The only trouble with him is that he is surrounded by the crook elite (who seek nothing but advantage).  The reason this election is such an exercise in tedium and sucker bait is that they want the general public to become so nauseated that they won’t vote.  Maybe if they are in a hurry, they can just have another Palestinian or perhaps an Iranian shoot Obama.

Re: Tony Wicher, August 24 at 12:05 pm
Part I

•  “They are trying everything they can to convince the voters that Obama is “not one of them”, that is to bring out the worst nationalist-chauvinist-racist sentiments among the population. It is most annoying to see presumably progressive people going along with this because Obama is not progressive enough for them.”

Tony, this is a perfect articulation of the tactic. (divide and rule strategy continued). A key word in your explanation is ‘presumably’ prefacing the so-called progressive people. I’m not sure that they ARE progressive, but then that would depend on one’s individual understanding of what ‘progressive’ actually means in terms of political ideology and the mechanics thereof. Obviously, not all understandings are the same, or even represented by the same political actors or schools of thought. There is a considerable amount of irony in the recognition that many of these actors, (as well as a substantial portion of our citizenry) self-identify as progressives, even though there is a huge disparity in the ideology of these so-called ‘progressives’ across the spectrum.

For instance, Hillary Clinton has publicly identified herself (and “Democrats”) as ‘progressive’ rather than ‘liberal’. (her language, not mine, though I don’t have any particular issues with it). On the other hand, I’ve never personally heard Obama reference himself or the Democratic party as ‘progressive’. (He may have, I’m just saying that I’ve never heard it).Rather, Obama has simply stood on the ideology of CHANGE, based on the need for a CHANGE in the way Washington does business. Since that concept of ‘’change’ is by necessity a broad concept, (and so one could argue vague or ambiguous) I’ve fine tuned it for my own needs to suggest it as a change in the way the government interacts with the citizens, based on the original intent.

In that case, the operative phrase is ‘original intent’ as opposed to the ‘managed democracy’ that has come to replace a Constitutional form of government, in the form of an Oligarchy/ Corptocracy. There’s no possible way to deny that the Clintons and the DLC’ers are, (along with their republican counter parts) are wedded to that Corptocracy, and yet they claim a ‘progressive’ agenda. Is that true? Is this managed democracy or inverted totalitarianism that has replaced constitutional authority actually ‘progressive’? It could be argued that way; since it is first ‘different’ from the traditional government structure as it was originally conceived and implemented. And it has certainly had us ‘progressing’ toward *something* that I personally would identify as a rapid decline, that could soon make the argument moot.

Given that same understanding of what is ‘progressive’, one might argue that Obama is ~less~ progressive, since his platform is far more traditional in terms of wanting to *return* to a Constitutional format. So his ‘change’ message is (and should be comprehended) in the light of a specific time frame/historical period and/or set of conditions that has already established an alternative structure to the one intended by the founders. Would not that return to a traditional structure be ‘better’ even if it is not considered ‘progress’?

In my view, the return to the traditional format is overwhelmingly better, because built into those traditions are stability and balance, both of which are required to keep the whole thing afloat. But his critics, (and mine as well) are delighted to point out his lack of commitment to simply destroy the corporation as an entity in its entirety. They would apparently like to see the capitalist system completely destroyed and/or disregarded in place of something else. One problem with that is first, that they offer no replacements of such a system, and more to the point, the corporation is as much a tradition (at least at this point) as anything else.

II

The same can be said of the concept of trade. These same people would like an unequivocal denouncement of ‘trade’ from Obama, when in fact ‘trade’ has been a foundational element of the US system since its inception. So it isn’t ‘trade’ that is the problem, but rather the free and unregulated trade that supports the Corporation as an entity, and exploits at the same time. That said, the elimination of the Corporation as an entity, or private enterprise in general, is NOT the solution, because in stand alone terms, the “Corporation” is not the problem. The *problem* (and therefore the reason for the imbalance that has led to the crash) is the total cohabitation between the corporation and the state. The solution is not the elimination of the Corporation or the State, but rather the untangling that has made them one and the same. One way to begin that untangling is to revoke this stupid legislation that allows any Corporation to assume the same political and legal identity of as an individual citizen, and to reestablish the regulation that keeps Corporations in check.

It is my own opinion (because I cannot establish it as fact) that Barack Obama is well aware of the need for this detangling or form of ‘ectomy’ that would separate the corporation from the state, now that they’ve been created as some sort of Siamese twin entity, in order for the Corporate entity to exploit the resources of the state for their own gain. However, like its similar counter-part in physical science, this separation has to be accomplished very carefully, in order to prevent the death of one or the other, or both. My guess is that many Americans don’t really ‘get’ that, and it’s understandable, because it’s a very difficult comprehension to come by.  Still, I think Obama does get it.

Meantime, what I’ve noticed from these so-called ‘progressive’ critics of Obama, is that many of them are disgruntled supporters of the Clinton’s, or Hillary specifically. The irony there is that she is a dyed-in-the-wool representation of this very corporate entity now controlling the state, that they claim to reject. In fact, it has been the Clinton Era, as much as any other, that cemented this cohabitation to begin with. My guess is that this contradiction is at the root of the issue, and is based on a lack of understanding by those who find themselves in the midst of it, as well as a superficial ideology based on ‘appearances’ that comport with inherent biases.

