Before Obama ever has the chance to go up against McCain, he still needs to beat the Politician. I'm not saying that McCain and Obama are not great politicians or that they haven't had great political strategies; they have, and there is no other way to explain their success thus far. Anyone who says Obama is different from other politicians in that he is really just a regular guy is mistaken. However, the Clintons are known as the ultimate politicians because they are able to get you to think exactly what they want you to think, while all the time denying that they even agree.
One example of late is that Clinton has been trying to put the idea in people's minds that Obama would make a great vice president, especially on a ticket with her running for the top spot. This is very blatant, and even though we all get that it's just her strategy, a lot of people are probably sitting around, thinking, "yeah, she's probably right...he would make a great VP..."
Anyway, I digress. Here's the latest that I read.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama has only had success because he is a black man. She adds weight to this statement by claiming that she never would have been a VP candidate, had she been a man. She is clearly not making any racist or sexist comments, as she insists, but is merely pointing out her opinions, and claiming they are facts. No big deal. Clinton, and the rest of her staff have now said that they don't agree with Ferraro. But I would be surprised if they hadn't sent her out to say those exact things. Now, I believe there are many people out there, reading Ferraro's comments, and saying, "yeah, Ferraro's right. Obama is lucky to be a black man right now. He isn't really the most qualified person for the job..."
Brilliant politicking.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
video evidence of why obama rocks
check out around a minute 43, and minute four (if you can wait that long; this thing loads slow as hell).
Friday, March 7, 2008
Obama's still the man
Need to put this out there: Zach, that whole "disappointed in Obama" thing is crap.
The man is a politician! of course he's done some shady dealing. I made this point a while back and I really believe that it still holds - we're looking for a shit wader not a saint. Saints are nice, but we've got a lot of shit to get through as a country and planet if we're gonna make it. And getting through that shit is going to require that people somehow work together on some really tough issues.
The big point is not so much if he's squeaky clean, but if he's truly got the broad world-view, mentality, and honest respect for other peoples' (domestic and foreign) perspectives to make wise, big-picture, policy choices that people will follow even if it's not 100% in line with how they want things to go down, or topics they want to broach.
The fact that he may or may not, somehow, be implicated in some something that's not quite rosy is beside the point. These crazies just assembled the first artificial bacteria! The world is changing real fast, and we need a leader who recognizes how these changes effect the concept and application of state power, can communicate these new realities to anybody they can get to listen, and acts on these understandings.
Now it becomes an issue of personal assessment.
From what I know about Obama's past work leading efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, increase security for nuclear stockpiles, and initiate and facilitate policies that decrease the likelihood of nuclear accident (missile launches, etc.), he seems to be ahead of the game on these types of issues. I know nukes aren't quite "on point" with my concerns, but this is absolutely part of the global outlook and effectiveness I think is critical. He's made immense progress dealing with Russia on their nukes! Russia takes their nukes very seriously! That takes real political skill and insight. I don't know as much about any work Obama has done on bio-engineering and nano-tech, but at least he's shown that he's cognizant of the dramatic effects technology is having on security issues.
I give Obama a "check" on state-to-state diplomatic dealings, and a "check" on the political implications of technological development.
So what about state-to-people dealings? How well does he communicate with "the people" as a big blob? A big blog that will become increasingly powerful in line with the increasing rate of technological progress - a progress that today lets us assemble bacteria, and today lets us power robots with rat heart cells!
The litmus test I imagine for this is the speech any new President ought to broadcast to the Iraqi people and the world just as soon as they get done with the swearing in ceremony.
I've seen the HRC speak, and I've seen the BHO speak, and I sincerely think that having Obama be the floating head committing the United States to removing troops from Iraq and abandoning efforts to establish permanent military bases is going to be more effective and lead to a more peaceful world than if that head is the HRC. McCain didn't make that last sentence because he's 72 fucking years old and doesn't understand squat shit about the modern world and wants to fight a 100 year war for oil instead of developing alternative sources of energy.
So Obama gets a "check" on the communication part and I think that his opposition to the Iraq invasion further earns him a "check" on the understanding of the appropriate use of force in today's world.
The man could be running a meth-fueled whore ring for all I care. As long as he can deliver where it counts - on globally important issues - I just don't care what politicking he had to do to get here.
The man is a politician! of course he's done some shady dealing. I made this point a while back and I really believe that it still holds - we're looking for a shit wader not a saint. Saints are nice, but we've got a lot of shit to get through as a country and planet if we're gonna make it. And getting through that shit is going to require that people somehow work together on some really tough issues.
The big point is not so much if he's squeaky clean, but if he's truly got the broad world-view, mentality, and honest respect for other peoples' (domestic and foreign) perspectives to make wise, big-picture, policy choices that people will follow even if it's not 100% in line with how they want things to go down, or topics they want to broach.
The fact that he may or may not, somehow, be implicated in some something that's not quite rosy is beside the point. These crazies just assembled the first artificial bacteria! The world is changing real fast, and we need a leader who recognizes how these changes effect the concept and application of state power, can communicate these new realities to anybody they can get to listen, and acts on these understandings.
Now it becomes an issue of personal assessment.
From what I know about Obama's past work leading efforts to curb nuclear proliferation, increase security for nuclear stockpiles, and initiate and facilitate policies that decrease the likelihood of nuclear accident (missile launches, etc.), he seems to be ahead of the game on these types of issues. I know nukes aren't quite "on point" with my concerns, but this is absolutely part of the global outlook and effectiveness I think is critical. He's made immense progress dealing with Russia on their nukes! Russia takes their nukes very seriously! That takes real political skill and insight. I don't know as much about any work Obama has done on bio-engineering and nano-tech, but at least he's shown that he's cognizant of the dramatic effects technology is having on security issues.
I give Obama a "check" on state-to-state diplomatic dealings, and a "check" on the political implications of technological development.
So what about state-to-people dealings? How well does he communicate with "the people" as a big blob? A big blog that will become increasingly powerful in line with the increasing rate of technological progress - a progress that today lets us assemble bacteria, and today lets us power robots with rat heart cells!
The litmus test I imagine for this is the speech any new President ought to broadcast to the Iraqi people and the world just as soon as they get done with the swearing in ceremony.
I've seen the HRC speak, and I've seen the BHO speak, and I sincerely think that having Obama be the floating head committing the United States to removing troops from Iraq and abandoning efforts to establish permanent military bases is going to be more effective and lead to a more peaceful world than if that head is the HRC. McCain didn't make that last sentence because he's 72 fucking years old and doesn't understand squat shit about the modern world and wants to fight a 100 year war for oil instead of developing alternative sources of energy.
So Obama gets a "check" on the communication part and I think that his opposition to the Iraq invasion further earns him a "check" on the understanding of the appropriate use of force in today's world.
The man could be running a meth-fueled whore ring for all I care. As long as he can deliver where it counts - on globally important issues - I just don't care what politicking he had to do to get here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
