What Makes Obama Attractive?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Here's Toni Morrison's letter

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

 

[BVS]

I'm watching Kennedy right now.

I just don't get it. I just don't get how all he has to do is mention the word "change" or "hope" or "inspiration" over and over and the crowd erupts. I hope this is not how we choose the next president.

Better than having a canidate that just has to mention "the war on Christmas" or "the Constitution should be more like the Bible" to get the crowd to erupt. Divide, divide, divide that's the way Reps like it.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by 2861U2
I'm watching Kennedy right now.

I just don't get it. I just don't get how all he has to do is mention the word "change" or "hope" or "inspiration" over and over and the crowd erupts. I hope this is not how we choose the next president.

the 2000 election was taken on empty slogan campaigning also.

Bush's stump speech was:

"I will restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse.

that was his main thrust

and he repeated it over and over

 

[anitram]

Yes! Until recently most people in the Democratic party were Clinton worshippers. People adore(d) him. Things are changing now.

I was talking about Hillary.

 

[phillyfan26]

I just don't get it. I just don't get how all he has to do is mention the word "change" or "hope" or "inspiration" over and over and the crowd erupts. I hope this is not how we choose the next president.

Just as I hope use of the words "God," "tradition," and "Christian values" isn't what chooses our next president.

It works both ways.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

time.com

Politics Up to the Minute by Mark Halperin|Monday, January 28, 2008

HALPERIN’S TAKE: Six Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal

While endorsements don’t usually matter much, Edward Kennedy’s does because:

1. He has a huge following with Hispanics, a big deal in California and other Super Tuesday states, and one of Obama’s weaknesses.

2. The symbolic Kennedy family thing — the ultimate message of change, viability, Democratic legitimacy, and youthful excitement.

3. The national press will be obsessed with the story for days and days to come, with no downside for Obama; the local press coverage when Kennedy travels for Obama will be ginormous.

4. It sends a message to other senators and superdelegates that it is OK to be for Obama — they don’t have to be afraid of the Clintons.

5. He has a huge following among working-class, traditional Democrats, one of Obama’s weaknesses.

6. He has a huge following among union households, another of Obama’s weaknesses.

 

[U2democrat]

I love how Obama and the Kennedys overshadowed Bush's SOTU tonight.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Just as I hope use of the words "God," "tradition," and "Christian values" isn't what chooses our next president.

It works both ways.

Actually god, tradition and christian values mean something (unlike change, hope, inspiration and all that feelgood ambiguous nonpartisan waffle).

Something bad those traditional values may be but they are something nontheless.

 

[Irvine511]

I love how Obama and the Kennedys overshadowed Bush's SOTU tonight.

Bush's what? is that guy still president?

 

[U2democrat]

I know, it surprised me too that that guy is still around you know, doing presidenting stuff...

 

[deep]

you folks can get upset with me if you want

but Obama has a "Rezko" problem


I can already see the GOP ads

"corrupt Chicago politics

is not the change we need"

Longtime patron may be a problem for Obama

Alleged slumlord and indicted businessman Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has long supported the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has returned related donations.

By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

January 23, 2008

CHICAGO — Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama's Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama's image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.

In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Among other things, he has returned $85,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions in what a staffer calls "an abundance of caution."

A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.

For example, Rezko, his employees and business associates -- such as his consultants, lawyers and their families -- have provided Obama more than $200,000 in donations since 1995, helping fuel his rapid ascent in Illinois and U.S. politics. Although Rezko is not Obama's largest bundler, he was there at the start and at critical moments along the way, helping support the candidate when few others were.

In addition to being a campaign benefactor, Rezko also surfaced when Obama and his wife purchased their house on Chicago's South Side in 2005. On the day the Obamas bought their house, Rezko's wife, Rita, bought an adjacent lot from the same sellers, part of which Obama later bought back.

Rita Rezko's purchase, at the $625,000 asking price, came just as the Obamas successfully bid in a slow market to buy the house for $300,000 below the asking price, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Obamas secured their brick Georgian Revival-style home on June 15, 2005, for $1,650,000. Later, the Chicago Tribune reported, Rezko paid $14,000 to build a fence, required by city ordinance, along the new property line.

Obama says there was nothing improper in these transactions. The housing deal came after it was known that Rezko was under scrutiny by federal authorities.

Obama has said that, in retrospect, the property deal was a "mistake" because of the appearance it created.

