CY:

We can agree to disagree, but I disagree re the war.  Especially now that January looks like it will be one of the most violent on record; if that keeps up, the war will become even more front and center than the economy is now.

Also, it is somewhat disingenous to, on the one hand, call yourself “fairly middle,” and on the other to say that you would “vote for any candidate who has the best chance of defeating another Clinton.”

Are you suggesting that the GOP ecnomic plans are going to HELP you up there?  You MUST be kidding!  Their plans are more of the same, with little or no tax breaks or assistance for the middle and lower classes.  This would truly be a case of voting against your better interests out of pure spite (i.e., hatred of Hillary).

Peace.

You are welcome.  And you are wrong: your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

As for how anyone finds out what is “real,” SOME of us here (LOL) actually “do the research” and try to find out what’s real (or, at least, most probably real).  For example, I did a complete exegesis of the Senate votes of Hillary and Obama, which is how I know their actual records.  (The link to my article is at the end of this post.) And I am working on an article re their actual positions on the issues, the sources for which include their own websites, Wikipedia sites that the campaigns have set up specifically for this purpose (which are updated almost daily), and media sources.

In the meantime, unless the Dems do something truly stupid and really shoot themselves in the foot, based on the current zeitgeist here, WHOEVER is the Dem candidate should win the general election, no matter what the right tries to throw at them.

Peace.

http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/civic/2008/01/09/mb- civic-original-opinion-reality-check-who-is-barack-obama/

Kath:

You said, “Israel needs to be criticised for it’s own good, not just supported, and she used very strong terms in her speeches when she thought Iran was developing nukes.  That’s what still scares me about her.  I do believe she’s anti-war, though. She’s growling to avoid a war. But she needs to growl at Israel a bit, too. I think that’s the main reason so many on the left prefer Obama.”

Yet this makes no sense for two reasons.  First, Obama’s position re Iran is not that different from Hillary’s.  True, he did not vote for the resolution re the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  [N.B.  His vote was “NV,” meaning either he could not be bothered to show up and vote, or he sat there and refused to take a stand.  Now how principled is THAT?] But his actual policy toward Iran is only different in the details.

Secondly, if you read the speeches to AIPAC by the three leading Dems, you will see that Obama’s was actually the MOST pro-Israel (though all were obviously heavily pandering).

In these regards, I don’t see why anyone on the left would necessarily “prefer” Obama.

Peace.

CY:

The Almanac of American Politics rated Hillary’s votes from 2003-2007, and found them 75% liberal, 25% conservative.  NARAL has given her a 100% rating every year of her tenure.  The ACLU has given her a lifetime rating through 2007 of 75%.  Americans for Democratic Action gave her a 96% “Liberal Quotient” through 2006.  The League of Conservation Voters gave her a 90% liberal action rating through 2006.  The National Journal gave her a rating of 30 out of 100, where 1 is most liberal.  And Progressive Punch gives her a 91.2% lifetime progressive rating through 2006, ranking her the 28th most progressive Senator.  As well, the American Conservative Union gives her a 9 out of 100 rating (with 100 being most conservative).  And the National Rifle Association gives her a lifetime grade of “F” (i.e., least supportive of their issues).

This does not sound like a conservative to me.

Peace.

...and not worse either. Like his competitors, he has chosen to completely ignore the 9/11 farce, defending by default the official fairy tale and thus ignoring the high level of U.S. corruption 9/11 has exposed.
Assuming he gets elected, priorities will change, but organized mismanagement will remain the rule. The spoils of public service will just privilege other special interests…
Love,

I am always left wondering which god.

It isn’t being cynical or what I would call “being safe” to think that it is most probable that Obama is simply one more in a parade of politicians making promises to get elected. Certainly he could be and obviously I hope for the reality of a politician like that but the proof is in the pudding and I personally choose to believe nothing without some reason. I’m not even sure what the point of choosing to believe something is! Doesn’t make it more likely to be true. And I am not criticizing that you have chosen him as your candidate. I personally like Edwards more but would prefer Obama over Clinton by a large margin. But in none of this is there the belief that either of them is significantly different. I only think that they are more probably relative to the others.

I am unable to understand how being the wife of a president, or the son of one has any bearing on whether one will be a ‘good’ president.  Rather like ‘name recognition’ - that other appurtenance which, unfortunately, figures heavily in the voting booth.

