I Can’t Believe It, I Actually Like a Politician.
January 28, 2008 on 2:48 am | In culture, politics |I didn’t get excited about Barack Obama at first. As a matter of fact, I figured he was a just another politician—ready to pander to the interests of Illinois agribusiness giants, all flash, and no substance. Yet every time I’ve heard the man speak, (I can barely bring myself to admit it) I’ve been inspired. To inspire someone as cynical and iconoclastic as I am is no small task. And it’s no small matter that Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. I don’t agree with every word that comes out of the man’s mouth, but for someone with real potential to become the next President of the United States of America, he’s pretty fantastic. This isn’t just a post-Bush “anyone but Dubya” head rush. Nor is it a fairy tale. Obama has shown us twice now that he can win. He won in an overwhelmingly white state (Iowa) and a majority black state (South Carolina). And the Clintons have been behaving terribly (lying a lot!) in this campaign. It’s no wonder that Caroline Kennedy (JFK’s daughter) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (JFK’s brother) have decided to endorse Obama. And now I’m jumping on the bandwagon, at least publicly. I’ve been liking Barack Obama a little more each time I’ve heard him speak.
Even in New Hampshire, a state where most residents haven’t seen a black man since Family Matters went off the air, Hillary Clinton only beat Obama by two measly percentage points. In Nevada, Clinton’s popular vote win still netted her one less delegate than Obama—and delegates are what matter. On top of all that, on Saturday, Obama completely pwn3d Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary. Yes, that sealed the deal, and inspired me to write this post. Let’s get ready for Super Tuesday.
So I just made my second contribution to his campaign. It was only $25, but hey. Every little bit helps. And if a politician (even a black man with a funny name) can convince a guy like me to donate to his campaign, he may just have a shot at winning this thing. I set up a personal fundraising goal on his website, so if you’re considering donating, I urge you to donate here.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I am suspicious of anyone who begins as a no-name and is promoted into near celeb. status by the media. The media promoted G.W. and got him most of the recognition that got him in office. I do not think Obama would be being promoted to the point that he is if there was even a remote chance that his administration would be vastly different from the current neo-conservative policies. I do not think Obama will do anything out of the framework of big biz’s preferences or interests. Biden or Kucinich would have been dramatically different from what we have now and I believe that is why they never had half of the celeb status of media promotion that Obama has. I hope he does win so that you and I can have the “I told you so” battle. We won’t pull out of Iraq if he wins, he doesn’t want us to- stating an opposition to the war might get him elected but if he was actually going to end the war he would not be promoted. Additionally the Iraq war isn’t even supposed to end for years, mid-east stability is not part of the greater agenda and Obama knows it. Sorry to slam your man but I am pretty sure he’s as much a dumby to the system as the great W.
Comment by Cydny — January 28, 2008 #
We share a distrust of corporate influence, and we both think that American government is rife with corruption. Yet you seem to think that “the system” is monolithic and unified toward a common goal. There’s discord, believe me. And I am not convinced that the force of someone’s good character can’t make a name for them in American politics. Biden is brilliant, but a cranky old man. Kucinich is passionate and committed, but also a leprechaun UFO-spotter. Obama is surging because he is eloquent, youthful, and a liberal optimist (like JFK or RFK). How can you say he’ll not be different? What other candidate has said that one of his first acts in office will be hold a summit of our friends AND enemies (including the leaders of all the Muslim countries) to discuss world peace and security? I’m not calling him perfect. He admits he’s not perfect. But he’s the best candidate there is for the job who’s still left standing. And I bet you on election day in their states, Biden and Kucinich will be pulling their levers for Barack Obama.
I’m sorry that the most you think you can look forward to is the opportunity to say, “I told you so.”
Comment by simian — January 28, 2008 #
It is important to consider that Obama brought in Brzezinski as his advisor. The implications of this are clear if you are willing to at least momentarily disregard the oratory and propaganda surrounding Obama. It is not the result of paranoia — or “conspiracy theory” — we can look at Brzezinski’s own books to see that he is a psychopath at the employ of a global elite.
“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.”
