As the aspiring leader of our nation, it would seem to me that Mr. Obama should embody those values of hope and change that he so easily espouses. There will be no change if the language and the frames of this comedian (or Randi Rhodes, or whomever) diminishes the personhood or respect for another. It might be ok to tolerate such blather when one is out for the evening to kick back and enjoy being part of "the family". But to not at least push back or apologize for this language when used as the means to raise money for his campaign at a function HE ATTENDED tells me a whole lot more about his character (or should I say lack thereof) than all the speeches and rallies Axelrod can muster.
The more people that see this side of this "presumptive" candidate, the better. Thanks catfish!!
Then what happens after the banners come down and the real work of governing must be undertaken? Why should we elect a leader whose only consistent principle appears to be winning at any cost - no matter what principles and values are compromised?
I certainly spent some months furious with the Clintons for distorting Barack's message (e.g., trying to convince voters that Barack was infatuated with Republican values after he waxed philosophically about Ronald Reagan's "party of new ideas").
First, I beg to differ that it was the Clintons themselves that rode that horse. Second, I must chuckle at the world view that believes that Barack gave any thought to what he would say about Ronald Reagan until 2 seconds before he spoke. That would certainly be counter to the numerous other times he has misspoken without the teleprompter to guide him.
All I expected all along was a fair race about issues and ideas.
This wonderful ideal of yours ended early and hard. By summer 2007, Obama was already making ad hominem attacks on his opponents (esp. Sen Clinton) - you remember -- "she'll do or say anything to get elected". You must have drunk some of the early batches of the Kool-Aid - your candidate is neither thoughtful nor wise. Wake up and smell the coffee!
I really wish I understood EXACTLY what you mean by "progressive" - or is it like pornography, we're supposed to know it when we see it?
Could you perhaps list five behaviors of a "progressive" that would help me understand exactly what sort of progressives you are calling upon?
there is a well-known story in the annals of modern medical history (last 150 years) about a hospital in which patients kept dying of mysterious infections in spite of all known efforts to treat the disease - the culprits in the end were the medical doctors themselves, who brought the infections onto the ward with them - they could not see that perhaps they were the cause of the problem --
I see a similar situation here - we have made a lot of progress (though we are not perfect) on implicit racism -- but because these worlds continue to be male-dominated (and women on the inside co-opt the language in order to "get along"), the perpetrators of the deeds don't even see that they are the problem. Tina Fey got it "bitch is the new black".
Every time you pull the "she voted for the war" thing out of your hat, you tip yourself off as having bought the Obama camp's arguments hook line and sinker without so much as a critical thought given to the complexities underlying the decision at the time. I would say that if you think about the war issue in such simplistic terms, then you might also be challenged to see the nuances and subconscious biases in your thinking about this matter as well. I hope you will have the chance to become a more critical thinker as this campaign year moves on.
Child, child, please use your electronic device to read some world history please. Better yet - go find a good copy of the Old Testament and read about the delightful treatment that entire tribes suffered at the hands of the victors. How about the Crusades? How about a little history of Asian cultures? All of these can easily be called Holocausts. Don't kid yourself.
Bottom Line: the internet is a powerful tool. In the hands of those who use it as a means to try to understand those who differ from us it facilitates the "flatness" of the world. In the hands of destructive people, it will accelerate destruction. Which group will you be part of?
One problem with sole reliance on electronic communication appears in your very words - "thing" vs. "person".
"Things" are objects - just like enemy targets in the sights of our "smart bombs". The person behind the "thing" is totally dehumanized - as if they were devoid of feelings. Sadly, history tells us that humans do not behave well towards those they dehumanize or depersonalize. Pick a holocaust, any holocaust (Armenia, Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda...) and trace its roots back to the development of the language used by those in power towards those not.
You think you're smart and you think you are above this - go find a war veteran and ask him/her if they ever confronted their "enemy" face to face.
Be careful -- you are on a slippery slope.
My allegiance is to the values and principles of the Democratic Party (unless the Party Constitution gets completely rewritten this summer). In the meantime, Barack Obama has not yet made the case to me that he can govern (and winning a campaign is not proof). He might get my vote, but he will not get my support. Hillary earned my respect, my support, and my vote by actually living and gaining the sort of know-how and experience that it will take to truly lead our nation. There is a difference between loyalty to a person because of shared values,principles and beliefs and loyalty because of the hope for money or power or some nebulous notion of change.
but I will probably vote for a Democratic executive and put my energies into supporting Hillary's work on the issues she cares about -
I do not want to be associated with this individual as I consider him to be as more of a fake than either Reagan or George Bush.
If he gets a good chief of staff and puts a decent cabinet in place, at least we can move our country away from the mess it is in right now.
I remain very concerned about the tactics he will use and how he will use the power that he ends up being given to him by his party.
Alegre - Your commitment to getting the truth out in the open is what I will remember of this Winter-Spring 2008 experience that I won't call a nominating campaign because it had been hard-wired by the DNC at least since late in the fall. You wrote well, you backed up your comments with "proof" and citations of actual fact, and most importantly you shared your own thoughts on the situation (unlike the numerous posters here who get all their reality from mybarackobama.com. You stirred a lot of people up because they had a hard time refuting your statements of fact - thus it is with prophets in our time. I hope you keep writing, though I wish you a saner forum than this going forward.
I think that there are other ways that she can use her influence and power behind the scenes for now. The media treatment of her is just toxic and would not be helpful - let alone the integrity arguments expressed above.
She wasn't born yesterday - I think we will see what true leadership and commitment to principles beyond herself really look like now.
Linfar - you speak for thousands and thousands of us who feel like we have been betrayed and dismissed and left behind. The ability to raise money does not translate into the ability to govern.
Perhaps the solution is to elect Obama president but ensure that the Congress falls into Republican hands as a means to balance his too far left-leaning propensity. Great contribution to the conversation.