Sodium,

Thanks for the response. In reality, Max was being a wise ass because he knows perfectly well that I’d read parts of the AIPAC speech. I did NOT watch it myself, and it was probably at least 2 days after the fact, before I read the cherry-pick portions of it that were posted here on truthdig by the likes of Max and other Obama haters.

That said, once I DID read those parts, I TOO had some similar reactions, and specifically to the Jerusalem comments. I couldn’t understand why Obama would say anything like that, because he’s a smart guy, and had to know better. I was ALMOST as disturbed by his comments on Iran being a threat, and that he would eliminate the threat, because I know that he knows that Iran is NOT a threat.

On that however, I cut him some slack, presuming it to be necessary political speak. In other words, yeah, yeah, Israel, don’t worry about Iran, because I’ll make sure they don’t bother you. (since Iran has never bothered them ANYWAY, that should be simple enough).

ALL of that said, I understand the reaction to the AIPAC speech. I was annoyed myself, and I’ve pondered on some of those things for a while, because something just didn’t ‘feel right’ about it.

I didn’t get myself all worked up about the promise for aid to Israel, because it’s no different than what they’ve been getting from us for decades.

I *did* remark on the fact that Obama mentioned in his speech that Israel had a right to exist and a right to defend itself. I don’t have any particular problem with Israel existing either, other than the fact that they’ve refused to ever commit to the boundaries of such an existence, which is why they don’t have a Constitution that would hold them to such geographical boundaries.

Still, Obama also state that the Palestinians had a right to their own state as well, and that their borders should be CONTIGUOUS! When I remarked on that, the Obama mob accused me of ‘decoding’ what he said. (some people obviously need to have things decoded for them).

At the end of the day, (and by the time I read those parts of the speech) I was also dismayed and very much annoyed at what struck me as pandering far beyond the need to pander.

Since then, and after reading an excellent article for which I’ve already provided a link, (but will again), I still have that ‘funny feeling’ about the substance of that speech, and how much of it was really constructed by Obama himself.

No, I am not attempting to excuse him for *delivering* the speech, (he did explain his mistake on the Jerusalem issue the next day, but I missed that as well) but there’s more to this than meets the eyes and ears.

That said, I’m likely to blow off the majority of Max Shields stuff by now, because his motivations are highly suspect. Constructive criticism is one thing, and it should be obvious that I’ve engaged in that. I can also tell the difference between constructive criticism and smear propaganda or simple hate mongering.

Indeed, the next president of the US will have to deal with Israel. At the same time, I’m not interested in considering Israel as the basis for the ENTIRE selection and evaluation process for a US President. So when I said that Obama didn’t create the issues with Israel, (because Israel has been a problem for at least 40 years) I meant that he shouldn’t be responsible for fixing it all either. That’s what the UN is supposed to do, and I think they still should pick up the slack. I don’t see why the US has to have some extraordinary power above and beyond all others, in making sure that little Israel gets to run roughshod over the entire Middle East.

Anyway, the link below is an interesting article. At least it helped me figure out a little bit of why/how Obama could come up with stuff that is totally contrary to everything he’s ever said before.

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleI d=9436

Re By WorkingMan, June 29 at 8:25 pm #

“As much as we would all like to see the country move in a completely different direction—and fast—maybe just stopping our current course will have to do for now.”

Quite right. We have been in free-fall to absolute fascism since 2000. Even if Obama does represent Corporate America, it is not monolithic. There are relatively liberal parts of the spectrum - people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and George Soros. Politicians like Clinton and Obama represent this end of the spectrum. The extreme right wing of corporate America - oil companies and defense contractors - have been in the saddle for the last eight years, but by driving up oil prices, they have hurt the overall economy and the rest of corporate America does not like it. At this point we should join with them to get the fascists out.

cyrena,

We just seem to be on the same wavelength. The acrimony toward Obama we hear so much from the left is not constructive criticism; it doesn’t help the cause of progress; in fact, it hurts the progressive movement and helps the reactionaries. There is a place for progressives in the Obama campaign. How much of an influence they have depends on their energy and their ability to persuade and convince their fellow Obama supporters, and not on their propensity to engage in angry tirades that will produce nothing but a few cheers from other alienated leftists and smiles on the faces of Republican operatives who are happy to see mud flung at Obama from any angle.

Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is absolutely essential. A lot of Obama people don’t want to hear it right now because they are focused on winning in November, but I myself think this is a mistake. Obama needs our guidance. If he is going to represent the people he needs to hear from the people, and the people am us. All of us in the campaign have to agree on only one thing, that we support Obama for President. We don’t have to agree on anything else. We can and should feel free to disagree with anythng that Obama says or does, to express those views and to try to persuade our comrades. Only in this way will we really have a revolutionary movement of free people instead of a parade of Obama clones walking in lockstep, hewing to the party line.

Leefeller,

You said it here:

• “Interesting I still feel the differences between the two parties is minimal and the elite and special interests call the shots, for our republic is a plutocracy.  Realizing this helps me understand why we see what we see.  Hope I am wrong.”

I don’t think you’re wrong, because I believe that this HAS been the case for quite some time now. (minimal difference between the two parties). And yes, the elite and the special interests have been calling the shots for a very long time now as well. At least that’s my own general take on it, and I suspect that most of us who bother to look, (and surprisingly, I know many, many, many people who DON’T) see it as well. The difference is only between ‘them’ (the 1% ers) and the rest of us. And, it doesn’t make any difference what ‘party’ the rest of us have belonged to. The red neck repugs in Alabama are just as broke as my liberal democrat ass is here in California. HOWEVER, if I have to be broke, I’d much prefer to be broke here, than there. That’s the only difference, and it is very minor, I agree.

THAT is exactly why I’m as hopeful as I think I can reasonably be. Because prior to the actual Coup that finally ‘took us over’, (and that’s not to let the corporatists of the 4 decades before off the hook) we were pretty much still ‘classes’, and that maintained some measure of balance, as long as there weren’t these extraordinarily huge gaps between us. In other words, I don’t have a problem with a doctor or a plumber earning more than I do, and our rights as citizens and humans are equally guaranteed. But, that has all broken down, so that the classes have become the masses, and we are now all ‘subjects’ of the tiny majority in charge. That step – that breaks the classes down into the masses, is one of the first in a fascist or other totalitarian set-up. And, that’s what we’ve come to under this cabal. I’m not saying things were perfect before. But there’s no getting around where we are now, and we can’t possibly survive it any longer. (I mean seriously, even Hitler and his regime didn’t last this long.)

So, I agree with you that we’ll have to wait until the rubber hits the road. No question there. On the other hand, there is at least the chance that – when it does – that it will ‘work’, at least to the point of beginning to dig us out of the ditch. And, I don’t see that even being a possibility, with anyone other than Obama, at least at this point. Are there others who are capable of pulling us back together and helping us out of the ditch? Yeah. I’m sure there are. But, none who are willing to SERVE THE PEOPLE, as opposed to serving themselves and their own same 1%’ers. NONE of the others currently willing to take on the ‘title’ are actually willing to do the job. They don’t have the judgment required to make the right decisions, or to pick the correct people, and the job wasn’t intended as a one-person job. An administrator is only as good as their judgment dictates in choosing the right help.

So. We’ll see what we can do. I admittedly have a great deal of faith, (and yeah…hope) in the younger generations. They know that they deserve a chance, and that the system hasn’t left them much of a birthright at all. So, they know that if they’re going to have ANYTHING, they have to get out there and do it for themselves, with whatever help and guidance they can get. So, we’ll let them do the heavy lifting, (because they have stronger backs) and we’ll make sure they know which things to lift, and how to carry them.

cyrena,

Apprieceat your synopsis on the whole mess as it crawls along. My skeptic feelings and comments on Obama may steam from the abnormal length of this horse race, Coupled with the disgusting presence in the White House and inaction by Congress, one can only have a sinking feeling.

If we have finally hit bottom and hope means the worm will turn, plus if your level approach to the mess is correct we may see some movement toward positive reforms and get our Constitution back Then those of us who do not have a crystal ball will just have to wait and see what happens when Obama takes office.

As I said before when the rubber hits the road.

Interesting I still feel the differences between the two parties is minimal and the elite and special interests call the shots, for our republic is a plutocracy.  Realizing this helps me understand why we see what we see.  Hope I am wrong.

Reply to Tony part 1 of 2

cyrena,
• “My objective is always to make as much political progress as possible under the actual circumstances. We got Obama nominated because we see him as the most progressive real alternative, and now we must take advantage of our victory by pressing our progressive agenda…Let us defend him against attacks from the right, while at the same time pulling to the left. Obama is very strong now, and healthy, strong, constructive criticism from the left will not hurt his chances.”

Tony, I know that after all of this time, this might sound blasé or mechanical, but I actually do STILL agree with you! I agree even more about the healthy criticism, than I worry about the attacks from the right, because I believe that Obama can handle those attacks perfectly well on his own. I say that because reasonable people aren’t likely to be blinded by the attacks from the right, if ONLY because there just isn’t much value to anything they can come up with.
Seriously…how long can they recycle the Muslim thing, or the Rev. Wright thing, or any of the other bullshit they’ve tried to create? The problem for the right in managing their standard techniques is that Obama just really doesn’t have any DIRT on him. Not necessarily because he’s some perfect angel, but because he’s relatively young, and hasn’t been in the political trenches long enough to become completely corrupted by the whole filthy mess.

That is NOT to say that it wasn’t always a concern of mine, long before he even made the commitment to run. Politics is a dirty business, and no matter how many people will claim that his race doesn’t affect them, it does. It affects those people who are…as EJ Dionne pointed out in one of his pieces..envious and resentful. NOBODY is EVER going to come out and say that. It simply will not happen. So, they come up with every single other thing they possibly can, which in the end, does NOBODY any good, because it is NOT constructive or healthy criticism. When that happens, (a bombardment of the bullshit) it has a tendency to distract from what are LEGITIMATE CRITICISMS. After a while, people start blowing everything off, even though there ARE some things that should certainly be ‘checked’ immediately, BEFORE they can become problematic, and before that very thing that I’ve worried about from the beginning…can possibly happen. The corrupting nature of politics.

The irony here is that I have probably been more vocal than anyone else on this thread, in what I consider to be legitimate criticisms of Obama. I’ve ALSO directed some of them to his campaign, and I’ve actually received numerous responses; all of them appreciative. Because my criticisms are not stupid stuff. And I wouldn’t bother, if I did NOT believe him to be ‘talented’ as you say he is, but also extremely sincere in his efforts and very much a man of integrity. Those are important things to the country at this time, because if we were not in the condition that we are in, Barack Obama, -as any other standard politician- would NOT be running, because we wouldn’t NEED him to run, at least not NOW.

Many folks don’t get my pragmatism in that thinking, but I look at it this way, because I believe it to be an honest assessment, and because I am an honest person. Ideally, Barack Obama could only become that much BETTER, if he waited another 4 or even 8 years, (hoping that a dem will in fact gain the office). He’s young. He could wait 8 years, and still be only what…54 years old going into the office. He’d be 8 years smarter, (via experience) the kids would be closer to grown, and he’d be at the peak of his life. In other words, he could be an overwhelmingly popular politician and statesman, and build one hell of a personal and presidential legacy, IF this was about HIM! But, it’s not. It’s about us, and what both MLK and Obama have recognized as “the urgency of the moment’.

Part 2 of 2 reply to Tony

That said, I’m not worried about attacks from the right. I’m more worried about him not taking on more than he can chew, but that’s almost an instinctive sort of motherly type feeling, just as so many other people, (even older than I) worry about him being the victim of an assassination. The fear is real, and it takes only reading these blogs to be reminded of it.

I’m also not particularly worried about his ‘seeming’ slide to the center. I know that he is even keeled, and not prone to ego tripping, and therefore is OPEN to criticism. Consequently, constructive criticism *should* be on tap. But again, it needs to be separated out from the bullshit, or it’s ineffective.

The AIPAC speech was a major blunder, and I didn’t even hear what he came up with the next day. I saw a mention from Louise a few weeks ago not long after the speech, and she wasn’t too impressed with whatever he said. According to her, he just made it worse. I generally trust her assessment on things, so I didn’t try to look for it. (I don’t watch MSM at all).

But in all honesty, I have to be careful myself, to look carefully for these things at this point, (blunders) because I’m beginning to blow off what might be legitimate concerns, after being barraged with bullshit from the likes of people like Max. I mean, he complains about everything from the way Obama ties his shoes, to crystal ball predictions that Obama will UNDOUBTABLY begin a full scale world war. Anything legitimate gets lost in the BS. And if I question some of the more ridiculous of these predictions, I’m accused of ‘defending Obama’, when in reality, I’m actually asking Max or any of the rest of them, to defend some of their own ridiculous statements, just to give them a chance to think about how stupid they sound.

For instance, the latest (from Max, as usual, since I’m sure this is his full time job) is that CLEARLY, both McCain AND Obama will ‘advance the imperial bloodbath” that the US has been engaged in for decades in…LATIN AMERICA!!  WTF??? Where did THAT come from? I mean, there’s Latin America over there, seemingly enjoying a brief period of not being harassed by Dick Bush, and Hugo is actually paying attention to what the people of Venezuela want or don’t want. And out of the blue, Max decides that both McCain and Obama are CLEARLY going to ‘advance’ this imperial blood bath in Latin America, and feels compelled to put it on this forum. By tomorrow, he could be complaining that Obama doesn’t use environmentally correct toilet paper.

Earlier in the week, they already had Obama SIGNED OFF on the FISA thing. He may eventually do that, but what he SAID, was that he didn’t like the immunity provision to the thing, and that he would WORK TO REMOVE IT. Meantime, today is Friday, and the Senate isn’t even going to take the thing up again, until they return from recess. THAT’S the kind of stuff that annoys the hell of me. The unnecessary hype. Like, DON’T HOLLER FIRE in a crowed theater, when there is *not* a fire. I hate histrionics and manufactured drama. But then, in my former career, that kind of stuff was truly forbidden. We don’t joke or lie about serious stuff. So I admit that I’m extra sensitive to it, especially since we’ve had nothing but that from the thugs in DC, for nearly 8 years. So many lies, and so many destroyed lives because of it.

But YES! We’ll keep and eye on Barack. Lucky for us, he’s already pretty well trained. And, he’s smart.

Sodium..

Just curious...which post from Max to me re his 100% pure gold political position on Obama and AIPAC? I mean, he’s voiced that particular position about 5 jillion times.

Max,

I read your article about Olberman and I find myself in agreement with it and you. Olberman is not objective. Really, I don’t worship Obama as a demigod. He is just a very talented young politician with what I hope are progressive instincts. But where he is wrong he should be criticized. For example, I am a member of the ACLU, and as such I vigorously protest Obama’s stance on the FISA bill. This is election time, and I understand that Obama is going to do and say whatever it takes to assure victory in November - which does indeed make him the same as Clinton or McCain any other politician. I’m just waiting to see what he actually does when he’s president. I wonder what will happen if the Democrats do get a veto-proof majority in Congress in November?

Max,

If Obama is POTUS and invades Iran, I will be out there on the barricades with you, or possibly renouncing my citizenship and fleeing to another country. However, I believe that is considerably smaller that the possibility that McCain will invade Iran if ne is POTUS, wouldn’t you agree? And I say that the best way we can decrease the likelihood of Obama doing it is if we join the campaign and advocate loudly for peace and international law, which Obama is at least supposed to stand for.

Tony Wicher

“But hell, all those Zionists were glad to be told what they wanted to hear at the time, but they knew even then it had to be a huge pander, and they all said “I knew it” when Obama took it back the next day. Such is politics.”

And if Obama is POTUS and invades Iran, what will you spin then? No doubt you’re in rehearsal now. Here’s a little something you, Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter seem to suffer from: demigod worshipping; same as the Bush crowd who still think there are WMDs in Iraq. As Greenwald states it, its a condition far worse than any of the politicians because it enables the worst possible outcomes.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/26/173318/200

Sodium,

I was taken aback by that speech to AIPAC. Wow, I don’t think George W. Bush or Ariel Sharon ever sounded so hawkish. But hell, all those Zionists were glad to be told what they wanted to hear at the time, but they knew even then it had to be a huge pander, and they all said “I knew it” when Obama took it back the next day. Such is politics. Now my theory is that after that speech there was enough of an uproar from the progressive side of the campaign that he took it back. I was certainly firing off harsh emails to all and sundry and I was not the only one. That is why I believe we belong inside his campaign, pushing for our agenda.

The following is from Real Clear Politics,

“What Obama Meant By ‘Undivided’ Jerusalem”

“… Then there was Obama’s headline-making proclamation that Jerusalem “must” remain the “undivided” capital of the Jewish state. No such reference from the secretary of state.

As people spilled out of the packed hall, Obama had gained many newfound admirers, and he had reassured plenty of others. Merely a day later, though, he undid much of the goodwill he had accumulated.

Most damaging was the rather curious explanation about what he had actually meant by “undivided.” Anyone who follows Israeli politics understands “undivided” to mean that the eastern half of Jerusalem will remain under Israeli control and not serve as the Palestinian capital.

Apparently not Obama, however. An unnamed Obama advisor told the Agence France Press that Obama’s definition of “undivided” was strictly literal, that the holy city is “not going to be divided by barbed wire.”

If that was what the candidate had intended to convey, he failed miserably. In dozens of conversations immediately afterward either overheard by or involving this columnist, not one discussed Obama’s desire to avoid barbed wire fencing from running through Jerusalem.

Of all the knocks against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, lack of clarity in carefully crafted speeches is not one of them. No wonder many cynics believe that Obama was pulling the equivalent of the old newspaper stunt of running the allegation on the front page, but burying the correction on page 32 the next day...”

The rest of this article is at

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/what _obama_meant_by_undivided.html

cyrena,

My objective is always to make as much political progress as possible under the actual circumstances. We got Obama nominated because we see him as the most progressive real alternative, and now we must take advantage of our victory by pressing our progressive agenda. Now that we have a relatively progessive candidate, let’s try our best to make sure he really represents our views by being as loud and active as possible within the campaign. After all these years, this is our chance to do something other than cry in the wilderness. Let us defend him against attacks from the right, while at the same time pulling to the left. Obama is very strong now, and healthy, strong, constructive criticism from the left will not hurt his chances.

Cyrena:
“SPECIFICALLY, (at some point) Obama needs to refine his message on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and attempt to undo what damage his AIPAC message may have done. I agree with that, but I also don’t know how fair it is to demand a ‘solution’ to such an enormous problem that he had no parts in the creation of.”

Holly Crap!! Did you hear what the man said to AIPAC?

And he has basically indicated he will do everything in his power as POTUS to protect and defends Israel (where the f*ck is that in the Constitution???? Show me!).

He has joined the forces of THE PROBLEM and taken it a step further.

Ok Tony. I know how much work you’ve put into this..and I’ve done a fair share of my own in the same efforts.
So..I understand what you’re trying to do now, and I support it...to a point.

SPECIFICALLY, (at some point) Obama needs to refine his message on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and attempt to undo what damage his AIPAC message may have done. I agree with that, but I also don’t know how fair it is to demand a ‘solution’ to such an enormous problem that he had no parts in the creation of. I mean seriously...NOBODY else has been able to deal with the terrorists of Israel, and I personally don’t believe that the US should continue to be the SOLE foreign power involved in the correction. It’s time for the World Community to step up to the plate, and that’s the bottom line. To THAT end, Obama can be helpful by taking a 180 degree position away from that of the current regime, and provide a cooperative presence in the international community, (and with the UN) as opposed to the controlling presence that the bush regime has had, in what amounts to the neutering or de-legitimization of that entity.

As for FISA, I don’t know how much more he can do about that...NOW. He’s already said that he doesn’t agree with the retroactive immunity for the telecoms, and that he’ll work to prevent that provision in the final senate version of the bill. So far, (from what I understand) Feingold has been willing and able to do the work on the filibuster, though if Obama is going to do his fair share, he should be on the floor with him. (I honestly don’t know how that’s going..so I guess I need to check).

As for the farm bill..I may be ignorant to this. Are you talking about the corn growers for ethanol and food? I’m not sure. I’ll check it out, but if you have time, let us know what seems to be objectionable there.

Having helped to get Obama nominated, what I am trying to do now is push his campaign as far to the left as possible. Consider this interview in the Huffington Post with David Plouffe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/plouffe-obama -enormously_n_109248.html.

“The whole presentation was so relentlessly optimistic, several reporters wondered aloud what Plouffe saw as the major dangers for the campaign going forward. In response to a question about dissatisfaction on the left regarding some of Obama’s recent positions—such as the recent FISA compromise—Plouffe said he had not really been aware of any major discord on that front.”

This is the point where we on the Left need to put the pressure. We should be all over David Plouffe and the Obama for America blog protesting about AIPAC, FISA, the farm bill and every statement or action made by Obama or his surrogates that we find objectionable. Let’s make damn sure that Plouffe and Obama hear us. We should organize a progressive movement within the Obama campaign and fight for our views there. To me this is much more likely to be effective than supporting a third-party candidate.

I never expected Nor wanted Tim Russert to think for Me. I wanted the BS’ers on record answering questions- even when they stuck to their talking points.Has Cheney or Bush given an interview to Olbermann. although Keith provides insight - he does not provide well documented evidence- confessions. Ever Notice How clips from Meet the Press are used to ‘Remind’ Politicians what they had said during their interviews with Tim to refute their current flip flop claims.
This is about the 3rd article I have read that seems to be begging for a Media Brain so they need not work so hard by thinking for themselves.
I watched Meet The Press and admit Tim did not ask all the question I wanted to hear- but I already knew the people were going to Lie anyway. Just because he’d ask a question did not guarantee an honest response.
I also can not stand listening to the likes of Matthews -who also can’t get the ‘big interviews’- scream and talk over the people he is supposed to be allowing to answer questions.
Meet the Press is designed and targeted towards those who are already Politically engaged, who already know the BS and are just watching to reaffirm their own intellectual knowledge. We want to see them squirm -but Know they will revert to pat talking points and BS regardless how many times you ask them. If you can’t get them on your Show, Ya got nothing more than Pundits giving their opinions. I want documented Lies. and I appreciated a Moderator who knew we were smart enough to know BS when we saw it and heard it.
I knew they were up to no good as Soon as ‘They hate US for Our Freedoms’ came out of their mouths. I didn’t need Tim Russert to figure that out for me.

Hedges, as usual has got it right, thought he doesn’t go far enough. “Courtiers” are messengers on behalf of power, delivering up reality as defined by power—more or less unconsciously. It’s a given.

Russert was primo messenger. Beyond pay, was and is ardent belief on part of courtiers in reality they serve up on behalf of power, which also can’t tell human from inhuman. (Marx was also sympathetic toward captains of industry who are also victims of dispossession—of soul, however defined.)

Freud got at pathology Hedges notes at the end of his piece—about pathology of victims returning for more victimization. Except that’s not quite right per Freud. Freud, in “Civilization and Its Discontents,” points directly to the fact of civilizing as central problem. Okay, so far, so good. But then, and mercifully, not to mention rather more optimistically, Marcuse made an advance on Freud with his notion of repressive de-sublimation in his, “One-Dimensional Man,” which is masterpiece hardly anyone has read, or if they have, didn’t or don’t get. Next came “Eros and Civilization,” wherein Marcuse presents a picture of what human freedom might look like sans frame.

Hedges last words are central and should not be dismissed as inexplicable pathology. Pathology IS explicable, well known. Marcuse was most brilliant thinker of the 20th Century. As a result, he’s dismissed. (Which is what happens when a person gets to the point.) Including by so-called “New” Left, which got it all from him. Don’t by now look to old New Left for mention of Herbert Marcuse. Old New Left has become hopelessly old New Left behind, what with having gotten bogged down long ago in mire that is identity politics.

Pathology is social construct, a la Marx and of course Engels. And Freud and those guys and gals we’ve all forgotten in rush to Post-Modernism, which is excuse for bad behavior. “Take [le difference], please.” (H. Youngman) Give me collective interest.

Courtiers are laborers well compensated: water carriers, mixers, loaders and framers. Whoops, did you write, “framers,” CJ? Ah, yes I did, Prof. Lakoff, consultant to DLC headed up by erstwhile Howard Dean.  It’s about how issues are “framed.” Ah, not really. Be very afraid—of framers. (Caught Lakoff on Masters’ program going on about how good Obama is at framing. No argument from me.) Talk of framing is meta-manipulation.

Pending knowing pathology for social construct it really is, zero in the way of prospects.

Courtiers on behalf of power aren’t nobodies, to the extent they are paid big bucks to put over message with extreme affect, all the more affectively to the degree they also eagerly believe in message. Truly an asylum run by inmates, except more so, insofar as inmates are directed by power that owns asylum. They know not what they do, in the sense Marx noted man makes history without knowing he does so.

It’s damn hard to avoid Marx just here. He, along with his pard, Fred, had a serious point: No framing. No construction. No manufacturing of reality. Thanks anyway. Just consciousness, a smidgen of introspection if ya’ll please! A little here, a little there, maybe finally to add up to recognizing that Reagans, Bushes, Clintons, Obamas and McCains in collusion with corporate bosses are also laborers who know not at what they labor, and so therefore were and remain all the more dangerously hell-bent on occupying—Oval Office, and everywhere else, most especially hearts and minds, possessors of which have no choice but to learn of fact that pathology is social construct so as to refuse, resist. Contra “courtiers,” who so willingly to do dirty work when knowledge is just right about…there. Right there. Pending discovery, they are not excused, what with being so damn smart, doncha know.

R.I.P. George Carlin, who got it and who did his best to deconstruct scene—not a la Derrida and ilk, but seriously folks. Great man, like Chris Hedges.

(Obama more conservative than Supreme Court? Ouch.)

Felicity,

You are so right, that I had to grin (albeit wryly) at this:

• “…It’s the reason why many of us keep saying to ourselves or nobody in particular, “But that’s not what he said.”…

Yep…that’s what I keep doing/saying, and generally to ‘nobody in particular’ since it doesn’t seem to sink in anyway. I should probably know better by now.

But, from time to time, I still do it. I utter…”But, but, but..that’s not what he said.” And then there’s either silence, (or a change in subject) or occasionally someone will goof and let it be known that they really don’t have a CLUE to what he actually said. Or, better yet, that it isn’t IMPORTANT what he actually said. What he actually says has no importance other than how it can be spun.

That’s why it’s always so exciting to meet others who are still ‘around’ and in the same century, and still speak the same language. (In other words, those who haven’t fallen into the rabbit hole). Sometimes I feel like I’m living in one of Stephen King’s old novels. I can’t remember the name of the one that is most appropriate to this phenomenon. It’ll come to me eventually. Then again, maybe not.

Anyway, glad there are still some of us left.

Re By Sodium, June 25 at 8:26 pm

I have often found Hedges quite inspiring too. But supporting Nader for President is an exercise in sheer futility. If he wanted to, Nader could perform worthwhile work as a consumer advocate within the Obama administration, as he used to do before he got this bug of running for President. At this point he is just sitting off in a phone booth with Hedges and some other purists voting for themselves. This isn’t how politics works.

Re By Leefeller, June 25 at 4:36 pm #

Tony Witcher,

Sounds like Nader is trying to attract the KKK vote. Very bigoted he should ask Ferriao(spelling) to join his campaign.
---------------------------------------------------
It’s odd, but when Nader says that “the only difference between Obama and any other candidate is that he is 50% black”, he does sound racist. It’s like, is that all he can see, his skin color? But he sounds more like a black racist than a white one. His problem is that Obama avoids identity politics of the Rev. Wright “I’m black and I’m proud” variety. Personally, I have always been willing to tolerate such as an understandable reaction to racism, but I am glad Obama has gotten away from it. Obama’s approach to race is the right one from the progressive standpoint. Of course, I would say the same of any other kind of identity politics.

Oh alright fine (sheesh)
Here:
http://www.votenader.org/issues/impeachment/
want more? Hit the issues button.
See, not too many have stood up for impeachment as of yet.
Ralph has.
Racist?? Go ahead, play the R card. ALL of the candidates have made RE-Re comments that have been either spun as or actually have been blatantly racist.
Sure, what he said was dumb. Who cares, get over it.
You will find that there are other things to devote your energies towards, not some Nader soundbite that yes, is an obvious and kinda lame attempt at garnering attention.
But he wants to actually hunt down these Neocons, and THAT is a-okay in my book.
Wathcha got then, huh??
Impeachment dialogue will make sweet Barry unelectable?
He’s simply doing what he’s GOT to do??
Oh, gimmie a break.

Leefeller

“Sounds like Nader is trying to attract the KKK vote.”

Tell me you didn’t actually think before you keyed these words in. Explain the process you went through as you approached this notion. Please.

Tony Wincher on Nader:

• “..Today he said that Obama is popular among whites because he is an “African-American” who does not threaten the white power structure. How many people are there that such a statement wouldn’t piss off?..”

My answer, NOT MANY! (that this would NOT piss off!)

I agree with you here as well…

• “..The fact is that I in common with a lot of other progressives of every color posting here worry not that Obama will threaten the power structure but that he will not threaten the power structure…”

Bingo! That is the larger concern. That Obama might not threaten the power structure enough. I’m personally giving him some patience on this part of it, (threatening the power structure), ONLY because I know that threatening or applying *pressure* to ANYTHING, has to be accomplished very carefully. Otherwise, the entire thing is destroyed in the process.

And that leads me to my own standard question about the Naderites. Is that their only purpose? To simply destroy the current system? In all of the posturing, I don’t hear or read any alternatives. All it is, (and all it’s ever been) is a platform based on what is wrong with everything or everyone else, but never includes any concrete alternatives, or anything with any substance. It’s all just rhetoric. At least that’s all I get from these comments from his supporters, including the ‘salient points’ that moineau and jersey girl posted. So, is there more? I’ve never checked into a Nader campaign website, figuring that since this is his 5th time running for the office, I probably already knew what his positions were. (or weren’t). But, maybe I should check it out. Maybe something has changed. I mean, after this many times, it would seem like he (or any candidate) would figure out that one can’t run a campaign platform based ENTIRELY on what is wrong with the other candidates, and actually expect to win. Gotta take it a tad bit further, and actually come up with something of substance to counter whatever it is that one is claiming to be ‘wrong’ with the other candidates. I haven’t seen Nader or any of his supporters come up with anything close. But, just for the hell of it, I’ll see if I can do their work for them. Maybe there is something out there that I’ve missed.

Tony Witcher,

Sounds like Nader is trying to attract the KKK vote. Very bigoted he should ask Ferriao(spelling) to join his campaign.

Re Jim, June 25 at 11:17 am #

I’m with you about 9-11. At this distance in time from the event, it is glaringly obvious that 9-11 was engineered. Anyone with eyes can see those buildings came down in a controlled demolition. Anyone with a brain can undersand that it was done as a pretext for a full-scale military invasion of the Middle East. There will be democracy in name only in this country unless this truth becomes public. The 9-11 Commission was a coverup. No investigation that took place under the auspicies of the criminal Bush administration can possibly be trusted to have any validity. We shall know how to judge the Obama administration by whether it supports or blocks another investigation into 9-11, or supports or blocks other investigations that can lead to the punishment of Bush administration members for war crimes.

I think Nader is getting more and more cranky and mean-spirited. Today he said that Obama is popular among whites because he is an “African-American” who does not threaten the white power structure. How many people are there that such a statement wouldn’t piss off? I’m a white liberal myself who has been devoted to civil rights issues since the sixties, and I sure do regard the election of an African-American as a great token of social progress against racism against which I have always fought. I am however grossly insulted by the suggestion that I only like Obama because he does not “threaten the white power structure”. The fact is that I in common with a lot of other progressives of every color posting here worry not that Obama will threaten the power structure but that he will not threaten the power structure. What does Nader think we are, a bunch of closet white supremacists?

Dave in Northridge, please don’t scapegoat us Nader Voters. Incidentally I am in Northridge too… And I am in full support of equal rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

I am so proud that my first instance of voting, once I became of age in 2000, was to give a long lean middle finger to each of our present ruling parties.
Yes, I am for Nader.
Subsequently I found such a startlingly wide-held view all around me, that I basically flushed my vote down the toilet and handed the presidency over to Bush. If anyone handed that presidency to Bush I say it was Gore, the media, and the Supreme Court. Not Nader. This is no longer a democracy I feel. 

To insist that this Duopoly should continue in it’s present state roils my blood. Unfortunately my girlfriend, and so many others it seems, currently agree with you, that Nader ruined, “spoiled” everything. I am rather angered at this narrow-minded view set....
I will likely vote for Nader again later this year.

