by tokin librul, Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:45:24 AM EST
Not enough of a mandate, anyway.
Yes, the margin is greater than that enjoyed by any Democrat since LBJ's 18-point margin in '64. But, to actually achieve the REAL "change" he ran on (in the unlikely event that such "change" was EVER on the agenda of the resurgent Dims; I'll give Obama himself a temporary 'benefit of the doubt'), would have required a margin of Johnsonian/Rooseveltian proportions. FDR garnered a 16-point spread in '32, 28 points in '36. It was this wide, deep, overwhelming popular support that enabled FDR to extract such concessions as he did (which, in the end, weren't very much, really) from the plutocrats and oligarchs who were even then bent of reducing any pretensions of USer 'democracy' to an historical footnote, and who have labored tirelessly--and VERY effectively ever since--to reverse, or incapacitate, or eviscerate all the popular the programs FDR set in place, albeit they diminished the power of the elites only even ever so marginally. LBJ's 18-point margin made it possible for him even to CONSIDER the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, which would have been even politically untenable with less of a popular mandate.
Obama faces problems even more pressing than those LBJ confronted, and almost as severe as those FDR had to face. And he doesn't have enough of a mandate to fix them.
............More Mist On The Jump...............
by tokin librul, Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:41:15 AM EST
Barack Obama's won the Presidency, but he faces an enormous and terrible array of problems left behind after 8 years of Bushevik environmental malevolence, and a minimum callous indifference toward the problems of ordinary people. The economy is in tatters, unemployment is sky-rocketing, and deep recession looms.
Pres. Obama's going to have to develop and implement progressive, environmentally proactive (non-militaristic, Keynsian) ways spend our way out of these looming social catastrophes. One obvious way is to put federal resources into the so-called "green economy": developing, building, installing, and maintaining the technologies that make individual citizens contributors to the national energy grid, not just consumers., and reduce wasteful, useless energy consumption. He needs to get people into his administration who have new and imaginative solutions. Van Jones impresses me as one of those people.
Learn more about him on the jump
by tokin librul, Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:00:48 AM EDT
Compare Obama's `plan
with Ralph Nader's.
Now ask yourselves why one --Nader's -- is chock-full of specific remedies, which allocate the blame and responsibility where it belongs, and assures at least a little accountability, while the other -our Great Mocha Hope's-is overflowing with rhetorical flourishes and boiler-plate generalities?
by tokin librul, Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:59:53 AM EDT
This story's on a bunch of National blogs this morning. It's the most notoriety poor, old "too far from Heaven, too close to Texas" New Mexico's gotten from the chattering class since the David Iglesias/Pajama Pete imbroglio in 2006.
However, there's no evidence that the local fish-wrap, The Albuquerque Urinal, had anything about this story. Nor did ANY of the Local Bleeding Leders have any film on the nightly broadcasts. I cannot understand why not, can you?
Albuquerque, NM- (Yesterday), the Democratic Party of New Mexico were joined by Patsy Trujillo, the Deputy Secretary of Aging and Long Term Care as well as Victor Raigoza, State Senate District 10 Candidate to attempt to sing Happy 73rd Birthday to Social Security outside the McCain headquarters office, only to have the birthday cake thrown in the trash by the campaign.
While McCain supporters screamed, "Obama sleeps with a Teddy Bear and a night light," staffers approached the Democratic group, yelling, took the 20 inch sheet cake that said "Happy Birthday Social Security" and threw it away.
"The McCain campaign is so out of touch instead of taking the cake to a homeless shelter or giving it volunteers, they just threw it in the garbage," said Conchita Cruz, Press Secretary for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. "What a perfect metaphor for why we can't trust John McCain with our social security, the campaign was literally throwing money in the trash."
I don't watch the local chuckleheads much. I did not hear about this BEFOREhand. I HOPE somebody had the foresight to have a camera to get video of the Pukes trashing the Social Security cake. YouTube? Virus? Yes, puh-leaase!!!
I was not surprised, of course, that there should be no attention paid. The local media are ALL 'CorpoRat SCUM," owned and directed from power-bases in distant cities. One must NEVER forget: In the Corporate State, corporate media--even local outlets--are the official State Media...
by tokin librul, Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EDT
My pop taught me to fence, and that was his advice. Obama missed his chance, as Sadly,No! noticed:
I don't really like to play the "just-imagine-the- wingnut-outrage" game, but this is, I think, a perfect opportunity to do it. John McCain went on the attack and said this about Obama:
I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.This loathsome little effort at reading Obama's mind, of course, elicited a round of huzzahs from the usual suspects, including the pretend
pirates pirate at Pirate's Cove.
