Thank you cyrena, I will try to hang in there. You are correct about not being overwhelmed about the enormity of the tasks at hand. Although I may have policy differences on some levels, I am not so far gone as to not know that Senator Barack Obama is the only chance, on a national level, to start to turn this ship around. The insanity we call the news does not want anyone to realize that. That is why they offer delusions as facts. The Hillary Clinton campaign is a poster child for this kind of thing. Her rabid supporters scream “she has more popular votes”. Never mind that means disenfranchising all those who took the time to attend caucuses. Never mind that includes counting votes from a state where only her name appeared on the ballot (that is what I call Soviet-style democracy). But the news continues with this charade. Which is very unfortunate when you consider a new Democratic party needs to devote all of its energy to defeat the monstrous lies that the Republicans have fabricated.
Perpetrating the delusional myth as long as possible, reveals that the power struggle within the Democratic party continues. I read a comment on the Huffington Post from obamajustrocks, who pointed out that when the news kept saying Obama can’t close the deal, it was exactly the opposite that was true: She could not close the deal. The Clintons and associates have been in control for 18 years.
I also have wondered about the last two presidential elections. Did the Clintons really want Gore or Kerry to win? She was suppose to be in the driver’s seat in 08, but she could not close the deal!
The gang of the DLC have been overturned, but that will not leave without a lot of kicking and screaming. The folks in the ratings crazed news business are praying for more.

beerdoctor,

Just getting a chance to respond from before, even though I’ve begun many. I think that both you and Cy have well explained one of the many challanges that create the bitterness that we ALL have experienced over these past decades, and particularly the past 8 years.

As we all know, the socio-economic structure that has lead to the ‘projects’ (and these ‘projects’ are NOT new, nor are they limited to certain demographics of the US) has been a broken system for a long time. It didn’t happen overnight, and we can’t fix it overnight. Yes, the criminal justice system stinks here, and is overwhelmingly racially skewed. The legalization of drugs would make a difference on one level, but would change nothing, without addressing the reasons for all of the other things that go with it. It wouldn’t address the NEED for the drug abuse to begin with. And it is that which feeds the rest.

So, until this entire system can be brought into balance in a way that provides equal opportunities to everyone..to access education, and jobs, and RESPECT, and every other opportunity that will allow for people to become proud of themselves, and feel dependant on their OWN efforts to suceed and provide for themselves, then we will have projects and slums, and all that they represent..which is hopelessness.

People don’t choose to be wharehoused in projects like cornerd rats, dependent on ‘the man’ to make sure that the water is running, or leaving them exposed to the ‘characters’ that frequent them. They are as ‘institutionalized’ there, as any people are anywhere, making the projects no better than the prisons. The problem is so enormous as to not know where to begin, and it’s not a ‘one time’ solution, nor can it be ‘fixed’ with a one time influx of money. Our entire socio-economic system has to be restructured, and then MAINTAINED!

And you’re right, no one person can do it, and not even a new administration can accomplish it overnight. It will take decades. But, it has to start somewhere, and I believe that is finally happening.

I understand the bitterness, but I also know that if we stay stuck in it, we can’t move to do any of what needs to be done.

Yes, the mega-pentagon is an excellent example of what you’re talking about, and it TOO, needs to be ‘re-done’. Robert Scheer’s recent work on this is very enlightening. We can’t address any of it until it comes to the attention of those who might be able to do the reversal that you speak of, and again, it will require more than one person.

It’s all enormous, and that means breaking things down into managable sizes, and then getting to it, and maintaining a connection with reality and pragmatism at the same time.

Try to hang in there. There actually IS some action happening in addition to the talk.

Yes C.Y., you hit the nail on the head.

Claire, when we wanna cite ‘facts’ we have to do more than say that “Obama keeps mentioning Ahmadinejad as the go-to person.” It’s the ‘keeps mentioning’ part that you’d wanna cite some sources here on, at least for those who don’t follow every word that Obama utters.

I TRY to keep up, but I’ve not heard Obama ‘keep mentioning’ this, even though it makes sense that he would use Ahmadinejads name in conjunction with his previous suggestions to engage with the Iranians in diplomatic discussion.

And in this case, on this thread, it would seem that your ‘facts’ are not correct either, since it’s been pointed out that Obama referenced the Iranian REGIME rather than Ahamadinejad..at least most recently.

So, your OWN claims here, (which may be true) might be confusing to those who have not heard Obama reference Ahmadinejad as the ‘go to person’.

Again though, I would repeat that in the standard tradition of normal diplomacy, one President wishing to engage with the political authority in another country, would probably direct those initial efforts at the President of that country, just as Ahmadinejad has made several attempts to engage with the US, via George Bush.

For now, Mamoud is the democratically elected President of Iran, and customary diplomatic protocol informs that is where the process would begin. It is the respectful stance of all members of the International Community, to treat equals as equals.

Sadly, because of the radical imperialistic posture that so many Americans have come to ACCEPT from the RADICAL thugs in DC, we somehow believe that we can just dismiss the formalities of what has been customary procedure in international relations. We decide who the ‘enemy’ is, and who is actually calling the shots, and all the rest.

Obviously, Ahmadinejad in not the ONLY person in the Iranian regime. We all know that. OBVIOUSLY, George W. Bush isn’t holding all of the cards or directing all of the murder and mayhem and political chaos here in the US on his own. (He’s too stupid, and we know who’s really running things). Be that as it may, when other nations attempt to deal with the US, they go through him, or whomever is holding the job at the time, or whomever their representatives are.

