Whoever decided to call this country, specifically, “The United States of America” was truly prescient. They were on it enough to see the potential for divisiveness in the future (maybe owing to slavery), and put that word “United” right there in our very NAME. Thanks, whoever did that; we probably owe you our lives as a nation, many times over. (The Civil War comes to mind, but I digress…)
On this night, the word “United” stands out in my mind, and my heart, as I listen to a true leader calling upon his countrymen to believe, and to unite. Fighting John Q’s propensity toward apathy, ignorance, skepticism, division and racism, Barack Obama has managed to light a flame of what can only be true patriotism… a lonely candle in the dark at first, maybe, but it’s growing. And there was light, and it was good…
It embarrasses me as a patriot sometimes, the way we allow ourselves to become divided every time the goddamned wind blows. What with as many blowhards as we have pretending to the throne, it’s easy for us all to forget what REAL leaders look like, and it’s way too easy for us to celebrate our differences, instead of the bedrock American values we have in common, like a belief in the Constitutional rights that so much blood was shed for, and a healthy future for our children, and their planet.
We’re all Americans, when you get down to it, and that’s saying quite a lot. That means that I (bleeding heart liberal who’d like to see socialized health care, along with high taxes [gasp] to pay for fluffy things like education, specifically ARTS) would willingly give my life defending the right for an inbred, illiterate hillbilly redneck son-of-a-bitch to attack everything I believe is good in the Constitution. Yeah, being a patriot is a bit of a trick, but do it we must, or we’re not truly Americans. Uniting with my fellow redneck Americans would seem an insurmountable goal, IF I put my views before my patriotic DUTY to understand the Constitution.
That’s a big “IF,” and that’s just the point being made tonight by a true leader: Unity’s not really a tricky thing, when you look at it through open eyes. We’re not all that different, we Americans; our similarities so far outweigh our differences that infighting among people behind the Statue of Liberty is absurd enough to make me question whether or not I’m dreaming. I’ve felt that way since childhood.
I do hereby submit that all Americans believe in freedom. That means, folks, that all Americans believe in defending everything that must be defended in order for freedom to exist. Well, OK, past that point our respective roads fork, of course, and we start bickering about shit like the true definition of the word “freedom,” but these really are minor nuances compared to the first two sentences of this paragraph. I’m just holding a few truths to be self-evident here, folks, like my compatriot Barack Obama.
I, a true liberal, one of those rare ones with teeth, live in one of the most redneck towns (according to statistics) in these United States. Yet I am embraced by this community, and I embrace this community in return. Why? Reasons more powerful than feel-good hug-your-neighbor platitudes; I’m talkin’ physics and math. Basically, like I said last paragraph, our similarities far outweigh our differences. Simple as that.
Check this out: A guy who can think but can’t lift heavy stuff is not as powerful as he could be if he could lift heavy. By the same token, a guy who can’t think but is strong is way more powerful if allied with a guy who can think. Unity. Teamwork. Geez, folks, wolves get this; they’re smart, yeah, but are they smarter than humans?
We The People can do this, I promise you. Dare to believe in unity.
Yeah, we’re all different, but we all have our strengths and weaknesses, abilities and disabilities, just like countries do. People and countries are far more powerful as members of a team (duh). As Americans, our strengths lie in Unity (capitalized), not divisiveness. This goes not only for all of us as a nation, but for all of us as a species.
If you want to see what real leadership looks like, listen to this man speak (without a teleprompter), and ask yourself if you wouldn’t feel good with him leading these UNITED States.
I, for one, do hereby dare to believe: This guy could sketch a Gettysburg Address on a train, on a napkin. This is what real leadership looks like. Listen to this man speak:
>> View video on MSNBC.com (Opens in separate window.)
Comment by Steve Sanders
6 January 15, 2008, 12:36 am o'clock |
Byron, I appreciate the dialogue, and I certainly do appreciate the importance of this election. Given its importance, it’s understandable too that passions will rise, so please understand that I’m not being intentionally argumentative or combative in making my case for Edwards. In many respects, it’s a harder case to make than for supporting Obama.
I was listening yesterday to Sam Seder’s show on Air America, and interestingly, he was making a cogent point about the push and pull in voters’ hearts and minds between idealism and pragmatism. His argument was that in this election, the wise choice is to go with the pragmatic approach to choosing our nominee, and that elections in general, for each voter, should not be about expressing your own heartfelt opinions and preferences, but should instead be about voting based on the best chance at electoral victory.
For my part, I’ve always leaned toward being an idealist, and so I must confess that now I find myself on the fence, teetering between voting my heart and my passion (in terms of wanting real, deep and systematic change), and taking the alternative, “safer” pragmatic path.
