Go ahead and do you’re compiling because I know you’re wrong.

Aegrus:

“Our camp is far more civil than the large majority of Hillary Clinton supporters. One only has to listen to progressive radio or look around the internet (lib in texas anyone?) to see it is the Hillary surrogates who cannot be civil and are arrogant above all…I won’t go so far as to say all Obama supporters are saints, but we are largely more well-mannered than Hillary’s rabble.”

Really?  I have one word in response: Cyrena. (And she is by no means the only one.)

“Many times have I accoladed Hillary and conceded she would be a good president. It is rare to hear such from Hillary’s rabble. The biggest concession from her camp is they would maybe vote for Barack against McCain, but that’s just not always the case.”

Exc-u-u-use me?  If you would like, I would be happy to take the time to go through, say, fifty threads on this site and pull out the number of Obama supporters who have said unequivocally that they would NOT vote for Hillary under ANY circumstances - many of whom have (hyperbolically or not) said they would vote for McCain first, or sit out the election - and compare that with the number of Hillary supporters who have said the same about Obama, and you would see that you are HOPELESSLY incorrect about this.  FAR more Hillary supporters have said, clearly, that if Obama is the nominee, they will support him.  But a FAR GREATER NUMBER of Obama supporters have refused to make the same commitment.

Sorry, Aegrus, but you are truly out of line here.

Peace.

Regarding the dispute over the APPROACH (right on, Maani) we should take to “unfriendly engagements,” Adam Hanft wrote an interesting take on Huffington Post informed by the New York Philharmonic performance in North Korea:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/obama-north-korea-gersh_b_88750.html

I agree with Adam that there are lessons of diplomacy to be learned from this “brief encounter” and posted my own thoughts at:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/02/symphonic-propaganda.html

My comment to Adam’s post began with this quote from my own:  “The visit of the New York Philharmonic involved a propagation of faith that takes place whenever musicians perform before an audience, the faith that music can achieve bonds of understanding that are beyond the reach of words.” (For those who have not researched it, the word “propaganda” has its origin in CONGREGATIO DE PROPAGANDA FIDE, a congregation of cardinals created by Pope Gregory XV “for propagating the faith.”) The irony is that our faith-based President had so contaminated his words (“axis of Evil”) to virtually destroy all possibility of mutual understanding with North Korea. The Philharmonic, particularly with the connotations of their performance of “Arirang,” brought us closer to understanding and established “a platform upon which further conversation [in words] may take place.” This was Clemenceau REDUX in slightly different terms: “mutual understanding between radically different cultures is far too serious to be entrusted to political leaders.”

Hillary’s weakness is that she not only does not understand the semantic intricacies of this positive connotation of “propaganda” (hey, her husband is still hung up on the semantics of “is”) but also apparently fails to see mutual understanding as a two-way street.  My own impression thus far is that Obama is likely to be better at the sort of give-and-take that statecraft demands in the most difficult of situations.  However, both of them are too hung up on the power of words (particularly their own) to appreciate the value of non-verbal approaches for beginning engagements between radically different cultures.

A remarkably cogent post, given the norm in this thread (including my clumsy additions). While we’ve landed on different candidates, I can’t quibble with a thing you say.

“Middle-aged in 1968” - I thought I was the old man in this crowd. Hell, I was only a year into college. Probably, if I had met you at the time, I would have thought to myself, “I want to grow up to be like that guy!”

Still holds true.

Bert, this new argument about the civility and behavior of Obama supporters is complete nonsense. Our camp is far more civil than the large majority of Hillary Clinton supporters. One only has to listen to progressive radio or look around the internet (lib in texas anyone?) to see it is the Hillary surrogates who cannot be civil and are arrogant above all.

Trying to diminish my intellect is also a pretty weak jab. This behavior is indicative of a person critical of Obama, though. Attacking a supporter’s credibility to undermine their candidate. I won’t go so far as to say all Obama supporters are saints, but we are largely more well-mannered than Hillary’s rabble.

Many times have I accoladed Hillary and conceded she would be a good president. It is rare to hear such from Hillary’s rabble. The biggest concession from her camp is they would maybe vote for Barack against McCain, but that’s just not always the case. Just too clingy to this whole non-issue of experience and thinking he has no substance. Both claims are completely wrong, but get repeated enough through the mass media (that’s been so unfair to Hillary).

