Obama 2

This is the new Obama thread, a continuation of this thread.

Please keep in mind that in this pod, we discuss pretty much all of the most likely triggers that are not discussed in “polite society”: politics, religion and money. It bears repeating that you are expected to behave accordingly well. Exceptionally well, in fact, since you're supposed to be further along on this path than the average person. Not superior to, just further along. Let's all model that, shall we?

Here's a reminder of the Road Rules. Yes, that means you.

Liz
in moderator mode

Re: Obama 2

Mascha,

thank you so much for this link!  I LIKED watching it.  I felt his humility, sense of co-creation with others, seriousness, and sincerity.

I want more of this in politics….



Mascha

You can get a glimpse of Barack's leadership style watching him talk to his very tired staff and volunteers after finalizing the details of his nomination on Friday, June 6.

Really worth watching, guys.

Barack talks to HQ staff - informal video

Re: Obama 2

Sandra!

Thanks so much for posting this article:

”Is Obama an enlightened being?
Spiritual wise ones say: This sure ain't no ordinary politician. You buying it?”

And thanks Arthur for framing it in terms of the golden shadow…yes!

and Doug's point about a resonance that is not in opposition to rational intellect.

I too do feel that higher integrated vibration in him.  Hillary's vibration feels much lower down on conveyor.

And it is so hard to describe that to people who dont include that sort of sensing in their experience - as the article acknowledges.  

We dont get much mileage for talking about how we feel about people's vibes.
I recall Deida saying: sensing emergy is a great lost expertise for us because society mostly doesnt acknowledge it as really legitimate. We need to always justify our views in terms of things that are tangible and scientifically measurable like the content of policies and people's track records.  WE dont have people who we respect as “seers” who just give is a whole reading based on their energy awareness. 

He also said this skill was a gift of the feminine (which is in both men and women).  
 
I imagine most people react to that kind of vibe-talk with a “darn organic tofu eating space cadet!”

But the point is: this man is strong….steady -  even though he prefers organic herbal tea.  He's not a pillpilly guy who cant engage with and penetrate the world; who wafts around with bland views unwilling to take the role of protector and king.

Its been interesting to get the views of some of my colleagues here on Obama and Clinton.  The colleagues I sensed earlier as being further up the rainbow serpent, like him more than they appreciate Clinton, and those that I have sensed as being are at a lower stage say things like:

“I dont trust him.  Seems slippery.  Snake oil salesman! (yeah baby the rainbow serpent ;)

I love how what we see in others depends on us. Just as “we dont read a good book, a good book reads us”.  Since discussing public figures is considered OK, its a great vehicle for expposing the disharmony between people at different stages - the automatic prejudices that polite company doesnt allow us to reveal in daily life.

Watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4RKZxx1X_Y&feature=user


I like again his constant focus on the importance of others' actions and efforts in making change happen.  And I like that he talked about being happy that he hasnt changed that much during this whole thing.  That that matters to him and he should bring it up as if talking to close friends late at night. 

Surely  there can be no bigger game than this for the temptations of ego and on top of that game itself, that particular starry-eyed gaze he draws out in people - its brought down many a teacher and guru and leader before.  I hope he continues to stay real and recall regularly that he too shits on the toilet seat.

Go peoples of America!
G

Re: Obama 2

Thank you for starting a new thread, Liz. And thank you for setting the right tone and context.

First I would like to reiterate for Obama 2 that I am a great fan of Barack Obama, that I voted for him in 2004, that I felt strongly that he should become president someday (I just didn't think he should run in 2008), that I am often very moved by him, that he's a great guy, that I am now hopeful he will name a good running mate and become a great president in 2009, etc.

 

e: Because he has had to straddle that fence long before he developed thru an ethnocentric phase, he has transcended race. He is able to seamlessly move in and out of different racial contexts. Even the Jeremiah Wright issue shows this. It was such a non-issue for him, he simply stood by his pastor. It was only when the folks who were stuck in their own ethnicity made a big stink that he had to make a ‘political' move away from him.

The Wright issue is not a big one for me at this point—I trust he has learned what he needed to learn from the experience—but I would like to make a few points in the interest of historical accuracy. For one thing, Obama did not ultimately stick by him, in case you missed it: Wright, offended that Obama had distanced himself and that so many people were criticizing him, held a press conference at the National Press Club  (video) in which, among other things, he repeated his charge that African Americans may have been purposefully poisoned with the HIV virus and that it is reasonable to think so, praised Louis Farrakhan once again, and said that the only reason that Obama had distanced himself from him in Philadelphia is because Obama is a politician and you can't believe what politicians say. Obama then came back and unequivocally denounced Wright and broke ties with him. Since then, a white pastor visited Trinity and made racially charged remarks about Hillary, and Barack and Michelle have left Trinity as well.

Why was Wright an issue? It would be good to get clear on this, as I trust Obama has by now. The things Wright said were racially divisive and could give people and especially children a distorted and unhelpful view of their world. If children are brought up hearing that white people are all closet KKK members and would like to poison them and have done so to other African Americans in the past, they are not going to like or trust white people and will be less able to interact effectively with them. White people may sense their hostility and suspicion, making things even worse. It's just an unhealthy situation all around. Wright was asked about his charge that African Americans were purposefully infected with the HIV virus at the National Press Club (transcript):

MS. LEINWAND: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

REV. WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz's book “Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola”? Whoever wrote that question, have you read “Medical Apartheid”? You've read it? …
I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven't read things, then you can't – and based on the Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

Other African Americans have repeated this: Because of the Tuskegee experiments, we know anything is possible, that white people could indeed be infecting African Americans with the HIV virus.

What happened in the Tuskegee experiments? This is a sad chapter in Alabama history to  be sure, but it isn't what Wright is suggesting it is. He is suggesting that African Americans were purposefully infected with syphilis in Tuskegee—this is false, and no reasonable people have ever suggested it was the case. The researchers took 399 African American men who already had syphilis and studied them to watch the disease progress without treating them. It was never an ethical idea; it was always ugly and wrong, but in the beginning of the experiment (1932) there wasn't an effective treatment for syphilis for anyone. But by 1947 penicilin had emerged as an effective treatment—this is where it really gets ugly: they didn't give them penicilin but continued to observe the advance of the disease.

At any rate, no one was ever infected with syphilis on purpose, and it was an isolated incident—but Rev. Wright is talking about it as if these doctors had purposefully infected people and that they were still doing it, that they were now infecting African Americans with HIV! It's important to realize that some people will believe such absurdities, that they will truly believe it, won't check the facts, that they will just believe what they hear from a lettered man like Rev. Wright. This is especially true of children. I think they were doing and are doing a lot of great things at Trinity, but they weren't doing a service to people when they were making them believe that white people are all closet KKK members who are out to infect them with deadly diseases. That's not going to help them or anyone else. That attitude could really keep them from interacting in society in a positive way. Why should they even try to go to schools with white teachers or workplaces with white people if they are so racist they might do something like this? It is a big issue especially that children are being raised in a culture like that, and it's everyone's business, too, not just an African American issue.

So it was hardly a post-racial church. It is a very Afrocentric church to begin with, which is fine, but it's fair to ask why the “post-racial candidate” took his family to such racially oriented church for 20 years, especially in light of the kind of things Rev. Wright had been saying.  As I said, it's not an issue for me now because I trust Obama has learned what he needed to learn from the whole thing, but the people who made an issue of it were not necessarily “stuck in their own ethnicity” at all. Some were raising valid points, and it was fair to ask whether Obama was the one still stuck in his own ethnicity. It doesn't show very good judgement to raise your daughters in that kind of atmosphere if your intention is to raise them with a post-racial attitude. It also raises the question of whether the candidate is truly post-racial himself. If you were, wouldn't you want to go to a church with a mix of races or at least one that didn't decry white people as murderous racists? And they had to travel nearly 100 blocks to get to this church, while there were mixed-race churches available in their own neighborhood of Hyde Park.


Mascha: If you mean setting the record straight re: Hillary winning the popular vote, you are advocating for an accounting method that would do Stalinist Russia proud. All you need is no opponent running against you, and voila: Hillary won Michigan!

The issue is a little muddy for sure, but I do stand by my assertion that including Michigan is the fairest way to count the popular vote, not that it's all that important at this point. There are a few reasons for this: As I mentioned earlier, Obama took his name off the ballot to pander to the people in Iowa, and he knew he was also going to lose Michigan, so he could kill two birds with one stone: pander to the people of Iowa and make Hillary run alone in a state that she was going to win and make the vote look meaningless. Furthermore, the Clinton campaign and its donors offered to pay for a revote in Michigan, which Obama's lawyers and supporters blocked. In other words, Obama did not want Michigan to vote or their votes to look meaningful because he knew he would lose, so he pulled his name off the ballot and blocked the revote (as they did in Florida).
 
So I don't think it's fair to simply nullify the votes cast there because Obama didn't want Michigan voters making him look bad or even, in the case of a revote, giving more delegates to Hillary. Also, Obama supporters in Michigan ran a campaign to vote for Obama in the “Uncommitted” category on the ballot. The final tally was Clinton: 328, 151; Uncommitted (Obama): 237, 762. So, I'm willing to give those 237, 762 votes to Obama, but even giving Obama those votes, Hillary still wins. A revote could have turned out to be even more in Hillary's favor because it would have occurred after the Wright flap.