This all started for me in 1988, when I had to swallow my disgust with the Dukakis campaign and the Democratic Party (primarily for not hitting George Bush I hard on Iran-Contra, where they should have been deservedly condemned and defeated), and take the bitter pill and pull the lever for Dukakis. After that debacle, I swore that I would never again vote for the lesser of two evils (not making a straight analogy on this election, OK?), but would instead vote for the candidate who best represented the ideals of true representative American democracy.
Sadly, I’ve felt compelled to put my idealism aside in too many subsequent presidential elections, and now the pill seems even more bitter. Bushco has pushed this nation so far to the right, and towards fascism, such that real, deep and systematic change is so direly needed that our nation’s future survival as a democracy seems, to me, to rest on whether we as a nation have the courage to support the candidate who takes the strongest stand against American Empire and corporatism / fascism. To do that as President will, indeed, take the balls of a rhinoceros, and as I see it Edwards is the one with the most cajones, when you listen to what he has to say, versus Obama’s careful parsing of what “change” might consist of.
You reference the qualities of inspiring the masses (a la JFK) that Obama seems to possess. My concern is, how deep and substantive are those qualities, and will they stand up against the coming onslaughts of the corporate media and Republican NeoCon machines, once the primaries are over?
JFK and MLK were leaders during a different era, and my fear is that OUR era won’t so easily allow the rising of a leader like those. We saw what happened, in the end, to MLK and RFK also, and since then the social and political culture—and very importantly, the (corporate) media culture—has devolved to the point where charismatic leaders and movements can easily be sabotaged and undermined by the corporate media gatekeepers (brainwashers), and vanish into thin air, virtually overnight. So I question whether Obama can have the staying power to build and sustain a populist, charismatic-leader-centered movement.
So, for many of us it’s a tough choice. Maybe we should acknowledge and trust, as you suggest, that Obama is playing a careful political game, not tempting the sharp teeth of the corporatist machine and corporate media gatekeepers, and that he might indeed turn out to be more of a reformer than he is now intimating, once he takes office. This could possibly be a safe gamble to make. But after the Clinton presidency, it’s harder for me to believe the veiled promises—because Bill Clinton helped to lay the foundations for the entrenchment of the NeoCon agenda of American Empire and corporatism (a big part of the reason why I don’t trust Hillary), and I think that if you don’t have the courage, the balls, to lay it on the line and call it like it is, and make a strong challenge to the anti-democratic power elite, what are the chances that you will follow through once you’re in office?
That said, I’ll temper my remarks by saying that I could end up supporting Obama in the primaries, but that depends. I need some more convincing, and I would have to see Edwards’ candidacy collapsing before I did so, I think. It will be interesting to see what happens in South Carolina and Nevada, where Edwards seems to have more strength. If only the corporate media weren’t so insistent on their media blackout on Edwards…
My two cents.
peace,
steve
PS: The “trial lawyer stigma” doesn’t sway me one bit. What’s wrong with a lawyer who sticks up for the common man and woman against abusive corporations? (I’m speaking to those who are swayed by such demagogical characterizations.) And what’s wrong with him earning a healthy and prosperous living while doing so? Thirty three and a third percent is standard fare for any attorney in civil litigation, and when you’re going up against the big boys of corporate America, that high income (if you win in court) just comes with the territory.
And… I’m more influenced by Edwards’ words than by questions about his haircuts or whether people think he looks “puppy-ish” or whatever. And his wife Elizabeth is surely one strong asset! I like her.
I guess I’m just wired differently from many people; I’m more swayed by the internals of a person than by appearances.
Comment by Byron Fry
5 January 14, 2008, 11:40 pm o'clock |
I like John Edwards. I’m aware of the polls about his electability, and please know that I truly like Edwards as a candidate. A great deal, as a matter of fact. The thing is, you and I have both seen our fair share of these contests, and we both know that when the chips are down, people vote for someone who LOOKS presidential; who carries himself like the POTUSA. America votes for someone who looks like they can deal with those animals crouching in the night, especially in wartime. If Americans voted based on actual performance, connections to lobbies and position on issues based on history, that’d be one thing. If that were the case, I’d be tossing my hat in Dennis Kucinich’s or Joe Biden’s ring…but that’s not how it is. What’s more is, there really IS something to an American President looking and acting the part. There is a way a natural leader comports himself; it’s not just his connections, his record, or how he polls.
