Maani,  I’m with you ! 
A lot of people will think this insignificant, however,  this is how I feel Obama’s campaign is run and it stinks.  Yesterday I was in Duncanville, Texas for a funeral and went next door to Braums for a drink.  Heading for the door this very well dressed black man pushed in front of me and let the door slam in my face. My thought was he didn’t mean for that to happen and he would hold the next door to the inside for me but hell no he let that one slam too.  I looked at him inside and he had this big ole OBAMA pin on his lapel, whats my point ?  Obamas campaign is run by smart asses and the blacks now think they will run the country, that is what Obama has indicated and civility be damned. I really felt this is an example of an OBAMA presidency.  You can call me a racist (which Cyrena already has) but I believe Obama is very racist and there will be blood.

awwwww…..

Cyrena:

“She won’t even go back to the governing ideas or principles of the era of her husband, which would be bad enough, but at least there was still the APPEARANCE of a checks and balance, or semi-separation of powers.”

On what do you base this ridiculous and insupportable statement?

“This ‘unitary executive’ that Cheney was so determined to install, has in fact been ‘installed’ at the cost of what was our ‘experiment’ in constitutional democracy. If anyone thinks, for even a minute, that Hillary would give ANY of that back…they would be WRONG!”

And you think OBAMA is going to make ANY active effort to “give any of that back?”  NO president is going to: not McCain, not Hillary, and NOT Obama.

If you think otherwise, you are seriously delusional.

Peace.

“We “go for broke” for we are already broke and we have nothing to lose but everything to gain - we deserve better life and the world than what the politicians like Mrs. Clinton have brought us,”

You said it so well chrism…we go for broke, because we already are. It’s like putting that last dollar on a lottery ticket..anything to avoid the CERTAIN demise of a Clinton presidency.

And I was thinking…she won’t even go back to the governing ideas or principles of the era of her husband, which would be bad enough, but at least there was still the APPEARANCE of a checks and balance, or semi-separation of powers. At this point, even those ‘appearances’ are no longer maintained.

This ‘unitary executive’ that Cheney was so determined to install, has in fact been ‘installed’ at the cost of what was our ‘experiment’ in constitutional democracy. If anyone thinks, for even a minute, that Hillary would give ANY of that back…they would be WRONG!

Nope..it just wouldn’t happen. She might protect a minor portion of the status quo, to the extent that she cannot maintain her power in a vacuum. But at the end of the day, it’s all about HER, because that’s what she’s been working toward, her entire life.

So, HER’S is the kind of ‘experience’ that could, and in reality. WOULD… deal the final blow.

If she had been able to take over BEFORE this much damage was done, she may have been kept in check, at least to a degree. But not now.

I think a lot of ‘we the people’ are finally figuring that out, so we’ve become desperate to prevent it. That’s why we’re seeing this unprecedented voter turnout. At least in my opinion. The horrors of the past 7 years have zapped people out of their apathy.

Hopefully, not too late.

Rule of law in our country is a joke and the same can be said about international law.  At least Blackbeard had some rules. The bandits in the Whitehouse have less ethics than cockroaches.

Hillary is doing a nice job in that respect, with her red phone sitcom. Hillary can protect the nation and who is going to protect the female interns? Yeh, like she is on top of it.

Leefeller:

“Boy you will really have Obama when he says “I never had sex with that women” you may find what you are looking for, then of course Obama can say “that depends on what you mean by sex” Clintons like the word game.”

What is clear is that dyed-in-the-wool Obamamaniacs like yourself, Cyrena et al will never accept ANYTHING - or any NUMBER of things - as reasons to “give pause” to your blind loyalty to him.  NOTHING can phase you because no matter WHAT he does or says - no matter how many instances of lying, dissembling, spinning, obfuscation, backtracking, political expediency, etc. he engages in - he is simply “above the (political) law,” blameless and all-but-perfect.

As an aside, even if you are unwilling to accept that Obama lied re ZB (or at very least backtracked for political expediency), I note that none of you - Cyrena, Louise, yourself et al - have addressed the BLATANT lie he told during an earlier debate when he claimed - clearly and distinctly - that the “only” connection between him and Rezko was “5 hours” Obama worked “as a junior attorney” on “one case.”  Given that he not only engaged in the real estate deal with Rezko but also accepted tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from him, I would say that this qualifies as just about as blatant a lie as has ever been told to tens of millions of people watching a debate.  And Obama has never acknowledged this lie, even as he tries to distance himself from Rezko.

Why no comment from any of you on this?

Peace.

Leefeller,

I had to chuckle. No way does Maani need encouragement on finding the dirt. He’ll find anything, and turn it into dirt, WAY quicker than any of Hillary’s advisors can answer this simple question….

•  “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.”

And then they go on to explain the reaction…

•  “Silence on the call. You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak—that she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.”

The rest is at the link if you’re interested…I wasn’t.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

But, I DID find something far more interesting about her experience as First Lady. Now of course nobody is really gonna wanna ‘count’ this for her résumé, because they don’t like to count the bad stuff. If it was bad stuff, they’ll just blame it on Bill. She didn’t have anything to do with it.

However, while I have always known that Bill’s hit on the former Yugoslavia was in violation of International law, I honestly had believed the old lies/excuses that he used at the time, just as so many believed the lies that GW used to do the same to Iraq.

And, that’s what it was. It was criminal, and Hillary is still claiming it as a wonderful thing. Say she would move ‘aggressively’ on this recent action. It is a bona fide confirmation, (as if we didn’t already need it), that her warmongering ways just ain’t the kind of ‘foreign policy experience’ we need. And, they bring misery to the world.

Anyway, it’s an excellent story, if you didn’t already know this stuff. I only knew the lies…the ‘cover story’ at the time.

The Real Story Behind Kosovo’s Independence
  By Jeremy Scahill
  AlterNet

All of a sudden, DC establishment figures care about “international law” when it suits their interests in Kosovo.

  “News Flash: The Bush administration acknowledges there is a such thing as international law.

  But, predictably, it is not being invoked to address the US prison camps at Guantanamo, the wide use of torture, the invasion and occupation of sovereign countries, the extraordinary rendition program. No, it is being thrown out forcefully as a condemnation of the Serbian government in the wake of Thursday’s attack by protesters on the US embassy in Belgrade following the Bush administration’s swift recognition of the declaration of independence by the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Some 1,000 protesters broke away from a largely non-violent mass demonstration in downtown Belgrade and targeted the embassy. Some protesters actually made it into the compound, setting a fire and tearing down the American flag.

  “I’m outraged by the mob attack against the U.S. embassy in Belgrade,” fumed Zalmay Khalilzad,the US Ambassador to the United Nations. “The embassy is sovereign US territory. The government of Serbia has a responsibility under international law to protect diplomatic facilities, particularly embassies.” His comments were echoed by a virtual who’s who of the Bill Clinton administration…. “It is sovereign territory of the United States under international law,” Rubin declared. “For Serbia to allow these protesters to break windows, break into the American Embassy, is a pretty dramatic sign.” Hillary Clinton, whose husband orchestrated and ran the 78-day NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, said, “I would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy. Under international law they should be doing that.”

The rest is at the link:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022408Y.shtml

Boy you will really have Obama when he says “I never had sex with that women” you may find what you are looking for, then of course Obama can say “that depends on what you mean by sex”  Clintons like the word game.

Find that dirt, please.

chez mois:

Obama on the Rezko deal: “Purchasing a piece of property from somebody who has been a supporter of yours I think is a bad idea. It’s an example of where every once in a while you’re going to make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it.”

Obama on Schiavo: “It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped…I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better…. And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.”

How many more of these will we hear?  Do we really think these are the only two instances of this?

And if we are to accept that “It’s an example of where every once in a while you’re going to make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it,” then why do so for Obama but not for Hillary?