David

Re: Obama 2

David, I'm curious why you've continued to use the word, pander, in relation to his campaigning in Iowa.  It is a negatively charged word, not a neutral one.  Was there something unethical, in your view, in his campaign work in Iowa?

Re: Obama 2

> Profundity:
>
> You need to be aware of a few things. Please don't change thread titles. Ever.
>
> You need to be careful of saying things like “so and so is lying.” A difference in
> perspective is not the absolute truth, and anyone on this forum should know that by now.
>
> Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable on this pod. If you disagree, disagree.
> Calling another member “evil” is grounds for being removed from the pod.
> Another post like that, and you're out. Tongue in cheek, ironic, whatever.
> Don't do it again.
>
> Normally, questionable posts are discussed privately, in order not to embarass
> the poster. I'm making an exception in this case, because it's particularly egregious.
>
> Liz

Thank you for your observations and feedback Liz, you're a gentleman and a scholar (that's gentleman in the generic sense).  Also, thank you for acknowledging the validity of the content of my post even if you did not appreciate the particular terms that I used to accurately describe the situation.  It is true that it would have been better for me to simply provide “the facts” that disproved Hawkeye's assertions.  The fact that so many people have been spreading similar inaccurage assertions without ever providing any references what-so-ever to actual factual sources to support those assertions gets tiring.  I agree that it was inappropriate for me to refer to Hawkeye or the pattern of his expression as being evil. 

It is also true that other people pointed out and characterized the less-than-integral pattern of Hawkeye's responses much better than I did.

Thank you again for your agressive approach to insuring the integrity of the interchange of the I-I forum participants.

Re: Obama 2

Bruce: David, I'm curious why you've continued to use the word, pander, in relation to his campaigning in Iowa.  It is a negatively charged word, not a neutral one.


Pander is used in a political context to refer to politicians who do things to gratify voters in return for votes. I wrote:

 

Obama made a political decision to take his name off the ballot in Michigan—he wanted to pander to the people in Iowa (Iowans were upset Michigan was holding their primary too early).

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

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 [Bush folks]. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.



David

Re: Obama 2

Pandering in a political context is still a negatively charged word.  It isn't a neutral way to describe campaigning efforts, at least not in my understanding of it.

Would you say that Hillary has primarily been pandering to American voters for the past year, or would you use a different word?

Re: Obama 2

I just remembered the Huffington Post also ran an article about the Exelon affair, pointing out that Obama's campaign chief, David Axelrod, had been a consultant to Exelon, that Exelon had contributed $227,000 to his campaign (this was before his campaign had so many contributors), and that “if this was a story about Clinton rewriting legislation to benefit one of her biggest campaign contributors, who also happened to be Big Nuke, there would be blaring headlines across the web.” Quite true! Especially if she hadn't told the truth about it on the campaign trail.


David

Re: Obama 2

Bruce: Pandering in a political context is still a negatively charged word.  It isn't a neutral way to describe campaigning efforts, at least not in my understanding of it.

Yes, you're not paying a politician a compliment when you say they are pandering. I don't think it was particularly high minded of Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan, a state he was going to lose, to please the Iowans' egos. Many people complain that Iowa has an inordinate influence on the nomination process. Obama knows this, but he pandered to them anyway since it was crucial to his moving on in the process.

 

Would you say that Hillary has primarily been pandering to American voters for the past year, or would you use a different word?

They've all done their share of pandering.


David

Re: Obama 2

“The fact that so many people have been spreading similar inaccurage assertions without ever providing any references what-so-ever to actual factual sources to support those assertions gets tiring.”

 Fortunately, other participants in this discussion did pick up on the issues I raised and gave them much more granularity. Clearly they are legitimate questions and concerns.  

On the contrary, being “less-than-integral” is sitting around the table everyone being the “yes man” attacking anyone who dares speak out of line to that status quo. That sounds very Amber to me. I don't see much discussion about integral politics itself. Because the integral vision effectively transcends the modern and postmodern status quo, we cannot expect those who are invested in defending this status quo to validate the transcendence of their way of thinking . If I pushed some buttons then it's clear that there is some shadow work to be looked at in regards to political passions.

Robert Kegan defines integral consciousness as 'the capacity to see conflict as a signal of our overidentification with a single system”

and Steve McIntosh states “Integral consciousness achieves its evolutionary advance partially by being able to metabolize all the values of the spiral. This does not mean that integral thinking values everything equally, but rather, that it recognizes how the real values of every historically significant worldview must be included within our larger estimates of what is good and worthwhile.”

 Anyway, this is Obamas thread, back to him with no further delay.

Re: Obama 2

Fair enough, David.  I'm just pointing out that you're giving a particularly negative spin to events, although your presentation comes across as authoritative and matter of fact.   Certainly, some political commentators have speculated that Obama did this just to please Iowans.  But he was not the only one to do it – John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson did as well, all arguably because Michigan was in violation of DNC rules.  The fact that it was strategic, also, is no particularly negative mark against any of them, in my opinion. 

Re: Obama 2

e: Because he has had to straddle that fence long before he developed thru an ethnocentric phase, he has transcended race. He is able to seamlessly move in and out of different racial contexts. Even the Jeremiah Wright issue shows this. It was such a non-issue for him, he simply stood by his pastor. It was only when the folks who were stuck in their own ethnicity made a big stink that he had to make a ‘political' move away from him.

-

David: The Wright issue is not a big one for me at this point-I trust he has learned what he needed to learn from the experience-but I would like to make a few points in the interest of historical accuracy. For one thing, Obama did not ultimately stick by him, in case you missed it: Wright, offended that Obama had distanced himself and that so many people were criticizing him,


You believe everything at face value? They orchestrated this so Obama could publicly distance himself from Wright so as not to scare the white people needlessly. Whites realize he might be Muslim because of his name but I think they will be really scared when they realize he might in fact be black. :-0


…Since then, a white pastor visited Trinity and made racially charged remarks about Hillary, and Barack and Michelle have left Trinity as well.

That was an unexpected bonus they used to further calm scared white people. He is about to face the republican onslaught of negative campaigning. So this was a bit of luck. Or it could of been semi-orchestrated. That is, Rev. Pfleger could have played into their plans. Invite the white chocolate Rev. knowing he was gonna go off like that. It is not like this behavior is outside his repertoire.


Why was Wright an issue?

Because people forget that in America we have this thing called the separation of church and state. That people are more free to let it all hang out and speak their minds in church. What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? What then of our American ideal? I thought places of worship were considered sanctuaries?


So it was hardly a post-racial church.

I never claimed the church was post-racial. I said Obama was. 2nd tier folks can fit in where ever they want you know.


<3  e

Re: Obama 2

Fair enough, David.  I'm just pointing out that you're giving a particularly negative spin to events, although your presentation comes across as authoritative and matter of fact.   Certainly, some political commentators have speculated that Obama did this just to please Iowans.  But he was not the only one to do it - John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson did as well, all arguably because Michigan was in violation of DNC rules.  The fact that it was strategic, also, is no particularly negative mark against any of them, in my opinion. 

It seems like a petty thing to quibble about, Bruce, particularly since the word was used accurately. Democratic leaders of the four early states—South Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada—pressured these campaigns not to campaign in Michigan and Florida because they want to continue to come first in the primaries. The campaigns bent under the pressure. The Obama campaign then reached out to the other campaigns and organized the withdrawal of their names from the ballot in Michigan. Here is a poll from that time:

13. For the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Democrats Only)

Hillary Clinton 42%
Barack Obama 26%
John Edwards 10%
Bill Richardson 7%
Joseph Biden 2%
Christopher Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 11%

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_101007.htm

So I don't think it's very high minded either to bend to pressure as they did or attempt to render meaningless the vote of a state in which they were losing badly. I mean, this is an election. The peoples' votes are supposed to count and be heard. Not campaigning there falls under the category of “strategy.”  Taking your name off the ballot to render a vote meaningless is undemocratic, and in this case also pandering.

The motivation on the part of Democratic leaders in Iowa was strictly selfish. Here is Iowa Secretary of State John Mauro:

 

 “I can travel the whole country, but it's going to be the candidates who are going to make this decision because they're going to take control of the party structure. On the Democratic side if that becomes Barack Obama, I think the people of Iowa can feel tremendously comfortable about what the status is going to be (of Iowa's Caucuses).”
 

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=16DCE19C-01B0-268B-51BB8A634C6CFCBF

So the move perpetuated a system that most states consider unfair for a short-term political gain—we call that pandering. Not a horrible case of pandering, not too much of a sin, but it is pandering.

David

Re: Obama 2

The other states probably have a legitimate beef, but that's something the DNC should resolve before the primaries get underway, then.  Instead of expecting the candidates to ignore the rules of the DNC when certain states desire to go against them.  You could just as easily say that Hillary was willing to wink at the deliberate violation of DNC rules only because she expected to win in those states that were jumping the gun.  One wonders what she would have done, what she would have argued, if the tables had been turned and Obama's clear-win states were the ones ignoring DNC rules.

Re: Obama 2

e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church?

If a presidential candidate had for twenty years gone to a church that endorsed the KKK or was anti-sementic or homophobic would that be okay? As I said, it's not much of an issue anymore with me, though it probably will be in the general election, but the company a candidate keeps—especially if it is someone a candidate is going to for spiritual advice—is a relevant issue.



David

Re: Obama 2

I think Mr Obama is able to take the best from people and leave the rest or even heal with his presence (as we all here do) - this is an integral position to take. 