Moreover, I readily admit Barack isn’t a perfect candidate, and have remained humble about my positions. The question to tbach’s knowledge was purely in relation to the campaigns, of which he/she very coarsely surmised.

Whatever different background or experience people have which would enable people to not see Obama as the best candidate we have is equal to, in deed, Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq Resolution. There isn’t a single argument to vote for Hillary unless health care is the only issue you care about, and I can accept that kind of endorsement as legitimate. Still, I like Barack’s health care plan better.

“The guy has the record, the message and the ability to be president above all other candidates. Fact!
“

You must have flunked elementary civics and literary analysis, not to mention logic.

Your statement above is pure 100% opinion. We won’t know if Obama has the ability to be President unless and until he becomes President.

Many of us here who do not support Obama do not dislike him. What we dislike is the insensitivity and lack of good manners on the part of so many of his supporters as evidenced by statements like yours.

Let me second Maani. His posts are well thought out, logical, and well written.

Aegrus writes: It is clear to me there is a lack of knowledge on your behalf.

You are as arrogant as your candidate. Folks who support Hillary and now Nader do not have a lack of knowledge. So stop acting as of you know it all.  We all have the same set of facts. We just bring different backgrounds and expereince to bear on those facts and come up with diferent conclusions. No one and no candidate has all the answers. There is no way that Obama can meet all of the dreams and wishes of his supporters. Reality will set in at some point in time. And when it does disappointment will follow.

PH:

“I object to her denouncing Obamas position regarding having direct talks with those countries we have disputes with…”

I realize I am talking to a wall (LOL), but that is NOT what she said.  What she disagrees with is the APPROACH that Obama would take in setting up meetings with foreign leaders, particularly those in “unfriendly” countries.  And I agree with her on this, that Obama’s approach is at best idealistic and at worst hopelessly naive.

Hillary has NEVER said she would NOT meet with foreign leaders, including those of “adversaries.” She is simply insistent - and rightfully so - that it is critical to have certain parameters set prior to doing so.

Feel free to agree with Obama.  But please stop misstating Hillary’s position.

Peace.

Last night I watched a documentary on tape of the beginnings of the problems at Berkley and the anti-war movement, the Black Panthers, the feminist revolution and of course, civil rights. The story was one-sided but informative. I was middle-aged in 1968 and had opposite views. Like MacNamara, I was wrong. 

As a foreigner, now considered elderly,  I could not help comparing that time to the present. Civil rights have improved by leaps and bounds - in the law, if not always in the hearts. But African-Americans do now go to university, do hold professions,and do succeed in high business and political positions.

Similarly, feminism has both flowered and faded. While a minority of women have been freed to actualize and follow their star, millions of others are harnessed to meaningless day jobs so the family can afford an over-size house, a beefed-up SUV and a mountain of debt - or simply to put food on the table. Many others have been left behind in poverty, without health care making a brave show of being “single-moms.” 

The Vietnam war is long over in fact, but the scars are more than evident. The ashes are still warm. The world that the flower children envisaged by dropping out left a sad legacy of overdoses, fatherless children and cynics. Others over the years healed but are just as materialistic as those they criticized 40 years ago. Many live in huge houses and enjoy amenities that their fathers and grandfathers could only dream of. Good, you say? It was not done then because there was neither the credit now offered nor the mountain of debt to pay for luxury.

If anything, the situation is much worse. The same errors of judgment are revealed in the Iraq war (Viet Nam 2), which had nothing at all to do with terrorism and everything to do with the dollar-ambitions of those who pulled the strings of the Bush puppets.  A few Bush friendly giant corporations have profited from the so-=called reconstruction of Iraq, and the puppets have been making the same noises about Iran - call it Viet Nam 3 mainly so that those corporations and their toadies can stand hip deep in Gulf oil. Nevertheless, the American people seem to follow like sheep causes that their good sense would negate but that their overt patriotism buys into without thought. 

These activities have incensed the Islamist fundamentalists, who in turn are seen by the American Christian Right fundamentalists as their opponents in the steps the first step to Armageddon and their idiot concept of “rapture.”

