Yesss...Gatoress. :o)
And if Joe Lieberman does not yet understand that, then his committee assignment can be switched to counting mooseturds in Valdez, Alaska. :o)
An extended quote from Riverdaughter [riverdaughter.wordpress.com]:
2008 was the year that the [Democratic] party abandoned its principles. It is no longer the party of FDR and shared responsibility. Now it is the party of wannabe rich libertarian Democrats. It is the party of the Ariana Huffingtons who, dissatisfied with her own party, have decided to steal someone else's. It isn't the party that nearly elected Bobby Kennedy. It is the party that is about to write off Appalachia. Good riddance, working people! You're on your own. It isn't the party that made Social Security sacred. It is the party that might very well start tinkering with it because the young and well-off don't understand the concept of shared responsibility and insurance. And speaking of insurance, well, don't expect the health-care crisis to get any better. That would have called for everyone to be covered and we won't be going there with Obama.
The problem with Obama and the new Democratic party is that it doesn't stand for real Democrats. It is yet another strange amalgamation of voters whose self-interest was pandered to. In many ways, it is no different from the Republican party of gilded capitalists, religious crazies, and neocons. This new Democratic party is made up of young people, libertarians, and pretentious, status-conscious liberals. There is a nasty streak of cynicism in it as well, as if it's just so outre to consider helping the poor or abiding by any core Democratic principles. The new Democratic party is just too cool for that. They can write some lengthy, detailed policy paper about it and pay some lip service, but really, the American demographic has evolved and those people on the brink of insolvency, well, they are the Neanderthals that didn't make the cut. Moving on.
[end of quote]
Riverdaughter pretty much speaks for me.
This ties into a suspicion I've been having. Since I don't believe the official story of a network of small, independent donors, I wonder where Senator Obama REALLY got the bulk of his campaign money, and the only answer that readily occurs to me is Wall Street. But what would Wall St. want in return?
In 2005, at the height of his power, with both houses of Congress belonging to his party, and also the bulk of the judiciary, and the Corporate Holodeck Media fawning over him as usual, Chimperor Bush tried to privatize Social Security--and got his Chimperial arse handed to him.
This, I suspect, told the Wall St. jackals that no GOP prez would be able to hand them the keys to the Social Security money. Only a treacherous, nominally Democratic president could perhaps do that. Obama has repeated right-wing talking points on "reforming" Social Security at times. Could he be Wall St.'s Trojan Horse?
I suspect that this election is, behind the scenes, a struggle for power between the old business-class elite, mostly represented by the GOP, and a new creative-class elite that has managed to capture the Democratic Party. If the new elite wins out, I suspect we working stiffs will still face a hard road. Underneath their cultural liberalism, most of the new elitists despise us working stiffs who didn't grow up using computers and so have some trouble adapting to their brave new world, and also they despise our aged parents and other aged relatives. I think most of our new, "creative-class" elitists, are, secretly, as Social Darwinist as the old business-class elitists. BOTH groups view people like me as livestock if we're useful to them, and as vermin if we're not. To them, the majority of us working Americans are just "Neanderthals who didn't make the cut", and Social Security and other social insurance programs are just a waste of money on us evolutionary inferiors, who should just shuffle off into the tar pit and die already. I think the new pseudo-liberal elitists would cheerfully leave me to starve when I get old, assuming they didn't just set my weakened, helpless body on fire and post it on YouTube for laughs. [For some reason, I can particularly imagine Moonglum and/or Obama-til-November doing that.]
I look upon the "creative class", and I begin to understand how the normal humans of the Marvel Comics universe feel about mutant humans--"We've been replaced".
Only, instead of the "Children of the Atom", the CC folks are the "Children of the Chip" [silicon, of course].
And I find myself hoping for the electoral equivalent of Sentinels, to make sure these cruel young people NEVER get their hands on power.
So, I'm hoping now for a President McCain vs. a strong Democratic Congress--so that neither the business-class elite nor the creative-class elite can gain total control; that they'll fight each other to a bloody, horrible draw--that they'll cripple each other, so that neither can assume absolute power with its base alone, but each will need to cater to us working stiffs and our old folks in order to gain temporary edges over the other. That's why I want you to lose this time--so that you'll decide you do need us evolutionary throwbacks and our Neanderthal votes after all.
I suspect I'm far from the only one who feels this way. Y'all have, however unwittingly, activated one of the earliest, strongest, most primal of human fears, which goes back to earliest childhood--the fear of being abandoned.