I do not think he is a racist anymore than people here (I suspect we all have some dumb unconscious beliefs that we have to shine a light on).  He gave one of the best speeches on race ever given in America after the controversy erupted.  It was honest, real and hit home with so many people.

I dont think Reverend W is comparable to the KKK.  The KKK want to kill black americans. 

Gitanjali

Re: Obama 2

Bruce: The other states probably have a legitimate beef, but that's something the DNC should resolve before the primaries get underway, then.

Yes, I agree.

 

Bruce: You could just as easily say that Hillary was willing to wink at the deliberate violation of DNC rules only because she expected to win in those states that were jumping the gun. 

We couldn't say that because the DNC didn't ask her to take her name off the ballot. The DNC had already levelled their punishment, taking away all delegates from Michigan and Florida (when the DNC rules suggested they should only be docked by half). It was irresponsible of Obama and those other candidates to take their names off the ballot for a short-term political gain because the ruling was still being contested, and by undermining the election they complicated things further and limited possible remedies. 

 

Bruce: One wonders what she would have done, what she would have argued, if the tables had been turned and Obama's clear-win states were the ones ignoring DNC rules.

She may have played some political shenanigans herself; they all do, but I'm not sure she would have gone so far as to block revote attempts. I think she may well have been above that ethically.


 

Gitanjali: I think Mr Obama is able to take the best from people and leave the rest or even heal with his presence (as we all here do) - this is an integral position to take. 

I think he has many gifts, yes.

Gitanjali: I do not think he is a racist anymore than people here.
 
I don't think he is a racist either. But his campaign did exploit race for political gain and was racially divisive. It started immediately after the New Hampshire primary, when his national co-chairman Jesse Jackson Jr. questioned the tears of Hillary Clinton, which some analysts believed helped her win (I personally think that's a little overblown). Here is what he said:

“There were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.

But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest.”

Hurrican Katrina particularly affected African Americans in New Orleans. And look how insensitive George Bush was about it! And JJ Jr is suggesting the same thing, that Hillary doesn't care about African Americans, that “she did not cry for” Katrina and “other things” that affect African Americans. Obama went on to play the race card himself in South Carolina. They then took Bill Clinton's words in South Carolina out of context and tried to make him out to be a racist. And, of course, they didn't stop there. Hillary was next. These things didn't get reported widely during the campaign. What got reported was, Is Bill Clinton a racist? Is Hillary a racist? Why do they say these things? That's all fine; it's all done, but it would be good to be clear on what happened and dispel the myths.

Gitanjali: I dont think Reverend W is comparable to the KKK.  The KKK want to kill black americans.  

No one compared Rev. Wright to the KKK. I just pointed out that not speaking the truth and sowing the seeds of paranoia and mistrust as he did is not helpful for anyone.


David

Re: Obama 2

Hatred, distrust and dislike of Obama amongst African Americans?

Its a specific thought in my mind currently, something resonates within what I am watching and feeling. I am unsure how to analysis it though. Any pointers would be welcome.

In the first’s instance I thought that where this phenomeum existed it could be a manifestation of internalised racism. But even if that is ‘true-ish’ it seems too simple an explanation.

I have gone back further then to look at the legacy of slavery- the house and field slave mentality and how that could translate today.

Would this specific group of African Americans be able to accept Obama at most as VP but the ultimate prize is too disruptive of a worldview of what is ‘appropriate’ for their racial mindset and within the wider context.That the Eurocentric and visibly white man/woman as dominant expression of power is ‘the waythings are’.And if Obama is to win it must be with the help of that status quo centered around what Hillary clinton represents, ( even though most of his VP picks are also white )

I don’t know enough of the history of how the two paradigmatic groups house and field slave , were pitted against each other but in terms of privilege, but I do know enough about light and dark skins and hierarchies. To the extent that the house slaves were often more invested in many more ways than the field slaves to keep the status quo, they were more likely to take up arms with their owns to fight the up risings. There is no overt group of blacks against Obama and yet…..

Again in the here and now is it important for Obama, in part because of what he represents symbolically (the racial aspect), not to win, not only because of the cries of inexperience, campaign shenanigans or adeptness, or it being Hillary’s turn, but also because a win by him fundamentally changes the tribal ethnocentric status quo…the reinvestment in the narrative of victimhood. i recall way back when Bill Cosby got slated for daring to suggest that african americans begin looking at to them selves, despite all the inherent disavantages and oppressions.

I am aware that some blacks do see him as the weaker to the two candidates, fair enough, but that wouldn’t account for some of the dislike he attracts within the African American community.

I happen to think he is the right candidate for the times because he includes and transcends the racial element and that that signifier is important. I feel Geraldine Ferraro was right, but that she was also bitter and less able to admit that the advantages both candidates brought to the process was significant. Nor do I feel the desire of some whites to vote for a black man to be less noble an impetus than voting for him because he opposed the war; I feel candidates are carriers of significances as well as policies.

But back to the bitter blacks, internalised racism and tribal mindsets and those blacks specifically who will not vote for Obama under any circumstance because he is part black….which part of Aqal or SD would best shed some light here?

http://www.afrigeneas.com/forumb/index.cgi?noframes;read=24547

Some Obama defenders online raise a number of theories to explain why prominent blacks have gone “off the reservation.” Jealousy, envy and ego often seem to top the list. But can it really be that simple?

[me- I think that is only part of what is going on and that even as these feeling arise would there not also be some confusion and even recognition of how conditioned and internalised the back-of the-bus mindset had become way after such requirements where lifted out of law?]

-Why some blacks have a problem with barrack Obama

http://www.newtimesonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14559&Itemid=267

Apart from the nonsense of the alleged superiority of one slave to the other — when dogs and gun-wielding slave catchers would be set upon either group equally[ house or field slaves] if they tried to escape — there is quite a bit of sickness in the psyches of some of those African-Americans, and Africans resident in the United States, who say they cannot vote for Obama for one reason or another.

Some of these believe that in order to appear “sophisticated”, they must prove to their white friends that they do not go with “the herd”. In other words, they do not want to appear to be racists who will vote for Obama merely because he’s black like them.

This is ok as far as it goes. But it ignores the historical significance of Obama’s candidature.

—–

For intutive reasons I feel this ‘sickness of the psyche’ is both real and rarely spoken of. In a humourous context i have seen it bandied around amongst blacks as ‘black people don’t ski’. Which of course they do, those who wish to. Would this sickness or contraction be be something that Robert Masters techniques could unlock in a safe fashion. or even genpo Roshis Big mind . Nor am I saying that where found unovered and released and gieven voice that the same self african american would be automatically inclined to vote for Obama.

I also went back to listen to wilber talking to Saul Williams about the album the rise and liberation of Niggy Tardust( i first listened to it while i was woking on a large scale collage the skinning of Negress Smith ) and while there Ken and Saul focus on flow and art and music there was much more.

“…There is much talk in America recently around the issues of race. As Barack Obama continues to amass more and more delegates, we have begun to collectively reflect upon our relationship with race and racism, and the conversation seems to have polarized into two radically different positions. On one hand, Obama’s viability as a presidential candidate across a wide range of demographics prompts liberals to proudly declare that, finally, we live in a “post-racial” America, no longer tethered to the racial divisiveness that has infected our political systems since the country’s inception. On the other hand, a great number of people are still asking the question “are we ready for a black president?,” which itself seems to indicate that a genuine “post-racial” America is still on the horizon of human evolution. The truth, of course, lies somewhere between, or beyond, these two extremes—we have certainly made some tremendous strides in our collective attitudes toward race and racism, but we cannot confuse our accomplishments with outright victory. There can be no singular victory over racism, but like peace itself, it is a victory that must be won again and again, perpetually into the future…”

and

”..While studying the Integral model, it can be easy to mistake “race” as a notion which, once we move past the ethno-centric stage of development, is something we no longer need to concern ourselves with. (Speaking in the context of the U.S., this is probably more true for whites than minorities, simply because minorities often report being subtly reminded of the color of their skin on a daily basis, simply from living in a white-majority mainstream culture.) But it is important to remember that even if we have moved beyond our exclusive identity with our own racial heritage, that aspect of our identity does not simply vanish, but instead becomes even more textured and nuanced than ever before. We also have the ability to more deeply explore other racial identities, cultures, and heritages, further enriching our own, and slowly peeling back many of the residual filters we unconsciously place over our perceptions of reality. The goal is not to be color-blind, as our politically-correct society often tells us to be, but to allow ourselves to see the entire spectrum of color, much more vividly than ever before. From this integral vantage point, we can see that our similarities are where we find Truth, our differences are where we find Beauty, and navigating between the two is where we find our Goodness…”

Re: Obama 2

Hi Augustina –

Early on in Barack's candidacy some black Americans brought up another point about his heritage that had some saying, essentially, “he's not really one of us.” It was not just that his mother was white, but also that his father was Kenyan – an east African whose ancestors had not been enslaved. Most black Americans are descendants of enslaved west Africans. Obama, they claimed, was really more like a first generation African / Caucausian immigrant rather than a black American with a family that collectively still holds the memory of slavery and its aftermath. In other words, Obama could not fully understand the black American experience because he was living an immigrant experience …

People have stopped bringing this up, for the most part. For one thing, in the U.S. you'll still encounter racist assumptions and reactions, unconscious or conscious, if you have any noticeable African ancestry. Anti-black racism is not concerned whether your ancestors were east or west African, just whether you're black, partly or completely. Barack grew up in America and thus is perceived as, and lives as, an African American.

