Tell the Truth

[H2O Man]

"All people whose minds are healthy can desire peace, and there is an ability within all people -- especially the young -- to grasp and hold strongly to the principles of righteousness. These principles of justice demand that all thoughts of prejudice, privilege, and superiority be swept away, and that recognition be given to the reality that the creation is intended for all equally." – Degan-awida (The PeaceMaker)

When I was young, I had the privilege of being taught by Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman. We talked a lot about the proper relationship between leaders and the people they served. Paul’s grandfather’s grandfathers were among those who met with people like Jefferson and Madison. Some of the older histories of the United States call Chief Hendrick one of the "Founding Fathers."

In one interview I did for publication, I asked Chief Waterman about what the white politicians could learn from the Haudenosaunee (or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) leaders? Paul said, "To tell the truth."

For many years, Chief Waterman and I used to speak at schools and colleges, and Paul taught me that it was a privilege to have that opportunity. The money we were paid went to the Longhouse, to pay for food for elders. We didn’t look to benefit financially, but rather to have society reap the rewards of educated, concerned young people.

One of the most important things about this democratic primary is that so many young people are actively participating in the process. This is a sign of a healthy democracy.

Young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth, from those who do not. People from my generation will recall a fellow named Richard Nixon: we just knew that he wasn’t an honest man. Nixon tried to keep secrets from the public, and then from investigators. But when we read the history books, we find that the young folks were right: Nixon was a crook. A lot of his criminal behavior was tied to campaign financial arrangements.

There are questions being raised about the Clintons’ finances. Some people are saying it is wrong to raise these questions. They say this information will become public soon enough. I recognize those words: Nixon said the same thing.

If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him. You can’t buy that trust.

[countingbluecars]

1. Thank you for this post.

K&R

[H2O Man]

6. Thank you.

I think this is an important issue. I appreciate your support in keeping this thread where others can read it. I include my friends who support Senator Clinton, because this should be an area where we can reach common ground.

[cali]

2. Excellent post.

it gets right to the heart of the matter.

nominated.

[H2O Man]

4. Thank you.

We should demand that all politicians be open and honest about their finances. How can we ask republicans to meet a standard that some democrats refuse to meet?

[Pirate Smile]

3. Thanks, H2O Man. A fitting post for this afternoon considering the fundraising story.

[H2O Man]

16. Thank you.

It is an important issue, and we should have an open and honest discussion about it.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

5. Trustworthiness is the most important asset a leader can have

It trumps experience, education, and name recognition. A positively brilliant and knowledgeable leader is nothing if he/she doesn't have the people's trust and if he/she has engaged in actions that promote mistrust. The leader steps into our shoes and is supposed to act for us. If we don't trust that leader to do the right thing on our behalf, then none of their other assets matter. I don't see the world with a young person's eyes anymore, much to my regret. But I do know that I can't trust Hillary Clinton.

And the older you get ... the more you come to accept compromise. You are more willing to look the other way and accept dishonesty and misbehavior if you get something in return. The older you get, the more you are ruled by a narrow focus on immediate fears of losing what you already have instead of hope for what the future might bring. The older you get, the less you are concerned with absolute principles of truth and honesty and are willing to trade them away for a practical return.

[H2O Man]

43. Life is funny,

and young people are works in progress. On one hand, if a person thinks the same at age 40 as they did at age 20, I think they have not made full use of half of their life. On the other hand, there are times when I hear words coming from my mouth that are echoes of things my father used to say, which makes me wonder about genetics versus environment.

[unc70]

74. I strongly disagree; I am old enough I will all-to-soon lose everthing

I don't know your age; I am 59. Neither I nor any of my older friends or relatives seemed motivated by immediate fears of losing what they already have, with the exceptions of their mind, their independence, the lives of their family and friends, and ultimately their own life. After about age 40, losses becoming increasingly common and more frequent: first an elderly uncle, then another. then a parent or two, their close friends, suddenly so many that you are shocked one day to learn that someone close had passed months ago, without you knowing about it, without anyone telling you. I now check the obituaries on a half dozen newspaper sites nearly every morning.

I am now losing many of my own "generation", miss those meandering conversations with long-time friends, absent any agenda or expectation beyond enjoyment of the other's company, miss getting their unexpected call to share some news of theirs or to seek my advice, miss even more never being able to hear them laugh, tell a story, or feel their hug again. These are the loses that matter, the people, the lives, the love. The absolute worst are the losses of siblings, children, and recently grandchildren. Gut-wrenching grief and anguish.

If anything, I am now less likely to accept dishonesty and misbehavior in others and certainly not because I would receive something in return. I probably have a better understanding of human behavior and of competing needs of opposing sides in a debate, but I am now more-likely to call out or intervene to expose the frauds, protect the weak, or stand with the outcast and the shunned.

I don't particularly trust HRC, but that is mostly because she is more corporate and more hawkish than I would prefer.

I trust Obama considerably less. Too often I find him taking broad liberties with the truth in order to present a more-compelling narrative or a more-flattering image of himself, his policies, associates, and family. Time-lines, historical accuracy, responsibility for his own actions, unpleasant facts, and the hard decisions facing us all -- they all fall victim under the force of his charm and persuasion.

Even Obama's compelling life story suffers under close scrutiny. Things just don't quite match up like they should, particularly when compared with the recollections of others and with contemporaneous documents. Even some of his own statements are at odds with himself. Certainly each of us tries to emphasize the more positive aspects of our lives while minimizing those less flattering. Too often, Obama seems like job applicants I have seen whose resumes are stretched just short of outright lying, full of the right phrases, the desired attributes, but with just a bit too much puffery, a little too polished, too slick, and woefully unprepared to deliver on the promises.

By contract, when I see new details about the life of HRC, they seem consistent with previous knowledge even when I don't agree or approve. I feel I mostly understand what motivates and drives her.

Much the same with John Edwards. I can believe and understand the forces and events that have molded and changed him over time. He made and will make mistakes, but he is unlikely to repeat them.

I don't sense that type of depth in that which motivates and drives Obama. I don't see the grounding, the roots, the rich context that infuses and supports Clinton and Edwards. Instead I sense an entitlement that had rarely required much hardship, discipline, struggle, or sacrifice.

I have seen this in business and in my own family and it greatly worries me that I see it in Obama. He is smart, quick, charming, immediately liked by nearly everyone, persuasive, and talented in various ways. In high school, he was Barry O'Bomber the star basketball player on a state championship team, who is said to have always carried a basketball with him so no one might forget. But he has admitted to heavy drug use during those years. The rules didn't quite apply to him. A smile, a half-way plausible excuse, so polite, so talented -- how could anyone dare criticize this smart, polite young black student who excelled at nearly everything, including basketball, and who obviously would have big things in his future.

But almost nothing is his fault, he admits to few mistakes, he accidentally pressed the wrong button when voting on that gambling bill, you misunderstood what he had said and what he had meant, he never claimed comparison with JFK (it was Ted Sorensen who for 18 months had been introducing him as the heir to Camelot), he was above using race or gender (except wrt that pesky Southern white guy who deserved those joking put-downs, better let O'Donnell imply Edwards a racist), his debate responses were often vague, rambling, disorganized and even unprepared and without detail, and on and on and on.

[CRH]

165. Good post, when watching with no attachment, it is easier to clearly see. n/t

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

190. You must be a virtuous person

I am 58 and I have lost many people close to me. With each loss, it becomes more and more difficult and I become more alone. I agree with you that as one grows older, their ability to discern and understand a person's motivations become more enhanced. However, despite this quality, many people as they grow older are more willing to compromise and turn a blind eye to that which is offensive or dishonest in someone else despite seeing that fault with even greater acuity than the young. As you get older, you have a bank account, a job, a career, a house, or a pension, stocks, tax liabilities, familial healthcare concerns, a family to feed and children to send to college. You have accumulated more and more things and taken on more and more responsibilities as you have grown older. You have others who depend on you and your material loss could also be their material loss. In that way, if you value the people around you the most, your monetary or financial loss can affect the ones you love, during and after the end of your life. You aren't the free-wheeling, unattached young person anymore who can afford to be idealistic and make decisions entirely on principle, unfortunately. You have many immediate fears of tangible loss that can affect your decision on a leader.

You, unc70, are a very virtuous individual who does not fear losing the things you have accumulated in life but only the people you hold dear. That's a wonderful outlook on life, but I think you are probably in the extreme minority, however, in that sense. It is probably great to be your friend.

There's a lady about my age in my office who voted for George Bush for the sole reason that she thought he would lower her taxes and those of her husband. I tried to explain to her why George Bush could not be trusted, what with his history of insider trading at Harkin Oil and some of his nefarious activities as the Texas Governor. She acknowledged that he was a dirty politician but since her family had been paying a great amount in taxes, and since she had to send her daughter to college, she wanted a tax break for her family most of all and George Bush promised a tax break in his 2000 campaign. She wasn't a Republican or an extremely politically partisan person.

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, I don't know her motivations. I have read, however, most of the speeches and policy statements available at her Senate website, of which there are a great number. I actually find several of her domestic proposals interesting and worthwhile. However, to me, her foreign policy statements and speeches are a complete disaster and very, very troubling. She's very right wing when it comes to foreign matters and I am as concerned about this country's external affairs as I am about domestic matters. Obama is an unknown quantity but Hillary Clinton to me is a frightening prospect and I can't trust her to lead this country based on her hawkish stances towards the world.

[unc70]

195. Not all that virtuous, maybe just a little insight

It is not that I am unconcerned about my financial future or that of my famiy, particularly if I were to die or become disabled. I address these issues like most of us with insurance, not enough savings, not enough for retirement, etc. I am currently fixing some loose ends that might prove bothersome in my absence. I am lucky that the younger generation of my extended family are through college and are ok financially, and we do not face any of those difficult situations like providing for a child with special needs.

What I gained a couple of morsels of insight over the last ten years. First, I realized that most of us have misclassified the nature of the decisions we must make. We often cast them as being tradeoffs between freedom and security when they are really between the illusion of freedom and the illusion of security. Mostly we are just fooling ourselves, hoping to be convinced we have some control of our destiny.

Most of us are severely limited in what choices we have, what actions we can and cannot take. The laws and customs of our society establish the outermost constraints on our freedom; but nearly all we relinquish ourselves in thousands of decisions, promises, responsibilities, bargains made with others, with ourselves, maybe to our God. Sometimes these are open and explicit -- marriage vows, having a child, getting a mortgage; most are private and unvoiced, difficult to admit even to ourselves, stubbornly anchored to our self-image, an image so fragile it might be crushed by seeing in the eyes of another a reflection of itself that is marred and distorted by hurt, disappointment, disapproval, loss.

While freedom might really be "nothing left to lose", security is little better. There is only the illusion of security. Where is there security in our very lives, our bodies, our health? One misstep off the curb, a careless driver, a freak accident, a tiny imperfection in a blood vessel -- suddenly ones life is over or at least changed so dramatically we could never have been prepared. Financial security is no more real, disappearing quickly in the face of medical bills, tornado, fire, liabilities ensuing from your own negligent acts, fraud, theft, and such or beaning eaten away slowly by inflation, recession, falling market values, and needs that force liquidating core assets.