By hetzer, August 24 at 3:48 pm #

He will be an elitist in fact, if not in smear.  He has some major sleaze balls advising him with one eye on world conquest and the other eye on the till.  If Obama is another Kerry type shill, that’s all she wrote for this whole bogus so-called Democratic party.  Why doesn’t Obama use the word “crooks” when referring to Republicans?  An out-of-touch timid and moralistic candidate is the same as an elitist candidate.
—————————————————————————-
I don’t know what your idea of “elitist” is. Why is it the same as being out of touch, timid and moralistic? Please define your terms. If you are saying that Obama is trying to be “above” a real political fight, we shall see very soon what he is made of. I agree, if he does prove to be another febble Kerry-Gore-Dukakis, we are screwed. I don’t think he’s another stiff upper class white guy. He’s got to be Muhammad Ali in there. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!

Oh, I forgot to give credit where credit is due. Uranian Willy = Willy the Rat = the late great William S. Burroughs. This piece was from “Nova Express.”

By hetzer, August 24 at 2:23 pm #

I hope that as you become more aware of them and how they exist, you can get outside of them somewhat.  I would say that I came from the sucker/lazy coward class , but since I am not a sociopath I am not in the crook category.  Where do you think you might fit?
——————————————————————————
hetzer,

Perhaps you would enjoy a little poetry

             
Uranian Willy the heavy metal Kid, also known as Willy the rat - He wised up the marks.

“This is war to extermination - Fight cell by cell through bodies and mind screens of the earth.
Souls rotten from the Orgasm Drug. Flesh shuddering from the Ovens. Prisoners of the earth, come out. Storm the studio.”

His plan called for total exposure - Wise up all the
marks everywhere Show them the rigged wheel -
Storm the Reality Studio and retake the universe - The plan shifted and reformed as reports came in from his electric patrols sniffing quivering down the streets of the earth - The reality film giving and buckling like a bulkhead under pressure - Burned metal smell of interplanetary war in the raw noon streets swept by screaming glass blizzards of enemy flak.

“Photo falling - Word falling - Use partisans of all
nations - Target Orgasm Ray Installations - Gothenburg, Sweden - Coordinates 8 2 7 6 - Take Studio - Take Board Books - Take Death Dwarfs - Towers, open fire.”

re: hetzer
You provide yet another definition of elitist. Why doesn’t Obama use truthful words to describe Republican criminals? Because he is afraid of offending anyone who is a part of the system he is trying to get into.
If elected, I wonder what his position on presidential signing statements will be? For some reason I hear the words “position” and “evolved” being used together.

He will be an elitist in fact, if not in smear.  He has some major sleaze balls advising him with one eye on world conquest and the other eye on the till.  If Obama is another Kerry type shill, that’s all she wrote for this whole bogus so-called Democratic party.  Why doesn’t Obama use the word “crooks” when referring to Republicans?  An out-of-touch timid and moralistic candidate is the same as an elitist candidate.

re: Tony Wicher
Please understand I never believed in the elitist tag for Obama. But a clarification of what the republican attack machine is up to, is in order. What they mean by elitist was best expressed by a rabid Clinton supporter, who derided Senator Obama and his supporters as over-educated (whatever that means) latte drinking, Prius driving, trust fund babies. In other words, you are suppose to hate the affluent who are socially conscious. The old tree-hugging, godless secular humanist, repackaged as cultural bias. Thus Obama is too skinny and concerned with health etc. The uncaring celebrity, elitist tag, is just the latest in the line of mean lies, being offered by the Rovian based McCain campaign. And as you know, there will be more.

I hope that as you become more aware of them and how they exist, you can get outside of them somewhat.  I would say that I came from the sucker/lazy coward class , but since I am not a sociopath I am not in the crook category.  Where do you think you might fit?

By hetzer, August 24 at 8:22 am #

I used to believe in crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards.  Now I believe in crooks, suckers, dumb suckers and lazy cowards.  I would guess that richer peasants are pretty much suckers, and ordinary peasants are lazy cowards.  You notice, I have made no room for exceptions.  I put most learned academics in the suckers category, though some are dumb suckers.  Their hidden agenda is to legitimize the crooks, while continuing the bamboozlement of the lazy cowards.

It is interesting how crookism works.
——————————————————————————
hetzer,

So, which of these categories do you belong to?
Or are you an exception?

By thebeerdoctor, August 23 at 3:08 pm #

re: Tony Wicher

Despite the fact that anthropologists are low on the academic food chain, PLEASE do not propagate the myth that Barack Obama’s mother was on food stamps like a single mother who works as a waitress, with her apron and her pad, as the late Frank Zappa said. These “stretchers” about a single mom on food stamps is the kind of nonsense that makes the candidate to appear to be be “one of us”, will ultimately be revealed to be the half-truths that they really are.
—————————————————————————-
That was not my point. My point was that most of the intellectuals I know personally are at best middle class, and some them, including a long-time anthropologist friend, really are poor enough to get food stamps. Obama is not exactly a po’ boy from the ghetto raised on food stamps, but there are just no grounds for calling him an “elitist” either. On the contrary, he is a self-made man and a success story that the whole country can be proud of. This “elitist” tag is just another Republican-made image. They are trying everything they can to convince the voters that Obama is “not one of them”, that is to bring out the worst nationalist-chauvinist-racist sentiments among the population. It is most annoying to see presumably progressive people going along with this because Obama is not progressive enough for them.

I used to believe in crooks, suckers, and lazy cowards.  Now I believe in crooks, suckers, dumb suckers and lazy cowards.  I would guess that richer peasants are pretty much suckers, and ordinary peasants are lazy cowards.  You notice, I have made no room for exceptions.  I put most learned academics in the suckers category, though some are dumb suckers.  Their hidden agenda is to legitimize the crooks, while continuing the bamboozlement of the lazy cowards.