Mary

Re: Obama 2

Hi Mary,

I hadn't thought of that viz barack not being 'black like us' as well as 'not black enough' as a sentiment. However even in the UK there are subtle and not so subtle tensions between Blacks who came straight from Africa 2 or 3 generation Black British and blacks who came via  generation enslaved Africans of  the west Indies  and Sierra Leone.


While there is a recognition that from a race based perspective he is still black from within a particular perspective within the black  tribal mindset he is from different interior stock? if this is a felt different then  might it be less  accurate to consider him trans racial . That there is a legitimate point to be made that appearances not with standing, church affiliations not withstanding barack was never 'black like that' and he had nothing  interior to transcend as such..Is  someone like Jesse Jackson is 'black like that' and thus as an interior Jesse  culturally represents too much difference to the wider populace.

Again, not withstanding the visual race statement,its symbolic importance,the Barack loathing part of the African American community  could be a recognition that his  interior blackness in not kin to theirs and a the resentment  partly a  feeling of a cultural slight of hand being played out.


Augustina

 

Re: Obama 2

e says: I never claimed the church was post-racial. I said Obama was. 2nd tier folks can fit in where ever they want you know.

Thanks for making the point as succinctly as you did. Its put the spotlight for me on why I have never bought into nor been in the least concerned by the guilt by association campaign against Obama. I am pretty sure that Wright said many racially divisive things from the pulpit over the 20 years, but I have never believed for a moment they represented Obama viewpoint and that the benefits of being in the church, spiritually emotionally and politically far out weighed the need to leave it …until they did.

I don’t feel his departure was political (n the pejorative) posturing; I do see it as calculating, in a strategic and focussed fashion. Road rules for getting to the white house….. Leave the church. Disown the Pastor.It was time.

If it was staged then it was brilliantly done, if it was determined that parts of the populace need the theatre since they can’t see past how he could have been in the church for as long as he did and yet have a radically different worldview and opinion about America than the one Wright holds. The amazing thing for me is that the association did not sink him and it seems serendipitous that the story broke when it did and not now.

Re: Obama 2

David: If a presidential candidate had for twenty years gone to a church that endorsed the KKK or was anti-sementic or homophobic would that be okay?

Are members from Wright's church hanging people from trees? There is a difference and I am surprised your morality (fear) can't allow you to see the difference. Ironic isn't it. How amber ethnic indignation leads to amber ethnic indignation. So, like I have said before. You identify with the minority and you get hurt, you identify with the majority and you hurt people. Stop identifying! I am glad there is a candidate that truly embodies that post-racial insight from the inside out.

As I said, it's not much of an issue anymore with me,..

Good, then I trust you learned what you needed to learn from the experience. :-)

-

Augustina: …but I have never believed for a moment they represented Obama viewpoint and that the benefits of being in the church, spiritually emotionally and politically far out weighed the need to leave it …until they did.

Yep, they also have young daughters they wanted to be brought up in church.

If it was staged then it was brilliantly done, if it was determined that parts of the populace need the theatre since they can't see past how he could have been in the church for as long as he did and yet have a radically different worldview and opinion about America than the one Wright holds.

Wright said he and Obama had conversations prior to him getting real popular. He said, 'you know Barack, you are going to have to distance yourself from me'. I am sure in his second term or 8 years from now, they will publicly be friends again.

I have friends I have known since childhood that have somewhat limited views in certain areas. They are entitled to their views but I still work on them when appropriate to help them try and see a broader perspective. And they do the same for my blind spots.


<3  e

Re: Obama 2

e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? 


David: If a presidential candidate had for twenty years gone to a church that endorsed the KKK or was anti-sementic or homophobic would that be okay?


e: Are members from Wright's church hanging people from trees? There is a difference and I am surprised your morality (fear) can't allow you to see the difference.


You weren't seeing that Wright's behavior was a legitimate campaign issue, so I provided some other examples to illustrate the point, if a candidate had gone to a church for 20 years that endorsed the KKK or was anti-semetic or homophobic. You then seize on the most extreme of those examples and declare that I can't tell the difference between Trinity United Church of Christ and the Ku Klux Klan, and it's because of my “morality” or “fear.” But I only provided you with an extreme example so that you would see the point.

Let's just start again: You don't think it's a problem that a candidate went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spread lies that encouraged people to hate and mistrust another race. So what if a candidate had been going to a church for 20 years where the pastor, who the candidate had called his spiritual mentor, had been saying the same things as Wright except substituting “Jews” or “African Americans” every time Wright said “white”? For example, what if an African American pastor had accused Jews of poisoning African Americans with the HIV virus or if a white pastor had accused African Americans of poisoning whites with the HIV virus and implied that these other races were inherently racist and couldn't be trusted?

It's not an insignificant point: Children should not be raised in a culture that makes another race out to be evil or inherently racist. You would surely object if a candidate had been bringing up his or her children in an atmosphere that was anti-semetic, anti-black, or anti-Latino. Why is it not an issue in the case of Rev. Wright, who establshed a culture that was anti-white? Again, I'm not saying it continues to be an issue for me regarding Barack Obama, but it does continue to be an issue for the country—children being raised in racist environments—and it's not an area where we should tolerate a double standard.


David

Re: Obama 2

Okay, David, we get it!

The bottom line of your campaign:

Hillary Clinton = good.

Barack Obama = bad.

McCain = may just be good enough to vote for.


When you say, “we should” or “we need to” in your posts, who do you speak for?

It certainly isn't me. Or anyone else I can think of who reads threads like these.


What I would really like to know is this: After countless pages filled with opinions as to Obama's motivations, his lack of moral development, his hypocrisy, inexperience etc. - in other words, after all the right-wing framed, blatantly biased SPIN you've written and linked to as if it were the objective truth -  have you been able to convert even a single pod member to your point of view?

Re: Obama 2

Mascha: have you been able to convert even a single pod member to your point of view?

~

I had to smile at that.  Lately it seems to me that converting someone to one's point of view on a forum is a rare thing indeed. 

Personally I find the forums best for social networking (so many wonderful people have come into my life this way!), sharing cool/interesting/funny information, pointing to shiny things, and sharing perspectives.  Winning arguments and converts to one's POV, not so much.

As for Obama, I say wait until he's erected [hehe] president, then start pissing on him in earnest.  If McCain is somehow erected, god/dess help us all…

cheers,
Arthur

Re: Obama 2

Oh, no, McCain is having sex of some kind? How to deal with such a thought??

Well, let's see…

I AM AESTHETICALLY OUTRAGED at the mere notion of his conduct!

As to your other point – my friend Skinner, who runs a huge website, writes: ”Barack Obama is now the only person on the planet who can stop John McCain and finally put an end to the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. You don't have to love the guy. Heck, you don't even have to particularly like him. But if you act like you want him to lose in November….” I'll fill the rest in with my own words: … we'll probably tombstone your ass sooner rather than later.

Re: Obama 2

Mascha: The bottom line of your campaign:

Hillary Clinton = good.

Barack Obama = bad.

Actually, I have said an awful lot of good things about Barack Obama on these threads, including that I once voted for him and that I think he would make a great president someday. I have tried to be as fair as possible. I've also said that I prefer him over every other Democratic candidate recently aside from Hillary, that he has great personal, diplomatic, communication, and political skills. It's been anything but a black and white position.

However, hasn't your position been a little black and white?

The good, the true and the beautiful gets a bit of a leg up
on the sociopathic, the deceitful and self-serving.

That doesn't strike me as either fair or accurate or conducive to an open, integral discussion that welcomes different perspectives, even dissenting views. I also notice you didn't give any evidence to back that up.

McCain = may just be good enough to vote for.

Well, he's looking more like Reagan to me these days than McCain 2000, but he is quite different from any other Republican. They really don't like him, the Republicans, and that's because he has voted against them on so many issues and really taken a stand against them on some of them. This is no longer the Straight Talk Express, though, make no mistake about that. But the Straight Talk Express got him no further than South Carolina, where he was smeared by the Bush folks. What is it about the South Carolina primary that brings out these dirty politics?

 

When you say, “we should” or “we need to” in your posts, who do you speak for?

I said, “Children should not be raised in a culture that makes another race out to be evil or inherently racist.” Does that not speak for you, too? Do you not agree with that?


I think it's terrific that you're an activist, Mascha. You have incredible powers with the pen, and I am sure you can do a lot of good with it. 



David

 

Re: Obama 2

David,

Like Mascha my experience is that you come across as strongly biased against Obama.  Perhaps for me the most telling thing is when you present rightwing media output as objective truth. 

This was initially intended as a thread to celebrate Obama.  However, because I like real debate and it makes life interesting I didnt state my objection to the debate here.  But I have at times wished that happened on a different thread, which wasnt just about Obama. 
Sometimes I wanted to say, David, stop!

Love, G

Re: Obama 2

Gitanjali, I thought you valued a deep, integral discussion based on evidence, even if it might challenge some previously held opinion. If you wanted your thread to simply be a rah rah for Obama, even if it was all just myth, you could have just let me know.

I've hardly presented anything from the “right-wing media,” but in an integral discussion there's nothing wrong with presenting a “conservative” view. Most people still seem to have trouble accepting it that integral politics involves a fusion of liberal and conservative ideas, a fusion of interior- and exterior-causation perspectives. I have simply debunked the left-wing media myths that have cast Obama as the “new politics” and that he has taken the high road during this campaign, and I have presented evidence to back that up. It has simply never been the case that Obama engaged in a different kind of politics, not in his first election in Illinois, not under the patronage politics of Emil Jones in Springfield, and certainly not in this campaign.