Today, Obama campaigns for president as a new kind of politician, less beholden to special interests than his opponents. He and his staff regularly contrast his policy of refusing to accept donations from lobbyists with Clinton's practices. His relationship with Rezko may undermine the power of that claim.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton waves away such concerns, and in response contrasts Rezko against jailed Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu.

"This has nothing on the nearly $1 million that Hillary Clinton has had to give back as a result of the Norman Hsu scandal," he said.

"I would put Sen. Obama's record of fighting for lobbying and ethics reform up against anyone in this race," Burton said.

But a government watchdog group that once lauded Obama for leadership on ethics says the Illinois senator should have known better.

"Everybody in this town knew that Tony Rezko was headed for trouble," said Jay Stewart of the Better Government Assn. in Chicago. "When he got indicted, there wasn't a single insider who was surprised. It was viewed as a long time coming. . . . Why would you be having anything to do with Tony Rezko, particularly if you're planning to run for president?"

Obama's connection to the businessman dates to his return to Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law School.

Obama worked then for the Chicago firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. At the time, Rezko was developing and investing in low-income housing. In that role, he became one of the firm's clients, a point that Clinton made during the South Carolina debate.

During the debate, Obama acknowledged doing as much as five hours of work for a church group that was joining with Rezko to develop low-income housing. Clinton accused Obama of helping Rezko and his "slum landlord business."

Judson Miner, head of the firm, said in an interview that Obama billed about five hours of time working on a Rezko- related matter.

In the mid-1990s, Miner said, Rezko was viewed as an innovative developer intent on improving housing conditions, often working for church groups on Chicago's South Side.

"He became more interested in greener pastures," Miner said. "He got indicted. He became a bum. But in the 1990s, it was a very different picture."

The "slumlord" reference is backed up in part by a 2007 Chicago Sun-Times investigation that found that Rezko's low- income housing empire was collapsing, leaving many black families living in squalid conditions, sometimes without heat.

When Obama first sought public office in 1995, Rezko provided $2,000 in donations. Five years later, when Obama unsuccessfully challenged Democrat Bobby L. Rush for his U.S. House seat, Rezko and his associates contributed a much-needed infusion of cash in the final weeks of the campaign.

In 2003, when Obama launched his bid for the U.S. Senate, Rezko hosted a fundraiser at his home. The event, attended by more than 130 donors, featured an open sushi bar.

The Times arrived at the total of more than $200,000 by reviewing donations dating back to 1995, primarily looking at people who had business relationships with Rezko. Aides to Obama said they thought the total for Rezko-linked donations was lower, but were uncertain of the exact amount.

The criminal case against Rezko appears to center in part on his efforts to provide contributions to Illinois Democratic Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions. The federal investigation, dubbed Operation Board Game, produced allegations that Rezko and others sought to squeeze kickbacks from firms doing business before state boards. One oversees public schoolteacher pension investments. Another authorizes permits for hospitals.

Just a few years ago, Rezko was hobnobbing with the emir of Qatar, squiring him to Springfield and Chicago. He sold to a British billionaire -- but still helps manage -- what would be the largest undeveloped swath of land left in downtown Chicago, 62 acres along the Chicago River. He even became partners in a planned power plant in Iraq.

Obama has said repeatedly that he did nothing in exchange for Rezko's early and consistent support.

But in 1998, then-state Sen. Obama wrote to state and city officials urging them to provide funding for New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Rezko and Allison Davis. Obama wrote the letters, first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, on Illinois Senate stationery, saying: "This project will provide much needed housing for 4th Ward citizens."

Some who were part of Rezko's world remain Obama backers.

Kelly King Dibble was a Rezko company executive, and became Blagojevich's director of the Illinois Housing Development Authority until her resignation a year ago. She co-hosted a fundraiser in November at Chicago's South Shore Country Club for Obama.

Dibble -- who said her friendship with the candidate's wife, Michelle, goes back years -- said that whatever Rezko may have done, he was always decent to her: "I don't know him to be a crook. I know him to be a nice man." Nor does she believe he was, as Clinton said, a "slumlord," though she noted that it is hard to maintain low-income housing.

"It is sad that it has sunk to this level," she said.

 

[maycocksean]

you folks can get upset with me if you want

but Obama has a "Rezko" problem


I can already see the GOP ads

"corrupt Chicago politics

is not the change we need"

Might as well bring it out now

You are correct, the Republicans will surely bring this up if he gets the nomination. So Obama might as well do the damage control now.

Good thing they've got nothing on Hillary, huh

 

[maycocksean]

I'm watching Kennedy right now.