It should be clear to just about ANYONE, that demonizing the elected official of another country is BAD FORM, and serves only to disrespect the population of the nation that elected him/her. And, that’s exactly what GW Bush has done. It doesn’t matter what you or I or any other NON-Iranian thinks about Ahmadinejad, because we didn’t elect him. I CAN tell you though, that part of the reason that the majority (enough to put him in office) of the Iranians elected him, was as a counter-force to our own very poor selection in the executive position. The people of the US put a crazy radical hard-liner in the executive office, and the Iranians reacted accordingly.

As for Obama needing to do his homework, I have no doubts that he already has, and will continue to do that. However, this isn’t a matter of ‘homework’. What Obama is doing, (which is what NEEDS to be done) is practicing Statesmanship, and one doesn’t ‘study’ for that. One is born to it. One either has the inherent characters of statesmanship, or one doesn’t. Among the many of those character traits is the willingness to recognize equals as equals, and to respect the protocol. If he sees Ahmadinejad as the person to ‘go-to’, then that proves my point. He’s a Statesman who understands the protocols of international affairs.

Obama has to get his ticket punched by AIPAC lobbiests and South Florida Cuban Americans even though they will most likely vote against him.

Obama is a world class politician and being one, will pander to everyone in the room.

He has few ties to the pricks who’ve been running this country into the ground these many years.  We need to turn over all of congress.....no incumbents.

The people who believe in humanity have to stop taking a back seat to the violent bullies who use fear and intimidation to silence the voices of reason. As posted on another thread (the Ron Kovic article), perhaps a strategic disengagement from the political process is in order. To quote John Mayer: “it’s not that we don’t care, we just know that the fight ain’t fair”.
Think of it cyrena, all the positive things that can and are being done in this world, off the media radar screen, out of sight (and so it is believed) out of mind. It is quite apparent that whoever winds up running around Washington, we can not depend upon them for our survival.

Thank you cyrena for your kind response. Please excuse the rather bitter edge that has moved into my writing, it is just that sometimes I become troubled in these troubling times. Also, I don’t mean to gang up on Obama, it is just the more I read about how locked down this military state is, I wonder if anyone can reverse this hell fire we are now harnessed to. A recent article by Frida Berrigan on Alternet about the mega-pentagon is a good example of why this seems nearly impossible.
I recently saw a television clip of John McCain stumping with the victory in Iraq speech. It reminded me of that famous comment from Lyndon Johnson who said he was not going to be the first American president to lose a war. Within a year of that statement, there were five hundred thousand boots on the ground in southeast Asia.

BeerDoc,

Do you remember back about 6 years ago, when Carl Levin (sen) and Emanuel Rahm, (rep – Ill) brought up a proposal to reinstate the draft? They didn’t expect it to pass, by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, it was a ‘ploy’ of sorts, to make the obvious point of his concern: That the army/military being amassed and gathered to send into harms way (for no good reason) was going to become a mostly black/brown army.

We knew that then of course. And, we see that now. They knew too, that if at ANY time, (then or since then) there was even a hint of returning to that conscription that is upheld in the constitution, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, would have prevented Dick Bushes wars of aggression. The refrain of course, (then and now) was “Not MY kids”. And so it goes. As long as it’s SOMEBODY ELSE’S blood, (in this case, the SAME black/brown/poor whites without any other options) doing the repeat tours of death and carnage and insanity, over and over and over again, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE haven’t protested too much, and when the few of us do, we are of course immediately repressed and hauled off to be out of sight, and out of hearing.

I’m just giving you something to consider here, because I don’t think we’re likely to ever see such a hint of a suggestion again. The American People are not going to allow such conscription to ever become a part of our process again. (not their kids/spouses). On the other hand, to assume that we do not need a military, (and a well trained military) or that we should continue to be forced to draw from the ‘underbelly of our society’ (ex felons, HS dropouts, etc, etc) to employ in the armed services, is pretty naïve. To believe that we can and should continue to staff a standing army with our National Guard, who are organized for the purposes of protecting their STATES in emergencies, is also a dangerous and irresponsible way of thinking…which is exactly what the current regime has employed.

In short, they’ve begun all of these wars, on all of these fronts, despite the fact that we have no troops to do these jobs. The US is overwhelmingly proud of and focused on it’s military might. A mentality that I personally despise. But, it is what it is. So, if we’re going to have a military, should it not be a military made up of the best, and the well trained, and from every part of our society, so that we all share the responsibility of maintaining such a beast?

Would I (or other Americans) somehow feel better about training our youth for something like the Peace Corps, or the Americorps, (based on what the Peace Corps have been about in previous decades) than I would about training them to be mass killers? Actually, I would, and probably because I’ve accepted the premise that the US has always had a military, and always will.

Now, as for the increase to the military (army and marines) that you mention here. Do you have a problem with reducing the strain on the forces that have currently done repeated tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan? I’m just curious about that. We have over 6 months before Barack Obama or anyone else can take the reigns of the government, and actually start making any calls.

Now, if it were ME, the first thing I’d do, is start bringing all of our military back home, from all of those 800 bases where we have thousands of our troops scattered about the globe. At that point, I’d regroup, to assess what we have. That would NOT mean that there would not STILL need to be a new batch in training, to be prepared to maintain the great military that the people of America hold so dear. 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines is nothing. And if their addition to the military means that we can bring our National Guard (which involves much higher numbers than this) back to doing what National Guards are supposed to do, this somehow makes really good sense to me.

Yes, on this, Obama was smart in acknowledging a regime, instead of one person in Iran, since Iran’s president is democratically elected, and will not be the president forever. (unlike the Shah that the US appointed, which took Iran forever to unseat, and created their ‘revolution’)

He is NOT correct in saying that even the regime of Iran is a threat to ANYBODY, so even though I’m acutely aware of the fact that this was addressed to AIPAC, I don’t feel any better about him saying it.

If he was going to claim that Iran was one of the ‘greatest threats’ he should have gone on to say WHY. But then, that would have done the opposite of what his intentions were, in making this claim to AIPAC.