It is interesting how crookism works.

re: cyrena
Face it, you are just an internet peasant like the rest of us. I no longer care to scroll through your idiotic screed.
Here’s a thought: be humane, do the same for me.

1 of 2
Beerdoc writes:
•  ” Perhaps you should cease advocating for your candidate, your unbalanced attacks on his critics are hurting his chances for winning.”
~~~~~
Now THAT’S hilarious beerdoc. Do you *really* think I have that kind of influence?

Ah, but that’s a rhetorical question now isn’t it, since YOU at least must think that I do. And you apparently believe that *I* have this influence, because you assume that *you* have a similar influence in doing what you’ve suggested that I have. (this is very typical of your types). So, you not only assume that all others have your same motivations in mind, (which is to do whatever possible to undermine Obama’s chances for winning) you also assume that all others utilize your same techniques of treacherous duplicity in the endeavor. (this is very much human nature).

Example, very dishonest people interact with others based on the assumption, (call it paranoia if you like) that all others are as dishonest as they are. Still other very dishonest people, (con artists of varying persuasions) will assume that others are stupid, and unable to sense the predatory schemes being perpetrated against them. The smarter among these types, will feel things out first, before they make these assumptions, and then proceed with caution, so that there motivations are not so easily detected.

The dumber ones, (who fail to properly assess their ‘targets’) are generally caught unaware, backed into a corner, out of ‘ammunition’ and then find that they have to resort to mimicking their chosen ‘targets’ (who they belatedly realize or at least perceive to have become their opponents, just because the targets weren’t successfully destroyed in the original attacks). So the best they (and that would be people like you and rus to name a few) can do, is to accuse the ‘other’ of their own behavior.

So for the record, (AGAIN – since we’ve been through this before), everyone leaves a psychological or ideological imprint of sorts, in their communications, whether they are written, or delivered orally in ‘real time’, and in person. Over a period of time, that ‘footprint’ develops more and more, and is clearly observed by some, and probably totally missed by others.

*Your* profile is that you hate Barack Obama, and is it a very personal/visceral/emotional issue with you, wrapped up in some ideology that we can’t verify, because of course you aren’t going to say. So while we may not know the ‘why’ of your animosity, we do know (certainly by now) that you have it, and we know that it is not based on any critical or OBJECTIVE criteria. You never, ever, present a single solitary piece of objectivity in anything that you write in respect to him as a candidate for office, or as an individual. That’s how you’ve continued to show your own ideological bias.

That alone, isn’t the problem, because any reasonable person can accept the fact that all people have biases to some extent. The difference is that you attempt to pass it off as a neutral or objective observation, and to convince others that this is obvious bias is based on fact, or that whatever it is – is even IMPORTANT to the collective interest. (and invariably with you, it just never is)

2 of 2

Based on that, you see yourself as being ‘influential’ in converting the minds of others, (usually by IED’s) and so you assign that same ‘influence’ to anyone you perceive as interfering with your plans. I don’t maintain that same ‘assumption’ in my own ‘influence’ because that’s not my purpose. People can and will make up their own minds. So, my only purpose here is revealing the truth, which generally comes to the fore in activity that challenges your lies, exaggerations, distortions, and innuendos. And I would do that for ANY person or cause.

So, you aren’t ‘competing’ with me here beerdoc, because I’m not ‘competing’ period. (if this were a contest, you’d be so far out of your league that I wouldn’t have the heart to make it so apparent, since I don’t believe in intentionally humiliating anyone). *Nor* am I ‘advocating’ on behalf of Barack Obama, because he doesn’t need that. (there *IS* a clearly defined difference btw, between advocating on behalf of a person or cause, and defending a person or cause. Neither applies here, but you wouldn’t get that either)  In other words, *I* don’t have to ‘explain’ who Obama is to anyone, since we all have access to the same information about him, in terms of how he is likely to perform the duties of the office of POTUS, based on what he has said and done himself.

My only purpose is to call out liars when they (you) present distortions that can (and often do) effect outcomes that result in consequences for the collective. I don’t consider that to be an ‘advocacy’ for Obama as much as I KNOW it to be an advocacy for the collective, of which I happen to be a part. Now if I had the kind of ‘influence’ that you would like to ascribe to me, (since you obviously ascribe it to yourself), Dick Bush would never have been able to gain the positions of power that have allowed them to wreck so much havoc on us and the rest of humanity.

But, I don’t have that kind of influence. So, I do what I can do, which is simply (or not so simply) to keep the truth accessible, to anyone who wants to hear it. From that, I can only hope that the average person will share in this collective need for survival. Exposing your or anyone else’s lies is part of that truth reveling process.

If you are uncomfortable with that, perhaps you should cease the lying, or the combination of Insinuations, exaggerations, and distortions, which are the same as lies. Lying is rarely (even in hindsight) found to be in any way beneficial, and nearly always amounts to damage and destruction that didn’t need to happen.

Crooks hate it when they think you actually give a shit.

re: cyrena
You have to love someone who rants away in volumes saying nothing but spite. The fact that someone notices political tricks, from all sides, is then promptly called a racist is pathetic, but even more, hilarious!
Perhaps you should cease advocating for your candidate, your unbalanced attacks on his critics are hurting his chances for winning.
One last note, I repeat: If You Do Not Like What I Write, Do Not Read It.
