I guess the article was too long......
No, I read it. Thought it was interesting. Taking a wait and see approach.
One thing tho: I dont think standing by McKinney should be made a yardstick of anything...
Hi snood,
Thanks for posting it. I agree with some of it. My basic reaction is the same as what I asked a few pages ago:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1973170#1973170
Quote:Can anyone win without playing the game? (Sincere question...)
I think that the kind of in-your-face politician that Counterpunch craves is simply not viable. The Springfield Urban League thing gave me pause, and could be that's just plain bad. But it strikes me as being redolent of spin, itself, with stuff like this line: "But he blew us off for nothing more than continued visits to states that did not elect him to stump for sometimes-questionable democrats--like the Lieberman situation." We've already examined whether he was stumping for Lieberman, per se, or if he was speaking at a fundraiser for the Massachusetts Democrats, in general. It seems like most of his visiting of various states is in an attempt to help Democrats win various seats in 2006 -- an important and significant goal.
Oh and I got a response to my reservation request -- first, an apology for it being a form letter due to the "overwhelming response," and second, details including the price -- $150/ ticket. Hmm.
Hadn't seen nimh... yeah, I agree re: McKinney.
sozobe wrote:Having an interpreter is a great way to get the speaker's attention -- the terp is usually right next to the speaker, the speaker usually wants to know why, the terp indicates the deaf person/ people in the audience, I smile and nod...
Then of course I have an in for after-speech mingling...
Plot plot plot...
You go girl! I love people who find the positives in every situation. Go for it!
(... Do you think you'll be able to find a way around the form-letter-system?)
Thanks for the historical perspective, Set. I always enjoy reading those from you.
I read your article, Snood, and agree with Sozobe. The candidate they seek isn't viable. Nimh and Soz are also correct about McKinney. Only a fool stands by a fool while seeking credibility. McKinney dropped the ball and owns her own mistakes. Obama didn't abandon her; he showed the good sense to not sign on to nonsense.
If Obama proves to be like every other spineless Democrat, except with some ethnic charm and urbane debonair thrown in, I've got no use for him. I don't need someone to make pretty speeches and be a "first" anything. I need someone who has the courage of his convictions, and who will speak the truth even when unpopular. I realize that doesn't describe the perfectly "viable" candidate. But what good is a poster child for saleability who will continue to slog around in the mediocrity of what is popular?
And just for the record - I think McKinney is way out there on a couple of fronts and has somewhat earned a reputation as eccentric. But I think the Congressional Security Police aren't blameless in what happened to her, I think she has been one of the few who has spoken up unequivocally against some of the BS in the present administration, and I think that Obama will have to deal with elements like McKinney and Sharpton and Jackson and the Black Caucus in ways other than ignoring them.
I dunno. I see at as prioritization -- choosing battles. If you fight every single little battle you won't be around to fight the big ones. I think he's willing to speak the truth when it's unpopular -- especially if the fight is big.
sozobe wrote:I dunno. I see at as prioritization -- choosing battles. If you fight every single little battle you won't be around to fight the big ones. I think he's willing to speak the truth when it's unpopular -- especially if the fight is big.
The thing is, like Colin Powell he seems to be getting quieter with more exposure. How do you know he's willing to speak the unpoular if he doesn't do it anymore?
And by the way Soz, I read the book. A bit disappointing. I should have realized that, being first published in 1996, it wouldn't cover much of what I wanted to know about him. It is mostly deep insights into his relationships with his father's side of the family, with some smattering peeks into his thoughts about race, privilege, and power. When it ends, he hasn't held elective office.
What do you mean by quieter? I haven't checked again recently but for a while there I was doing regular checks of him in the news section of Google and it was a whole lot of noise. Heavy criticism of Bush, on a whole lot of levels, and not all of them particularly safe.