If you want to go on thinking about him as a saint, go right ahead, but I thought you might have some interest in looking behind the headlines and actually knowing what has gone on in this campaign and in Obama's past. It's also a little shocking to hear people trying to silence dissenting views like this. It's hardly conducive to an open, integral discussion.


David

Re: Obama 2

Actually, David, Gitanjali is well within her rights as thread-starter to limit this discussion in any way she sees fit. It's time for you to drop the subject. You are always welcome to start a thread of your own on whatever topic you like, of course.

Normally, even if the tone isn't quite what we'd like to see, the moderators don't get involved until and unless someone asks us to. For instance, in this thread, though your tone is at times condescending or combative, it is within the usual boundaries of this pod, though stretching the limits.

Everyone, please consider yourselves gently warned to speak from your highest self according to the Road Rules.

Liz
in moderator mode

Re: Obama 2

I like this quote:

Obama on Supreme Court Justices:  “Both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time.  What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult…That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.”

Re: Obama 2

Hi Mods,

tone is somewhat subjective, but could you do a review of this thread. At a purely feeling level I taste something bitter in the air. And its not in the points being made or the debate itself .

Augustina

Re: Obama 2

Re: Obama 2

David: Let's just start again: You don't think it's a problem that a candidate went to a church for 20 years where the pastor spread lies that encouraged people to hate and mistrust another race.

That is your interpretation because you are identifying with the majority and feeling attacked. I don't see him encouraging hate and mistrust. I see him being highly critical of the majority, thereby trying to unite his minority. Maybe you think some blacks here in the US no longer have a legitimate gripe against the powers that were and be, that everything is honky dory for them. I would suggest taking a ride into the housing projects and talk to the people there about their situation. Maybe go into their state funded schools, take a look around and then go to a white suburb and look at a school there. See if you find any disparity and then ponder on the root causes of that disparity and the ways and means that those root causes were allowed to continue to blossom to this very day. Maybe then you will empathize and be able to see what Wright is being so uppity about, even though you may still not agree with what he is saying.

But even before that comes into focus. What does separation of church and state mean? It means that you can confess your sins to your Spiritual guide without fear that they will tell the state. Does the reverse also hold true? That is, is a pastor's sermon to his congregation sanctified? So yes, I really don't care what anyone says within THEIR place of worship as long as they are not sacrificing goats or human beings at their altar as I similarly don't care what people (2 or more consenting adults) do in their bedrooms.

So is it fair play to lift sermons from within a church and put them on public display to further political agendas? What then of the separation of church (sermons) and state (politics)? Should we tape confessionals and use them in court?

It's not an insignificant point: Children should not be raised in a culture that makes another race out to be evil or inherently racist.

Then blacks with slave ancestors should leave America as their children inherit and are confronted with an abominable racist history, yes? Have you read the Lynch letters? This is what Wright is talking from. He and other black clergy are trying to redefine the image of black Americans of African descent in their own terms (not yours). So, he is first laying the historical factual groundwork, white American Christians did this to black Africans, among other things over the years. This is how you heal, yes? Acknowledge the truth no matter how much it hurts? That truth makes one angry. If he can then take that energy and use it to help to create and strengthen a resilient self-image and build an ethnic value around that, then from a place of equal self-image he can hopefully move more folks up the spiral. See? I have some black male friends that no matter how accomplished they have become, etc. there is still this stigma of racism and self-doubt that lingers in their mind. This is really saddening as this is 2008 and they are still dealing with the ghosts (collective shadows) of the past.

–

David: However, hasn't your position been a little black and white?

Mascha: The good, the true and the beautiful gets a bit of a leg up
on the sociopathic, the deceitful and self-serving.

I have to agree with David (although it pains me ;-) )  on this Mascha. I know you are active, invested and have a heart wider than the Mississippi but there is a way that you can be for the ‘good' without being against the ‘bad'. Like when Barack said in his speech as the presumptive nominee, ‘We are Americans first…'

–

I think in Thai food the 5 flavors (sweet, sour, salty, bitter & hot) are in every dish. So bitter should not be a problem as long as the others are here too. You are sweet, David is sour, Mascha is salty, I hope I am considered hot rather then bitter. :-)

–

Pelle, could not agree more on all points. Bush should have stayed a governor and Cheney should have stayed in business. They are way in over their heads leading a nation.


<3  e

Re: Obama 2

Briefly, because I don't have much time and I agree with Liz - it's time to drop the arguing in fruitless circles.

What David has called “conservative” and therefore deserving of “integration”, I see as a uniquely homebred distortion of the term. What passes for “conservative” in right-wing-leaning circles of the US these days would be considered cover-up code for pathological, sociopathic and criminal conduct in more highly developed democracies around the world.

So, e, I disagree with your contention that I should not name the disease exactly the way I see it, but rather foster a sense of  “unity” that has no foundation in the facts on the ground.  Widespread corruption needs to be acknowledged, prosecuted and cut out like the cancerous growth it is on the body politic (he he, I can't believe I said “body politic”, that's so… urgghh).

Reframing the conversation we're having could start  with recognizing that terms such as “liberal, conservative, conspiracy theory” and many more have been hijacked, systematically used to deceive the population for decades in the US.

To wit:

“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. Colby was replaced by future President George H.W. Bush on January 30, 1976.
_____________________________________________________


“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.

_____________________________________________________

My pound of salt,

m

Re: Obama 2

So, e, I disagree with your contention that I should not name the disease exactly the way I see it, but rather foster a sense of  “unity” that has no foundation in the facts on the ground.  Widespread corruption needs to be acknowledged, prosecuted and cut out like the cancerous growth it is on the body politic (he he, I can't believe I said “body politic”, that's so… urgghh).

It is no problem Mascha, you wish to be driving stakes thru the hearts of vampires in the basement, I am just suggesting we open the front door and walk out into the daylight and see who shakes out. If and when you have grown weary of the endless battles in the shadows, I will be here to lend a shoulder to cry on if you need it.

Reframing the conversation we're having could start  with recognizing that terms such as “liberal, conservative, conspiracy theory” and many more have been hijacked, systematically used to deceive the population for decades in the US.

Yes, of course. Don't be deceived by the allure of certainty with words.


<3  e

Re: Obama 2

That post is so patronizing, it's comical, e. Pythonesque in its presumptuousness. Really, as if you had superior insight into my reality.

By coincidence ( or was it divine guidance?), Arthur posted the fish slapping dance   a few days ago. I'll let that be my answer. 

__________________________________________

And now for something completely different.


Gitanjali, I'm fascinated by your take on Obama. Though I receive my impressions differently and wouldn't use the angles you see, they strike a chord and allow me a glimpse through your eyes. So I always hope you continue offering your observations even in this difficult environment.

 A similar accord happens when Arthur talks about the subject(s) at hand. Heck, I probably should just let him speak.

To your question ~

Gitanjali:  Now that the other fight is over, I turn my beady, witchy eye on Mr McCain.  What do people think of his energy and presence?  oh yes, and his policies! ;)

How does it compare to Mr Obama for them?

—snip—-

Just a first impression:

Norman Rockwell, Jimmy Stewart - as a persona at least!  His energy is “easier on the eye” than Hillary's.  He has a measure of old-time geniality and tier 1 common sense, and an ease that may come from having spent 5 years in hell, and then realising after that he could take anything, bring it on.

He is a elder, likable man with an ornery streak in him.


McCain explains his policies in the video I linked to above. There's a reason he's called McSame or McBush.

My impression (though extremely enlightened, still woefully partial, ja?) is that he's gone over to the dark side. Not that he was ever a bright light that I could admire. But now that he is too far gone to redeem himself or his party in the eyes of more educated citizens than ever, Republican power brokers seem to have thrown him into the ring simply because they don't consider him much of a loss. Looks like he's their burnt offering, the sacrificial goat they expect to be crushed by the WAVE of re-awakening these guys know full well is sweeping over the country.

 That's one level I see. There are others.

What Republicans have left is the criminal network they've installed. Trump cards are the usual aces: stolen elections, character as well as physical assassinations, plus the full arsenal of the fear-inducing tactics they've perfected over the course of decades.

Right now I'm thinking, poor John McCain… If he weren't such a self-serving coward who keeps betraying the core values of what it is to be a human being - never mind an American - I'd feel more sorry for the man.

Re: Obama 2

Mascha, may I return the compliment and say I find this fascinating! a burnt offering thrown in for the inevitable win by the democrats? did i read that right? wow the intrigue of this story.  The “things are not as they seem” and wait! things are not as they do not seem” :)

Yes,he has spurned his maverick streak to obtain the “support” of the party yet the party, mistrusting and suspicious, has offered him to the gods.

I'm reading about the 7 archetypal plots of fiction - which themes are in this i wonder?

The quest: nope

tragic love story: er maybe that lobbyist?

happy ever after love story: no, his wife seems strained, republican party doesnt love him

hero with the fatal flaw: possibly - what is his flaw? that he was willing to sell his soul for power. too much ambition.

triumph of good over evil: hmmm that may be a story for another day

the eternal triangle: that story's on the democratic side (the people loved hillary in a pleasant, I'm entitled to it way, but when obama came on the scene, passions arose in the people that had ne'er been witnessed before! Hillary was spurned for Obama)

nemesis/divine retribution: yes this is the one

Gitanjali

Re: Obama 2

Sorry Mascha, did not intend it to be.