It is as wrong to vote for a person because they are black as it is no not vote for them because they are black. Race and sex are obviously going to still be discussed because, as humans, we have still not made it to adulthood. We are old enough though to understand the right and wrong I spoke of and you and so many others in the media seem to alarmingly speak in terms of people voting their sex or race or their religion and never stop to condemn the idea. Which then leaves people like me to think that this is disturbingly because you advocate the practice. Knowing the mainstream media will never bring it up, why don’t you go ahead and make it clear to everyone that that is not what you are proposing is such a good thing?

Sincerely, Magnifico

First off I do not bring this up as an Obama supporter so I want to eliminate that. I have no appreciation for this piece at all. You said:

“Then, “After all, history will likely attribute the failed presidency of George W. Bush more to his lack of intellectual curiosity and his stubborn dogmatism rather than a simple lack of experience in the nation’s highest office.”

Huh?  No, they will attribute it to his policies and actions (or lack thereof).  Thus, Obama’s experience (or lack thereof) IS relevant.”

Maybe I am wrong but his policies and actions do indeed appear to be a product of exactly a “lack of intellectual curiosity and his stubborn dogmatism.” He seems to take nothing into account but makes decisions based on whatever it is that he already thinks he knows and not by trying to find out the truth of the matter whatever it may be. And even if that could not be said, (and I think it is a justifiable position though I always will listen to argument) you then make no case for how, if it wasn’t those undesirable qualities of W’s that make his policies and actions what they are, that it WAS inexperience, which would be the only thing you could do to justify your claim that Bush’s decisions are what makes Obama’s experience relevant.

Thanks Rev. Madison Shockley, I needed your uplifting and positive comments after this week of divisive and meaningless media manipulation. I believe, like you do, that Obama’s predidency will put America into an era of progressive achievement. I will be like the achievement of landing on the moon, one giant step for mankind.

Doug/Jackpine:

All this minister can say to your posts is: Amen! And jackpine’s comment that “churches don’t even suggest that believers should attempt to follow the difficult road that Jesus walked” is exactly why (setting aside the couple of dozen megachurches) so many people are falling away from the mainstream, “organized,” hierarchical Church-with-a-capital-C, and joining (and sometimes creating) “alternative” churches which focus much more on “walking the walk,” and really LIVING Jesus’ ministry of love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.

Bless you both.

Peace.

Kath:

Brava!  This is a terrific assessment.

Peace.

Your analysis of the primaries and even the general election is spot on.

However, i must agree with Waxman; it certainly does apply to Sen Obama equally.

But if we can’t blame someone, that means we have to deal with truth and complexity. 

While i wholeheartedly agree with your assessment, Mr. Chalmers, we both know that what Americans want are easy answers; zero sacrifice; and nothing that approaches hard work...philosophically speaking.

The strength of fundamentalist religion in America, i think, proves my point.  It is (and i hope i’m not getting too close to Marx here) the easiest of all answers:

You need not think, dear flock, simply trust in Jesus and the kingdom of heaven will be yours.  Note, churches don’t even suggest that believers should attempt to follow the difficult road that Jesus walked...he did all the thinking and walking for us.

Henry, What makes you think this doesn’t apply to Obama as well?

You wanna see the light, go to church. I want this kind of spiritual nonsense out of politics. I believe is not a policy. It would show progress of a sort too if a woman was elected president, even though I would prefer it not be this woman. But to me, when race and gender are used as a reason for voting for a candidate it just shows how far we have to go until we are no longer a racist and a sexist society. One giant leap for America will be when we don’t have to comment on race or gender. Til then…

By dihey, January 15: “Dear Reverend, you seem to confuse Senator Obama with your God...”

One Giant Leap for America, one small leap for mankind, uhh!

This has become one decisive turning point involving religious leaders and believers - and the core of religion itself for African-Americans. It can’t be avoided now.

Selfishly blaming a white woman for all of the USA’s baggage on race will NOT make it all disappear. Living in a fantasy will NOT bring relief. Masking sexism by accusations of racism is dishonest.

Healing will not occur until someone is prepared to lance the boil and suffer the fever of the realization that white by default is no more an answer than the original sin of slavery. Then there are still all the other ethnic minorities.....

In fact, is religion only about feeling good about oneself (black or white) and affirming an illusion of an equal society? Or is it really something further than people are willing to bother exerting themselves to reach?

Shockley, by his words this time, has proved himself an utter failure as a leader in religious or community terms. He only wishes to deliriously give his flock of sheep up to the nearest convenient slaughterhouse!

“Realizing that I may get burned, I may be disappointed and all the criticism that I have read here may prove true, I’ve decided to make the leap.” Arkansawyer

Arkansawyer, anyone who supports a candidate based on their promises instead of based on their record deserves to get burned. Besides, Obama promises nothing except more illegal wars and more economic injustice, all gussied up in flowery phrases. You have no right to expect anything else from him.

Obama’s critics aren’t being cynical. They just refuse to close their eyes to the truth.

Although I am a 43-year-old newspaper reporter and longtime cynic, I’ve chosen to believe Obama. Realizing that I may get burned, I may be disappointed and all the criticism that I have read here may prove true, I’ve decided to make the leap. Some of his policy positions are vague and ill-defined. Some are better defined but not talked about much by him in stump speeches and in campaign oratory. As for the soaring words and talk of “change” and “hope,” I don’t see it as empty rhetoric. What I hear him speaking to me about is actually more profound and empowering --- a real paradigm shift in how nearly everything works and is done. It’s not just rehetoric. He’s asking everyone to buy in to a vision so as a movement a massive shift can occur. The Reverend’s posting is in langauge a little more effusive than I would use, but I think he gets this. I hope enough of America will too.

It’s easy to be cynical. It’s safer. At least for this election cycle, I’m going to take a chance.

Felicity:

You said, “George has a father who was a navy pilot, a head of the CIA, a vice under the sainted Ronald, and finally a president.  So much for the efficacy of experience by way of proximity.”

The difference is that GWB wasn’t IN the White House at the time, and did not even perform the functions of a First Lady; i.e., traveling, conferences, bully pulpit, etc.

Peace.

The difference is that GWB wasn’t IN the White House at the time, and did not even perform the functions of a First Lady; i.e., traveling, conferences, bully pulpit, etc.

Peace.

I never thought we would agree on anything, CY, but you are on the money here.  Bravo.

Experience may be irrelevant, or it may be relevant - though leading to unintended (and unwelcomed) consequences.

George has a father who was a navy pilot, a head of the CIA, a vice under the sainted Ronald, and finally a president.  So much for the efficacy of experience by way of proximity.

FOR REV. SHOCKLEY....REMINDS ME OF VIET NAM IN THE 70’S “ ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME FIVE DOLLAR”

Dear Reverend, you seem to confuse Senator Obama with your God.

Every time you hear Obama supporters asked what he stands for, you get a confused, uninformed and tepid response. Too bad that Hillary’s and Edwards supporters are just the same.

Ask a Kucinich supporter their views however and you’ll get a knowledgeable run down of his policies and why they are important.

Unfortunately American politics is nothing more than a popularity contest and has little to do with where candidates stand on the important issues. Instead we get American Idol.

To cut to the chase , what Obama represents is , well , I’m not sure , except wanting to make nice with health insurance excutives and let them help write policy . He has soaring oratory which seems to instill warm , fuzzy feelings and the idea he wants “ change “ and has “ new ideas “ . But when one actually sifts through the content its hard to find a shread of either . What he seems to be is a stanch defender of the statis quo who is offering to take us bravely down basicly the same path . Call me a cynic , but I just don’t believe that a warm handshake and offering friendship to the same fascist leaning conservative corporate types who got us into this mess will work . What we need are publicly funded elections , breakup the media monopoly and a restructuring of the tax system so the wealthy start paying their share again . If he starts offering that as well as flowery speechs and a warm smile I’ll consider getting on the bandwagon . Until then , not so much .

It’s a good thing this is not being passed off as real journalism.....

By Maani, January 14: “Finally, he says, “Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States, not the first black president of the United States.”

Glad you pointed this out, Maani. Its such disingenuous garbage that, even coming from a dude like Shockley, it amazes me. I wonder what they actually think of it down at the University of Southern Californa, Annenberg School for Communication???

But “the wingspan of his ears and the name of his father’s village in Kenya”, ha ha?!?! Some of these people should go visit and travel around the real black persons’ Africa. They might get quite a surprise in many ways. It would certainly put an end to their more ludicrous fantasies.

I’m sorry to disagree about the “genius-level IQ of a Harvard Law graduate”, too, uhh. This is white mans’ law too, don’t forget. The laws of “settler society” and all their rotten distortions and misformulations. Yessssssss!!! Infatuation with the shit of landgrabbing duplicity.

But “ahh, healing—that’s the real magic of Barack Obama”, ha ha. Those black and white branches certainly haven’t told him anything about how native Americans fared under the previous 300 years of Harvard law graduates. Raising questions DOESN"T heal rifts - it opens them!

There are rifts in the white community which will soon spring open too. Naive colored folk “bouncing along” with a desperate desire to approve will NOT achieve “building a bridge across a growing gulf” in any respect - until the rifts are healed. That takes hard work.

I shudder to think what this “journey of discovery and healing” will actually be if BO’s pro-war speech about “the crucible of the sword” and “I am not opposed to all wars” leads everybody off the track to recovery like some duplicitious Pied Piper whisting a tune of bloody deception.

Sadly, so sadly, Shockley’s “multihued metaphors” are disappointing and so easily delusional. But “it didn’t hurt that he didn’t look all that black either” (Powell AND Obama)??? Oh, really....!?!? By the way, did you notice that he studiously avoided mentioning our dear Condoleeza Rice???

Oh, well, back to SEXISM again. Women do NOT figure in Shockley’s scheme of things - at least not as far as running the country is concerned. I wonder how he would handle women preachers??? He could become downright giddy..... its all really more like some spiel from a used-car salesman, ugh.

“Now our collective voice rises even higher and the ‘Yes’ of our initial infatuation becomes the ‘Yesssssssss!!!!!!’ of pure love.

This good feeling will be more critical in the upcoming elections than his brief political tenure.”

This uplifting, feel-good article fails to touch the ground at any time. Tell the hundreds of thousands of torture victims and relatives of murdered Iraqis how they should have a good feeling about Obama. Obama has done nothing to help them and much to hurt them. His rhetoric against the war is just empty rhetoric, intended to assuage our collective guilt while he rakes in ever more cash from AIPAC and the oil lobby. Has he done anything to impede the fascists’ nuclear saber-rattling against Iran, a nation guilty of no crimes other than possessing huge oil deposits and opposing Israeli apartheid? Uh-uh. Obama was conspicuously absent when the Senate passed the AIPAC resolution authorizing war against Iran. Like the dutiful politician he is, Obama was out on the campaign trail, kissing babies and making mothers feel good, while the US Senate was authorizing WWIII. First things first.

But whenever the Zionist lobby, the oil lobby, the defense lobby, or any other lobby calls in its markers from corrupt politicians, there’s Obama, the dutiful pol, ready to serve. If you’re satisfied with good feelings, hope, unity, bipartisanship, and generally happy rhetoric while US fascists continue murdering and plundering at home and abroad, then Obama’s your man. Or Hilarious is your woman, as you like.

I hope more people see the light before we find ourselves on the road to ruin.

It’s a good thing this is not being passed off as real journalism, since it is a puff piece.  And a weak one at that.

First, he can’t make up his mind about Colin Powell.  First, Powell is “The first “black” candidate to raise the serious prospect of actual election.” Then, “But Powell never became a candidate.” Then he’s back to being a candidate: “So what are the differences between the candidacies of Shirley Chisolm and Jesse Jackson on the one hand and Colin Powell and Barack Obama on the other?” And he goes on to talk about Powell as a “candidate” in the entire following paragraph.

This is AMAZINGLY bad syntax at best, dishonesty at worst.

Then, “This good feeling will be more critical in the upcoming elections than his brief political tenure.”

Well, now.  That’s a nice way of admitting, albeit euphemistically, that Obama has little experience, and all but dismissing it as irrelevant.

Then, “After all, history will likely attribute the failed presidency of George W. Bush more to his lack of intellectual curiosity and his stubborn dogmatism rather than a simple lack of experience in the nation’s highest office.”

Huh?  No, they will attribute it to his policies and actions (or lack thereof).  Thus, Obama’s experience (or lack thereof) IS relevant.

Then, “Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States because those voting for him don’t just like him. They love him. And no candidate in either party has generated a fraction of the affection that Obama inspires.”

Yikes!  This sounds like people think they are electing Jesus, or a favorite rock star or tween idol!  Please!  “Love” and “affection” are really, really good things.  But they are NOT reasons to vote for a political candidate.

Finally, he says, “Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States, not the first black president of the United States.”

Really?  You mean, after you spent 8 or 9 of 10 paragraphs discussing his race?  This is either highly disingenuous, or hopelessly condescending.

Peace.

You’re right Mike Mid-City. And, I’m not all that familar with God’s ears.

But, I’m pretty fond of several Pastors I know, and they can speak for me. I don’t mind.

Pastor Shockley has done quite a fine job, eh?

Even managed to put me in the spirit of things, which is also a good thing.