Once you realize you have mostly been chasing distant mirages, that you have repeatedly bargained for "futures" rarely realized, it is then that you can start to value the present. Eventually, each of us will be dead, our cherished possession divided among family and friends, the remanents to a yard sale or to a charity. So how do we adjust to this undeniable truth?

I was fortunately able to spend a lot of time with my mother during her last 4-5 years, usually 3-4 days every 2-3 weeks at our family home. Until near the end, her health was relatively good, her mind sharp, her memories and opinions no longer filtered in consideration of others now deceased. I came to see her, my father, their families, their lives in ways I had never even considered. Through this experience, I started to see my life and my future in a new light.

I now see the inherent wisdom in some of her favorite sayings, often found taped to the refrigerator door. "Each day she got up was a good day.", the Serenity Prayer, many others. She went and did, driving herself and her friends until she was 90. Visiting the shutins, the sick, volunteering at church and at charities, loving and supporting her family and friends, enjoying travel, interested in life, enjoying a good day fishing, never tiring of the beauty of the local sound and ocean, her flowers, or a beautiful sunset.

During one of our long conversations, she said "How did I get to be so old? I never expected to be over 90. Where did the time go? Sometimes I still feel like a 17-year-old inside and wonder who is that old women in the mirror."

[DemGa]

7. Three points:

Older people can also intuitively recognize the truth.

And, plenty of younger people support Hillary. I've no doubt that a lot of young women are excited about seeing their first woman President - and I believe they will.

There seems to be an inference of some kind in comparing Clinton's honesty with that of Nixon. Given your argument, the right-wing attacks on Hillary and the Clinton's have been correct all along. Sorry, but that's patently absurd.

[H2O Man]

14. As long as

you give my points some thought -- and you apparently have -- then I'm not concerned if you agree with me or hold a very different opinion.


Thank you.

[EFerrari]

Most big lies are founded on a grain of truth. n/t

[stickernation]

141. the meme of "right wing talking points"

it is not necessarily a right wing talking point to call out certain aspects of the candidates' records. god knows edwards got zero slack for his IWR involvement during his run, although to be fair such attacks didn't come from hillary supporters for obvious reasons.

it could very well be that clinton's honesty is suspect, right? it is not a right-wing talking point to say that. it is more like a "left wing attack" to call her Nixon-like than a right-wing attack, and I am of the opinion that left-wing attacks are more than welcome here on DU.

my own #1 campaign issue? THROWING THE */CHENEY MACHINE IN PRISON. Edwards as Attorney General might do that, so that's my top priority at this point. However I have strong doubts that either candidate for President her/himself will undertake this critical issue. So I am going to have to do it myself, with a lot of help from others. My 2008 campaign pledge is to PIN THE BLAME FOR OUR STATUS QUO ON REPUGNICANS. I'd love to see their Party unravel totally. It is very hard for me to effect this if the Democrats have similar involvement with the conspiracy and dishonesty in general.

So learn about these charges and then tell your candidates how you feel and maybe they will listen to you. That's all I ask.

[Tatiana]

8. "We just knew that he wasn’t an honest man."

So damn true. And this is where the intangibles ocme in. You can't learn integrity. You either have it or you don't.

[H2O Man]

18. Right.

There were very few young people who looked up to Nixon. Those that did became the Mitt Romneys of today.

[elmerdem]

124. H2O man, may I borrow

that for future use? The people that looked up to Nixon become the Romneys of today. Nail meet head.

As always I enjoy your elegant, logical observations!

[H2O Man]

126. Sure.

Thank you.

[Tatiana]

140. You are really making the case Brother Waterman.

Wisdom is always well-earned. I can tell you have lived an eventful life :)

[joshcryer]

9. Obama's $20 million dollar staffing costs proves that you can buy that trust, actually.

[cali]

11. What on earth does that have to do with

the points that H2OMan made in his OP? I don't follow you.

[H2O Man]

13. It is what

we call "an attempt to distract." One can easily identify the motives for attempting to distract. When I did the forensic groups at the mental health clinic, we always took such efforts on the part of our group members as a solid indicator that we had raised a topic that made them uncomfortable. The best response is to simply point out that they are trying to shift attention to something else, then return to the topic at hand.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

122. Thank you for this information

I hadn't thought about it before, but of course you are right. Often we try to distract when something makes us uncomfortable instead of confronting it. It takes a certain amount of courage to confront that which may make you change your mind about something--a practice that, even now at nearly 57 years of age, I find challenging. But if you DO face the challenge--you can learn a lot from it. Either your convictions will be strengthened or you will change your opinion radically. Since, in this case, we are talking about the future of the nation, I hope we all have the courage to face those opinions that make us uncomfortable.

[pacalo]

183. Oh my, H2O Man, please be fair.

That one remark, "Obama's $20 million dollar staffing costs proves that you can buy that trust, actually", was nowhere near the strength of the vitriolic remarks made by Obama supporters who've made a point of infiltrating threads about other candidates since this campaign began. I'm not saying it was right of that poster to pour cold water on your opinion, because it goes without saying that anything you write has been the result of careful thought & research. My point is that the poster's remark is part of what is now the m.o. of DU while we slog through the primaries. As those of us who are looking for threads about the real problems that are hurting this country but are having to trod through 95% of GD-P threads on the "greatest" page, we'll just have to deal with the fact that these things are going to happen.

[AZBlue]

206. HRC would spend double or triple that...if only she had some money.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. another wonderful post from you

H2Oman-

Thank you for this- for using your voice to make us all think and question ourselves.


:hi:

peace~

[H2O Man]

21. Right.

These are issues that people should be giving serious thought to.

[goodgd_yall]

12. Young people can also be naive and inflexible

And can view the world in black and white terms. I'm speaking as someone older who can remember my own qualities as a young person. I may have gone for someone like Obama if I were younger, but it wouldn't have been for the right reasons. It would have been from an immature belief in the moral purity of some people, which not even the saints had. People and life are complex and, if you are not ready to accept or come to terms with that complexity, you simplify your world by believing there is always clear direction and there is always a definitive right and wrong.

And I would argue about young people having a particular ability to tell the truth. There are plenty of people who make poor judgments in relationships who only become more discriminating after suffering the consequences of their decisions.

[unc70]

25. Really young people (under 5). Teens and young adults often mislead

Part of it is natural. Few teenagers are truthful with their parents.

I find that the most truthful are the very young and the very old.

There are many recent studies of brain development using scans, etc. which indicate the brain does not reach the "adult" state until well past 20. Teenages and young adult brains process information differently, have different sleep cycles, different responses to dangerous situations, poor assessment of risks and outcomes. We all go through it, some of us never leaving that stage.

At 59, I have several experiences falling in love, lust, infatuation, desire -- with girls and women, causes and candidates, business ventures and community service. That initial rush, that connection with another, is intoxicating, blinding us to flaws and imperfections while we project our needs and desires onto them. Later will come disappointment, betrayal, boredom, conflict, and all the rest.

I view making political choices and romantic choices as having a lot in common and following parallel paths as we individually grow older. At 20, many of us were dating we thought we could change/fix our spouse/lover/partner's annoying behavior once we were married and, if that failed then we change ourselves at least enough to live with it.

By 40, we had learned we should not expect to change the behavior of anyone else and that even changing our own was extremely difficult. We had learned that anything that bothered us early in a relationship, when we and they are on our best "dating" behavior and still infatuated, those problems were serious and should not be ignored and would only get worse with time. Many of us made concerted efforts to "fix" our own "problems", vowing to think positively, exercise, and watch our health and diet.

Nearing 60, many of us are finally coming to terms with ourselves, not by accepting our "flaws" but by realizing those differences that define us, abilities and attributes that could prove strengths or weakness depending on the situation. With luck, some of us find greater understanding and appeciation for our parents, a bittersweet benefit of our spending time together as we care for them in their final years.

I am now a pragmatic idealist. Not as much energy, but with a wide array of skills and resources. A couple of areas where I can leverage my abilities, life experience, training, and 40 years of professional experience and contacts to actually make a difference. Sometimes alone, more often by enabling and supporting someone else with other abilities.

Life is so short and there is still so much needs be done for life to go on for generations to come. So much to be shared with all the generations around us now.

[H2O Man]

47. Your post features

a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. I never met King, but I have a close friend who knew Martin well. I've benefitted from talking to him, and from reading numerous books on and by King.

It is worth noting that Martin shocked many people by using young people in the struggle for civil/human rights. Now, Martin was not perfect as a youth, nor did he have a delusional belief in the nature of young folk. But there was a very good reason that he included young people in his efforts to improve this nation, from the grass roots up.

[CRH]

179. All points to be considered, I would also add, ...

beyond at times naive, a condition of their inexperience, and inflexible -- an often short lived price of defining themselves; they are also as vulnerable as any age group to being easily led and blindly following.

How else does one explain fashions that capture a majority, fads that define a segment. What is the purpose of a stud through the nose or painting the body with tattoos, other than following another's demonstration of what is the 'in fad' of the period. The sad truth is, all ages are susceptible to herding characteristics.

I once remember my adulation of rock groups with a message, a movement with a purpose. I soon discovered the elevated thoughts of the Moody Blues could not live beyond the popularity of the more base Rolling Stones or the cocaine impaired deadheads. Idolatry of drugs sex and rock and roll, for many through necessity and self preservation, eventually evolved into a more individual direction and thought process. Youth has no special or exclusive abilities of penetrating thought, actions, and rhetoric, then acting with discernment.

[Cooley Hurd]

15. Truth IS righteousness - those who circumvent truth for gain...

...in the NAME of righteousness only gain for themselves in the short-term and not for the greater good.

[H2O Man]

23. There seems to have been

more than a bit of manipulation in the recent fund-raising tactics, too. I think that Senator Clinton has many strong points as a politician and a leader. But I find some of these things troubling.

[creeksneakers2]

199. What manipulation?

I don't see any manipulation. I never donated to Hillary because I figured she had $100 million. What good would my $25 do? Now that people know Hillary isn't loaded they are kicking in. What's wrong with that?

I loved your essay about truth and Native American wisdom. I don't think what you tacked on the end fits with the rest of the beautiful paragraphs you wrote. I take what you said to mean you'd like Hillary to release her tax returns. Or maybe you want her to provide you with financial information about her campaign to alleviate your suspicions.I don't see any honest reason for demanding the release. Hillary already file financial disclosure forms. Any conflicts she might have are public knowledge.

You talk about trust but you aren't asking Hillary to earn trust. You are asking her to defend herself against your distrust. Once this type of demand comes up, and it comes up frequently and grossly unfairly to the Clintons, accusatory questions follow. "What is she trying to hide?" The exercise starts out as a demand that the Clinton prove their innocence. The demand for proof need not be backed up by any evidence of wrongdoing. It doesn't even need an accusation. Its just the illogical conclusion, "But you could have done something wrong, so we need you to show us everything we ask for to convince us you didn't."