One candidate, a Viet Nam gladiator,  is a survivor of a Viet Nam prison and an unaccountable supporter of the Iraq war. Two others are symbols of what was unattainable in 1968 - a real African-American (American mom, African dad) - the other an American mom who in 1968 would not have been allowed out of the kitchen.

Only one, Obama, seems to me to speak sense.

I just hope that between now and the election the selected candidates, particularly Obama, don’t get skewed from reality by handlers, the pressure of the race, tale spinners and the same corporations that have made the Bush years a nightmare.

I also hope the American voters stop looking at the minutiae represented in much of this thread and vote for the big picture.

Last nights debate proved to me that Obama is the better candidate.  Hillary panics too quickly and I object to her denouncing Obamas position regarding having direct talks with those countries we have disputes with, very Bush league.  We need new faces in Washington, everywhere.

It’s pretty disgusting to spin Hillary’s war vote that way, tbach. Many people voted against that war. They made the right decision. One hundred thirty-three nay votes in the House and twenty-three nay votes in the Senate. Apparently, not everyone was blinded by fear as Hillary was. Or maybe she was one of those politico democrats who was afraid Iraq would be a two-week war with a huge victory and gas would be twenty-five cents a gallon again. In any case, her judgment sucks!

Stop trying to handle this vote with kid’s gloves! Over four million Iraqis were displaced! Over one million were killed because of the invasion and over three thousand American soldiers lost their lives for a LIE!

End of story.

Aegrus,

First of all, you don’t know me from Adam, so lighten up. There is one candidate whose campaign I have actually contributed money to: Barrack Obama, back when he first announced his campaign. I wasn’t sure I was “for” him, but I liked having him in the race. I’d learn soon enough whether I would end up voting for him.

I still like him. But, as I’ve said here (or was it on another blog?) I’ve been more or less chased into Hillary’s corner by a rapacious and unconscionable press (amped up even higher by some bloggers and blog commentators (wink wink). She’s a perfectly viable and respectable candidate in my eyes, and doesn’t deserve the treatment she’s getting.

Anyway…

Stance 1) NAFTA isn’t the black-and-white evil you think it is. Has it worked out as liberal advocates of it hoped? No. It’s been closer to what liberal detractors feared. But even liberal economists haven’t jumped off the free trade bandwagon, because there simply isn’t any viable alternative. We need to tweak NAFTA to add environmental and labor protections, not scrap it. So Hillary is caught up in the gray area? So what? I find no reason to believe she hasn’t entertained doubts about NAFTA from the start. Who hasn’t (except global corporations who see no down side).

Stance 2) I’m not going to try to, at the risk of sounding condescending, educate you about political realities and why it is easier for a state senator in a liberal district to warn against going to war than it is for a US Senator of a just-attacked state to put up road blocks to a popular (at the time) president in his supposed fight against the powers that attacked us. She won’t take back her decision because it was the only one she could make at the time (but in retrospect the outcome was regrettable – no inconsistency there).

Stance 3) Hillary’s White House years ARE a legitimate claim to experience. She has as much in common with prior (or successive) first ladies as a wolf has to a lap dog. She was absolutely involved in policy throughout the administration, as much as any key presidential advisor. But while you can’t take credit and blame for every act of an administration you work for as an advisor, you can certainly put that time on your resume.

We’ve had over a year to show people why our candidates are superior. There is nothing more to be said. All the information is online at this late hour on the campaign trail. I’m sick of people asking me why I support Obama when I’ve stated why many times and there is plenty of information about his policy and character available for reading.

The ideas you’ve presented as the core reasons people are supporting either candidate are completely off base. It is clear to me there is a lack of knowledge on your behalf. There are only so many times I can supply the same reasons I’m pro-Obama while actually having something legitimate to say.

Quite frankly, it is the Clinton supporters who have no reasons and only rhetoric when foisting their candidate onto others. Hillary supporters are always angry and frustrated when speaking to me. There are never any real policy discussions through their ranting and rhetoric. All Clintonite claims on Obama are bunk.