I have done my best to get Obama nominated. At this Now my feeling is that he will not have much trouble getting elected. This is winning time, and he is pulling out all the stops, doing and saying whatever it takes to win. I can forgive him for all this, given that the only real alternative is McCain. The question is what will he do as President. I am hoping for the best, but I’m also feeling highly sceptical. To quote the late, great George Carlin,

“Fuck ‘m! I don’t vote. Two reasons: First of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and payed for a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every four years? (mimics masturbation) Doesn’t mean a fucking thing. And secondly I don’t vote because I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around, I know. “If you don’t vote you have no right to complain”, but where’s the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, they get into office and screw everything up, well, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem, you voted them in. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote? Who, in fact, did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you people created and that I have nothing to do with. I know that later on this year you’re gonna have another one of those really swell elections that you like so much. You enjoy yourselves, it’ll be a lot of fun, and I’m sure as soon as the election is over your country will improve immediately.

CYRENA - I see you’ve picked up on the plethora of ‘straw-men’ dotting our political landscape these days.  Interpret an opponent’s stand on a particular issue; knock down your interpretation and voila you’ve successfully, or so you hope, ‘knocked down’ your opponent’s stand.

It’s the reason why many of us keep saying to ourselves or nobody in particular, “But that’s not what he said.” Unfortunately, too many of us are still unable to spot the difference between a ‘man’ and a ‘straw-man.’

Chris,
I want to forward this article to many others - but there is so much embedded (and justified) ANGER I know they will dismiss your insight

Thank ‘god’ for Chris Hedges, one of the few still able to think.

In a just society, we would spend days mourning the loss of Cyd Charisse, a dancer of stunning ability and grace. The death of Tim Russert, a ho-hum, establishment cheerleader, would warrant a line or two in section B.

In a just society, George Carlin would have been the one asking tough, irreverent, even foul-mouthed questions of Dick Cheney in his run-up to a ginned-up war. Tim Russert would have lived out his life as a third-string radio reporter on the city council beat in Buffalo, NY.

In a just society, Carlin would have been mourned for his great and world-saving role in preventing a pointless and stupid war. Russert would have been fired for failing to ask obvious questions that any high school journalism student would have had the guts to ask.

philip rappa,

A just testimonial to George Carlen well done.

Sorry,
That’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIECyzf4YM&feature =related

Obama is not going to change a thing.  “As a courtier, he’s one of the best.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktIECy2f4YM&feature =related

Hey People...Reality Check Time.

Reality: Our nation’s current policies are NOT strongly influenced by Truthdig.com or its bloggers.

Frankly, we can bandy back and forth until the cows come home about what Paine or Jefferson or Stalin or Olbermann would or should do. But nothing will change....nothing.

How often have you watched “news coverage” of the oil crisis, followed soon after by a Chevron or Exxon/Mobil commercial?

How often have you seen a “news item” on a potential “breakthrough” cancer treatment...followed by a pharmaceutical advertizement?

How often have you seen a controversial “news piece” on our nation’s health care issues....sponsored, in part, by Kaiser Permanente or Blue Shield or Healthnet?

How can we expect the electorate of our democracy to receive the information they need to make informed decisions when that very information they need is subject to corporate pressure or censorship?

BBC and simlilar news outlets are not perfect but they’re a whole lot better than the pap that passes as news from our Corporate Media. (Just look at any survey which compares Americans’ knowledge of world events compared to other industrialized nations.)

Until very recently, a majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was largely responsible for orchestrating 9/11. That Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rove would have you believe there was a connection is not their fault; they were hell bent to draw that connection. That most Americans swallowed the lie is purely the fault of the Corporate Media.

Sure, there are other factors in play: complacency, selfishness, our insatiable need for entertainment, our declining economy, our always-desperate-for-money schools. But until we find a better system of delivering news to our electorate, it’ll just be more of the same: clueless Americans bumbling along with knee-jerk reactions to sensationalized pap.

• “…Censorship is an important characteristic of a totalitarian state.  It appears in many guises, is seldom as overt as practised by Hitler, yet may be more dangerous when covert - which seems to be where America has been drifting of late…”
Felicity,

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. I think that because the ‘thought censorship’ is so covert, is what makes it so dangerous. Add the ‘thought police’ state to the ministry of propaganda, (the media) and we’re in deep doo-doo.

A large part of the ‘thought policing’ is practiced by way of framing the ‘intent’ of someone’s thoughts/words/actions, or otherwise interpreting something/anything to be different than what it actually is. It really doesn’t get much more dangerous than that in my view. It creates and maintains social chaos, because there are no standards/rules for understanding anything. Nobody knows what’s going on from one minute to the next, or who is actually ‘in charge’.