OR..he could have ‘qualified’ what he meant by ‘threat’, since the only ‘threat’ that Iran represents, is greater geopolitical influence in their own part of the world. THAT is the only “threat” that Iran is, and the rest of the world is gonna have to either deal with that, or not.

As for the “theocratic Shia state that Iran is” I have some material, (quite a bit of it actually) that might provide a clearer explanation on how that theocratic state is actually set up. Like, the reality, rather than the fiction of the western media.

I’ll look for it if you’re interested, and post the links on my own blog.

So yes, I think we know what kind of change Barack Obama is talking about, at least to the extent that HE knows it himself. I don’t believe that Barack Obama has had time to study the detailed intracacies of Iran’s or any other nation’s political make-up, or how they operate, or what their own agenda actually is. He’s just a Jr. Senator from Illionis.

Now if he can select the right people to do the diplomatic work that is a crucial part to any successful foreign policy, we’ll hopefully see that change come about. THAT MUCH I’m sure he CAN DO.

Troublesum,

I’ve got a clip somewhere with Obama and Jesse Jackson, (a recent one of course, since Obama wasn’t around in the earlier days). So, I’ll try to dig for it when I return.

Same with one of the many campaign ads that have been created. There are two that I’m especially impressed with, sort of a twin series, for lack of a better term. One features Men for Obama, and the other features Women for Obama. Jesse Jackson appears in the one featuring Men for Obama. They’re both works of art. I’ll try to find them as well. (I especially like the music).

I confused as to why you believe for an instant that Obama is distancing himself from issues ‘directly affecting black people’ unless you believe that education, fair taxation, and health care, and jobs are not issues affecting black people, and white ones as well.

So please, I’d be interested in knowing what issues you feel he is distancing himself from, that ‘directly affect black people’, since I’ve been black all of my life, which makes me inclined to pay attention to these things.

Please educate me.

sorry non credo, I was just making a bad joke (tough room). Since I favor none of the candidates (also known as the 3 top tier numb skulls), please excuse my disingenuous post.

“and we can then more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran.
Iran President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us.” Barack Obama, 2007 AIPAC speech

Notice he said regime. I thought the junior Senator from Illinois was smart. Hr should know, of all people that in the Shia theocratic state that Iran is, Ahmadinejad has no power over policy. Again: Are you sure you know what kind of change Barack Obama is talking about?

“We have learned from Iraq that our military need more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.”
from Barack Obama’s official web site

Are you sure you know the kind of change he is talking about?

This is a response to Cyrena, although I do understand Conservative Yankee’s point, I will only say I am aware of the awful creeps that infest public housing when drug trafficking is taking place. But you know why this happens. Making drugs illegal presents an opportunity for enormous profits. Which is what the war on drugs is all about.
Cyrena, you ask me where I base my assertions. 1. He is favor of the death penalty: this can be found at his web site. 2. He is in favor of keeping the embargo against Cuba in place: he himself said this last Friday, during a speech in Florida, it was televised on C-SPAN. 3. He agrees with throwing people out of public housing, if any family member is caught with illegal drugs: again he himself said it, during a town hall meeting in North Carolina, also televised on C-SPAN. To put into the context you advocate, he did say if a grandmother did not know her grand child was selling drugs, perhaps there could be a review board. That is as far as he goes when it comes to ending the war on drugs.
4. and 5. The best way to answer this is to give you the link: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/
6. He is against ending contracts with Blackwater: again he himself has said it, during his very brief encounter with Amy Goodman, an audio record does exist.
7.: again, go to the link listed above.
8. He will not remove the Insurance industry from a National Health Service: well, do I have to be Ralph Nader to point out this obvious truth? Go to his web site. He is talking about making the purchase of health insurance more affordable. Like his chief rival Senator Clinton, he proves that the leadership of the Democratic Party do not believe in a single payer system, According to these movers and shakers, the people of America can not have that. That would be socialized medicine.

I don’t trust Obama because he is distancing himself from issues which directly affect Black people while depending on their votes to win the nomination.  He won’t even appear in public with Jesse Jackson.  He reminds me too much of Slick Willie Clinton.  Where’s the change - this is just politics as usual.

Latinos?  Why, they are so yesterday, especially after that Judas Richardson defected to the enemy.  They didn’t put her over the top, so now their worthless...just like all those states she didn’t win don’t count.

Part 1 of 2

It’s all in the language here beerdoc.

The language you use in this case is dangerous, though I agree that you are not alone in your refusal or inability to consider nuance and context. (it plagues us all at some points in time)

For the most part, our society thinks in ‘either/or’ terms. We think in, pro v con. If one is not totally for, then you are totally against. Again, the language you use here, such as ‘advocated’, ‘for’, ‘against’, blah, blah, is dangerous. It’s dangerous because it doesn’t allow for any context, and you’ve included none. Rather, you’ve stated all of these things as if they were FACT, (without even referencing a comment or quote from the person to back it up).

That’s why there is such a cruel irony in what you say here:

• “I wish more people would pay attention to what Barack Obama is actually saying. Some people, I hope, would understand when I say that expecting great change from him is probably delusional. Here a few things I found:”

~1. “He is *for* the death penalty.”

I would argue that none of these candidates (other than Obama) have addressed this at all, (the question of the death penalty) and his has been a response within context. I would argue that if you really believe that people should pay more attention to what he’s saying, YOU have not. Otherwise, you would not throw this out in such BROAD strokes, with such words as he is ‘for’ this, because the use of such language dismisses what his positions actually are.

~2. “He is in *favor* of keeping the Cuba embargo in place.”

I’m not sure how you know this, (in favor of) but I can’t comment on it right now either, because I’ve not read or listened to his position on Cuba. I’ll make it a point to do that. If memory serves, he’s been suggesting a debate with McCain on this issue, or has already had it. I’ve not followed up on it yet. HOWEVER, just off the top of my head, (and without reading it) I’m inclined to wonder if his ‘position’ on Cuba might not be a result of the SAME concern that Castro maintained from the beginning…way back when he ran the US off of that Island, along with the US friendly Bautista. In other words, does the ‘lifting of embargos’ against Cuba, (your language) actually mean the NAFTA-tizing of Cuba, the way that Mexico has been NAFTA-tized, leading the to destruction of the economy of Mexico, and the resultant economic immigration once those farmers were run off of their farms?

I guess I’ll have to find that out for myself.

~3. “He *agrees* with –throwing- ‘people’ out of public housing, if any family member is –caught- with illegal drugs.”

This sounds like more drama beerdoctor. Sadly, public housing projects, (because that’s what they are) don’t serve the needs of the people living in them, and they are even less served by the on-going illegal drug operations that are prevalent among them. So, there’s a bit more to this ‘position’ (which is NOT NEW by the way…since people convicted of drug offenses cannot be the recipients of public welfare. That has been a condition of the bureaucracy for decades) than what you are claiming here. Obama is hardly the only American who doesn’t believe that public funds should be used for the purchase of destructive drugs.

I personally agree that there needs to be a far better solution to the overall problem that has existed for decades, but you don’t even acknowledge that here, let alone address it.

~4. “He *advocates* giving even more weapons to the state of Israel.”

Here we go again. I’ve yet to see anything, anywhere that implicitly or explicitly confirms such a claim. I think this is a really BROAD extension of the hyperbole here.

~5. “He *wants* to increase military spending.”

More of the same here. INCREASE ‘military spending’? Where does he say this Beerdoctor, and is that ALL he says? Does he just say: “I want to spend even more money on ‘military stuff’? Please. I’m surprised at you.

Part 2 of 2

~6. “He is *against* ending contracts with Blackwater.”

Now THIS might come closest to the truth of all of your statements, but again, it’s lacking because of the broad language *“AGAINST”*. And, like all the rest of these statements, lacking in ANY context.

In reality, (and this is one of the issues that I have with him myself), he has not agreed to sign on (at this point in time) to the resolution that MIGHT – EVENTUALLY – IF it gets through the house and the senate, prevent the State Department from using these private contractors, and Blackwater is NOT the only one. There are many. I would like to see that myself, because these private mercenaries are one of the many obvious signs of our increasingly totalitarian state of existence.

OTOH, Since an extremely cautious Obama cannot realistically know what and how much these mercenaries actually DO in Iraq or anywhere else, he’s cautious enough to realize that he does NOT know the reality on the ground in Iraq, and my take is that he does NOT want to make the SAME mistake that the Bremer folks did when they dismantled Saddam’s remaining army upon their invasion of Iraq, along with the rest of the infrastructure. Now THAT was incredible stupid.

What he or another administration CAN do, is to close all of the loopholes and other violations of the law that allow these contractors to operate with impunity, and without accountability, and I believe that he IS concerned with that. However, UNTIL ANY NEW president or administration can ascertain exactly WHAT ‘deals’ the current thugs have cut with their puppets in Iraq, there is little to be gained by empty promises to discontinue contracts with these groups.

~7. “He *claims* the President of Iran (who has in actuality no power) is a threat to the state of Israel.”

Wrong again beerdoctor. And, this might be the one where you are MOST wrong. Obama has been the only person actually embracing the idea of dialog with Iran, to try and establish what Iran’s real agenda is. (and of course the current State Department has repeatedly rejected any and all of Iran’s gestures and requests for dialogue, and continued to perpetrate the myth that Iran is a threat to Israel. And, we ALL know that Iran’s power or geopolitical influence is not directed by Ahmadinejad. So, this is propaganda on your part.

~8. He *will not* remove the Insurance industry from a National Health Service.

In reality, his current plan does NOT remove the Ins. industry from the way that health care is funded. Neither does any other plan on the books. So yeah, you’re right here, and he knows it. He also knows that it’s the best he can offer at the moment, pragmatically speaking.

Now, if YOU can come up with a plan that would allow for the government to perform the bureaucracy that the Insurance industry currently does, then that would be spiffy. Find work for all of those misplaced from the industry, and that would be a bonus.

For NOW, we’ll tackle the problem of making sure that none of these insurance companies can arbitrarily refuse to provide coverage for the millions of Americans who need/want it, or to deny their claims, based on their greed for profits. We can also, make it affordable. That’s how you start changing a system.

Again, there is a dangerous irony to your suggestion that Americans should inform themselves more on the issues/positions of ALL candidates. (Not JUST Obama) It’s a very clear instance of when a ‘LITTLE bit’ of education is more dangerous than none, because you’re making interpretations without any of the foundations for how these positions are taken, and clearly without any knowledge of the IDEOLOGY that forms them, or the pragmatism or recognition of the reality of logistics.

It leads to uninformed interpretations, based on a lack of ALL the components that go into any position/strategy/tactic. Short-sighted thinking can and often does create blowback.

Chris Horton,

I suspect that your title or lead in says it all here, and it’s what we’ve somehow avoided for all too long now. It is in the CONTEXT. Without recognizing the CONTEXT we fail to connect the dots, and that’s why you see that something very serious is going on here, but unless and until we put the stuff in CORRECT context, we will continue to miss the forest, because of looking at the trees.

You write here:

• “There is some bad stuff going down, and Hillary is at best not showing the smarts to disassociate herself from it.  I hope that’s all it is, but in context it looks like something way beyond bad taste.

