|
|
Obama 2Liz said Jun 9, 2008, 4:07 PM: |
||
|
This is the new Obama thread, a continuation of this thread. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 9, 2008, 8:00 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 9, 2008, 8:50 PM: |
||
|
Sandra! And thanks Arthur for framing it in terms of the golden shadow…yes!
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 9:00 PM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 9, 2008, 9:28 PM: |
||
|
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 2profundity said Jun 9, 2008, 10:16 PM: |
||
|
> Profundity: |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 10:54 PM: |
||
|
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). And then: As I mentioned earlier, Obama took his name off the ballot [in Michigan] to pander to the people in Iowa. So, Iowans, who take pride in holding their caucus first and having an unusually large influence on primaries, were angry at Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries. They, Iowans, wanted to be the ones to choose the nominee, not Badgers or Floridians. So Obama, with nothing to lose but something to gain by making the Michigan vote look meaningless and doing something to please Iowans, took his name off the ballot in Michigan. He was saying, “Look, I realize you Iowans are more special than anyone else. You deserve to be the ones to have such a large influence on the nomination process. Now pick me!” And they did, but it was a caucus and not a primary, so we'll never really know how the people of Iowa really felt about it. Bruce: Was there something unethical, in your view, in his campaign work in Iowa? Well, he didn't tell the truth about his dealings with Exelon when he campaigned in Iowa, as you can read about here. Here's an excerpt:
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.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 9, 2008, 11:22 PM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 11:27 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 9, 2008, 11:47 PM: |
||
|
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 2Daniel said Jun 10, 2008, 2:22 AM: |
||
|
“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.” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 10, 2008, 7:23 AM: |
||
|
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 2e said Jun 10, 2008, 10:21 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 5:49 PM: |
||
|
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.
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
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Balder said Jun 10, 2008, 5:55 PM: |
||
|
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 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 5:55 PM: |
||
|
e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 10, 2008, 10:35 PM: |
||
|
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. 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. 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.
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.”
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 10, 2008, 11:19 PM: |
||
|
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 2maryw said Jun 11, 2008, 1:49 PM: |
||
|
Hi Augustina – |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 11, 2008, 9:11 PM: |
||
|
Hi Mary, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 10, 2008, 11:38 PM: |
||
|
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 2e said Jun 11, 2008, 11:14 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 11, 2008, 9:18 PM: |
||
|
e: What do you think David, should the statesmen be judged by the remarks of his pastor in church? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 12, 2008, 12:51 PM: |
||
|
Okay, David, we get it! |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2adastra said Jun 12, 2008, 1:15 PM: |
||
|
Mascha: have you been able to convert even a single pod member to your point of view? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 12, 2008, 2:18 PM: |
||
|
Oh, no, McCain is having sex of some kind? How to deal with such a thought?? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 12, 2008, 10:53 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 12, 2008, 11:38 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Liz said Jun 13, 2008, 11:15 AM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2adastra said Jun 13, 2008, 12:55 PM: |
||
|
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.” cheers, Arthur |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 13, 2008, 12:07 AM: |
||
|
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 2Pelle said Jun 13, 2008, 2:09 AM: |
||
|
When it comes to the actual persons who are (were) running for president, I feel that both Hilary and Obama would have been (are) far better choices than a McCain who's bogged down by conservative values low down on the spiral. Hilary has publicly proved her interest in integral concepts, and I don't think anyone doubts that she's hardworking and has a lot of political skill. So I'm sure she could have done good things as president. However, the thing I don't trust about her, and that ultimately makes me prefer Obama, is that she didn't trust her authentic personality in the race, she adapted too much to how she “should” be and act. The few times that she let go, and was herself, came across as far more powerful to me. Obama, on the other hand, has never compromised when it comes to his core personality and how he shows up energetically. This makes me trust him. Sure, he plays the game of politics, and does what is needed to become elected. Why shouldn't he? If you want to win the game you need to play the game, such is life. Sure, you can spend you're life complaining about the rules of the game, but then you'll never get anywhere or achieve anything worthwhile. As integralites we can see that both approaches can be done at the same time: play the game to ultimately change the game, when you have a position of power. Without having any proof I feel that Obama is integral. The way he speaks and shows up simply resonates at an integral spectrum for me. My 2 cents, Pelle
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 13, 2008, 11:42 AM: |
||
|
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.