<3

e

Re: Obama 2

Cool- ishness, e.

I say bygones and onward ho  


(not that kind of ho, Mary! More like, “onward ho, Buddhist masters and German vampire slayers, you know.)

.

Re: Obama 2

I say bygones…

Of course, it goes without saying my dear friend.

<3  e

Re: Obama 2

I am saying this in half a tone of jest and half a tone of disappointment at what has been an otherwise amazing discussion to read, particularly for somebody outside of America and who is learning little something about how your political system really works.

 It's bad politics in a place like this when a person weighing things in with different sources of data from both sides is slammed into a corner because their view is challenging. As this has been much more than a 'homage to Obama' thread for many weeks and you've all entertained and to some degree explored these issues at length together, it seems like a bit of an oppressive ending to this particular part of your debate.

In my opinion, slamming sections of a debate to a close like that is particularly unhealthy, and would only be acceptable, if a contributor was going out of there way to be acting from there lower self and not obeying 'road rules' and whatnot. This was not the case here and while my purpose is not to interfere with the rest of the discussion, or change the fact that the person starting the thread has decided to curb its direction, -  I think it's important for people who tune into this place to know that they can continue to present arguments that challenge and that might not be in line with the flow of the majority. That's what makes this place an interesting place to be.

So, I am just noting that here because I think it's incredibly important for other readers (not necessarily contributors) to be aware of - and now I will get out of your way and bid you interesting further Obama flavoured ponderances.

Lisa

Re: Obama 2

Lisa wrote-'the person starting this thread has decided to curb its direction”


Are you sure? That is not the impression I got . Hardly that  Lisa, and  while I  asked for the tone to be checked  and even though I did not begin the thread, I don't see anything or one  being slammed into a corner . i am also outside of the American political system and invested emotionally in this election .

As I see it there is room for a number of threads on the same issue and if one leans towards a pro Obama sentiment , it does not make it a homage of the majority  .

 A view point being challenging also isn't the issue for me , though if that viewpoint is presented with rhetorical  or a sexist high note or if another person doesn't agree with that viewpoint they can blightly be considered  as  wanting to think Obama 'a saint'?

 Asking for more care is hardly akin to 'silencing dissenting views'. And the  idea of  any one  view point as representing  'a truth' or' facts' that , again anyone holding a different viewpoint  doesn't want to see because its all so very 'rah rah'…well I'll just differ on the point. For me the tone of the discussion is at least as important of its content, maybe even more so. And I saw too many discourses on the old I-N forums run afoul  of the simple rules of civility. It was never the disagreements but the disagreeableness with which they were presented.

Augustina

Re: Obama 2

Smear me, no no Smear you

seems like a very wu-wei move to me , Looking over fight the smears website
and in particular this page
I am again struck by the sheer cunning and depth of the counter  move.

Re: Obama 2

Yes I am sure Augustina.

Gitanjali said, 'This was initially intended as a thread to celebrate Obama.  However, because I like real debate and it makes life interesting I didnt state my objection to the debate here.  But I have at times wished that happened on a different thread, which wasnt just about Obama.'


As that debate didn't happen on another thread, it happened right here on this thread, it's a little late in the day to bring it back full circle around to focusing on Obama, and bringing a halt to other views that posters are putting forward.' A quick glimpse of all posts over the last few days decisively points to this direction.

I think you have mentioned something important when you talk about how much 'emotional investment' - you like many others might have in all of this. That is perhaps why it's difficult to read various sources of data that will be hold 'trigger factors a'plenty.'

On your 'asking for more care issue,' you would have to say more about where exactly you feel there has been a lack of care, because I personally cannot see it. And maybe I cannot see it, because I do not have an emotional investment in this. Although I can fully understand & empathise with you on why this is highly emotive.


Lisa

Re: Obama 2

Lisa

Actually, I feel Augustina felt more deeply into what I wrote than you, in this  instance. I'm sure I have not expressed myself with the greatest clarity and I am sure that I wont again so I ask you to feel deeper into what I write.

I got frustrated with your posts David, because I did feel a kind of …how to say…determined desire to cut down Obama in them.  That post was more a personal sharing of what was happening inside me. I wasnt ordering you to stop posting like that.  

You know it takes some attention and courage to actually tell people in the middle of adiscussion what you are feeling at a deeper level about their posting, rather than continue to focus on just the intellectual content of what they are posting.

I see at as a gift, David. And you know you and I have talked about going deeper.  Did I do it unskilfully?

G




I

Re: Obama 2

Hi Lisa,

yes care along side the emotional investment along side the intellectual and critical analysis. If i were to be crude I'd say the masculine and feminine tendencies around discourse without privileging one over the other.

Obama won and I felt such joy and I wanted even needed  space for that. I felt something in me up lifted and inspired and I felt it was being squashed in less than 24 hours. Of-course it was not and could not . I am still immensely pleased he won and as I wrote before I think him the most calculating  and strategic politician of everyone who ran .


I didn't need Hilary brought in and the Vp,  stakes or as anything else so soon after he won  ..for a moment….I did not like what I saw as the sexist question on Davids part to me, nor his 'thank you for your comment 'when I brought up his assumption….this is where i saw a lack of care and sometimes care for me trumps respectand intellect.  I have never thought a person of superior knowledge base or intellect in the same light as I do one who takes simple care in speech.Yes, sometimes I find  what I see as the pomposity of those who consider themselves intellectually  integral a little hard to take.

As I see it all points can be made from all perspectives  and to the great profit to all reading .But not i hope  at times negating those the discourse is taking place with .No matter how important the point, to me , the debate is rendered  mute ( as far as my  contribution to it goes) if I feel I am being trampled over or my perspective somehow less  worthy because  mayhap I am a rah-rah  pom pom kool aid  drinking cheer leader for Obama  the messiah. Something in me feels lost and the debate  feels sour. Call it a type of feminine  house keeping or being  overly polar and  sensitive but i feel as I do.

No one slammed anyone to my mind but i did ask for a pause for review, I did ask the question not so much of road rules or lower or highly self posting but of care. And its not t the emotional investment  that trigger anything,its  not difficlut for me to read anything around the points, its that I am appalled over all at how much petty care-less-nesses there are in day to day  encounters  one with another.

I would prefer the company of a simple caring salt of the earth amber blue collar joe than the most intellectual integral person who does not notice how what they are saying impacts.

And  Lisa you may not see  any of this because ultimately you are not me . But I am me , so I have no excuse for not speaking up .  Bottom line, when Obama  won ,I felt happy, hopeful, inspired, joyful. I felt beautiful, even childlike with expectation that change could happen in my life.

Now back to Obama and his Shenanigans of which there are legion



Augustina

(And thanks for giving me the chance to explain  more deeply why  care  matters to me.That is where  the emotion really is).

Re: Obama 2

I hear you both ladies. Some lovely things said there by you both. I definately think what you've both said might help others see & perhaps feel those dimentions of this discussion that are really wholeheartedly important to you both (all), and of course beg to be considered.

Lisa

Re: Obama 2

…interrupts with something completely different -

folks, this should be devastating. And it achieves this in just one minute and 32 seconds.


John McCain Debates Himself on Supporting Bush



Loved this comment by andyj2287 at the YouTube site:

“McSame is bipolar. It's not cool to make fun of that ”

Re: Obama 2

Here's an example of Mr Obama doing his ILP ;)

specifically, shadowwork. 

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=5172580&page=1

Smartly, he does it in a speech to his church. He talks about the fundamental matrix, the experience of which drives us all - the parenting we get. 

And poltiically incorrectly, he says that African Americans need to get their act together! nowhere is the “bad father” experience more common. 

Put this together with his coment in one of his interviews: that part of his drive comes from feeling compelled to “prove that his father was wrong to have left when B was 2” and “he [Barack] was worth staying for”.

Thats some nice deep work there babes! self-awareness.  Some understanding of something more than the well-used mantra of

“family values”

by which many have meant some 1950s morality that stays in the shallows of life. 

yeah!

Gitanjali

Re: Obama 2

Excellent Mascha! and excellente comment by AndyJ -  I admire the skill of being dryly witty - the light touch, not one of my strengths yet I must confess.
 
Now that the other fight is over, I turn my beady, witchy eye on Mr McCain.  What do people think of his energy and presence?  oh yes, and his policies! ;)

How does it compare to Mr Obama for them?

For me, I need to read/see more of his stuff before really giving my reading.
(you know there are some people who only look at a map street by street as they pass that street - thas' me!)

Just a first impression:

Norman Rockwell, Jimmy Stewart - as a persona at least!  His energy is “easier on the eye” than Hillary's.  He has a measure of old-time geniality and tier 1 common sense, and an ease that may come from having spent 5 years in hell, and then realising after that he could take anything, bring it on. 

He is a elder, likable man with an ornery streak in him.

And at the same time, a voice in my head says: today, we need more than that. 

We need something more dynamic and innovative. Not a wild prophet in the desert, but the kind of practical-vision that drives us to build new systems and see our lives in new ways; and most importantly, inspires other people - the young and young at heart- to do the same.  For presidential terms are at most 8 years and paradigm shifts are a long term and collective affair.

This ability, this skill in the art of the possible, has created many amazing things in the last ten or twenty years including Integral Institute - a place that has started a quiet revolution, magnetising tier 2 people all over the world. 