It is beyond bad taste, but there is of course an overwhelming display of that as well. You’re right that it is an ‘at best’ that she is not disassociating herself from it, because I see the context in the ‘at worst’ as well, which is an indication that she is the originator of it, simply because of the unprincipled and now desperate mentality that has always been the motivation behind anything she says or does. The motivation for the raw power. Raw and naked power. It’s not even dressed up at this point.

Here’s an excellent piece that puts it in context as well. For me at least, her comparisons of the MI and FL primary contests to the struggle for independence from a ruthless dictatorship in Zimbabwe just take it beyond the pale. And then she compares the same to the Women’s Suffrage Movement, as well as the Civil Rights Movement. That goes beyond the pale into another universe or alternative reality that only she has the total lack of principled integrity to actually put out there. In other words, she’s vying for the spots that Dick Bush currently represent.

This is a link to an excellent article below:
What Game Is Hillary Playing?
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet. Posted May 24, 2008.

Nothing reveals the Clintons’ lack of principle so clearly as their assertion that Dem Party rules should be abandoned.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/86359/

I’m not sure how to spell hallelujah for this post from Louise, and maybe that’s not even the best word anyway. So, I’ll just call this yet another GIFT for my book of wisdom, delivered in the most superb of literary excellence.  Louise, you raise the bar yet again in the wisdom and its distribution. That’s all I can say.

Oh, I could also say that these works of wisdom and insight always come at a time when I’m most in need of them. (like when a project is due) I admit that I don’t quite understand the mental telepathy ‘workings’ that result in Louise (and other folks I’ve never met personally) managing to say/write, what are my exact thoughts, and to just do it SO MUCH better, and far more efficiently than I. It’s like having a thought assistant/editor/mind reader.

However, since I’m not so inclined to look a gift-horse in the mouth, I’m not about trying to figure this phenomena out. (which could jinx things anyway) All I’m gonna do is just accept these gifts because they are real and valuable, and voice my true appreciation.

THANKS Louise!!

(you said it all)

bert, Bobby’s name is not sacred. He was in charge of a secret operation, set up after the bay of pigs fiasco, to assassinate Fidel Castro and overthrow the government in Cuba. He is also partially responsible for his brother’s assassination. How? It was pay back for double crossing organized crime syndicates, which their father made an agreement with, in order to get Jack elected president. Robert Kennedy was an overzealous U.S. Attorney General, who went after major crime operations across the United States, arresting and deporting top bosses in the mafia echelon.
The Kennedy clan’s working relationship with the mob is part of the story. Bobby’s double cross is an essential second part. As one mob boss said: “when a dog is biting at you, you don’t cut off its tail.”
As for your: “I went to sleep on June 4,1968 knowing RFK had won the California primary and would therefore win the presidency.” Seems dubious at best. It is always wise to remember that Richard Nixon had mob connections too.

Under Eugene Robinson’s latest story, i posted a list excerpted from Olbermann’s Special Comment which details 18 other gaffes/negative tactics for which she has been given the benefit of the doubt by so many. This latest “mis-speech” is Clinton pouring gasoline on the pillory she has constructed for herself, of her own words and by her campaign’s actions. The list doesn’t even go back to 2007 where we could add William Shaheen’s and subsequently Mark Penn’s “cocaine!” fright-fest and live interview face off with Chris Matthews, Joe Trippi, and David Axelrod in which Penn (with a smug smile plastered on his face) embarrassed the whole campaign and looked like a total A-hole on national television. (She should have fired Penn the next day.)

But i digress.

i haven’t seen any cogent defense of the “assassinated” remarks other than it is a media induced overreaction or that it was no big deal.

i beg to differ. This is a big deal, and i think the media is correct to report and analyze it. A big “watchdog” of the media myself, i watched all the programs Friday afternoon, and i have to say that the pundits did not take delight in reporting the gaffe, in fact their demeanor was quite the opposite. They were dismayed, some of them looked deeply saddened by this turn of events. i really don’t think that this is manufactured controversy. Keith may have overdone it a little in his Comment, but it was worth it just for the consolidated laundry list of Rovian travesties engaged in by the Clinton campaign.

This is a big deal for a number of reasons which many of these comments have accurately reflected: firstly, it was unnecessary to mention the assassination in the context of the statement, which begs the question: “You’re a master politician with a law degree from Yale, why on earth would you add that detail?” Secondly, it is bad diplomacy and a poor example of “presidential” behavior. Thirdly, it is asking for a public ass-kicking. And that is what she deservedly will get.

btw, i love the new moniker you suggest! They won’t even have to take an online poll to pick a new theme song as “The Desperados” has one built in.

No one has mentioned the context of Clinton’s remarks.  It comes a few days after Huckabee’s bad joke - which got applause - about someone shooting at Obama before the National Rifle Association meet.  The NRA! 

And what is the NRA about?  Hunters’ rights?  No one is threatening hunters’ rights, that’s a red herring.  Pick up a copy of “Guns and Ammo” at the drug store and look through it; it’s not mainly about guns for hunting or for collecting or competition or even guns for personal defense.  Half the magazine is articles and ads about guns for WAR, for pumping bursts of high-velocity bullets - “hydraulic shockers” - into enemies’ bodies in combat.  Guns you can buy and keep in your home or your car trunk.  War with whom?  With invading Iraqis?  I don’t think so.

