Diatribune - Obama, Barack - Comments

I take your point about MLK,

epppie — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:23:00 -0600

I take your point about MLK, but I do think he showed a lot more a lot earlier than Obama, and on top of that, I think Obama is 'evolving' in the WRONG direction. Of course, if we held every candidate to the MLK standard, we couldn't elect anybody, right?!
But the reason that it's fair to hold Obama to that standard, in my opinion, is that oratory is his claim to fame. And I just don't think he's got the chops. But, of course, it's a judgement that has a lot of subjectivity to it. On the other hand, I think it's quite possible to go through Obama's speeches and virtually diagram the oratorical techniques he uses, none of which (in my opinion) rise above pedestrian.

Honestly, I think the Paris Hilton comparison is valid. What has she got? A different look, right? A sort of Twiggy meets 90210 thing. In today's celebrity-driven world, that's often all that's needed to vault to the forefront. Do you remember the band Fine Young Cannibals? Do you remember their lead singer, who was of mixed race? There was a Rolling Stone cover with a picture of him and a headline stating that he represented the future - no doubt a true statement. I think that's what Obama's got. A different look and sound - it's not just that he's of mixed race, but it's also the way he blends cultures (not in a very authentic way, in my opinion, but that too is a judgement with a lot of subjectivity to it). He looks and sounds like the future. And that's fine.
But to have true impact, I think he'd have to find his own voice, so to speak, and I don't think he's done that.

And that's the point about oratory, as I look at it. You speak about the 'political realities' of who can be elected and who cannot. Well, I can't deny the strength of your point there. But political realities can change, and nothing does that like truly eloquent rhetoric, it seems to me. There is no better example than Lincoln. Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln, but I don't think he's there yet. Perhaps he has Lincoln-esque potential.

Both are/were ambitious men. Both had/have a different look and sound. Lincoln - he was all frontier, in look and sound, but at the same time, he demonstrated tremendous depth of learning and originality of expression. This unexpected combination shook the nation.

The difference? As I see it, the difference is that Lincoln gave up on his ambition BEFORE he entered the most ambitous part of his career. He left politics and (apparently) only came back to hit because of his passion over the issue of slavery, and because events had brought the issue to a critical point.

If Obama does have Lincoln-esque potential, then it is so clouded by his Lincolnesque ambition that he cannot find his true voice, even though our times are surely as critical as the times Lincoln faced. My guess is that if Obama does have great potential, he'd have been better off taking a few hard defeats along the way, enough to set him back, to the point where he would have to figure out his real passion - an experience that arguably has done Gore some good.

Personally I don't think Obama has that kind of potential. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Nader - he gives me hope. I think he speaks articulately and knowledgeably about the issues and has a strong grasp on at least some of the critical choices facing us today. Several years ago, I thought he was terribly vain and egotistical, but now I think he is straighforward and humble, though sure of himself. I wish he was more eloquent, but he DOES have higher than average eloquence, I think, and considering the dissatisfaction that polls seem to show in the people with both parties, he may have a real chance this year. In most years, things are kindof settled by now. But I think this year may be different.

I appreciate the thoughtful

lyubansky — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:33:38 -0600

I appreciate the thoughtful comments, epppie. You make a number of good points, that Obama is no MLK among them. Of course, it took some time for King to grow into his status. Obama may yet do the same. I don't remember feeling that way about any other candidate. I agree that he has been gradually inching toward the Right, but I see that progression as arising out of political necessity. In the current zeitgeist, it doesn't seem like a true liberal candidate is electable. I don't see Obama ever joining the GOP, though, and I must confess that I find that blend of Black Preacher and Ivy League remarkably appealing.

I like Nader's politics, always have. If he had a legitimate chance at winning, I'd seriously considering voting for him. But he (unfortunately) does not, and this election, more than likely, is going to wind up being just as close as the last two. It would be very disappointing to me if we wind up with another Republican administration. It would be heartbreaking if that happened because a significant chunk of liberal voters decided to support a third candidate. But I also understand that real change doesn't happen on its own and admire you for following your vision.

Here's just one reason NOT

epppie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:36:02 -0600

Here's just one reason NOT to vote for Obama. Obama is dead set on starting a Cold War, or maybe a Hot War, with Russia, in my opinion. Supposedly Holbrook will be his Secretary of State. Holbrook is, in my opinion, mad to go after Russia.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080904/116558480.html

Other advisors are Russia-haters like Brzezinski. Do we want war with Russia? If we elect Obama, we can probably count on it, in my opinion. These people are, in my opinion, as divorced from reality when it comes to Russia as the neocons were about Iraq.

