I can only imagine

[balantz]

the uproar from his Democratic supporters if Obama is elected Potus and says something like:

"Well....um....it would be something quite irresponsible....um...you know if we were to, um....if we were to leave the Midlle East, you know that the Iraqi people depend on us for, you know, for stability in that region. And you know as well as I know that, um, that private militia are...well that they are an important piece of the complicated, you know, security puzzle we have there...there in the Middle East."

What would John Edwards do? "We need to get out of Iraq immediately!" that's close to what he has said.

[Two Americas]

1. if?

We have been down this road so many times.

[balantz]

2. I know, I just wanted to vent.

Do you think there is no "if" about it?

Is he to be the one?

[Two Americas]

3. Obama?

I think Obama will be the nominee, yes, but I do not see how he can win the general.

(TA runs and ducks for cover.)

:hide:

I think that an awakening is needed among us, the activists and intellectuals of the left, and that requires being willing to criticize our own - our methods, our thinking, our assumptions. That is the key to unlocking the cell of our imprisonment. I thought that people, especially Edwards supporters, were ready for that. It is a very stressful time. The only way to keep even two or three people on relatively friendly terms for very long is to keep what you say strictly within certain limits, and even then it takes very little provocation for people to be at each other's throats. I think there is a deep and festering divide, not only among and between Democrats, but many people seem to be internally conflicted as well - having bitter arguments with themselves, as it were. The premises and assumptions, as reflected in the thinking and methods of modern liberalism, and the purported goals are mutually contradictory.

Obama is probably the perfect candidate to represent these contradictions - people on opposite sides of almost every issue think he is on their side. He is running on a platform of destroying the left, making it invisible, silencing it - it is not overtly said, but when you read what his supporters say it is clear that they are getting the message. At the same time, those who are not yet ready to admit that they are abandoning the left are given a fig leaf in the form of vague leftist-sounding platitudes, and when that fails the mob chants "hope" and "unity." Ironically, they use Obama's weakness going into the general as evidence that he must be leftist - if he were not leftist, how come he is going to lose? is their "logic." This is not conscious - no one says that they associate "leftist" with losing, but they do. Being "right" and winning are mutually contradictory, as well. That is the inevitable result of the politics of personal choice and personal belief systems.

I have had a number of Obama supporters admit to me in private that they do not hold out much hope for him to win the general - but of course they blame that on the stupidity of the people, on the MSM, or even on leftists for not having hope, and see it as inevitable that we lose and not something we can prevent. In public, they chant hope and unity and get angry with anyone who expresses any reservations about us winning. What a trap they are in, and it is hard to talk to them without touching on those internal contradictions, and then you are "heard" as that voice in their head that they are trying to shut out and what you are actually saying cannot get through the fog of their internal dissonance.

Not sure how to break the impasse. Maybe it has to play itself out to the bitter end? Maybe the Democratic party is finished as a representative organization for the political left? There is much, much more resistance within the party to leftist ideas now - angry violent resistance - than there is to libertarian ideas. It is an awful choice - make people angry and battle all of the time, or go along with the drift to the right, go along with the failed methods, ignore the contradictions, and keep your opinions to yourself.

[balantz]

4. What a mess, eh?

I wonder if Obama is aware that he is a pawn, or actually believes there is substance behind his lies and thinks he will win the general?

Does he buy the crap he spews? Or is he aware of it and knows he will lose?

Perhaps they are silly questions that don't matter in the end. But I would like to be educated on some of the details of the game that is played on us.

Bigger question---is the DNC & etc. aware of the real potential for loss? They must be. What does that tell us?

What and who and why are really behind making us lose? Are they all fascist-corporate-elite? I suppose they have guaranteed places at the feasting table.

[Two Americas]

5. I admire him in many ways

The politicians are caught in the same trap that we are - actually, we have more power and control than they do. I think that we as "supporters" - whatever that means - are much worse than the candidates themselves.

They are supposed to represent us, yet everyone thinks that we are supposed to represent them, as though we were all unpaid personal agents to help them advance their careers. It is a negative feedback loop. They say "what do you think? Should I kinda sorta be against the war but not go too far?" and they get back the response "you are a great man and that sounds wonderful so we are behind you 100%!!!" That short-circuits the process. It turns the activist community - who ahould be representing the people's needs and pressuring the politicans - into some crazed mob of lunatics, hopers and believers, and it is not the left wing positions that the public rejects when they vote Republican, it is the activist community they are rejecting. But you cannot say that, because the activists are "right" - which means they make the right personal choices, have the right personal preferences, have the right belief system, are smarter, are more enlightened and caring. Therefore, if we lose, the people must be wrong, because they are not "like-minded" and need to be fixed. That leaves us in the insane position of claiming to be on the left, while hating the people.

[balantz]

6. I'm not sure how to qualify admiring him.

I can pretty much admire anyone in an altruistic way.

I don't know him personally and really have no way of gauging a personal admiration.

I suppose I could admire him for getting to where he is. But not if he is being deceitful. I can't admire a rise to power if it is built on corruption and lies. Maybe that's not an accurate assessment, but there seem to be some shady details.

Did Edwards' rise to power in that way? I don't think he did.

I don't like things that are contradictory about him, like saying he is opposed to the war, yet he wasn't too strong on that issue when it came to funding. He will also keep troops in the Middle East. In short, he runs as a "peace president" yet seems to really be ultimately supporting the occupation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I am seeing it.

Frankly, I don't care much for the roles of politicians. I like political leaders who are able to rise above the corrupt political environment and work for the good of the people of this country.

When I look at our current situation I understand what you say, that our leaders reflect us.

Rah-rah, sis-boom-ba! It's quite a game, it's quite a game, hooray!!! :sarcasm:

[Two Americas]

8. qualifying it

First off, I don't see politicians as gurus nor Fuehrers, so I am not disappointed when they are not perfect or whatever it is people are looking for in candidates. I expect them to be players and horse traders and wheeler dealers - that is the job. Secondly, I don't look at candidates as though I were shopping and selecting my "personal choice" off of some shelf - "OK I have decided. He is the best for this or that reason, and so I am buying him."

Yes, he is the peace candidate and the war candidate. Yes he is the anti-racism and the pro-racism candidate. Yes he is the pro-corporate candidate and the anti-corporate candidate. That is because that is what the activist community is asking for - demanding.

Politicians cannot - should not in most circumstances - "rise above the corrupt political environment and work for the good of the people of this country" until and unless the public demands that they do, and that cannot happen so long as the liberal activist community is busy making sure that doesn't happen.

[balantz]

10. I'm not expecting a guru, and I sure don't want a Fuhrer.

But I would say I'm one who demands that they "rise above the corrupt political environment and work for the good of the people of this country", which I guess leaves me in the minority?

[balantz]

12. Actually on the other thread I mentioned desire for a good leader of the people,

like a Ghandi or King. I threw in Jesus too, perhaps that one was going too far.

But I think there was a good choice or two before it got whittled down to where we stand now with the Bobsey Twins.

Edwards had some promise ya' know.

No saints, just a good patriot.

As Bobbi said in that other thread we need to become the leaders.

I have a hard time holding out much real hope for any of it to improve yet.

[Two Americas]

14. very interesting subject

How far ahead of public opinion can a politician get? How can a politician get ahead of the public most effectively? The best politicians establish a back and forth with the public, and can gradually move the public in the direction they want them to go. This is different than demagoguery, which mostly relies on fear-mongering.

As it is now, the general public is very much ready to be led, but between the public and the politicians stand the activists - and they are very rigid, and considerably more conservative than the general public and the politicians. Rather than acting as a bridge between the politicians and the public, we in the activist community are acting as a barrier. This makes it almost impossible for the general public to understand what we are saying, and it also cripples the ability of the politicians to react to the public, let alone lead the public.

The political mess we have starts with us, the activists, then the politicians, then the general public. Being an activist should not be a matter of being "right," but rather a matter of being effective. It is not speaking truth to power, it is listening to the powerless. Modern activists think that once they are "right" then their work is done; toss a little money at things, yell at people a little, and if that doesn't work then it is someone else's fault.

The public is very much ready for a massive overhaul of the system, and the politicians would accommodate that, and then and only then would the kind of courageous and visionary leaders you are talking about emerge. It is the activist community that is blocking progress.

So, first the conversation here - that dictates everything; then it spreads throughout the activist community; then to the general public; then to the politicians; then and only then can visionary leaders emerge. No leader can make it work the other direction.

The battle is not won or lost in the mass media, nor in the voting booth, nor in Washington. The battle is won or lost right here, in the discussions we have with each other. If we broke up the log jam here, in the activist community, the public would move and that would move the politicians. But we look at what is - what we imagine the public mood to be, what we imagine the politicians' qualities or positions are, and then adjust our activism to that and then let that dictate our thinking and what we say to each other. This ensures a downward spiral of lower expectations, of drifting to the right, and of settling down toward the lowest common denominator. The public mood, and the politicians'' positions are not static, they are flexible and they are responding to us. If we are responding to them - and we are - we are walking backward. We fancy ourselves the "reality based community" when we should be the visionary community. We argue over the choices we have, and which one we should select, and don't realize that it is up to us to create the choices.

[saracat]

7. I will not support him. I see zero difference between him and McCain. Seriously.

All the voters I swung to Edwards for the GE are now going to vote for Mccain if Obama is the nominee and I see no compelling reason to advise them to do otherwise.Obama judicial votes have been deplorable and he can't be counted on for the SCOTUS and he isd a completely uniformed cypher. I will write in John. I will never vote for him, nominee or not.

[Two Americas]

9. agreed

Notice how the grounds for saying that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats grows smaller and smaller every day. Now we are down to "SCOTUS!!!" as the reason why we must vote Democratic - although actually it is not about voting Democratic, it is about saying that you are voting Democratic and about NOT saying anything critical about the Dems, and it is about enforcing loyalty tests for the purpose of silencing those expressing opinions that make people uncomfortable because they expose the hypocrisy - and seeing "SCOTUS!!!" as the reason for supporting Dems requires that we conveniently ignore the fact that the Dem pols all rolled over for the Bush appointees.

The Democrats need to appear to be to the left, for practical political reasons - mostly to shut us up and keep the people out of the process, for the purpose of making sure that no left wing politics ever happen - ever get expressed or discussed, even.

[balantz]

11. It's just one party of the oligarchy with two faces.

[bobbolink]

13. "having bitter arguments with themselves, as it were."

Yes, and I'm losing that argument.

No, I'm not!

Yes, I AM, dammit!!!

Brilliant analysis, as usual.

:applause: cuz I'm sending this to a local loyal Obama fan. (He took my suggestion and voted for Edwards in the caucus, but he's really behind Obama now.)

I'll keep my distance when his fireworks explode... although I've sent him some of your words before, and he got quite thoughtful. We'll see how much this pinches.