I just don't get it. I just don't get how all he has to do is mention the word "change" or "hope" or "inspiration" over and over and the crowd erupts. I hope this is not how we choose the next president.

From Kennedy and Obama's supporters I get the impression that they believe Obama will supposedly make everyone happy and united and there won't be any more division in this country, and they present it like that's a good thing. It isn't. America is supposed to be divided and have debates. They talk like everyone is going to fall in love with Obama and become Democrats and march in lockstep behind him.

Oh, come on. You're so glued to the Republican party. . .what else could we expect you to think? I think I asked you this before: Which of the three leading Democratic candidates do you think would make the best president? I don't recall you ever answering that question and I'll bet you haven't even thought about it. You want Hillary to get the nomination because you're certain the Republicans can defeat her but that's not the same thing. Do you have enough impartiality to even contemplate a Democratic president or are you so blinded by your manic partisanship that you're incapable of doing so?

And just so you know: I can put my money where my mouth is. It's no secret that I think McCain would make the best Republican president.

And that, my friend, is what this whole idea of "change "and "hope" is all about: The idea that we don't have to demonize the opposition, that we can actually listen respectfully to those with whom we disagree and even see things from their point of view. Those kinds of lessons aren't being taught by Limbaugh and his ilk.

You cynicism astounds me. It really does.

 

[melon]

It's been over 250 posts now, so I thought I'd make some comments of my own.

First off, I still think that my initial thoughts that Obama's support was primarily "image-based" in nature are correct. I would also state that the GOP primaries are also currently based on image.

I still think Hillary is smart, but I also know that her image isn't all that great currently. I also know that her husband isn't helping all that much either.

So, in short, I'm skeptical that Obama can deliver on the change that he's promising. After all, lest we forget, there was another presidential candidate who was surrounded by promise and optimism, and that was Bill Clinton.

In the end, all I can say is I'm glad that Michigan's primary amounted to nothing, because it meant that I, effectively, never had to choose. I will just vote for whatever Democrat will win, in the end, and leave the rest to fate.

 

[watergate]

He is four days older than Edge and eight days older than me. Maybe we need a new generation in the White House.

 

[watergate]

Even my 82 year old mother who is an independent loves Obama. She didn't vote for Kennedy.

 

[maycocksean]

It's been over 250 posts now, so I thought I'd make some comments of my own.

First off, I still think that my initial thoughts that Obama's support was primarily "image-based" in nature are correct. I would also state that the GOP primaries are also currently based on image.

I'd agree with you. To be frank, I can't remember an election in my lifetime that wasn't largely "image-based." When was the last time the "less charismatic candidate" won?

But I would also add that the criticisms of Obama are also rather shallow in substance. They have the veneer of critical thinking and skepticism but in reality I have yet to see anyone make a serious case for Obama's lack of fitness for office. In fact most of the criticisms seem to be along the lines of "well with that hope-change-hope talk, he can't possibly have any substance" which is really a nonsense argument. The fact that someone happens to be charismatic does not automatically mean they are lacking in substance.

What elements of Obama's platform are untenable and unrealistic?

What evidence do we have that Obama will be completely unable to handle the complexities of leading the nation?

What evidence do we have that his judgement is poor, his intellect lacking?

If these questions can be answered, well then we would have good reason to discount his charisma and soaring speeches. Without first making those arguments though, opposition to Obama is as "surface" as rabid support.

I'll be honest, I don't see much depth to any aspect of this election season or the discussion of it so far.

As to the viability of his promise of change, I see this as far more than a question of whether he's going to sweep into office and turn Washington into a daisies and puppies utopia. I don't expect that and I don't know that any thinking Obama supporter does. The question of change has less to do with changing Washington and a lot more to do with changing the country, particularly in terms of engaging of the electorate. This election, I see as a referendum on how cynical we've become as a nation.

Do we still believe that the ordinary citizens have a voice in our government? Do we still feel it's worth it to vote? Do we think it's possible to come together as a country despite our differences or is divisiveness and increasing polarization the expected norm? We'll know well before November whether the "change" Obama speaks of can be a reality--how far he gets in the race will tell us. Our country was built on soaring themes--"all men are created equal", "We the people", "a government of the people, for the people and by the people"--themes that often failed to bear out in reality but could always be called upon and aspired to. If we no longer believe that such soaring themes have any relevancy or have any practical chance of being realized then we will scorn those who act as if they can. And if that happens I fear the days of the American Republic are numbered, and the days of the Empire are near at hand.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think the cynicism generated by the Bush Presidency makes Obama incredibly attractive- I do wonder if we had a different President for the last 8 years, how that would affect how Senator Obama is viewed. It's a nostalgic comparison but I think he has a very long way to go before he can be compared to President Kennedy. I think that's being thrown around way too easily and lightly, no offense to the Kennedy family.