Gitanjali

Re: Obama 2

This as a follow up on ‘Smear me, No no smear you’ and fightthesmear.com

McCain coming to the defense of Michelle Obama

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/mccain.interview/index.html

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) – Sen. John McCain said Friday that every candidate’s wife “should be treated with respect, and if there’s any disrespectful conduct on the part of anyone, those people should be rejected.”

Sen. John McCain discusses the state of the presidential race with CNN’s Dana Bash on Friday.

“I have the greatest respect for both Senator [Barack] and Michelle Obama. … I’ve never met her, Mrs. Obama, she’s a talented and a very effective person. And I admire both of them. We have stark differences in views,” he told CNN’s Dana Bash in a one-on-one interview.

“Americans want us to have a much more respectful campaign than the kinds they’ve been seeing recently.”

The comment comes a day after Obama’s campaign launched a new Web site, Fightthesmears.com, that aims to debunk rumors against the Illinois senator and his wife.’

I am not totally hot up with what does where in the quadrants. Still preferring to sense-feel the currents, but hopefully in a more sophisticated granular fashion than gut intuition. I feel that the smear groove operates within a context where source can not be pin pointed accurately and requires a rampant amber leaning culture to feed it.

What I see Obama doing here is addressing the culture of a smear in its amber expression ,from yellow tactically but also giving those who participate in the culture of smears and counter smears something to amber to sink their teeth into i.e. naming and shaming identified smear masters.

I think John McCain knows that going after Michelle Obama, or saying nothing while his surrogates do ,is going to be contrasted againt a male principle of Obama standing up for and defending his wife, and that has a knock on effect in the psyche of many women. I know where my thing is on this ,i especially look at how men/the masculine treats women/the feminine.I don’t know how much power McCain has to reign back those who think its a great idea to go after Michelle. but it warms my heart that he is on record standing up for her.

Re: Obama 2

How about a brief foray into integral theory to give this discussion the proper context? Warning: long post ahead. Sorry, Liz.  :)

Pelle: For me, the core of the issue is that the US needs a democratic president. Even if integral politics are a mixture of conservative and liberal, the liberal values are higher up the spiral and therefore “better” (or at least more constructive) than the conservative values. I'm assuming here that conservative means Amber/Orange, while liberal is Orange/Green.

Hi, Pelle. It's great to get a post from you. Miss having you around.

I think this brings up an interesting point. Green is higher on the spiral than Orange or Amber—but not always. It has higher cognition, sees more perspectives, is more sensitive, more deeply worldcentric, but the trouble is that, like all first-tier memes, it is not seeing or appreciating the other first-tier memes. It thinks it's ideology is the end all and be all of philosophy.

Green is fine in a leadership role if, say, the country is well established in Red, Amber, and Orange, that is, if security needs are being met, if  fundamental “family” values are honored well throughout society (telling the truth, loyalty, fidelity, etc.), if the economy is strong. If these things have been accomplished, then the country is truly ready to work on Green issues (group rights, environment, etc.) But if these things have not been shored up, Green can actually make them worse, can actually undermine these fundamental structures.

Ken has said that Green leadership could be a disaster in the event of war. Some extreme liberals, for example, did not even or at least were not sure about, supporting the war in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War. We can all see that Green can damage business if taken too far (over regulation, over taxation), and its moral relativism can undermine Amber family values. This is not to say that Green has to act like Amber and only have sex in marriage and such, but if it goes too far and spreads its Green Word throughout the country, then everyone can start acting Red. Red does not need Green; it needs Amber. Amber does not need Green to modify it, it needs Orange (ideally from an integral perspective of course).

At any rate, I think you see the point. There is a great example of this recently concerning Colombia, the Colombian guerrilla group the FARC, and a free-trade agreement suggested by the Bush administration. The guerrilla group has been terrorizing the country for years, trying to take it over to establish a Marxist-Leninist country. Clearly, Colombia ca not move on until this war is won. A bill recently came up in the Senate to extend special trading privileges to Colombia. This would strengthen the Colombian government and economy and help them defeat the FARC. However, Green Democrats voted it down. The Colombian government has some human-rights abuses, discourages unions, and other things Green Democrats care about. (Both Hillary and Obama voted against the bill. Bill Clinton was for it. Canada recently passed a bill very much like it.)

They were so concerned with Green issues that they couldn't see that security for the country needs to be the first priority. Of course everyone would like unions to be respected and human rights to be respected, but it is unrealistic to think that those things will come about when the country is faced with an insurgency. Fortunately, however, the FARC seems finally to be crumbling. After a bold attack on FARC positions in Ecuador (surely assisted by U.S. military planners), leaders have been killed or have given up, and now even Hugo Chavez, who has supported the FARC with money and arms and who not long ago was arguing that the international community should formally recognize them as a legitimate political organization rather than a terrorist group, is withdrawing his support. This, if it continues, is surely a great foreign-policy success of the Bush administration (Reaganesque here rather than neocon), and a Green Democrat not only probably would not have brought this about but may have made the situation worse.

Anyway, we might sometimes prefer or even need Orange leadership over Green. I am not necessarily suggesting that Obama is Green and that because we are engaged in two wars and the economy needs a little work we should go with McCain (who is Orange pretending to be a little Amber and such to get the political support of Christian conservatives and neocons), but that has been my concern. But I have been very encouraged recently to read that Obama is naming a rather centrist economic team.


Mascha: What David has called “conservative” and therefore deserving of “integration”, I see as a uniquely homebred distortion of the term. What passes for “conservative” in right-wing-leaning circles of the US these days would be considered cover-up code for pathological, sociopathic and criminal conduct in more highly developed democracies around the world.

Okay, let's attempt an integral theory of these political groups, a start anyway. Just a quick, off-the-cuff rundown:

Right Wing

Fascists (Red)—Authoritarian, brutal, dictatorial, extremely self-interested. Nazis, Mussolini etc. Very little of this in the U.S. and none really above ground. Lyndon La Rouche perhaps, neo nazis, Ku Klux Klan, etc.

Religious conservatives (Amber)—Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists. Mythic believers of all kinds. There may be some options that aren't religious. For example, there can be a national myth with people like Ronald Reagan functioning as the Jesus figure and the Constitution operating as the Bible. Important to tame egocentric Red.

Wall Street Republicans (Orange)—Economic conservatives, basically. Unlike Amber, non aggressive. Non expansionist territorially, but expansionist market wise.  Materialistic. Sees the world and the people in it as things to exploit for their own enrichment. Important for the economy.

Libertarians (Amber/Orange)—I'm not entirely certain about this—there may be other types of libertarians and to an extent the WS Republicans are libertarian), but I think at least some libertarians are like Amber Wall Street Republicans: the market force is perfect, godlike, and the Constitution is the Bible. Ron Paul, who believes that the Constitution makes something like 17 references to God when it makes zero and that the market forces are 100% perfect, is one of these.

NeoCons—(unhealthy Orange) Perhaps in response to threats from other value spheres (Green Democrats, Red terrorists) neocons bring forth a bit too much Red to defend and promote their value sphere, protect their country and personal interests, etc. The ends, they believe, will justify the means. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Richard Perle. These are the ones Mascha is referring to.


Left Wing

Authoritarian Communists (Red)—Just as bad in there own way as the Fascists. Fascists with government corporations rather than private corporations. Theoretically no worse than the fascists, but in American politics the lowest of the low. Think Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Lenin.

Mythic Communists (Amber)–Imagine Cuba and the Soviet Union without the killing and torture. The second to the bottom in American politics. When the Soviets invaded Germany in WW II, there were many Red Russian soldiers who raped and pillaged, and then there were some “serious,” “honorable” Amber communists who did not but at times even shot their fellow Russian war criminals (though the war criminals certainly won that battle).

Lunch Pail Democrats (Orange)—Wall Street Republicans without the money. If they make a lot of money, they might start voting Republican, and vica versa with the WSRs (without the money, they might become lunch-pail Democrats). Materialists, think the world and the things in it are something to exploit, but they got on the wrong side of the ledger: they are the ones being exploited, and they want the government's help in putting a stop to it.

Liberals (Green)—Otherwise known as progressives. They want things to be really fair, to have fair taxation, to be fair to criminals, minority groups,  the animals, other countries. The world and the things in it are not to be exploited but to be honored and cherished. Does not fully appreciate the fact that Amber and Orange are necessary building blocks for society and in fact made their own worldview possible. A tendency to take national security and economic stablilty for granted and devote resources to other programs. Because of a deeply worldcentric view, they care deeply about what other countries think about them but sometimes to a fault.

Mean Green Meme (unhealthy Green, Green infected with Red)—Frustrated Green, emotionally unbalanced Green. Not only rides out in the zodiac boat to stop the dolphin killers but shouts obscenities at the fishermen at the same time. Not only camps up in the redwoods to save them but pisses down on the loggers. Says things like: ”George Bush is a corporation masquerading as a human being.”

Beyond and Including Left and Right

Integral (Teal)—Neither left wing nor right wing. Realizes neither the left wing or the right wing is right 100% of the time or wrong 100% of the time, no matter how much they like to think they are the former and that the other is the latter. Tries to integrate the best of each while dropping what isn't necessary or working from each. Tries to see where a philosophy is succeeding and where it is not succeeding and will adjust accordingly. This is unlike the other groups already mentioned, who will have a tendency to suggest the same type of policy (and promote the same worldview) whether it is succeeding or failing, blaming others for the failures.

Integral blends interior-causation thinking (conservatives) with exterior-causation thinking (liberals). Why are some people poor? Conservatives say it's because they need stronger will power, values, work ethic, etc. (interior causation). Liberals say it's because they don't have the resources, the right environment, the right support (exterior causation). Integral believes it is usually some combination of both, perhaps more exterior in some cases, more interior in others, but usually a combination of both. So conservatives want to give people a little religion; liberals will give them a little food and housing; integral will give them both as needed.

Where is Obama? Well, the centrist economic team is evidence that he may be leaning integral. Some of his foreign policy positions still suggest he could be a little liberal, but this may be political posturing to get Green support on election day—it's still too early to tell all around. We won't know what any of these candidates will do in office until they actually do it. He has shown that he understands both interior- and exterior-causation thinking, which is very encouraging to see in a politician.


Well, I hope that's interesting,


David

Re: Obama 2

David, thank you.  I found your post interesting, useful and entertaining. I have some work to catch up on and other things that call my attention but I will come back to the Obama thread later.

I really appreciate you posting again after the conflict in the past few days. 

Cheers
G

Re: Obama 2

Great stuff!  Sorry if i'm short, but I need to make this post quick, so if I may:

Fascists (Red)—Authoritarian, brutal, dictatorial, extremely self-interested. Nazis, Mussolini etc. Very little of this in the U.S. and none really above ground. Lyndon La Rouche perhaps, neo nazis, Ku Klux Klan, etc.

Libertarians (Amber/Orange)—I'm not entirely certain about this—there may be other types of libertarians and to an extent the WS Republicans are libertarian), but I think at least some libertarians are like Amber Wall Street Republicans: the market force is perfect, godlike, and the Constitution is the Bible. Ron Paul, who believes that the Constitution makes something like 17 references to God when it makes zero and that the market forces are 100% perfect, is one of these.

Re: Obama 2

Thank you, Gitanjali, and you're welcome. Looking forward to your return!

Ken said in an interview not along ago that Marxism was one of the first lower-right spinoffs of the Western Enlightenment (when reason emerged and split off from religion), so perhaps we can say there is an Orange communism, or a left-wing Orange as well, though I don't know if there's ever been a government to really practice Orange communism. This is kind of like seeing the spiral split off into masculine and feminine types (capitalism being masculine, socialism being feminine).


David

Re: Obama 2

Echotrail posted this today on democraticunderground.com

Obama: I will close Guantanamo, reject torture without exception and end spying on Americans

   
I posed a question to Sen. Obama regarding the latest Supreme Court ruling on habeas and what he will do regarding Guantanamo….His response tickled me!


Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me in support of core constitutional principles, such as support for basic civil liberties and opposition to torture and indefinite imprisonment. I strongly agree with these views and you can see that in my record. As a constitutional lawyer, law professor and public servant, I have been clear, consistent and outspoken in defense of these core principles. And I will work hard to restore our constitutional traditions as president.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

My Administration will once again show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. I will also reject indefinite imprisonment without trial and close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. I will continue to fight against the assault on our nation’s most treasured document.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

~~*~~

Re: Obama 2

There were a few things said a few days ago that I don't believe were true, and now that things have cooled off a little I would simply like to point them out. My intention is not to scandalize anyone but merely to clarify what happened.

Augustina: Obama won and I felt such joy and I wanted even needed  space for that. I felt something in me up lifted and inspired and I felt it was being squashed in less than 24 hours. Of-course it was not and could not . I am still immensely pleased he won and as I wrote before I think him the most calculating  and strategic politician of everyone who ran .

I didn't need Hilary brought in and the Vp,  stakes or as anything else so soon after he won  ..for a moment

In fact, Augustina, you yourself brought up Hillary in your very first post after Obama became the presumptive nominee:

I hope he has options other than Hillary  Clinton as a V.P.

Another poster then said:

The good, the true and the beautiful gets a bit of a leg up
on the sociopathic, the deceitful and self-serving.

Just pointing out that I was not the first one to bring up Hillary Clinton after Obama became the presumptive nominee, because it was said that I was. Also, sometimes it's good to be nice to the side that didn't win, especially in politics. It is remarks like these that have caused many Hillary Clinton supporters to actively oppose Barack Obama during the general election. These people would likely have supported Obama if Hillary had been treated more fairly. It could cost Obama the election. As for the rest, I always thought that there was a good integral argument for supporting Obama. I was simply trying to separate media myth from what actually happened during the campaign, and I provided ample evidence to support the point.

Augustina: I did not like what I saw as the sexist question on Davids part to me, nor his 'thank you for your comment 'when I brought up his assumption…

I first of all wasn't addressing you with the joke I made, Augustina. I said, “you two,” referring to Mascha and Gitanjali. I thought that perhaps the reason you reacted was that I did not acknowledge your post, and I am sorry for that if that was the case. I know how it feels when people don't acknowledge you online, and I am sorry again if that was what happened. As for the charge of sexism, I must say that that is a little too much to level at someone for one small joke. If there is a pattern of jokes involving gender, perhaps, but not one small joke intended in friendship. I believe that the charge of sexism in this case was more sexist than the joke. And remember: I was the one supporting Hillary Clinton, while others were insulting her.

I have learned a lot during this exercise and don't mean to place blame on others. When these conflicts erupt, it is nearly always a group effort, and this was surely the case here.  I'm sure I could have been more sensitive at times. However, when we consider the many ad hominens, snarky comments, and such coming from other posters on these two threads, my posting was surely not less sensitive than others. We all have things to work on.


David

Re: Obama 2

 David ,

I  didn't  and don't require you to acknowlegde my post,  or even 'see' me The apology is unnecessary  . My saying I hope he has other choices for vP other than hilary does not equate  with you saying “don't you want to see a woman as Vp”.  if it was not sexisim but a joke  on your part ,you could have said so then, if you weren't addressing me, you could also have said so . You brought in  Hilarys gender I brought in Baracks  options. To call  raising the issue with you, sexisim on my part  Oi Vey , David, did that come out right? Maybe it did. All you wrote in  your  intial response to me when I brought it up was 'Thank you for your comment'. i felt that was care-less,and I said so.

However ,no blood has been shed and the discourse continues. The important thing for me was to say ouch when something hurt . I do not believe for a moment you would intentionally step on my toes, but for now, maybe dancing together isn't appropriate.


Augustina

Not much more to say on the matter I think , but if there is I'll respond via email

Re: Obama 2

I'm sorry about the “thank you for your comment” comment, Augustina. At the time it just seemed as though you wanted to attack, so I just decided to cut off the discussion, but now I see you just wanted to discuss it.

I appreciate your posts. They made me think more deeply about some things.



David

Re: Obama 2

It seems things may be slowing down on this thread here now that Obama has won the nomination. Personally, though I think Obama is the best candidate for president, I don’t trust him. I don’t trust any presidential candidate. I think they are all owned by the lobbyists no matter what they say. Of course we want the best candidate we can get and I think Obama will do very well within the constraints of our system, but I think our system is flawed.

I would like to encourage ideas on what a better system would look like. What would Integral Government be made of? How would it work?

I posted one idea on a new thread in Chapel Perspicacious called Holacracy: New Government Form.

I’m not trying to end this thread, but I would love it if some of your juicy, intelligent energies could focus on ‘where do we go from here?’ !!

Re: Obama 2

Nevermind that. Arthur pointed out a post that's already going on:

http://pods.gaia.com/ii/discussions/view/291441

I moved my posts over there. Please check it out when you have a moment.

Thx. D.

Re: Obama 2

The art Offends

So what was Mr Arboleda  was  really thinking?   In reading his plaintive manifesto to the purity of Art needing to exist within its own context a devoid of social impact and his  
woe  at all that has been leveled at  him since his ill timed  Obama exhibition, 
I felt that he had been naive as well as an opportunist, since the whole thing was faked
even his outrage.
The Hillary  exhibit 
I thought  it infantile, I am hoping some serious artist will at some point  make work which will act as commentary .

Re: Obama 2

Hmmm

Just looking at the latest little upset:  Obama saying that Clinot's supporters need to look at McCain's policies towards women and then they will realise Obama is the better choice and “get over it” [their anger towards Obama]. This has left many Clinton supporters feeling sensitive.

I realise that I wouldnt vote for a woman just because she's a woman.  I need to feel she's a woman that I can identify with.  I didnt identify with Thatcher for example.  But there's a lot of women out there feeling that it is vital to get a woman into the whitehouse.  A huge symbolic victory for them.  To me its a secondary matter.

It is still significant to me that if a president is from a minority or marginilised group, but only after I sense into their character and ability and trust that first.

Its then significant that they are one of the “marginilised” because its exciting to see human beings who vote for them see beyond barriers and prejudices and be moved to trust the best person available. And its exciting to see anyone from a marginilised group feeling passionate and strong enough not only to not “play victim” but to want to give back.  I still think politics at its best is a great service and sacrifice to a nation or world (my dad was  a polly).

Morning thought…
G

Re: Obama 2

A bit presumptuous isn't he?

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a meeting of Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago Friday, June 20, 2008. A new seal debuted on Obama's podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin 'E pluribus unum' (Out of many, one), Obama's says 'Vero possumus', rough Latin for 'Yes, we can.' Instead of 'Seal of the President of the United States', Obama's Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama's eagle wears his 'O' campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.