Some of them are popular in the sense of becoming more mainstream -- alternative energy sources, etc., etc. -- but I don't see that kind of popularity as necessarily being a bad thing. If an idea is good and people think it's a good idea and the current administration is throwing up roadblocks to the good idea, I'm all for someone saying hey, this is a good idea, and a lot of people think so, so let's make it happen.
Thanks for the impressions of the book. I'm curious about his next one.
Do you remember how the drug use came across? Any impressions on how that will play?
First result of most recent news search: making noise about Darfur:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/04/post_15.html
Noise on oil:
Quote: On the offensive
But there are reasons for optimism, and one of those is a 44-year-old freshman Democrat senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who took office in January 2005.
Obama is not new to politics, having spent seven years in the Illinois State Senate, but he is new to Washington -- and he is squaring off against the Bush administration's energy policy.
On Feb. 28, soon after Bush gave a speech that marked the beginning of his second four-year term in office, Obama went on the offensive, criticizing the Bush administration for taking from the Saudi royal family with one hand, and then, apologetically, giving back with the other.
"In this year's State of the Union address, President Bush told us that it was time to get serious about America's addiction to foreign oil. The next day, we found out that his idea didn't sit too well with the Saudi royal family. A few hours later, Energy Secretary [Samuel] Bodman backtracked and assured the world that even though the president said he planned to reduce the amount of oil we import from the Middle East, he actually didn't mean that literally," said Obama.
"If there's a single example out there that encapsulates the ability of unstable, undemocratic governments to wield undue influence over America's national security just because of our dependence on oil, this is it," he continued.
Earlier this month, speaking at the annual luncheon of The Associated Press, Obama again lambasted Bush. "When it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure in imagination and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for change is coming from the very people who are running the country," he said.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fe20060426sh.html
Noise on the administration:
Quote:I don't know about you, but I think we've all had enough. Enough of the broken promises. Enough of the failed leadership. Enough of the can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try style of governance.
I've had enough of so-called leaders who don't think government should even try to solve the big, national problems. In their clouded philosophy, government is the problem. I've had enough of the attitude that we'd be better off if we just divvy it up into individual tax breaks and let everyone fend for themselves. I think we've all had enough of being told to buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, and your own levees.
This idea of America can never actually work because it so fundamentally ignores our legacy as a people. Our greatness as a nation has always depended on our sense of national community and mutual responsibility. Everybody has a stake in America. We're all in this together and everybody gets a fair shot at opportunity.
As Democrats, we still believe in the idea of America. We're ready to compete in an increasingly interconnected world. We're ready to conduct a smart foreign policy that matches the might of our military with the power of our diplomacy.
In short, we're ready to lead. Electing a Democratic Senate is the first step to rejecting the failed leadership and failed philosophies. It's a step we can accomplish in just a few short months, but only if the DSCC can rely on your support. Please make a contribution today and do your part to help change our country.
Click here to make a secure online contribution of $50, $75, or more. Your donation will help the DSCC elect Democrats in Senate races across the country.
It's the timidity - the smallness - of our politics that's holding America back and making our people uncertain. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, they'll go away.
(That's just an exerpt, more here:)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/04/sen_barack_obama_had_enough.html
Snood, you may have stumbled on the the democrats biggest hurdle. Republican strategists are the bomb at painting forests out of trees. For a truly liberal democrat to gain office; he/she would have little choice but to shut the hell up on the way, or never achieve it in the first place. An unelected politician can do no good for anyone. Focussing your attention on fairplay for a small demographic, no matter how commendable and respectable that may be; opens the door for the opponent to pit a majority against said minority and thereby win the election.
Silence ≠ sellout. Inteligence mandates compromise so it should surprise you not at all that he's getting quieter. Surely you'd prefer silence and evasiveness over overt compromise and false proclamations? Politics allows such a narrow margin for error that a certain (large) amount of lattitude must be granted any serious contender. Gage his philosophy and your perception of his integrity to his core beliefs by what you believe them to be... but don't expect him to display them at every opportunity. Such men as what you desire Obama to be tend to be very well respected college professors, not Presidents.
≠ is the code for doesn't equal. It used to work here.
Bill and Soz,
Don't read my impatience as anything but just that, and nothing as serious as unmoveable expectation - I've followed him pretty closely, and I guess that he piqued my optimism enough, in the first year or so of my familiarization with him, to hold him to a little different standard. I'm far too jaded re politics to be overly rosey colored about anyone.
I submit that it's not an unreasonable dilemma to be hung on - quite the contrary, in fact. His initially fiery rhetoric should raise questions in inquiring minds about, for example, the depth of his convictions, and about the extent of his pure egotistical ambition. People who care about a change in direction from the poisonous policies of the present administration should be wondering exactly where and how, on the fine line between activism and canny politicking, will Obama walk?
And also Soz, his drug use was subtly interweaved into the story of his struggles as a young man. I think it will only play big in the minds of those with "Swiftboat" mentalities to begin with.
snood wrote: And also Soz, his drug use was subtly interweaved into the story of his struggles as a young man. I think it will only play big in the minds of those with "Swiftboat" mentalities to begin with.
And even they don't have much leverage on the issue. Once a misdeed is confessed, there's no revealing it anymore.
That sounds encouraging re: drug use, thanks.
snood wrote:His initially fiery rhetoric should raise questions in inquiring minds about, for example, the depth of his convictions, and about the extent of his pure egotistical ambition.
That's back to whether he has in fact quieted down, though, whether his "initially" fiery rhetoric is no longer fiery. Seems to me like, if anything, he's getting louder. (He's managing to get himself and his fiery criticisms in the news a LOT.)
sozobe wrote:That sounds encouraging re: drug use, thanks.
snood wrote:His initially fiery rhetoric should raise questions in inquiring minds about, for example, the depth of his convictions, and about the extent of his pure egotistical ambition.
That's back to whether he has in fact quieted down, though, whether his "initially" fiery rhetoric is no longer fiery. Seems to me like, if anything, he's getting louder. (He's managing to get himself and his fiery criticisms in the news a LOT.)
Well, I don't know. the most "fiery" example you gave above was from February 2005. I hope you're right, I honestly do.
On my final round through downtown Chicago,
I saw thison the ticker at Tribune Tower:
The Chicago Tribune wrote:Obama Jokes of Presidential Bid on 'Conan'
By MEGAN REICHGOTT
Associated Press Writer
Published May 13, 2006, 5:31 AM CDT
CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has repeatedly said he doesn't plan to run for president in two years.
Yet the freshman senator from Illinois says that if he did, he's already picked a late-night talk show host to appear on the ticket with him.
How does Obama-O'Brien '08 sound?
"I was thinking about you as my running mate," Obama quipped to the host of NBC's "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" on Friday, after being asked again if he plans to launch a presidential bid.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-obama-obrien,1,118765.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
True, unscripted joke or test baloon?
Thomas wrote:On my final round through downtown Chicago,
I saw thison the ticker at Tribune Tower:
The Chicago Tribune wrote:Obama Jokes of Presidential Bid on 'Conan'
By MEGAN REICHGOTT
Associated Press Writer
Published May 13, 2006, 5:31 AM CDT
CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has repeatedly said he doesn't plan to run for president in two years.
Yet the freshman senator from Illinois says that if he did, he's already picked a late-night talk show host to appear on the ticket with him.
How does Obama-O'Brien '08 sound?
"I was thinking about you as my running mate," Obama quipped to the host of NBC's "Late Night With Conan O'Brien" on Friday, after being asked again if he plans to launch a presidential bid.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-obama-obrien,1,118765.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
True, unscripted joke or test baloon?
I watched the show - it was just a joke! Obama ain't gonna be on the ticket in '08, people.
Obviously it was a joke (and I don't think Thomas takes the O'Brien as running mate part seriously either), but it could well be both a joke and a test balloon.
