense of fairness with regard to the tax code, corporate welfare, corporate regulation in general, etc. On the war on terrorism we need to stick with a few of the tough stances the Bush administration has put in place, though of course not all. It would be a disasterous time to have a weak and wobbly liberal who's more concerned about being liked and not offending anyone.

A very liberal president now could be a disaster for the deficits, for the war on terrorism, immigration, issues regarding China, Korea, Russia, Pakistan, South America, etc. And they can also make an enemy out of business, which of course is a part of the foundation of the whole show. I am definitely looking forward to more liberal values being worked in (an end to the war on drugs, for example, which we need a 60% liberal or integral congress for), but unless the president is integral and can see where liberalism goes wrong, we're headed for trouble, just a different kind of trouble than we've had in the past 8 years.


David

Re: Election Watch

Sure. We agree. But I think Kucinich has shown that a real liberal can't get elected anymore. and I think all the real conservatives are now Libertarians.

Re: Election Watch

Yes, Dennis proved that, but Ralph proved that they can still mess things up if they want to.

As for the Libertarians, I think we can be grateful that Ron Paul has faded away. That was regressive stuff. Look for the anarchist candidate to get a boost if he drops out.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be great. That would be unbeatable. For awhile I thought it was impossible, but now I'm thinking it's possible again.

David

Re: Election Watch

I would MUCH prefer Obama-Clinton. Bill is a huge liability, and she could lose the election, she's so despised. There are republicans who would vote for Obama; there are none who would vote for Clinton.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Hillary's 14 years older than he is and has more experience. It wouldn't make sense for her to take the job as vice president; I can't see her doing it. It would make sense for Obama, though. He would also get the experience he needs to become president. I say forget about the people who despise her; they're crazy. Bill would be helpful in the general election. The reason he was trouble here was because he was creating a split among democrats, or more of one. The two of them–Bill and Hillary–would be terrific going after the Republican in the general election. They would rip him to shreds, and then Bill would do go to work in the White House and become friends with Obama and get him ready to be president.  :)

Re: Election Watch

This sounds really optimistic to me, David, but I'd love it if you were right!!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Obama as president with Hillary as vice-president?  Hey, she'd be better than a bullet-proof vest, hehehe. 

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

Holy, shit, you're right. I hadn't thought of that. Someone needs to talk to the Clinton and Obama campaigns to protect both candidate's health!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

…better than a vest…

That's exactly what I used to say about Dan Quail  (sp?).

K

Re: Election Watch

Article from the Los Angeles Times today – made me laugh at myself ….
(And 20 years ago I really did have a boyfriend who looks quite a bit like Obama …)

—————————————————————————————————————

Joel Stein:
“He's got Obamaphilia”

It's embarrassing to be among the fanatics of a
relatively mainstream presidential candidate.
February 8, 2008

You are embarrassing yourselves. With your “Yes We
Can” music video, your “Fired Up, Ready to Go” song,
your endless chatter about how he's the first one to
inspire you, to make you really feel something – it's
as if you're tacking photos of Barack Obama to your
locker, secretly slipping him little notes that read,
“Do you like me? Check yes or no.” Some of you even
cry at his speeches. If I were Obama, and you voted
for me, I would so never call you again.

Obamaphilia has gotten creepy. I couldn't figure out
if the two canvassers who came to my door Sunday had
taken Ecstasy or were just fantasizing about an Obama
presidency, but I feared they were going to hug me.
Scarlett Johansson called me twice, asking me to vote
for him. She'd never even called me once about
anything else. Not even to see “The Island.”


What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a
politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions
like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream
one. He has not been firing up the Senate with
stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war.
He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him.
There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I
know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a
better tailor.

All of this is clear to me, and yet I have fallen
victim. I was at an Obama rally in Las Vegas last
month, hanging at the rope line afterward in the cold
night desert air, just to see him up close, to make
sure he was real. I'd never heard a politician talk so
bluntly, calling U.S. immigration policy
“scapegoating” and “demagoguery.” I'd never had even a
history teacher argue that our nation's history is a
series of brave people changing others' minds when
things were on the verge of collapse. I want the man
to hope all over me.

Still, I can't help but feel incredibly embarrassed
about my feelings. In the “Yes We Can” music video
that will.i.am made of Obama's Jan. 8 speech, I
spotted Eric Christian Olsen, a very smart actor I
know. (His line is “Yes we can.”) I called to see if
he had gone all bobby-soxer for Obama, or if he was
just shrewdly taking a part in a project that upped
his Q rating.

Turns out Olsen not only contributed money, he
volunteered in Iowa and California and made hundreds
of calls. He also sent out a mass e-mail to his
friends that contained these lines: “Nothing is more
fundamentally powerful than how I felt when I met him.
I stood, my hand embraced in his, and … I felt
something … something that I can only describe as an
overpowering sense of Hope.” That's the gayest e-mail
I've ever read, and I get notes from guys who've seen
me on E!

When I started to make fun of Olsen, he said: “I get
that it's a movement. But it's not like a movement for
Nickelback. For the first time, we should feel
justified in our passion. You don't have to feel
embarrassed about it, buddy.” It was a convincing
argument until he told me he cried during an Obama
speech. That did not help me feel less lame.

So to de-Romeo-ize, I called someone immune to Obama's
hottie dreaminess: a white suburban feminist baby
boomer. To get two things done at once, I called my
mother.

My mom, a passionate Hillary Clinton supporter,
immediately attacked Obamamania. “Some part of me
wants to say, 'People wake up. He has no plans.' I get
frustrated listening to his speeches after awhile,”
she said. She also said that the new vacation house in
Key West is really great and her vertigo hasn't been
acting up.

I started to feel a little more grounded again. Did I
want to be some dreamer hippie loser, or a person who
understands that change emerges from hard work and
conflict? “People are projecting an awful lot onto
him,” Mom said. “Almost like what was that movie with,
oh, the movie, oh God. That English actor, he
practically said nothing. Oh shoot. He was the butler
and everybody loved him and what he was thinking and
feeling. Do you know the movie I'm talking about? You
don't.” Hers, of course, is the demographic most
likely to vote.

But she's right. Obama is Peter Sellers in “Being
There.” As a therapist, she's seen the danger of
ungrounded expectations. “You feel young again. You
feel like everything is possible. He helps you feel
that way and you want to feel that way; it's a great
marriage. Unfortunately, the divorce will happen very
quickly.” Mom is the kind of realistic tough-talker
who isn't afraid to make divorce analogies to a child
of divorce.

“We want what he represents,” she said. “A young,
idealistic person who really believes it. And he
believes it. He believes he can change the world. I
just don't think he can.”

Thing is, I've watched too many movies and read too
many novels; I can't root against a person who
believes he can change the world. The best we
Obamaphiles can do is to refrain from embarrassing
ourselves. And I do believe that we can resist making
more “We Are the World”-type videos. We can resist
crying jags. We can resist, in every dinner argument
and every e-mail, the word “inspiration.” Yes, we can.

Re: Election Watch

That is frickin' hilarious, Mary.  :)

spirals,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

I like what David has been saying about Clinton being the better choice to clean up the mess Bush will leave behind and having Bill groom Obama for the next round if he turns out to be Vice President.

Looks like Hillary fired her campaign manager and got a new one…Obama is kicking her ass in winning delegates. I hear he said he'll give Oprah a position in his cabinet if he gets in.

Re: Election Watch

Here's Keith Olberman on Hillary's “assassination” comment.

Phew!

Re: Election Watch

Wow, great stuff - thanks for posting the link, Mary.

Once again I find myself asking, in dumbfounded nonplussitude, “yeah…but….what does Keith Olberman really think?”

spiral out,
Arthur

Re: Election Watch

I was not listening, just overhearing it from the next room, and I said, “Who is that? It sounds like Rush Limbaugh.” Olberman is bad for everyone, with all the hatred he's spewing. The left should not be trying to out-hate the right. This is a holdover from the 2000 election, when the left was in complete shck and disarraye and trying to figure out how to get back in poweer. They completely bungled it, as we know, but part of it was trying to fight by the neo-con rules. Doomed to failure.

While I agree with you, David, that Senator Clinton has shown amazing strength and poise, it's not at all surprising or even untoward that Obama should want her out of the race. Don't forget he's actually trying to win. And not just against her, but against a formidable opponent who's had months to rest without spending any money, McCain.

I do think it's because she's a woman, and also the wife of someone the right really despised. Not least because they are rational and reasonable and showed them all how politics should be done. Clinton and Obama both threaten the right in ways that the amber/orange folks can't even understand.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

This is the latest in the smear campaign against Hillary Clinton. There hasn't been anything like this in American politics, at least in recent American history, that a candidate has been smeared like this by the media (taking its cues from the Obama campaign) and attempting again and again to force a candidate out of the race. It's incredibly anti-democratic to have the media behaving this way. For years Fox News has been every bit as bad on the conservative side, and liberals have lambasted Fox News for years for the their media bias. But this election year, the liberal media, particuarlly MSNBC, have been every bit as bad and quite possibly worse. Of them, Olberman has clearly led the path. We find in him a pluralist infected by narcissistic rage and—most troubling for a journalist—a lack of concern for the facts. This is not the first time we have seen an outburst like this from Olberman. There was another one here when Olberman took the opportunity of Geraldine Ferraro's poorly chosen words to lambast Hillary, as if she were the one who spoke them when she denounced Ferraro for it.

At any rate, when I first heard of the RFK remarks I thought, “Oh, that's bad. This really is bad.” Then I heard the clip, and I thought, “That really is bad. What was she thinking there? Is it just because she speaks a million words a week and people are attacking her from all sides, saying the most insulting things they can think of and many things that simply aren't true?” She has, by the way, shown incredible strength. James Carville, who is a Clinton supporter and a little biased, said that he couldn't defend her campaign but said it was one of the greatest performances in any campaign. Really, no man has had to put up with what she has had to put up with. I'm not saying it is necessarily to do with gender, but she's been attacked from the left and from the right, and that leaves just about nobody in the media who will like her, as she all the while tries to express Teal.

The RFC remarks—well, it took a little digging, but I found the entire interview. The only one I could find is little cut up by written remarks by the video blogger in which he tries to help her make her case. The remarks aren't bad and kind of interesting—did you know that Woodrow Wilson didn't win the nomination until the 146 ballot at the convention?—but it's a little distracting (some of his written comments on the side are also good). At any rate, what of these remarks? Is Hillary really the devil that Olberman and all the liberals think she is or try to paint her as? Well, it sure looks like it doesn't it? Until, of course, you see the entire interview.

When you see the entire interview you see that the discussion about whether she should get out of the race—again, a question no other candidate has ever had to deal with; the Obama campaign and their friends in the media have because they felt she might win—you see that the discussion about why Hillary should get out of the race had been going on for no less than 3 and 1/2 minutes before she made the RFK remarks. And in that time the reporter asked her 4 additional questions about it. To hear it told from Olberman and the rest and to see the short clip they show you you'd think she was asked about it and the very first thing that popped out of her mouth was , “Well, they shot RFK in June and it's not even June yet.” She had alreadly spoken at length about the whole thing and the reporter kept asking her about it. She had mentioned that the 80, 84, 88, and 92 campaigns had all gone on longer than this, and no one had grudged the candidates the right even if they wanted to take it all the way to the convention, as Teddy Kennedy did, for example.

And then–and here's the most important point—she mentions her husband's campaign in 92 that was still going on in June and in the same breath she mentioned Bobby Kennedy's assasination during the 68 primary, which also happened in June. The connection was the month of June, which had occured to her when talking about Bill's 92 campaign. Ask a political professional about primaries for long enough and eventually you are going to make it back to the 68 campaign. She had already mentioned 4 other primary campaigns and one of them twice and, again, had been answering repeated questions on the subject for 3 and 1/2 minutes before she mentioned the 68 campaign. If you see the whole video I think you will see that she wasn't trying to put assassination on people's minds, but Olberman and the rest were more than happy to spin it that way, weren't they?