Take care of yourself, get plenty of rest.

beerman,

Actually, your post was a reaction to mine, and anybody could see that. It’s the standard stuff that you trolls do.

And if you think I was telling you who you could post to, then that’s just your own guilty reaction. I only asked you why you hadn’t even given him a chance to respond yet. But of course since your post was really directed at me, it didn’t even MATTER to you if Big B had responded, or if HE even read it. Your ‘profile’ is soooo transparent beerdude.

Just like the last post to Tony, where you’ve got your panties all in a wad because you’re so terribly afraid of Obama seeming like a normal enough fellow. You’ve been determined to carry on the accusation of him being an ‘elitist’, and it’s just killing you that it’s being revealed that he simply was NOT and is NOT an elitist! Which is exactly what makes him appealing to Americans who have been ground under by the string of ‘elitists’ that we’ve always had.

The reality is that he had a relatively middle class life, and managed through his own intelligence to become a successful and productive citizen, because unlike so many others, he did catch some breaks, just as his father did in making a way for himself to get an education. But he was NOT ‘wealthy’ and his grandparents were not ‘wealthy’ and none of them were ‘elitists’ because while the ‘intellectual class’ make be certainly ‘rub shoulders’ with wealthier people, the reality is that intellectuals do not go into their fields for the purpose of becoming wealthy. Now if you told me that his grandparents were part of the white plantation of S & H Sugar, or Dole Pineapple, then you might have some legitimacy in the claim. But the best you can do is to say that one of his grandparents was a VP of a bank. BFD beerdoc.

So let’s just face some facts here. Obama was raised in a middle class environment. Nobody is suggesting that his mother was some welfare mother, or that he was raised in the projects, or put himself through Columbia and Harvard by selling dope at Cabrini Green. Rather, he was like a whole bunch of Americans (at the time) who put himself through school getting student loans, and doing the normal route, and no doubt I’m sure his family helped to the extent that they could.

Nobody is saying that his mother was getting food stamps all of her life, but only that times were tough and that there was a time when she needed help. Hawaii happens to be (and always has been) one of the most expensive places to live in the Pacific region. (although where I live is probably even more at this point).

What you cannot convince anybody of, is that Obama is a product of another dynasty like the Bush dynasty, or even the Rodham millions, or even the Kennedy dynasty. He did NOT marry into money, and that’s what it boils down to. He actually used his own intelligence and his own steam, to get to where he is now, and that’s what’s killing you.

GET OVER IT!!! Your racism and the typical resentment that goes with it, is overwhelmingly apparent in every post you make.

You’ve been exposed as the troll that you are. And you’re probably even doing this for free. Why not get the McCain team to pay you for it?

It doesn’t take long to become obsessed with trivialities.  I would guess that the only thing we can realistic expect from a new regime is perhaps a slight elevation in tone, although the crook lie machine will be in full gear.  I hope that somehow I am pleasantly proved wrong, but I have seen these flim flams plenty of times before.

The net and the streets are the main sources of any change.  They look pretty small in comparison to every other American institution which has been jacked by crooks and crookism.  But, that’s life in Naziland.

re: Tony Wicher

Despite the fact that anthropologists are low on the academic food chain, PLEASE do not propagate the myth that Barack Obama’s mother was on food stamps like a single mother who works as a waitress, with her apron and her pad, as the late Frank Zappa said. These “stretchers” about a single mom on food stamps is the kind of nonsense that makes the candidate to appear to be be “one of us”, will ultimately be revealed to be the half-truths that they really are.

cyrena, August 22 at 8:25 am #

And yeah, we already know that his mother was an anthropologist, that’s what she was doing in Hawaii, when she married Obama’s father.  Are you suggesting that made her ‘rich’. Get a clue. Academics aren’t ‘rich’.
————————————————————————
Especially anthropologists. They’re just ahead of us philosophers. We’re both grateful for food stamps when we can get them.

re: cyrena

I post my writings so I can get reactions from dingbats who think they have all the answers. As long as you think your idiotic bullying is effective, rave on. But this is truthdig remember? That post was addressed to Big B, not you. So now you want to tell me who I can communicate with? What a pompous ignoramus you truly are.

They will be used by the Republicans explicitly, implicitly and probably at the point of a gun.  Both prejudices feed on fear (as usual), and they also divide the field so that elections turn into contests be rich white crooks who control crook media.  Also they provide an excellent source for endless trivial concerns of the “he said what?”  “She actually said that” variety.  We seem to have forgotten that some crooked cowboys paid Tonto half the herd to start a terrible stampede.

By thebeerdoctor, August 23 at 3:38 am

•  “No, you are not some scary dude. No, you are not a bigot for pointing out that skin color is being exploited on both sides. And there is nothing unreasonable about suggesting that Barack Obama should just be himself.”

Talk about exploitation beerdoc, you didn’t even give the man a chance to respond for himself! So, one might guess that YOU are exploiting HIM, to do your cowardly exercise of dissent against me! That’s pretty pathetic beerdoc, but then…we already know that about you, eh?

Still, I didn’t ‘read’ in Big B’s post, that he was pointing out that ‘skin color is being exploited on both sides’. I didn’t interpret that at all. Your interpretation just sounds like another excuse for the standard racist. Remember, I told you I could sniff them out. Would you like to give a shot at trying to explain how ‘skin color is being exploited on both sides’ even though that isn’t what Big B is suggesting? Nope. You just say shit for the sake of saying it. No connections required for you.