There is no way to satisfy this demand for proof of innocence, so the witch hunt escalates. Next they want to know if any items on the tax return amounted to tax fraud, so more will need to be known. Where did she get the money for the $5 million loan? Sources of income will be Googled to other links that are in turn Googled to others until some far fetched connection which is used for a kook conspiracy theory. The press comes up with a name for the witch hunt, something like "taxreturngate." The press then says Hillary is under a cloud for some perceived offense and describe her as trying to escape from the grasp of trouble. It only gets bigger and worse. As long as Hillary's enemies can keep thinking up questions and angles, which is as long as forever, the decibels rise. The only thing that ever ends the uproar is when people get bored with it and it stops running on cable. In the end, the people who asked "What could it hurt for her to disclose her tax return if she's done nothing wrong" believe the worst conspiracy theories that were thought up and insist that the reason no proof ever came out was that there was a big cover up.


When the Chief told you about trust, did you ask to see his tax returns? Is that how trust is earned?

[H2O Man]

201. Perhaps you do not

see a difference between my working with Chief Waterman at my own expense, and Senator Clinton lending her own campaign $5 million. But I trust that others do.

[creeksneakers2]

202. You're right

I don't see anything wrong with either.

Others see weird things, like a big conspiracy by Hillary to pretend she was broke. That's nuts! I think the people who are saying that with no evidence whatsoever are the ones who are dishonest and need to listen to the Chief.

[H2O Man]

203. Good for you.

I think it's fine for you to think the way you do. It actually helps me. Thanks.

[K Gardner]

17. Beautiful and touching with the ring of truth ! K&R

[incapsulated]

19. Do these young, trusting minds know anything about Obama

Aside from pep rallies?

Do they know about his campaign financiers in the nuclear industry leaking radioactive waste into his constituents neighborhoods, and how he wrote legislation to cover their asses?

Do they know about the lobbyists on *his* campaign, not just Clintons?

Do they know about Rezko?

Do they know anything beyond a lot of slogans and hype?

It's easy to trust when you are willfully ignorant.

[H2O Man]

20. One hopes

that they have not learned the bitterness that has contaminated so many older folks' minds.

[LandOLincoln]

82. Rather facile, don't you think? why not address the

issues Incap raises? Why the gratuitous insults?

[H2O Man]

112. No.

I disagree with you, 100%.

[Whisp]

44. they are beginning to believe they matter.

that multitudes of small voice can possibly give one big shout.

and Obama has little to do with it.

It was waiting in the shadows. He is just the catalyst.

[JAbuchan08]

115. Some of them may not know much about Obama

but I'm guessing most of them know too much about Clinton.

I for one don't know a WHOLE lot about Obama, but what I do know trumps Clinton.

[greguganus]

161. Great response! n/t

[jsamuel]

22. I am young and I do not trust him.

I don't trust politicians in general, but I don't trust Obama.

[H2O Man]

41. Right.

I would not advocate that anyone trust a politician based on their word alone. I hope that every person learns the skills of evaluating for themselves what people -- especially politicians -- are worthy of their trust. Anyone who does not hold to that questioning spirit has, in a very real sense, betrayed themselves and their own people -- because in the final analysis, all tyranny rests upon a politician's ability to convince the public to accept outright lies on face value.

It is curious, however, that on a day when Obama has answered a question posed to him by saying he believes the Clinton campaign should release information, and that I post an essay advocating honesty in government, that there are so many responses that point fingers at Obama while ignoring the questions about the Clinton's finances.

[jsamuel]

50. Clinton should release her finances.

I don't trust her either, but others don't either and will hold her feet to the fire. People are much more willing accept Obama at face value.

[Major Hogwash]

24. So the question becomes "Would you buy a used car from this woman?"

And of course the answer is no.

Bill's credibility took a ginormous jump off a bridge last month and I don't think the wounds he inflicted will scab over very quickly.

[rodeodance]

26. Can't buy anybodies trust -it has to be earned. You have a circular argument and

makes not sense to me.


If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him. You can’t buy that trust.

[H2O Man]

27. Ha!

If that is what you got from my OP, then I fully agree -- it "makes not sense to" you.

[Straight Shooter]

28. "Young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth, from those who do not."

Intuitive people also have that ability, H20 Man. Intelligent people have that ability. Discerning people have that ability. People with decades of life experience have that ability. Rose-colored glasses are not the best way to view any politician.

If I didn't know you better from reading your past posts, I would have taken your comment as a slam on older people who view Barack with great suspicion, having watched how he operates and how his handlers maneuver in the background.

You can't buy trust, but you can buy crafty people like Axelrod and Gibbs to run a campaign so as to make you believe someone is trustworthy, when in fact that person is not.

[H2O Man]

35. Well, if you did

view it as "a slam on older people," it would be hard to attribute it to me, in light of the fact that my post is based upon the teaching of a respected Elder. In Onondaga (and indeed Haudenosaunee) society, Chief Waterman was what is known as a "Wisdom Keeper." As I clearly stated, he taught me that a large part of his responsibility was to speak to and encourage young people. How strange to view that as a slam on old folks!

[Straight Shooter]

49. I have read your posts for years. You choose your quotes with great care to emphasize a point.

My sig line was chosen, after much deliberation, for the simple reason that it states a very basic philosophical view which I hold, and because it is a quote by Voltaire, whom I respect greatly. What we choose to quote is important, because we often are conveying our own beliefs when we hold that quote up to the light for all to see. Especially when we use that quote to buttress a point we're making.

[H2O Man]

86. Yes, indeed.

In the OP, I used two quotes. The first is from one of humanity's great political philosophers. He walked this land at a time when society was divided, with tribe against tribe, clan against clan, and familiy against family. It was a time of "blood" fueds, and grudges that marked social decay. When one studies that time, it seems more than a bit like today. Thus, for many of us, the need is not for a single PeaceMaker, but for people to understand the psychological processes that the story of the PeaceMaker tells.

That story has to do with "conflict resolution." When I was a social worker, part of what I did was "conflict resolution." I had the privilege of being trained by a group of Quakers, who went into the jails and prisons to teach a program called "Alternatives to Violence." At one point, the Quakers became acquainted with some of the Onondaga Clan Mothers, and the Quakers added some of the Haudenosaunee influence to that program. I remember talking about this with the lady who ran the program in the NYC jails and who had worked with the man who shot Malcolm X. It was after taking the ATV program, and having it take root, that this man told the truth about that February 1965 incident.

The second quote, "To tell the truth," is, as noted, from Chief Waterman. I am confident that Voltaire would agree with it.

[Coexist]

29. great post, but what a photo!

:)

[H2O Man]

36. Thank you!

[mmonk]

30. Yes, I remember tricky Dick very well. I still remember my bumper sticker

"Nixon is a plumber's friend" also. As far as the Clintons go, my opinion is one does not hide that which would present no problem to show. There may be nothing big, but that's not something I want to bet on until I have no choice. I'm afraid until disclosure, that could be a time bomb ready to trip up a candidacy. I hope the answer, whether nothing, or something, is revealed before the primaries end.

[H2O Man]

37. When I was young,

there were a bunch of posters with Nixon's face and the words, "Now, more than ever." Some people took black marking pens and wrote "don't vote for Nixon" on them.

[mmonk]

45. Seems he was everywhere from 1960 until 1974.

My most vivid political induced memories however, were from around '68 to '74. I guess those years have left an indelible mark on my consciousness.

[mmonk]

108. I'm also reminded of my youth in that the youth chose to

support Bobby Kennedy in a time when trust with the party with it's slippage of moral clarity and disconnect from the people began to rise. That made me a democrat and the youth chose correctly in my opinion though that dream was cut short.

[H2O Man]

111. You may recall

that there were progressive members of the democratic party asked Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to consider running as VP on a ticket with RFK. Others on the progressive left wanted Martin to run on a third party ticket.

We have some unfinished business to attend to.

[mmonk]

117. Yes, I think so.

[NMMNG]

31. Not so young people also have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth,

from those who do not. I don't trust Barack Obama one iota. I'm skeptical of Hillary Clinton to be sure, but I don't trust Barack Obama for a second. He's a snake oil salesman and a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Tennessee Gal]

32. H2O Man, I greatly respect you.

And I agree with your highly intelligent posts the vast, vast majority of the time. This may be the only time I cannot agree with you.

You are correct that you cannot buy trust. However, you can fool people into trusting.

I do not trust Obama. That is the way I feel and my sense about these things has rarely let me down.

Finally, I agree with this statement from another poster:

"Intuitive people also have that ability, H20 Man. Intelligent people have that ability. Discerning people have that ability. People with decades of life experience have that ability. Rose-colored glasses are not the best way to view any politician."

[H2O Man]

39. I would hope that

no person would agree with me all the time. In fact, I can honestly say that I don't agree with myself all the time.

I will say that I do not now, nor have I ever, advocated wearing rose-colored glasses.

[milkyway]

33. We've had a lack of transparency in the executive branch since Nixon, with a

brief break under Carter. Bush's unitary executive has raised this to an art form.

A lack of transparency breeds cynycism. The public eventually is resigned to thinking that the truth is unknowable, and may not even exist at all.

btw, I grew up in Onondaga County, and part of my family tree traces back to the Onondaga Nation south of Syracuse.

Great post. K&R.

[Straight Shooter]

34. Kick for those who missed this

:kick:

[bagimin]

38. K&R!

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. Yes, "Historic" vs what we really need. Why isn't anyone questioning why Kucinich and Edwards

were so quickly kicked to the curb? Doesn't that bother anyone? And if not, why not?

[bulldogge]

42. There is a Loss of Direction

within the short span of these responses. Somewhere along the line a debate has developed over who knows best the old or the young, so the wheel turns, and eventually it leads into some hostile points over who we trust less Clinton or Obama.
Politics is a game of smoke and mirrors, I am sure I am not telling any of you anything new here, the individuals I wanted as president are no longer running (and I don't mean Mitt!) so now I have to step back and look at whose left. Both have skeletons in their closet, surely they do, they are politicians after all. But at the end of the day who do you want Obama/Clinton or one of the boys on the right? I think H2O hit a nerve that has us snapping at our own tails. The smoke and mirrors is the illusion of truth in american politics. The youth view the world from the foot of the trail and are looking up, the older eyes view the path behind them and know where all the pitfalls sit upon the road. It is the perfect balancing act that is needed, the vigor of youth with the knowledge of age. Not everyone is going to agree on a candidate and to be honest with you all I'm not exactly eager to see Clinton in office but I would take her a million times over any of the clowns on the right.
I think that the main point we all seem to have overlook in H2O's piece were the words of Chief Paul Waterman "To tell the truth." because if all the parties involved had done so we wouldn't be having a debate on which candidate is more crooked.

[H2O Man]

48. It seems curious

that some people would argue with a simple call for politicians to tell the truth.

When Chief Waterman and I spoke to classes, no matter if they were students in a junior high school or a university, we knew going in that not everyone would grasp the message. We just did the best we could. That was our responsibility.

[Straight Shooter]

52. H20 Man, if politicians could tell the truth, they wouldn't be politicians.

They would never reach the national stage. Never. It's all perception and stagecrafting and making deals, which require bending the truth, altering the truth, massaging the truth, whatever.

If I recall correctly, part of Axelrod's background is advertising. Part of Penn's background is media training. Both are professions designed to present an image, not the truth. Product branding, so to speak.