There is some bad stuff going down, and Hillary is at best not showing the smarts to disassociate herself from it.  I hope that’s all it is, but in context it looks like something way beyond bad taste.

i think it is obvious to everyone that this remark is a calculated political maneuver by Clinton. Knowing that she will almost certainly not get the nomination without splintering the party, and knowing that her tactics have made campaigning on the ticket as VP practically impossible, Hillary finds herself in a situation where she can’t quit and disappoint the hardworking whites (what ever happened to the latino vote that was so critical to CA and TX?), she can’t take the fight to the convention floor and anger the superdelegates and party establishment, she can’t continue to alienate the elitist, arugala-eating, latté-sipping, caucus-manipulating, college-educated, lazy-by-implication, 50K+ jet-setters, and since she can pretty much expect the black vote to stay home in November, this is her solution:

Hillary has selflessly dived under the proverbial bus. By inferring in such a tasteless (and frankly bizarre and non-sequiturial fashion) that a tragedy could befall her opponent, she seeks to distance herself from all but her most devout supporters. She plays fullback to Obama’s runningback, creating a hole for him to spring through as he carries the metaphorical football into the endzone. And by kicking her own teammate in the shins while doing it, it gives permission to bench her as candidate for VP. Thus Hillary still fights on, doing her utmost for party unity, the heroine of the situation yet again — if only in her own mind.

Reply to psmealey, May 24 at 12:06 pm - Thank God I’m not the only one doubting my sanity.

Hillary’s remark, “People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa,” really gives ‘legs’ to your analysis of her personality. I appreciate your comment because her remark was far more upsetting to me than her reference to RFK.

A ‘victim,’ which Hillary seems to see herself as, is unable to ever take responsibility for her actions because, in her eyes, they are merely reactions to the behavior of her victimizers. 

Often, this personality type will refuse to take responsibility for anything she does or says even when there is no case to be made for victimization.  Everything from her Iraq vote on would indicate she suffers from this personality flaw.  Very dangerous in a president.

It will be a cold day in hell before I forgive Obama this latest use of blatant political opportunism to slam a political opponent by using the memory of Bobby.

AM I TAKING CRAZY PILLS???

What Orwellian hell do you live in?  Obama didn’t use RFK’s name, Hillary did.  If you want to rage against using St. Bobby’s name in vain, you need to direct this (false) righteous indignation at your messiah, HRC.

Why do I have a sense that if Hillary were to advocate tomorrow for the killing and eating of all newborn babies, and Obama were to object to it, that her supporters would be outraged by his inhumanity.

1.  Fucking spare me, you self-righteous hypocrite.  Faux outrage about faux outrage?  That’s very post modern.  What else do you do with the truth?  Abstract expression?  That might be a thing to see.

2.  For the love of God get off your high horse.  Bobby Kennedy was no saint.  Every fucking time some jackass canonizes a figure from the past (everyone is complex and has faults and good features, from Caesar to Spiro Agnew). 

Idealizing the past is precisely what makes it easier to let people get away with demonizing our current leaders.  This, in turn, enables the tried and true right wing saw that “they’re all corrupt”, so you might as well vote for the one who gives you tax breaks.

It also makes, in this case, people want to believe that there are just as many seamy details behind Obama’s rise as there are in Clinton’s.  Which, there very likely are not, given the paths each of them have taken.

independent liberal, May 23 at 8:53 pm #

“This is the woman on whom we rely at 3:00am?  Imagine what she might slip and say to a Putin??  Poor Presidential material at this point.  She needs to head back to the Senate for a snooze.”

***

Last night on BBC News, the commentator made a similar remark. ‘The candidate who has advertised for months that she’s the candidate who will be ready at 3:00 AM when the red phone rings, appears to have suffered an attack of exhaustion.’

Or words to that effect.

She then went on to give Hillary a pass because she is obviously exhausted. She is/was, but I noticed a split second hesitation between her reference to her husband and her reference to the assassination. I think she thought for one brief second shall I say it and decided to go ahead and say it.

Which brings me to ...

TheRealFish, May 23 at 7:37 pm

“Ms. Clinton really represents more a societal problem than a party problem… .

That she has flirted with the Bobby Kennedy assassination three times (on record anyway) — since March — as a relevant reason for her to “stay in the race” only acknowledges that we have a long ugly history of using force when we don’t get our way.

My wife and I both agree that it appears a primary goal in continuing this campaign for her is not just to win, but, at some level, that she wants to hurt Obama, that she resents him for what he (or the fate of him coming along at this time) represents.”

***

Obama wasn’t supposed to happen. There wasn’t supposed to be a viable candidate who could challenge the determination to have a woman in the White House. It’s as though under pressure, she sel-implodes.

Those angry women who have given their lives to proving they have been poorly treated by men are really pissed.

The interesting thing about all this is there are hardly any adults in our society that haven’t suffered at some point in time from some sort of abuse.

Whether teasing on the playground, getting mugged on the way to work, getting raped in a back alley, being cheated on by your spouse, growing up without a father ... or mother.  Being abused by one or both parents, being sexually assaulted as a child and on and on ad-nauseam. Both genders have their fair share of victims, and remarkably both genders have their fair share of adults who have faced their abuse, or neglect, learned to deal with it and learned to love and accept themselves, and others.

A lot haven’t. They are the ones who blame the blacks or the Latinos or the illegal’s or the men or the women [or anyone else who gets in their way] for all their problems. They are the ones who think the best way to solve a problem is by running away from it, or hitting the other guy for an imagined slight. They are the ones who take any race or gender bias, or any kind of bias as a personal affront.

They are the ones who become emotionally unstrung when someone they identify with doesn’t get the prize.

Folks, no matter how much pain we each individually may or may not suffer, I think we all need to grow up. And if we can’t, or don’t want to, or have buried our hurt so deep we cant even remember why we’re angry, then we need to get help. There is help available.

Meanwhile, I think a lot of folks recognized early on, with Hillary there is a problem. And while most, myself included couldn’t really explain it, it was there. I think perhaps we are beginning to understand.

And you know, this explains some of the dumb things Bill has done as well. One can easily imagine an occasional twinge of guilt, leading to a stupid decision in a determined effort to see her win.

I think it’s time to stop. Time for us to stop second guessing their motives and time for them to quit giving us reason too.

And cheers for Obama who no matter what, has always ended with kind words for Hillary. Thank goodness for that. He may turn out to be the best friend she ever had.

troublesum, that is indeed troublesome, and alas, true. So many assumptions that run this country are now being questioned by reality. I mean, does a person put 500+ dollars in the tank of an RV, to go to watch a NASCAR race?
But the republican mantra of guns, god, and no abortions has served them well. And violence always becomes the ultimate solution.
The late playwright Arthur Miller pointed out that anyone who wants to be President of The United States, has to prove to the American people he will kill for them. Thus, it is no surprise that Barack Obama is pro death penalty. To be against capital punishment is the ultimate third rail in American politics, according to conventional wisdom.
I wish more people would pay attention to what Barack Obama is actually saying. Some people, I hope, would understand when I say that expecting great change from him is probably delusional. Here a few things I found:
1. He is for the death penalty.
2. He is in favor of keeping the Cuba embargo in place.
3. He agrees with throwing people out of public housing, if any family member is caught with illegal drugs.
4. He advocates giving even more weapons to the state of Israel.
5. He wants to increase military spending.
6. He is against ending contracts with Blackwater.
7. He claims the President of Iran (who has in actuality no power) is a threat to the state of Israel.
8. He will not remove the Insurance industry from a National Health Service.

There is more, but why bother? The reason to support his candidacy, despite the obvious evidence of maintaining the status quo, is that he is younger and more intelligent. Its not much, but it is all we got.

Americans are enamored with violence and addicted to negative emotions.  Some people have accused Hillary of a freudian slip.  I think it’s more likely that these thoughts have their source in the collective unconscious.  We are absorbed in violence and intolerence.  I was looking at a selection of best selling movies in a store recently and at least half of them had the words blood, death, or war in the title.  Blood is entertainment for us.  What can be expected to happen next in such a society?

The Obamasphere and the Obama campaign’s reaction to this is faux outrage at best or political oportunism at worst.

Yes, I saw the video I posted. And that is how I know that her comments were taken out of context. She was referring to a primary campaign going into June. Nothing more and mothing less.

I was in college in 1968 and I worked on Bobby’s campaign in OH and in IN. He is a hero of mine. And let me tell you, Obama is no Bobby.

I went to sleep on June 4, 1968 knowing RFK had won the California primary and would therefore win the presidency. I woke on June 5 to learn he’d been shot. After JFK and MLK it was deja vu. Soon after RFK died and with it the hopes of a generation.

The current outrage disgusts me more than I can express. It’s not Hillary who sullies the process. Lying spinmeisters who’d use the assassination of one of rhe 20th century’s greatest men to score cheap points are the ones who should be ashamed.

It will be a cold day in hell before I forgive Obama’s use of the sacred name of Bobby in this his latest use of blatant political opportunism to slam a political opponent.

Yes whamtwo, you are absolutelt right. The Obamasphere and the Obama campaign’s reaction to this is faux outrage at best and political oportunism at worst.

I was in college in 1968 and I worked on Bobby’s campaign in OH and in IN. He is a hero of mine. And let me tell you, Obama is no Bobby.

I went to sleep on June 4, 1968 knowing RFK had won the California primary and would therefore win the presidency. I woke on June 5 to learn he’d been shot. It was deja vu. Soon after he died and with it the hopes of a generation.

The current outrage disgusts me more than I can express. It’s not Hillary who sullies the process. Lying spinmeisters who’d use the assassination of one of this century’s greatest men to score cheap points are the ones who should be ashamed.

It will be a cold day in hell before I forgive Obama this latest use of blatant political opportunism to slam a political opponent by using the memory of Bobby.

Here’s an idea:

Maybe we should approach this whole assassination issue a little differently.  Perhaps we might take a cue from novelty t-shirts favored by subscribers to Soldier of Fortune and 13th Century, Catholic bishops.

Kill ‘em all...Let God sort ‘em out. or Kill them all, God will know His own. (respectively)

And let’s face it, if JFK hadn’t been gunned down, his legacy would have ended up in the shit-can over Vietnam.  Who knows how RFK would have ended up?  King would have been King, but he wasn’t a politician...so he was truly a loss to the nation and the world.

And why is no one worried about Sen Clinton being gunned down?  Is it because she’s not seen as a threat?  Is it because she’s white?  I don’t think its fair that Sen Clinton always gets the first debate question and Sen Obama always gets the assassination talk.  I’m sensing some misogyny here.

cyrena writes:  “I’m not sure that he’s correct on this. (about Rodham being the only Dem on the MI ballot). I think that there may have been another one or two, (since Kucinich had NOT agreed to these rules) but I’ve lost my copy of that ballot,”

Results as certified by the MI Secretary of State:

Hillary Clinton 328,309 55.2%
Uncommitted 238,168 40.1
Dennis Kucinich 21,715 3.7
Chris Dodd 3,845 0.6
Mike Gravel 2,361 0.4

Both Edwards and Obama ran radio ads in MI asking their supporters to vote for “uncommitted,” so those votes may be Obama’s.

cyrena also writes; “Most folks didn’t bother to vote at all, since it was already clear, that the delegates would not be acknowledged.”

Almost 600,000 voters (’most folks’ in cyrena-world) evidently do not matter according to cyrena. 600,000 MI voters do not matter in cyrena’s Alice in Wonderland-down the rabbit hole-alternative universe.

Just keep in mind Gore received 500,000 more votes than ‘W’ in 2000 and still could not get enough Electoral College votes to win the Presidency. (And yes, I remember, that the Supremes had a hand in that, but that is not my point.) The point being that Obama better not piss off 600,000 Michigan Democrats as he hell bent on doing right now. And there are more Democratic voters in FL he is pissing off. Add to that the Jews who do not want direct unconditional talks with Iran and he has a big deficit in typical Democratic voters who will not vote for him in November. Add to that half of Lationos , erc., etc., etc. PROBLEM.

Hillary Clinton should be a co-host on The View. Being bitchy on that show is promoted regularly. She might even boost the ratings.

I’d say that the RealFish sums a whole lot of this campaign up with his comment below.

And it’s not like we’ve never seen this before, eh?  We elected a man who’s spent his whole life trying to please his daddy and failing to live up to the family standards...resulting in drunkenly challenging his presidential father to a fist fight on the front lawn.

Before that, we elected a fatherless man who yearned for praise and acceptance more than anything else...a man willing to do anything for it.  That same man psychologically abused his wife with his unrepentant philandering.

It’s so neat that us regular folks get saddled with these people’s unresolved emotional issues, but i guess that we’re the fools who vote them into office so we only get what we deserve.

Bread and circuses, my friend, bread and circuses...and when bread becomes dear it’s time to increase the circuses.

Cyrena, the rant from Keith O. on countdown last night was about the violent bleak spot assassination holds in American political history. It is not even about ideology, for even people who hold views you are opposed to should not be subject to this violence. I mean was it right for George Wallace to be put into a wheel chair? Assassination is a ghoulish thing, not only the ones that succeeded, but the ones that did not. How much of a pass did the American public give Ronald Reagan, after surviving the John Hinckley shooting? The unknown ramifications are staggering.
For some reason, all of this brought back memories of a Phil Donahue show, where an anti-porn feminist said the shooting of Larry Flynt was the best thing that could have happened.
Violence becomes an obvious solution, when you are incapable of reasonable thoughts.

I would add; she’s out there if we survive this present clusterfuck.

For Obama to make Hillary his VP is certain death for him. 

Hillary is the front for a vast entrenched machine going back 60 years.

Send her back to the senate and then back to her home wherever that was.

^ nothing.  Say what you will, this is all media hype.  Sucking us in to a never ending act/react situation, minus any thinking.  We need to slow down and look at the big picture:  We’re being played; we’re being played big time and this is too important to go along with this crap!  You’re a thinking commenter so look at his stuff.  Hillary is finished; give her a way out without losing face.  Yes, she’s being a bit stupid but she’s a person of some standing in this country; so don’t destroy her.  She may yet prove usefull.

Expat, the assassination comment probably wasn’t worth more than a raise of the eyebrow..especially since she’s made it before.

It’s just the staw on top of all of the other desperate BOULDERS she’s been throwing around.

I haven’t even watched Olberman on this, but this article puts it all in real proper perspective, because it’s the real deal.

What Game Is Hillary Playing?
By Guy T. Saperstein, AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/story/86359/

I could answer this question, but you’ve already heard enough from me. So, here are a few excerpts.

• “Nothing reveals more clearly how utterly unprincipled the Clintons are than their assertion that rules set by the Democratic Party’s Rules Committee, and endorsed by all Clinton representatives on this Committee, now should be abandoned. Nothing reveals more clearly that the only rules the Clintons follow are rules which favor them. Nothing reveals how exaggerated their claims are than Hillary’s recent comparison of the votes in Michigan and Florida to the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the fraudulent election in Zimbabwe and the 2000 election in Florida.”

I will say this, only because I posted the same here yesterday: the comparison that Guy references here was among the lowest of the gutter levels that Hillary has been trolling in, for the past 9 months, and that’s already about 100 ft. down into the gully wash.

• “Hillary Clinton had 15 representatives on the 30-member Rules Committee and every single one of Clinton’s representatives supported this Rules Committee decision, which passed unanimously; Democratic parties in 48 states followed the rule, but Michigan and Florida chose not to. Subsequently, no Democratic candidate campaigned in either state and no Democratic candidate, except Hillary Clinton [who fudged the rules] was even on the ballot in Michigan.”

I’m not sure that he’s correct on this. (about Rodham being the only Dem on the MI ballot). I think that there may have been another one or two, (since Kucinich had NOT agreed to these rules) but I’ve lost my copy of that ballot, so I don’t want to swear to it. Obama however, was NOT (on the ballot) and there were explicit instructions that ‘write-ins’ would invalidate the ballot. Anyone who wanted to vote for other than Hillary, needed to vote as ‘uncommitted’. Most folks didn’t bother to vote at all, since it was already clear, that the delegates would not be acknowledged. 
Here’s the point that most of us already recognize:

• “Harold Ickes, one of Hillary’s representatives on the Rules Committee who voted for the rule barring counting the Michigan and Florida votes, and Hillary’s chief negotiator of this issue, was asked recently on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows, “You voted for the Rules Committee decision, but now you are complaining about it. What has changed?” Ickes replied, “What has changed is that now we are behind.” So, there it is—there is not an ounce of principle in the Clinton position.”

The rest of the article is at the link

http://www.alternet.org/story/86359/

My new name for them is The Desperados. Now if they could just take their desperation some place away from HERE, while we try to select a new administration, that would be helpful.

How would you feel about hosting them for the next 6 months? If they get on your nerves, just send them over to Singapore for awhile. Just don’t let ‘em come back here until after January 31st, 2009.

^ directed?

Tu stultus es

Well, ya know; who saw Obama coming?  The woman who shall be the president; we probably don’t even see her now, but she’s out there!

Great insight!
Thanks.

Without all the media hype, I would have raised an eyebrow and let it go.  Olberman went over the top with this.  Give her comment a rest already.  She’s down for the count.  The media sucks hind tit; big time.  Let it be.

I should get in touch with Hillary’s campaign to see how to go about apologizing.

I see this was already thoroughly covered in Marie Cocco’s thread elsewhere.