"DAMN, I Wish I Said That" Dept.

If I read this (sent by BKLN) before my last post, it would have saved me a pantload of time.

Al Giordano, as always, put it so much more eloquently than I did and put it in so much more detail. The result is an extremely smart piece on Obama and absolutism - and how so many people on both sides chose to ignore (or chose not to sit through) his speech on patriotism the other day while everyone was focused on Wesley Clark. It begins:

If you've been sprouting Chicken Little feathers in recent days, gnashing teeth over the nominee's reported "move to the center" (or "to the right"), worrying about whether Wes Clark got pushed - or leaped on his own - under the proverbial bus after his remarks distracted from the message of this speech yesterday (Clark, himself, on Good Morning America today acknowledged, ""I'm very sorry that this has distracted from the message of patriotism that Sen. Obama wants to put out"), I have an interesting homework assignment for you.

Please put aside 28 minutes and 22 seconds today to give your full attention to the video of that speech. And then, if you still feel this nominee is offering more of the same as previous nominees, come back here and make your case at least with the benefit of the full knowledge of what exactly was trampled upon during yesterday's Chicken Little stampede.

WARNING: It's a whole lot of words and commands your attention. If you choose to read it all, and if you truly have an open mind, you'll be rewarded. Give it a shot. Also read the comments if you have spare minutes, where you'll find gems like

I just want to say that I only know one person who meets the constitutional requirements for President with whom I agree on every issue, and I am not running.  So I go to the next closest.  And that is Obama hands down.

(For the closed-minded, Al even has words of comfort for them.)

...the highest calling of patriotism is not dissent. It is smart dissent, that based not on self-indulgence or the blurting of one's frustration's out in ways that seek to share the panic or the misery, but based on - even sometimes against great odds - building the objective conditions by which we will win the important battles worth fighting. We don't need any candidate's permission or endorsement of our issue or position to do that, and we sure don't have to wait for any politician to begin organizing the people to set him straight once in power. Ironically, we, the people have more leverage - if we organize - after a candidate becomes an official, than we do during the heat of an electoral campaign when he or she is so singularly focused on the goal of getting elected. And if we can use his own campaign as the basis through which to become organized, that much stronger will be our ability to move mountains when and if that campaign is victorious.

Comments

[BKLN]

Looks like the speech video got stripped out of Giordano's piece.
You can find the video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DMbBuEoEYnk
The transcript is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/politics/30text-obama.html

[cage free brown]

It's a good piece and I would have missed it if you hadn't linked it, thanks for that.

we're on the same page but I do have some points I'd like to make. first, I think it's a feather in the Obama Campaign's cap that they've been interested in what people have to say about this stuff. I like the "chicken little" bit. it's cute and I know what he means. however, not everybody with a bone to pick is being a chicken little.

many of us think that some of what we see as concessions are concessions that the campaign doen't have to make. it doesn't mean we're right - it's nice that it seems like the campaign is interested. I think with the mood of the country and this man's considerable gift that the way he's handling FISA becomes a real headscratcher. we are not being crybabies for being disappointed that he didn't do what he said he would do.

I agree, when it's all said and done, everytime I find my knee jerking over something, the more I read about it - the less my knee bothers me. the "faith based" stuff for example. I could see that my gut reaction really wasn't fair once I boned up. other times I think my gut reaction IS fair. still, this guy is more than I ever expected in a major party candidate. part of the reason I feel that way is that he doesn't seem to think our chiming in is out of line - not yet anyway.

one more thing - I always thought Dukakis got a raw deal when Bernard Shaw bagged him and I continue to feel that way. you ever see "Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan"? well, they have this test called "the kobiyashi maru" and as far as I'm concerned this was the first time I saw this test given to a Democratic Presidential Candidate on t.v. there was no correct answer. whatever Dukakis had said or done would have been unacceptable to the people who would be getting paid good money to give their opinions on the matter. what the guy did was he answered the question. I thought he answered directly and with a certain amount of dignity. I've always been surprised how strongly this was discussed as a weakness.

[Corporatism You Can Believe In]

So the point of this piece is, "Let's all give Obama a pass because, well, look at the pretty way he talks." Well, that and it provides Democratic Party apologists like Hoffmania another insult to throw around (now, if you think the Constitution is worth defending, you're a "chicken little" as well as a "hundred-percenter"). Thing is, nobody's disagreeing with Obama's ability to talk pretty. No doubt he'll have lots of pretty things to say after his buddies in the Senate hand Bush and the Telecoms a Get Out of Jail Free Card and he does nothing to stop it.

And that's exactly the problem with Obama-- he does nothing . . . every time. He's supposed to have this incredible skill set: the ability to motivate people, get them to work together, and create change. But when has he ever demonstrated these abilities in the Senate? When? He doesn't support impeachment for Bush, Cheney, and the rest of these criminals. He has shown no real interest in rolling back horrific legislation like the Patriot Act (the renewal of which he voted for!), the Military Commissions Act, and the like. He opposed any attempts to impede Bush's Corporatist judicial appointments, preferring to sit on his hands while the judicial system in this country is thoroughly corrupted-- wouldn't want to jeopardize the all-important presidential campaign, after all. He's done nothing to stop the Iraq Slaughter and the billions upon billions of dollars the Democrats continue to stuff into Bush's pockets. Now he supports a so-called "compromise" which will make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment, while letting Bush and his corporate criminal accomplices completely off the hook for blatant criminality. But, hey, Barack Obama talks real pretty . . .

[BKLN]

Actually CYCBI, the point of this piece is NOT "Let's all give Obama a pass because, well, look at the pretty way he talks." You either didn't read the piece (my hunch) or you need to seriously work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Corporatism You Can Believe In]

"Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy."

