“Opposition is True Friendship”: Can Obama Embrace His Inner Divisiveness & Become a True Democrat?

[McCamy Taylor]

"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000.”

When I look at that sentence, I do not see any reference to Kerry or Gore. What I see is a politically inept Obama putting his great big foot in it. He is trying to say “Hillary is divisive, and I am not. The Dems lost in 2000 and 2004. Nominate Hillary, and we will lose again, because she is divisive, and our divisiveness lost us the last two elections.” It is at the last part that he goes so terribly wrong, in more ways than one.

Everyone who knows politics knows why we “lost” the last two elections.

1. We did not lose. The elections were stolen. Al Gore actually won the national and the electoral vote, only the Supreme Court stepped in and made a decision that was based upon the identities of the parties in the case Bush v. Gore, something that is so illegal five of the Justices should have been removed from the court. Minus points to Obama the lawyer for forgetting this. We did not lose 2004, either. Election fraud including voter suppression and ballot count manipulation in Florida and Ohio have made the actual result impossible to determine, and it is just as likely that Kerry won, however for reasons that only the former presidential candidate knows he decided not to challenge the result.
2. The corporate media was in the pocket of the Bush camp, thanks to promises of unlimited media mergers which had been made before the 2000 election. Viacom/CBS and NewsCorp/Fox in particular needed relaxation of federal media ownership rules, otherwise they would have had to start divesting. The telecoms and others simply wanted to expand to increase their power. Rove was able to persuade the mainstream media to create the narrative “Gore is a liar” in 2000 while encouraging the press to ignore Bush’s obvious lies and faults—lies which included claiming credit for the Texas Patient Protection Act which he actually vetoed once then allowed to go into law two years later without signing it and which, as president, he had John Ashcroft kill in federal courts. In 2004, the corporate media was even worse, with “Kerry Waffles”, the Swiftboat Vets, and “What Exit Polls?” Plus, we must not forget that Viacom/CBS put the fear of God into journalists who might attempt to report on anything negative about Bush by media lynching Dan Rather. If the Democrats went into 2000 and 2004 with only half the country behind them, you can blame the corporate media, not the Democrats themselves.
3. Money. Money makes the world go round. Bush/Cheney 2000 and Bush/Cheney 2004 rivaled the economies of some world nations. Corporations were falling all over themselves to enrich that campaign war chest, because if there was one thing you could count on from Bush, it was a return on your investment. Corporate welfare has never been better than in the last seven years.

Note that Democratic Divisiveness is not on my list. Good old boring Al Gore and John Kerry the war hero are about as bland and nondivisive as you can get. We are talking white bread and mayonnaise all the way. No one in their right mind would be scared of either man.

"The voice of honest indignation is the voice of God" William Blake The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Hillary is divisive, because everyone knows who she is---she entered this race with the highest recognizability of any candidate---which means that people have stronger opinions about her. An unfamiliar candidate tends to generate no response in those who do not know him or her. Also, everyone knows that she is a she and we are treading untested waters here. Plus, she has been the victim of a corporate media narrative smear, this one known as "Hillary is a bitch" designed to increase her negative rating.

The other first tier Democratic candidate, John Edwards has been the victim of the worst mainstream media attacks, with "Edwards is a phony" starting a year ago in the pages of the Washington Post, penned by the notorious John Solomon. This was followed up by almost a full year of "The Two Man Race" in which the press ignored Edwards (and Dodd and Biden and Richardson) no matter how high his poll numbers were and concentrated exclusively on Obama and Hillary, as if the Democrats had only two candidates from which to choose. The reason for the Two Man Race are obvious. Hillary is a woman. Obama is Black. Either one would enter the general election with a handicap (ironically, a handicap of the type that Obama claims to fear.) A large number of Republicans and Independent voters would refuse to cross party lines to vote for a woman or a Black as president of the United States, because of their own prejudices. That has made them the Democratic candidates of choice for the RNC, which had come perilously close to losing in 2000 and 2004 when the Democrats chose nonpolarizing candidates.

Obama probably does not recognize his own potential for divisiveness, because the corporate media has given him a free ride in a custom limousine, one of those deluxe stretch models with the built in bar. So what if both his father and step father were Muslims, and he attended Muslim school as a child and began attending Church only as an adult? The press is willing to overlook that fact—for now. They won’t cut John Edwards any slack for his haircut or the size of his house, but that should not worry Obama. They would never ever turn on him the way they turned on Hillary when her poll numbers got too high. They promise, cross their hearts and hope to die.


So Obama has some financial scandals in his closet? The mainstream media is not interested. Not for the moment. Did he make a silly gaffe in public? Oh my! How refreshing to hear someone young and new, unspoiled by Washington. It is Camelot all over again!

And as for the issue of race or ethnicity---well, race no longer matters in the United States. Unless you are one of the Blacks who gets hauled before the criminal justice system. Or one of the Blacks who gets left behind by the public school system. Or one of the Latinos that is targeted by the newly resurgent KKK. Or a Muslim middle eastern immigrant who is tossed in a military prison and deprived of all basic human rights. Or a resident of NOLA who still can not go back---

You know, that is a lot of alienation. Could it be that one of the reasons that Obama appeals to people in the United States is precisely because he is half White, half Black, grew up Muslim and is now a Christian, which makes him as divisive as hell? Maybe what Democrats want is divisive. Or, to put it more nicely, maybe what they want is a clean, decisive cut from the bullshit that we have had for the last eight years.

Maybe Hillary’s power lies in her womanhood. And maybe Edwards is first tier and Biden and the other white guys are down in the second tier, because Edwards came out the working class and is so stridently anti-corporate and unapologetically populist.

“Opposition is true friendship” William Blake The Marriage of Heaven and Hell .

If all Obama has going for him as a Democrat is that he is a symbol of opposition---he represents the antithesis of the hated CEO who runs and ruins our lives from a smoke filled board room somewhere high above the clouds in a New York penthouse---then he will be about as much use as any symbol. Those who have conspired and schemed for the last three decades to increase their own wealth and power at the expense of the basic standard of living of ninety percent of the rest of us do not plan to lose this election. Once the Democrats have made their choice, the corporate media will launch a double barreled shot gun attack on the nominee that will make “Gore is a liar” and “Kerry waffles” look like Barney the Dinosaur songs.

Do you have it in you, Senator Obama, to fight back? Will your eyes sparkle as you tackle the right wing conspiracy? Will you give as good as you get? Will you roll up your sleeves and get down and dirty? Will you release your inner Bill Clinton? If you follow the lead of John Kerry and Al Gore and try to act like a statesman when the mainstream media unleashes its attack, you will lose, lose, lose---and that is just exactly what I am afraid that you will do.

"Without Contraries is no progression." William Blake. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

The Democratic Party's worst enemy is not Republican election fraud. It is not even corporate media lies. Apathy is the enemy. A Democratic nominee who can not energize the base, or, worse yet, one who crumbles before an onslaught of right wing attacks and can not launch a counter attack will inspire apathy in voters, who will stay home. A candidate who talks reconciliation in the face of ongoing media dirty tricks--at the moment, they are being directed at Huckabee, the anti-corporate Republican, probably the RNC's worst nightmare--just because those tricks are not being directed his way is either hopelessly naive or heartlessly opportunistic.

"The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction" William Blake. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

[LWolf]

1. Shit, I'm already more apathetic every day,

before a single caucus is accomplished or vote is cast. I frankly may not stay engaged all the way to my own primary in May, let alone the convention and the GE.

I'm sick to death of the whole thing, and sickened BY the most likely outcomes, right now.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Then tune out until the general election. Obama, Hillary, Edwards are all fine candidates.

Anyone will be a good president. And, if Huckabee is the nominee on the other side, any one of them will be a shoo in. Same for Romney.

:dem:

[LWolf]

4. That's who I will be tuning out.

HRC and Obama are not "fine" candidates. Most of the rest aren't exactly stellar, from my pov, as well.

I don't mind compromising, but I'll only compromise so far, and I don't believe that anyone I'm willing to compromise on is likely to win the nomination.

[dogishboy]

3. Obama clearly called Gore and Kerry divisive

Even your own words make that clear - "our divisiveness lost us the last two elections"

"Our" divisiveness? No, BO was talking about the CANDIDATES divisiveness. He is clearly saying that Gore and Kerry were "divisive"

It's just as clear that Obama will say and do anything to win.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. That is why I said he put his foot in it. For a "genius" he makes gaffes worthy of Dumbya sometimes.

The press that called Gore a "liar" is going to have a field day with Obama, the candidate who does not know how to watch his tongue, if he is nominated and the press is told to take off its gloves.

However, to be fair, I do not think he meant to imply what everyone thinks he was implying, because that would be political suicide, and he wants to win. He just does not have a lot of experience like Hillary and he is not a seasoned court room attorney, like Edwards.

[dogishboy]

8. Ahh, I see

I was confused. My bad

But I do think he meant what he said. Obama, on several occassions, has shown a habit of dissing long-term democratic groups and using right wing arguments. He's dissed LGBT's, boomers, anyone over 50, unions (are "special interests"), and trial lawyers. I guessing teachers and liberal college professors are next

[maximusveritas]

5. Obama has talked about the election being stolen

Here's what he said about it.

"I intend to whoop 'em so good that it won't even be close and they can't steal the election."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/31/541010.aspx


As far as him getting a free ride from the media, I disagree. They've poured over everything from his State Senate records to his kindergaten essays. And they've attacked him plenty of times. I do agree with you that it'll get worse and he'll become just as hated as Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. I think Obama knows that too, but he's trying to win votes now, so he hopes people won't catch on.

[Bitwit1234]

6. Liberman was his mentor you go figure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. K&R - for your passion and for being thought provoking n/t

[balantz]

10. Thanks for this.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be looked into and talked about. I can only pray that a good number of the Iowan caucas-goers have looked deeply into these facts, as well as the majority of voters across the nation. The choice is clear to me as to who will be best at changing the guard and moving us forward with grim determination and eyes a'sparkle.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. This journal is a shameless plug for William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

It changed my life many years ago when I read it in college. Though it is two hundred years old and written by an Englishman, it could easily be the Tao Te Ching of the west.

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.

For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."

William Blake.

In this collection of poems and fables, Blakes explores humanism, the difference between organized religion (which he despises) and true spirituality (which is always based upon individual knowledge of the truth), sexuality, creativity and the spirit of revolution as the urge for liberation and freedom from oppression.

Just as the Kabbalah asks the seemingly impossible when it suggests the union of Gevurah (judgment) and Hesed (love), so Blake suggests what seems an impossible union, Heaven and Hell. However, it is the loss of the human, the creative, the organic and the changeable that created the oppressive social order in his day---and in ours. Western dualism attempted to strip away the human, the organic, the creative, the changeable in order to create a paradise on earth---the perfect all white home schooled gated community where everyone looks alike and talks alike and eats the same thing and goes to the same church and watches Fox News---and the result was hellish.

That is why the Democrats must remind America that change aka the spirit of Revolution is not a destructive thing. It is the energy upon which our country was founded and which makes it flourish.

[mojowork_n]

12. I hate to quibble at the end of such a nicely thought out piece,

but that quote you put up at the top is soooo brief:

"I don't want to go into the next election starting off with half the country already not wanting to vote for Democrats -- we've done that in 2004, 2000.”

What was the context of that one sentence? I can read it two ways -- the way you did, or maybe more simply, without naming names or pointing fingers, as a simple statement of recognition, an admission of the fact that American politics have become more highly charged, and we're split evenly along red-state/blue-state/NASCAR Dad/Soccer Mom lines. Nothing more than that.

In either case, though, I think Obama has some really, really difficult choices to make. The second he starts putting a harder edge on some of his comments, the sooner he's going to find himself lumped together with Rev.'s Al and Jessie. In the 2004 debates, Rev. Al was by far the least reluctant to step up to the plate and swing for the fences -- and he hit quite a few out of the park, but what did it get him? Media jeers and let's-get-this-brotha-out-of-here dismissal, from the whole rat pack of mainstream pundits.

I think Obama recognizes that basic reality, and he's just taking a hard look at some of the problems he'll be facing, this time around.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. No matter what the Democratic nominee does, he will get MSM jeers. Obama can walk on water

and the corporate media is going to come up with the narrative "Obama is a Black Muslim"--in all its varied and provocative meanings.

Does anyone here really think that Al Gore deserved "Gore is a liar" or that Kerry earned The Swiftboat Vets or that Edwards deserves "Edwards is a phony" or that Hillary brought "Hillary is a bitch" upon herself? If you do, then you are incredibly naive.


The corporate media is salivating at the thought of what it can do with superimpositions of Elijah Muhammad and Obama. It is ready to recall horror stories of Black power movements that have died everywhere but in the imaginations of White America.

It will not matter how "safe" Obama makes himself appear, how gentlemanly he acts, how much he neuters himself. If the Republicans nominate anyone besides Huckabee, the corporate media will issue a fatwa against him, and he will be slimed. Anything that either of his fathers did will be fair game. His mother's politics will be fair game, too. By the time the press is done with him, he is going to be Brother Malcolm re-incarnate---Brother Malcolm pre-Mecca.

That is why I worry that he is too much like the all too statesmenlike Gore and Kerry. They would not lower themselves to respond to the ridiculous attack ads---and so the ads hurt them. Is Obama ready to fight back? Or will he worry that in fighting, he risks losing the nonthreatening "can't we all just get along" image that he has worked so hard to cultivate? Will he get on television and show anger when they slander his parents? Anger that Americans can identify with? Or will he worry that his normal anger will make him too polarizing?

He is trying so hard to be the Age of Aquarius candidate, but right now we are in the middle of a friggin' class war, and the Democratic nominee needs to be prepared to fight.

[mojowork_n]

14. Hey, I'm with you on the class war part. ("Dude, Where's My Country?")

But I think, to wage that war as effectively as possible, it should be a War to Take Back America.

A bus that anyone can feel free to jump on.

Just minutes ago, I finished a response in another thread, the post on Robert Parry's article which made an inference, that if HRC is elected, she's already signalling to the Other Side, The Twit has nothing to fear, prosecution-wise. This is what I said:

What none of us should lose sight of (no matter which of the Democratic candidates we're pulling for) is that from the very beginning -- even before all the votes were counted in 2000 -- this may very well have been the most corrupt, deceitful, and oppressive administration in American history.

Whether or not it was the absolute worst may never be known -- or confirmed -- not unless someone starts appointing independent prosecutors.

People on both sides of the aisle have things to be nervous about. Today's NYT piece by the Republican and the Democratic heads of the 9/11 Commission, on evidence that was concealed, or destroyed, during the waterboarding/torture investigation, is like a little faberge egg or cameo, a representative example, of that. Nancy Pelosi and others on our side, were briefed and reportedly gave waterboarding a pass.

John Conyers has a 1,200 or 1,400 page report already compiled, on The Chimp's misdeeds and constitutional violations -- a link is available on the right side of "Time for Change's" Journal home page -- but unless the right sort of leaders step forward, it's never going anywhere.

It could be the most important question that comes up during the 2008 campaign. The Republicans will do everything in their power to suppress it, but I think it's important, and perfectly legitimate, to consider the attitude of all of the Democratic candidates when it comes to investigating/prosecuting * for his crimes.

Anyway, I think that also applies here. It's a bigger question than how nasty can we expect the Republican noise machine to be, so how pissed off/gloves-off/feisty do we want our candidate to be? We all know they're going to be hitting below the belt, early and often, just as hard as they can.

They've got absolutely nothing to lose by doing it, but I think the voting public is starting to figure them out. Consider how well Huckabee and Ron Paul are doing, and how badly the worst of the fear-mongering candidates, Rudy, has tailed off.

Right now, this minute, I'm pulling for Edwards to win in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I hope Obama has a strong showing, too. I've already flipped once, between those two. I heard Obama speak, last spring, and I was very impressed. I'm not expecting him to ever be able to walk on water, but if (as I suspect), he's got more going for him than you or Paul Krugman give him credit for, he could still inject something unique into the race, that goes beyond the usual Dem wussiness.

To tell you the truth, however low the Republicans go, or how badly they want to turn him into some sort of madrass-bred threat to all that is decent and holy, I'm still hoping he keeps going with what's working for him -- I hope that Barack continues to do Will Smith.

Remember the smart, fearless, feisty fighter pilot that actor played in "Independence Day?" He was even more impressive, and nuanced, in the role of a selfless medical researcher/ninja warrior in "I Am Legend", his latest.

We've come a long way since Willie Horton.

There are some new role models out there, now. I don't know if he's doing it consciously, but Barack reminds me more than a little of Will Smith, and it's working for me. He's a black man, he'll never be able to play Ice-T, or Rev. Al, for that matter, but he could have more going for him than a lot of people give him credit for.

Oh, shoot, I may have just flipped, again.