I have never met an honest politician in my life. To me, any vote is somehow making a deal with the devil, crossing my fingers that perhaps there is more truth than dishonesty in the politician for whom I'm voting. You may think my mind is contaminated, or that I'm bitter. I'm not. I simply am seeing what is there and dealing with the reality of it.

What is important for me is to tell the truth, myself, as best I recognize it, and hope I can recognize the truth in others.

[H2O Man]

87. While I will not

disagree on the nature of politics, I will suggest that because national politics is not clean should not imply that dirty politics should be acceptable. And the single best way to counter the politics of dirt is to have an active grass roots. I prefer the politician who takes the approach that asks for people to become actively involved in improving this country on the grass roots level, than the politician who assures us that they can be trusted to make all the decisions for us. That is the contrast between, for example, JFK and Bush2.

On the individual level, from what I know of you from DU, I am confident that you attempt to focus on being honest, informed, and making your patch of the world a better place. But I think that there are some people posting on the DU primary forum who do not place much value on telling the truth. My message in the OP is aimed at the the need for people to seek the truth. Certainly, I recognize that there will be good people who view various issues differently than me. But if we all have the same basic goals, then those differences do not need to result in the nonsense we witness daily on this forum -- which reflects the dirt on the national scene.

[madmom]

130. I can remember way back, when I took a class in marketing, we were talking about stupid

commercials, people would often say that is so stupid, or words to that effect, my instructor said it may be stupid but it got you talking about their product, nuff said.This is the same kind of feeling I get when listening to the Obama camp, not that it's stupid, but just say anything to keep his name recognition out there, because I haven't heard anything yet that makes me comfortable with him. I've been around a lot of young people and I see where some of them go for the hyperbole, they get caught up in the moment and don't think things out. And before I get called out notice I said SOME not ALL young people. This is why commercials work so well they see something new, interesting, different, they're all for it,doesn't mean it's better (or worse) just different. And different is not always better, IMHO.

[BeHereNow]

46. Given the atmosphere in GDP, BEST POST ever H20man...

BHN:thumbsup:
And woe to the bullies, you justify all the young people think
about your idols.

[bpeale]

51. that last line was just plain dumb & gives no reason WHY

[Straight Shooter]

53. It isn't dumb. He is telling the truth, as he sees it.

And that's the problem with "the truth."

[ruggerson]

54. I don't think comparing Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon

is either fair or insightful.

I could go into great detail about the failings of Richard Nixon, but you and I both remember much of it, so there is no need.

Suffice it to say, while I understand the point you are trying to make about human trust, the swipe that you take at Senator Clinton in so doing is entirely unwarranted.

Additionally, there have been states where she captures the youth vote. In California on Tuesday, she won the 18-29 age bracket 51 to 47. Does that mean she's more trustworthy than Senator Obama?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM

[Straight Shooter]

56. You have elucidated my sense of discomfort with the IP.

What is the agenda for writing it? This is one reason why I switched my avatar from Gore to Hillary, so people could read my posts and weigh "the truth" of them against what they may perceive as a biased viewpoint.

Unfortunately, when I hear the word "truth," I tend to run off on philosophical rabbit trails, so I initially failed to address my sense of discomfort.

[paulk]

55. but that doesn't explain why Grand Funk Railroad

sold so many records....

[H2O Man]

96. Yet in the

history books, the GFR will not merit even a tiny footnote. A group like the Rolling Stones will not, either. But the Beatles will always be mentioned in those history books that examine the social dynamics so closely associated with the politics of the 1960s. Their ability to communicate with young people on a deeper level made all the difference.

[paulk]

57. 87% of people start smoking before the age of 21

Guess they don't believe that it's bad for them.

"Young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth, from those who do not."

You know, with all due respect, that is the most patently absurd thing I've ever seen you post.

Anybody who's in advertizing knows that the 18-32 target
audience is the one most easily manipulated by hype.

[Straight Shooter]

62. "Anybody who's in advertizing knows that the 18-32 ... audience is the one most easily manipulated

From my post #52: "If I recall correctly, part of Axelrod's background is advertising. Part of Penn's background is media training. Both are professions designed to present an image, not the truth. Product branding, so to speak."

Thank you, paulk.

Truth, let me introduce you to reality.

[H2O Man]

97. I would question that.

I do not think that 87% of people smoke. And if 87% started before age 21, that would mean that the actual number would be higher, because some people actually start smoking after the age of 21.

"Patently absurd," indeed.

[ruggerson]

104. he said "87% of people start smoking..."

meaning, clearly, 87% of people who smoke start smoking when they're young.

I'm not sure how you misread that.

[H2O Man]

107. I quoted him.

[paulk]

123. let me break it down for you

I didn't say that 87% of people smoke -

I said that, of people who smoke, 87% of them start smoking before the age of 21.

My source for this was the People vs Philip Morris RICO case, which my wife worked on and I'm therefore somewhat familiar with.

Other sources actually put that number higher -

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Child_and_Teen_Tobacco_Use.asp

http://65.222.37.230/PDF/Youthand_smoking_6_9_2005.pdf

-------------------------------

My point being that young people are not good at determining who is telling the truth and who not. I would argue that young people are exceptionally bad at it, actually. Our world is rife with examples of crappy products marketed specifically to the youth culture. Brittney Spears comes to mind. I don't think politics is in some special catagory - it's marketed as a product just like
everything else. The "truth" has very little to do with it.

[H2O Man]

127. Let me quote you:

"57. 87% of people start smoking before the age of 21"

Then:

"123. let me break it down for you
I didn't say that 87% of people smoke -

I said that, of people who smoke, 87% of them start smoking before the age of 21."

I know exactly what you wrote.

[paulk]

132. you don't like being confronted, do you?

I think what I'm saying is pretty clear to anyone not intent on being willfully obtuse.

Instead of trying to nitpick my wording, why don't you respond to my other points?

[H2O Man]

135. I enjoy confrontation.

In fact, I'm having fun with you. Though you apparently have not noticed, I was simply saying that my OP was pretty clear to anyone not intent on being willfully obtuse, and who mistook playing games with words with a serious debating skill.

If you have a serious point to discuss or debate, I look forward to reading it.

[paulk]

178. well, why didn't you say so!

Now that I realize I'm just some blue collar boob who made his living swinging a sledge hammer, and am totally unworthy of breathing the same rarified intellectual air of a great man like you, I'll just shut up and go away!

Gosh gee whiz! And here I was stupid enough to think that I did have a valid point to make!

[H2O Man]

181. Ha!

I'll be happy to compare work experience with you. I worked in factories, logged, and worked on farms for many years.

[creeksneakers2]

204. It was clear to me what he meant the first time

He's talking about people who started smoking. That's the only way the sentence makes sense.

[H2O Man]

205. So?

[creeksneakers2]

209. Man!

That interjection really helped me.

[H2O Man]

210. Good.

[Voice for Peace]

58. beautiful post. tell the truth. nt

[russian33]

59. trusting for the sake of trusting is stupid and dangerous

can you tell me a reason, why young people trust him? just cause?

[H2O Man]

98. No.

I have no reason to.

[Me.]

60. In Speaking Of Obama Today

A man said he will be the agent for change because we will change him, not him us. They feel he is open to change and there-in is the trust.

[Yael]

61. Well stated. K&R

[grizmaster]

63. Exactly what Obama accomplishments inspire trust?

Obama seems like a nice enough sort, but I have yet to see anything beyond high sounding rhetoric to support me giving him the level of trust needed to gain my vote for president.

[IndieLeft]

66. And Clinton's bad policies give you everything you need?

WoW

[grizmaster]

68. Not everything, but way more than a bunch of Obama promises

[Garbo 2004]

64. Kick & R for H20 Man. A thoughtful voice amidst the sound & fury.

:hi:

[IndieLeft]

65. A fantastic post! I agree with every last word.

The last sentence is loaded and there are people who don't like it. They don't like it because it attaches Obama to the truth. If we don't look at who he is but we look at the substance of his actions then we can see what H20 is saying. We must look deep inside both of these candidates' hearts.

Erase the visual image of Obama and Clinton for this exercise. Look at their actions. We don't seem to remember what 7 years under the current administration has done.

Here is the frame. Take away the imagery and look at the actions.

One candidate has held meetings in private; meetings that should have been public.
One has held meetings in secret. This candidate actively advocates transparency.

Which candidate shows a better sense of transparency?

One candidate authorized war.
One candidate did not vote for this war because this candidate was not yet in the senate. But this candidate did give a major address vehemently speaking out against this war.

One candidate voted against the Levin amendment and lied about why they voted against it in the last debate.
One candidate was never for the Iraq war.

One candidate voted for a bankruptcy bill that increased hardship on poor people and gave a break to thieving credit card companies.

One candidate did not vote for this bankruptcy bill.

One candidate voted to assign the label of terrorist to Iran's national guard so that the current president could back into a war with what he deemed an axis of evil.
One did not vote for this amendment.

Both candidates voted to fund this war but they did it because they really were powerless to determine what the current president would do in retaliation.


When you strip away the identity of these candidates, you can look at the substance and actions that point to who they really are. How quickly we forget... how quickly we forget the last seven years.

You can't just simply say someone looks untrustworthy. You have to look at their actions. We've all seen dumb asses with a college degree and well dressed bums. You can try to judge a book by it's cover but really it is encumbered upon everyone to open the book and look inside. There is where the real story lies.

[IndieLeft]

67. It's strange when you make sense... no response.

Just above I outlined pure policy decisions because there were pure policy failures in the last 7 years and there are candidates in both parties that sided with some of these all so important failures.

People are so willing to give these candidates a free pass when they wouldn't give the current administration one.

When you take a pass on discussing the authorization that sent some 4000 soldiers to their death and you want to talk about how someone "looks" untrustworthy then there maybe something wrong with you.

[Bongo Prophet]

75. You could add - One candidate voted against a ban on dropping clusterbombs on civilians

And the other voted to ban such an inhumane practice.

If you immediately intuit which candidate did which - that would tell a lot.
It you then check the facts and you are wrong, go with the facts.

You are right - strip away the personality and the image, the flamewars and personal slurs.
No name calling, no rose colored glasses, just facts.
Then work it out from your own core principles and morality.

[Tatiana]

77. Thank you for drawing the (obvious) contrast.

I differ with Obama on a series of issues. I recall a personal encounter, before the fame and recognition. He ran against a very popular Democratic Congressman: Bobby Rush. And he said some things that I disagreed with - vehemently. Looking back, I can sort of see the dynamics as an "Old School" vs. "New School" mentality.

But I thought, here we have a good Representative who actually advocates for his constituents in Bobby (and I know as I once was one of those constituents) and you have the nerve to come in and replace him. "Who do you think you are?" I asked him at one of the local functions. He knew the mean and median incomes for the whole district. He knew the demographics of the area and where the jobs and shops had fled. He had been on the ground and I think, even then, he had a vision for changing things. I can see that now.