This isn't about wanting Obama to say something. This is about wanting Obama to fucking DO something. But then, according to the self-proclaimed "smart" guy, upholding the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights is just one of many liberal vanity issues . . .

Oh, and this statement by The Fraud is highly offensive:

"Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day..."

Here's hoping his pandering to wingnuts works out for him.

[BKLN]

See? Reading comprehension skills still needing some serious work. That sentence 'Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy' is exactly about the process of getting a politician "to fucking DO something" as you so eloquently put it. That's what the entire article is about.

But hey CYCBI, it's good to know that life is apparently full of easy solutions in your world, despite the fact you never mention any solutions. You wave your magic wand of wisdom and everything is hunky dory, everyone achieves nirvana if only they do it your way, right? We'll be waiting patiently for your directives.

In the meantime, so what if you willfully miss the part about the current FISA bill still allowing for criminal prosecutions? So what if someone articulates the nuanced maze of confusion and pain of the drafted teenagers who became the vets of Vietnam? So what if a major party candidate unflinchingly declares that no-one has the monopoly on patriotism? By all means, please do burn down the whole house because Obama dared to bridge the 50-year tantrum between Right and Left about patriotism with some clear, precise thinking that holds both sides accountable for their reactionary antics, right? What was so highly offensive for you about that statement?

The line from you has consistently been "Obama does nothing...every time" despite repeated recitations of his community and legislative accomplishments from Chicago to the US Senate. Despite historic orations about race and patriotism, read into the public record and pumped into the public psyche. You've become a broken record on this point, so please enlighten us exactly as to what it is YOU do and have done in your lifetime that keeps you shouting so righteously from your soapbox about everyone else's alleged failures.

Let me also ask you this. You say Obama has done nothing to stop the Iraq Slaughter. Can you show me someone who to your mind has done something to stop the Iraq Slaughter? If so, how is their rhetoric qualitatively different from Obama's? Are they poised to become POTUS?

It really seems you've got a smash-the-state mentality that prevents you from having any kind of relevant debate here since Giordano's piece - one of the clearest bits of thinking on this subject ever - doesn't even register for you. This is 21st century America. This is 2008 on planet Earth. We've come a very long way, and we still have a very very long way to go. Do you think it's going to be someone other than Obama or McCain in the White House next January? Are you going to work to put either of them in the White House?

[Corporatism You Can Believe In]

"That sentence 'Too many progressive activists suffer from the illusion that if they leverage a candidate during a campaign that getting him or her to say one thing or another will later translate into policy' is exactly about the process of getting a politician 'to fucking DO something' as you so eloquently put it. That's what the entire article is about."

Obama was elected to something. It's called the U.S. Senate. I've listed his non-accomplishments for you above. Feel free to refute any of them.

"Despite historic orations . . ."

Once again, it looks like the substance is coming . . . and there it is. His one accomplishment: Talk. Barack "Constitutional Scholar" Obama has a chance to defend the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution of the United States, which, by the way, is his job. I know he won't do it. You know he won't do. He'll say lots of pretty things about it.

.

U.S. Senate Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Doesn't say anything in there about running for President . . .

[Corporatism You Can Believe In]

"What was so highly offensive for you about that statement?"

The beauty of it is that the last line could have been lifted word for word from Rush Limbaugh. Following the cursory acknowledgment that the war-driven government of the 60's and early 70's "often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic," Obama then launches into a much more detailed, much more condemning listing of what he perceives to be the sins of those who opposed the war. He doesn't just equate the two sides, he implies that the anti-war movement is even more deserving of scorn than the power structure that perpetrated these horrible atrocities to begin with. Hell, he doesn't even mention the government destroying the lives of soldiers by sending them into that disaster to begin with, yet he bends over backwards to chastise anti-war activists for "failing to honor those veterans," which is a time-honored right-wing talking point. There is a lot from the Vietnam Years to be ashamed of-- the anti-war movement isn't one of them.

[Jer]

Hey, CYCBI - BKLN posed several specific questions about your "broken record" critiques that you still haven't answered, despite two additional posts.

IMHO, if you can't address the valid points being raised without resorting to more self-righteous chest-beating that effectively avoids them, what's at issue here isn't really a political viewpoint, but narcissism.

[Lawton Watson]

Corporatism reminds me of an old friend who left Hoff about a year and a half ago. Anyone notice the rhetorical similarities. I can agree with him on one issue and that is there are only a few democrats such as Feingold and Webber who have the stomach to right the wrongs committed by Bush-Cheney and their cronies. Very silent on this issue, most of them. Why?

[BKLN]

"There is a lot from the Vietnam Years to be ashamed of-- the anti-war movement isn't one of them." ~CYCBI

You're right. And if Obama had actually said that the anti-war movement is something we should be ashamed of, then lots of folks, myself included, would be pissed. But Obama didn't say that. Not even close.

"Obama then launches into a much more detailed, much more condemning listing of what he perceives to be the sins of those who opposed the war."

Where? Please provide the pull quotes. I can't find them in the transcript.

"He doesn't just equate the two sides, he implies that the anti-war movement is even more deserving of scorn than the power structure that perpetrated these horrible atrocities to begin with."

No. He doesn't. Your insinuation that Obama is more pro-war than anti-war is laughable.

CYCBI - all you are doing at this point is flaming this blog with intellectually dishonest bleating. What gives?

As for your comment Lawton, there are several who've shown willingness to go about "righting the wrongs". But of course this is all a matter of perspective regarding how they've made any pronouncements and in exactly how they proceed - still, there's strength in numbers and coordination of all the working parts: Obama, Wexler, Conyers, Frank, Dodd, Boxer, Kucinich, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, etc, etc