Barack does have experience both in foreign policy matters and legislative matters. He has sponsored good legislation into law. He is better on NAFTA (while not perfect in his support of FTAs). Obama is talk and action and has experience. These are the only arguments against him with the exception of health care. Both health care positions are not single-payer, so quibbling about whose plan is best is a bunk argument because each plan is extremely similar and both allow health insurance companies to exist. Get a real issue! Hillary is a bunk candidate and that is why she is losing!

tdbach, not to discredit you, but that “jujitsu move” hit home.

I suggest putting your money where your mouth is by renouncing and rejecting Hillary’s campaign staff and their bloodlust for Obama via questionable pictures and trying to say hope is a dream which cannot be realized. The media thinks he is inexperienced, but is not. The media thinks he is a muslim, but is not. The media thinks he is all talk and no action, but is wrong again. At what point, in fact, do you think you will defend Obama’s legitimacy?

You won’t because your candidate is Hillary. Not one Hillary supporter has ever said anything against even one of the many inaccurate attacks on Barack Obama because they often believe them to be true. This shows your judgement.

Why don’t you back up the a few of these bullshit claims by Hillary Clinton:

Stance 1) Hillary was always silently opposed to NAFTA during the first Clinton administration and has been completely against NAFTA since she ran for Senate.

Facts: You cannot prove you were silently opposed, so saying so is a bunk argument except for her not having any backbone to do what her convictions dictate when it matters most. She has praised NAFTA since her husband left office, and did mark it as a success in 1996.

Stance 2)Oh, Hillary would take back her war vote! She had no idea Bush would go to war with Iraq when the bill was to authorize military action against a sovereign nation!!!

Facts: It is completely unprovable Hillary didn’t think she was voting for an invasion. Her quip about, “I’ve been saying I’d take it back many times” is bunk because this is the first time she has even implied it was a wrong decision.

Stance 3) Hillary is completely independent of her husband’s administration policies and also has all the experience of being in the white house for eight years.

Facts: You cannot absolve yourself from anything unfavorably perceived by the first Clinton administration by being independent from Bill and also take credit for the grand ol’ 90s when lollipops and gumdrops fell from the sky over Iraq… no, wait… those were bombs.

Maani is “bullying”? This from “What a moron” Cyrena? Pot-and-kettle much? Actually, that’s not a fair cliché, because the tone of Maani’s post isn’t at all a character assassination, whereas Cyrena’s response is little else, spending a goodly number of words (as seems to be her habit) on the job. Meanwhile, neither Cyrena nor Aegrus responded to her central points, about Hillary’s supposed “secrecy”.

Look, both sides of this debate are guilty of being stuck in rhetorical ruts – Obama advocates portraying Clinton as the pinnacle of befouled politicians, and Clinton supporters portraying Obama’s appeal as purely messianic. What feakin’ good do either of these arguments do? Tell us why your candidate is superior. Tell us what you envision their presidency doing for the country. If you have to bring their opposition into the discussion, contrast them with your candidate on a dispassionate and factual basis.

Here we are at a historic moment, when either an African American man or a white woman will be the nominee of one the two primary parties, and we piss all over it by making the debate a balls-grabbing scrum. Sheesh.

Fear not, Cyrena, my brain still functions, albeit with modest deficit from Hippie exploits lo those many years ago.

‘Twas not I who called the 90s wonderful. It was Aegrus, perhaps ironically. I have to say, the 90s were a whole lot better for me, personally, than the 2000s, but I understand your point.

You’ve missed my point altogether, however. I’m not accusing all Obama supporters of hating Clinton. There are probably a fair number who are in that camp in reaction to a Clinton candidacy, but I wouldn’t claim that all or even most are thus explained. My point is, if you’re an advocate for Obama who believes in his power of transcendence – or any other qualities that you think important to his candidacy, make that case to the best of your abilities and grasp of the facts. If you base your advocacy on regurgitating the tired old memes about Hillary, it is fair to assume your reason for choosing Barrack is that he’s not Hillary, which is a pretty lousy – and hardly transcendent – reason.

And to Aegrus: silly man, it isn’t chivalry that drives me (or Maani, I presume) to Hillary’s defense. It’s almost instinctive to the Liberal mind, to protect someone from abuse, eh? If Obama were similarly mauled, I’d rushing to his side, too. But so far I haven’t had to worry much about that. So that Jujitsu move isn’t going to work, old man.

tdbach, let me highlight one statement you’ve made.