JFK shook the ground when he walked; there are many writer’s accounts of how the dynamics, the temperature, the wind, the SOMETHING in a room changed when he entered. What I’m talking about here is unquantifiable by things like polls. I’m talking about true, dyed-in-the-blue leadership. I’m not saying Edwards isn’t a leader; I think he’d make a fine POTUSA. It’s just that in THIS America, in this political climate, given Hillary, John and Barack, all of whom have their ties that will make anti-corporate thinkers like you and I uncomfortable, what WE THE PEOPLE really need is a MOTHERFUCKER leader with balls like a rhinoceros (pardon the language). Edwards may very well fulfill those criteria, but he doesn’t look the part. He looks puppy-ish. My concern is that people won’t follow that. Barack looks like the guy who you follow, or you get the hell out of the way. There is a real momentum to this man that I just don’t see anywhere else… in fact haven’t since JFK or MLK. There is a real value to that.
One other thing, regarding Barack’s perceived lack of anti-corporate language: If you’re Barack, the first black man in history to ever go this far in such a tilted field, do you run your mouth against the very machine that can get you there, or do you wait? Idunno, I’m just sayin’…
If John Edwards could make America break out in goosebumps, I’d give him my vote. But he doesn’t have that POWER. Barack does, and Steve, that’s important. REALLY important. When the chips are down on “Tuesday” folks need someone who wears leadership like they’re comfortable with the inevitability of destiny. Sorry, but I don’t see that in Edwards or Clinton; I do see it in Obama. And ya
know what? I’m really jazzed about it. I dare to believe in true leadership in America for the first fucking time in my adult life, just because of the way this guy carries himself.
Regarding what the actual cabinet and job would look like on January 21 ‘09, choosing between Obama, Edwards and Clinton in the White House is like choosing which hospital you take someone to who is bleeding from the jugular… it really doesn’t matter, as long as you know you can GET there. I’m of the mind that between these three, the differences in their positions on issues, as significant as they are in areas, don’t mean shit compared to what the POTUSA will have to deal with for at least the first term. Campaign promises are one thing, but you and I both know that there is a mountain of shit that needs to be fixed first
before WE THE PEOPLE know this ship ship won’t capsize in the next five minutes. That’s gonna take YEARS, and we have to get there first.
That’s our imperative.
After the myriad of emergencies, constitutional, educational, ecological, military, financial, diplomatic, et al are quelled, THEN we can think about the differences between these three fine candidates, as presented during this campaign, which will have been years in the past. WE HAVE TO GET THERE FIRST.
We haven’t really discussed Hillary: Yeah, like the overwhelming majority of Dems, she’s a moderate. I really don’t have that huge of a prob, though, with the notion of Hillary; I think she’d put together a good cabinet, and her heart’s in the right place, even if she is a little TOO connected. There is a more important criteria we need to pay attention to right now: WE NEED TO GET THERE FIRST.
Lady Liberty has her back to the wall. Not to sound too melodramatic, but the hour draws near; we HAVE to back the play of our most followable, most believable, strongest, most electable candidate.
Comment by Steve Sanders
4 January 14, 2008, 1:22 am o'clock |
Hmmm… Well, on the electability issue, there’s been a series of polls leading up to the primaries that show Edwards as having the best chance out of all the Democratic candidates of beating any of the Republican candidates. Of course, polls can be taken with a large grain of salt, and now that there’s a virtual news blackout on Edwards by the corporate media, it’s increasingly hard for him to get his message out.
So, it’s a bit of a conundrum (for me, certainly, and I think for many others) to pick the best candidate. There are a lot of factors to weigh. As I said, Edwards has the strongest position on fighting corporate dominance over government, and I think compared to Edwards, Obama has been soft-pedaling the issue a bit. And on the “grass roots funding” issue, I think that would be worth taking a second look at. Edwards is the only one among the top candidates who has not taken corporate lobby contributions to his campaign, and in fact is raising just about all his campaign funds via small, grass roots donations. Obama has, to my knowledge, received significant amounts of funds from corporate lobbies. He also supports nuclear energy, as well as coal power plants, as part of his proposed energy policy. (Illinois is a coal mining state, and I think the coal lobby has had some influence on him.)
My concern about Obama centers on what I perceive as careful triangulation on his part not to upset the corporate / government apple cart. He advocates reform, but I don’t hear much specificity from him, nor do I see the same passionate fire that Edwards demonstrates in defense of the working class and middle class. So for me, it’s a hard choice. Obama preaches unity, but unity at what price? Unity with the NeoCons who have all but destroyed the last vestiges of our democratic heritage? Federal government has become corrupt to the bone, and I don’t see Obama as leading a determined charge against that corruption. Edwards, though, is leading that charge.
So, at a time when our democracy is at great peril, do we settle for the middle road? Or do we take a leap of faith, gather our courage as the electorate and vote for real change, change that will reverse the dangerous slide toward corporatist fascism that has engulfed our nation?
I’m not yet convinced that Obama is the leader that has the courage to attempt this. (And I say “attempt” because I know the very real risks that this entails. Remember the price that JFK paid for his own courage.)
Yes, for me it’s a tough choice because I hear what you’re saying: It’s entirely possible that Obama really does have the best chance at beating the Republican nominee. But in my opinion, that would be because any Democratic candidate who truly took a resolute stand against the corporatist machine will have a huge uphill battle, because the corporate media machine will do its damndest to stack the deck against him. (And I don’t use “her” here, because Hillary definitely ain’t that person!) And we’re already seeing—quite clearly if we keep our eyes and ears open—that the corporate media is trying to shape this election.
One more consideration: When you say, “We can’t afford to throw away perfectly good votes,” I think we should take a strong look at the nature of this particular primary election. As I understand it, we haven’t had a Democratic Party contest like this in decades, one where there are three top candidates vying very closely for the nomination, and where we could possibly end up having a brokered convention. If that happens, there will be some real horse trading taking place, and the more delegates that Edwards has, the more influence he can have, both on the ultimate nominee, and on the party platform. Edwards, if he gains enough support, could end up being—if not the nominee—the “King Maker.” (Pray to god he’s not a Queen Maker—but I don’t think he’d stoop so low as to steer his delegates to Republican Lite Hillary Clinton.)
Something to think about…
peace,
steve
Comment by Byron Fry
3 January 14, 2008, 12:27 am o'clock |
Yeah, I know what you mean about Edwards; you know how strongly I feel that the corporatization of America is THE 800-pound gorilla with the table cloth over it, in the middle of the living room, that very few are realistically addressing. John Edwards is one of ‘em. I just don’t know how electable that guy is, though; that “PI Attorney” stigma follows him around like a bad smell, and it really does turn some people off. I for one am not turned off, and I’d feel fine having him in the Oval Office, but we gotta get there first, and I for one am not about to underestimate a few things here: ONE) the mind-numbing ignorance and gullibility of the American voter; TWO) the willingness of the RNC to dicker with electronic voting machines (and no, that still hasn’t been solved to my satisfaction); and THREE) The ‘down-home, take a bass player to your backyard barbecue’ likeableness of Mike Huckabee. Yes, the very fucking concept of this Southern Baptist redneck bigot goon being a candidate for the Presidency should be absurd enough to cause polite titters across the land, but we thought that about Reagan too, and frankly I’m worried.
We have to be tactically minded here, and not fuck around; we need to go with the one who can really sweep people off their feet and start a
movement, and that’s Obama. Personally, like you, Kucinich’s positions echo my own the most (especially where socialized medicine is concerned, as well as IMPEACHMENT), but c’mon. We can’t afford to throw away perfectly good votes when we may need them to stem the
tide. We got a real potential nightmare in Gomer Huck.
I gotta tell ya, Steve, I’ve had the honor of standing next to greatness a few times in this life, and I clearly recogize it in Obama. He grabs me
without even being there in person. Plus, his funding is largely grass-roots. Check this out: For the first time in my life, I’ve actually contributed to the campaign of a presidential candidate…can you believe it?!?…a hundred bucks from my no-savings-account ass, while I struggle to put Brittany through college. Either I’ve slipped my moorings, or there really is something to how well this guy presents himself as THE ANSWER for WE THE PEOPLE. I just hope he doesn’t catch a head wound from Cletus or Clem, before he gets to the White House and protects himself with a
VP Cletus or Clem would hate even more… like, you know… HER.
Bottom line is, I’d feel great about having any one of the Democratic field in THE office, and I know it’s fantastic to “hear” myself write this, but I really think our best chances are in a black man (gasp!)
Comment by Steve Sanders
2 January 14, 2008, 12:18 am o'clock |
I personally like John Edwards a lot better than Obama. Reason is, he’s more forceful and forthright (and determined) in his program to
de-corporatize American politics. Other reason is, Obama was a limp noodle (sorry, but that’s the best way I have to describe it) on the question of impeachment for Bush and Cheney.
However, I could definitely vote for Obama; he would be my second choice behind Edwards. (Actually kinda third, being that Kucinich is my “heartfelt” first choice, but I’m more likely to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday here in NM, since I think Kucinich probably doesn’t have a real chance to win the nomination.
Damn, I of all people HATE horse-race politics! I AM tempted to just “vote my heart.”)
Pingback by Knucklehead’s Log: Dare to Unite » The Obama Campaigner
# January 26, 2008, 4:13 pm o'clock |
[…] Knucklehead’s Log: Dare to Unite By Byron Fry […]