David: However, hasn't your position been a little black and white? 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…' Augustina: At a purely feeling level I taste something bitter in the air.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 13, 2008, 1:08 PM: |
||
|
Briefly, because I don't have much time and I agree with Liz - it's time to drop the arguing in fruitless circles. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 16, 2008, 9:51 AM: |
||
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 16, 2008, 4:06 PM: |
||
|
That post is so patronizing, it's comical, e. Pythonesque in its presumptuousness. Really, as if you had superior insight into my reality. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 17, 2008, 1:26 PM: |
||
|
Cool- ishness, e. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2e said Jun 18, 2008, 9:34 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 2:38 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 3:15 AM: |
||
|
Lisa wrote-'the person starting this thread has decided to curb its direction” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 3:33 AM: |
||
|
Smear me, no no Smear you |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 3:45 AM: |
||
|
Yes I am sure Augustina. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 14, 2008, 6:10 AM: |
||
|
Hi Lisa, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Lisaji said Jun 14, 2008, 7:50 AM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 15, 2008, 12:40 AM: |
||
|
…interrupts with something completely different - |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 15, 2008, 8:19 PM: |
||
|
Here's an example of Mr Obama doing his ILP ;) |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 15, 2008, 9:04 PM: |
||
|
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 2David said Jun 17, 2008, 6:15 PM: |
||
|
How about a brief foray into integral theory to give this discussion the proper context? Warning: long post ahead. Sorry, Liz. :) |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Cartosys said Jun 23, 2008, 9:51 PM: |
||
|
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. Red organizes around reward for loyalty and punishment in an environment of perpetual fear. Mobs, dictatorships like Saddam etc. Nazi's, and the KKK on the other hand have inherent in them a more longterm “vision” or “philosophy”–if you want to call it that–in which to work or fight for. Definitely authoritarian, but those in authority would be seen as more bestowed with the shared “higher purpose.” Those kinds of qualities would classify them as ethnocentric amber. It's always more complicated than that though, since many Nazi's were clearly red individuals given their many barbaric and egocentric acts of torture, rape and murder. Hitler, however sounds classic amber though. at least from what i've learned through the documentary Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary 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.This is a good one. A strive for liberty is development through the masculine type (individualistic) voice, And the Libertarian philosophy expressed by those such as Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and the Constitution are very Orange rational. Again much amber is seen around Ron Paul as well, but that's a matter of lines of development IMO. Hopefully i'll post more later. Thanks. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 17, 2008, 7:15 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 18, 2008, 6:13 PM: |
||
|
Echotrail posted this today on democraticunderground.com |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 18, 2008, 10:54 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 19, 2008, 1:44 AM: |
||
|
David , |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 19, 2008, 2:36 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Dmitri said Jun 19, 2008, 10:22 AM: |
||
|
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 2Dmitri said Jun 19, 2008, 5:39 PM: |
||
|
Nevermind that. Arthur pointed out a post that's already going on: |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 20, 2008, 11:11 AM: |
||
|
The art Offends |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 23, 2008, 8:37 PM: |
||
|
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. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2profundity said Jun 24, 2008, 3:30 AM: |
||
|
Why do so many people keep passing on the same old tired rhetoric as everyone else who is attempting to destroy a political candidate? Who is really fooling who here? Whose true colors are being exposed as we type? And what color is it that is in “attack mode”? And for that matter, why aren't you talking about Cindy McCain's herpes and whether she got it from her husband John or someone else? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 4:33 AM: |
||
|
,His whole campaign is considered presumptous by some for reasons less amusing than than this over blown button . . I feel the same way when I see photos of McCain doing photo-ops with Bush , but that isn't such an obvious symbol. of association by proxy |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 24, 2008, 1:50 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 24, 2008, 5:28 AM: |
||
|
Why do so many people keep passing on the same old tired rhetoric as everyone else who is attempting to destroy a political candidate? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 24, 2008, 6:26 AM: |
||
|
Ken Wilber has said that 70% of the world is Nazis. What he is saying is that there are overwhelming numbers of ethnocentric amber people in the world, not that everyone is immoral.