But the larger question is, why does the Obama campaign want Hillary out of the race and urge her to get out, a rallying cry the liberal media is all too happy to pick up even though it is historically unprecedented to force a candidate out of the race like this? The short answer is because without Hillary, Obama is the winner, but the long answer is, this is the Obama way! This is Obama poltics—he doesn't want to run against anyone; he doesn't want any other candidates in the race who voters might vote for. Have you heard the story of his first political race in Illinois?

Here is what happened: A popular Illinois state senator named Alice Palmer (serving in Springfield, Illinois) decided to make a run for the U.S. Congress (in Washington D.C.). Upon announcing this, she promoted a young politcian she liked, a man named Barack Obama, as her successor. It was a special election—another Democrat had slept with an employee (a 16-year-old volunteer) and was forced out of office. She lost the election—and then decided to run again for her old seat in the Illinois Senate. She and her supporters asked Barack to step out of the race. He refused. Fair enough. Some might have, and some were angry at him for not stepping out, but once he had things going it was fair enough to go ahead with the race. So the two were running against eachother.

Here's where it gets ugly. Obama hires a lawyer and challenges Palmer's petitions, which she had filed hurriedly since she got into the race so late, on technicalities. He hired a Harvard lawyer who was a specialist in local election law, and she didn't have the time or resources to fight it. At any rate, he was able to knock her, the incumbent, out of the race. Petitions are to keep non-serious candidates out of the race. They're to make it so not just anyone can jump into a race and muck up the debates and the whole process. But they're not for knocking out a popular incumbent who was many times better known than he was in their district, so popular she ran for congress.

But it didn't stop there—Obama went ahead and knocked the other three candidates off the ballot on technicalities as well! Challenging all their petitions! He didn't run against anyone! It's the Obama way! He knocked all four other candidates off the ballot on technicalities using his lawyer! And he considered doing the same thing in his senate race, but he figured—here was the reason he didn't do it—it might look bad because he had done it before. The reason wasn't because it was undemocratic, but because it might hurt him, might make him look bad. Here's what one of the candidates he had knocked off the ballot had to say about it (I'll give you the first few paragraphs of the article, and then a link to the whole article if you're interested):

“The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

“Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”

From this article.


Yes, why not let the voters decide? In this election the Obama lawyers have prevented revotes in Michigan and Florida. There have also been reports of strong-arm tactics and intimidation in some of the caucuses, where people vote publicly rather than in a closed voting booth. It was largely because of those caucus wins that gave Obama his delegate lead, and caucus votes are anything but accurate relfections of voter preferences (Hillary won the Texas primary, where people vote in private voting booths, by 4 points and lost the caucus by 12 points—a 16-point differential! But the media has been all too happy to echo the Obama party line of Obama being the people's choice even when they blocked the revote attempts in Florida and Michigan, even when Clinton supporters were willing to pay for the revote in Michigan. They block people from voting and they want to claim that Obama is the people's choice, all the while trying to force the opposing candidate out of the race.

I still think he's a great guy, though, and may make a great president one day. What I don't like is the incredible elevation of Obama and the simultaneous devaluation of Hillary Clinton. This is what makes the whole thing so narcissistic. Here is the first paragraph of chapter 2 of A Theory of Everything:

“The dictionary definition of narcissism is “excessive interest in one's one self, importance, abilities, etc.; egocentrism.” Yet narcissism is not simply the overvaluing of the self and its abilities, but a concomitant undervaluing of others and their contribution. It is not simply possessing a large amount of self-esteem; it is the simultaneous devaluation of others that is crucial.”

Why is there such an onslaught against Hillary Clinton? Gender? Value-sphere conflict? Race? One guy on a different website was telling me she is a compulsive liar—I asked him to give me one, just one example of her lying, and he couldn't, not even a single example. I wouldn't count Tuzla because she had written about it without the snipers in one of her books, and only an idiot would lie about it after having written it without the snipers, something the other poster agreed with. It's clear she just misremembered that.


David

Re: Election Watch

Hey, thanks for the compliment on February 11, Daniel.  :)

David

Re: Election Watch

At any rate, when I first heard of the RFK remarks I thought, “Oh, that's bad. This really is bad.” Then I heard the clip, and I thought, “That really is bad. What was she thinking there?

Sometimes when the ship is sinking and you are in a panic you will do just about anything, even push others down, in order to stay afloat.

Re: Election Watch

You know, I just don't know.

I actually quite enjoyed Olberman's rant. (An old embattled leftie never dies, lol!) I was upset that Hillary had referenced RFK's assassination in this way, and I'm unable to believe her when she says she was using it to make a point about how long primary seasons last. For one thing: this particular primary season has been longer than ever – whereas in 1968, it didn't get going until March or so. (So of course it would still be happening in June …) For another thing, I simply believe she is too smart and calculating to NOT know the effects her comments could have.

And yet today I'm relooking at my reaction – why am I really so upset that Hillary referenced assassination? Because I'm worried about it actually happening, of course. But who DOESN'T have this worry lingering in their minds already? Hasn't it been here in this history-making Democratic campaign all along? I have a few friends who didn't want Obama (or Hillary!) to run in the first place solely because of this anxiety about assassination.

Are we supposed to “censor” this anxiety now, not allow it into public or political discourse? Olberman seems to think so. I get his point about the lowness of using assassination anxiety as a political tool, but it seems to me he goes further, suggesting that it is morally wrong and dangerous to publically mention or ponder this possibility – even though it's already there in our minds, our hearts, and our history. This troubles me…

Re: Election Watch

I'd rather have it out in the open, Mary. I wonder if he could rent the Popemobile…

Re: Election Watch

e:  Sometimes when the ship is sinking and you are in a panic you will do just about anything, even push others down, in order to stay afloat.

Did you look at the entire interview that I linked? It was in the context of a several-minute discussion about the subject with the editors of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, and they had asked her and continued to ask her about it. She has hundreds of conversations like this, and the media pulls one sentence out of the several-minute discussion and decided to spin it as if Hillary is trying to get Obama assassinated. I can understand people buying the spin only having  seen the 30-second clip, but I think if people see the whole clip and still think she was trying to get Obama assassinated they are either a part of the smear campaign that Obama himself began in the summer of 2007—calling Hillary “dishonest and untrustworthy” in a front-page New York Times interview, without offering any evidence to back it up—easily manipulated, or a little delusional. She didn't put that clip out there—the media decided to extract that one sentence and make a big deal out of it.

She was speaking with the editors of this small paper in South Dakota—the media made it into a national story; Hillary did not. If it had been the first thing out of her mouth, if she had repeated it, perhaps they would have been justified in making a story out of it, but as it is I think it's one of the lowest things that has happened in this campaign that someone decided to extract it and spin it that way. They have no idea what's going on in her head, and considering the circumstances—the location, the small group of editors, that they were asking her about it—I don't see any justification for spinning it that way or even making an issue about it. If people want to take things out of context like that—and there could hardly be a better example of people taking something unfairly out of context and distorting it—they have the right to, but it is not a sign of a healthy, evolved democracy.


David

Re: Election Watch

My general sense is that the media spin is not “Hillary is trying to get Obama assassinated,” but rather: “Hillary is stirring up assassination anxiety in hopes that it will take votes away from Obama and give them to her.”

Re: Election Watch

Hi Mary,

Could you say what sorts of things have informed your impression of that situation? What evidence is there that Hillary is doing this? Do you think Hillary pre-meditated this, or do you think it is a case of shadow surfacing or the like? In either event, what is it that makes you think that she is trying to stir up assassination anxiety? It wasn't her, after all, who made it a story. She said lots of other things in that interview. It wasn't her choice at all to put it in the news—also, the editors there at the table didn't seem surprised by it, did they? Don't you think they might have questioned her if it had seemed to them that she was stirring up assassination anxiety? She had also been asked repeatedly about that issue and was giving the historical context. The 1968 campaign was also the last one she mentioned. Do you think it's possible that  upon remembering the Democratic primary in June 92 it was quite natural of her to remember what must have been an extremely traumatic and memorable Democratic primary of June 1968?

David

Re: Election Watch

David, for me this whole Hillary thing is mostly a gut-level and emotional reaction, and it's of course possible that I'm wrong about her conscious or unconscious motives. Who can really know what another is thinking? And even if she hopes that assassination anxiety will be to her benefit, I didn't think her comment was as calculatingly pre-meditated as “let's see, I'll start mentioning RFK's death at such-and-so point and that should garner me a few more delegates by such-and-so time …”

She hasn't said the word “assassination” more than once in this context, but she has referenced the event itself more than once. If she really only wanted to make a point about how long primary seasons can last, she has her own husband's example that she could (and did) use…

She's been in politics for a long time – and I can't help but think that she has to know by now that anything she says anywhere is grist for the media mill. I can recall how she clearly avoided giving her opinion on Obama's pastor, even when she was asked about it several times – until the whole pastor controversy looked like it might derail Obama's campaign. Only then did she say, “well, I wouldn't have had him as my pastor.” She avoided giving her opinion when doing so might have worked against her, and then she gave it when it looked like it might help her.

That's the type of thing I'm talking about – i.e., more or less spontaneous and play-by-play choices a politician makes rooted in their desire to win and their perception of where they are in the game. And don't most politicians do this – those who go far, at least? Moment by moment they say things, or avoid saying things, with the hopes of creating a certain effect. Sometimes things do backfire, and many times the media do make mountains out of molehills. Hillary apparently didn't anticipate this kind of media response, but I suspect she wanted to create a certain effect by recalling RFK's death. Even if that's not the case, I guess it's the kind of public-relations gaffe that I'd prefer a potential president not make.  

Re: Election Watch

Here is an interesting and mostly great write up about the RFK flap. There's even a response from an Argus Leader editor who was there when she said it. The only thing I can't agree with is the idea that the story was ever newsworthy. I think the media should take some responsibility in situations like this and not always jump for the senstational. It could be harmful. With something like this, they should check first and post later. They posted first and checked later.