Things were good, but what he was trying to say was "lets not settle for good when we can have better." Bobby Rush kept his Congressional seat. He's continued as a "good" Rep who, along with Republican Joe Barton of Texas, co-authored the Barton-Rush Communications, Opportunity and Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006; a virtual handout to companies like AT&T and Verizon. Obama was right. We deserved better. But I think that's where Obama realized that if he wanted to pull people together to turn things around, he was going to have to fight.

The whole Rush vs. Obama race sort of reminds me of the Clinton vs. Obama race. Both Rush and Clinton are both long-time established politicians. Both were part of an organized machinery. Both had enormous fundraising capacity. Both were "good" in the sense that their pros outweighed their cons. But I find myself asking "don't we want more? Can't we do better? Shouldn't we expect better?"

I don't know. Maybe Obama will lose like he did then. But back then, he was the better man for the job and I think that's the case now as well. I think Bobby even realizes this, as he's now endorsed Obama when they were pretty bitter rivals.

[bigtree]

69. Has Obama answered all questions about his financial dealings in question?

you took sort of a one-sided approach to this question.

[IndieLeft]

70. He doesn't have any... but in fairness why don't you point them out.

Let me see if you know what you're talking about. Also his financial dealings have been vetted already.

He wasn't the one that authorized a war where innocent men and women died. I think anything Obama does pales in comparison.

[bigtree]

71. The last statement is not part of this question, I believe

I'm not in the business of stirring up these issues. But, in response to the assertion that the *Clintons 'can't be trusted', after furthering innuendo about their financial affairs, I'm not out of line in suggesting that Obama has critics who are not satisfied with his answers about the financial controversies which have surfaced in this campaign.

Bill Clinton developed many of these relationships from the time of his campaign through his term and into retirement. Why isn't it valid to suppose that Obama has the potential to make the same choices and engage in similar relationships and dealings when he's elevated to that position? I remember that Clinton wasn't in the money at all when he was elected. His bank account then looked remarkably similar to Obama's now. We can just as easily suppose, from Obama's willingness to associate himself with big money donors, as he did in his Senate campaign, that he's not at all immune from those influences.

[IndieLeft]

81. On this point... I agree

But we know from where Bill Clinton came. We know how far he's come. Of course politics changes people. The most important issue to me though is that war authorization that got so many of our men and women killed needlessly.

I can't look into the future and tell what he is now just like I couldn't tell that with Bill when he ran. But one thing we do know about Obama is that he did not authorize this war and Hillary did. I am using this issue as well as the bankruptcy bill issue to determine who shows the best judgment now. What happens in the future I can not determine.

She used her decisions her way and I believe she has lost a lot by wagering that using the political calculus to determine foreign policy would work to her benefit. It did not.

You do not use human life to make a political statement about how strong you are. This is this current president's policy. Why elect someone who thinks similarly?

[H2O Man]

101. One of the things

that I have experienced as a parent is, when addressing something with one child, having them say, "Well then how come you never say anything to (sibling)?" I always say the same thing: "Because right now, I'm talking about your behavior."

It is a good practice. When I used to work with the forensic groups as an employee of the mental health clinic, there were always inmates who attempted to deflect any focus on their misbehaviors, by saying, "Oh yeah? Well how about so-n-so?" And I would always say the same thing: "Because right now, I'm talking about your behavior."

I recall one afternoon when one fellow got mad when I responded in that way. He began to yell at me, with the, "Yeah, you always ..." nonsense. And so I told him that the main reason that I would be leaving the jail in a half-hour, while he would be there for months, was because he refused to focus on his behavior, and take responsibility for it. I remember it, because a couple other fellows in the group would say that helped them understand what I was trying to communicate to them.

Yesterday, there was an incident, reported in the media, about Barack Obama responding to a question regarding the loan Hillary Clinton made to her own campaign. There were a series of threads on this forum, with people who supported Clinton, and people who did not, and with people who support Obama, and people who did not. My OP was simply my expressing my opinion on that specific incident, with a brief "background" to try to communicate why I think the way I do. It was not an attempt to address the many other issues involved in the campaign, although I certainly agree with you that they are important, and worthy of our attention.

[bigtree]

125. this isn't a family

and, your post, in this forum, is a one-sided attack on Clinton's credibility.

This is a job interview. Two candidates for the job. You assert your impression of the faults of one and your impressions of the 'truthfulness' of the other. That's bias. What's more, it's void of any justification for your bias. The only qualifier you offered was 'financial dealings' (I didn't look for the actual phrase). In that subject, Obama is not immune from "questions' about his financial dealings and from his refusal to answer some of the questions to the satisfaction of his critics.

It's fair to put your opinion out here. But this is an opinion piece which asserts your candidate is the most truthful, because Clinton hasn't asnwered "questions" to your satisfaction. That's not as accurate a measure of her "truthfulness" as it is a measure of your own bias.

[H2O Man]

129. Gracious.

First, I think of the democratic party as an extended family. I've said that numerous times, and think that it is important to view the political realities of the day in the context of what is happening to families today. By no coincidence, the part of the Clinton campaign that I think is strongest is how Senator Clinton focuses on her efforts, over the decades, to assist families. However, I recognize that others will view things differently, and may view government in the context of a corporation, and thus understand your view that this is a job interview.

Where I would disagree with you is in your incorrect use of the word "bias." It has an actual definition, and a very real meaning. It is distinct from an "opinion," in the sense that a "bias" is based upon misinformation, where an "opinion" is based upon facts. Now, there is really no denying that there were reports in the media regarding both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's approach to making public their financial records. I did not make that up. I read reports, and watched others on television. Both the Clinton and the Obama campaigns have the ability to comment upon the issue. And my opinion is based upon those facts.

I would remind you that you have not presented a single sliver of evidence that would suggest that (a) the media has not reported on this; (b) that Obama did not comment on this; (c) that the Clinton camp has actually released the records in question; or (d) that I have made this up.

Instead, you are focusing on my expressing my opinion on an internet political discussion forum on the internet, and in fact one that (a) has a specific sub-forum for discussions of the democratic primary; and (b) one on which you frequently express your opinion .... and sometimes your bias! (grin)

I do understand why this topic would make some people uncomfortable. I'm a little surprised that you seem to be one of them. Wouldn't it be better if politicians, no matter if we view them as members of our extended human family, or as potential "employees," were up front and open in reporting on their finances?

[bigtree]

143. nice deflection, but I won't bite.

you want me to spell out the "questions" that critics of Obama have about his financial dealings which he hasn't answered to their satisfaction.. if I present their views as an argument it would mean that I endorse the line of 'attack'. I don't.

The issue of Clinton releasing her tax returns is a political show orchestrated by Obama. Sen. Clinton has followed the law and released her returns every year, in Congress and as a private citizen. If there's some specific item the Obama camp is concerned with they should say so. But, they are on a fishing expedition. I understand how you want me to join in the fishing expedition by jumping in the vessel you've constructed here. But I believe the destination is your own bias against Clinton's 'truthfulness' as demonstrated by this campaign-assisting attack on Clinton's truthfulness.

Factless smears = Nixonian

Clinton has released her tax returns every year without any scandal or impropriety. The implication from the latest Obama attack is that *Clinton must have 'something to hide' in her refusal to jump when they say jump. But, these "questions" come without a shred of proof, or, even, any accusation of wrongdoing at all in the returns. It is an innuendo attack. It is a cheap political ploy. No one really expects that there is something Clinton did last year which she's trying to hide in her return, but, until she jumps for the Obama campaign, they will continue to 'ask questions," much like the republican party did during her husband's run for office. This is an old, cheap campaign tactic. I would think you are above this kind of smear attack.

And, this is certainly not a family. It is a coalition of similar interests, banded together to elevate our diversity of interests and concerns in our political system to a position where they can be addressed and put into action. The euphemism of 'family' really takes away from the very real intricacies and challenges of our political system.

[H2O Man]

144. Ha!

There is a story about a man who asked the great philosopher Confuscius (c 551-479BC) what he would do if he were granted political power? He answered, "Insist that words are used properly." I think that fits the situation at hand rather well.

The facts are the facts, and while they may not be the determining factor in helping the "undecided" decide which candidate they will support, I think it is an issue that taints the public's perception of the Clinton campaign.

[bigtree]

148. Ha, back at you! You think this old, cheap tactic of demanding tax returns is meaningful?

I'll wager that, as is always the case in these inquiries, that, when the returns are released (and you KNOW they will be) the "questions" will shift to some other nebulous inquiry without substance or any specific evidence of wrongdoing. Fishing expedition. I'll sit this one out.

[H2O Man]

152. The Clinton campaign

has stated when they would release them. I assume that you are aware of that. Perhaps you would want to review that, though it might result in your admitting -- difficult as that may be! -- that the issue is worthy of serious discussion.

I have donated to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's campaigns. My discussing my opinion on campaign finances is hardly a dark and underhanded attack on one candidate. That may be hard for some people to understand. Oh, well! Can't please everyone, eh?

[bigtree]

154. your campaigning for Obama (and against Clinton) in these posts is transparent

I'm dismayed that your campaign tactics here don't match the integrity you've exhibited in many of your other writings.

[H2O Man]

157. There is a

line from Socrates, which states, "Do not hate me for asking questions." (Rubin used it in an essay in 1977.) I realize that you do not hate me -- just the question!

Have a good day, and post something positive about your candidate's campaign. Or raise serious questions about the Obama campaign. That's what this forum is all about.

[bigtree]

160. Just communicating among each other is enough.

In that, this conversation is productive, as well.

Who can hate you, H2O Man??

[H2O Man]

167. Ha!!!!

Oh, my goodness -- I could make a LONG list!

[bigtree]

169. bastids!

All of 'em.

[H2O Man]

197. Well, you may

think differently in a moment: Abe Lincoln was a politician who served in office before he studied law, much less passed the bar. He was what is known as a "prarie lawyer," rather than a "country lawyer." The difference has to do with the association that the "prarie lawyers" had with the railroad (and to a lesser extend, some canals).

The work of the prarie lawyers was actually not democratic. When we think of the settling of the west, there is often mention made of the 1862 Homestead Act, allowing private citizens title to 160-acre lots of land (stolen from the Indians, at that). But the west wasn't "won" by brave pioneers in covered wagans; manifest destiny rode the rails. In a 35 year period, politicians gave the railroad barons more land than the combined total of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin combined. Prarie lawyers were the middle men.

[HughMoran]

188. This post reflects my view of this O/P as well

I am a bit surprised at the gradual drift of rhetoric in Mr. Waterman's posts recently.

[intheflow]

72. Just out of curiosity, is your screen name a tribute to this man?

[H2O Man]

95. Yes.

[intheflow]

136. Very, very cool.

:)

[eridani]

73. One other thing to learn from the Haudenosaunee

The Peace-Maker apparently led the way to confederation as an alternative to imperial conquest. AFAIK this is the only known instance in human history that acquiring the ability to store food surpluses (the corn-beans-peppers agricultural foodbasket in this case) did not lead to empire and state-level society.

Our exceptions to the human norm might just one day save our collective asses.

[H2O Man]

93. On post 86

I mention the "dispute resolution" aspect of the PaceMaker. It applies to today!

[amborin]

76. too much disconnect

between Obama's words and his actions...that's why I cannot trust him

just one example: Obama makes a point of repeatedly criticizing other candidates for accepting campaign donations from lobbyists and says he isn't accepting any for this nomination campaign....but in fact, Obama is, too, receiving lobbyists' donations for this campaign....

that's very troubling

[Usrename]

99. Do you have any more information about this?

I've seen this accusation before, but every time that I ask about it I get the same old runaround.

Can you answer either one of these two very specific questions:

Who specifically did these lobbyists lobby in front of?

What specifically did they lobby for/against?

This seems like very simple and basic information that anyone should have if they are going to try and make this claim. If you don't think either of these are fair questions, then let me know why you feel that way.

Please don't respond to these questions with nothing more than a list of names of people and companies. That would be kind of useless for answering the two questions that I'm asking, wouldn't it?

[amborin]

198. one example

The Boston Globe August 9, 2007

PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise - Data contrast with his them

Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama
has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of Washington.

He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans." "The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."

But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns - $296,000 of $461,000 - came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions - including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries - to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country.

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

[VotesForWomen]

78. heh. i was young once. i trusted a few people i probably shouldn't have. nt

[EFerrari]

79. I am not comfortable with either the vehicle or the tenor of either

Clinton or Obama's rhetoric. Much less so with Clinton's which has been outright destructive in the last few weeks.

Listening to Barack or Michelle, they sound like music but they don't say very much that you could jot down on the back of an envelope.

I'm not at all comfortable with how this public speech seems so easy and so empty when the people are listening so hungrily, when they want substance that makes sense in their daily lives.

(But, I wasn't put here to be comfortable.)

[H2O Man]

91. Good.

You are exactly the type of person who I think can be a positive influence on young people becoming involved in politics. While you and I might hear different things coming from Barack and Michelle, I know that your style of thought offers those things that result from fighting the Good Fight -- and that isn't easy -- for years. I am also confident that you recognize young folks as "works in progress," a description that hopefully applies to a person your age, and even to an old man like myself.

[EFerrari]

185. This year looks to be very good for the young folk.

There's nothing sweeter than seeing them strike out on their own with interest.

:toast:

[Seabiscuit]

80. The pretense that "young people" are more attracted to Obama is, well, just that - pretentious.

"If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him. You can't buy that trust." Yeah, you just have to create it out of nothing - as in pull it out of your arse.

[H2O Man]

89. "Evermore in the world

is the marvellous balance
of beauty and disgust
magnificence and rats."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thank you for your contribution!

[BigBearJohn]

83. Until American Idol gets into full swing, then they'll be busy voting for the next Sanjaya

[WildEyedLiberal]

193. Most of the people I know who watch American Idol are middle aged housewives

None of my peers (I'm 23) watch it.

Thanks for being a condescending ass, though.

[democrank]

84. K & R

~PEACE~

[Bongo Prophet]

85. H2Oman, your post resonated with me on a deeper level.

Beyond the surface layer of the things you said, i see some deeper truths.
Because one must be open to information, to let it roll in the mind and heart, in order to let the deeper implications become apparent - most will not take the time to see it. Too many are in the mindset of a besieged soldier to be reflective, but it is there to be appreciated, if anyone cares to do so. Here is my take on it.
Set aside for now the particulars and the personalities, and pause to ponder the larger historical cycle.

-------

Our principles are often formed when we are young, and because we do not have years of experience, we often have to make many mistakes along the way. Life's successes and failures then shape us, for better or worse. As you say, the strength of the young is in their righteousness, a deep acknowledgement of injustice and the courage (and yes, audacity) to think that they can address this injustice and make the world a better place. Too often, this is accompanied by a resentment of the previous generations, who are blamed for the damaged world they now find themselves in. Indeed, this can manifest as a certain defiant arrogance, and closes them to the well intentioned council of those who have gone before.

Those of us in mid years, between the roles of youth and elder, are a mixture of our youthful fire, when we first discovered the reality of the world as a cruel, yet beautiful place. We have to deal with the practicalities of day to day life, and keep from being embittered and lose hope for change. some choose to shout down naive youth, to tell them to be more cynical and cautious, and that they do not understand how life will beat you down. They want to give you a "reality check." Sometimes it is because they see youth as reckless, sometimes it is because they are nostalgic for that youth itself, and sometimes it is to protect them from the crushing disappointments that they know lie ahead.

The elders, if they are wise and not embittered by life, can see the cycle and recognize the value of that fire which heats the crucible of justice, the experience which tempers that fire and changes molten iron into cold steel. They see their role, to impart what perspective they can upon the process, as they now have seen clearly the whole wheel - and thus their responsibility to respect and aid in the continuation of the cycle, to further the cause for which they felt such fire in their own youth, to avoid the mistakes and give helpful guidance to the next generation. This is how we all can see our part, to keep the wheel turning toward justice and righteousness.


We should honor the passing of the torch, to allow, even encourage each generation to hope enough and care enough to embark upon that road, and dedicate ourselves to the struggle. Anyone who criticizes the youth, the experienced or the elders, does great harm to our ability to work together for common goals.

It is better to trust that you can change things than to begin life as a cynic - even while knowing that defeats as well as victories may lie ahead - than to be told to "shut up and follow, you are too young" or "get out of the way, you are too old." We are all in this together. We need to work together with mutual respect. It is the only way to honor all of those who went before us, and all of those who have yet to be born.


Not all of us in the mid years lose our inner fire, nor do we lose respect for the young, or our elders. We see the entire wheel, and our part in it, changing slowly as the seasons pass. Maybe it is the philosophy we hold, or the psychedelics, or just our personalities - but we are the wings upon that wheel, still young at heart, tempered with experience, and with the perspective which comes from seeing the whole cycle "from above" so to speak... Ours is a special responsibility, to point out the foibles gently, to speak to all with respect and understanding, no matter which of life's stations they are in. It is the responsibility of us who can see the process to point out the big picture, and pass on that awareness to others.

I know you did not overtly say any of this in your post. But it is the implied wisdom within your caring and learned being that imparted these "hidden" truths within. Obviously, a great deal of that truth lie in my own perception. This is how inspirational speaking works - it is not shallow words shoved into naive and cultish minds, but rather, an invocation of the spirit of justice and the call to work together and make common dreams happen.

To misunderstand this is sad. To let it cause one to lash out at the hopeful is tragic.

[H2O Man]

88. There is a price

that a society that incarcerates a large number of young people, and warehouses a large number of elderly people, must pay. It is both a symptom and a cause of deep problems.

There are some people on DU who either dismiss my posts out of hand, or who lash out at what I have to say. That's fine. I also know that there are a number of people who tend to disagree with me from the giddy-up, but who will read my posts and put serious thought into responding to them. I could ask no more of them, and I try to give their opinions the same level of respect. And there are also many people, young and old, male and female, from the black, brown, red, yellow and white tribes of humanity, who read my posts and say, "Interesting. This is my experience ...." These are my siblings.

[sheelz]

90. I apologize

[Bongo Prophet]

92. Then we are brothers, H2O Man. i would walk the river with you, and talk of life, gladly.

:thumbsup:

[Lochloosa]

94. Thanks for the thoughts H20 Man

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.
For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and
falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

JFK.

[sellitman]

100. Your words are wise.

You Sir are one of DU's most esteemed writers and you seem to always cut right to matter. I voted for Sen. Obama after making the journey from Kucinich, then and Edwards. I have not been enthusiastic with my choice until reading your post. You are right. I get a very strong sense of honesty from Sen. Obama. That alone justifies my vote. I feel better now. Thanks.

[Vinca]

102. You always nail it, H2O Man. nt

[Usrename]

103. I think you may be exactly right about all of this.

People do see what they are getting, but they find it more comforting somehow to kid themselves about it. Very few people are probably ever truely fooled if they don't want to be. I think everybody knew exactly what we were getting with Bush. (Remember those classic Saturday Night Live sketches about Bush or Gore becoming president, and how accurate they turned out to be?)

I think that a person's behavior and their rhetoric are only synchronized if the person is basically honest. Kids see it better. Kids don't care so much about kidding themselves.

[cooolandrew]

105. One thing Barack always states is more transparency as his campaign has been. Trust is important ...

...especially after Bush.

[mtnsnake]

106. I love how you say there are questions being raised about their finances as if they're criminals

Nice Nixon comparison, too. If these questions about their finances turn out to be squat, lots of people here owe the Clintons some apologies, not that any apologies to them would ever happen here.

[H2O Man]

109. People who ask

for politicians to be up front and honest do not need to make apologies. We should never treat politicians as royalty. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote about the dangers with that type of thinking in his classic book, "The Imperial Presidency."

[mmonk]

110. It's generally not hard to disclose honesty.

Read my sig line. This can all be put aside and not made an issue if they have nothing to hide.

[bigtree]

128. Obama has questions he's not answering about his "finances" Nixon didn't answer some questions.

Clinton has shown, through the participation and support of many of the older generation, that they trust her. You can't buy that trust.

(gawd this feels ridiculous. Is this really a credible argument to assert against EITHER candidate? What a smear.)

[H2O Man]

131. That's an easy one:

We should be the party that puts the ethical bar high, and not one that attempts to excuse the lower standards. If a person can donate/loan $5 million to a campaign, I think that people have the right to look closely at it. Don't you?

[bigtree]

146. yet, the implication of your inquiry is that the answer is in her taxes

I think the question of the source of her money that she loaned the campaign is a curious one, since her income reports show that she made more than enough money just from the $8 million she got for an advance on her memoirs. She has other investments, but it's just a fishing expedition to suggest the answer is in the Tax returns, or that one only has to point to some income she got last year and claim that money went for this loan. Her past income and assets alone have been more than sufficient to cover the $5 million.

This is a cheap campaign trick. It's an innuendo attack. It's not new, nor, do these 'release the income tax returns' tricks normally produce anything justifying the overblown innuendo.

[H2O Man]

149. Respectfully disagree.

I like to think that the democratic party can be proud of setting the bar high when it comes to open government, ethics, and honesty. That is a standard that should be expected of each and every candidate for the presidency. Strange that anyone would see that as a bad thing!

[bigtree]

151. For a post about truth, you sure are undermining your own

I never said or implied that some bar shouldn't be high. Those are your words and *your invention. Talk about diversions (as you did upthread) . . .

I NEVER said these were 'a bad thing'. Clinton HAS adhered to standards of ethics and honesty. Maybe she hasn't measured up to yours, but, in this thread, in this post, there is only your innuendo attack. There are no "facts" other than her refusal to jump and release her returns when Obama says jump. *There is the obvious campaign tactic of smearing the opponent for the period those returns aren't publicly available. It's not as if this hasn't been done before.

What are you charging is in those returns, anyway? Or, are you just fishing?

[H2O Man]

153. Now, now!

I didn't "charge" that anything is in them. I merely advocating releasing the information. "Underming," indeed! Ha!

[bigtree]

156. then, you ARE being Nixonian! (Nixon: "What are they hiding?")

how ironic!

[H2O Man]

158. I'd suggest

that you should read the Senate Watergate Report (Ervin Committeee).

[bigtree]

164. as if I haven't already . . .

happy politicking, H2O Man.

[H2O Man]

171. A proposal:

when the party decides on our nominee, we join together for some threads.

I had not made a firm decision until Super Tuesday. There are things I like about each, and some concerns with both. I could support either one 100%, though. But I am prone to take offense to some of the things that some in the Clinton campaign have done (including Bill), and I have found some of the nonsense on DU to verge on toxic. My goal is to elevate the discussion, and I do think that the Obama campaign provides me with the best avenue to do that.

[bigtree]

173. What about my concern about SuperDelegates?

That would seem to be an issue where both camps should be concerned with the integrity(?) of the counter-democratic process, if it comes down to that. Think of the sore feelings which will, certainly, come from the loser's side. Any perpetuation of that will ensure a divided party for the general. I feel that, the more supporters feel they've been able to exercise their activism in the SD process, the less they'll feel put upon in the end.

Give it some thought. This is top-down meddling at its worse. And, you want to talk about ethics or corruption . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4473995&mesg_id=4473995

[H2O Man]

174. I think it

is a situation that could become a very serious problem. It needs to come to an end.

I do hope that one of the two takes a significant lead. If not, we will have an ugly situation on our hands. It will make the events of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party pale in comparison.

[mmonk]

200. I for one am more interested in the library donations for her husband.

The problem I have is there seems to be a pattern here. They are free to keep things hidden as long as they want and we by the same token are free to question why the secrecy.

[creeksneakers2]

208. Strange you follow politics and don't understand how this works

In 2004, the right wing made a big stink about John Kerry not signing an absolute release of his military records. Kerry never did. He faced down the calls that he was hiding some unspecified offense. I know why didn't cooperate. If Kerry fed the witch hunt it only would have gotten worse. After the election,when the witch hunt was over, Kerry released his records. It turned out his service was more commendable than he claimed. No wrongdoing was there. Kerry kept the records secret because he knew that trying to prove his innocence was a worse option than putting up with unjust accusations.

[creeksneakers2]

207. Look at what? Why?

[H2O Man]

113. "The New Frontier"

"Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country? If you are the first, then you are a parasite; if the second, then you are an oasis in the desert." -- Kahlil Gibran; 1925

Thank you to those who understand what I said in the OP, and to those who at least gave it serious thought.

[Maineman]

114. I am going to vote for honesty and integrity.

I am among the millions who are fed up with liars in and around the Whitehouse. This time, I am voting for honesty and integrity. Period. I am a long time Democrat, but I am American first and Democrat second. The super deligates had better stand up for someone who is honest if they want me to vote for a Democrat.

[Time for change]

116. Telling the truth is the single most important quality in a politician IMO

If he or she consistently does that, you can be sure that s/he has plenty of other good qualities as well. Among other things, it takes a good deal of courage to tell the truth in today's political climate.

I think it's too optimistic to say that young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth as a general rule. Exit polls from 2000 show that they did vote for Bush a little bit less than older people, but there was very little difference between them.
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/exitpolls.htm . The way I look at it, there's a lot of room for improvement there, and it's very disappoint that so many people of all ages voted for Bush.

I don't have a lot of trust in either Clinton or Obama. Clinton for some of the reasons you say. And Obama because of his centrist rhetoric and policies, especially his embracing of Reagan and use of phrases such as "the excesses of the 60s". But still I'm hopeful that these are just campaign tactics and that the one who gets elected will turn out to be an excellent president.

[H2O Man]

118. Right.

I'm an old man, who has lived a fairly interesting life, and am thankful for the opportunities that I have had. As an old man, I delight in taking the opportunity to speak what little is left of my mind. I think, for example, that there are a number of curious dynamics in how Americans -- including the democratic party -- views young folk.

The republican party seems to have some unfair standards: the children of the poor-to-middle class are not deemed as worthy of the same quality of education as rich kids. They will not have the same employment options. And they will always be called upon to make the ultimate sacrife -- to kill and die for their country -- something that isn't so common among the ruling class.

By no coincidence, far more democratic politicians in congress have served in the military. They tend to be less likely to advocate war as a first response to conflict as those tough warriors like Dick Cheney and George Bush.

Democrats also tend to favor education and employment options for the lower-to-middle class citizens.

However, there are some interesting dynamics within our party, and they include the members of the grass roots. Older democrats often say that we wish that the younger generation was politically active. We remember the 1960s as a time when young Americans served as the voice of social conscience. That generation was not perfect: they made mistakes. But they also made America better.

Today we have a significant number of young citizens becoming interested in the 2008 election. They are not perfect: they will make mistakes. But they also represent the best chance we have of making America a better place to live.

[Time for change]

180. Interesting points

I've thought about assessing the correlation between military service and war-like voting, but I haven't gotten around to it, and I suspect that the data might be very difficult to gather and put together. I suspect, as you suggest, that there would be an inverse relationship. If so, I think that would be important to identify, point out, and emphasize.

Your discussion fo the 1960s also brings up some important points. Like you, I agree that the efforts of young liberals did a lot of good for our country in that era. You seem to be favorably disposed towards Obama, whereas I have some very ambivalent feelings towards him. One of the things that most irritates me about him is his references to "the excesses of the 60s" as a reason why, he claims, America was ready for Ronald Reagan. That seems to me to be very insulting to the young liberals of that time. Perhaps one reason why Obama has a greater following among today's younger generation of liberals is that they don't remember those times (since they hadn't been born yet), and therefore they aren't insulted by his references to "the excesses of the 60s".

[NC_Nurse]

119. Excellent post.

Thank you.

[H2O Man]

120. The Man in Black:

What Is Truth?
Johnny Cash

The old man turned off the radio
Said, "Where did all of the old songs go
Kids sure play funny music these days
They play it in the strangest ways"
Said, "it looks to me like they've all gone wild
It was peaceful back when I was a child"
Well, man, could it be that the girls and boys
Are trying to be heard above your noise?
And the lonely voice of youth cries "What is truth?"

A little boy of three sittin' on the floor
Looks up and says, "Daddy, what is war?"
"son, that's when people fight and die"
The little boy of three says "Daddy, why?"
A young man of seventeen in Sunday school
Being taught the golden rule
And by the time another year has gone around
It may be his turn to lay his life down
Can you blame the voice of youth for asking
"What is truth?"

A young man sittin' on the witness stand
The man with the book says "Raise your hand"
"Repeat after me, I solemnly swear"
The man looked down at his long hair
And although the young man solemnly swore
Nobody seems to hear anymore
And it didn't really matter if the truth was there
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair
And the lonely voice of youth cries
"What is truth?"

The young girl dancing to the latest beat
Has found new ways to move her feet
The young man speaking in the city square
Is trying to tell somebody that he cares
Yeah, the ones that you're calling wild
Are going to be the leaders in a little while
This old world's wakin' to a new born day
And I solemnly swear that it'll be their way
You better help the voice of youth find
"What is truth?"

[Kitty Herder]

133. love that song.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

121. I believe the Six Nations also had a policy

of looking at how their decisions would effect not just them, but seven generations from now. A wise policy to follow. I am honored that you told us more about the Long House and how the Six Nations view the world. As the Lakota say, "Ho Metaquiatsun"--for all my relations.

[Kitty Herder]

134. Great post. Unfortunately, I have little hope of getting real truth from any politician.

[H2O Man]

137. I agree.

I do have a firm belief in the benefits of the younger generation becoming politically active, though.

[DemReadingDU]

138. neither do I

I like your name. Did you work for EDS?

In 2000, EDS had a commercial herding cats in the Super Bowl.


Welcome to DU
:hi:

[Kitty Herder]

142. Thanks.

Nope, never worked for EDS. I chose the name because I'd just been separating my two cats who were fighting, by shooing one out the front door and one out the back. I'd been herdin' cats, something I do frequently because my cats hate each other.

[unc70]

189. The term has been around a while; I used it as early as 1975

The term "herding cats" with a meaning associated with the difficulties of managing some group of people is considerably older than the EDS commercial going back to before 1980. The earliest documented use that has been widely reported is from 1981, but the phrase was in use well before that.

With a bit do digging in a storage unit of archived documents, I believe I could document my use of the phrase in a talk I gave in 1978, but I expect others could do the same. I suspect the phrase was in use within Digital Equipment Corporation and its user community well before that.

There is the tiniest chance that I might have introduced the phrase into the IT world. I seriously doubt that to be the case, and I am not making such a claim. But I would like to share a story, one I never posted about anywhere before and only discussed with a few friends.

When my ex-wife and I were first married, we had cats -- three of them by 1972. Like many cat owners, we said things like "Let's herd the cats into the bedroom before the guests arrive." In our case, we joked how our efforts to herd usually ended with one dashing left, one right, the third back through our legs.

At my wife's insistence and because on of our cats was marginally of "show quality", we became involved with the local cat fancy chapter or cat club. Some of its members bred and sold cats for a living, some as a hobby; they often followed the cat show circuit to qualify their cats as champions, grand champions, etc. (similar to dog shows) Other members were just obsessed with their cats, one or two were neuter-spay activists, and a couple of us were there seemingly by accident.

The primary activity of the club was the mounting of the annual cat show. This was a non-trivial undertaking requiring cages, food, security, etc. for 300-400 show cats and their owners for several days. (I fantasized cages for a couple of difficult owners.) We also were responsible for the paid show judges and of course for the thousands of attendees. So there was security, crowd control, food, and lots more. A lot of hard work, a lot of details, and a need for organization and leadership that was in short supply. To make matters worse, this club was much smaller than most that sponsored a show.

Over half the members were close to the stereotype "crazy lady with too many cats". The remainder, me included, were probably just crazy. The half dozen or so members who had the required organizational and business skills to actually make things happen spent countless hours dealing with pointless arguments, wounded egos, unfinished tasks, financial mismanagement, political infighting from the circuit, and rampant mental illness.

I have this vivid memory from 1975 or 1976. There were only 3 or 4 of us young enough and fit enough to perform many of the setup/tear down task. After several grueling days, exhausted, facing hours more work to meet deadlines, I remember standing on a truck load of cages, looking down to see that most of the club members were just milling around not completing their own tasks and a few seemed intent on making even more work for me. I turned in frustration to my fellow down-troddens and complained that "It is easier to herd the cats than to make this group do anything."

That was my last cat show.

[philly_bob]

139. "Young people have the ability to recognize those who tell the truth."

Do they really, H2O Man?

I'm thinking Children's Crusades in Europe, Ghost Dance in US, Wandervogel in Germany, the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa, the Futurists in Italy.

I am not inviting a history contest, but I'm surprised to hear that statement from someone whose posts I really, really value.

Trust is indeed the issue. Like many Democrats whose first choices have dropped out of the primaries, I feel as if I know HC and exactly how much I can/can't trust her. I don't feel I know BO and how much I can trust him.

"If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him" doesn't help me at all.

[H2O Man]

147. I have great trust

in the younger generation. I base that on my contact with them. I am fully aware that human beings do err, but it seems rather odd to me to have people taking the position that the current trend of young people becoming actively involved in the political process is anything other than good.

My post isn't an attempt to "help" anyone. It is a statement on my experience and opinion. At very best, it might make some people think for themselves. Indeed, when Chief Waterman and I spoke to classes of young people, he often said, "Think for yourself, and act for others." I assume that some students found that of value, and others didn't. I'm glad that he said it.

[midnight]

145. Healthy minds at all ages know that peace is the right way. I'm

doing a bit of personal evaluation here as a parent. I know that young people can hate as much as older people. It is basically the amount of time young people are indoctrinated to unjust messages. "In one interview I did for publication, I asked Chief Waterman about what the white politicians could learn from the Haudenosaunee (or Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) leaders? Paul said, "To tell the truth." Has he seen American television?

[H2O Man]

155. Yep.

Television, perhaps more than any other form of communication, spreads lies.

[realFedUp]

150. Trust is earned. Young people trust too easily before doing their homework

In this day and age of too many stupid celebrities
(Britney) comes to mind) who dominate what we
call "news" while really important issues are
overlooked because they aren't sexy enough.

Look past the hoopla and celebrity to who the
man is. If you like who he is, how he votes
and what he promises, adore away.

[H2O Man]

159. If Brittney ran

as a third party candidate, the media would give her a lot of attention. She might split the republican vote.

[Me.]

168. Thank God She Isn't

Saves me agonizing reappraisal

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

172. What if she

had Paris as VP?

[Me.]

184. Seriously

Do you really think they would be worse than what we now have?

[philly_bob]

166. Lots of studies show that kids can be more easily manipulated by ads.

Many of these studies are done on food and beverage marketing, like sugary cereals and soft drinks.

Very young kids -- say under seven -- often don't even know the difference between programs and ads.

Older youths are manipulated by their need to belong to an in-group and, of course, by sex.

"Cool" is a manufactured attribute. But coolness is the primary determinant of the behavior of many young people.

Obama built up his popularity very smartly, on social networks and at colleges.

Respectfully, I can't buy the idea that the enthusiasms of one age group can substitute for disclosure, debate, and transparency.

The idea also adds a generational division to the racial and sexual divisions that are already splitting the party.

[H2O Man]

170. Dan Blocker

used to tell hilarious stories about people coming up to him in public, and being confused about who he really was -- and wasn't.

A great example of the confusion tv causes was Ronald Reagan: his movie roles blended with his commercial endorsements, which in turn blended with his political career. (Jerry Mander's books on tv are great resources on that topic.)

[bulldogge]

176. I hope that

I am not misinterpreting you but I feel the need to respond.

I think according to the original OP we are getting totally off the subject since many of the 7 year olds I know are not able to vote in the upcoming election.

I work with youth ages 5 to 19, 1,300 of them over the course of the last 5 years to be exact and for some sex and for others being cool is certainly an issue but not when I discuss Clinton or Obama with them...I did speak with a 60 year old women who told me she is going to vote for Romeny because "he is very handsome."

The part I am really have difficulty with though is the view of youth's support of Obama, I believe we would be talking about college kids and early 20's. It is being portrayed as some sort of pep rally where the individuals in support of him are mindlessly chanting his name waving their flags. When I was that age I was influenced by the world around me but that is what helped form my opinions, then I would take that info and digest it to form what I thought was a valid thought. Their enthusiasm is not the only fuel they are running on and I say that respectfully. I think for the most part it is safe to say that a youth involved in politics is someone I would be glad to have on my side because they are taking the time to think and form an opinion. They may not have the same reasons you and I would have regarding a candidate but the issues they support are still valid and need to be addressed. I think it is very negative view point that the youth are going to flush this election down the drain and that they lack the credibility to make a choice in the future of our country.

[philly_bob]

182. It's not generational. Obama is New Guy. I don't trust New Guys right away.

I don't feel I know Barack Obama yet. (And I'm a political junkie.) I don't know him as well as I know Hillary Clinton, with all her faults. I know way more about Monica Lewinsky and Vince Foster than I know about Rezko or whoever that guy in Chicago is. Nor am I real clear on the differences between Clinton's and Obama's policy platforms. At least on economic issues, they seem identical.

The issue of the younger generation comes in only because the OP suggests that we trust New Guy because younger generation trusts New Guy, and I thought that was a poor argument.

I'd just as soon drop the generational conflict, because it's just another "identity politics" electorate divider, right up there with race and sex. I'm happy with youth enthusiasm for a Democratic candidate. Really happy. But I think we need more two-person debates and less name-calling here at DU before I feel as if I know and trust Barack Obama.

We got time. My state doesn't vote till April. If there's a big problem with Obama that turns up, I suspect the younger generation will change course like I used to change majors.

[bulldogge]

187. Point Taken

Thank you

[elixir]

162. There are similar questions surrounding Obama's fundraising. We'll have to put him on our list.

[H2O Man]

175. Well, you might.

My focus in the next month will be to get more young folks involved. This thread, of course, was my effort to secure people's real opinions on the value of the youth vote. Can you imagine how groups of young people will respond to (a) the Obama suppprters expressing confidence in the younger generation, and (b) the Clinton supporters saying young folks aren't smart enough to recognize the truth when they see it?

Grass roots activism! Taking information from a progressive/liberal democratic site, and sharing it with politically active young people. Dang! Gotta love it!

[ruggerson]

211. But that's an absurd generalization

I pointed out to you above that Clinton just last week WON the youth vote in a few states. And many, if not most, Clinton supporters value their input, their excitement and their participation. I'm curious as to why you're trying to turn this into a partisan issue?

[H2O Man]

212. Are you asking

why I would use this thread to show young people at colleges that are interested in politics that: (a) the people who support Obama welcome their contribution; and (b) that many of the Clinton supporters who have responded to this thread have said rude things about young folk? It is because I have decades of experience in grass roots organizing, and think that this thread provides me with a significant amount of information that I can use to advance the point of view that I have. I have no problem with you or anyone else using information from DU to organize and increase the support for your choice of candidates in the primary. Odd that you would question my doing this.

[ruggerson]

213. Because I find your motives questionable

it's patently ridiculous to think that partisan bombthrowers at Democratic Underground are representative of anything in the public at large. This thread started out, as far as I can glean, as a rebuke to Senator Clinton for not complying with your self proclaimed standards of trustworthiness in public officials. Fair enough, a partisan point to debate. Now it's morphed into some kind of confirmation for you that Clinton supporters value our youth less than Obama supporters do. Surely you can see the dishonesty in that conclusion. Random postings on an internet site do not in any way shape or form make for valid, empirical data.

I'm a Clinton supporter and I value our youth's participation a great deal. I have worked for many years with various and diverse youth groups, the latest being my work on a suicide hotline to prevent gay kids from killing themselves because of the attitudes propogated by people to whom Senator Obama lends a microphone. (a subject I'm curious as to why you never address.)

But I digress. To any younger Americans reading this: you are as valued and wanted by Mrs. Clinton and her supporters as you are by Mr. Obama and his.

Support your candidate boldly and forthrightly, H2Oman. I often agree with what you write. But be intellectually honest about what you were trying to accomplish with this OP. Your concern here is not about the younger voters, it is about trying to make a very partisan point about Mrs. Clinton's finances. As I've noted, fair enough. But cop to it.

[H2O Man]

214. I am not going

to present a scientific study to a class of students. If others want to, that's fine.

I noted in the OP that I have a history of speaking to young people at schools and universities. (I also have authored a few articles from time to time, which have appeared in publications and on forums that young folks read.) I mentioned that I believe that having young folks engaged in the political process is a good thing for democracy. And I expressed my concerns about open and honest government.

In advocating that young people support Senator Barack Obama in the democratic primary, I think it is fair that I use the same tactics that others use in advocating for the candidate they support. Perhaps I have missed your expressions of concern when others campaign for candidates other than Obama. If so, I would disagree with you there, much as I do on my right to participate in the democratic primary. I think the party is stronger because of people encouraging citizen participation in the elections. I may not agree with everything that other people say or do, but as long as they are being honest, I respect their right to campaign. And I am always happy to debate others.

As far as your thinking you can identify my motives, you are making a pretty simple error in thinking. In social work, when there are two people who disagree, and one tells the other what they "really think," that person is always wrong. Always.

[mistaT]

163. Fires me up!

This post fires me up! We are getting are butts kicked in this poll (http://www.dayoffame.com), lets take back America!

[Munch]

177. American Mythos

If people in the Clinton campaign wonder why young people trust Barack Obama, it is because they trust him. You can’t buy that trust.

Tony Rezko.

Todd Stroger.

Donnie McClurkin.

Oprah Winfrey.

The company Obama keeps...

But here's the kicker:

I was reading a thread above re Obama's farm policy plans. Sounded great. Then a poster noted that he "chose not to vote" on the farm bill in this Congressional session.

Whoops. Yet another vote that he intentionally missed! Silly me, I thought we elected senators to cast votes in the Senate.

Duck and cover -- that's Obama's modus operandi. So it seems.

P.S. Many young people are enthralled with a black JFK and the legend of Camelot, carefully crafted by Ted Sorenson and Kennedy's widow, Jackie. It's the past that never was -- one wants a history lesson re Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

At this juncture, the prospect of another JFK (black or white) in the White House scares me. The consequences could be catastrophic.

Young people can be hopelessly naive. That comes with the territory. Like it or not, there is a wisdom that comes with long life experience. Many traditional cultures value that highly.

But not our own. We worship youth and cast age onto the dung heap.

(in case anyone has not noticed)

[CRH]

186. Telling the truth, and trust, ...

These two themes seem to be a large part of the OP. Do you think Obama if elected will promote investigation into the truth behind the attacks on 911, and the bi-partisan corruption in the cover up that followed?

The attacks of 911 sent the country spinning off into a foreign policy that denied treaties, the UN, defiance of the World Court, defiance of the Geneva Conventions, and preemptive attack, just to name a few mis guided actions. The actions behind the US thrust have had criminal contempt for international principles, principles the US has previously endorsed. Will Obama restore the trust of the government, at home and abroad, with investigating and determining the truth, letting the chips fall where they may, and finding just punishments for the many bi-partisan war crimes, committed? Wouldn't this promote more trust in the system of government, by telling the truth?

[Me.]

191. Evening

:kick:

[Deep13]

192. Trust must be earned.

What exactly has O. done do demonstrate trustworthiness? Many people (young and otherwise) believe in O. because they want something to believe in. That is no way to choose a store manager and sure as shit no way to choose the president. I think what this country needs is a little less awe over fellow primates and a little more critical thinking.

Their is nothing improper about the Clintons' finances. You might remember that Ken Starr crawled up their asses with a microscope and found nothing. The only thing Nixonian about them is that they are on the receiving end of a RW attack machine thatd you would be happy to join.

[H2O Man]

196. Respectfully disagree.

There is nothing "RW" about asking politicians to keep the bar high when it comes to ethics. It is really sad that you would say that.

I campaigned for Bill Clinton in '92 and '96. I campaigned for Hillary Clinton in 2000 and 2006. If she is the nominee, I will support her 100%. This does not mean that I do not have the right to support Barack Obama, or an disqualified from asking serious questions about the Clinton campaign. That may be a concept different than what you subscribe to, but it surely is not right-wing.

[snappyturtle]

194. Kick!

:kick: