Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
XH "Thanks for the "news." It's not like people here don't know the failings of the Democratic party. But thanks for your condescending attempt to educate everybody. You know so much."
I'm not pretending that I'm a genius or that I know something that others don't. I am, however, looking to dampen your hopes that Obama or the Democractic Party are going to be any different to the previous administration. You're only setting yourself up for disappointment. The only thing which made the Bush administration "worse" than others was their utter incompetence at keeping some of their hideous authoritarian activities secret. Maybe this has something more to do with the slow democratization of media than their poor confidence abilities. Every party, Republican, Democratic or Whig has run roughshod over the wishes of the people and has crushed those who get in the way at the first possible moment. It has been corrupted to such an extent that we no longer even raise an eyebrow and the massive "campaign contributions" made by corporate sponsors, or the millions funneled to the party by "soft money".
XH: How is this relevant to an article that summarizes and analyzes a speech by Michelle Obama? As for Obama being "different," well, he is and he isn't. Nobody has any illusions about the fact that he's a politician who plays a political game. But he does bring something fresh to the scene, and there's nothing wrong with people appreciating it and getting excited about it. You're just stroking your own ego if you think you're enlightening us with your cynicism.
I guess I just don't see it as cynical to point out that Obama is no different to any other politician. As you pointed out, he has to play the game. I also don't see that he brings anything fresh or new to either the party or to politics. He's charismatic, youthful and a stupendous orator, sure, but that's just surface. What is actually different about his approach to leadership, government or policy? I suppose I just chose this article because it was the straw that broke this camel's back in terms of salon's blatantly uncritical analysis of somebody who's got a good chance of wielding executive power for the next four years.
XH: Thanks, but you're a piss-poor messenger for Orwell and I doubt he'd appreciate your negativism. If your point is that all politics, elections and government is a charade, then fine. Have at it. Be sure to write such essays during the RNC as well.
Firstly, I concede bringing up Orwell was more than likely a blunder. I didn't mean to come off wanky, I just know that a lot of people on this website have a huge regard for him and his views, whilst also shilling for the charade that is contemporary representational politics. I'm sorry but I just find it a bit hypocritical. Yes, my point is that elections are a charade. We need to see why that is and correct it.
XH: Charming. Then why did you read the article, and why are you here writing about it? You don't care. Great! Congratulations! You're a cynic. We all get it. I'm cynical too, but I don't fool myself into thinking I'm helping people by rubbing their noses in my cynicism.
I'm not trying to be cynical, but I am tabling my opinion that many of the issues that both liberals and this website are concerned with will not and cannot be solved by party politics. These are problems which are endemic with centralised, representational governance.
I apologise if I came across as a bit too militant there, but I was immensely annoyed that a liberal-biased website such as salon, which I enjoy for it's regular eviscerations of the authoritarian right that are far more in-depth and clever than the rest of the MSM, is unwilling to point that laser focus at the slightly less authoritarian right party or it's new leader.
Michelle Obama made a credible political spouse speech that obviously hit all the checkmarks that a speech like this needs. Good family man - check. Loves his kids - check. Make sure that cute kids are trotted out on cue. American values - check. She's an intelligent, well-spoken woman (though I did find her overly scripted - I rather liked her earlier outspokeness that seems to have been curtailed for the duration), so the fact that her speech didn't bomb should hardly be a surprise.
I mean, what else would she have done? Gone on national television and said, "Vote for my husband because he's a real asshole. He can't balance his checkbook and he hogs the remote." This speech was as fluffy as you can get and really won't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's hardly going to change minds.
IzzieDee: "But...it is easy to remain cynical. It's risky to hope. I hate being manipulated, like when I find myself weeping uncontrollably during a TV commercial. We are all bombarded with messages that try to sell us something. The fact that I cannot control my response is disturbing."
Man, which TV commercial made you cry? I want to see that commercial! To be honest, I always try to avoid commercials by getting up and doing something. If I felt it were a worthy investment (I don't watch a lot of TV) I'd get TiVo so I could always completely avoid commercials.
Anyway, I don't like being manipulated either, unless I am in on the manipulation, and unless the manipulation is not misleading. Movies are pure manipulation but I'm a very willing participant. The DNC, and speeches in general, are also a form of manipulation, but we're all willing participants. Many of us have heard the Obamas' story before, but not presented so well. Sure, it's a kind of sales pitch, but it was also heartfelt.
IzzieDee: "I remember the same euphoria after the 2004 Convention. I hear the same words. I have the same sick feeling. The "we are sorry" website, addressed to the rest of the world in 2004, is haunting me."
Haha, I remember that. I was depressed for weeks. I didn't watch much of that convention though. I liked Kerry enough but wasn't excited by him or Edwards. They were a far better choice than Bush though, and considering Bush was a wartime president, it's remarkable they got as close to defeating him as they did (some would say they actually did defeat him, and there is reason to believe the Ohio votes were skewed by corruption). Remember the UK paper with the headline, "How could 52 million people be so stupid?" or something like that? That summed it up well.
IzzieDee: "I'll vote for Obama anyway. But I understand the doubts. Maybe some Obama supporters can explain why they are so sure about him, other than the obvious that McCain would be a lot worse."
Well that obvious reason is a big one. Not the only one, but so big a reason that it renders just about any reason NOT to vote for Obama absurd. But beyond that there are many positive qualities in Obama. Do you really not see them? I mean, having doubts is one thing -- I have doubts as well, as I would about any candidate. I think you mischaracterize people when you say Obama supporters are "so sure" about him. It isn't that anybody thinks he's infallible, it's that they think he has the potential for greatness. He's got talent, he's quite intelligent (far moreso than Bush or McCain), he thinks on multiple levels (details, basics, and also meta, big-picture concepts), he communicates clearly in a way that reaches low and high at the same time, he reels in his bad impulses well (they call it being "presidential"), he is a solid manager and delegator, he's obviously very unlikely to be the type who would seek to go to war without just cause, he shows signs of being fiscally responsible, and so on. Read his website's position statements. Watch his DNC speech.
Again, nobody is saying he's a Messiah or whatever, and I resent the constant implication that by liking him people are worshipping him or touting his flawlessness. What's most often the case is that, all things being equal, people simply find him the best choice of candidate. I thought Hillary Clinton had many strengths. I thought Obama had more. I even think John McCain has some good points. I think Obama has more. That's the long and short of it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