First, the hardline conservatives took over the GOP--the "Daddy" party--and turned it into the "Deadbeat Dad" party.
Now, you creative-class elitists want to take over the Democratic party--our "Mommy" party--and turn it into the "Mommie Dearest" party.
One Bad-Parent party is bad enough. We don't need two of them.
If you fake-liberal Social Darwinists try to push us Neanderthals out of the lifeboat, we'll use our last strength to drag you down with us.
We'll take your Plastic Jesus's presidential hopes and crucify them, and then see if he can raise them on the third day.
Selah.
We'll take your Plastic Jesus's presidential hopes and crucify them, and then see if he can raise them on the third day.
I suppose you'll expect to raise more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the dead, eh? And thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of American troops, if McCain starts bombing Iran.
And the country with them, when we slide, as we will, irretrievably into a police state, followed, as death follows cerebral hemorrhage, by system collapse.
You must have one hell of a magic wand there, Selah.
You can take your Reagan Democrat nonsense and your white sheets with them. And leave.
You're not welcome in the Democratic Party.
Riverdaughter smells like a swiftboater - the give away is the line "I'm a lifelong Democrat".
now not only is liberal a bad word, but apparently creative is too. Oh, and god forbid young people want to be involved in the kind of world they are going to be living in.
whatever.
ps new trolls are fun
Stormcrow--I do not belong, and have never belonged, to any political party.
Gator, did you miss the prefixes?
"pseudo-liberal", "fake-liberal"?
I wasn't talking about real liberals.
What a stupid person. As a Party member since 1976 I want this idiot no where near the Democratic Party. Too stupid to breathe with all the Wall Street, lies and bullshit.
Everyone of the parties heros from Jefferson, Jackson, FDR and Kennedy would spit on this troll's bleatings. Go to the "You Kids, Get Off My Lawn 2008" campaign and party. They need more losers like you.
"Stormcrow--I do not belong, and have never belonged, to any political party."
That's odd, considering that your own statements make it clear that the neocon wing of the Republican Party owns your soul. Whether you know it or not. You wouldn't be the first person I've run across who's ignorant of their own true allegiances. Or the hundredth. I daresay you won't be the last.
You and all the current year's Ralph Nader imitations are in desperate need of conscience transplants. Too bad they won't take.
Oh, really, Stormcrow? How many neocon GOPhers do you think want a "strong Democratic Congress", as I said?
I want gridlock, and I explained why plainly enough. I would think with your exalted creative-class intellect, you would have understood me easily enough. 
"It's His Party Now"
And on Wed. Nov. 5, he'll cry if he wants to. 
[Apologies to Lesley Gore]
"I want gridlock"
Oh, that's clear enough.
I don't think you'll like what follows. But then, I don't think you understand what will follow. Useful fools never do. Until the moment when they themselves are sacrificed by the monsters whose dupes they were.
Then please state what will follow, Stormcrow, since you seem to know everything--and please prove it.
I doubt I'll like what follows WHOEVER wins, SC, but then I am difficult to please.
Um, guys? Does this ALWAYS have to go from 0 to 90 in a nanosecond?
Look, first, "Id" is not a troll, he is a long time commenter with a new name. So I address this to him: When Edwards dropped out, I went in search of a candidate. Read the websites, thoroughly, and had read 1 each of their books. Then went to 5 or 6 different liberal blogs and asked specific questions about BOTH of them. I respect both of them and have always referred to them as either "Sen. Obama" or "Sen. Clinton" or "Hillary" and "Obama" - not "Barry" or any other diminutives. My questions were specific policy questions and since I was specifically LOOKING for info, there was not a snark to be found. I was IMMEDIATELY attacked by Obama supporters in such a savage manner that I was taken completely aback. It has continued, to some degree, through the primary, though has calmed down considerably since this happened to me (right after Edwards dropped out, back in the dark ages). But I made a conscious effort to separate the Candidate from the most rabid Supporters, since they won't be President. I was also very encouraged by Edwards support. He has made poverty and the working class the subject of his life, and since I trusted him enough to put him in the White House, I TRUST HIM ON THIS.
Besides. The Democratic Congress will re-discover their **oversight** abilities once they can exercise them on a Democratic president. Sigh.
Id said it in his first comment. He's scared. It's terrifying to be getting older and knowing that your ability to work like an animal is going to or is already diminishing while the world is going tits up. I know firsthand. Immediately adopting the "You're with us or you're with the *enemy*" response may not be the best way to pursuade him. The election is a numbers game, and we need each other. Folks like "Id" are pursuadable, and we need to do that and save the attacks for the other side.
And, um, it's reins. Not "reigns."
Shorter Punkster: "Can't we all just get along?"
Punkster: Thanks--I was wondering if anyone had read the post where I SAID I was going back to an older nom de Web.
I need to go get some sleep, folks. Ciao for nao.
"It's terrifying to be getting older and knowing that your ability to work like an animal is going to or is already diminishing while the world is going tits up. I know firsthand."
So do I. And you know it well if you have read many of my comments.
Apparently Id hasn't.
Since she apparently thinks I am one of these "creative-class intellects" of the under thirty set that horrify her so.
That makes me laugh.
They don't make me sleep any easier either, since I don't think they've been schooled by the same sort of hardnosed bastards who hammered basic intellectual integrity through my thick skull. But I could be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong about Id, though. She may not be a troll, but she is a fool. Probably an even worse one than I was at 20, which is really saying something.
Unfortunately, I learned that we all cannot "just get along" multiple decades and uncountable betrayals ago. You cannot "just get along" with an alcoholic driver when you're sitting in the passenger seat.
Ever been in a car wreck as the passenger of a drunk driver? I have. If the impact, which struck the passenger door at thirty miles per hour minimum, had been angled just a trifle differently, I would not be around to write this.
And the "gridlock" people are the equivalent of that alcoholic driver. We have seen this before. Have we not?
Dear Selah, the mistake you and the rest of the Hillary-entitlers make is thinking that you are even IN the democratic lifeboat. Ever since she voted to enable the fucking of the cluster, and then waited 20 primary debates to nibble on that bloody piece of stateswomanship, along with her campaign tactics, you guys have been in the OTHER lifeboat.
You know the one I'm talking about; the one with Condi at the tiller, as John McCain goes menage a trois with george bush and Dick Cheyney, while Hillary praises him for his "lifetime of experience". :o)
Make nice, and we might let you, Hillary and her good bud, Joe Lieberman, in OUR lifeboat. But if you want to join McCain's attack dog cur-pack, we're going to hit you over the head with an oar, and then piss on you as you sink. :o)
On second thought, if you're stupid enough to think that Barack Obama wants to turn Social Security over to the tender mercies of Wall St., maybe we won't let you crawl in, no matter what kind of fence-mending you do. :o)
I want gridlock...
moron.
cause that is going to help people?
sheesh.
stupid people are stupid.
Punkster, I respect you, but I am sorry... Id did not just say I am scared... or what about x, y, or z.
she/he said how much we all suck and how he/she hopes the dems lose. If it is acting like a troll, surely you can forgive us for making the assumption.
But You are right, 0 to 90 in a second is not good, and I am going to try to be more careful. thanks for the reminder.
with chagrin
tlg
OK, again, and then I have to depart because it is supposed to be hotter than the hinges of hell tomorrow and I need to jam the normal 2-day non-stop household jobs that fill my weekend into one day. And go to the stable and "take the reins" of my horse
Id and any other currently shaky lefties that are conflicted right now don't need to drive people to the polls or give money or apply stickers to their cars; they need to pull a lever. Or scan something. That's it. No heavy lifting. And they need to do that in substantial numbers in order for us to have a Dem in the Oval Office. Attacking them for their very conflict isn't gonna pull that lever.
Might I suggest you go over to Orcinus and dig up our very own Mrs. Robinson's pieces about leading people from fundamentalist Christianity to the reality based community. Changing people's minds requires finesse and empathy and respect, not a bludgeon, regardless of what you are trying to change. Seriously - read this and think about it - you can find it over there; I don't have time to find it and link right now. Some really useful stuff there.
So! Let's stop the circular firing squad. Trust me. More flies to honey than vinegar and all that...
Punkster, re: "the circular firing squad":
Politically speaking, WE now have the "guns". And most of the "vinegar" is coming from the bitter-end Clinton supporters, with all of their threats about backing McCain or sitting it out.
If they really want to do that, then let them.
But, they lost. And the notion that we have to keep kissing their GOP-lite asses all the way to November, is a very republican-serving idea.
We. Are. Tired. Of. It.
Just so you know, and so that I am clear ...
Barack Obama was not my first choice. Edwards was. They are both of them flawed, IMO. But Obama proved the better speaker and the better organizer and he was able to get past the media whores' blackout that extinguished the Edwards campaign.
Which makes him a better President-elect than Edwards would have been, flaws and all.
If you read my comments of eight or nine months ago, you know the misgivings I had about Barack Obama. Many of them I still have. Don't even get me started about his position about Israel. He seems to equate Israel with the Likud. Past that I won't go now, because if I do, I will shortly be using obscenities.
Please do not misunderstand me: I am NOT an idealist. My first exposure to the idea of governance as craft was through the writings of a certain Italian nationalist who was born 350 years too soon. Not through Ghandi. And that was my formative exposure. And any later admiration I may have had for idealism died quite completely when I studied what a wreck idealism made of Europe last century. Tens of millions dead, whole continents laid waste. The Russian Federation is still living in the unreconstructed rubble. And they aren't the only ones.
Coming from that place - Obama continues to surprise me. I did NOT expect him to just flat-out out-general Hillary Clinton. Which is what he did. This nomination was hers twelve months ago and we all knew it.
I did NOT expect him to be a "measure twice, cut once" sort, which he now seems to be. Somebody who shoots from the hip would not have responded to the "Reverend Wright" business with that speech on race, which surprised just about everybody, including me.
And I did NOT expect him to push Lieberman around in public. Especially not since he seems to be classed as one of those "creative-class intellects" by some. Given that, you'd expect a clever strategem or a subtle reminder. Not that trip around to the back of the woodshed.
Now.
There is one other matter which is utterly critical to understand. If you don't, then you're as morally incompetent as poor bankrupt old Ralph Nader, and so intellectually incompetent that you should NOT open your mouth about politics in public.
This is not an election that allows for "protest votes".
We have spent six of the last eight years in pursuit of a colonial empire, of a scope and folly far beyond the bullying for which we have made ourselves famous this last century. This has involved the invasion, destruction, pillage, and utter ruin of a nation that never was even a marginal threat to us, let alone an existential one. It has involved the embrace, AT AN OFFICIAL LEVEL, of torture. Not only is this doomed by the magnitude and structure of the task we have set ourselves, AND by the inability of our economy to support the expense, but we are ALSO generating a perfectly insane level of fear in every other country on earth. Fear of US.
We were, and still are, perfectly capable of turning a nation that truly constitutes an existential threat to us into a wasteland of craters and radioactive glass.
But we are no longer the only country on earth that can do this, and we never again will be.
Furthermore, we are now entering a narrow place along with everybody else on earth, in which we will need every friend we have got and more.
What that all means is that the regime that did this must not only be defeated, it must be unequivocally repudiated. Not merely humbled. But crushed. Broken. Utterly. Disintegrated to the maximum extent possible to us without civil war.
This was pikestaff plain four years ago. Which was why Steve heaped such scorn, contempt, and derision on the fencepost-sitters who "voted their conscience" by voting for Nader. It is even more plain today.
That's why my own decision was made long before the lines were even drawn for this primary. I made up my mind that while the primary was going to be critical, I'd vote for whoever emerged with a "D" after their name. I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she'd won. Hell, I'd even vote for a lying piece of gutter filth like Lieberman.
Obama? The way he's turning out? I really don't know whether this was always in him, or whether he's just learning very bloody fast. But sweet chocolate jesus.
He's a damn sight short of ideal. But frankly, he's also a damn sight better than we deserve.
Stormcrow, eloquent as always. Republican that I am, I voted for Gore in 00 and Kerry in 04, and I resolved that come Hell or high water I would pull the lever for a Democrat in 08. It didn't matter to me at all who the Democratic Party nominated, so long as the blood-dimmed tide could be dammed or diverted.
And there was I thinking that being 'creative' was a good thing!.......
It's a strange old world.
Yes, well, that's what I mean. I, too, am a pragmatic idealist, and I, too, have come to like some of the very direct smackdowns that Obama has perpetrated. You explained your situation and your own experience, and how you got there.
There are three groups. One is already there. One can be brought along with a little patience and respect, and may be a holdout because they have been slapped aound but good. And one is is unredeamable due to bigotry, ignorance, or Republicanism. I am just counciling that you tighten up the holes on your sieve when differentiating between the last two groups. I don't want to face a McCain administration because one group had their feelings hurt and the other thought it might be more fun to pick at their wounds than help bring them back on board.
"He did it first" quit being an acceptable argument when you graduated 5th grade. Let's not use it anymore.
Believe me. Senator Obama wants those votes just as bad as he wants yours.
In another thread which is now somewhat downpage, Sean (whose political sympathies would appear to be more libertarian than anything else) asked if we could give him a reason why we should vote for Obama.
President W. has given himself an mighty excess of unconstitutional power with these executive orders he has put in place. All presidents since Reagan have been doing this, but the Chimperor has gone hog-wild more than any of the others in this respect. One of the first things Obama has pledged to do is review all those executive orders W. put in place and rescind all the ones that accord the President unconstitutional priveleges. I know it would be better if we had a congress that could do that job, but unfortunately, we don't. So I think that at least would appeal to a libertarian or anybody who is concerned with stopping the slide from republic to plutocratic empire.
Stormcrow articulated some excellent reasons for an independent liberal or a Dem to support the far from perfect Obama, so I'll take different tack in response to the well-named Id.
There are a lot of enlightened and reality-based working class Boomers out there for Obama to woo, but Id isn't one of them. He/she seems to have problems distinguishing between a candidate who'd keep us in Iraq and extend the surveillance state on the one hand, and one who's been clear we have to get out of Iraq and review Bush's signing statements for their Consitutionality (oh, and the first candidate isn't McSame in this case).
Id and Riverdaughter are bitter that the Boomer woman candidate didn't win. They don't want to face the reasons WHY Obama beat Hillary. They don't even care that, on the issues they claim to care about, she was more DLC than Dean. They claimed, without evidence, that Obama is anti-woman and anti-working-class, but chose to ignore Hillary's dog-whistle calls to "hard-working white Americans. They complain about "a nasty streak of cynicism at one moment, and yet brag about their own (justified) cynicism at another.
These contradictions are understandable and recognizable to anyone who studies history. The international economy is changing in ways that are beyond the powers of even the mighty POTUS to sweep back, and merciless demographics are ensuring that a new generation is starting to take power away from the old. In those circumstances, older people of all social classes with a peasant mentality always retreat into angry and spiteful fear.
They may couch their concerns in knowing cynicism and, like good PC Boomers, avoid scapegoating brown furriners, but in the end they're as fatalistic and frightened as the most racist GOP supporter.
I hope Obama understands and accepts that the relatively small subset of voters like Id are lost to the Democratic Party. We can only hope that they'll stay home on election day. But a very small number will drift over to populist anti-war candidates like Nader or McKinney or even (if they listen to the siren calls of trolls like Peasant Sean) Ron Paul or Buchanan, willfully blind to the fact that all of those closet authoritarians hate and fear smart fighting liberals (working stiff or creative class, young and old) as much as Bush and McCain do.
So go ahead and do your worst, Id. You'll serve as a useful reminder to us that those on the left are just as capable of short-term thinking and voting against their own interests as the Bush base was. You'll be more than balanced out by independents and even Republicans who realize that, as Stormcrow said, we're lucky to have someone of Obama's caliber running for President.
"I think that at least would appeal to a libertarian or anybody who is concerned with stopping the slide from republic to plutocratic empire."
Peasant Sean (assuming he isn't a McCain concern troll) isn't a real libertarian, but rather what libertarians sometimes call a "Rotarian Capitalist." He's not interested in finding a reason to vote for Obama, and isn't not worthy of consideration, except to knock down his flimsy and increasingly frightened-sounding arguments.
Hey, guess what?! Obama's position on social security is conveniently posted on his website. He has a long page dedicated to the issue. Instead of writing long, misinformed screeds on his proposals, why not research exactly how he voted on the important issues? Then, you can peruse McSame's website and find this:
John McCain supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts – but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept. He will reach across the aisle, but if the Democrats do not act, he will.
You'll find that McSame's SocSec policy consists of only one paragraph in his Economic Plan webpage. That shows what a priority it is for him.
I suspect that Id is on to something- something that smacked me in the face when Steve covered the NYC transit strike.
Remember that? Steve stuck by the workers, but the general run of comments from the regulars tended to boil down to "How dare they inconvenience their betters? Those people don't have college degrees!"
Jen was particularly disgusting about it.
Having been a regular reader and occasional participant in the old Netslaves forum, I was already well aware of the pernicious tendency of code jockeys- pardon me- "IT professionals" to think that being able to program a computer conferred instant unchallengeable expertise in all other subjects, but it was the transit strike that showed me conclusively the contempt in which working people like myself are held by the yuppie-scum egotists who made up so much of the Netslaves demographic, a contempt which I return with interest.
I just can't decide whether these attitudes are better described as "clueless arrogance" or "arrogant cluelessness".
Hmm.
I don't recall ever having heard the phrase "Rotarian Capitalist" before. But it is a thing of beauty. Completely clear and self-explanatory.
Thank you.
OBT:
Be that as it may, I would like to give Sean the opportunity to prove he's not just a mouth-breathing troll like serr8ed. If Sean is nothing more than a mouth-breathing troll, then he'll jump at the chance to show himself to be that the way serr8ed did, and then I can ignore him knowing that I'm not simply "straw-manning" him.
"suspect that Id is on to something- something that smacked me in the face when Steve covered the NYC transit strike.
Remember that? Steve stuck by the workers, but the general run of comments from the regulars tended to boil down to "How dare they inconvenience their betters? Those people don't have college degrees!"
I do remember that...And I'll never forget it.
Here's a quote from an article via NarcoNews that explains the views counter to Steve's take during the strike.:
"Those of us, in recent decades, that organized (or tried to organize) political movements ran up against tremendous inertia in that most Americans – including “progressives” – did not really want to collaborate with people that were not nearly identical to themselves: in appearance, education level, and ideology.
Read the entire article . It's worth the read.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1324
As someone who has never crossed a picketline, and from a distance supported the transit workers in their strike, I find it very unfair to castigate those amongest us who failed to understand the issues.
Divisiveness seems to come from two places, ignorance and Republican gasoline poured on a class warfare fire. As a long time member of the creative class, I know a very important thing. All legal labor is honorable. No matter what you do for a living, so long as you are not involved in a criminal enterprise, you should be respected. (Hey Republican Blackwater, I'm looking at you.)
Let us spend this day celebrating what brings us together as Democrats... Hillary Clinton outlined many of them in her speech endorsing Obama. Tomorrow we need to rise up and begin the work of taking back the White House, the Congress and every political office we can. The niceties of slicing and dicing the motives, honor or sins of others can wait until the Bush Crime Family is out of office.
Ktesibios and Yep, It's Anon!--Thanks. You two get it.
Everyone remember please:
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.
Thank you.
And there was I thinking that being 'creative' was a good thing!.......
It's a strange old world.
Bollox Ref
Ah, Ref, you're not getting the full context. "Creative class," you see, is this decade's "cosmopolitan."
I make my living as a writer and I'm sure this means that I'm a member of this evil creative class that Id refers to. Funny ... I sure don't feel like a member of a "new elite" who opposes the "working stiffs." In fact, I consider myself a working stiff, and certainly not a member of any elite.
I don't recall sneering at poor people, although Riverdaughter and Id certainly enjoy sneering at me, sight unseen. I don't talk nonsense about unions. But apparently some posters here just assume that someone in my line of work does hold Reaganesque views on unions.
When people write disdainfully of a "creative class" and "Wall Street jackals," I hear the sound of jackboots.
That's why it's so amusing to read this quote that Yep! It's Anon approvingly dug up: "Those of us, in recent decades, that organized (or tried to organize) political movements ran up against tremendous inertia in that most Americans -- including 'progressives' -- did not really want to collaborate with people that were not nearly identical to themselves: in appearance, education level, and ideology."
That quote describes Riverdaughter and Id, self-pityingly boasting of their moral superiority while they get in our way with their "tremendous intertia." That quote doesn't describe me (the "creative class" guy) or the motley people whom I have volunteered with on Democratic political campaigns from city council to president.
Or to say it more plainly: While I worked alongside people of many races, ages and education levels to get Democrats elected, I suspect that Riverdaughter and Id were spending that time staying away from the likes of me. Yet they accuse me (as a member of the evil "creative class") of being stuck-up! I'd like to know if Yep! It's Anon has done political work with diverse people, or if he or she merely enjoys talking a scornful game, too.
"most Americans – including “progressives” – did not really want to collaborate with people that were not nearly identical to themselves: in appearance, education level, and ideology."
This is understandable, especially in light of what Bishop and Cushing call "The Great Sort."
In regard to unions, though, the problem that evil individualist "creative class" types like myself have is mainly with the size, the shift to institutional preservation over mission, the demands for conformity amongst members who often have no choice but to join, and the sort of seriously flawed leaders (incompetents, ego cases, empty suits) that big organizations always attract.
And yes, I also have issues with the big unions' inertia and exclusivity. There's still too much reliance on outmoded protest methods, still lots of "seniority" deadwood and nepotism, still lots of proud anti-intellectualism, and still a lot of institutional racism from both directions (depending on the union).
That's not to say that I regard unions as unneccessary. Far from it. Like Amuseinc, I don't cross picket lines, and I'm a harsh critic of American business management practices. I'd guess during the transit strike discussion that for every instance of criticism of the union, there was equal or greater criticism of the MTA management from people like myself.
I look at the big blue collar unions as necessary evils, and hope that they'll adjust to new realities and become even more effective. If the Democratic Party can do it, I see no reason why the unions can't, too.
Part of the problem here is that Obama opened up a taboo topic for American politics: class. And the truths he conveyed about class, without referencing party affiliation, were hard for older blue collar workers in depressed geographic areas to accept:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
That pissed off a LOT of Democrats, but it had to be said, if only to allow them to follow up by saying "that's not me" and declaring themselves.
Now angry working class liberals and progressives can leave the xenophobia, Chistopathy, jingoism, gun nuttery, and bogus class warfare to the right-wing authoritarians and the Naderites. And the ones who can't leave those things behind aren't needed by Obama.
Interesting discussion - unduly harsh. Id is a regular, not a troll, I remember when s/he reverted to older username and noted it on another comments thread.
Bottom line - I'm fairly certain what we'll get with McCain. Same ol', same ol' with a side of extra misery. If one were to really, pay attention to his record - I remember him going against Clinton, and making me think he was just as nutty as Gingrich. The 2000 campaign was an anamoly (sp?). This toady as RNC candidate is the real McCain. Unimaginative, unoriginal. He wants the office because he wants it. Hell, I give Bush more credit cuz he had a plan - loot the damn country and go. I don't even think McCain thinks that far. His entire career has been a favor to his father and grandfather the admirals. He didn't EARN a daggone thing in the Navy - turned out to be a shitty pilot. Yeah, props for being able to survive torture, but name ONE other thing he's done, on his own, of note. I'm waiting for someone to take him to task for the lie that he did everything he could to help the victims of Katrina - in direct contradiction to his voting record - and photographs of he and the chimp celebrated his birthday.
What will we get with Obama? I don't know. I'm reminded of Jon Stewart saying "Obama. How will he break our hearts?" It's entirely possible. But I've liked what I've seen - the ability to admit error, the willingness to confront issues in a timely manner. Except for Israel, the willingness to say things that folks may not like. But I believe that he will get the troops out as soon as he can. I believe that he will be deliberate and thoughtful in his words and deeds. And I believe that he will not embarass himself, his family or the country. After this fiasco as administration, I'd be friggin' happy with that for the first four years.
And Punkster, we do need those that supported Clinton. You are right. But those that will not vote for a candidate based on the postings of strangers on the internet will not vote for Obama anyway. They are obviously just looking for a reason to justify their not wanting to vote for him.
I originally wrote a lengthy response...BWTF,It's pointless arguing with those that feel defensive from my contribution to this thread. Secondly,it's also pointless to argue with folks brimming with self aggrandizement (if ya had used the letter I any more....Ha!)
To summarize my point. In the link I provided earlier,there is a quote from Gore Vidal. That quote is the essence as to why I believe so many so called progressives quickly,vehemently and in a manner so lewd....vented their invective toward the transit workers. Hell,the invective reached a point MUCH further than what is given/shown toward republican swine... ( I apologize to genuine swine worldwide....Really)
Id,I don't understand how you can consider a vote for McCaine....But then again,isn't American politics a battle between America's white middle class? One group of white middle class folks pitting their sense of entitlement against the other?(the super rich 1% notwithstanding) So,perhaps your voting for him isn't a stretch,eh?
Obviously,no one understood why I chimed in and where I was coming from,that's fine. If anyone had bothered to read the link provided,it should have been obvious. But,folks just wanna see what they wanna see....And hear. I'm not surprised.
That's the kind of arrogance that put Bush in the White House. And if it wasn't for the complacency of white middle class America,he wouldn't had been given a second term.
Katrina wasn't bad enough.
Afghanistan wasn't enough.
Iraq wasn't bad enough.
No bid contracts wasn't enough.
The CiC sitting on his ass for 10 minutes reading My Pet Goat wasn't enough.
Nope.
Hit em at the pump.
Let their home depreciate in value.
Damn it...Meant to hit preview..Instead....
The recent dissatisfaction with the republican party leaves me discombobulated. They've always been nothing shy of veritable bastards during my lifetime.
"Hit em at the pump.It has always been this way.
Let their home depreciate in value."
It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.And here's another.
.. men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony ..