Well, I don't think Obama is

epppie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:04:50 -0600

Well, I don't think Obama is eloquent, to begin with. All he's got, in terms of rhetoric, in my opinion, is a gimmick: he combines a dip of Ivy League with a dab of Black Preacher. That's a bit like Martin Luther King, but with more Ivy League and less Black Preacher, and less authenticity about either of them. Martin Luther King was both a real scholar and a real preacher. He was a phenomenon. Obama is a very, very pale imitation. No eloquence. Just gimmick.

Eloquence involves real artistic sensibility, to give life to expression, and deep thought, to make it rich with meaning. As far as I can tell, Obama has little artistic sensibility and little thought. He might be able to be an ok Senator. That's as much talent as he has. The White House is an overreach for him. I don't think he can beat McCain, because I think he simply isn't gifted enough. It's not about experience, though his lack of experience does tend to point up his one truly matchless quality - heedless ambition.
Of course, all politicians are ambitious, but Obama really takes the cake.

So I don't think he's eloquent and I don't think he's talented. I also don't think he has vision. I think it's quite obvious that he crafts his positions with an eye towards appealling to whatever demographic he has his sights on at a particular time. He has played the game we've seen Dems play again and again. Pander to the progressives when you have to. Run to the political Right whenever you can. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Obama follow Lieberman's journey into the GOP. It would actually be the natural progression of his political trajectory.

If you want progress on progressive issues, vote for progressives. Obama has never been a progressive and he's less and less of one every day.

As for Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis was his fault in the first place. He started it by putting missiles in Turkey. He solved it by removing them. On civil rights, he was dragged along by the Civil Rights movement, especially by Martin Luther King, who had - I suspect - more influence and leverage than anyone in any public office had at that time. Even so, Kennedy likely wouldn't have gotten the Civil Rights Bill passed. I think JFK was nearly a complete failure as President, as was to be expected from a man who was basically a mafia guy. He WAS eloquent, though, and it may be JFK who caused there to be a perception that eloquence doesn't really matter in politics.

And I do agree with you on one thing. Eloquence DOES matter in politics. It isn't decoration. It is the HEART AND SOUL of politics - and we see so little of it, that a guy with a bit of humbug in him, Obama, sends everyone into a tizzy. Eloquence is the one thing that can break political logjams. It can not only create popular leverage for needed changes, but it can also inspire the unwilling, and it can open the hearts of even corrupt and hard hearted opponents to needed change. Nothing can change the political 'realities' like eloquence.

Gore has a touch of it. Nader has a touch. Ron Paul has a touch. Obama - no, I don't think so. But nobody today seems to have the eloquence we desperately need right now. There's no Martin Luther King in sight. And I think people want it and need it so much that they've been fooled by Obama's erzatz.

Is he preferable to McCain? Well, yes, but barely. And that's not good enough for me. I'm planning to vote for Nader. People are flat out disgusted with both major parties, and they have both put thier faults grandly on display in their conventions. The Republicans have thoroughly indulged their mean and narrow minded tendencies, while the Dems have done their usual waffling.
The time really is ripe for a third party (really a second party, in my view). Time is short, but the electorate may be volatile.

From the Newsweek article,

epppie — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:45:30 -0600

From the Newsweek article, re. Obama and Russia:

"The Russians need to be made to see that there are consequences. They isolate themselves from the world and suffer as a result—in political terms (with NATO), economic terms (the Russian stock market sank) and strategic terms (Poland rushed to complete a missile defense agreement it previously would have been reluctant to conclude). Making the rhetoric inflammatory—as opposed to showing Russia the cool realities—is not helpful."

In my opinion, this is precisely and horribly wrong. Russia didn't isolate itself. It was the Bush administration that chose to try to turn a minor incident into a major event and thus DID manage to worsen it tremendously, and it was Obama ALONG WITH McCain who jumped in on that with both feet, along with Biden. And - as the recent EU meeting showed - it may well be the US that suffers deeper isolation if this kind of aggressive anti-Russian policy is continued. And let us not forget, that the Russians cannot possibly have missed the deeply anti-Russian emphasis of Obama's horrible Berlin speech. I believe that also did much to worsen the situation and may have been a factor in convincing Saakashvilli that he would have US backing to essentially attack Russia. And yes, I did say "horrible". I simply cannot believe that American (and apparently German) progressives continue to fail to see the aggressive side of Obama's foreign policy, and especially the aggressively anti-Russian tone of that Berlin speech.

Obama is a loose cannon on foreign policy, quite the opposite to how he has been portrayed, in my opinion. Either his intentions are evil, or he is simply unacceptably ignorant. His comment about Jerusalem, for example, was a horrendous mistake, even though it did have the unintentional good side effect of forcing Rice to finally acknowledge that Israeli settlements on the West Bank and in Jerusalem were not helping the peace process (to the extent there is one). His virtual green light to an Israeli attack on Iran - how can this be ignored? It was as irresponsible as McCain's Bomb bomb Iran song was. Obama's onesided analysis of the problems between Israel and Palestine are vile and racist. Or else they are abominably ignorant and stupid. And then there's the Russia-baiting Berlin speech. Russia baiting has to be the most stupid and irresponsible behavior possible, considering that it could lead straight to a planet pulverising world war, yet Obama has been as eager to do it as McCain, and Biden has been as eager to do it as, say, Lugar.