” It’s not that we Clinton supporters are blind to her flaws. It’s just that when we see the press and the likes of you ganging up on her, we’re more than happy to overlook those flaws and race o her defense.”

Thank you for stating what I’ve been telling everyone for a really long time. Clintonites make the campaign about gender often, yet act condescendingly by rushing to her aide as if she is incapable of defnding herself. Really, it’s reverse chauvinism.

I might want to remind people again how Obama does not have the luxury to make his campaign about race, and never tries to swing his message to those prejudicial lines. Moreover, racism is far more debilitating than misogyny, so trying to play the gender card in a race against a black man is completely back-asswards.

“... Tell me why you believe in Obama and I’ll listen. Tell me why you hate Clinton and I’ll rush right out and vote for her…”

You’ve got a point here, tdbach, except of course you’ve got it reversed, and you obviously haven’t really been ‘listening’.

For starters, why does anybody have to ‘hate Clinton’? As an Obama supporter, I don’t hate Clinton at all.

However, let’s face it, she represents exactly what you’ve accused others here, of indulging in. The ‘wonderful 90’s?” Sorry, but they weren’t so ‘wonderful’ at all. And, for anyone paying attention, we just know that damn sure isn’t where we wanna be.

In fact, there’s too much damage happening now, as a result of what you call those ‘wonderful 90’s’, and fixing it doesn’t require ‘hating’ Hillary Clinton.
It only requires selecting someone that represents a different mentality and/or position than what got us this jacked-up to begin with.

Obama does. So, I think others have made this point before now..“If a surgeon or any other professional fucked up your surgery the first time, and left you worse off than you were before, why in the hell would you go back to the same person to fix it?”

I mean, he or she might be a ‘really nice’ person, and one might even eventually forgive the person for jacking you up. But, would you REALLY expect that person to do the repair?

please…you all just don’t use the brains you may have possessed at some point in time. Like..maybe back in those ‘wonderful 90’s’ that really weren’t so wonderful at all?

This time around, Maani bullies Aegrus:

•  “Really?  And who made YOU spokesperson for ALL of Obama’s supporters?  I have spoken with Obama supporters who DO look to him to “save America” - many, many of them.  Wide-eyed, zealous, near-messianic types who see him as some sort of second-coming-of-Christ. Really?  And who made YOU spokesperson for ALL of Obama’s supporters?  I have spoken with Obama supporters who DO look to him to “save America” - many, many of them.  Wide-eyed, zealous, near-messianic types who see him as some sort of second-coming-of-Christ. ….So don’t tell me that “not one” of his supporters see him that way.  A frightening number DO. “

So then I’ll tell you myself….YOU DON’T KNOW how Obama supporters see him

Theoretically, anybody here, can ‘tell you’ anything they want, just as you consistently do, at least a half-dozen times a day, just like now.  You make all of these claims, and NEVER have anything to back them up. EVER! That makes you a big mouth, say nothing propagandist.

Just like here and now…again! It’s Maani at the spin and innuendo machine, when you’re not out-right lying. And why would you accuse Aegrus of designating him/herself as a spokesperson for Obama supporters, since YOU – MAANI, are one of the few people on this thread, who claim to KNOW how a ‘frightening number’ of Barack’s supporters see him. How the hell IS it Maani, that YOU know how SO MANY of Obama’s supporters see him? You post the same shit here multiple times a day, about how “Obama’s supporters view him’ when we KNOW that you hate him, so why the hell would anybody believe you, even if they DIDN’T know better on their own?

Any clue to how incredibly stupid you sound, having made it clear that you not only just ‘support Hillary for president” (which would be acceptable) but that you’ve spent weeks on this blog, saying anything and everything that you can to discredit Barack Obama; to then start in on how YOU KNOW what Obama supporters are thinking, and what they expect from an Obama Administration/Presidency? That means that by extension, you have been, (for weeks) insulting the views of those who support Obama, and claiming to know what ALL of them think. (or, at least a ‘frightening number’ of them).

I’ve told you before, that you just don’t seem to understand that all this does, is piss people off that much more, because….AMERICANS IN GENERAL, are tired of government authorities, OR ANYONE ELSE, telling them what ‘they think’.

Every time you do this, you get at least one more person who may have been on the fence, (based on the issues) to swing toward the Obama side.

What a moron. Keep up the good work Maani. Just keep insulting the genuine intelligence of Americans you don’t even know, and claiming lies about the number of Obama supporters that you’ve allegedly ‘talked to’, (as if we can’t turn on the TV and see and hear them there) or even talk to them ourselves. Real good Maani, if you keep shooting yourself and Hillary in the foot like this, there won’t be anything left of either of you. (which is how things seem to be going for her at least.)

Sure would be funny if Hillary’s campaign was paying you for this. On the other hand, it could be (at least to a very limited degree) why Obama has taken such a HUGE lead over her in the primaries.

Some folks (depending on who one might be reading or listening to) would call this BLOWBACK. I just call it old fashioned backfiring of very bad tactics. This always happens to arrogant people who insult and undermine the intelligence and opinions of others.

•  “…..the media may find themselves in the position of doting parents forced to choose between favorites.”

ONLY if they choose to be Marie. ONLY if they choose to adapt a ‘doting parents’ stand, instead of simply covering the news, and all that there is of interest to the American public, minus the bullshit.

So, we’ll let the media decide if they wanna reclaim their position as the 4th estate, or if they just wanna follow the Hollywood crowd.

•  “To be summoned to ride with McCain on his Straight Talk bus, as most reporters who spend time with the McCain campaign eventually are, is more of an honor than a duty”.

Well..herein lies the problem. It should be a DUTY to cover the political candidates, not a flippin’ honor. It’s a JOB for Christ’s sake, and the CONSUMER is the US population. We just want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We don’t even need for the journalists to ‘weigh in’ on whether or not they personally think it is ‘good news’, ‘bad news’, or ‘neutral’. They need only present the facts/truths as they are, and let US figure out how to connect the dots. If they wanna throw in a personal opinion, then they should make sure that it is CLEARLY stated – AS THEIR OWN opinion or assessment of the facts.

“It is a chance not only to ask far-ranging questions directly of the Republican front-runner, but to momentarily be part of the inner circle, treated to banter and regaled with jokes. Add McCain’s biography as a Vietnam War prisoner and maverick among Republicans, and you have what has often seemed an irresistible mix for the media.”

Nope, this is just more of the Hollywood stuff. The reporter doesn’t need to feel like an ‘insider’. Rather, the reporters, the candidates, and the public should know that the journalist is NOT a flippin’ INSIDER.

•  “The New York Times has come under fire for suggesting a romantic relationship with a lobbyist that it didn’t prove, and ironically, because of conservative disdain for what the right considers the flagship of liberal media bias”

This is what I mean. The NYT is hardly a ‘flagship’ publication, and the media bias became a casualty of the authoritarian regime, in the decision (at least a decade ago) to start deciding what the media would or would not cover, and how they would do it. That’s why the mainstream media has gone the way of the sunken ship. Nobody appreciates the facts anymore, without automatically assigning a political spin to it. The NYT article simply put the information out there. Folks can decide for themselves, what it means. We don’t need the reporters or journalists to either discount it, or make a big deal out of it. They just need to tell the facts as they are.

Instead, we still get the bias. Marie brings up Obama’s alleged attacks on Hillary, without mentioning what these “attacks” are, or how or why they are considered to be ‘attacks’. Are we being led to just ‘assume’ through this bias, that somehow, from out of the blue, and for no legitimate reasons, Obama just started ‘attacking’ Hillary Clinton? That’s what Ms. Cocco would have us believe here. Not only that he’s been ‘attacking’ her, but that he’s somehow ‘getting away’ with it. That’s like a standard complaint from obvious Clinton supporters, but they never point to what these ‘attacks’ allegedly are, aside from the comment about her having ‘tea with foreign diplomats’.

So, was that an ‘attack’ by Obama on the ‘resume’ of Hillary’s work as First Lady? I don’t call it that, though I’d say that he could have done WITHOUT saying it. On the other hand, what might he have been responding to, (from Hillary) when he did say it? Well, somehow, that doesn’t show up in the reports by Hillary supporters.