But suppose that Obama had said this:
I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than spill more American blood. It seems to me that Senator McCain would rather spill more American blood in order to win a political campaign.
They'd still be scraping pieces of John Hinderaker's skull from the ceiling in his office
I'd loan 'em my wallboard knives. Hell, if Obama--or any-fuuking-body-- had the guts to say anything LIKE that, I'd go door to door for 'em.
by tokin librul, Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:41:36 PM EDT
An "Inside" Joke -- A non-political disquisition
Discussions throughout the netroots have focussed on the New Yorker "Obama" magazine cover. The discussions reminded me of something I decided upon many, many years ago on the nature of "jokes."
People experience "jokes" from one of two perspectives: 1) inside and 2) outside. An "inside" joke is almost a redundancy: from the outside, it is not--it cannot be--a 'joke.'
This realization once led me to the following conclusion: There IS no such thing as an "outside" joke. To be one, a joke and its interpreters MUST be "inside," in a kind of hermeneutic relationship of mutually interpretable discursive practices. The "humor" of the joke--its 'Joke-ness'-- depends on a person's location in relation to the discourse in which the joke itself is constructed. That's what makes 'humor' so unpredictable. Look at Adam Sandler, fer chrissakes? Does ANYONE think Adam Sandler is funny? Really?
With regard to the problematic cover in question, I'd say this: In order to think the cartoon was not funny, on some level you'd have to believe the 'truths' implied in the half-truths which comprise the substance of the images, wouncha?
Therefore, it's probably funny if you do not take seriously the 'veiled' accusations, don't think Obama's any of those things; it's probably NOT 'funny' if you do...
BTW: I would have been very glad to have had Angela Davis in the White House in ANY capacity.
by tokin librul, Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:49:39 AM EDT
I thought I was a cynic, but Rik Hertzberger, of The New Yorker is surely top dog, (so to speak). He recently made a (seemingly) serious case that McStain's best interests as Presidential candidate would be best served by the addition to the ticket of the least competent female public servant EVER--who escapes the label of "Least Competent Public Servant Of All Time Regardless of Gender" only by virtue of serving in the same regime with Alberto Gonzales and Douglas Feith .
(Update: The more one thinks objectively about this pairing, the 'better' (for the GOPs) it looks. It could really be a smart move for the Pukes. Because it would trump the candidacies of BOTH HRC and BHO, without having the awkwardness (and distraction) of having EITHER a black or a woman at the top of the ticket. But at the same time, it preserves the novelty factor of having BOTH a black and a woman on the ticket. Sheer fuuking GENIUS!)`
Update #2: The More I Think About This, The More Genius It Seems:
The biggest advantage of it is that it preserves the novelty of the Dims choices--which, when you think about it, is just about ALL they have--without the danger of any of there actually being any significant power shift. They preserve the most of the symbolism of the Dim ticket, without actually having to share power with despised, marginalized people--by keeping a White Male on top--where obviously God intended us to be. Condi could be counted upon for discretion, silence, and decorum; plus, it would give her at a minimum, four more years to get something--any-fucking-thing--RIGHT!
Win-win, all the GOP way...
(Note: After posting this, I found Nick Van Hoffman had speculated on this (mis) match-up, last month on Alternet.)
by tokin librul, Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
The other to the Veep chair...How can it NOT be Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton?
I gotta think that, either way, it's a tough sell in "Mid-Dull Murka."
by tokin librul, Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:50:04 AM EST
He proved you could reverse evolution...
Turned a whole country into
(wait for it)
by tokin librul, Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
As I have been saying, annoyingly to some, for close to three years, candidate Barack Obama has worked tirelessly to perfect the art of triangulation which, ironically, was so successfully introduced and extensively practiced by the spouse of his current arch-rival, Hillary Clinton.
Who says irony's dead?
Voting "present" on potentially contentious legislation is, to me, a kind of triangulation. Obama's penchant for being "present" on crucial votes is one thing that causes me pause in selecting him as my nominee.
Well, that, and his evident contempt for the accomplishments of people in my age cohort--it's not a generation, per se; too few years, only about 15, 1945-'60--on many of whose shoulders (and bodies) he now stands to heap his scornful and dismissive rhetoric. The movements: anti-war, environmental, womens' rights, gay rights, civil rights, conservationist. Excesses, he calls them. Causes he's not 'tied to?"
Excessive? Consume excrement and expire, my pandering 'friend'...