As for the Rezko real estate deal not being “Obama’s Whitewater,” this remains to be seen, since in addition to the real estate deal there is the fact that OBama took tens of thousands of dollars from Rezko for his campaigns.  And there is the question of Obama’s claim at an earlier debate that the “only” connection between him and Rezko was “5 hours” of time spent as a “junior attorney” on “one case.”  The mere FACT of the real estate deal and the campaign contributions make Obama a liar.

Peace.

“Reagan’s foes wrote him off as a right-wing former actor who amiably spouted conservative bromides and must have been engaged in some sort of Hollywood flimflam…”

And ended with the media’s constant “The President’s brain is missing” with a picture of a human brain ‘basking’ on the beach, uhh.

This guy will be off somewhere hand in hand with his FRC ‘advisor’, Condoleeza Rice, running the world their way (“Do it my way - follow my lead”, uhh).

GrammaConcept,

I absolutely love it when you repeat yourself!!

Still, I’m recording all of this for my permanent records, (including the message from The Elders at the Hopi Nation) just in case you want to take the occasional break,in “doing what you do best.”

Technology isn’t a bad thing…:)

Tdbach writes:

•  ‘That isn’t to say that complexity, detail and nuance aren’t really what we’re going to end up needing to get out of this mess.’

And, there it IS!! We DO need this, and…OBAMA has it. Yep, the complexity, and he detail, and the nuance. That’s why the ‘simplicity’ thing is an incorrect evaluation. A look at his policies and positions, IN CONJUNCTION with all the rest, (the stuff that everyone claims to be dazzling) and you’ll see there is nothing simplistic about it at all.

The problem is that we somehow geared, (here in the US) or otherwise guided by an either/or mentality. We also have a tendency to be fooled by what’s available only on the surface, and immediately visible/discernable. As a population, we don’t necessarily look below the surface, or kick the tires, or see WHAT ELSE is in the box.

There is nothing at all ‘simplistic’ about the Obama agenda. It’s not perfect, but it IS pragmatic, in terms of reality, and what can actually be accomplished. That’s on one level, but there are many others. He’s also smart enough to know that he has to first make the point, that it CAN be accomplished, by the people who NEED it to happen for them, WHATEVER it is.

So, while he is perfectly aware that the details and all the rest of it are required, all the details in the world, even if they amount to ‘the best made plans’ are totally useless if you don’t have the people at the foundation of them.

That’s why aegrus explains it so well, in just these few words…

•  “….his idealism lies solely in his pragmatism…”

Yep…that’s what it is. And yep, if one looks more closely, the details, the complexity, and the nuance are all there.

GrammaConcept also posted something very insightful, that connects to why Obama, (rather than Hillary or anyone else) is the best choice for America right now. There isn’t enough space to post the entire thing, but you can find it on the thread entitled One More Time – With Feeling..

From the Hopi Prophecy..

“….It is time to speak your Truth.
Create your community.
Be good to each other.
And do not look outside yourself for the leader….”

And…do not look OUTSIDE yourself for the leader..

This is a message (prophecy) from The Elders of the Hopi Nation. Like I said, GrammaConcept posted it all. It’s a message worth absorbing.

Regan was an OUTSIDER, just as Leefeller has described him, in terms of his elitist attitude that looked down his nose at the working class American.

Hillary Clinton is an outsider in the same vein, and the ‘populist’ theme doesn’t do it.

We are who we’ve been waiting for. (that’s from the Hopi Elders as well.)

And so…the leader has to come from among us.

<<Yes, Obama gets his crowds swooning. So did Reagan. It’s laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a “cult of personality” around Obama.>>

Except that Reagan also had a record upon which to build the “cult”.  And the cult didn’t really flower until after he’d been in office.  It was also quite easy to tell what Reagan stood for and the philosophical approach he would take to making policy.  These are things you cannot say about Obama.

