Aside from the emptiness of waging a campaign on the cult of personality, the current Obama strategy is fraught with danger.
First, the media giveth and the media taketh away.
The see-saw (darling of the media one day and the target of media slash and burn the next, hasn't begun to play out with Obama.
His best insurance isn't running as a personality, but rather on the strength of his positions. And, in recent months it seems like Obama is focusing less, not more, on the issues.
Second, it is also dangerous for Dems to assume that ideas will get more fleshed out (to our liking, presumably) later. It is not going to get any better than this (for Dems). It only goes donwhill with more and more appeals to Independents and Republicans. This is OUR primary. And if Obama is already marketing to Is and Rs then he never will market to Dems. We are cooked. You can stick a fork in us. Where issues are concerned we are dead meat. And this is from our side of the aisle.
I like the guy. But I am really afraid that, where positions that matter to us are concerned, we are really being had here.
It's a sign of what we've come to that an honest discussion about some real Obama missteps and policy shortcomings cannot be discussed openly. The Hillary and Obama forces who try to hatchet anyone not drinking their Kool Aid are the ones hurting whether we "all get along."
Obama almost had my support With the exception of a very brief consideration of Edwards last summer, I have mostly leaned Obama. But I am really tired of the emptiness of Obama's support for Democratic principles. Is anyone not questioning why the very conservative Andrew Sullivan likes him? Just as Murdoch supporting Hillary sends up a flag, so too does the Sullivan piece. But most of all, we have to support the one we most think will steer the country in the direction we think best. That's why we vote for God's sake. It's our vote. And our justification is as worthy as any the Obama or Hillary ninjas set forth.
So, if you want to know if we can't just get along, look in the mirror. It's gotten testy here precisely because of the Hillary and Obama folks who unload at the least provocation. Edwards deserves his passionate bloggers just as much as the other candidates. And he's got a few here. This is supposed to be a problem?
And though I haven't written a pro-Edwards piece yet, doesn't mean I won't. And the ninjas will just have to get over it.
Yes, the Jenna Bush footage was creepy. She kept saying her dad was going to "kill" her. Very weird for an adult daughter. When she said it once, I thought, it's just an expression. But she said it about five times.
I appreciate your posting the photo, though it makes me cringe. The truth is I have never forgotten that moment on Oprah. Despite her assertion that she historically stayed out of partisan politics, Oprah has indeed meddled with an uneven hand in national politics. The results have been disastrous for our side of the aisle. It is her right, of course, to say or do what she wishes. But claiming to be nonpartisan wasn't exactly true.
1) In the late 1990s, she led the nation in a prayer and chest beating over the freshly dumped (onto the internet) Starr report. Millions of viewers instantly turned on Clinton before the complete facts were even known. I found it ironic that she tried to become a national arbiter for the marriage of BC. (Note: I am not a Hillary supporter.)
2) As the photo indicates, there was the lopsided handling of the Gore/ Bush visits. It was clear whom she favored (not Gore). I saw the show and thought at the time, "there goes the election."
3) She hosted Judith Miller and her manipulative propaganda. Miller's propaganda tome, Germs, was designed to scare people into surrendering their rights. Miller's writings drummed up fear of terrorism, including WMD (that weren't there), and facilitated support for the Bush wars. She tried to make Americans believe there was germ warfare ready to take out a neighborhood near each, or any, of us. Her sources included those deep inside the Bush administration, and dubious "sources" proffered up by the Office of Special Plans, and Iraq war architect, Richard Pearle. (Richard Pearle is a friend of Judith's). See the new Craig Unger book, The Fall of the House of Bush for more on this. The Miller visit was likely good for millions of viewers being willing to hand over their rights because of the "war on terror." Ironically, by her writings, Miller was terrorizing Americans.
4)Oprah also tried to play non-partisan in the presidential election of 2004. She hosted Condi Rice who spun her false tales of WMD. Oprah was a-ga-ga.
5)And then Oprah did the really unforgivable. A new California resident, she aided and abetted the coup d'etat of California Governor Gray Davis. Just days before the recall election Oprah had "her good friend" Maria Shriever and Arnold on the show to treat viewers to an hour long feast of how "great a guy" (and supposedly hubby) Arnold was/is. It was a real love fest. Good for millions of votes. And Gray Davis went down to a recall for doing nothing wrong. It's no secret that Enron and other comapnies exploited the newly regulated Calif back then. Records show that Arnold was actually present at one or more meetings with Ken Lay (Enron CEO)and other energy companies. This was BEFORE the contrived/manipulated "energy crisis" that was designed to exploit rate payers of Calif and lead to the recall of Davis. So, Arnold was involved in some way the sordid mess. And then he tried to ride "to the rescue" of Californians. It was really a corporate/Republican take down of Gray Davis and a DeLay takeover of another Blue state. Davis's worst "crime" was that he wasn't "likable."
Some added motives for the take down of Davis go much deeper. In order to get Republican voter purge systems in place, the Bush machine needed a GOP gov. A little over a year ago, following a huge Democratic voter registration drive, such a system purged half of all new voters who had registered that in Calif. It seems if the system has errors in the data base and the registrant's name doesn't line up perfectly (even if the data base is wrong), the voter gets purged. Also many were purged because of input errors. (Refer to Greg Palast's book, Armed Madhouse, revised paperback edition, for more on this).
I must add that Oprah does incredible of good. Along with her other good works, her Katrina Project through her angel network is inspired. Oprah's charities take no overhead. She hels literally thousands. She pays for hundreds to attend college and other schools. But that's a story in itself.
It is when she mingles politics with entertainment that things get murkier. Let me also say that while I do not support Obama, I did at first. However, I have had it with his ageist, intergenerational warfare against boomers. As Ellen Goodman noted this week. The reason there are still 60s related conflicts is that the ISSUES haven't been resolved. Pretending they have won't fix the many problems made worse by this administration.
I am also tired of his embracing GOP talking points about domestic issues, such as health care, social security and other matters.
But, where Oprah is concerned, I do think she has a right to support someone. I don't mind that she is working for someone other than my choice. At least it's for a Dem, for a change. But, Jerome, I share your belief that she was one of the factors in getting GWB selected.
How do you know Oprah doesn't vote in Calif. She had more than a passing interest in getting her friend Maria Shreiver's hubby elected gov (you know, Arnold), that maybe she now votes in Calif. where she has a palatial Montecito (near Santa Barbara) home.
But though I am not supporting Obama, I say all the more power to her.
BTW, here's a somewhat strange find on the subject of the seafood article. Has anyone seen the story over at DU (Democratic Underground) showing that apparently, Mark's Penn's PR firm is involved with the group which fronted this "research"?
You'll recall that Mark Penn is the PR person Hillary Clinton has employed for her presidential run.
This is a 21st Century Tale of unbelievable legislative meddling in women's lives.
In Virginiia this past session, the House of Delegates voted 75 to 25 (that's right 75 yes to 25 no--3/4 of our House have lost it) to make "causing" a woman's own miscarriage a felony, punishable by five years in prison. Women in Virginia were only saved from these crazies by the state Senate. "Cause" was very general and vague, but indicated anything at all which led to miscarriage. This included drugs or other means. With such a vague definition, women who had a medical miscarriage (the medical establishment has long erroneously and politically labeled such a "spontaneous abortion"), were rendered crime suspects.
Aside from the dubious effort to back-handedly criminalize abortion, the radical-wrong legislature label women criminals for any lost pregnancy. With one out of five pregnancies ending in abortion and with a large proportion of women who lose at least one pregnancy, there is a huge potential for rounding up women ala "The Handmaid's Tale." But I am not making this up.
The effort to control women, their bodies, their private actions, their eating habits, exercise, work and more is a real step backwards.
Ann Coulter recently quipped that women should be denied the vote because then Dems would never win again. This attempted action by the Virginia legislature was so much more efficient (sarcasm) because it not only rendered women felons (who can no longer vote), but locked them away in our run-away prison-industrial complex, which supports so many Republicans with its donations.
Note also that a couple years ago, a former DFA blogger, Maura Kerney (who's now at MyLeftNutmeg) took on the Del Cosgrove on Nighline. It seems that Cosgrove wanted to make anyone who miscarried have to file a police report within 12 hours. Blogger routed Cosgrove, who pitifully whined about the unwanted attention his radical effort had wrought.