If progressives are going to insist on voting for Obama (a big mistake, in my opinion), they should at least, in my opinion, forcefully demand a more peaceful and less reckless and more knowledgeable foreign policy from him. Excusing what at best are terrible mistakes cannot be justified, in my opinion, by the simple desire to win in November. Winning at any cost is for Vince Lombardi.
It's not what politics is about. It's exactly the wrong lesson to learn from the GOP.

I listened on the radio and

epppie — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:34:37 -0600

I listened on the radio and I thought it was one of the worst acceptance speeches I've heard. I thought it was boilerplate from beginning to end and had no force or thrust to it.

Obama does have a good speaking voice. If that were sufficient to be a good orator, he'd be a fine one.

Let me say more about that,

epppie — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:46:20 -0600

Let me say more about that, because I know that sounds harsh, and I don't actually want to sound that harsh. It's just that it's both an intellectual and a visceral thing for me. For me, Martin Luther King represents much that is best in American politics. Obama, on the other hand, represents to me much that is worst.

Of course, since King is dead, it's easy to say 'this is what King would say if he were with us today'. Yet, I think that a knowledge of King's views should make it clear that Obama's candidacy would be anathema to him. Remember, King's "dream" wasn't to have a black President. His "dream" was that each human being be judged on their character and not on the color of their skin. Is Obama being judged on the basis of his character? I don't think so. I think he's being judged on the basis of the color of his skin. I think progressives and democrats have a fetishistic belief that Obama in the white house would prove that America is no longer a racist country. But, in fact, America has never been more racist.

MLK's Stanford Two Americas speech (yeah, Edwards seems to have stolen his one and only idea from MLK) is more true today than it was when he made it. I don't need to recite the statistics on relative economic status of whites and blacks, do I? On the rates of imprisonment? On the disparities in education and opportunity? On the destruction of Welfare as a program that, however flawed, alleviated much poverty?

Obama's political hero is Reagan. MLK would have detested that. Obama has encouraged Israel to attack Iran. MLK would have spoken out against that in the strongest possible terms. Obama has blamed the Palestinians for the entirety of the conflict with Israel. MLK would have spoken out against the racism of that. Obama has stoked the fires of war with Russia. MLK would have been enraged, I feel sure, by such game-playing with potential nuclear war. Obama has consistently supported the occupation of Iraq. MLK , who spoke out so strongly against the Vietnam war, would have spoken out more strongly against the Iraq war and occupation.

On domestic policy, Obama tells us that the civil rights struggle is essentially over. MLK would have said that it has never been more essential and urgent. Obama tells us that the solution to the Nation's problems is tax cuts. I do not think MLK would have agreed with that Commandment from Reagonic Scripture. Obama tells us that the armed forces must be expanded. MLK would referenced Eisenhower and asked whether being gobbled up by the military industrial complex is the true destiny of America. Obama opposes universal, government funded health care. MLK would have considered it essential.

Obama is just one more candidate in a political process that more and more serves the one percent and the one percent only.

To me, Martin Luther King's Mountaintop speech remains on of the great and inspiring landmarks of American political history.
Obama's candidacy, by contrast, represents one of the low points of American political history, in my opinion. I think he is a man driven by ambition and by ambition only. When I look at Obama and listen to him and read his words, I see no there there. He is like Chauncy Gardner, but without the innocent charm.

And no, I don't think he's signifigantly better than McCain. The difference between him and McCain is that McCain sings about bombing Iran and Obama pointedly gives Israel the green light to bomb Iran, when even the White House, the most warmongering White House in History, hasn't gone that far.
The difference is that McCain howls that we should confront Russia and Obama says the same thing in more measured tones. The difference is that McCain would cut taxes for the rich, and so would Obama (look at his estate tax plan), while offering a token tax cut to the middle class, and a token income tax raise for the rich (who don't even get most of their income from actual work).

And I think Nader can win.

Sorry, and with respect,

epppie — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:21:44 -0600

Sorry, and with respect, but I think any linkage between Obama and MLK is obscene. That's just my opinion, but it is my opinion.

Good article re. Bilderberg.

epppie — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:53:53 -0600

Good article re. Bilderberg. It's funny how many different ways these Bilderberg guys can find to say that they are not a world government, when what they are really saying is that they are.

