Obama As Repudiation Of A Generational Failure

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 13:04


Obama is surging to victory in New Hampshire, currently holding a 7.6% lead across a remarkable eleven polls taken since Iowa. That makes his post-Iowa bounce anywhere from 10.6%--16.2%, depending on how one calculates polling averages. At this rate, he should be able to surge into a national lead by Friday, at the latest. While there is no guarantee that such a lead will last, and no guarantee that Obama will go on to win the nomination, clearly he is the frontrunner right now. An Obama nomination appears to be the most likely outcome of the Democratic primaries right now.

In some ways, an Obama victory would be a very, very good thing. The truth is that, as a nation, we failed from 1994 to 2007. We failed to expand health care coverage. We failed to stop the increasing corporatization of our lives and vicious exploitation of the Third World. We failed to close the income gap, either nationally or internationally. We failed to stop global warming. We have failed to respond to the threat of peak oil. We failed to stop a Presidential election from being stolen. We failed to stop the war in Iraq. The end result of these failures is that the Apollo Program of this era in American history is the war in Iraq. That's right--instead of doing something like, say, going to the Moon or stopping global warming, we invaded Iraq. In every political aspect, America has failed its generational role as a world leader in the post-Cold War era. While I refer to this as a generational failure, it is not limited to Americans of any age group. It isn't a failure of Boomers or Gen X or the Silent generation, or any of that. It is a generational failure in the lifespan of our country where we failed to live up to the promise of our nation. All adult Americans alive during that time period share a role in our failure.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Obama As Repudiation Of A Generational Failure

It wasn't all bad during this era. While we failed in the political realm, we do have the amazing cultural and intellectual achievement that is the explosion of self-publishing content on the Internet. I fully believe that this is a cultural outpouring equal to that found in any other generation of human history. Optimistically, it also seems to possess the ability to rebuke and displace the leaders who led to our current state of failure. The Internet has become the nexus of self-organizing for all those movements and campaigns that have sought to overthrow our ruling regime of failure in America. The Barack Obama campaign, even though it is somewhat more "in house" than other movements and campaigns, is no exception to this rule.

If Barack Obama wins, it is absolutely a repudiation of the existing regime of failure. Our Apollo program, the Iraq war, is such a colossal mistake, waste, and humanitarian catastrophe that it is possible that there is simply no way that one of its facilitators could be the leader of the next regime. No matter how many apologies or denials have been issued, both Clinton and Edwards were facilitators back in 2002 and 2003. It is also possible that there is no way that one of the key players in the previous regime, Hillary Clinton, could be the leader of the new regime. Further, John Edwards was one of the key players in previous attempts to bring down the current regime, but along with others he failed in 2004. Barack Obama is not just younger and representative of a new class in American politics, he just isn't anywhere near as connected to the failures of the past fourteen years as any other candidate running for President in either major party.

Now, there are those of us online, myself included, who are not convinced that Obama is either a clean break from the old regime, or that he will be successful in his efforts to change the direction of our political institutions. However, at least as a personal symbol, he is the cleanest break with the current regime we could possibly hope for among the current crop of candidates. He is younger, has a different background, has been in Washington for a shorter period of time, opposed the war from the start, and has the largest activist following. He has a good energy program, a good media program, and, while it isn't nearly as good, he does want to remove most American troops from Iraq. Although I remain unconvinced at his ability to adequately fight the right-wing movement in this country that put the current regime in power, I suppose it is fair to say that I don't see anyone else out there who has successfully fought it either, including Hillary Clinton. I think that Senator Russ Feingold at least came close, and that is why I wanted to support him for President.

Obama isn't a perfect repudiation of our ongoing national failure, but I think it is justifiable to say he is a start. It certainly has been a long time since I remember anyone talking about the importance of the youth vote (like, since Bill Clinton's 1992 victory), and that certainly has to be a step in the right direction. It won't be an easy campaign, since the old regime appears set to score the candidate they wanted all along, John McCain, on the Republican side. McCain has caught Obama in general election polls on both the national and statewide level, so it might be time to start getting ready for another very close campaign. Media supporters of the old regime may like Obama now, but if and when he is matched up against Daddy McCain, they will start to hate his guts pretty quickly. The current regime hasn't failed for everyone, and those who benefited from our national failure won't go down without a fight.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This has to be .. (4.00 / 1)
one of your best columns yet .. Bravo!!!

I Agree.... (4.00 / 1)
in fact, I sent an email to my college daughter, my office staff, my wife, and a bunch of friends, linking to it. 

[ Parent ]
I agree as well. (0.00 / 0)
I think the failure was all of us who came to see ourselves as individual consumers instead of citizens capable of acting together to change things.  The big buy-in (if not sell-out) that began once our Vietnam War was over and Nixon had been ousted.

Obama does symbolize a chance to try to get it right this time.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I would add to that that, (4.00 / 1)
we failed to enhance and continue to grow a nation that valued the individual's ability to make a better mousetrap, market and sell that better mousetrap and be grateful for the benefits they reaped from that mousetrap.

I would add that this process has been closed to individuals not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.  That has to change.


Obama has made rising above... (4.00 / 3)
...partisanship a central theme of his campaign.

If Obama wins will it be a win for bipartisanship?

Or will a win by Obama be the ultimate partisan weapon that can be used to force Republicans to vote for liberal programs?


Bipartisanship? (4.00 / 2)
Force Republicans to vote for liberal programs?

Why do you even consider that?

After suffering from a 'my way or the highway' Republican majority that was willing to break the rules to get their way...

And after suffering from a Republican minority who has taken full advantage of the Democratic Majority that has already gave the Republicans inclusion, i.e. Bipartisanship, without all the dirty tricks they played on us...

Only to stifle any proposal we put forth be it on the War, or taxes, or healthcare, etc...

Why would anyone think that one man, and a rookie at that, is going to make them change their ways? It isn't going to happen.

My problem with Obama is that he is not a fighter and he has never shown himself to be a fighter. What he is is a schmoozer who tells people what they want to hear without any idea of how he will deliver it. He says yes it won't be easy. But he doesn't give anyone one idea of what he will do to change things. In other words he is incapable of backing up his rhetoric. Edwards and Clinton are far more credible in what it will take to change things.

Don't think that McCain or Romeny, both seasoned battlers, will not call Obama on his inexperience, as they all did in the debate, and inability to articulate just how he is going to unlock the gridlock DREAM. Do the republican candidates sound like they want to unlock gridlock? Neither does the rest of their party.

The Democrats and left-leaning moderates may nominate Obama as they did Kerry - but I really have some big concerns whether the nation as a whole will elect a politically green orator who doesn't have the credentials of a McCain and can't  back his own rhetoric with examples of how he can and will change the status quo. 

Progressives are walking down a very dangerous path here and are buying idealism over experience and electability and it could cost us an election.

David Brooks has not been pumping up Obama for the last year because he wants to see him get elected. Think about it.

Think about why the Corporate Media, who got rid of Dean, who trashed Kerry, who participated in 8 years of a Clinton witch hunt are jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Think about it. Have the corporate honchos who have been controlling the media changed their tune about which party they prefer in office? Would they pick the person they would rather run against and beat? You bet your ass they would.

People supporting Obama even though the evidence shows that the is very likely media election manipulation going on here are walking down a very dangerous path.

Idealism or the WH? Which is really more important here?


[ Parent ]
I share some of your concerns... (0.00 / 0)
...about Obama and he is not my first choice. Nevertheless if he does win the Democratic nomination, it is by no means a sure thing that the Republicans would be successful in their attacks on him and prevent him from winning the presidency.

By labeling my query about whether a win by Obama could be used to force Republicans into acquiesing to a liberal agenda as "idealism", I think you misunderstood me. The point I was making was that an Obama win, based on his message of rising above partisanship, could be used more along the lines of how Attila the Hun would use it. That is, under an Obama administration, Republicans who did not go along with the liberal agenda could rightly be attacked for being outside the new "post-partisan" mainstream.


[ Parent ]
They already are (4.00 / 1)
being attacked for being outside the new "post-partisan" mainstream that the Democratic congress brought in. And what do they do? Attack us as a do nothing congress which their supporters not-so-blindly go along with.

Partisanship is not only in congress and the WH - it is all over Main Street America. And one man is not going to change that. The rank and file republican on the street is not going to change their philosophy.

Fact is his go-along-to-get-along will only make it easier for the republicans. If Obama didn't bend their way and meet them in the middle then they will label him all-talk-no action and announce he campaigned and got elected on false promises - the middle being 85% of what they want which would leave us with 15% of what we want.

Obama is a republican dream IF he were to get elected. Of course they will try to beat him and may very well succeed as I already expressed. But if elected they will walk all over him and use him as a tool to seize the WH in 2012 and congressional seats to boot.

This guy is so far winning on kumbaya rhetoric which really touches the touchy-feely Democrats. But the rough and tumble republicans definitely see a soft touch in him and an easy target to manipulate. What is Obama going to do - not give them more as he is promising and then look bad and be a one term president?

How in the hell can Democrats on the blogs who chastised Pelosi and Reid for giving into the republicans support someone who is promising to give into the republicans?

Someone wrote "Jim Jones" yesterday in reference to Obama. Well that may be a good analogy because he has people supporting something that they just spent the last two years bitching about - the bi-partisan attitude of the Democratic congress.

It doesn't get any weirder that that.


[ Parent ]
Patriotism (4.00 / 5)
One quality I think many liberals miss about Obama is how deeply patriotic his message is.  This was one of the things that attracted me to Wes Clark's campaign four years ago.  When the left reclaims patriotism, it is much harder for the right to fight back.  ("You mean you don't think America is great enough to fix it's health care problems?"  "You think we can only lead the world through war?")  On a personal level, I love the idea I can display a flag without it meaning I support a war.

When everyone comes together, Democrats win.


I like Obama vs. McCain (4.00 / 2)
Now you're getting it...it's *all* symbolism.

I like this matchup.  Aged vs. young.  Change vs. status quo (only R insiders could imagine mccain as 'change').  McCain's long history of targets vs. Obama's outsiderness.

I wouldn't mind Edwards vs. McCain either.  HRC doesn't scare me against any other candidate but McCain.



Obama vs. McCain (4.00 / 1)
Agreed! Put those too on TV together: a prickly old guy vs. a telegenic good humored positive young guy.

The same goes to an extent with Edwards. Although, he already had exactly that debate with Cheney, and flubbed it.


[ Parent ]
Canard (4.00 / 3)
Tired of this - he did NOT flub that debate. Post debate polling was positive for Edwards in that debate.  And in my view, Edwards handily won in terms of likeability.

Too many people have this fantasy that Edwards could have some how spit on and strangled Cheney.  What can you do when somebody lies? Shout and call him a liar? With no help from the moderator, Edwards did all he could.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, it was all expectations (0.00 / 0)
We wanted Edwards to crucify Cheney on a national stage - not the kind of outcome we can truly expect from those types of debates. I apply the same type of thinking to Obama's debate performance - he can't stand up there and give one of his powerful, inspirational speeches. The venue simply does not lend itself to that type of performance.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
great post (4.00 / 3)
just a great post.

There Should Be A Pulitizer Prize for Such Posts -- NT (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Obama's Surge Invites Bloomberg into the Ring (4.00 / 3)
The significance of Obama's Iowa win and surge in the New Hampshire polls is that youthful voters and Independents are kicking over the tables of traditional Democratic and Republican politicians.

His win and surge in the polls is caused more by these voters' rejection of the status quo created by the major party duopoly than by the minced words about change he has used on on the campaign trail to avoid offending any of the voting blocs he is courting.

Where were these voters going to go, other than to Edwards, whose anti-corporate rhetoric -- while entirely justified -- goes against the grain of 3 decades of neo-liberal brainwashing that has enabled corporations to take control of government through campaign financing, inflate their earnings and put the middle class in the same jeopardy as the working poor.

If Obama succeeds in beating Hillary in the primaries and retiring the chronically double-dealing Clintons from public life, we will owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

But it is a highly dubious proposition to argue that he is going to wrest control of our democracy from the corporations that have bought it through the elected representatives who are in their pockets as a result of their campaign contributions. The Democrats are as corrupted as the Republicans and the two have conjointly corrupted the electoral process through gerrymandering, allowing corporations to dominate campaign financing and the undemocratic means both have institutionalized for selecting candidates for office. (See The Tyranny of Super-Delegates.)

Which leads me to predict that Obama's success in bringing out youthful voters and Independents as a result of their disgust with pervasive corruption of the two party system and its failure to protect the vital interests of ordinary people is what is going to bring Bloomberg into the race as a self-proclaimed "nonpartisan".

He is no savior in my book and he is as much pro-corporate as any of the pro-corporate candidates. But he does appear to recognize that he can use the irretrievably corrupt nature of our political system and the precipice on which the economic and financial interests that now run it (with the assent of both major political parties) have placed our economy and foreign policy, to place himself in the White House. (See Bloomberg and Others Begin Talks on a Nonpartisan Path.)

 


Teh vast majority of Obama's supporters (4.00 / 1)
Are Democrats.

The significance of Obama's Iowa win and surge in the New Hampshire polls is that youthful voters and Independents are kicking over the tables of traditional Democratic and Republican politicians.

His win and surge in the polls is caused more by these voters' rejection of the status quo created by the major party duopoly than by the minced words about change he has used on on the campaign trail to avoid offending any of the voting blocs he is courting.

This just isn't true. 75% of Obama supporters are self-identified Democrats. 75%. The independents who support Obama are the junior part of his coalition.


[ Parent ]
Self-identified when? (0.00 / 0)
10 minutes before walking in the door to caucus?  Seriously, when did they have to declare - how long have they been Democrats?  I'm declaring myself a Republican to cross over and vote for Ron Paul because MI has no say in anything - never has.  One of the biggest donor states on the map. 

I'm glad for those of you who can turn this sows ear into a silk purse.  I can't, at least not now.  I hope he proves me wrong, but I am cynical as all hell about who he is and what he has not done since being in the Senate.  I opposed Alito/Roberts, he didn't.  I opposed nuclear and coal, he didn't.  You know the list.  If I failed, then Obama bombed.  I never got elected or paid to represent anybody or anything.  He did. So if you want to talk about failure, fine; but please don't include me and exclude him. The proof is in the pudding, and I'll wait and see.


[ Parent ]
Labels (4.00 / 1)
I look at the broad sweep and admittedly lack Chris's in-depth grasp of the data.

I based my comments on the reports I have read about the large scale desertion of the Republican Party on the part of younger voters and Independents, and on the mechanics of the Iowa caucus system that allows voters of any party to opt at the last minute to participate in the caucus of another party. Obama appears to have been a magnet to bring out these voters in Iowa.

Until detailed analyses of who actually voted for whom in the Iowa caucus are available, I doubt we can be certain in making definitive statements about what kinds of voters voted for Obama or anyone else.

But one thing we do know is that Obama has positioned himself to appeal to voters who are independent of the traditional ideological alignments of the major parties and candidates, and that this positioning presumably enabled him to attract the youth vote and the Independents who have migrated away from the Republican Party and represent at least a third of the electorate and possibly more.

No doubt Obama carried the traditional Democratic progressive and liberal voters in Iowa because he could not have won without them. But while they were indispensable to his victory, the reports I have read indicate to me that they were not sufficient alone. Obama needed the votes of the younger voters and Independents which his apparently superb grassroots voter mobilization efforts were able to energize and bring to the caucuses.


[ Parent ]
Obama crushes any chance for Bloomberg .. (4.00 / 3)
and the Unity '08 nonsense .. the last time I checked(about 6 months ago) .. do you know was leading the voting at the Unity '08 website ... for possible candidates? ... Obama and Feingold .. what does that tell you?

[ Parent ]
Obama/Feingold (0.00 / 0)
That would be so awesome. It would be such a relief to have a ticket this time of candidates who both opposed the war.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Do note that Obama isn't the only Democrat surging. (4.00 / 2)
As Glenn Greenwald points out today, citing Rasmussen's national polling:

Edwards -- who, just one week ago, was 10 points behind Obama nationally among Democrats -- is now only two points behind him. Less than a month ago, he trailed Clinton by 29 points. Now it's 13 points. He is, by far, at his high point of support nationwide. Apparently, the more exposure Democratic voters get to Edwards and his campaign positions -- and that exposure has been at its high point during his surge -- the more they like him. By contrast, Obama is more or less at the same level of support nationally, even having decreased some since his Iowa win (for most of mid-Decemeber, he was at 27-28 points).

Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn't even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead -- after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.

There are certainly horse-race counterarguments to all of this. This is only one poll. Obama is ahead in New Hampshire, where his support has increased, etc. etc.

But I'm not focusing on the accuracy of horse-race predictions here, but instead, on the fact that the traveling press corps endlessly imposes its own narrative on the election, thereby completely excluding from all coverage plainly credible candidates they dislike (such as Edwards) while breathlessly touting the prospects of the candidates of whom they are enamored. Their predictions (i.e., preferences and love affairs) so plainly drive their press coverage -- the candidates they love are lauded as likely winners while the ones they hate are ignored or depicted as collapsing -- which in turn influences the election in the direction they want, making their predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies.

It's a long way from Iowa and New Hampshire to Minneapolis.  Don't give up hope that Edwards' message may yet break through the media stonewall, and that an Edwards/Obama ticket may draw on the best of both candidates' (and organizations') strengths to victory in November, and the promulgation and adoption of a strong Progressive Democratic agenda in the 44th Presidency and the 111th Congress.

Generalist.


[ Parent ]
Minneapolis? What was I thinking? (0.00 / 0)
Denver, of course.  Please pardon my brain droppings.

Generalist.

[ Parent ]
Nancy--The Democrats AREN'T As Corrupted As The Republicans (4.00 / 1)
But they're eager to catch up!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Shades of Grey (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Nope! (0.00 / 0)
The GOP is utterly black.  They own the patents on it.

The best the Dems can hope for is Earl Grey and the Dukes of Disaster.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Black is the Darkest of Greys (0.00 / 0)
But a shade, nonetheless.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
My hope (4.00 / 1)
...is that he'll have the personal conviction to use any leverage, specifically his mass appeal, to finally rollback the parasitic influence of corporate interests on our democracy.  We cannot stand to make true progress--restore our country--until we deal with them once and for all.

Until then, I'll be most skeptical of Obama.  He may be our best option, but he can--and must--do better.  I don't want him to simply be a post-9/11 version of Bill Clinton (Hope, change, bipartisanship).  I want him to move us past that, to begin to dismantle the Reagan revolution and all it has wrought.

Oh, and his endorsement of the Bush doctrine (preemption--aggressive war) terrifies me.  Enough already.


Speaking for this sheeple (0.00 / 0)
I've changed my preference to Obama based on what was accomplished by him on first time voters participating as Democrats in Iowa.

Baaaa!

John McCain won't insure children


Wait -- (0.00 / 0)
are you being ironic or sincere?  Because I, um, can't tell.

Tim Wolfe

[ Parent ]
All that and (4.00 / 1)
the failure of the political system to provide the checks and balances intended.  The Military-Industrial-Congressional complex cannot be contained by our political/governmental system - that is, the Military-Industrial parts have so integrated themselves into the Congresssional - that they've become the system.  Look to "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" for an analogy, these monied and armed interests have so suffused the "system" of government, that one cannot be distinguished from the other. 

There is no "saving" or "reinvigorating" this - other than to prolong its "broken" nature. (That's an opinion and one that is not shared by many in these parts).  We need radical changes in the political system - not just the players involved - to bring our government into register with the populace.  We should be working toward the replacement of Representative democracy with Participatory democracy; elimination of the "Congressional" part of the Ruling Complex, if you will.  First, tiny, miniscule, step is to shatter the two party strangle-hold on the Representative class. 

Am I surprised to see the MSPs giving their earliest support to "bipartisan" appeals from Obama, Huckabee, and McCain?  No - we've hit the place where Republicans and Democrats agree.  They all agree that the MSPs should be the conduit of political power - if the people are going to unite - it will only be through the MSPs (Thank you very much Mr. Bloomberg). 

Besides, what the hell does "bipartisan" mean, when everyone is basically playing for the same team, any way? That would be the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex, if you got lost along the way.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


great and important post (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to add to your words on the failures of our national generation as a whole by bringing things home to a local angle:

We have failed to break "the disconnect" locally.

I have, in the time span you speak of, lived in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Oakland California, and yet, despite a rising economy, massive wealth generated for the upper middle class and liberal governance, these locales still have a huge disconnect between what daily life is like for their working citizens and their educated elites.

Drive down Sacramento or San Pablo in the East Bay. Drive down Franklin through the Phillips neighborhood in Minneapolis. Persistent urban poverty...failing schools, declining health care standards including an epidemic of childhood obesity, visible unemployment and narcotics traffic...are still on full display.

I mention these streets because all of us progressives who live in these cities drive (or bike or bus!) them every day.  On some level, most of us have accepted this reality, this two-tiered status quo, as normal.

It isn't and should not be. That is a huge disconnect.

I think the "Obama Moment" represents an opportunity to reverse this local disconnect by infusing how we do politics locally with two things Obama brings to the table:

a) an infusion of fresh participation
b) an opportunity for a clean slate on a host of levels, ideological and methodological

In effect, progressives should recognize that part of what Obama's campaign represents is the "MoveOn moment" and the "Dean grassroots Insurgency" for a younger generation and for independents. I think we can use this moment locally to break entrenched disconnects with fresh energy and inputs. That's what Obama's candidacy should mean.

Case in point. The East Bay Young Dems have a well attended mixer every month where there is a ton of Obama energy.

I look at that room and its panoply of talented young voices and future leaders and think: How many of these folks will call our State Assemblyperson and lobby on Health Care or Education? How many are involved in Mayor Dinkins working groups on crime and citizen-oriented development? The possibility in that room is huge.