Yeah, there are some things about the old days that I definitely miss. A free and unbiased media, not corporately or politically owned and controlled one that only reports as an ‘insider’ temporary or otherwise.

Everyone loves being part of the winning team. Many are reexamining who they will vote for based on how his or her candidate did in the debates and by reviewing candidates positions and more importantly the candidates voting records.

I hope McCain and Huckabee still have the guts to debate Ron Paul despite the medias forgone conclusion that Dr. Paul has quit.

Steve:

Points taken, and I continue to agree with you.

Re your blog, thanks for the invite.  Might take you up on it.

Peace.

tdbach:

You are truly a breath of fresh air around here.  Thank you so much for your well-thought-out and incisive posts.

Peace.

and implying I’m delusional.  I never did anything to her!  I feel sorry for Bill.  Actually, I feel sorry for both of them.

While I agree that Hillary has run a less-than-great campaign, the rest of your post is nonsensical. You chastise Marie for not doing anything to “bring fairness and accuracy in reporting” in response to a post that is calling attention to unfairness and inaccuracy in reporting.

You know what’s in the heart of a Clinton supporter? It’s frustration and a sense of defiance with people and opinions like you and yours. “Her message changes every week! She’s changed campaign managers. She’s gets [sic] angry easily. Hillary is divisive and completely out of touch with the modern era. What are you holding on to? The glory of the 90s?” This weird litany is pulled right off the presses, hardly given a personalized editing. That’s the opposite of what Marie wrote about, what Obama and McCain enjoy: a virtual fawning by the press. It wasn’t the Clintons who declared Hillary as the inevitable candidate early in 2007; it was the press. And it wasn’t said in celebration, but with despair. While the press once fawned over Bill, most of these same journalists hated Hillary. Why? I’m not sure. But my guess is that they weren’t comfortable with a woman who was so transparently ambitious and authoritative. In any case, their branding of Hillary as inevitable was a challenge to the electorate and the Democrats to come up with some other options. And they did. Obama seemed to come from central casting, just to save the MSM’s day: a “nice” guy, a charismatic speaker (talk about longing for the glory of the 90s!), and another barrier-breaker to offset Clinton’s own precedent-setting candidacy. It was love at first sight.

It’s not that we Clinton supporters are blind to her flaws. It’s just that when we see the press and the likes of you ganging up on her, we’re more than happy to overlook those flaws and race o her defense.

Tell me why you believe in Obama and I’ll listen. Tell me why you hate Clinton and I’ll rush right out and vote for her.

I’ve met a lot of people who are voting for Hillary Clinton because of her husband’s administration, but the most prominent reason people vote for Barack is electability. Maybe I’m an exception to the rule, but I never meet anyone who is really ga-ga over Obama to the point most Clintonites try to say we are. As if we are part of a “cult” or “hypnotized” by some snake-oil salesman. The guy has the record, the message and the ability to be president above all other candidates. Fact!

Actually, the greatest danger is the connection be misread due to subject-object confusion.  I am less interested in whether Obama has Messianic intentions (as Aegrus put it) than I am in whether the voting public SEES him as Messianic, REGARDLESS OF HIS INTENTIONS!  The language of “hope,” rather than phrases such as “blood, soil, sweat, and tears” or “ask what you can do for your country,” may cultivate (even if inadvertently) the illusion of the agent riding in on the white horse to make everything better.

I have seen ads for the essay collection you are reading.  I think that Andras Szanto has assembled a rather impressive collection of contributors.  Given the number of books in my “must read” pile, I shall be very interested in what you make of the collection as a whole, once you have negotiated all those perspectives.  If you are interested, feel free to approach me about submitting a “guest post” to my own blog.

Meanwhile, as if that book pile were not high enough, I am beginning to think that Arendt’s book on totalitarianism deserves further scrutiny!

Aegrus:

“Obama is for transparency in government and has sponsored bills into LAW in that vein.”

So has Hillary - and for four years longer than Obama.

“Hillary is known to work in secret.”

Other than the singular health care effort, I challenge you to name ONE other instance of this.