My own take on why Clinton supporters are so angry and willing to talk conspiracy in Obama's nomination win:
Clinton did it to them.
She started the misleading "popular vote" nonsense. She implied he was an empty suit without experience. She stoked her supporter's feelings of disappointment and disenfranchisement.
She did it very well.
I hope her speech signals that she will start to make up for this and bring her supporters into the fold. She is the only one who can do it.
She said it to win, and now that she has not, she will start supporting Obama as our Democratic nominee.
Her supporters should do likewise... or what kind of supporters are they?
Monster From The Id is Ivory Bill Woodpecker, right? The term "corporate holodeck media" is a dead givaway. That was one of Bill's patented phrases.
Not that I especially disagree with anything he says up above. Frankly, I think y'all are being far too harsh in slamming the guy...not that I don't appreciate where you're all coming from, as well. Which is kind of an annoying place to be; makes me sound all middle-of-the-road, don't it? Heh, heh. Ugh.
I'm not an Obama fanboy, and I fully expect him to (at the very least) disappoint us. You only have to read Counterpunch and various other sites to know the man's no progressive. I've tended to view the Dem campaign thus far as 'genuine centrists' (that is, Obama) vs. out-and-out right-wingers pretending to be centrists (the Clintons and their hanger-ons). Where all this will lead, I'm sure I don't know, but I doubt it'll be anywhere good.
That said, this election, to me, is absolutely about the usual Lesser of Two Evils argumanet, and if I were an American citizen, I'd unhesitatingly vote for the Dems come October. If nothing else, Obama has waged a far less destructive campaign than Hillary (his sleazier missteps notwithstanding), and for that reason alone, he deserves the nomination.
But that is hardly the end of the story, as I really shouldn't have to lecture anyone here; You all know better. To be perfectly blunt, I think the Democratic Party is almost certainly broken beyond repair by this point. It's up to those of you actually living in the U.S. to prove me wrong, and blind hero worship and mindless, unthinking subservience isn't going to do shit. That's the job of the GOP's moron base.
Ech. Why do I never spell check? "Argument", not "argumanet", whatever that is!
"You only have to read Counterpunch and various other sites to know the man's no progressive."
John D., Barack Obama may or may not be a progressive.
But these days, I wouldn't take the word of a Counterpunch post that the sun rises in the east without first checking it myself.
You want me to resurrect Patrick Cockburn's Global Warming Denialism Hit Parade? Those wonderful and authoritative pieces in which he demonstrates his failure to understand the concept of peer review? Among many other "accomplishments"?
I now understand why Steve expressed nothing but contempt for Counterpunch.
"You want me to resurrect Patrick Cockburn's Global Warming Denialism Hit Parade?"
Small correction: it's Alexander Cockburn (Patrick is his more reality-based war correspondent brother, who writes for The Independent).
And you have to understand Alexander Cockburn's motivation. After all, his self regard as an environmentalist is such that he can't accept that driving his vintage diesel car around Humboldt County contributed to air pollution.
BarbinAtl we all know taht IBW is an old regular...dson't eman he isnt' actign trollish..ehs ahvign a temper tamtrum...thigns didnt' go hsi way...he was very clearly wrong on his assertions from day one and now hes crying about it....that dson't make his stance any mroe relivant or connected to reality now then it was 3 months ago
Stormcrow, I'm not even going to correct you on mistaking Patrick for Alex Cockburn; OTN has already done that. Nor am I going to disagree with your analysis of AC's thoughts on global warming, as I happen to agree with them. But one looney opinion caused by selfishness does not paint the entire picture of the man, as you very well know. I freely admit Cockburn can be a genuinely unpleasant character at times, and there have been moments when he's pissed me off, even when I've agreed with him...but I could say the exact same thing about Steve, who didn't always know what he was talking about, and who, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, spouted out-and-out drivel. We all have our asshole moments, you know.
As for dismissing Counterpunch as a whole, well, quite a few people write for it, ya know, and their opinions don't always happen to march in lockstep. I've thought Jeffrey St. Clair's recent articles in which he mused on Hillary Clinton's motivations for staying in the race were pretty much spot on. Jane Hamsher just recently quoted Patrick Cockburn's work with some approval, as Steve used to from time to time...unless my memory is failing me. Oh, but Patrick is more "reality based", you say? Doesn't change the fact that his work has appeared in Counterpunch, or that Alex presumably agrees with and/or approves of his brother's war coverage. Does that make Patrick's war coverage "worthy of contempt" as well?
Commenting by HaloScan