I’m going to debate the simplicity statement, bach. If you read through the policy plans between the two candidates (Hillary/Barack), you’ll notice Obama’s are largely more detailed. His message, stump speeches and debate arguments may not be as detailed as Hillary’s (Though, I would restrict this fact to health care policy), but the substance behind these basic words is great. However, I’ll concede a lot of his beliefs are theory-based, which is both innovative and somewhat untested.

tdbach:

In addition to “moment” and “simplicity,” there is a third thing that Obama has in common with Reagan (though I will be vilified for bringing it up): both were/are “Teflon” candidates.

Part of this is, as you suggest, “moment” (or, perhaps more accurately, political zeitgeist), and part is political skill (though that is not necessarily a compliment).

Even before a Dem nominee is chosen, the question will be whether he can remain as Teflon as Reagan was able to.  Personally, I don’t think he can, as there are a number of issues either currently in the press or heating up, some of which he will have a hard time deflecting: Exelon, Rezko (especially with the trial coming up in March), trying to weasel out of public financing of the general election, his blatant politically expedient lie about Brzezinski, whether he has been completely honest about “special interest” money, etc.

Still, although I remain a staunch Hillary supporter, I will support Obama if he is the Dem nominee, if for no other reason than I don’t want to have to spend the money to leave the country and live elsewhere as an expat if McCain wins…

Peace.

Good heavens, are we agreeing?! That’s scary.

I should have added, the other thing that Reagan and Obama have in common is simplicity. Reagan’s simplicity came naturally – it was just how he thought. Obama’s is thematic – he (wisely it seems) chose to base his campaign on simple messages of “hope” and communal (“we”) empowerment and reconciliation (with the world and between parties at home). When an electorate is weary and frustrated, the last thing they want to deal with is complexity, detail, or nuance. Reagan had an ideal opponent in Carter, who was a detail guy from the get-go. Obama has Clinton, who is lives for the nuances of policy. The worry is that McCain may be a more formidable opponent than Clinton, because he’s not much a detail guy, either. Of course, one of McCain’s broad messages – we must win in Iraq – is not going to resonate with voters, methinks.

That isn’t to say that complexity, detail and nuance aren’t really what we’re going to end up needing to get out of this mess.

That’s a particularly accurate observation, bach. I would go a step further, however, and say the fascination and mood of the country changing towards Obama is not something he can take full credit for. Very likeable, highly intelligent and pragmatic as he is, these factors don’t help him nearly as much as Hillary’s campaign does.

Toe to toe, I wouldn’t really say these two candidates are equal at all because each represents a different platform. Hillary is doing well enough to live on, but she should have been the clear front-runner because of her name and policy positions, which are often more in line with what we associate with a Democratic candidate (and can be a little bit better than Barack’s policies sometimes).

Barack is a sharp contrast for a Democratic candidate because his idealism lies solely in his pragmatism and very progressive-centrist (“Left-Libertarian”)positions. A lot of his positions are theory, but they are all really well thought-out. This is why he is a change candidate, but I think it is just enough change to be viable. Too much change would equate him sitting on the bus next to Kucinich.

Obama is going to win the nomination, and I feel confident he will win the presidency. The climate right now is change for Obama, and it does not matter how great Hillary Clinton’s policy positions are because they are both old ideas and old politics. They might work, but the climate of America (and the world)has changed a lot. People want someone who better represents America now, and Hillary just doesn’t fit the bill right now.

An interesting article.

What Obama and Reagan have in common is “moment” - as EJ alludes to. Reagan entered the scene when our economy and national prestige are at a low point, and the current president and his party are widely held to blame, much as Obama arrives as the remnants of Bush’s disastrous reign smolders.

But the two men could hardly be more different. I don’t think anyone underestimates Obama. Everyone knows he’s extremely bright, very persuasive. People question where he really stands, beyond the oratory, question what he’d do is he really has the power, but no one questions his abilities (except Clinton, for purely political campaigning reasons, to differentiate herself as a proven policy wonk). I don’t think most people underestimated Reagan, either. He really wasn’t the brightest bulb on the tree. But what they underestimated was the mood of the country, the weariness with progressive change and the tax implications of some of that change, as double-digit inflation ate away at their incomes. Nobody questioned where Reagan stood: lower taxes and aggressive anti-communism. That’s about all he knew or talked about.