“Barack is a real candidate with real credentials and not one of his supporters looks to him to save America.”

Really?  And who made YOU spokesperson for ALL of Obama’s supporters?  I have spoken with Obama supporters who DO look to him to “save America” - many, many of them.  Wide-eyed, zealous, near-messianic types who see him as some sort of second-coming-of-Christ.

So don’t tell me that “not one” of his supporters see him that way.  A frightening number DO.

Peace.

Marie, are we finally saying that issues have nothing to do with elections?

If this is true then do we always need an corrupt, amoral, Machiavellian like Karl Rove to run us through the dirt? Are voters too inept to choose on the basis of which would be best for our country and our future?

If this is the case, then let’s push for a benevolent dictator and let me choose.

Another false statement about Obama-Messianic intentions. Barack is trying to excite people into government again. He is trying to make us aware of our abilities to make government work for us and to embolden the public to be prideful about their citizen’s responsibility. Hillary is the candidate who wants to be a messiah. She’s the one who thinks she can fix all our problems, but we progressives know that is just a band-aid. Real change won’t happen until us real Americans demand it from Washington, and stop putting all of our faith in presidents and elected officials.

Obama is for transparency in government and has sponsored bills into LAW in that vein. Hillary is known to work in secret. Stop these bunk claims about messiah-complexes. Barack is a real candidate with real credentials and not one of his supporters looks to him to save America. The office of President is not equal to CEO of America.

Steve:

Be careful!  Your connection, however tacit or tenuous, between totalitarianism and the kind of “messianic” thinking that many in the Obama camp are subject to will not earn you many friends here.  LOL.

I, however, agree with you.  Strongly.  Indeed, I am reading an amazing book called “What Orwell Didn’t Know,” which contains essays by many centrist and left-leaning academics and political historians, all of which take off from Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language.”  And the more I read, the more I agree that Obama is far more Orwellian in his use of rhetoric, language and nuance than is Clinton.

This is not to say that Obama himself is Orwellian (though only time will tell…).  But it HAS been a bit unnerving to watch.

Peace.

That halo metaphor says it all, just as Hillary’s “celestial choirs” metaphor did over the weekend.  The “inconvenient truth” is that this country’s electorate does not want a President:  They want a Messiah to take away all the sins that have been visited upon the Earth over the last seven (at least) years (in either the literal sense of the evangelicals or the metaphorical sense of those of us who are more secular).  As I argued on my own blog, such thinking is fundamentally infantile:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/02/preaching-against-choir.html

It is also dangerous, since it creates the conditions that cultivate totalitarianism.  What our voters lack is a candidate who will stimulate their own commitment to the effort required to get us out of the mess that the current Administration will leave us as its legacy.

“Obama has…gotten the most favorable press. A study released last October by the nonpartisan Project for Excellence in Journalism found that Obama…was the clear recipient of the most positive coverage when compared to all presidential candidates, Democrat or Republican. ‘Taken together, nearly half (47 percent) of all stories focused on Obama were positive. That is roughly three times the percentage that were negative (16 percent) and exceeds the 38 percent of stories that were neutral in tone,’ the study found.”

So much for the Obama supporters here who thought the Hillary supporters were delusional about this or making it up.

In fact, I would like to see the same numbers for Hillary during this period; I’d bet the press was even LESS favorable to HER than it was to McCain.

Peace.

Marie is such a whining brat. She’s part of the mainstream media establishment, and has the audacity to complain about media favoritism. Yeah? What are you doing to bring fairness and accuracy in reporting, Marie? Is crying about Clinton’s dethroning at the hands of a clearly better campaign helping media scrutiny and ensure journalists do a professional job?

Additionally, John McCain has long been revered by both media and America. Why are you upset about it now? If Hillary had run a decent campaign on one solid message, she would be the media darling. You know better than anyone how most mainstream media establishments were salivating at the idea of another Clinton presidency.

I really want to know what is at the heart of a Clinton supporter. What makes the Clintonite disregard all logic and facts regarding Hillary’s campaign? Her message changes every week! She’s changed campaign managers. She’s gets angry easily. Hillary is divisive and completely out of touch with the modern era. What are you holding on to? The glory of the 90s? Learn from the past, but move toward the future.