Integral Spirituality Pages 179-180 Ken Wilber |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 10:01 AM: |
||
|
It also gets to be one of the more tiresome refrains, even here, that support of Obama in some way necessarily translates as being a worshiper of 'the saint. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 10:12 AM: |
||
|
if 70% of the voting population is ethnocentric , then does democracy suck. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 10:43 AM: |
||
|
Let's set the record straight. First, Obama did not “vow” to take public financing no matter what ensued in the campaign. There were all sorts of conditions and unpredictable variables that he said would affect his decision about public financing when (and if) the time came. He wisely gave himself wiggle room on the issue. That's what politicians do. He didn't paint himself into a corner because at the time he didn't know if he'd be able to unseat Hillary Clinton or who his likely Republican opponent would be. Isn't it interesting how, after largely ignoring the issue for the last 30 years, during which the GOP consistently outfundraised and outspent Democrats in election after election, the media are suddenly all atwitter about whether the campaign finance system is “basically fair”? How dare Obama inspire 1.5 million donors, giving an average of $197 apiece, to help him raise more money than McCain? “This is a big deal,” said McCain of Obama's decision. “It's a big deal. He has completely reversed himself and gone back not on his word to me, but the commitment that he made to the American people. That's disturbing.” What's actually disturbing is the Swift Boat Media's complete indifference to McCain's bald-faced hypocrisy on the same issue. Amidst all the attacks on Obama's “flip-flop,” how much have you read in the MSM about the fact that McCain has “completely reversed himself” on public financing – and is currently breaking the law on a daily basis, making a mockery out of a campaign finance system he helped create? But wouldn't Obama be a perfect chump if he looked at the present set-up, and his enormous fund-raising abilities – and he went, you know, I'm going to be a Good Little Boy, I'm going to meekly stick with what I said at first, and just take the small money (in comparison) that the government gives me? And then said, I'm sure the Swiftboaters and their ilk won't come out and try to slime me. And even if I lose from doing this, still – I'll get a gold star for good behavior and for never ever flip flopping. And you can all suffer through McCain for four years, and also the Supreme Court will be ruined for the next 75 years. Enjoy! But I didn't flip-flop. Give me a break. Give all of us a break, and stop boring us with the endless coverage of this story. I don't recall too many in the media decrying the lack of fundraising equality between the two parties, or the way the Republican Party was in bed with the Corporate World (who helped us all ignore global warming for 8 years, not to mention ignore seeking energy independence). No one said boo about that. Indeed the media seemed to ADMIRE the Republicans ability to raise and raise and raise money. They like power when it comes from the people in power. When it comes from people knocking on the door, seemingly they don't like it. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 24, 2008, 11:49 AM: |
||
|
Its still amazing how much of the republican and conservative perspective is not about championing thier candidate, but attempting to find yet another negative about Obama, something I also find tiresome but wholly predictable. Its as if there are no substansive issue s on which to critique him, and there are, instead the discourse around his suitability becomes mired in issues around flag pins and seals . |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 2:10 PM: |
||
|
True, symbols matter but differently within the spiral. One commentator on morning Joe this morning expressed exasperation with Obama viz.'just eat the goddam tacco'. It's not about the taco. It's not about the tie pin (I feel he held out on the tie-pin issue way too long). For Amber it matters. I say render unto Ceaser and be done it. I don't think Obama is better than anyone else who has run in seeking every advantage .athe seal thing , some one somewhere felt this was a good idea, one worth testing, now they know. I always wondered how long it would take for mainstream to understand how shrewd he is, as all good politicians ought to be. For instance when moveon.org spoke about wanting Obama to keep is word and oppose retroactive immunity for the telecoms industry I felt despite moveons help and support, he was not going to allow himself to be told what to do. Now Dodd and Feingold step in to deflect and take up the challenge. Likewise I feel he will choose Hilary as his VP and possibly always intended to but not on her terms or to her time table and not in a manner that would alienate his base. A clever orchestration may well follow over the coming week which allows him to pick her, not only because of hers and Bills support but because he has consolidated his power position in the polls, the party and as he hopes to do as President. Whatever anyone else might say I don't think the Clintons underestimate him, there won't be a co presidency. His other options are not as strong as I thought they might be in the mindset of amber-orange, I think his choice has to be another ‘personality'. Gore might work but hasn't his moment passed for that and John Edwards, just gut here, I think he is too soft. Obama and the two Clintons on the trail, sure there will be issues but I don't see winning being one of them. Nor do I see Obama coming off as the weakest of the 3 as he kinda might have done if he had rushed to pick her. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2profundity said Jun 24, 2008, 2:43 PM: |
||
|
Is there such a thing as a “Broken Record Color”? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jun 24, 2008, 4:05 PM: |
||
|
In a sense there is nothing true in politics. Its purely values and their perpsectives. Whats true? We do the best we can from the level we find ourselves and each other collectively. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2maryw said Jun 24, 2008, 4:33 PM: |
||
|
None of this presidential seal-symbol stuff bothers me at all. It's not so terribly presumptuous that Obama would use it. He is, after all, the Democratic nominee now – truly, it's either him or that other dude who will become president. And if he does have a big ego: so what? Don't most presidents (and presidential nominees) have – and need – egos to win? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2timelody said Jun 24, 2008, 6:50 PM: |
||
|
Hawkeye: Ken Wilber has said that 70% of the world is Nazis. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 10:38 PM: |
||
|
what would disenchanted green as a political group look like? I had images of folk using the law of attraction for years trying to make their small business work and only now reallsing they won't get far without orange business savvy. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 24, 2008, 10:50 PM: |
||
|
Haha, this makes me see my greeen side…..do I really need to work hard??? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Jun 24, 2008, 10:32 PM: |
||
|
Hawkeye, I don't think you can be proved right or wrong on the issue, I don't see that as an aim . I think hairs were more likely to have been raised on those who see this graphic gaffe as an indication of Obamas mighty ego and unbridled ambition (as well as a fall from sainthood). True,I don't require impeccability (possibly because his hierarchy of values is muchmore of a long term game changer . I believe he knows he has to win first and it's far from an impeccable playing field. Still the use of symbols such as seals and pins and images generally is an important dynamic to look a under ‘integral art' perspective and how images perform within culture as tool and weapon and emboded, encoded significances. I am sort of amused at GOP commentators now trying slate Obama for refusing to have his photo taken in front of a Mosque or give a speech in a Mosque or locked in embrace with Keith Ellis . I can imagine what would be done with those images and what they would be made to symbolise. And yet, and this is me being optimistic, I can see him doing all those things if he wins the election, but to do so now given his awareness of what it would symbolise to factions of non muslim amber and orange , and how it could symbolically be used to play into ill grounded but pervasive fears, would be political inept. Some amber right up to green Muslims might well feel snubbed but Obama still has to work within the cultural landscape as it is to move it forward. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 25, 2008, 5:15 PM: |
||
|
Just finished watching Ralph Nader commenting on Obama. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jun 25, 2008, 6:46 PM: |
||
|
I enjoy Maureen O'dowd's fiestyness. I'd like her on my side in any race! |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 25, 2008, 6:57 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2maryw said Jun 25, 2008, 8:32 PM: |
||
|
David wrote: As for the seal, I don't think it's a very big deal, and I doubt very much it was Obama's idea, so I don't think we can really blame him for it, though he might have realized a lot of people wouldn't like it. I think what makes people slightly uneasy about it is that it personalizes the office. It's no longer the Presidential Seal; it's now the Obama Seal. It's like saying, “We're no longer going to call it the White House-it's going to be the Obama House. Air Force One? Not anymore-Obama Air! Camp David? We'll now call it Camp Michelle.” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jun 25, 2008, 8:42 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2timelody said Jun 25, 2008, 10:14 PM: |
||
|
I remember watching the Republican convention in 1988. Don't remember the keynote speaker, but one of the things he said “They [Democrats] changed our American red on our American flag to pink, so it would 'look better on television!'” Oh horror! I thought. Who is this dude? Do people really think like that? Cameras do change the color of things, etc. So, with the majority of millions of people watching on TV, I mean, come on! I was 17. And green. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 30, 2008, 11:36 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jun 30, 2008, 12:58 PM: |
||
|
Hmm, I should have checked out Bill Gross's original newsletter before posting CNBC's take on it. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2adastra said Jul 2, 2008, 11:17 AM: |
||
|
from the latest Contrary Brin: So Many Ways Obama Could Use Jiu Jitsu…The LA Times recently presented an unusually insightful editorial about ”Obamacain” – relating to the few - but noteworthy - areas in which the two candidates overlap or share important views.“It has been a refrain during the exhausting battle for the Democratic presidential nomination that once Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama emerged as the party's choice, we could finally dispense with the personality battles and get down to nitty-gritty policy differences. Indeed, now that Obama seems to have the position locked up, he and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will have plenty to argue about. But some might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.” The editorial goes on to cite surprising consensus in areas of National Security, Immigration, environment and social issues. The Times suggests that the thought of consensus, instead of Fox-style reflexive opposition, ought to be attractive, now and then. Alas, the Times essay stops short - way short - of taking this notion to its logical conclusion. If a majority of voters in both major parties have already pledged general allegiancve to one of two presumptive nominees, haven’t we already voted, many months before the general election, to trust their wisdom enough to listen… tentatively… to areas where they both agree change is needed? One of the very worst immaturities to be foisted on America by the culture warriors has been the oversimplification of reflext opposition. If your side likes something I must be against it. If you open your eggs at the small end, I must open mine at the big end. The biggest actual result of this wretched reflex has been to ensure that very little gets done. We’re doing fine, vetoing each others agendas. But to actually move ahead, we’ll have to re-learn how to negotiate, sometimes compromise, or else let your opponents have the part of their agenda you object to least… in exchange for them doing the same for you. Above all, where ae actually agree, should it not be politically safe to actually say so? I go into this in some detail in an essay that I have recycled during each of the live FIVE presidential elections… Why The Candidates Should “Stipulate”… … proposing that a contest between two mature and intelligent adults does not have to be entirely about a battle of opposites. America and the world might benefit most by hearning where they have discussed a certain matter, and reached a consensus - a stipulation - that it is time to stop the rigor mortis inaction that arises from rigid opposition, and to start talking about how – rather than whether – to act on a major problem. “One of the chief flaws of our electoral system is that real candor is punished. Both sides may rail against each other, but they'll never aim bad news at us. Even if both nominees believe in their hearts that the public needs to face some hard truth, neither will dare be first to say it, lest the other side take advantage…. only now consider this. There is no political cost to telling voters what you really believe… if your opponent has agreed, in advance, to say the same thing. “The process is called stipulation… as when the attorneys representing opposite sides in a trial agree to agree about a set of points. By stipulating these points, they help move the trial forward, focusing on areas where they disagree. Consider this year. For all of his faults, McCain has done this sort of thing before. So has Senator Obama. In fact, the only ones to object would be those at the extremes, in both parties.” I go on to cite the greatest-ever example of this kind of bipartisan maturity, in the 1940 Roosevelt-Wilkie election, in which both candidates agreed to support aid to Britain, instantly undercutting the isolationists in both parties. Of course this suggestion was pure fantasy during the poisonous atmosphere of the last eight years, while one of the major candidates represented nothing but stupidity, lunacy, compulsive deceit and rabid partisanship. But if we really are returning to an era (as in the Clinton-Dole contest) when grownups might argue sensibly, then this idea really needs another look. So please do…and possibly spread the word! And while we’re at it, see another - somewhat related - idea that might also restore civility, consensus, negotiation and mutual respect back into the lexicon of American political life. In fact, this idea is - at one level - simply common courtesy and would score points to whichever candidate made the pledge that I suggest. “Originally, the Constitution awarded a prize for second place – the Vice Presidency. If little else, at least the electoral runner-up got a bully pulpit. But after near-disaster in the flawed election of 1804, the system was amended to make the Vice President more of a deputy, chosen by the winning party. Nevertheless, this precedent does show what the founders had in mind. They always intended for the losing side to get something. Might there be some way to acknowledge the losing minority in a presidential election, without grinding their face in humiliation, making them determined to do the same thing, when their turn comes around?” Check out an original suggestion for how this miracle might be accomplished – in a way that might also make your side’s candidate seem vastly more statesmanlike and mature. ~~~ |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2gitanjali [no longer around] said Jul 4, 2008, 10:56 PM: |
||
|
Is Barack Obama moving more to the centre? and what do people feel about that? |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 5, 2008, 12:18 AM: |
||
|
Hi Gitanjali, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 8, 2008, 11:20 PM: |
||
|
Obama's 'Sister Souljah moment' on the surveillance billJuly 8, 2008 Recommend (9)
Sen. Obama's change of position has angered some of his more liberal supporters – but, I submit, only because they don't appreciate the significant legal restrictions placed on the administration's conduct of the Terrorist Surveillance Program by this legislation. The compromise bill was essentially crafted by leading liberals in the House who see no inconsistency between civil liberties and privacy rights and protecting America from another 9/11 attack.
Yes he can.
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Jul 9, 2008, 11:51 AM: |
||
|
Re: the Lanny Davis blog posted by David. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 9, 2008, 9:20 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 9, 2008, 1:55 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 24, 2008, 8:58 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 25, 2008, 12:54 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2dugaum said Jul 25, 2008, 1:11 AM: |
||
|
Hi Guys, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 25, 2008, 1:22 AM: |
||
|
Hi Doug. Yes, I think you're right that people at the same stage can disagree on things. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Jul 27, 2008, 6:03 AM: |
||
|
This neither here nor there, but I just came back from Washington D.C. and saw Obama promo items proliferated front and center more than McCain's. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 29, 2008, 6:22 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 29, 2008, 8:23 PM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Jul 30, 2008, 2:58 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Daniel said Aug 2, 2008, 2:25 AM: |
||
|
Obama opposes slavery reparations, apologyBy CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves, putting him at odds with some black groups and leaders. The man with a serious chance to become the nation's first black president argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all. “I have said in the past - and I'll repeat again - that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently. Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations - that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People supports the legislation, too. Cities around the country, including Obama's home of Chicago, have endorsed the idea, and so has a major union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Obama has worked to be seen as someone who will bring people together, not divide them into various interest groups with checklists of demands. Supporting reparations could undermine that image and make him appear to be pandering to black voters. “Let's not be naive. Sen. Obama is running for president of the United States, and so he is in a constant battle to save his political life,” said Kibibi Tyehimba, co-chair of the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. “In light of the demographics of this country, I don't think it's realistic to expect him to do anything other than what he's done.” But this is not a position Obama adopted just for the presidential campaign. He voiced the same concerns about reparations during his successful run for the Senate in 2004. There's enough flexibility in the term “reparations” that Obama can oppose them and still have plenty of common ground with supporters. The NAACP says reparations could take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races. Efforts to improve schools in the inner city could also aid students in the mountains of West Virginia, said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau. “The solution could be broad and sweeping,” Shelton said. The National Urban League - a group Obama is to address Saturday - avoids the word “reparations” as too vague and highly charged. But the group advocates government action to close the gaps between white America and black America. Urban League President Marc Morial said he expects his members to press Obama on how he intends to close those gaps and what action he would take in the first 100 days of his presidency. “What steps should we take as a nation to alleviate the effects of racial exclusion and racial discrimination?” Morial asked. The House voted this week to apologize for slavery. The resolution, which was approved on a voice vote, does not mention reparations, but past opponents have argued that an apology would increase pressure for concrete action. Obama says an apology would be appropriate but not particularly helpful in improving the lives of black Americans. Reparations could also be a distraction, he said. In a 2004 questionnaire, he told the NAACP, “I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say, 'We've paid our debt,' and to avoid the much harder work.” Taking questions Sunday at a conference of minority journalists, Obama said he would be willing to talk to American Indian leaders about an apology for the nation's treatment of their people. Pressed for his position on apologizing to blacks or offering reparations, Obama said he was more interested in taking action to help people struggling to get by. Because many of them are minorities, he said, that would help the same people who would stand to benefit from reparations. “If we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured,” Obama said. “If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get - should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.” One reparations advocate, Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: “I think he's dead wrong.” She said aid to the poor in general won't close the gaps - poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said. “People say he can't run and get elected if he says those kinds of things,” Randall said. “I'm like, well does that mean we're really not ready for a black president?” |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Aug 9, 2008, 4:29 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Aug 9, 2008, 4:50 AM: |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2David said Aug 9, 2008, 9:21 AM: |
||
|
Apparently 63% of American Christians believe in the End Times (according to this Pew Survey, page 25), so the idea could actually have some traction among Christian conservatives and help get out the vote for John McCain. They can't say that McCain is a conservative Christian like George Bush (no one would believe them), but they can say that Obama is the anti-Christ. So a vote for John McCain is a vote against the anti-Christ. David |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2INTo EverythinG for ReAL said Aug 20, 2008, 8:10 AM: |
||
|
This is slightly off topic and I apologize (as I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this and I think can be tied in here) but I remember a futurist on a WIE interview mention that there has be prediction after prediction by the masses (and importantly not the pundits) on who will win the election 6 months prior to the election and time after time (when taken en mass) they nail who will win. Similar to the 'jelly bean' phenomena taken a sample size of approx 1000 the group as a whole will typically (according to this same futurist) be within one-tenth of one-percent of the actual number of jelly beans in the jar. Therefore, curious if anyone has heard anything on the polls as will probably be a super indicator of who has this election. And (does anyone remember hearing this?) again sorry for being a little off topic. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Aug 29, 2008, 7:04 AM: |
||
|
Last night was a 5 star nipple hardening moment for me and I rarely get excited by world events and certainly not politicians.Yet I knew what was happening within It was far more than a feel good moment. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2chris said Aug 29, 2008, 8:14 AM: |
||
|
I actually feel more optimistic about my life , my purpose and my potential. Its personal. |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Mascha said Aug 29, 2008, 1:35 PM: |
||
|
Hey Augustina and Chris and Brent, |
|||
|
|
Re: Obama 2Philosophia said Aug 29, 2008, 6:15 PM: |
||
|
I recall the comment on this thread ' don't you want to vote for a woman' and my wanting to puke ..That emotional viseral intelligent response I often have , still, to sexism. Yet I had to smile at the sexism of the Palin -ploy.As if something within the biological trumped common sense and that somehow the presented vp-in-body -of-a-woman would eclipse everything Obama has and does stand for. |
|||

Help