As it turned out, Reagan was absolutely the right guy for the moment – as a candidate, not as a president, I should add. For Obama’s supporters, he’s just the right candidate, too. Whether Obama turns out to have as wide appeal as Reagan did, we’ll soon find out. And if he does repeat Reagan’s success in the ballot box, we’ll soon enough find out what sort of president he’ll be, too.

as regards transcendental creation and, for the tone of Mr. Dionne’s article, I am going tto do what I do best…repeat myself:

        ...........Change your train of thought; change the world…...............

Exercising the will to change one’s thoughts deliberately is powerful exercise fit for any and every moment…..... 

Thinking clearly regarding one’s ideals and ideas of a moral universe is not doing nothing…......To the contrary, it is the powerful first effort toward focussed, effective action of any kind….

Never doubt that you are ‘exercising’ free will by choosing upbuilding in thought, word, or deed, rather than the opposite…. 

Why are we here?......Perhaps, to discover why we are here…....When we have thought our way through to our selves, we will then know better what good work to do for others…...Meanwhile, simple service of any kind earns us our keep…....

                ............As we think, so we become…....

If we are to be useful stepping into the future, which is, after all, every next second, then we had better make our thoughts our own….If you think, wonder, or even suspect, that there is nothing you can do….., do something!

Addiction to negativity is the greatest danger, as it leads only to further delusion followed by yet more suffering…..Upbuild, friends, with all your determined free will…..Upbuild…and please, courageously…

            ..........................Strive On!........................

^ all is said and done it is Obama and his handlers who get it.  Jacob Freeze in a previous post mentioned Daniel Webster; do you remember him (The Devil and Daniel Webster); it’s a terrific story and it all about ones ability to be able to orate.  Daniel has to debate the devil to retain his soul and with his oratory he wins.  We as Americans have always loved a good story teller.  Our last most recent great orator is the honorable Senator Byrd.  We love to hear eloquence and articulation; it takes us to places of possibilities, dreams if you will.  It lifts us out of our hopelessness to a possibility of a future better than what we have now.  If we are diligent and not blinded by silliness then I say: Give us somebody with a brain; somebody who can speak a coherent sentence; somebody who can bring us together; somebody who just might not be who we think he is.

^ nobody approaches Daniel Webster; he was the greatest.

My dislike for Reagan was purely from his unfeeling toward the working class. Can never accept the good old boys as something to support, since I am not one.  His elitism, always part of his program.

Experience, realism, prudence and predictability are some things Hillary would like to offer, but she lacks realism and prudence.  Standing on experience is great, but existing vice president offers tons of experience, we have seen it turn into a land grabbing of opportunism ,  why would Hillary be any different?

Guess the Reagan connection is for the trekies who liked him.

I think Left-Libertarian wouldn’t be a far stretch of the truth, but I would probably warn against such a label. I’ve been a libertarian for years, and there are quite a few views which aren’t practical and get foisted as such in the name of capitalism by the platform. Thankfully, Obama is not against public education and I believe he made a statement a while back dismissing drug law reform (no so great).

The article does draw a lot of really good comparisons. I think it will be interesting to get eight years of Obamanomics. We may not be able to tell exactly what he’ll do in office, but the same can be said for any candidate, really. Hillary’s association with her husband does lend some idea, but not a guarantee. What if she “kept silent” about all sorts of policy Bill was making, but has been against all sorts of Clintonian policy from the beginning? Guess we won’t know for another eight years. };>

An excellent analysis from Ms. Dionne…though i’m sure that it will be used to start a sectarian battle here on Truthdig, pretty much everything else does.

If any of you are interested, Ron Chusid at http://liberalvaluesblog.com/ has posted two entries this week suggesting that Sen Obama’s political views might best be described as “left-libertarian”.  He also suggests that Sen Obama’s team of advisers tend to look for practical solutions, i.e. ways to tweak failing policies rather than trying to grandly rewrite them.