 

[anitram]

It's been over 250 posts now, so I thought I'd make some comments of my own.

First off, I still think that my initial thoughts that Obama's support was primarily "image-based" in nature are correct. I would also state that the GOP primaries are also currently based on image.

This is how an American president is chosen, so it's just par for the course.

If JFK Jr. was around he'd probably be the front runner. Good looking, father was a president, charming, rich, what the hell more do you need?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

No doubt about it, JFK Jr would have been the hottest President ever-but no way could I have voted for him. He was great looking and probably a nice guy and decent person away from all of that public image, but not qualified for that job if he had lived and lived the same life. Unless he had become a Senator or something and had some real record of accomplishments. At least Senator Obama isn't riding on family coattails.

 

[melon]

What elements of Obama's platform are untenable and unrealistic?

What evidence do we have that Obama will be completely unable to handle the complexities of leading the nation?

What evidence do we have that his judgement is poor, his intellect lacking?

If these questions can be answered, well then we would have good reason to discount his charisma and soaring speeches. Without first making those arguments though, opposition to Obama is as "surface" as rabid support.

I'll be honest, I don't see much depth to any aspect of this election season or the discussion of it so far.

But that's it. There's nothing inherently wrong with his platform. Or Hillary's platform. Or that of John Edwards. Or even Dennis Kucinich's platform. The differentiating factor, thus, becomes that of image itself. Since all but Obama and Clinton have been deemed the image of "unelectable," they have been cast out of the race. And so now we have to manufacture differentiating factors between the two candidates, which is where we're getting all this rhetoric about "change," "hope," and "inspiration," versus quasi-apocalyptic language of "two-headed 'Billarys'" and "division." But, essentially, all things being equal, their platforms aren't all that different.

As to the viability of his promise of change, I see this as far more than a question of whether he's going to sweep into office and turn Washington into a daisies and puppies utopia. I don't expect that and I don't know that any thinking Obama supporter does. The question of change has less to do with changing Washington and a lot more to do with changing the country, particularly in terms of engaging of the electorate. This election, I see as a referendum on how cynical we've become as a nation.

Do we still believe that the ordinary citizens have a voice in our government? Do we still feel it's worth it to vote? Do we think it's possible to come together as a country despite our differences or is divisiveness and increasing polarization the expected norm? We'll know well before November whether the "change" Obama speaks of can be a reality--how far he gets in the race will tell us. Our country was built on soaring themes--"all men are created equal", "We the people", "a government of the people, for the people and by the people"--themes that often failed to bear out in reality but could always be called upon and aspired to. If we no longer believe that such soaring themes have any relevancy or have any practical chance of being realized then we will scorn those who act as if they can. And if that happens I fear the days of the American Republic are numbered, and the days of the Empire are near at hand.

Cynicism has been on referendum for 40 years now, and no president has ever made a solid case as to why we shouldn't be. If Obama is able to heal the divisions, then more power to him, and I wish him the best.

But, again, this sentiment is merely a repeat of Bill Clinton in 1992; a youthful candidate to save us from the "darkness" of the (elder) Bush Administration. Yet, we saw what happened. In a matter of two years, the political winds blew the other direction, and we had a GOP-controlled Congress for the rest of his term, effectively condemning us to manufactured scandals and controversies straight out of the neoconservative playbook they themselves had taken from The Prince. The end justifies the means, after all.

But I digress, only slightly. If we are to believe in the Enlightenment-era values that created our country--"all men are created equal", "We the people", "a government of the people, for the people and by the people"--then that will require having the fortitude to defend it, and that, alone, has eluded liberalism for 40 years now, thanks to the philosophical arrival of cultural relativism. And that's where we get the Democratic platform not being shaped by any sense of purpose or ideology, but rather by the shifting winds of the focus group.

The 2000 and 2004 elections, for the Democratic party, were the apex of this problem. Am I entirely convinced that 2008 has suddenly rectified this? Not really, but I think there has been some sparse, probably unconscious steps to change. As for the future unity of the United States, only recently have I decided that the old Roman Republic/Roman Empire comparison is probably not valid for us. It is, perhaps, better to look at the history surrounding the advent of the printing press, instead. This was a truly revolutionary invention that forever changed the history of Europe, transforming the "old world" into something completely different. The internet has been an invention that has had an equivalent impact to that of the printing press. It must be remembered that change didn't happen overnight with the printing press, and change hasn't happened overnight with the internet either.

From a historical point of view, the internet is new. It still has plenty of time to manifest its destiny. But I believe that its present impact has been less the spread of democracy, as neoconservatives would have wished, but, instead, the subdivision of hegemony. We are, in essence, discarding the ties that bind us, in favor of associating with those that agree with us. I believe that 2008 has been the first election to exemplify this cultural shift, as we now have an election, where the base of support is not surrounded around the party, but, instead, are congregating around individual candidates with seemingly little chance of reconciliation between the camps--and this applies to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the end, I believe that we will all rally around our parties in this election, but I would be curious to see if this holds true in 2012.

The ties that bind us together are loosening, and I'm not sure what can be done. But one thing that will go a long way is the sense of our next president actually accomplishing something. As for whether Obama, Clinton, or anyone else can achieve that, it's anybody's guess. But it is imperative. Merely "feeling good" or being "inspired" isn't going to cut it anymore. We've tried that, and it's failed.

 

[ntalwar]

Hillary's running on image and feeling as well, otherwise we'd have Biden versus Dodd right now.

An area that I view Obama more favorably than Clinton are the Iraq and Iran votes for military action. Another area is that Obama supports lifting the $97,500 income cap for Social Security taxes and Hillary opposes it. So, he at least has a good answer for "where will the (funding) money come from?".

 

[watergate]

Now that Edwards and Richardson is out I'm voting Obama next Tuesday. Obama said some wonderful things about Edwards today. Its is really cold outside today and I've got to canvas my precinct, so people know where to vote. I hope that it warms up here this week. I live in New Mexico and I'm a wimp when it comes to cold weather.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

What is really cold in New Mexico, 50? Bunch o' wimps

 

[joyfulgirl]

I live in New Mexico and I'm a wimp when it comes to cold weather.

I live in NM, too, and it ain't that cold. Get your butt out to vote on Tuesday!! I don't care who you vote for, just let your voice be heard!

What is really cold in New Mexico, 50? Bunch o' wimps

Actually, Ms. S, it's going to be in the single digits tonight here in Northern NM but it's up in the 30s during the day. People sometimes think the weather in NM is similar to AZ but it's the high desert out here so it gets really cold, especially this year.

/NM weather forecast

 

[onebloodonelife]

Now that Edwards and Richardson is out I'm voting Obama next Tuesday. Obama said some wonderful things about Edwards today. Its is really cold outside today and I've got to canvas my precinct, so people know where to vote. I hope that it warms up here this week. I live in New Mexico and I'm a wimp when it comes to cold weather.

Try -14F this morning...

Anyway, no matter what the weather entails on Tuesday, I'll be out at the caucus.

 

[maycocksean]

But that's it. There's nothing inherently wrong with his platform. Or Hillary's platform. Or that of John Edwards. Or even Dennis Kucinich's platform. The differentiating factor, thus, becomes that of image itself. Since all but Obama and Clinton have been deemed the image of "unelectable," they have been cast out of the race. And so now we have to manufacture differentiating factors between the two candidates, which is where we're getting all this rhetoric about "change," "hope," and "inspiration," versus quasi-apocalyptic language of "two-headed 'Billarys'" and "division." But, essentially, all things being equal, their platforms aren't all that different.



Cynicism has been on referendum for 40 years now, and no president has ever made a solid case as to why we shouldn't be. If Obama is able to heal the divisions, then more power to him, and I wish him the best.

But, again, this sentiment is merely a repeat of Bill Clinton in 1992; a youthful candidate to save us from the "darkness" of the (elder) Bush Administration. Yet, we saw what happened. In a matter of two years, the political winds blew the other direction, and we had a GOP-controlled Congress for the rest of his term, effectively condemning us to manufactured scandals and controversies straight out of the neoconservative playbook they themselves had taken from The Prince. The end justifies the means, after all.

But I digress, only slightly. If we are to believe in the Enlightenment-era values that created our country--"all men are created equal", "We the people", "a government of the people, for the people and by the people"--then that will require having the fortitude to defend it, and that, alone, has eluded liberalism for 40 years now, thanks to the philosophical arrival of cultural relativism. And that's where we get the Democratic platform not being shaped by any sense of purpose or ideology, but rather by the shifting winds of the focus group.