“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”
Like 911 and al qaeda? We know Brzezinski was directly with forming the Mujahideen movement which later became Al Qaeda. Perhaps that is why the book these quotes were pulled from is titled The Grand Chessboard
From Between Two Ages:
“The Technocratic Age is slowly designing an every day more controlled society. The society will be dominated by an elite of persons free from traditional values who will have no doubt in fulfilling their objectives by means of purged techniques with which they will influence the behavior of people and will control and watch the society in all details”. “… it will become possible to exert a practically permanent watch on each citizen of the world”
“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could.”
For more analysis:
http://moderate.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/obama-brzezinski-and-the-neolib-neocon-family-feud/
In the end this comes down to understanding how the Hegelian Dialectic is used to drive the election into pre determined results. It’s no coincidence that each primary is a two way race, leading to a two way general election. Liberal vs Conservative has been played so much that the two words have completely swapped which ideology they represent more than once.
Comment by Ben — February 1, 2008 #
First of all Ben, hello, and welcome. Given the circumstances, I figured you’d at least introduce yourself before jumping right into politics with me; alas, let’s buckle our seat belts.
I question how important it actually is to consider Obama’s connection to Brzezinski. I know he’s very unpopular with the Israel lobby, and when I have time I’ll look up those books to find the quotes in context, but he’s frankly 78 years old and most likely being used by Obama to counter Clinton’s charges of foreign policy naivete.
I don’t know your views, because we haven’t had an actual discussion about these issues, but I will say that I’m somewhat put off by the implication that I’m blinded by the Hegelian dialectic. I’m not some partisan quack who’d be happy just to turn this country a bluer shade of purple. And I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to criticize or protest the actions of an Obama administration. Quixotic conspiracy wonks seem to give too much credit to the power of their perceived enemies, and too little credit to the people’s power.
By the way, how concerned are you, really, about the microchip and world government thing? There are actual bad guys and sinister plans out there, but also a lot of red herrings. I won’t deny the possibility that I’ve been brainwashed, though honestly, neither should you.
Comment by simian — February 3, 2008 #
I would say that is quite obvious that they wanted Brzezinski on board for the purpose of surrounding an inexperienced candidate with one of the most experienced diplomats/bureaucrats/technocrats around. His age is irrelevant — if he were senile or had dementia one could argue he was being manipulated for his name but old age does not imply dementia or susceptibility to being ‘used’. That is an illogical conclusion…guilty by association.
The following argument is not ‘guilt by association’ because it has a logical grounding:
Who could Obama be involved with that he could get Brzezinski–or did Brzezinski pick him like he picked Carter? The answer is fairly obvious if one looks at where a large chunk of money is coming from and his connections to certain think tanks. Of course there’s his vote for the patriot act renewal, iraq war funding, and his refusal to impeach the most criminal administration in this country’s history. Do you really expect Brzezinski would join a candidate who was truly going to change the system that he had spent a lifetime working for? This is the man who founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller (prior to becoming Carter’s NSA mind you). He has a long history of evil and is in short, a war criminal. Only out of faith — the tenet of a true believer — could one insist that Brzezinski’s relationship to Obama has no bearing or importance.
Let it be clear that I never said ‘you are blinded’ or in anyway leveled an insult — I simply made my case to support Cydny’s. I was speaking of the general public’s need for a greater understanding of how the dialectic is used along with gradualism in elections; not to blind, but to guide along an agenda. As long as the public use the ‘lesser of two evils’ justification every four years tyranny and corruption will persist.
Having to resort to an ad hominem is typically indicative of one’s inability to formulate a logically sound rebuttal of an opposing argument. This question and statement —
— is a classic red herring in itself…’Ignoratio elenchi’.
Comment by Ben — February 6, 2008 #
You’ll notice I modified your comment - not for content, just clarity - I fixed the tags in the first comment so the blockquote displays correctly.
I will respond to your comment tonight when I have more time, but for your information, I neither used an ad hominem nor am I a true believer. I did not make a factual claim, I just disagreed with your analysis. If you want to have a debate following the rules of formal logic as our first interaction, so be it - even though that seems confrontational.
Comment by simian — February 6, 2008 #
Comment by simian — February 17, 2008 #