And, whether you know it or not, a ‘bigot’ does not necessarily have to be a racist, and I wasn’t suggesting that Big B was. (because, I don’t think that he is…at least not by what his posts convey). I do believe him to have some of the same superficial hypocritical/contradictory values that so many people have though. And, they are on display in this post. You wouldn’t get it though, because you’re about the most viscerally vindictive zero sum person around. You miss the point of everything, to zero in on your petty little waa waa’s….

Still, YOUR response is off the mark, and petty, as you always display yourself to be.

As for Obama just being himself, what makes you so sure he isn’t being himself? And, why would YOU even weigh-in on it? Your opinion is already set, and there’s nothing that will change it. So what do you care what ANYBODY suggests for Obama?

Now Big B may indeed be as scary as it would appear from his last post. But so far, he doesn’t come close to being as scary as you.

Between you and rus7355, we’re probably all under surveillance now. Crazies do not go unnoticed on these blogs for that long.

re: Big B

No, you are not some scary dude. No, you are not a bigot for pointing out that skin color is being exploited on both sides. And there is nothing unreasonable about suggesting that Barack Obama should just be himself.
The Obamakins on this web site always try to pull that nonsense. Right now they will tell you they are cool with Joe Biden as the running mate. Never mind that the old pol, with his great foreign policy expertise (i.e.; He loves Israel) has been in that special social club known as the United States Senate since 1973. Hey, that tenure is longer than John McCain!
You got to love it though. The way to fix the same old Washington politics, is to embrace the same old Washington politicians.
To thy own self be true Big B. Peace, the beer doctor.

Well Big B

I

Lots of assumptions from your post here, beginning with the run down on traditional black families and how they’re raised, and the whole ‘potential’ problem that you think Barack’s skin color might raise. Blacks don’t think he’s black enough, and some whites think he’s too black.

Humm, let’s first address how this really plays out in terms of votes. First, there are probably far more white folks raised by grandparents, aunts, etc than there are black ones. Why is that? Well, because there are far more white folks in the US than there are black ones. That’s the *biggie*. Ya see Big B, black folks make up 13% of the US population, and that doesn’t mean all of ‘em vote. So, if ya really wanna talk about this stuff based on the reality of the demographics, it has not been, and will not be, the African-American population that decide, one way or another, whether Obama becomes our next president. That’s the reality of it. Indeed, I do wish that the African-American population DID have a bit more political power, but we don’t, and we never have, and that’s the way that is. Obama won the primaries based on the majority, (need I remind – white) population, not the black ones. And other people of color? The Latinos, the Asians, the Indians, (East and West)..and anyone I’ve left out…it’ll just depend. However, if there are in fact people who ‘don’t think he’s black enough’, we can probably count them on one hand, and I’m making a wild guess that they don’t vote anyway, just on account of how stupid that is.

As for the proportion of people who will not vote for Obama because he is black, (or ‘too black’ as you say) that isn’t a ‘potential problem’…it’s a flippin GIVEN for crying out loud, just like a certain percentage of the population is born with hazel eyes. In a nation that was FOUNDED on racism, and where racism is an INSTITUTION, that little piece of statistical information is already factored in, and it doesn’t MATTER what Century it is. Actually, the 21st Century social construct makes it more difficult to accurately calculate that value in the standard methods that social scientists use, because unlike earlier centuries, folks don’t openly ADMIT that they would not vote for him based on that reason alone. There is an inverted way to guesstimate, by listening to and tabulating all of the OTHER reasons they give instead. (which is why a trained social science researcher can generally tag a racist pretty easily) but it still remains an ‘unknown’ value in terms of any scientific certainty, because there are multiple reasons for *why* people hold such views. And then there are others (both black and white) who won’t vote for him for other reasons, generally because they just don’t like ANYBODY! Or, the ones that will always support the corporate repug, (no matter what color he/she is) because that person represents their own repiglican interests. There’s no doubt in my mind that there will be a sliver of black folks who vote for John McCain, and they will be that sliver who either share the same economic class ties with the McCain cabal, (and there are probably less than a handful of them as well) or who shared that political ideology. I’m sure Condi Rice will vote for John McCain, and so will Clarence Thomas.

Speaking of which, it was a bunch of WHITE guys who confirmed HIM to the Supreme Court, (though by the narrowest margin in the history of the institution) and it’s pretty hard to get much blacker (or uglier) than he is, if we’re talking skin color only here. And as far as I know, there weren’t any BLACK senators for voting for him. (then again, I can’t remember if there were any black senators at the time). Still, you get my point. At least I hope you do.

There are people who simply will not vote for Barack Obama, based on the issue of his race alone, and that’s that. And for those who are already psychologically/culturally DNA’ed that way, nothing is going to change it.

II

On this, you’ve pretty much revealed yourself…

“We as an electorate should absolutely judge people on where they went to school, who raised them, what neighborhood did they live in, who are there friends, and so on. Why? because all these things speak to their charactor. I have always told my son that, while it is not fair, you are judged by the people you hang around with. And for that same reason we still judge people in this nation by the color of their skin. And once again, it’s not fair, but it’s there.