It's kinda like Cheney saying he's just having a frank little chat with Exxon, just pals chatting...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm

The US/EU/Nato/NWO noose

epppie — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:29:09 -0600

The US/EU/Nato/NWO noose tightens on Russia:

"
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice moved the U.S. missile defense shield agenda a step forward during her attendance at the Bilderberg meeting last week, during which she formalized plans to sign a treaty on installing a U.S. radar base in the Czech Republic with Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.U

...

Reports out of both Czech newspapers and Chinese sources confirm that Rice formalized the policy at Bilderberg."
http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/rice-formalized-missile-def...

The ban on offshore drilling

Jacob Freeze — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:37:10 -0600

The ban on offshore drilling was one of the very few victories for the environment in the last 40 years, but Barack Obama is willing to throw it under the bus because his numbers in the polls slipped a couple of points against McCain.

Why would anyone think that Obama has no principles whatsoever, except getting himself elected?

Obama voted to fund the war in Iraq again and again, he promised to filibuster the FISA bill, he bashed Clinton about NAFTA but voted for NAFTA-Peru himself, he promised to accept public campaign financing but didn't, and the Obamabots still think they can silence every criticism of the totally unprincipled con-man Barack Obama with personal insults to anyone who mentions his many flipflops.

Obama isn't an empty suit... he's a suit with a con-man in it, and a lot of people are sick of hearing that he's better than McCain, as if that excuses everything.

A pile of dog-poop may be better than McCain, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Oval Office.

It still isn't absolutely impossible that the super-delegates will refuse to nominate the sociopathic con-man Barack Obama and pick an honest Democrat with real principles like Chris Dodd. That's why super-delegates were originally included in the mix, but Obama and the Obamabots only approve of playing the system down to the last technicality when it's Obama picking up more delegates in Idaho than Clinton picked up in Ohio, or Obama eliminating all his competition in Chicago with hyper-technical challenges to their petitions.

But if the super-delegates actually played by the rules, and voted by conscience, the Obamabots and their sociopathic Messiah would scream about "pure democracy," as if Obama was promoting "pure democracy" when he excluded all the other candidates for the Illinois States Senate with hyper-technicalities.

You will probably go into

icebergslim — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:22:42 -0600

You will probably go into DEMISE if Barack Obama is elected. And what was Clinton going to do? Follow the roadmap she VOTED for. Geez, you are just a whiny so and so. Good luck though, through your continued posts you need it.

All this summary of Obama's

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:48:31 -0600

All this summary of Obama's week really amounts to is a few cute pictures and videos of the Democrats' cute but unprincipled and hypocritical candidate, along with a lot of tut-tutting about McCain's campaign advertising, but meanwhile...

Obama now supports offshore drilling for oil, and of course it isn't a flipflop, because Obama always supported offshore drilling, but none of us knew it, and...

If you don't believe me about Obama now and always supporting offshore drilling, maybe you should hear it from the totally unprincipled con-man Barack Obama himself.

So the Democrats are about to nominate a candidate who really likes NAFTA, and that wasn't really a flipflop, because he always liked NAFTA, but none of us knew it until Obama had bashed Hillary Clinton about NAFTA a hundred times until she finally dropped out of the race and then we found out that Obama has always liked NAFTA, and...

The Democrats are about to nominate a candidate who didn't really promise to filibuster the FISA bill when he was campaigning in Wisconsin with Russ Feingold, and he didn't really flipflop, because his promise was always bullshit, but none of us knew it, and...

The Democrats are about to nominate a candidate who wants to keep killing Iraqis for at least another 16 months after his "inevitable" inauguration, even though we have already killed over 1,200,000 Iraqis, but Obama never mentions that inconvenient circumstance, or any other inconvenient circumstance that would interfere with mindless admiration of the cute pictures and cute videos of the totally unprincipled con-man Barack Obama.

I can't believe you aren't

xxdr_zombiexx — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:03:53 -0600

I can't believe you aren't snark.

You're like a joke I can't quite get.

I am not "one of them", an "Obama thug", or an Obamabot, either - if you'd bother to have read my comment....

You're a free-range internet troll and tedious self-centered bore.

I just made the allusion to paid trollery to piss you off. You're a nuisance.

It's also worth noticing

Jacob Freeze — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:52:13 -0600

It's also worth noticing that Obamabots constantly celebrate their success at driving critics of Mr. Obama off the liberal blogs, and it's just another demonstration that their intention isn't so much to persuade undecideds as to silence all opposition.

Mr. Obama's recent exclusion of all American reporters from his publicity junket to Iraq and Afghanistan is part of the same pattern, and the Obama campaign tried to cover it up by claiming that there was a Senate rule against reporters travelling with Congressional delegations, but neither the campaign nor the Obamabots who parroted the party line ever provided a link to any such rule, and it doesn't exist.