The 2000 and 2004 elections, for the Democratic party, were the apex of this problem. Am I entirely convinced that 2008 has suddenly rectified this? Not really, but I think there has been some sparse, probably unconscious steps to change. As for the future unity of the United States, only recently have I decided that the old Roman Republic/Roman Empire comparison is probably not valid for us. It is, perhaps, better to look at the history surrounding the advent of the printing press, instead. This was a truly revolutionary invention that forever changed the history of Europe, transforming the "old world" into something completely different. The internet has been an invention that has had an equivalent impact to that of the printing press. It must be remembered that change didn't happen overnight with the printing press, and change hasn't happened overnight with the internet either.

From a historical point of view, the internet is new. It still has plenty of time to manifest its destiny. But I believe that its present impact has been less the spread of democracy, as neoconservatives would have wished, but, instead, the subdivision of hegemony. We are, in essence, discarding the ties that bind us, in favor of associating with those that agree with us. I believe that 2008 has been the first election to exemplify this cultural shift, as we now have an election, where the base of support is not surrounded around the party, but, instead, are congregating around individual candidates with seemingly little chance of reconciliation between the camps--and this applies to both the Democrats and Republicans. In the end, I believe that we will all rally around our parties in this election, but I would be curious to see if this holds true in 2012.

The ties that bind us together are loosening, and I'm not sure what can be done. But one thing that will go a long way is the sense of our next president actually accomplishing something. As for whether Obama, Clinton, or anyone else can achieve that, it's anybody's guess. But it is imperative. Merely "feeling good" or being "inspired" isn't going to cut it anymore. We've tried that, and it's failed.

Fascinating. You always manage to think of/see things in a way I had not thought of before.

A place like Interference seems to attract a broad spectrum of people (granted we do all agree that we like U2 (though I suppose even that is up for debate if you visit EYKIW much, but beyond that). So perhaps there might still be hope for the ties that bind?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Washington Post


Clinton's LBJ Comments Infuriated Ted Kennedy

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" signed the civil rights bill into law.

The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and "sat passively by" rather than correcting the record on his slain brother's civil rights record.

Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done."

Both comments that day, by Clinton and her supporter, were meant to make the point that Clinton would be better equipped to get things done as president than Obama, her chief Democratic rival. Sources say Clinton called Kennedy to apologize for the LBJ comments. But whatever she said clearly wasn't enough to assuage Kennedy, who endorsed Obama earlier this week.

Kennedy insiders say the Massachusetts senator has also been angry with former President Bill Clinton for his "Southern strategy" themed comments on the campaign trail. The senator didn't hide his disdain for the nasty tone of the campaign during his endorsement speech at American University on Monday.

Kennedy's spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, would neither confirm nor deny that the senator was angered by Senator Clinton's LBJ comments. She simply said: "Senator Kennedy knows that candidates can't always be responsible for the things their supporters say. He's proud of President Kennedy's role in the civil rights movement, and believes that it's time to unify and inspire Americans to believe we can achieve great things again."

The Clinton campaign hasn't responded yet to our evening-time request for comment on Clinton's telephone apology to Kennedy. On the day of the LBJ rhetoric, however, a Clinton campaign spokesman was quoted on the New York Times' politics blog distancing Clinton from the surrogate who made the inappropriate assassination comment.

 

[watergate]

Clinton was a Goldwater girl and she didn't support LBJ in 1964. I'm going to see Obama tomorrow in my city. I think that he is going to take New Mexico and the majority of the state is Hispanic. Except most of the Hispanics in New Mexico are people who's families who have been here for over 400 years when the Spain colonized New Mexico, so New Mexico different than the rest of the Southwest. The Hispanics here have political power in New Mexico government that they had since Spain ruled New Mexico. They are very patriotic and they drive American cars, but they are liberal. Racist attitudes aren't tolerated in New Mexico except for Eastern New Mexico which is like Texas. There aren't too many immigrants here from Mexico and Latin America, because our wages are low. Most of the people from other countries here have degrees and are scientists and engineers, since New Mexico is home of the atomic bomb and we have the National Labs here.

 

[yolland]

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

Marginalization of MLK aside, she made it perfectly clear with her "praise" of Johnson that he was continuing what Kennedy had started and had hoped to achieve. And the reality is that Johnson showed much more drive and backbone than JFK had about getting the Civil Rights Act through Congress, whether Ted Kennedy wants to admit it or not.

Clinton was a Goldwater girl and she didn't support LBJ in 1964.

She was 16 years old and the daughter of a fervent Goldwater supporter at the time, so I wouldn't be inclined to see that as revealing of much of anything.