As for the Reagan comparisons: why is it ok for both Sen and President Clinton to speak of President Reagan admiringly in their books, but it is not ok for Sen Obama to do the same thing?  Is this just the same situation as why it was ok for President Clinton so smoke dope when he was young, but he was willing to put me in jail if i made the same choice? (somehow i doubt that if i had tried “i didn’t inhale” with the police it wouldn’t have worked)  Or is it just tactical politics?  As for “the party of ideas”...didn’t the Phoenix Group and the Progressive movement come to that very same conclusion before working hard to change the balance?

Well, I’ve gotta admit that E.J.s comparisons do give me a few ‘creepies’ based on an after-view of the Regan Era. His Reganomics are still being felt, having been recycled through the Bush I Era, and really, though the Clinton Era as well. Then of course Bush the boy, just leveled the whole thing. What ‘economics’? Actually, what ‘economy’?

However, I DO get it, about the “Silent Majority” and have even made that comparison myself, to Obama and the American ‘mood’ at this time. (even though we the majority, are becoming more vocal everyday).

The paradox is that far from being ‘idealistic’ Obama has addressed the REALITY of our collective existence, (and near extinction), as a result of the destruction of the last decade, (or more). In doing that, he’s been able to bring to the forefront, what the bush gangsters have attempted to keep hidden for so long. He’s ACKNOWLEDGED the very bad condition that we face as Americans, and even if he offered not one single, solitary, solution… he’s at least done THAT! It is the first and most important step in any recovery.

As a result, more and more Americans have been willing to come out of that rabbit hole, and actually face the REALITY themselves, because even while they are being forced to come to grips with it, there is –in Barack Obama’s message and acknowledgement of Americans as humans- some hope. It’s hope that now that we have recognized the REALITY of this horror, and somebody else, has recognized and acknowledged it as well…we might be able to actually DO something about it!!!

Obama’s cynical critics don’t get that. They’d rather twist reality, and an acknowledgement of what created this reality, into some sort of false promises. Or, just ignore it, and stay in the horror show, until they die. But, IN REALITY, Obama has never ‘promised’ anything but a chance to get out of the horror, and stop the terror. He’s only exposed the reasons for the suffering, acknowledged how and why it’s been allowed and/or perpetrated against us, and at least some common sense or practical suggestions for how we might collective go about the repair and restoration.

When some person or persons can instill the kind of confidence in another person or group of people, that they CAN, THEMSELVES, find some reality based methods to improve their individual or collective lives, and they don’t HAVE to be ‘victimized’ or held hostage by a group of gangsters, then yeah, we see a response like that of the American public, to a candidate leader such as Barack Obama.

He doesn’t have to say, “I’m gonna make it all better” or I’m just gonna change reality, to make it whatever you want it to be. Rather, he reminds that ‘It DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY, this suffering and near extinction is NOT a bygone conclusion. In short, here’s what we’ve got (the tools) and here’s where we’re at, (not a good place) and this is where we might GET, (to an improved condition) if we just take what we’ve got, and use it to make a better existence.

He isn’t planning to create some new tool, since we’ve already got what we need, beginning with the Constitution. (and he knows it well, as a Professor of Constitutional Law) Rather, he is well situated to show us how to use it.

So, the next step is to dismiss the cynics, who’d rather shoot themselves in the foot, and continue to slap away any measure of what reality might provide for the betterment of the condition of the US and its people. 

Anybody who wants out of the rabbit hole, can join the effort. Otherwise, they can just stay down there, while the rest of us do the work. Either way, it’s gonna happen.
GO America!! (as in ‘we the people’)

Brilliant piece, though it’ll take time for me to get over your writing it first…

The Reagan counterpoint is neat, giving added weight to Obama’s reference to Reagan recently.  I was going to go with Husserl: 

“History is therefore the place in which the visualization of a process happens, where the ‘gaining awareness’ of the transcendental reality in which humanity lies happens, but it is also the place where the making explicit of the meaning of life manifests itself, inasmuch as it is precisely in the historical context that the meaning and the concretizations related to them happen.”