What can we do locally to seize this moment and transform how we do politics where we live for more than the life of one presidential campaign? ie. How can we make the Obama moment mean something persistent on a deeper and local level?

In this, I see the Obama moment as representing a huge opportunity.


A Huge Opportunity for Republicans' Last Try... (0.00 / 0)
to breathe life back into the expiring Southern Strategy by race-bating Obama.  Democrats may be forced to build an electoral majority without a southern state (except maybe Florida) and Obama should not waste his VP pick on a southerner in the hopeless quest to win some southern states.  Even states such as my Missouri will not be easy wins for him.  A lot of our voters tell a pollester that they would vote for a black but never, ever will, especially after the Republicans go ballastic on Obama.

This will be a mean and dirty fight such as we have never seen and I would expect the Secret Service to be very concerned about candidate safety.  Obama will be the left-wing, social-agitator, socialist-menance, affirmative action-loving, hate-the-troops, cryto-Islamofacist, threat to white-man's perogatives, candidate that will bring out the worst in America just as he tries to inspire the best in us.

I hope I am wrong.


[ Parent ]
Pathetic... (4.00 / 1)
that you choose to post your crypto-racist, self-indulgent fantasy as a non-response to my comment.

Do me a favor next time you want to indulge in this kind of rhetoric and don't do it as a non-response to me.

To be clear to those who are reading this and are wondering why I am so hot under the collar.

Here's the scoop. The amount of racism in American society will not change one whit if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Implying such, in fact, implying that Obama cannot win in, say, the Virginia of 2008, a Virginia that elected Douglas Wilder governor btw, is tantamount to crypto-racism.

Should a Jewish American run for President? Sure, if they are a good candidate.
Should a Mormon American run for President? Ditto.

Can you blame a candidate for the pre-existing bigotry in the society they live in? No. Saying otherwise reserves the presidency for whites. That is racist.

Every President needs secret service protection. Every last one. Barack Obama is getting no more and no less that what every major candidate gets.

Why do bigots and crypto racists seek to infuse every discussion of Obama's campaign with the specter of racism in the American South? Why this fantasy?

I think it is because they would rather have us discuss Barack Obama's campaign from a stand point of fear and prejudice than one of clear eyed reality and dare I say it, hope.

Of course it will be a watershed moment for the United States if Barack Obama is chosen as the Decmocratic nominee! Of course we will have a new kind of discussion about race in America in that context.

I choose to think that moment, if it comes, will represent an opportunity for all of us in every region to put the kind of of attitudes and bigotry expressed by ArthurKC back in the realm of the self-indulgent musings of scare mongers and would-be know-it-alls....where they decidedly belong.


[ Parent ]
I Hope Your Are Right (0.00 / 0)
because in 1994 I worked my tail off for Alan Wheat, our congressman who was running for Senate against Ashcroft and the prevailing conservative wind of the Contract on America.  Wheat was the same kind of candidate that Obama is and he polled well, right up to election day.  The last  few days of the campaign unleashed a torrent of racist innuendoes, mostly by direct mail, and here, where the civil war is still fought (N.B. the recent national broadcast of the Kansas-Missouri football game was a replay of the "Border War", complete with Kansas-John Brown-Jayhawks evoked as fighting against the Missouri Bushwackers) and when the voters voted, there is no explanation other than a lot of whites who said they would vote for Wheat, found they could not.

A lot has changed since then, but I suspect that the Republicans are so used to fighting with any weapon within reach that we should expect and prepare for the worst, because it is surely coming. 

To point this out is not racist.


[ Parent ]
To tell readers at Open Left... (0.00 / 0)
that Barack Obama cannot win a Southern State (except, maybe, Florida) and that he should be concerned for his life is not cool...nor is it reality based.

But mostly it plays into the very racism you are ostensibly decrying.

I think that is a fair statement and would apply if the candidate were Jewish or gay or Mormon or Latino.

I do not doubt your intentions and respect your hard work for Alan Wheat. However, your comment had NOTHING to do with mine. It was simply you jumping on a soap box to say...WARNING: this Black candidate is unelectable. Reread it. You are stoking fears and not much more.

Yes, Alan Wheat lost to Ashcroft in the 1994 Senate race. However, Congressman Wheat represented a majority white district in MO before that run.

The picture you paint is too simplistic and does not have supporting evidence, imo.

It is 2008, not 1958, and if the voters choose Barack Obama to be the nominee, I am quite certain that we will win the presidency whatever obstacles and challenges that arise.



[ Parent ]
Mayor Dellums (0.00 / 0)
I'm showing my age and my roots. lol.

[ Parent ]
Give me the keys, dad. You're drunk. (4.00 / 1)
I feel this strongly, and as a believer in the millennial generation, I do place some blame on the grown ups of this era.

I recall very clearly my favorite slogan of my initial youth organizing surge w/the Dean campaign: Give me the keys, dad. You're drunk.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


same old (4.00 / 3)
I disagree, I think this is typical generational sniping.

When this generation is in its late 40s, the next youth cohort will say the same thing.

You know who started the demonization of baby boomers? Conservatives.  It's a conservative frame. 


[ Parent ]
Conservative frame, boomers (0.00 / 0)
I think "conservative frame" has jumped the shark.  Hell, you could claim leading by personal conviction is a conservative frame.

My mother was born during the war and has two baby boomer siblings.  Every school I ever attended was in decline as I just missed the baby boom.  We have tons of irrational reasons to dislike the baby boomers without a conservative frame.

But the main point, of course, is correct.  Every generation does this.  But then, they are supposed to.  Each generation fixes the problems left unfixed by the previous one.

But let's face it, all the great strides in the 60's were made by the GI generation, not the boomers.  The Boomers gave us disco, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.  (Ok, disco was a low blow.)


[ Parent ]
ok, one other point (4.00 / 2)
well, sure, i agree on the shark point. but boomers are

the boomers are the first post sexual revolution generation.  prior generations were, i think, very repressed.  so boomers are an easy target.  they're "narcissists, selfish" etc.

yet current generations are far more like boomers than the boomers predecessors.  they used to talk about "the generation gap."  That's a thing of the past.


[ Parent ]
technology, science, culture..... (4.00 / 1)
if not in politics, many boomers have led. you have jumped the shark if you think they have no contributions.

steve jobs is a boomer, if a younger one  i could go on and on......


[ Parent ]
wellstone, feingold.... (0.00 / 0)
wellstone - boomer

what politicians do you like? which generation are they?


[ Parent ]
It has been my political vow (4.00 / 3)
that I will never vote for any politician who supported or voted for the war in Iraq.  This was the most important decision to be made by any politician of this generation, and anyone who failed that test has, in my mind, forever forfeited the responsibility of representing the American people again.

From that point of view, Obama is a clear choice for me over either Edwards or Clinton.

At the same time, given the massive problems that the next president will be inheriting from the worst president in our history, I had hoped for someone with a little experience and political courage, neither of which Obama has particularly shown he posseses in any great quantity.  My choice would have been Gore, but he chose otherwise.

Maybe Obama can grow into the job quickly.  Clearly, there is always a substantial gap between campaign-trail rhetoric and governance -- just check out what George Bush said to get elected -- so I would not necessarily judge an Obama presidency on what he is currently saying in his speeches.  We will see.

As far as the match-up between John "let's-stay-in-Iraq-for-a-hundred-years" McCain and Barack Obama, I rather believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans will make the right choice on that one.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.


Taking a chance on Obama (4.00 / 1)
From day one the next Democratic president is going to have to engage in some serious trench warfare with some very desperate Republicans (and not a few bottom-feeding Democrats).  There is nothing in Obama's background or rhetoric that suggests an eagerness to take these people on. He's already promising to compromise, and that's one promise his pals in the corporate media will hold him to.

Chris --- You are trying to make the best out of this (0.00 / 0)
It's your nature. 

However one genernation always passes the baton to another....that's just time ineluctably marching on.

The last 30 years have been an arc of time in which movement conservatism goes from little power....some influence...to strangling power to a loosening grip. Jimmy Carter was the first real conservative Democrat who incorporates right wing conservative frames (e.g. he began the deregulatory regime so beloved of R's ....from airlines to mining to food...etc) to a propaganda win with Reagan (Government is not the solution, it's the problem) to a tightening vise with the 1994 Republican Congress of Gingrich and Delay. 

At first it seemed that Bill Clinton undid that because he won, but by then the Republicans were no longer Bob Michel Republicans...they won't compromise, they won't negotiate unless they get what they want and everything they want.  Wilily Clinton fought them back....by what we then called coopting them...by using what we now call their frames...Of course it backfired...it only validated thier frames, ideas and worldview.

I think Obama ia the Bill Clinton of this generation.  He too won't confront them, uses their frames but unlike clinton he disses the progressive base. But Bill Clinton governed in the middle of a movement conservative world ( just like Nixon governed more liberally than Clinton,  and as did Eisenhower because they accepted the liberal frames of their era.)

This is the beginning of a new progressive era....which maybe ironically we owe to George Bush....to which a great deal of credit belongs to old line grassroots organizations and new fangled ones like the left wing blogosphere....and very little credit goes to Obama.

Obama is taking what Krugman has called in his book "Conscinece of a liberal"  the new progressive era, a seminal moment like 1932 and FDR.  Obama is no FDR.  He would never say "The malefactors of wealth hate me....and I WELCOME THEIR HATRED"  Obama is taking an enormous gift, created for him and the American people by others, and he will nip the bud of a progressive era before it blooms.

I will then, if he is elected, despite the MSM turning on him once he's the nominee, have the very dubious and sad "pleasure" of saying I told you so.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Go back to the Kennedys (0.00 / 0)

Jimmy Carter was the first real conservative Democrat who incorporates right wing conservative frames (e.g. he began the deregulatory regime so beloved of R's .

Jack Kennedy started the tax cuts that shifted the tax burden to the middle classes.  He also campaigned against Nixon based on the (non-existent) missile gap with the Soviet Union.

Bobby Kennedy started deregulation in the trucking industry, to take down Jimmy Hoffa.

LBJ stayed in Viet Nam because he feared a RW backlash if the US was seen to fail.

I would say the great failure of the last 30 years has been the embrace of tax-cutting policies that have led to unprecedented income inequality and a crumbling national infrastructure.  The Iraq war was just the icing on the cake, the last hurrah that guarantees we will not have the resources to fix the neglect of the last few decades.

SUVs, McMansions and big flat panel TVs are the legacy being bequeathed to the next generation.  And the debt that was piled up to pay for them.


[ Parent ]
Taxes (0.00 / 0)
Your basically right but the real damage happened starting in 1976 with Ford.  That's 32 years  pretty much right on target with your 30.

Kennedy cut the top rate from something like 91% to 76%.  The problem was that there were so many loopholes (oil depletion, real estate, and lots of others) and preferences that only real chumps without a decent tax lawyer or CPA paid the 91%.  Unfortunately for the country, one of the chumps was Ronald Regan who made his big money in the late 40s (I think it was 93% then).

Ford lowered it big time to 50%.  Reagan went down to 33% (pushed back to 38%), Clinton raised it to 41% IIRC and Bush II went back down to Reagan's lows and lower and took away all of the estate tax (the billionaires' tax cut of choice).

Looking at income taxes alone fails to look at the other side of the coin.  Taxes have been raised on many working and middle class individuals.  The big culprit here is Social Security and pensions.  Back in the early 60s, Social Security tax rates were, I think, 3% for the employer and 3% for the worker.  Most larger employers offered pensions pretty much all on the employer.  Pensions are gone replaced by 401-ks with a 50/50 match and the Social Security plus Medicare bite has more than doubled.  Of course, for those who have been reclassified as 1099s the bite has quadrupled.  Meanwhile, SS is capped and Medicare takes more of a bite from the ultra rich than Social Sexcurity.

The final wrinkle: under the Republicans corporate taxes are basically nil (they paid 27% of the freight during the 50s something like 5% today IIRC), ceos get golden parachutes worth hundreds of millions, corporations and millionaires who were audited every year are now audited infrequently and the IRS has (in the South ar least) transferred resources to going after people claiming the earned income tax credit.

Jerome a Paris had some really great graphs on income distribution in a recent diary on Daily Kos.  Basically over the last 30 years those in the top 1% gained nicely, the 400 richest Americans got a very substantial piece of the action and needed a separate scale and everybody else held their own (at the top) or lost ground (the bottom 90%).  Jerome had another graph comparing income in France to the US.  The median was now higher in France although the average was clearly better in the US as their was more wealth but it was not evenly divided.  I think I saw one of those trailing text messages on the bottom of the screen on CNN or MSNBC that said that for the first time since 1808, the average Briton had a higher income than the average American.

Lots to chew on.  Lots to work on.  Do you really think that the "winners" will give this up easily?  I think not.


[ Parent ]
Propaganda point (0.00 / 0)
... propaganda win with Reagan (Government is not the solution, it's the problem) ...

Doesn't Obama represent the opposite of this?  The entire thrust of his argument is Government is the solution, or at least can be if we get past the bickering.  He certainly isn't offering any other solution.  None of his rhetoric shies away from government as far as I can tell.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox