I want to know who paid Obama to flop on the election. Biden?! This guy who ~6 months ago said to Obama’s face that he was not ready for the presidency and states he would be honored to run for or against McCain? Wtf? Either he will say what needs to be said to win elections (thinks obama is ready for presidency) or he is banking on an early assassination (not entirely unlikely). And the guy has foot in mouth disease, a political time bomb at this stage in the election. I just can’t wait for some 1 on 1 debates between McCain and Bama. If the polling spread does shoot through the roof then I know racism is calling this election.
---------
Who else pays black men these days, NIKE of course! I think it's pretty clear that Biden was chosen as an attack dog type guy. Obama is seen as a nice guy, in fact I haven't seen a single attack ad against McCain yet but I've seen plenty against Obama. Biden will probably change that. It's a weird comparison to make, but it's kinda like when Cheney was chosen to be Bush's vp. He is picked specifically to be a jackass and take on the negative aspects of a campaign.
Also, I'm a little surprised that Obama has done so well as it is. I always kind of assumed there was a lot of racism in this country but apparently democrat followers are more loyal than I would have thought. Although, no one likes Hilary except for middle aged women so that helped him a little bit.
As for t's email, my bitter and cynical nature about politics prevents my surprise or outrage but the whole convention thing is one big circle jerk for the parties. Basically it's a "look how awesome we are" event that is as you pointed out, a waste of time and money. It's simply the American way to throw money at whatever worthless shit suits our fancy. Especially in politics and government.
-------
Well, I think T is talking about an ideal case for the convention; the fact is that (in 1968) the DNC's convention was a "media spectacle" of the highest order as well, although for different reasons... having Abby Hoffman-inspired protesters getting stomped by cops in riot gear makes headlines too, albeit to the benefit of a guy like Richard Nixon.
-------
I knew that Obama’s jumper looked too good to be luck. Dude went to the nike training facilities.
“In my run to the white house, I need to be competitive and I need to move fast. That’s why I need Obama brand shoes. Buy your Obamers today!”
I saw a digg article recently, maybe it is still front page if you check fast, about a supposed attempt on Obama’s life at the convention. I’m telling you Biden wants the oval!
--------
Haha yeah, and I almost forgot about this:
In the article published Wednesday, Biden is quoted evaluating presidential rivals Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. His remarks about Obama, the only African-American serving in the Senate, drew the most scrutiny.
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Watch Biden's comments and Obama's reaction )
Biden issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark in the New York Observer might have caused anyone. That was not my intent and I expressed that to Sen. Obama."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/
I guess he let bygones be bygones, but really it wasn't such a big deal - just funny and indicative of Biden's ability to put his foot in his mouth. Not sure why he picked Biden; two northerners on the same ticket? Delaware isn't a swing state. I guess Hilly was out (bad blood, and no one wants to risk the veep outshining the top dog), and Edwards is an adulterer. Webb is a Senate noob like Obama, so that ticket would get punched. But I tend to agree with some of Biden's foreign policy stances, and I respect him for being outspoken to the point where it gets him in trouble (remind you of anyone?).
Well let's be honest - Obama isn't ready for the presidency, maybe McCain too. Very few candidates are I think. He's never held a prominent executive role (not even head of a Senate Cmte). He got people together and got them to vote in Chicago. "There's no school for presidents", said JFK. But it's ok; you learn "on the job" and do your best I guess. I know that crock hate book about Obama that was recently published was a load of crap, but one part of the title, "The Cult of Celebrity", is relevant. Some of his hard core fans and adorers really scare me, especially coming from an "educated Western democracy". This is like the stuff where ignorant poor masses worship leaders like Bhutto and Mao, even though such people might screw them behind their backs (not saying Obama is like that). They don't even know why they love them, they just do, and can't even articulate what that leader has really done for them (if anything), apart from the obvious propaganda disseminated by the PR machine. It just makes them feel good, so they do it. How can you love someone so much who you don't really know and hasn't really had much of a public career? He "inspires" people with speeches. I guess after years of bad news and currently a bad economy looming over their heads, folks really want to believe in "the promise of America" and hope for change for the better, so they may embrace Obama as a potential manifestation of those feelings. It's a hope, like buying a lottery ticket. Heck I might even vote for him as part of that hope. But it may not be a rational choice. I'm not saying that any other available candidate is better, but it's sad when the most powerful and privileged voting public on Earth may resort to that thinking, and it sets a scary precedent.
I think some speakers at the DNC today said that America "needs" Obama. Really? He's the only one who can save us huh? I'm fairly sure that there are at least 100 Americans out there who could be better presidents that him, and most of them aren't even politicians. You just have to care about doing right, sacrifice for the good of others, and have some common sense (at least enough to hire the right help, unlike how W did). I think it's really that simple, but of course not everyone can put themselves in the position to have a shot for the Oval Office. All his ideas about energy policy, climate change, health care reform, Middle East, job creation, etc. have been around for years. Obama didn't invent any of it. A president is not an idea man; he has no time for that. He instead acts as a conduit for other people's ideas to flow through and get to the right parties, so stuff can actually get done in government. But some people are acting like Obama will somehow succeed where others have failed. I hope they're right. He's got skills, but I don't know if he'll be able to deliver us from the housing bust, the wars in the Middle East, the middle class squeeze, and racial-social injustice, to name a few of the problems that he and his supporters have professed to be able to solve.
Instead of solving problems, it seems that the office of the president has become more of a money and power making vehicle for the president's buddies. I am sure it will be the same with Obama or McCain, though of course toned down from the ludicrous Bush years. The VIPs that helped them get elected aren't just doing it because they love America. Maybe some are, but others will want kickbacks, and President 44 will try to find ways to satisfy them without making a stink. Though the tough part is when they have to decide between special interests and national interests. But it's still quid pro quo, especially when re-election time comes. If a president can totally divorce him or herself from those conflicts of interest, then I think they have a chance to be an excellent leader. I just can't see that happening in these days of modern campaigning, where candidates are raising and spending $30M+ a month.
Addressing G's comments about negative campaigning - yes I think for the most part Obama's camp has been classier and more positive than the GOP. But he did of course make a big deal about McCain casually forgetting how many houses he owns in one TV ad, and struck back at the "Barack is the biggest celebrity in the world" McCain ad in another piece. But as the Wiggys said, Biden and others will try to do Obama's dirty work, to keep him smelling like roses to the voters, as Reagan and Bush were able to do. Obama has also tried to rehash the same tired line on the campaign trail: a vote for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of failed Bush policies. One may argue that case, but the fact is that McCain's platform is much different than Bush's. But that is Obama's main (and maybe only) attack on McCain policy so far - he's out of touch with the economy (as if Barack isn't), and he's a carbon copy of Bush. But that's not true; McCain acknowledges climate change and has ideas to combat it (not sure if they're workable ideas). He wants to reform the health insurance system, similar to the ideas of market-driven conservatives from 1990. He believes in energy conservation, which the Bushies dismissed. He also is not a pawn of the Religious Right, though he is definitely courting them. He does take a hard line on Russia and Iran which is quite problematic and unwise. But Obama and McCain actually have quite similar views on several issues, including stem cells, immigration, and government reform. Heck they've worked together in the Senate, and they're even not so different about taxes and the Iraq War, though maybe that issue works in McCain's favor as long as stability is increasing. I guess this may be a symptom of candidates moving towards the center after primary season, but it also shows that McCain, while not a pure Maverick, is not a total party line extremist either. Nor is Obama of course. So Obama really needs to retire or modify this tired attack, unless of course it seems to be working with the voters.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,7130991.story
An interesting history of some famous campaign ads:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93694355
Yeah glad C brought up the DNC in 1968. It was a real defining American moment, with '60s protest culture, much anger over the war, and typical Democrat ineptitude merging with TV's growing prominence in politics to create a perfect storm. 1968 is a big reason why the conventions are the heavily controlled, artificial entities that they are today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93937947
--------
the people who bought obama also bought this show. see if they show any of the convention bags. it's got a big AT&T logo on the bag. on sunday night, AT&T threw a private party for lobbyists and delegates and the press was not allowed. what was going on in there? was this a big thank you for giving them immunity only weeks ago? and, why didn't the press cover it? two people showed up to cover the party-amy goodman of democracy now and glenn greenwald of salon. and, where's coverage of the police state outside? if obama gets shot, it won't be because they spent too little on security. a 'fusion' center of all law enforcement(FBI, CIA, local and state police) has been set up a some ridiculous expense. free speech cages have been established once again.
Glenn Greenwald
Monday Aug. 25, 2008 11:15 EDT
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party
(updated below (with video added) - Update II)
Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program. Matt Stoller has one of the listings for the party here.
Armed with full-scale Convention press credentials issued by the DNC, I went -- along with Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher, John Amato, Stoller and others -- in order to cover the event, interview the attendees, and videotape the festivities. There was a wall of private security deployed around the building, and after asking where the press entrance was, we were told by the security officials, after they consulted with event organizers, that the press was barred from the event, and that only those with invitations could enter -- notwithstanding the fact that what was taking place in side was a meeting between one of the nation's largest corporations and the numerous members of the most influential elected faction in Congress. As a result, we stood in front of the entrance and began videotaping and trying to interview the parade of Blue Dog Representatives, AT&T executives, assorted lobbyists and delegates who pulled up in rented limousines, chauffeured cars, and SUVs in order to find out who was attending and why AT&T would be throwing such a lavish party for the Blue Dog members of Congress.
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc. One attendee said he was with an "energy company," and the other confessed she was affiliated with a "trade association," but that was the full extent of their willingness to describe themselves or this event. It was as though they knew they're part of a filthy and deeply corrupt process and were ashamed of -- or at least eager to conceal -- their involvement in it. After just a few minutes, the private security teams demanded that we leave, and when we refused and continued to stand in front trying to interview the reticent attendees, the Denver Police forced us to move further and further away until finally we were unable to approach any more of the arriving guests.
It was really the perfect symbol for how the Beltway political system functions -- those who dictate the nation's laws (the largest corporations and their lobbyists) cavorting in total secrecy with those who are elected to write those laws (members of Congress), while completely prohibiting the public from having any access to and knowledge of -- let alone involvement in -- what they are doing. And all of this was arranged by the corporation -- AT&T -- that is paying for a substantial part of the Democratic National Convention with millions upon millions of dollars, which just received an extraordinary gift of retroactive amnesty from the Congress controlled by that party, whose logo is splattered throughout the city wherever the DNC logo appears -- virtually attached to it -- all taking place next to the stadium where the Democratic presidential nominee, claiming he will cleanse the Beltway of corporate and lobbying influences, will accept the nomination on Thursday night.
The only other media which even attempted to cover the AT&T/Blue Dog event was Democracy Now -- they were also barred from entering. I was on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman this morning to discuss what happened. They put together a 5-minute video montage, including our efforts to enter the event and interview the guests, which they broadcast before my segment. The video and my segment can be seen and/or heard here -- it begins at the 1:00 mark. A transcript will be posted shortly.
Jane Hamsher also filmed some of what transpired, and Salon has created our own video of last night, including the efforts by the private security teams and Denver Police to prevent us from standing on public property to interview the arriving members of Congress and AT&T executives and lobbyists. That will be posted shortly. There's nothing unusual about this event -- other than that it was more forcibly private than most and just a tad more brazenly sleazy. The democracy-themed stagecraft inside the Convention is for public television consumption, but secret little events of this sort are why people are really here. Just as is true in Washington, this is where -- and how and by whom -- the business of our Government is conducted.
UPDATE: Here is the video from last night's festivities, with our attempt to interview various attendees and interactions with the private security forces and Police -- filmed by Jane Hamsher and edited by Salon's Caitlin Shamberg:
--------
Wow thank you for that link; didn't know about that and it's disappointing. Yes I guess it would be very bad for business if a popular politician like Obama kept the heat on telecoms for their role in Bush's illegal wiretapping. So if they could convince him to "let it go" with various compensations, everyone wins right? If he was only a few months away from the White House, why the urgency to get the bill passed this summer? It's not like Osama will go free because the bill didn't pass (heck we're not even looking for him, because everyone is preoccupied with the Olympics and election). Assuming the Dems retain control of Congress, his people could work with Pelosi/Reid to craft a better version of the legislation, right? Fishy.
Yeah about that security, so much for the Dem Party being the "party of the people", but we knew that long ago. It's an exclusive country club like the other party. The GOP may have the industrialists, bankers, and preachers, but the Dems have the Hollywood elites, academic snobs, and lawyers. Neither represent the lower and middle classes, even though they pander to those groups every 4 years with wonderful speeches and promises. Obama is no different, or hopefully he can prove me wrong. What irks me about Obama and some of his supporters is that they really act like he's cut from a different cloth, like his poop doesn't stink. He's so cool with his fist-bump and "dusting off the shoulder" after Hillary's attacks. He speaks so well! With his limited public service record, he hasn't earned this much love. He worked hard for his own career and family, but he hasn't bled and toiled for his fellow Americans like Abe Lincoln or MLK.
Unlike those stupid emails and books from the Right, these critiques are not slander. We peel back the layers, and we find out stuff we don't like, like the immunity for telecoms, his abrasive history in Illinois, and reneging on public funding. But some people choose to ignore it, because they want to believe in him as a savior, and saviors never have flaws. I don't expect candidates to fix everything, be good 100% of the time, and have all the answers, but at least don't BS us about it. Of course that goes for McCain or anyone else too. The guy is old (senile?) and filthy rich; he was being honest and didn't make excuses - he doesn't know how many properties he owns because it's not on his mind a lot, unlike people in Fresno about to be foreclosed. Maybe he doesn't know how much milk costs, like Bush during the 1991 recession. They're all just products of a flawed system. I saw a bumper sticker online that said, "Someone better for president 2008". Maybe that someone does or doesn't exist, or could never survive in Washington anyway.
Anyone think we could use a few more mainstream political parties to have some REAL choice at the polls? Maybe coalition governments like Europe won't be such a bad idea, because it forces politicians with disparate views to work together and compromise. Of course then you might get the tyranny of the minority, like in Israel, but our nation is 200+ years old and maybe it's time to try something different. The status quo is stagnating, festering, and getting more and more expensive to maintain. So what if it's harder to get things done with a coalition? It's not like DC has a wonderful track record of productivity, or even worse, look at Sacramento! Get a prime minister, an independent judiciary, and have some real separation of powers. If it's not working out, dismantle the government and call snap elections (with only a 3 month campaign window, instead of the "endless American campaign").
No comments:
Post a Comment