~~~

You’re suggesting that we should absolutely judge people on who raised them, (even though they didn’t get to choose that) and by where they went to school, (guess you’d not think much of my blue collar neighborhood Catholic elementary/middle school) their NEIGHBORHOODS???,( not always ‘choose-able either’ and who their friends are, because it speaks to *their* ‘character”.???

Gee…ya wanna help us out with the Dick Bush duo? Can ya make us some ‘character connections’ there? The fuckers have as good as killed us. How’s that for ‘character’? So was it their ‘neighborhoods’? Or who raised them? (in GW’s case, it could well be, but we don’t know shit about Cheney’s parents) Or maybe it was the *schools*. GW had to suffer through Yale and Harvard, for his measly MBA that pops bought him, and Cheney jacked around at the Univ. of Wisconsin for a while to get deferments). Or maybe it was their friends…the people they ‘hung around with’. Now THAT might be a determining factor in their cases.

And then you add bigoted insult to bigoted injury by comparing this to the same rationale, (which you say you approve of) for why people still judge others by the color of the skin.

Big B, you’re a scary dude. Can you spell B-I-G-O-T?

Ok, I’ve gotta go check in on my best friend: an alcoholic over-the-hill whore I’ve known since childhood, who lives in a really ‘bad’ neighborhood, and was non-raised (ignored) by wealthy neurotic parents. Only thing I guess she’s got going for her is that she’s white, and I’m still her friend. Humm, maybe that’s not even an advantage, since I’m black and obviously of ‘bad character’ or she wouldn’t be my friend.

When I’ve finished checking in on her, I’ll head up to the prison to visit with one of my 38 cousins who is still alive, (if you can call it that). More ‘bad character’ I guess. I did advise both of them not to run for president, but I still think both would be better than what we have now.

I donated $1000 to Kerry as protection money.  Instead he went wind surfing and honored Reagan.  I’ve held off on my money until now because I actually earn mine.  I don’t steal it, like all my betters.

My politics is on the net and in the streets, literally.  The Republicans kill the clerk.  The Democrats drive the getaway car.  When will we get some smarts and quit betting on pulling a dumb rigged lever.  These campaigns amount to no more than raising money for crook media.

If Obama loses the elections, one of the biggest reasons will be his totally unnecessary speech of the Tiergarten of Berlin. The issue that McCain had raised was that Obama had not been to Iraq for quite some time. Obama should have gone to Iraq and returned to the US without his dumb capers in Germany and England. He should have returned directly to us and told us what he had learned. The ballyhooed Berlin speech will go down as a colossal blunder.

“If the right offends thee pluck it out.” Just for the record I never said Senator Obama grew up rich, I just said he was never poor. By poor I mean not knowing where your next meal is coming from. And yes it is true that Barack was born in Hawaii, but when I said he returned to live with his maternal grandparents, it was after he had spent years in Indonesia. And it is true, that when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, his grandmother was the vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii. This promotion occurred in 1970. Barack went to live with them when he was ten, in 1971.

Big B, isn’t that frame of judgment just speculative dog & pony pudipoints? I don’t meet many dark skinned people who aren’t voting for Barack Obama, nor do they have anything to say about his blackness. I’ve also not met anyone face-to-face who has said Obama is ‘too black’ for POTUS. Those seem to be more talking points on the television than actual concerns of the American people. What have you experienced when you’ve discussed Obama with other people? Outside of the internet of course. (I don’t put much stock into internet comments because there are still paid shills for the Republican party who get somewhere from $0.50 to $0.75 a post.)

No, you don’t have to rich to go to private school, but it sure helps!
The fact that Barry was a benefactor of, and primarily raised in the shadow of his grandparents, should be part of any “get to know Barry” ad campaign. Seeing as how statistically, many blacks are brought up in non-traditional households (grandparents, aunts, ect) that fact should only prove to endear him to other African Americans.
Barry and his people need to realize that, although this sounds ridiculess in the 21st century, He suffers from two potential problems. Blacks don’t think he’s black enough, and some whites think he’s too black.
But the real problem may be even bigger. That is, why does his skin color matter? Oh, don’t get me wrong, it’s not a problem for alot of people, but it is for a significant enough portion of the population that it could/will cost him a close election.
We as an electorate should absolutely judge people on where they went to school, who raised them, what neighborhood did they live in, who are there friends, and so on. Why? because all these things speak to their charactor. I have always told my son that, while it is not fair, you are judged by the people you hang around with. And for that same reason we still judge people in this nation by the color of their skin. And once again, it’s not fair, but it’s there.
For all these reasons, that is why Obama needs to stop trying to be all things to all people (Kennedy only won by the slimmest of margins after all) and just be himself, and let the chips fall where they may.

Obama did not grow up poor.When he was ten years old he went to live with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. His grandmother Madelyn Dunham was the first female vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii. Barack Obama attended the wealthy private, Punahou School up through high school. Despite the famous comment about his mother using food stamps, Ann Dunham was in fact an anthropologist. To claim that Obama grew up poor is what Mark Twain what have called “a stretcher”.

~~~~~~
Humm, I wouldn’t necessarily call your story here a ‘stretcher’ beerdoc, but it certainly creates an incorrect perception. You say that Obama ‘went to live’ with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii when he was 10 years old? Actually beerdoctor, Obama was BORN in Hawaii! And yeah, we already know that his mother was an anthropologist, that’s what she was doing in Hawaii, when she married Obama’s father.  Are you suggesting that made her ‘rich’. Get a clue. Academics aren’t ‘rich’.

And, this is another example of what I was just talking about. The Swiftmud people have done their best to paint Obama as being elitist, and the irony is that UNLIKE those who are perpetrating the myth, he has had a relatively middle class upbringing. Hell, *I* went to private school for 12 years! And while my family might still fit in the middle class range, I’m damn sure not. I’m in just as bad a shape as the next homeless person, and I’m an academic just like Obama’s mother was. In fact, I’ve got as many letters behind my name as Doctor knowitall. Want me to list ‘em? Will you give me a dollar for every letter?  If having white grandparents and going to a private school made one an ‘elitist’ then we would just be surrounded by a bunch of starving elitists living in the streets.

Can you name any US president of the last 40 years that didn’t come to the office with 100 times more wealth than Obama has ever seen in his life, or is likely to ever see, since the job doesn’t pay all THAT much, even if he gets it? Do you think he can hang with the likes of the Bush Dynasty? Or the Clinton Dynasty? (Slick Willy might have started out poor enough, but he quickly married into money and the Arkansas mob).

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I’m talking about. The opposition team, (in this case McCain) decides on a narrative…this ploy is to make Obama out to be an elitist/uppity negro, and people like you jump right at it, never even thinking to question the ones who are determining the narrative. Meantime NOBODY has suggested at any time, (and especially Obama) that he grew up in the projects at Cabrini Green and slung dope to put himself through Columbia and Harvard. Rather, like average Americans, he just finished paying off the student loans. I’m STILL paying mine.

thebeerdoctor, are you saying Barack Obama’s life was one of privilege, then? Everyone who goes to a private school is wealthy? The middle-class struggle too, you know.

My family was on food stamps, but we still put my brother into a private school for a short period of time. Were we living a life of privilege too?

Honestly, I’m a little offended.

Beerdoctor:

•  “The Obama folks should stop yelling at those detractors of their candidate, on account of these policies.”

Nobody is yelling at detractors of Obama just for the hell of it, but rather because of what you call, ‘these policies’. Warrantless wiretapping is *not* an “Obama Policy”. He didn’t start it, and he didn’t write up very bad compromise legislation, and he damn sure didn’t ‘pass’ it on his own. All but a handful of a Congress passed it. THAT is what should be upsetting people on that. That so many of our supposed representatives passed such legislation should be an issue for you. It wasn’t even close. How did your Congressional representatives and Senators vote on that issue? Just curious.

And I take serious offense at your suggestion of language being a ‘game’. It isn’t…at least not for the legal scholars and other experts entrusted with drafting documents and policies that affect the lives of many. A change of word here, or a twisting of a phrase there could mean the difference between survival and not survival. So I don’t think your dismissal of the meanings of words is any more appropriate than your constant harping on my dismissal of something like an extramarital affair that John Edwards chose to engage in.

So again, language *is* critical, and I get a constant reminder of that in my own environment, from people a whole hell of a lot smarter than you. Another example that should apply to any and everyone about the importance of language is when other put words in your mouth, or make serious accusations that are falsehoods. Barack Obama has not said that he is willing or plans to attack Iran. Therefore, it is irresponsible for a journalist to suggest that he did say it.

Now you would like to give the impression that I’m only ‘obsessed’ with these issues in reference to Obama, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is the one major issue that I’ve always had. I react vehemently on any occasion when anyone is presenting anything, that is false.

Outraged, I heard Obama say the part about Israel’s *security* being sacrosanct. I wish you’d used a better example however, on what they are inflexible or uncompromising about, since they are inflexible, stubborn, and uncompromising about a lot of things that they should be far more compromising on. Security just isn’t one of them, for the same reasons that my own security is non-negotiable. I’m not giving it up, nor am I willing to compromise it. I would say that applies to any nation state. I’d be more impressed if we could find someplace were Obama unquestioningly supports Israel’s Apartheid wall, with has been built on Palestinian property, rather than their own. Or even that he supports their uncompromising aggression in the continuation of further settlements in the occupied territories. To say that he is supportive of their inflexibility on security is a most difficult point to argue.

Thanks for the link though. I appreciate the article.

Obama did not grow up poor.When he was ten years old he went to live with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii. His grandmother Madelyn Dunham was the first female vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii. Barack Obama attended the wealthy private, Punahou School up through high school. Despite the famous comment about his mother using food stamps, Ann Dunham was in fact an anthropologist. To claim that Obama grew up poor is what Mark Twain what have called “a stretcher”.

Fadel, it would be ignorant to say racism isn’t some factor against Obama, but don’t you think you’re projecting racial prejudice onto Americans of European descent unscrupulously? Do you really think saying “most Americans” is a way of side-stepping such a general statement about an entire group of people?

Racial prejudice is a real part of today’s society, but our society has made, and is making progress. I believe Obama will win the presidency, but I don’t think it will be a part of America’s efforts to change racial disparity. I think it will be a display of the change that is already taking place.

By Aegrus, August 22 at 6:54 am #

Fadel, what makes you think racism is the deciding factor?
======================
Please quote my words as I expressed them! I didn’t say that racism is the deciding factor, but that it is a factor from among several that might tip the balance against Barack Obama.

A follow up to my previous post:

Well, long time ago, since the early period of the primaries, using my gut feeling and a deep insight into the American reality, I knew well that Obama will have an uphill battle because of his race and color.

Because most Americans lack the virtue of looking themselves closely in the mirror and exercising deep soul searching, they don’t realize how deeply entrenched racism is in their world view. It takes a non-white European American, who has been the victim of racism to see what they don’t see. I am one of such non-white European American.

Though I am not a strong supporter of Obama for several reasons I expressed in previous posts in the last few months, I would be the most happy if he wins this election; not so because he would miraculously solve the many moral, economic and political problems facing the homeland, but because, if he wins, it would be an indication that finally America is on its way of recovery from the moral disease of racism!

Fadel, what makes you think racism is the deciding factor?

Personally, I don’t take much stock in polls. They capture a moment in time for a certain amount of people.

“Lindorff argues that Obama’s dip in the polls is actually the result of his march to the right, much like the last two Democratic losers.”
=================================
Though there might be some truth to what Lindorff says, the other part of the truth is that while we are getting closer to the elections, white Americans are showing and living up to their true colors and their history of R….m!

“Obama is ignorant of American politics”

Funny. As the statement doesn’t acknowledge that he won the primary, won a senate seat and was in the Illinois state senate for eight years while also insinuating Obama is not American.

I’m really sorry you’re going to have to sit through a presidency where a man, who grew up poor and earned everything he has, will actually think about the American people first. Shed a bitter tear for progress, would you?

cran berry

quite the contrary…obama understands american politics quite well. he knows full well that the people who have allowed him to ascend to his present status allow just so much deviation from the well entrenched and established goals and requirements that they have, and have always had, namely global eoconimcs and war.

the bilderberg group, trilateral commission, and council on forign affairs, make the decisions for the world, and one of those is who gets to be president. you think obama’s swerve to the right is democratic strategy? think again. you think the MSM’s giving McMoron a pass is an accident? don’t think so.

ther only difference between the parties is degree. they will basically govern the same, but the republicans will be more in your face…. to see exactly how far they can go, and what they can get away with than the democrats. it’s just a way for these groups of people who control all of us to see how far, and how fast, we can be coerced into their vision of the world. but make no mistake, these groups will not allow much divergence from their “new world order”.
there is no democratic strategy or republican strategy of any consequence. there is just adherence to their masters in the afore mentioned groups.

Obama is ignorant of American politics and how it works. Consequently he has lost an election the democrats might have won. It is time to accept President McCain and get on with it.

re: outraged

I’m afraid that when it comes to the Obama crowd, they will continue to dispute the record that you actually supply.
If the presumptive nominee is so good for the country (hey I’ll be the first to admit I may be wrong about this) then it behooves them to concentrate on that: winning the election.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/do-obamas-sinking-poll-nu_b_120450.html

Re: cyrena

Your comment: “It’s all about the language/rhetoric, and defining the narrative. Say this stuff enough, and nobody ever questions it. But, what does this really mean? Any specific examples.

• “First pledging unquestioning support for Israeli intransigence”

>The position Obama claimed during his speech at AIPAC.

“Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

> I would admonish that that is about as UNQUESTIONING as one can get!  For christ’s sake, he is claiming that Israel’s security is SACROSANCT!

There really is no need to play games with language. What Dave Lindorff said is true. The Obama folks should stop yelling at those detractors of their candidate, on account of these policies. Do you really want Senator Obama to win this election? Then stop calling names on the voters who can actually accomplish this. This is high stakes politics, there is nothing honorable about it. If Obama and his supporters believe all this noble nonsense about a new kind of politics… you know, deep down what will be the outcome in November.
Go ahead, call the Clinton supporters names. Hell, if BHO takes it on the nose, blame Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Never for a moment consider all the half-ass pandering that you explain as pragmatic. Yes be indeed pragmatic, towards those voters that so many hold in contempt. Appeal to their selfishness (the $1000 dollar energy rebate floated by Senator Obama is a start). Show the average American voter, who is not particularly interested in politics, that voting for Barack will improve their own condition. You will not win by demonizing Senator McCain. Comparing him with George W. Bush will not help either.
It is remarkable that so many people who embrace politics can find ordinary people to be so loathsome. Call those voters ignorant or stupid or blind, all you want. Without them your magnificent candidate has had it.

cyrena,

I hate to say it but I’m afraid Lindorf may be right. I knew Kerry was going to lose after the 2004 convention. I am hoping this time it will be different.

Democrats believe that if you get too far to the left, the elite (in particular, elite media) will find ways to destroy you.  Howard Dean (and the Dean “scream”) is a case in point.

It’s all about the language/rhetoric, and defining the narrative. Say this stuff enough, and nobody ever questions it. But, what does this really mean? Any specific examples.

•  “First pledging unquestioning support for Israeli intransigence”

Let’s start with intransigence.

–adjective
1.  refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible.
–noun
2.  a person who refuses to agree or compromise, as in politics.

OK. Israel is pretty much that. Seems fair enough so far. Israel isn’t known for compromise.

Now, just to find a way to prove that Obama has pledged. (same as promised) “unquestioning’ *support* for it.

We need to find something that proves that he’s never questioned any uncompromising position that Israel has ever taken (presumably in the past 60 years…since this doesn’t narrow it down). That might be hard, since he’s on record as saying that he does *not* agree with everything Israel does. (now I’ve gotta find that).

Meantime, somebody can hopefully search out other proof that Obama ‘unquestioningly’ pledges support. That’s gonna be a little difficult to, since it suggests that he’s made a promise of FUTURE support, and that he’ll provide this support, (for their inflexibility) without ever questioning it.

It’s getting complicated here, and I haven’t even got to the part about how he “threatened to attack Iran”, or how he “supports’ warrant-less domestic spying, or that he has ‘backed away’ from ‘genuine’ health care reform.

I haven’t seen ANY change in his health-care policy, which was never as good as most of us would have liked to have seen it. But the ‘backed-away’ is misleading. It hasn’t changed.

The ‘support’ for warrant-less domestic spying is equally specious when taken in context with the Constitutional/Parliamentary structure, since such a claim is obviously based only on his one vote, and not on any of the language that he used to explain it.

Yep, this language thing is really a bitch. First they accuse him of supporting those who REFUSE to COMPROMISE, (Israel) even without any proof of such unquestioning support, and then they accuse him of COMPROMISING! (domestic wiretapping)

Holy shit! Glad I’m not running for office.

But, just for the hell of it, I’ll try to find where he’s “threatened to attack Iran.” (I’m relatively certain there is nothing to find there, but I’ll look).

Still, this just proves my point of how ‘facts’ can be ‘created’ by the language of the interpretation, and anybody can do it, and even get paid for it. (including Dave Lindorff here).

The democrats will always rely on their flaccid middle of the road routine and right wing macho foreign policy bluster while ignoring and alienating their base.

Obama’s just continuing the proud donkey tradition of losing elections.