May 28, 2008 Politico.com: How Clinton's Sioux Falls comment became big news John F. Harris Politico.com The signature defect of modern political journalism is that it has shredded the ideal of proportionality. Important stories, sometimes the product of months of serious reporting, that in an earlier era would have captured the attention of the entire political-media community and even redirected the course of a presidential campaign, these days can disappear with barely a whisper. Trivial stories - the kind that are tailor-made for forwarding to your brother-in-law or college roommate with a wisecracking note at the top - can dominate the campaign narrative for days. Who can guess what stories will cause the media machine to rev up its hype jets? Actually, I have gotten pretty good at guessing which ones will. So have many of my colleagues and a generation of political operatives. This weekend's uproar over Hillary Rodham Clinton invoking the assassination of Robert Kennedy as rationale for continuing her presidential campaign is an especially vivid example of modern journalism as hyperkinetic child - overstimulated by speed and hunger for a head-turning angle that will draw an audience. The truth about what Clinton said - and any fair-minded appraisal of what she meant - was entirely beside the point. Her comment was news by any standard. But it was only big news when wrested from context and set aflame by a news media more concerned with being interesting and provocative than with being relevant or serious. Thus, the story made the front page of The New York Times, was the lead story of The Washington Post and got prominent treatment on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. What gives? I should say at the outset that I have a pretty good vantage point on this particular case - both as witness of and participant in the echo chamber. On Friday afternoon, I heard my colleague, Politico reporter Jonathan Martin, bellow in excitement as he called me over to his desk. Martin was furiously typing away, not looking up as he told me the latest: Clinton had given an interview to the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota in which she answered inquiries into why she is staying in the race by citing the fact that it's only May, and RFK had been shot and killed in June. Here is what I was thinking: Wow. Maybe she has come unhinged? It's not as though such macabre thoughts have never occurred to me, but for Clinton to give public voice to such a scenario is bizarre. This is going to be a big story and is almost certainly going to shadow and quite likely accelerate the final chapter of her presidential campaign. Here is what I said: Martin, quick get that item up! He needed no prompting. As leaders of a new publication, Politico's senior editors and I are relentlessly focused on audience traffic. The way to build traffic on the Web is to get links from other websites. The way to get links is to be first with news - sometimes big news, sometimes small - that drives that day's conversation. We are unapologetic in our premium on high velocity. In this focus on links and traffic we are not different from nearly all news sites these days, not just new publications but established ones like The New York Times. There are probably a dozen websites with a heavy political emphasis whose links are sought by all for the traffic those links drive. Martin was quick getting the item about Clinton's Argus Leader comment up on his Politico blog. But not as quick as The New York Post, which was the first outside South Dakota to notice Clinton's inflammatory remarks (Martin himself knew about Clinton's remarks from the New York tabloid's story). The Associated Press, in what looked at first blush like a classic example of what reporters call “burying the lead,” had no mention of Clinton's RFK remarks in its original dispatch on the interview. I urged Martin to keep his foot on the gas: Be the first to post reaction from the Obama campaign. Obama spokesman Bill Burton quickly obliged, denouncing Clinton's comments and saying such sentiments have “no place in this campaign.” Burton's comments quickly went into Martin's blog post. Soon enough, several websites and cable news outlets were giving the story trumpet-blaring treatment. Perhaps half an hour after the story broke Martin called me back over to his desk. It turned out the Argus Leader had video of its big interview. I huddled over Martin's computer as we watched. It was a deflating experience. The RFK remarks were deep in a 20-minute clip of an otherwise routine conversation. Then, once we actually got to the relevant portion of the video, it was hardly an electric moment. Clinton does indeed mention the Kennedy assassination, speaking in a calm and analytical tone: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” Martin and I both thought we saw a slight twinge in Clinton's facial expression, as though she recognized she had just said something dumb. Whether she recognized it or not, she had. But it was also clear that Clinton's error was not in saying something beyond the pale but in saying something that pulled from context would sound as if it were beyond the pale. It would be a big story if Clinton said something like this: “Hey, I know it looks bad for me now. But, think about it. Obama could get shot and I'd get to be the nominee after all.” It is a small story if Clinton said something like this: “Everyone talks like May is incredibly late, but by historical standards it is not. Think of all the famous milestones in presidential races that have taken place during June.” It seems pretty obvious that the latter is what Clinton meant, and not too far from what she actually said. It was not surprising that the Argus Leader's executive editor, Randell Beck, put out a statement saying, “Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the time line of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself.” Make no mistake. Clinton stepped on a rake with her comment and got bopped in the face. This was entertaining political slapstick, for those of us who like that kind of thing. Little wonder she apologized. But Clinton's clumsiness does not excuse news media clumsiness in making a minor story seem like a major one. A note on the randomness of the news: If this really was a big story, then the media has blown it for months. Clinton made similar remarks to Time magazine back in March. (The Wall Street Journal reporter with Clinton has an entertaining look at how the pack traveling with the candidate initially missed the story.) Keeping one's journalistic bearings amid a hype storm is a challenge for every publication, this one included. In the early months of this publication (we launched in January 2007), a short news item broken by Ben Smith about John Edwards' $400 haircut became one of our most-trafficked stories. I thought we handled that news nugget with a decent sense of proportion. The item, for instance, never led our site. But it's true I was not exactly despairing when other websites and cable TV networks went way overboard on the story, with citations to Politico. Nor is this column intended as a mea culpa for Hillary Hype. Velocity is a virtue in the Web world, and we are not going to stop trying to be fast off the mark - for relevant and fairly reported stories. What Clinton said about Robert Kennedy, whether it was cold or just a bit clueless, was newsworthy, and Martin's original blog post was responsible in framing the context of her remark. He was equally quick to post her clarification and apology. The uproar was never the lead of our site. But it was striking to see the broadcast networks and big papers, which were still going at full boil that evening and the next morning even though they had plenty of time to assess the (dwindling) significance of the story as the day wore on. (Meanwhile Friday, Obama was giving a major foreign-policy speech in Miami to unveil his plan for Latin America.) In an earlier era, these establishment outlets prized their role in promoting and preserving high standards of relevance. In this era, with their business model challenged by the Web and other forces, and in the same scramble for audience as everyone else, these fabled elite media organs are if anything more buffeted by sensationalism and whimsy than their new media counterparts. Once, the elite papers and network news set the agenda, and others followed suit, following up on what these establishment pillars deemed important. Now it's just the opposite. The conservative old voices increasingly take their cues from the newer, more daring ones. The distinguishing feature of most political hype storms is that they pass quickly. Who the hell can remember what we were up in arms about last month? Wasn't it something about Sinbad and a telecom lobbyist who was bitter about being a Muslim? In that sense, a news culture in which - like the amplifiers for “Spinal Tap” that go up to 11 - everything is exaggerated may not seem like a big deal. But the consequences are more serious than meets the eye. The uproar du jour mentality in the media can be a hassle for public officials, but it can also be their friend. Hillary Clinton, for instance, can be glad that a serious look by The New York Times about Bill Clinton's dealings with a Canadian tycoon trying to curry favor with a dictatorship never generated much interest from other media. Politicians know that as long as they have a base of support they can probably ride out any story confident that the pack will soon move on. Only a news media with the focus and discipline to distinguish a big story from a small one can hold politicians accountable - and produce the work that deserves an audience.

Re: Election Watch

Hi Mary, I think Hillary's response about the Rev. Wright deal is even worse than you say. At first she was pleased as punch it came along, then pleased as punch that everyone made a big deal over it, but then she made her sniper remarks and all the attention turned to her. This she didn't like, and that's when she, at a press conference, said that she wouldn't have chosen Rev. Wright as a minister. She was happily silent before that. She wanted to turn the attention back on Barack and Rev. Wright, but it didn't work. It looked inauthentic, and people mocked her for it. There have been a few times she hasn't played things well like that, but I think the same could be said of Barack.

At any rate, I think you're right: It's hard to know what's in a person's mind. It may well have been some unfair remark she made or some deep, dark wish rising to the surface, but it's also possible it was an innocent remark but people wanted to spin it that way. It looked to me like it was innocent when I watched the tape, but when I think about it without looking at the tape it's harder to tell. Of course, whether it was innocent or not, a lot of Obama fans used it to their advantage, as the Obama campaign did initially, when perhaps they knew it could have been innocent or perhaps didn't really care whether it was or wasn't.

The divisions are pretty deep right now with the Democrats. I wonder what they can do to heal it. It won't be a simple matter, especially with McCain, the one Republican Democrats would consider voting for, running on the other side. If Hillary's fans feel that she was forced out before she wanted to leave, I think many just might vote for John McCain. I think the best thing Democrats could do might be to let it go all the way to the convention and let Hillary fight it to the bitter end if she wants to. If they feel she's been given a fair shake, which many believe she hasn't, they will be much more likely to vote for Obama.

Blessings,

David

Re: Election Watch

If I recall correctly, in Olberman's “rant,” he played a handful of clips of her repeatedly making this remark, or actually making something close to it, but not quite so clear in its implications.  So, it seems at least it has been a theme she has been returning to over awhile now.

Re: Election Watch

Good grief, I just watched that Olberman video again. Rant indeed. This is tabloid journalism on camera, and oh, so postmodern, so void of any helpful information. One of the things that stands out—he forgave Hillary for complaining about calls for her to drop out of the race, or something along those lines, “while such calls have been few.” Have been few? Trying to get her to drop out of the race has been as staple of the Obama campaign and its surrogates for months. There has simply been an endless, unbroken call for her to step out of the race, and then Obama gets up says, “I think she has every right to run as long as she wants”—a fine example of him saying one thing and instructing his campaign to do another. It works for many, apparently, but many also see the hypocrisy in it.

At any rate, these candidates repeat themselves again and again throughout the country. You will hear the same answer to the same question a thousand times if you follow them around. In an off-camera interview she used the word “assassination” in reference to the 68 campaign in March, and a few other times she simply referenced the 68 campaign, at various stops around the country since she has to repeat the answer in each media area each time she is asked the question. Everywhere Obama supporters in the media and in the crowds ask her why she doesn't drop out of the race, and she gives the historical context, which includes the 68 campaign. But she's not making an issue out of it; the Obama campaign and their supporters in the media and elswhere are making an issue out of it. If people stopped asking her why she won't drop out of the race, she could stop saying that candidates don't have to drop out of the race if they don't want to and have never been expected to in any previous campaign.

Also, I think it's understandable especially a day or two after Kennedy's stroke. I took a little stroll into Kennedy history myself at that point. I am sure Hillary, who lived through both assassinations, did the same. It's just opportunism on the part of Obama's supporters, and ironically, it is their making an issue out of it that would increase the chances of it doing any sort of harm, if it had the potential to do any harm, which is questionable. But the real reason that they have been asking her to get out of the race and have been taking her words out of context and distorting them like this is that they still feel threatened by her. They are shooting themselves in the foot. James Carville made the point months ago that the way to unify the party behind Barack Obama is not to villify Hillary and try to drive her out of the race, and this is quite true.

If Barack loses to McCain, all of Barack's supporters will say it's because of racism or because of Hillary, but the real truth is that he was never as strong politically as the delegate count and MSNBC made him out to be—Hillary would be winning if the delegates were awarded on a winner-take-all basis as they are in the general election and many of Obama's delegates were won in caucuses—and he has done an awful lot to alienate Amber, Orange, and Hillary Clinton fans (particularly the women)  who might have voted for him.


David

Re: Election Watch

At the same time, a number of polls show that states or voter-blocks that had been more heavily in favor of Clinton are now in favor of Obama.

But I'm not going to debate these issues with you.  You appear to have some very strong opinions on these issues – stronger than mine.

I used to more strongly support Obama than I do now.  I've moved closer to the position I've inhabited in previous elections: not really “sold” on any of the candidates, but making a choice anyway … halfway simply to oppose options that seem worse.

Whoever inherits the mantle is going to have a very large mess to clean up, and I don't envy them.

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Election Watch

I'm not aware of any polls taken of states after their primaries. Could you show me one?

I'm not strongly against Obama; I'm just strongly against things that aren't fair or aren't true. I'll probably vote for Obama, but I'm waiting to see who they choose as their running mates.


David

Re: Election Watch

Speaking of running mates, McCain's is going to be important. He's had cancer three times already, right? And he's old. If he got a really great running mate, he could be a big threat. OTOH, maybe he won't even make it through the election. What would happen then???

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Yes, I think McCain's running mate will be really important, but I think Obama's will too. I bet McCain will either pick Romney or Florida Governor Crist, though I think Lieberman would be the best choice and the only choice that would really make it a moderate ticket.

I predict that Obama will either pick Hillary or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. He must win Ohio, and I don't think he can do it without Hillary or Strickland. I think they might be beginning to see that they can't do it without Hillary though, that the party would be too divided if that didn't happen.

The polls really haven't been looking great for Obama in the general election, not in the electoral college. Lanny Davis, who is a Clinton supporter, gives us a rundown that is a little biased of course but still accurate:

“According to Gallup's May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation's voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama's 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup's state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points - a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states - constituting 105 electoral votes - are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses - Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half - 54 - of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup's findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

- Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

- Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

- Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

- North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

- Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin - one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.”

From this article.

He ends the article this way:

“But there is one possible scenario that avoids disappointment and frustration by passionate supporters of both candidates, that combines the strengths of one with the strengths of the other, and that virtually guarantees the election of a Democratic president in 2008:

A Clinton-Obama or an Obama-Clinton ticket.

Stay tuned.”

Republicans are actually feeling good about their chances in light of the electoral college dynamics, but I think those hopes would be dashed if these two came together.

David

PS. Hillary gave Obama a real thumping in Puerto Rico—by 36 points—but the turnout was lower than they had hoped, just under 400,000 when there was a possibility for 2 million. So she just picked up about 140,000 votes.

Re: Election Watch

If they can put the past behind them, and I think they're both smart enough to do so, an Obama/Clinton ticket would be ideal. His vision, her experience and connections. And you know, she would change the office of the Vice President forever. She could make it powerful and useful. She did it, after all, with the First Lady-ship!

Dear God, I hope neither of them is stupid enough to blow this election.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

I agree except for the vision part. I think Obama's vision is old hat to Hillary. He needs to see that her vision is more deeply integral in one or two areas, particularly with regard to foreign policy. That's not to say I think her vision is superior on all counts—I think Obama's is likely better in some areas. Having the two there together would be ideal because that they could balance eachother out. It would also be great if the Clinton's could get Obama into Ken Wilber. I know that Ken said Obama was aware of it, but he didn't offer evidence for it as he did with the others, so I wonder if he was just playing politics himself because it's such an emotional situation for many people.

But if Obama doesn't start looking better in the electoral college, the superdelegates should take over. That's what they are there for. Before 1972 the nomination was often decided in “smoke-filled rooms,” like in 1968 when they nominated Humphrey who barely participated in the primaries. In 1968, seeing this, the Red/Green faction of the party went nuts. So then the DNC gave the power to the people in 1972, and the people elected McGovern, who was trounced by Richard Nixon—Nixon won 49 states and the popular vote by 23 points.

The superdelegate system was put in place in 1982 to avoid such an outcome, to make sure they nominated someone who could win, but the Obama campaign and their supporters are saying it would be anti-democratic for the superdelegates to carry out this duty, and most superdelegates aren't showing any backbone about it either. I'm not saying that the superdelegates should act in this case—it's too early to tell—but to say categorically that they shouldn't is just a political position to back Obama. The same people would be arguing the other side if the situation were reversed.


David

Re: Election Watch

So Obama has chosen Joe Biden as VP.

How do you feel about that? Anyone want to share their impressions?

As for McCain… his camp is said to be in a panic regarding their options from what I hear. This account of McCain's running mate dilemma is the most thorough I've seen so far.

Cheers! cuz I'm cautiously hopeful with Biden backing my guy.

m

Re: Election Watch

Well, Biden looks like a solid choice – likely the best option. He's strong, has experience, and can be the seasoned “attack dog” during the rest of the campaign while Obama continues in his sincere, even-handed, unite-the-people-in-hope stride.  

And I just saw Michelle Obama's keynote convention speech, which was superb.

I can't help but fantasize about the great and small changes the world could be in for if Obama were U.S. president. Still and all, there's a little cynic in me who says it's not going to happen …. I saw poll results today showing Obama and McCain were neck-in-neck, which means that Obama has lost some ground. Maybe the convention will change that …. we'll see.  But I think we're stll in a situation where voting results in key areas could be manipulated in the same way they were in the last 2 elections. Thus: unless an unusually large number of folks turn out to vote, the election will be so close that it will be easy to tip the results in favor of the powers-that-be-and-that-have-been-for-too-damn-long …

Once again: we gotta encourage people to vote, and be on the look out for intimidation tactics that might keep people from voting.

I guess I haven't really recovered from the shock of the last 2 elections – esp. the shock of Bush becoming president again in 2004 ….. but who knows? Perhaps there's a pleasant surprise in store for the world.

No matter who wins, we'll certainly have our work cut out for us as we try to dig ourselves out from the damage that's been done this past 8 years.

Wanting Obama to win any ole way,
Mary

Re: Election Watch

I guess I haven't really recovered from the shock of the last 2 elections - esp. the shock of Bush becoming president again in 2004 ….. but who knows? Perhaps there's a pleasant surprise in store for the world.

Oh my, do I hope so.  Here's to surprises.  I've always been a fan of them myself.  I also saw Michelle Obama's speech, which moved me to tears.  Ted Kennedy was a wonderful surprise as well.

I don't know anything about Biden's political leanings.  But I do love that he seems accessible.  Open, friendly, down-to-earth.  It's refreshing.

Re: Election Watch

Yo Mary and Elizabeth,

you've got me mumbling “amen” under my breath to just about everything you wrote. After Cheney Inc & BushCo stole the elections a second time in 2004, I experienced what it's like to have some of the symptoms of actual clinical depression. That was a first. I tend to be an enthusiast, someone who likes to laugh a lot and see silver linings in just about everything.

Joe Biden… without knowing much more about the guy than his voting record in the Senate (not great, mixed bag at best), I looked at footage of him walking and talking to get a direct hit, an intuitive impression, to suss out who we're dealing with. My inner navigator reads volumes of info in seconds, layers upon layers of clues that the intellect by itself could never accumulate, let alone interpret even halfway correctly. So I get the sense that he's a genuine “civil servant” type - by no means immune to corruption, but not one of the predatory low-lives that populate the political scene either. Nor a snake-oil salesman or a bureaucratic parasite with no internal vision.

Good, so he's a good guy according to my visceral first reading. Not perfect by any means, (no one is). But there's a pretty solid mid-section (Hara, power center). Then I see a heart-center that is somewhat darkened with scars, old pain and suffering. But the Hara and heart are nicely connected to this guy's head, not cut off like in so many other politicians. So, Biden can speak what he knows in his guts, and he is still in touch with his heart's vision after all those years in the swamps of Washington. And he's bright and articulate to boot…

Yeah, he's probably the best choice Obama could make under the circumstances. At least I don't know of anyone better.  Do you?


As for those freakin' polls that come out every five minutes, I've learned that it's all about Buyer Beware and Consider The Source - as usual.

I've done some research into the hidden machinations that lead to these poll results.
 
1) You can't trust anything put out by the AP (Associated Press). They're not reporting the news, just disseminating talking points put out by the Propaganda Ministry, er, the White House. Same goes for CNN, ABC and, argh… the list is too long.

2) The corporate media need a horse race to boost their ratings and ad sales. Republicans need the race to look as close as possible so they can change the election results at the central tabulator level and elsewhere. That's why they've installed all those hackable voting machines without paper trails so fast, it made your head spin after the year 2000 (s)election.

3) Young people likely to vote Democratic use cell phones and aren't reached as often as older demographics in these telephone polls that target listed names via landlines.

4) Far more people have registered as Democrats and Independents this year than as Republicans. In fact, Republicans are bleeding registered voters by the millions. Corp-media polls don't reflect this simple fact. Why not? See above.

My favorite math wizard puts out a “Poll of Polls meta-calculation” bonanza once a week. He predicted the presidential nomination results correctly all along, months ahead of everyone else except for one other guy who posts on Daily Kos.

Check out

THE MATH Weekly – For the Week Ending Sunday, August 24 – Obama 314, McCain 224

by phrigndumass (yep, he's a very self-effacing wizard).

Phrig's numbers show the projected electoral college vote which decides a Presidential election in the US. Obama, with 314 likely votes at this time, is ahead of McCain by 90 votes. Does that make you feel better? I does me :)

Re: Election Watch

also…

It seems almost churlish to look at some actual facts. No presidential candidate was breaking the 50 percent mark in mid-August polls in 2004 or 2000. Obama's average lead of three to four points is marginally larger than both John Kerry's and Al Gore's leads then (each was winning by one point in Gallup surveys). Obama is also ahead of Ronald Reagan in mid-August 1980 (40 percent to Jimmy Carter's 46). At Pollster.com, which aggregates polls and gauges the electoral count, Obama as of Friday stood at 284 electoral votes, McCain at 169. That means McCain could win all 85 electoral votes in current toss-up states and still lose the election.

Yet surely, we keep hearing, Obama should be running away with the thing. Even Michael Dukakis was beating the first George Bush by 17 percentage points in the summer of 1988. Of course, were Obama ahead by 17 points today, the same prognosticators now fussing over his narrow lead would be predicting that the arrogant and presumptuous Obama was destined to squander that landslide on vacation and tank just like his hapless predecessor.

The truth is we have no idea what will happen in November…

Re: Election Watch

Mascha: Presidential election in the US. Obama, with 314 likely votes at this time, is ahead of McCain by 90 votes. Does that make you feel better? I does me :)

Yes, it does actually make me feel better, Mascha –  :-) and I know (or at least I fergodsake should know) better than to fall for some mainstream news station's blurb about unspecified “polls.” I mean – remember all those months that CNN and whatnot kept saying how far Hillary was ahead of Obama? (Hillary, BTW, gave a kick-ass “unite the party” speech tonight at the Dem convention …. and I don't know how long it's been that I truly enjoyed watching political convention coverage. This time feels special. Like something's really happening.)

I also recall a conversation on the Integral Naked forum a few years ago, when some folks had begun musing about who might run for pres in 08. Obama's name came up – and then it was brought to our attention that his middle name is Hussein. Surely, we figured, someone whose name rhymes with “Osama”  and whose middle name is Hussein could never be nominated, much less become president  … this country just wasn't ready for that…

Back then, even just two years ago, who even imagined a Democratic convention such as  this one's turning out to be?

And yet, as the article that Arthur cited mentions, the truth is we have no idea what will happen in November.

Or even tomorrow, for that matter. I heard a brief report around noon today about an assassination plot on Obama that was foiled – security found some racist meth-heads with rifles who allegedly were planning to aim for Obama during his nomination acceptance speech on Thursday. Although there's certainly tighter security these days, such threats are always out there. I'm quite in awe of the courage of the Obama family. And …. deeply proud of them. Afraid for them. Yet hopeful in spite of everything.

I – and several of my voting-for-Obama friends, are in this paradoxical place: hopeful within our cynicism, pessimistic within our idealistic yearning. I know that I can only embrace what is, yet I'm undeniably hungry – no, ravenous – for a sea-change, for winds blowing from a different direction, for some dream to come to fruition. 

Sometimes I wish I weren't such a fool for love. But that's just what I am!  

Mary

Re: Election Watch

Mary

I - and several of my voting-for-Obama friends, are in this paradoxical place: hopeful within our cynicism, pessimistic within our idealistic yearning. I know that I can only embrace what is, yet I'm undeniably hungry - no, ravenous - for a sea-change, for winds blowing from a different direction, for some dream to come to fruition. 

In another life, you could have been a Scottish Nationalist. I#ve spent all my adult life waiting and working for that change. Finally we are in control of the Scottish parliament, it's like a gift of trust won by long years of effort building credibility in local and regional elections. Sooner or later, people will be ready for change, its just a question of being willing to wait. But don't we live in interesting times?

I thought you might like this:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3xz3wYy9xo

hugs

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Aye, Tiki-Liz, thank you for your words and for that song, which brought tears to my eyes ….

You wrote: Sooner or later, people will be ready for change, its just a question of being willing to wait. But don't we live in interesting times?

Which reminds me of another song  , bittersweet and open-hearted, that also brings tears to my eyes ….

Hugs back, lassie  :-)

Mary

Re: Election Watch

Oh, the irony… A guy I know is reporting from the Denver Mile High stadium where Barack just gave his acceptance speech to a packed house of over 75,000 people. I haven't seen the speech cuz I had to work :(  

He writes: “On the drive back to the hotel, the BBC was reporting that Republicans seemed “hurt” that [Obama] was so mean to them tonight. That cracked me up…”

I've been waiting for almost 8 interminable years for the US to stand up to these bullies… Please tell me the backlash cometh.

Re: Election Watch

Just wait 'till you hear that speech! It was spectacular.

If you get a chance to see the C-SPAN footage of it, that will give you the best view. Seeing the delightful variety of people gathered there, and the expressions on their faces as Obama was hitting it home – it don't get much better than that.

I think some Republicans might feel “hurt” because Obama actually wasn't mean to McCain. If he had been, that would be easier fodder for attack. Instead, Obama spoke about McCain with respect, yet – with clarity, strength, and passion – pointed out how his policies and choices differ from McCain's, as well as how damaging the “leadership” of the last 8 years has been, contrasting that with the ideas he has for cleaning up this mess we're in. 

The speech is also full of some great rhetorical flourishes – and peppered with big dreams – meaning that critics will probably try to discredit it because of its “grandiosity.” But that will be difficult to do, I think. It's hard to tamp down hope and idealism when you see such an address, charged with appeals to unity-in-diversity, given on the 45th anniversary of MLK's “Dream” speech. At the end of the speech, when Biden's and Obama's families all gathered on the stage, the camera focused for a moment on Obama's youngest daughter and Biden's granddaughter, little girls about the same age, playing together and smiling. King's Dream has come true.

Re: Election Watch

“King's Dream has come true.”

Aahh, the chills it gives me to hear that.

I HAVE A DREAM…






Hey, MLK, are you watching too?

.

Re: Election Watch

Analysis: 'Born in the USA' returns to politics

By TED ANTHONY, AP National WriterThu Aug 28, 10:38 PM ET

A generation after Ronald Reagan famously mistook Bruce Springsteen's music for uncritical patriotism, Democrats claimed “Born in the USA” on Thursday for the theme it was meant to project - to describe a splintered country they say desperately needs new policies and new dreams.

Delegates danced, cheered and waved flags Thursday night as Springsteen's arena-rock anthem brought the final evening of the Democratic National Convention to life. It was a significant moment - and a sign that, unlike in Reagan's 1984 campaign, the Democrats are exhibiting savvy about their use of music in political settings.

Though he never actually used the music in his campaign as widely believed, Reagan famously interpreted Springsteen's music as a “message of hope” for the nation. The song and album “Born in the USA” were popular at the time, and most assumed Reagan was referring to them. Springsteen, a Democrat, bristled at his art being invoked for causes he opposed.

But using “Born in the USA” in the finale of this year's convention - and letting the entire song play through while cameras pan the crowd - fits the goals of Barack Obama, whom Springsteen has endorsed.

“Born in the USA” tells of a man who was “born down in a dead man's town,” got sent to fight in Vietnam and returned home to no job and few veterans' benefits. The song ends with little hope:

“Down in the shadow of the penitentiary

Out by the gas fires of the refinery

Ten years burnin' down the road

Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go.”

After eight years of the administration of George W. Bush, whose father was Reagan's vice president, Obama says major changes and an infusion of hope are needed to get America back on track.

His speech Thursday night hit some of those themes. It said America was locked in “one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil and the American promise has been threatened once more.”

While “Born in the USA” spoke of the effects of Vietnam, Obama's speech spoke of the effects of Iraq. While the song spoke of a man turned away from work at the town refinery, Obama bemoaned a government that he said “lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty.”

But while the song ends on a sour note, Obama's “everyday American” theme insists that a Democratic administration can restore the chances - and the future - of people like Springsteen's protagonist.

Whether that's the case or not, one thing is clear: In a political landscape where context is often in short supply, the Democrats' use of music Thursday night was right on the mark - a very rare event when songs and politics collide.


Bruce Springsteen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPudiBR15mk

Re: Election Watch

Dan –

I'm thinking that whoever “deejayed” the Dem convention really enjoyed themselves – I was paying attention to the way various songs, themes, tones were used …. Each speaker was introduced with a piece of music …. did anyone notice how Al Gore kinda danced/strutted out to the tune of “Let the Sunshine In?” (i.e., the last half of this song).

In other news: McCain has just selected Susan Palin, the 44-year-old-almost-new governor of Alaska, as his running mate. So there: the repubs can play the young, sexy, and inexperienced card too!

Re: Election Watch

Hey everyone,

I watched the speech live at work and I was enrapt (is that a word?).  Awesome.  And yes about time that we saw democrats get stark and tough.  He was tough about giving respect to McCain, and also about pushing back in the face of MCain's stale tactics.

I had a dream last night that in the debates Barack was asked:

If you did get a 3 am call, what would be your next steps? (who would you call, what would you prioritise whta questions would you ask and to whom).  Seems like a good job interview question to me! I hope someone is running through scenarios with him!

Gitanjali 

Re: Election Watch

Oops: make that Sarah Palin

(could've sworn she was first introduced as Susan, though …)

Re: Election Watch

She's a Susan underneath. You must have picked up on that.

;0

Re: Election Watch

Woohoo! what a morning we're having in America, land of the brainwashed and spineless. No, just teasing – great country. Ahem. The majority of roughly 75% says the US is on the wrong track.

So, McCain chose Sarah Palin, an ex-beauty queen, to become Commander in Chief of the most lethal army the world has ever seen if something happened to the old man. I can't stop grinning in that special knowing, eye-rolling way. Boy, what a crassly pandering move to garner the votes of disaffected Hillary-fans - and that's just the top of that pile of humungous BS.

But reading nuggets like this one also stokes the old outrage I have in my guts for being taken for these medieval hell-rides by the Old-Boys-Club, together with all other females:

“Palin is not just anti-choice, she’s opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire,  “Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races,” accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, “Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate,” 11/03/06.]  Palin is also a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life.”

Now, this is where I want to summon mother Kali with her scythe and beseech her to go forth cutting down some wanna-be Dicks with her legendary precision.

Re: Election Watch

Mascha I hope this seriously backfires on him!

Re: Election Watch

His choosing her looks like an act of desperation to me ….

Re: Election Watch

Gitanjali: Mascha I hope this seriously backfires on him!

Fish. Barrel.

Shoot.

Get yer guns, girls.

Re: Election Watch

Re: Election Watch

I'm dumfounded.  How ridiculous!  This is not coming from my highest self, but I hope that the acknowledgement of that contextualizes my mean-spirited comments within an intention to transcend and include them, rather than identify with them.  OK, now that I've gotten al those qualifiers out of the way …

1) I hope the media give her all sorts of shit – like they did with Hillary in the “Diamonds or pearls?” encounter, but much worse!
2) I hope there are enough petty bitches within the Republican party whose pettiness will overcome their Republicanism, and they'll refuse to vote for her, clinching the election for Obama.

And of course, as I've learned from “The Secret,” my thoughts create reality, so I'm busy manifesting all this as we speak.

Re: Election Watch

Ok, is it wrong that I'm just enjoying the fact that someone who is 44 is considered young and sexy?

I'm back in the game! lol.

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Oh girl. Of course you're sexy, silly!

Re: Election Watch

Liz: Ok, is it wrong that I'm just enjoying the fact that someone who is 44 is considered young and sexy?

I'm back in the game! lol.

~~~

lqoi - you never left the game, baby.  :)

spirals,
Arthur

p.s. I've got to see this speech you're all talking about…anybody have links to a full clip of that?

Re: Election Watch

Here's one Arthur

www.gallery1.demconvention.com

Also here's one democrats reaction to the Palin

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html

Re: Election Watch

You can watch the video here (I haven't gotten around to it either yet).

Barack Obama Democratic Convention Speech (VIDEO) (TEXT)


….Speaking of backfiring - this is a reaction to McCain's choice by one of the more vocal Hillary Clinton admirers who kept threatening they'd vote for MacBush because Obama supporters weren't “nice” to them:

Marrah_G      (original message - Fri Aug-29-08 10:21 AM)

I am angry
   
I should be happy. McCain picked a totally unqualified running mate.

But I realize why it is that I am angry.

This woman is a reminder of how older, intelligent qualified women are stepped over time and again by the pretty ones. The ones with no qualifications besides breasts and a peppy smile.

We, as women have seen this time and time again since birth. You can be dumb as a rock or mean as a viper and as long as you are pretty, life will treat you well. Those of us who were not blessed with good looks, have to work 100X harder and even then, it's often not good enough.

I am furious that this glorified cheerleader, with no experience, may end up with control if the largest scariest military in the world and no fucking clue what to do with it.

I am furious.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tell 'em like it is, Marrah G. Don't be shy now, and vote your conscience ;)

Re: Election Watch

If I were a woman, I'd feel the same way. Hell, I'm a man and I'm pissed he didn't someone who is QUALIFIED, man or woman.

Peace,
Bill

Re: Election Watch

I can't find a link to the video of the speech yet, but I'm sure it will be You-Tubed soon …

HEY: NEVER MIND! MASCHA – and GITANJALI too – JUST LINKED IT!

:-)  :-)  :-)  Thanks M & G!

(and it is something that really should be seen and heard, not just read)

Re: Election Watch

Finally!  I can post!  (Grumbling about 2 hours of Gaia's post-mangling)

Watch the Obama speech.  This has been a week that has moved me to tears for one reason or another, and this speech is a BIG reason.  It's eloquent, it's beautiful, and it makes me hope that politics is indeed growing up.

Here's the reaction to the Palin pick from all my perspectives:

Inner Historian:  We are now in a position where, regardless of the outcome, we are garunteed that one of the two highest positions in our nation will be filled by someone other than an old white man.  This totally blows the roof off of how we view positions of power and leadership in this country.

Inner Democrat: LOL!!  Is McCain serious?  He made his main platform against Obama an issue of experience, and this is who he picks?  What an obvious pandering to the Hilary supporters.

Inner Republican: What?  What is McCain doing?  She seems fiscally responsible, but does she have a grasp on national security?  Foreign policy?  She said she hasn't had much interest in the war in Iraq… What if McCain takes a nap and ends up at that Big Republican Convention in the sky?

Inner Woman: I'm offended that McCain thinks he can woo me with another set of ovaries.  And this particular set apparently opposes abortion rights, even in the cases of rape and incest.

Inner Strategist: Well, it certainly changed the conversation today in the news.  And some people may view it as McCain's “Maverick” push again.

Inner Goth: F*$%in'  beauty queen.

Forgive me… it's Friday, and I've had a beer or two.

Shaking my head,
Elizabeth

Re: Election Watch

Elizabeth – I love those observations and rants of your innards!   :-)

And okay: I'll admit to my Inner Petty Bitch who is saying: “shit, even her high tinny voice is fucking irritating!”

(And I haven't even had any beer. 'Scuse me, Jesus).

Re: Election Watch

“'Scuse me, Jesus.”

No need. You're soo cute when you're angry, Mary.

- 


“Elizabeth – I love those observations and rants of your innards!”

Seconded.

- m

Re: Election Watch

Mary:

LOL!  I'm raising my beer to the Inner Petty Bitches everywhere!

Something that occured to me during my third beer:  The experience issue.  I'm just dying for some Democrat analyst to say the following:

“If we're talking about Gov. Palin's experience and Senator Obama's experience, the selection process of these two individuals is as different as night and day.  Senator Obama held a long, hard primary against an experienced and worthy opponent, and in the end, the people of the Democratic party voted for and nomintated him.  As far as the party in concerned, he has proven himself and earned the nomination.  Gof. Palin hasn't hardly made a blip on the national radar, in fact, we're not even sure how to pronounce her name.  Senator McCain picked her and unveiled her as today's surprise!  Of course we're going to question her experience!”

Why is no one saying this?  Come on, Rachel Maddow, step up to the plate and save the day!

*sip*
Elizabeth

Re: Election Watch

Oh my flying noodly appendage, would this be a shot of her living room?



Palin loves hunting
_____________________________________________

Right now I can't imagine any other explanation for this move than what I suggested before in the Obama thread. Republicans behind the scenes know they've killed the golden goose, so they're throwing this election to the Democrats. McCain and Palin are their sacrificial goats, thrown to the dogs who will be hard-pressed to clean up after Bush's disastrous administration. McCain/Palin are pushed out front because they are expendable.

Re: Election Watch

I recall the comment on the obama thread ' don't you want to vote for a woman' and my wanting to puke ..That emotional viseral intelligent response I often have , still, to sexism. Yet I  had to smile at the sexism of  the Palin -ploy.As if something within the biological trumped common sense and that somehow the presented  vp-in-body -of-a-woman would eclipse everything Obama has and does stand for.   

  Often I see matters which play to an undercurrent of  arrested psychological development wrapped up in gender politics, literally.I've never thought Hillary Clinton was the better candidate because she did not embody my priorities  and perspective ( and hopes)in the way Obama does, but I feel the Palin choice was a misogynistic slight of hand.Actually a play on all the reasons why women were denied the vote for so long, the notion that   female biology and the capacity for rational thought are incompatible. That female biology and embodiment equate to an ease of manipulation, that women are all emotions and sisterhood.'

.And yet somehow this a female who opposes a woman's right to chose .A woman who would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest .Her interior  to me doesn't feel as feminine as Obama's when it comes to woman's rights.Time will tell but my hope is that Obama also has the luck of the times on his side with this pick.And despite preferring Obama over Clinton, i feel the choice of Palin is no compliment to Clinton, but a rather cynical attempt to exploit her .   

Re: Election Watch

Bring on Racheal Maddow to belly laugh this ploy away and call it out for what it is.

Re: Election Watch

Despite the smug satisfaction I feel that in desperation McSame chose a woman, that the game has come down to this (what's the world coming to, for heaven's sake!), that they could not evade terrible karma any which way they turned seeking a veep candidate with enough fairy dust to swing the loyalties of the populace back their way (and wouldn't it be glorious if someday there's a real fairy on the republican ticket because it's the best strategy they can think of?), despite all the glee and giddyness, I'm scared. Because, what if she were president?? In a way the perfect follow up to the vapidity of the Bush presidency – McCain spouting bullshit and parading his floundering soul on the world stage, before a potential untimely demise that leaves the woman lounging on the bear hide in charge? Oh fuck. Okay, I don't think it will happen that way, but don't think it can't happen.

Re: Election Watch

beyond the shock, and pushing Obama off the news cycle I am unclear what the choice furthers. Some female ( and male )voters, either die hard Hillary types or simply rascist types were not going to vote for Obama anyway.McCain already had them in the bag. Who does Palin appeal to?


Still, if she has anything lurking in her closet it will come out and it will get ugly. ( and it already is online ) Actually the hard core Hillary voters  might be so insulted that they'll go after her in the way that   only the  kali-esqe women scorned / women thoroughly pissed off, can do.

Its one thing for hillary not to get it, its quite another for the fur wearing moose eating once a beauty queen to get into the oval office.


I believe this pick was a gift to the Obama camp. But beneath McCains pick  I also detect a maculine energy of the type that makes my skin crawl. Divide them, then rule them. Grab those women by their out of control  emotions, and their votes will follow.  

If there is no'' feminine feminist outcry over Palin then  when WADE V Roe is over turned should Mc Cain win, I won't shed any tears .

Re: Election Watch

But beneath McCains pick  I also detect a maculine energy of the type that makes my skin crawl. Divide them, then rule them. … If there is no'' feminine feminist outcry over Palin then  when WADE V Roe is over turned should Mc Cain win, I won't shed any tears .

Augustina, I hadn't thought about it that way, and there is something frightening about this.  But there's another aspect to it that is so obvious, it's laughable.  On MSNBC, Pat Buchannan (sp?) was praising Palin as McCain's pick, by saying “She's an intelligent girl, an articulate girl, a lovely girl…” Either Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman had to break in and say, “Uh, Pat, a lady who has reached the age of 44 is usually referred to as a woman…”  I think we're going to see a lot of crazy shadow material crawling out of the woodwork - more than we have already!

I fully expect the mature masculine perspective to rise to this occasion as well; the one Obama talked about in his speech; he wants his daughters to get the same opportunities as other people's sons.  (And in an honest, qualified way.)  I appreciate what Bill said above, and I hope more men have the courage to join the discussion.

At any rate, it's a new day.  We'll see if the sugar rush that hit the nation yesterday results in a big crashdown.

Re: Election Watch

Over in the Integral Archipelago Rick started an interesting thread on current politics, opening the conversation with the question of whether Americans actually want change. He posted a video of Bill Moyers interviewing history and international relations expert and former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich, which offers an interesting perspective on the fix we find ourselves in. Bacevich asserts that our biggest problems lie within, and that the solutions will require an honest look in the mirror. One interesting quote: “Every president since Reagan has relied on military power to conceal or manage those (of our) problems that stem from the nation's habits of profligacy.” You can find the video here. And you can read the Archipelago thread here.

Re: Election Watch

Just a quick clarification:

Re: Election Watch

Hi Lauren

Thanks for cross posting.

I think the question of our readiness for change and our own personal responsibility for it is a critical one and not just in the US.
Unfortunately I think the real driver for change for the vast majority will be personal pain - we'll change when it becomes too painful to remain the same in many instances. Now that fuel prices are soaring here in the UK people are starting to change behaviours whether that's driving habits, fuel economy in the home, eating habits or whatever.
This puts politicians in a very difficult position, to create change they need to be the instigators of that pain (e.g. congestion charges for major cities), that makes them unpopular and their positions are dependent upon us 'liking' them.

Juliee

Re: Election Watch

Juliee and Mary, your posts really put into perspective how the addiction dynamic is operating for us collectively.  Comfort vs. change/growth:  do I wake up in the morning and take a swig of booze to calm the impending shakes, or do I put down the bottle, suffer from DT's, and have to go through life dealing with all the unpleasantness that comes with sobriety?  Sometimes it's so much easier to just take the drink and pretend there's nothing wrong (after all, we need 8 glasses of liquids a day, right?).  Juliee, where you said …

This puts politicians in a very difficult position, to create change they need to be the instigators of that pain (e.g. congestion charges for major cities), that makes them unpopular and their positions are dependent upon us 'liking' them.

… that makes me think of the alcoholic's friends/family.  It's so much easier to play the enabler, covering up all the negative consequences of the drinking, calling the person's job and making an excuse for why they won't be in, etc.  As opposed to confronting the person on the destructiveness of their behavior and risking that they'll not only continue to deny the problem, but they'll reject you for daring to shove the unpleasantness in their face.

With alcoholism, a person usually needs to hit bottom before they're willing to do the hard work of change.  But some people end up dead on the way to “bottom.”  I wonder if, in line with what you're saying, Juliee, our politicians' job is to raise the threshold of our collective “bottom.”  And if so, how do we keep them in office to do this difficult, unpopular work rather than rejecting them for not playing along by giving us another bottle of comfort?

Re: Election Watch

I always love your thought-provoking posts, Lauren!

You wrote:

I agree that as a collective we are so stupefied by our lives of comfort and distraction, so committed to continued evasion of accountability, that the only real change we want is a teasing promise that someone (else) can fix our problems (increasingly impossible to deny) without necessitating any real individual change and without any significant social or economic transformation, without any fundamental change in our addiction to credit and comfort and distraction.  We (the majority) want change without sacrifice or without having to take any responsibility ourselves. 

I think that an unarticulated and barely acknowledged suffering lies beneath our lives of comfort and distraction – and collectively we attempt to keep it “at bay” with yet more comforts and distractions. Change would likely require touching, feeling, and expressing our subterranean suffering – and yet it is of course natural – instinctual? – to avoid and resist pain. And the fact that we now have the technological ability to create greater, more highly refined, more all-consuming distractions (which themselves are often built upon the sufferings, the blood and the bent backs, of others we never see) there are even greater barriers and more profound resistances to our collective pain. Thus we often walk numbly through our lives, dissociated, buffered, shrinking away from awareness, clinging to all our gadgets and destructive habits – and the fantasies and ideologies that convince us of our need for them …

And we remain caught within our complacency, silently suffering within our comforts, bleeding in our own nicely made beds.

I remember something that really struck while listening to Roger Walsh's keynote speech at the recent integral conference. This is a paraphrase: “The failure to continue growing creates suffering because the mind has a drive for development.” So … I'm just thinking as I type here ….. on the one hand we resist change because that means embracing pain, but on the other hand we also have an innate drive to grow, to transform.

Roger told a great story about hungrily listening to an excellent presentation on chakras by Ram Dass, and falling asleep at one of the most interesting, compelling moments – he later understood his falling asleep as a reaction to the terror of transcendence –  as a way to “suppress the sublime.” The ego, fearing annihilation as a new awareness emerges, finds ways to resist the awareness – in this case by falling asleep. And he was not the only one who had fallen asleep – many others at the same talk also fell asleep. I'm probably extrapolating too much here, but I can't help but think that this is what might be happening on a collective level: just as a potentially transformative awareness begins to dawn, we find ways to “fall asleep.”

So what am I getting at? I'm not sure. I'm riffing off of the statement: “We (the majority) want change without sacrifice or without having to take responsibility ourselves.” Perhaps I'm hearing something condemnatory in that – (and that's likely my own projection because I am such a comfort-hound myself) – a truth and yet also a judgement. I'm thinking that this desire for change without sacrifice may be part of the existential human condition –  not really a collective “choice” that we have consciously or unconsciously made as a culture, but perhaps an unavoidable bridge, or desert, or mountain that we all face on the journey of transformation. And that the challenge is even greater today, now that we are able to live in ways that trick us into thinking that we can have change without sacrifice. And thus it may take something Really Big to subvert all of that …

Not quite finished with my thought here – but somehow Obama figures in to it!

Later,

Mary

Re: Election Watch

Re: Election Watch

I just read the link Mascha put in the jokes and funnies thread. This is not an impressive start for Palin.  But what concerns me is that it appears a lot of republicans dont care about having capable intelligent candidates but more about: are they like me? Do I relate to them? She'll be painting herself as a straight talking feisty hockey mum and that might be enough for some.

When I read comments online on the race I find that so many more of the republican ones tend to be remarkably schoolboyish…and often downright dumb and vicious.  So are some democrat comments but there's a bigger range and I just get the sense that there are at least some democrats that are further up the spiral than most republicans are.  Isnt there a republican version of tier2? Is it really more evolved to be a democrat?

I read this morning about the “attack dogs” of the republicans here…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/31/uselections2008.barackobama

Interesting how back in 2000 this GOP attack machine painted McCain as mentally unstable and father of an illegitimate child. Now they go into combat for him.

While I have no hard evidence of his mental instability I do find him somewhat childish and lightweight.  I feel a bit sad for him.  But seeing him getting the presidency is too harmful a situation for me to indulge that feeling. I'm staying away from idiot compassion.

Im feeling very “attack dog” myself and came to work imagining all kinds of cutting and brilliant comments I could make to the republican bunnies that would flatten them or make them feel compelled to cross the floor…

Take that! you cad

G

Re: Election Watch

Gitanjali:  Isnt there a republican version of tier2? Is it really more evolved to be a democrat?

I wonder if in 2nd tier, those categories are transcended.  Those labels may become somewhat obsolete, since they're no longer identified with.

Re: Election Watch

Hi Tely! (nice to meet ya, Ive been enjoying your energy here!)

OK, Im still feel unclear.  thought arises: Whats to bet that more tier 2 people would VOTE democrat then republican….even if they arent identified with those labels.  And what does that say about the COG of each of these platforms?

G

Re: Election Watch

Oooh – better question!  I think that at least in this election, 2nd tier folks would almost have to vote Democrat!  I am, of course, totally biased about this, so I don't know how “true” what I'm saying is.  And in general, I think your observations are right-on – as a whole, the COG of Democrats tends to be higher than for Republicans.  Just looking at the “red states” vs. the “blue states” (not using colors to refer to SDi here), we can see that the blue states are where the more educated, culturally evolved populations reside.  But of course, looking at it from a more individual perspective, it really depends on where each individual is coming from, i.e., what motivates their affiliation with one side vs. another, because it's entirely possible to have Democrats whose COG is lower than Republicans.  It sounds like you already know this, but I felt the need to qualify it so that I'm not understood as saying that all Democrats have a higher COG than Republicans.

Re: Election Watch

Lauren, you asked, “What would 'raising the threshold of our collective bottom' look like?”  I really don't know.  I'm pretty clueless in the application of growth/healing principles to political arenas – I only know human interpersonal/intrapersonal dynamics.  I know that with an addict (or someone else involved in self- and other-destructive behavior), “raising the bottom” involves taking steps to ensure that the person experiences the negative consequences of their choices sooner and more acutely so that they don't have to spiral much further down before having the awarenesses that motivate them to make the difficult decisions that lead to growth and change.  I know that this principle works, but in terms of specifically how it would manifest in political leadership, anything I say would just be me talking out of my ass.  I invite those more well-versed in politics to take a crack at it.

With much gluteal innuendo,
Tely 

Re: Election Watch

Tely:

Re: Election Watch

Damn, you girls are fast scribblers!

Here's what I churned out while you were moving at lightnin' speed.

Gitanjali:  Isnt there a republican version of tier2? Is it really more evolved to be a democrat?

Tely: I wonder if in 2nd tier, those categories are transcended.  Those labels may become somewhat obsolete, since they're no longer identified with.

Nodding here to Tely's answer. Yes, party loyalty and identification with groups (mythical magenta and conformist amber memes) would be transcended in 2nd tier. Yet the old saying, “The truth has a decidedly liberal bias”, rings true also. The higher ones' center of gravity on the spiral, the more freedom one wants and needs to unfold further. Thus, greater freedom for everyone around to enjoy  the same becomes a serious issue. How can you enjoy the social liberties of the upper class in your country when these privileges are guaranteed by the back-breaking work of wage-slaves in China or in sweat shops for children elsewhere?

In short, I have never met a person with well-rounded higher awareness anywhere on earth that would be voting the equivalent of a US Republican ticket, starting with Nixon all the way up until now.

Re: Election Watch

Nicely clarified peeps: to put it on the blackboard in logic class.

Not all those who vote democrat are Tier 2
But all those who are Tier 2 vote democrat!

Hehe

Sigh….

I'm feeling a bit polarised from my republican brothers and sisters…bit aggressive…bit bulldoggy.

Re: Election Watch

Ha ha, Gitanjali nailed it. I'll be using her formula in letters to the editor and other “fight-back-these-tsunamis-of-bullshit ” campaigns. Count on it.


Lauren asked for visual aids re: gluteal innuendo. I humbly submit orc ass:

 


.

Re: Election Watch

Woohoo, I'm loving the musings on this thread right now!

I've often wondered this as well… at 2nd tier, we should be able to include both Republican and Liberal values.  So, wouldn't there be a 2nd tier way to vote Republican as well as Democrat?

Uhm…. right.  Not so much.  At least not now, in the party's current incarnation.

The faith forum with Rick Warren was a good illustration of this.  The questions ranged from who would the candidate turn to for advice, to what is the nature of evil.  McCain's answers were shorter, more simplistic, and more emotionally rousing to the mythic-membership crowd.  People who gravitate to this developmental level proably appreciated the decisiveness of the answers over the thoroughness, as there's a feeling of safety and security inherent a neat, in-the-box response.  Obama gave longer, more complex answers, in a less cheerleader-like way.  This most likely appealed to the pluralistic (and integral) crowd, with the taking multiple perspectives into account and ample foresight that gets to the root of the problem.  The higher level of development is the more effective and compassionate way to deal with the issues, by definition.  It doesn't discard the lower level, but the higher level has to be preferenced.

I think conservative and progressive values can be expressed at any level of 1st or 2nd tier.  For example, encouraging personal responsibility is always commendable.  But so is extending an external hand when circumstances demand it.  This is a balance to be walked, and the two sides actually complement each other when the perspective holder has transcended their personal attachment to either.  This is the problem for me with the Republican party:  They are constantly trying to harness conservatism as their personal brand, and only theirs, which expresses itself almost solely at the mythic-membership level.  Sitting at an amber/blue level demands an us vs. them approach, and the “them” is the Democrats and all that they stand for.  It makes for a very fractured philosophy.  Democrats, at times, don't fare much better, but I do find that they're more interested in exploring both sides of the coin.  There's a realization that it is the same coin in the first place, something largely absent from the Republican party.

I would love to see a true, 2nd tier conservative in politics today.  But I don't see a way that the party's machine would back a 2nd tier Republican.  It doesn't allow for that rousing emotional response to defend the “good” us against that wholly other, “evil”, them.

Re: Election Watch

Jim Turner from the Integral community wrote a book on transpartisan politcs that I think addresses these issues.  I say “I think” because I haven't read the book, so that's my disclamer:

http://www.amazon.com/VOICE-PEOPLE-Transpartisan-Imperative-American/dp/0615215262

Re: Election Watch

Nice, Tely, it looks very promising, and quite specific!  It would make for an interesting book discussion…

Re: Election Watch

Thanks Tely for mentioning Jim's Book.

I did a prepublication review of the book (Co-authored, incidentally by a conservative, A. Lawrence Chickering). It is a wonderful perpective of an AQAL approach to discussing solutions to political problems & issues. A way to open up the dialog so that legitimate concerns from around the quadrants are considered in any discussion.

It is going to take Integrally informed folks interested in politics to carry these conversations forward, so I invite all interested parties to take a look.

When Barack is President (he has my prayers) he is going to need folks to help with these kinds of conversations. A great place for public service for those not timid.

Cheers,
Doug

Re: Election Watch

Not all those who vote democrat are Tier 2
But all those who are Tier 2 vote democrat!


I'm feeling a bit polarised from my republican brothers and sisters…bit aggressive…bit bulldoggy.

I do not understand this observation.  I find the “but all those who are Tier 2 vote Democrat” as quite polarizing.  Also, from my point of view, it is wholly incorrect and could lead to grossly false interpretations.

Perhaps I could observe “I'm feeling a bit polarized from my Tier II brothers and sisters …. a bit aggressive … a bit assumptive.”

Re: Election Watch

Christopher, let me guess: you're an Independent who'd vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr?

The way I understand Gitanjali's rather light-hearted formula is that the Independent 3rd party simply has no chance of winning this all-important next election in America. So, yes, you would have to vote for the democratic ticket if you're even remotely aware of how the crime syndicate that has dominated the Republican agenda was able to basically hollow out and destroy the party's own raison d'etre from within during these last several decades.

Second tier would surely see through the bigotry that is covering up massive corruption of every imaginable kind. And that's not saying that the democratic party isn't infested as well, it just is somewhat less evil and counts a number of great fighting spirits among its ranks, like Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, to name a few.

m

Re: Election Watch

Mascha! Light hearted? I am VERY SERIOUS maschpotatoes, read my scowl. Good point about independents. Bit fussy arent they?

Chris, warrior poet, tell me one humane world centric person who is voting republican…forget tier 2 ..they are so snobby …



Just woke up with such brilliance on my tongue
G

Re: Election Watch

OMG, Gitanjali, I pray that that is a photoshop job!

Caribou Barbie!

Re: Election Watch

I TAKE IT BACK

Gitanjali's rather light-hearted iron-clad formula

has removed any lingering doubts that aware beings vote for Democrats these days.

Fuhgeddabout 2nd tier or whatever color-coded crap is bandied about, that's neither here nor there!


Is that better, G?

m

Re: Election Watch

heehee

thats better Mascha…

And Bruce I dont know the origin of that photo. Even if it were a collage it speaks a truth no?

And Chris, seriously, when I said i felt a bit polarised I was watching my own judgement and projection.  Fessing up that I was feeling my Tier 1 redness emerge.  Feeling charged, addicted, fearful.

Gitanjali

Re: Election Watch

Christopher, let me guess: you're an Independent who'd vote for Ron Paul, Bob Barr?

No need to guess, since I've pretty much made some of my political views somewhat clear in these forums ( message & message ).

Bob Barr on the surface seems to be a likely candidate, yet he seems to be a recycled Republican with quite a bit of a record behind him that seemingly are contrary to some Libertarian views.  That being said, people can change, it just seems his change is rather sudden….

Second tier would surely see through the bigotry that is covering up massive corruption of every imaginable kind. And that's not saying that the democratic party isn't infested as well, it just is somewhat less evil and counts a number of great fighting spirits among its ranks, like Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, to name a few.

My point in the posts that are linked by the messages referenced above is that I see the infestation in both parties, and if it is a matter of degree, I see very little separation of degree.

 So, yes, you would have to vote for the democratic ticket if you're even remotely aware of how the crime syndicate that has dominated the Republican agenda was able to basically hollow out and destroy the party's own raison d'etre from within during these last several decades.

Perhaps I passed through the green wave (assuming that I managed to pass that level - lol, I've been accused of being in blue-to-orange, to which I reply “yeah, you are right.  It depends on the day and the circumstances) too quickly, since I see the “crime syndicate that has dominated the XYZ agenda was to basically hollow out and destroy the party's own raison d'etre from within during these last several decades” as equally applicable to both major parties. 

From that perspective, I do not have to vote for either ticket regardless of being remotely aware of corruption, being second tier, et cetera. 

Indeed, I find it ludicrous for someone of Second Tier to suggest that voting one way or another is a hallmark of Second Tier; an indicator of Second Tier thinking, or a requisite for Second Tier (or for someone “remotely aware” for that matter).

Let's assume that McCain/Palin have a CG in blue meme (while I think Bush's politics are blue, I'm thinking that McCain may be beyond blue - orange, perhaps even higher.  Remember, we are talking center of gravity here, and also making a distinction between a person's individual meme and the meme that they apply in their politics.  I believe this can be drastically different, especially amongh Tier I thinkers - yet it is quite possible that Tier II would also apply a different “political meme” if required - remember the Tier II ability to flit through the memes as required?). 

Also assuming that fundamentalist terrorists are a huge threat to the world in general - and since I'm in this forum, a huge threat to individuals' ability to reach Tier II specifically.  Given this threat, why would it be so ”bad” to vote for blue meme politics as opposed to green meme politics (this is where I believe Obama/Liden political meme to be - while quite probable that Obama as an individual may have a CG centered in yellow/second tier, or at the very least close to that cuspice in the continuum that we know as the sprial dynamics).  It clearly takes blue to curtail red aggression, and green is utterly inefficient in doing so. 

Again, from what I can understand, a Second Tier thinker will apply the meme that best suits the situation - once again, the amazing ability to waltz through memes with ease and have full cognition of the factors driving that meme.

For me to truly know for whom I will vote, I will continue to pull in facts and data until the day of voting, and make the choice I feel is best for the world and, more importantly, secure a free developmental environment allowing more individuals to reach second tier (for that is probably our salvation - a global CG to second tier memes).  Until then, I simply do not buy the “have to vote for so and so as a choice between the lesser of two evils.”  That “evil” may very possibly be the best choice when one considers all the facts.  If indeed the choice is one of lesser of two evils, then perhaps my voice is best heard in voting for a third party candidate as opposed to giving a false impression of mass support for any one party and/or meme.

By the way, let's look at the situation regarding Iran.  It is my opinion that any anti-war protest movement as we have seen in MN and elsewhere that does not equally protest both America's saber rattling and threats and Iran's support of Shia fundamentalists and desire to acquire nuclear weapons/weapons of mass destruction, is not one that represents worldcentric values.

Before commenting to this post, I would respectfully request a review of a very interesting response from KW regarding an integral approach (http://www.integralworld.net/mgm2.html)  - looking at the good and bad of each side (especially pertinent to the two parties) and understanding that even blue meme can serve “the larger Spiral by rooting out pockets of red terrorism.”  This review would provide a broader reference for some of my opinions expressed here in this post. 

Re: Election Watch

The conserving impulse may be associated with the drive to maintain stability, the progressive or libera(l)ting impulse is more associated with the drive to evolve…  contraction and expansion, agape and eros… I think we're dealing with some essential polarities here, and of course republican/democrat are not undistorted representations of the pure energies of those original polarities, they are in fact in some ways remarkably out of alignment with their original power (and I would argue that the neo-con expression is the full flowering of that pathological deviation from the healthy heart of the Conserving impulse), but they do each plug in, and derive some of their power and value from those polarities. This is how I see it.

Re: Election Watch

Lauren, this is absolutely freaking brilliant!  I had never thought about it this way.  Thanx for sharing your wisdom re. this.

Re: Election Watch

Lauren, insightfulness oozes from your post, as usual.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking, but… but isn't it obvious that at an integrated stage you will be conservative in certain areas (fiscally, environmentally, economically - to an extent)? And when it comes to protecting a Constitution as brilliant as the one Americans have enjoyed, you'd probably be a radical conservative. You'd fight anyone who tries to shred it!  In all other areas you tend to be liberal / progressive:  diplomacy, justice, social programs, science & technology, taxation.

I would put National Security right in the middle between the need to preserve and the need to evolve. Maintaining a balance between these two forces would seem to be the best way to maintain the safety of your citizens.

.

Re: Election Watch

And when it comes to protecting a Constitution as brilliant as the one Americans have enjoyed, you'd probably be a radical conservative. You'd fight anyone who tries to shred it!  In all other areas you tend to be liberal / progressive:  diplomacy, justice, social programs, science & technology, taxation.

Holy crap, you just summarized my complex political worldview in three easy-to-read and comprehend sentences.

Would you mind if I plagarize this to perhaps describe myself in the future?

Finally, it is the “radical conservative” portion of your observation that I strongly suspect gets Lauren's friend to lean toward “Republican.”  I also have an intuition that there are quite a number of “radical conservative” leaning Integralists - they just are not likely to be found in this space on Gaia…

.

Re: Election Watch

Hi Christopher, sure,

quote away liberally and without attribution, lol. The way I see it, we're just one cosmic mega-celled, inter-penetrating blob thingie anyhow. And a multi-dimensional one to boot! So who's taking what from whom becomes a moot point at a certain altitude.

Yes, I too am a radical conservative when it comes to protecting the Constitution. The question is, protect and defend against whom? Who do we identify as enemies and realistic threats to our desire to live according to America's precious founding documents?

Why, it's the Islamofascists and their ilk we must fight in a perfectly justifiable, never-ending war on terror! Or so we have been told.

I've spent countless hours researching what activities led to the election of the Bush regime in 2000 and hundreds more on what ensued, leading right up to this moment. I don't claim to know every detail or even to be an expert by now, but a number of basic facts have emerged, and these truths, taken in altogether, provide a fairly clear view in the sense of a bigger picture. Now I no longer seek to discuss pieces of the puzzle with people who haven't done their homework in this respect. It's a “been there, done that” kind of thing where you just don't feel like repeating the same conversations over and over, or persuade anyone that their view is incorrect.

A few quotes to highlight certain connections that have become obvious for me:
_____________________________________

“From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.”

- William Blum

______________________________________


“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

~ William Colby, CIA Director from Sept. 1973 to Jan. 1976 under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
_______________________________________


“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

~ William Casey,

CIA Director from 1981 to 1987. (Quote from internal staff meeting notes 1981)

Casey headed up the successful presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and served on the transition team following the election. After Reagan took office, he named Casey to the post of Director of the CIA.

According to a 600-page report by the CIA inspector general, Frederick Hintz, the CIA under Casey was complicit in the Contras' massive narco-trafficking operation which resulted in the crack epidemic.
__________________________________________

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in,” he said, “to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

- George W Bush

_________________________________________

m

Re: Election Watch

Why, I'll just “reply to post” once again to continue to add on layers (hey, Integralists like layers, anyhoo) and make this discussion that much more difficult to follow. :)

Who do we identify as enemies and realistic threats to our desire to live according to America's precious founding documents?

Why, it's the Islamofascists and their ilk we must fight in a perfectly justifiable, never-ending war on terror! Or so we have been told.

Indeed, the Constitution simply requires Federal Officers to take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That helps.

I agree - the definition is a difficult one.  I think there is some truth in fundamentalist red meme values as being a threat, both foreign and domestic (see post above that is probably too long for anyone to actually read for thoughts on this).  Yet, in a way, there is certainly some truth in the racor regarding security laws - I view any compromise of individual liberties as a potential domestic enemy.

Then we get into a deliberation as to which is more dangerous as an enemy.  The domestic still has checks upon it - as demonstrated in the US and media every day, whereas some of the foreign enemies do not have that “higher” meme overhead to keep them “in line.”  I'm not certain enough data exists as to which is more “dangerous,” and it hence becomes perhaps a judgement or intuition call.  In this case, as usual, in a way we'd all be right.

At any rate, you pose quite a bit of wisdom and insight for which I am appreciative.

Re: Election Watch

Breaking news! (My roommate just came bounding up the stairs with it…)

Re: Election Watch

And a related newsflash:

Her daughter is 5 months pregnant, and soon to be married to the father. Allegedly, Palin made it public right now to quell rumors (started, no doubt, by “mean, amoral liberals”) that she (Palin) recently faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter's pregnancy – i.e. that her Down syndrome child was actually her grandchild – her daugher's baby ….

Lord help us. The presidential race is turning into “Desperate Housewives.”

Re: Election Watch

Juicy!  I smell blood!  Maybe all Obama has to do is sit back and watch them hang themselves.

Re: Election Watch

Lauren suggested:

The conserving impulse may be associated with the drive to maintain stability, the progressive or libera(l)ting impulse is more associated with the drive to evolve… contraction and expansion, agape and eros… I think we're dealing with some essential polarities here, and of course republican/democrat are not undistorted representations of the pure energies of those original polarities, they are in fact in some ways remarkably out of alignment with their original power (and I would argue that the neo-con expression is the full flowering of that pathological deviation from the healthy heart of the Conserving impulse), but they do each plug in, and derive some of their power and value from those polarities. This is how I see it.

Hmmmm.  Lauren my initial thought is…I see more community mindedness in the democratic perspective (brothers keeper, take care of the “weak”) and more agency in the republican (pull yourself up and get on with it).  Thus, more agape with the democratic than the republican and eros in the other.

Still sitting with all these great ideas.

G

Re: Election Watch

Gitanjali,

Re: Election Watch

Lauren,

I am thoroughly enjoying your musings on Republican/Democrat, agency/communion, conservative/liberal… (my favorite being the libera-l!).  I'd love to pull this apart further, hopefully later, as I think there is so much to this…

As for the election watch currently, I watched the Republican Convention last night.  I recall the McCain campaign calling Obama “cocky”.  After watching the speeches last night, particularly Romney and Palin, I am wondering about shadow projection…

Perhaps this isn't my highest self, as it is probably biased.  But I am sad, sickened, and frustrated by most of the display of the evening past.  I know that commentators were asking “Where's the red meat?” at the DNC.  If last night was red meat, I'm going to be a vegetarian.  Aren't we better than this?

I apologise for the drive-by posting, I have much more to say, and no time to say it thoughtfully.  I'd love to hear other people's opinions and perspectives… my objectivity is hiding in a corner.

Blessings,
Elizabeth

Re: Election Watch

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

re: speaking in forked tongues

Hypocrisy Now!


m

Re: Election Watch

That's really good, Mascha, the juxtaposition of statements.!

The only problem is that it makes it look like only conservatives or
Republicans have different standards when it comes to people in general
or their friends or themselves.

I think this is more generally true of much of humanity.

Note: please don't shoot me, I wouldn't vote Republican were I an American :)

Now that we too are facing an election, I'm hard-pressed to know who to vote
for! Both Liberals and Conservatives are far from my best case scenario.

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Election Watch

This is a really good one, Mascha!  By the time I went to see it, the video had been removed, but I think this is the same one you were referring to:
Jon Stewart on Republican Hypocrisy

Re: Election Watch

Good catch, Tely. In case that latest YouTube link also gets scrubbed, here's the full segment on the Daily Show site.

Re: Election Watch

LOL Thanks Mascha, hoping my karma has a kinder fate in store

Re: Election Watch

Deepak Chopra on Palin and Shadow

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.

Look at what she stands for:
–Small town values – a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
–Ignorance of world affairs – a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
–Family values – a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
–Rigid stands on guns and abortion – a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
–Patriotism – the usual fallback in a failed war.
–“Reform” – an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.

Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I'm all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything's OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.

Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow – we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

Re: Election Watch

Agustina: Depak Chopra on Palin and Shadow…

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses…



The shadow-aspect is really intresting here. And obviously, she triggers some of his, refering to her as former mayor: How Obama blew it. Maybe he should read a bit more in this book:


Had I been a republican strategist I would really try to use Palin as a defensive line that is sent in on the ice to neutralize the opponents first line. She will indeed trigger some democratic shadows, making them show their not-so-virtuous-sides.

Kristian

Re: Election Watch

Fascinating!  Yet another exposition of “power” politics of the parties…

“Sep 04, 2008

Obama, McCain Fail to Qualify for Texas Ballot

Barr Met Deadline, Demands Law Be Enforced

The Bob Barr presidential campaign has stated “serious legal consequences” will occur should Senators Barack Obama and John McCain be allowed on the Texas general election ballot after they knowingly missed the state's deadline to file.

According to documents obtained by the Barr campaign, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama complied with Texas Election Code § 192.031, which requires that filings must be submitted “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential Election Day,” listing the “names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president.”

“The Election Code of the State of Texas imposes requirements on a political party, which must be met if its candidates for president and vice-presidents are to appear on the general election ballot,” Russell Verney, Bob Barr's campaign manager stated in a letter sent to the Texas Secretary of State's office. “The Democratic Party and Mr. Obama, and the Republican Party and Mr. McCain, blatantly ignored the Texas statutory deadline.”

The deadline, which was set at 5 p.m. on August 26, passed before Sen. Obama was nominated and before Sen. McCain had even selected his running mate.

“The law is clear, and it was clearly not followed,” says Verney. “The Texas Supreme Court was emphatic when it stated that the law 'does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines …' Senators Obama and McCain did not file by the deadline; therefore, Texas should abide by the laws it created. No political party or candidate is above the law.”

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties.  You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting http://www.lp.org/. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

The campaign's letter to the Texas Secretary of State's Office can be downloaded here .”

Re: Election Watch

That's hilarious! I love this country! Thanks, this is the funniest
bit of election news so far IMO :):)

Re: Election Watch

Oprah pisses off Florida Republicans

(CNN)-The Florida Federation of Republican Women made the decision to boycott the Oprah Winfrey Show Saturday, after the media mogul refused to have Gov. Sarah Palin as a guest on her show until after the election wraps up.

“Women in Florida helped build Oprah into the icon she is today,” Linda Ivell, President of the FFRW said in a statement. “We are deeply disappointed in Ms. Winfrey's decision to sit out the greatest political moment in the history of women since suffrage.”

The talk show host denied accusations Friday, that she was even considering the vice presidential nominee as a guest.

“At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a plat for any of the candidates,” Winfrey wrote in a statement, responding to a story from The Drudge report claiming her staff was “sharply divided” on whether they should book the Alaska Governor.

Winfrey agreed Palin would be a “fantastic interview,” but wouldn't invite her on until after the November elections.

The Florida Federation of Republican Women, the “largest political organization in Florida,” celebrating the groups 58 year anniversary is also encouraging members to cancel subscriptions to O Magazine, Ivell said.

“We find it to be an abuse of her power -gained on the backs of our patronage of her advertising empire - to use her program to so blatantly support Obama in the face of this historic moment. So, we are tuning out and canceling our subscriptions to O Magazine and encourage other women to do the same,” Ms Ivell said.

Winfrey came under fire from some of her supporters in December after campaigning with the Democratic nominee in South Carolina.

Ivell did not say the Florida Republicans would be tuning out indefinitely, but at least until 'after the election.' Adding, she and her members respect the decision to support Obama, “as every American is entitled to their personal opinion and vote.”

Re: Election Watch

Pretty standard drudge style agitprop.

The brainstem and the endocrines are pretty easily manipulated.

You know the gimmick, right? The punchline to this story?

Re: Election Watch

Quick note to all, with moderator hat on:

Don't change thread titles, please. Thanks!

Liz

Re: Election Watch

Rodger

Re: Election Watch

Oh boy!

I find that I cant look at the articles anytime Palin is gaining ground.  I think I identify with Obama - right down to the aragula…i seem to have so much personally invested in this election - beyond the huge political and social implications.

Oh boy!