Since Senator Obama will most likely become the nominee this week…

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Since Senator Obama will most likely become the nominee this week, it’s time for some post-primary comments. (While objective discussion of the primaries is still permitted.)

Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and he may or may not win in November. If he wins, he will be a good president. So that’s good.

I will be voting for Senator Obama.

I have never supported any Republican for any office, and unless the Republican party, through some fluke of history, becomes clearly superior to the Democratic party on the first amendment, I never will.

But after this primary season, I find that I no longer identify personally with the Democratic Party. That kind of essential sense of identification is a very different thing from who you vote for. (Put another way, I am anti-Republican to the core, and practical enough to know the Democratic Party is the only meaningful alternative.)

The problem is SOME (not all or even most) people who are the most enthusiastic about Senator Obama… in real life, on TV, on the internet, and most of all on Democratic Underground. Many say it is absurd to allow one’s perception of a candidate to be shaped by his supporters. Well, maybe… but last time I checked, Senator Obama is telling me to vote for his supporters, not for him. It’s a movement, not a man. It’s all about what “we” will do… “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”

The inclusive “Yes WE can!” logic of the Obama movement is that I should support the idea of Obama supporters running the world. If I were an Obama supporter that would be empowering. “I get to run the world!” But since I am not a big Obama fan, I am left to observe the real-life “WE” as that which is seeking to be the next president.

And I am not impressed.

For instance, I do not want the world being run by Orwellian created mass-psychological "reality." Senator Obama is refreshingly candid by political standards, but he doesn't seem to INSPIRE comparable honesty among his supporters. I watched 60 Minutes last night, then lurked on DU. There were literally HUNDREDS of posts here advancing or confirming a flat lie… that Hillary Clinton said she “takes Barack Obama at his word” that he is not a Muslim.

She never said it. Steve Kroft said, “You take him at his word…” not Hillary. I knew she never said it because I watched the damn show, and I have, throughout my adult life, valued objectivity. I am not perfect, but I try really hard.

Post after post after post creating a mass hysteria wherein waves of Duers readily acceded to a false propaganda story, frequently at the expense of their own experience watching the show! Some Obama supporters simply lied about what was said, and other Obama supporters accepted the new reality.

If it were a trivial matter, who would care? But people incorporated a false memory that made them shake and cry and burn with ultimate rage against Hillary Clinton.

One is left to conclude that a lot of Obama supporters simply enjoy shaking and crying and burning with rage. And where were the “good” Obama supporters? Surely some of them had watched 60 Minutes TEN MINUTES EARLIER and remembered what was said… that Steve Kroft said “take him at his word,” not Hillary. Why didn’t they jump in en masse to say, “we are better than this… this disseminated party line confabulation is wrong.” (There were a few who said, to their credit, that the flap was overblown, but why didn’t anyone remember what they had just heard ten minutes earlier?)

Did they not want to ruin a good hate-circle with facts? Were they afraid that dissent would separate them from the comforting herd? Or did they simply bend their minds, deforming their real experience to match the propaganda line?

Is this the “we” I have been waiting for?

No, this is the "we" I have been seeing all my life! There is a profound corruption in mass-media driven American politics. Jimmy Carter was WRONG to run against Washington and carry on about Jesus. Ronald Reagan was WRONG to run against Washington and carry on about Jesus. George Bush I was WRONG to run against Washington and denounce atheists. (He was an uncharismatic man, so his Jesus scene was fatally flawed and open to destruction by Pat Buchannan.) Bill Clinton was WRONG to run against Washington and carry on about Jesus. George W. Bush was WRONG to run against Washington and carry on about Jesus.

And Barack Obama is WRONG to run against Washington and carry on about Jesus.

And the next Republican presidential candidate will probably campaign in a weird uniform and carry a flaming cross, and he’ll probably win. And we will counter that with some fresh horror. The Reagan cancer will continue to spread as we get more and more of our information from electronic screens… it is inevitable. People kid themselves that Obama is somehing new, when he is actually more of the same. Just another TV candidate… another emotional appeal to power, another “movement.”

Yes, it works… charisma and church are a winning formula. (Ever heard of “charismatic Christianity?” Before Jimmy Carter came along in 1976, I hadn’t.) But that doesn’t mean I have to support it for itself. It is infantile and destructive.

Certain malignant strains in politics WORK. It was disgusting to see Bill Clinton with his shades and saxophone on Arsineo, back in 1992. I thought I would die from embarrassment that night, but I also knew for the first time that Bill would win. Here was a man who played to dummies, not to me. Here was a Democratic Reagan.

It was a necessary evil. And perhaps Obama is a necessary evil today. But, as many on DU are fond of pointing out, even a necessary evil is evil.

As a political actor, should I embrace evil because it is necessary? In the voting booth, of course! Anyone who doesn’t vote for Obama in November has a screw loose. But I chose to NOT incorporate evil into myself… to say things I know are false… to believe things merely because I think there is power in believing them.

I saw, with my own eyes, a highly organized effort to shame and ostracize GLBT people on DU, in the name of some new politics. Sure, it was just some supporters, not the candidate… but it was, by definition, part of the “WE” we have been waiting for.

I think Barack Obama is probably a pretty good man. He is very smart and very talented. He will be a vastly better president that John McCain.

But a large number of his most ardent supporters in the real-world, on TV, on the Internet and here at DU have alienated me, on a personal level, from the Democratic party.

(I am sure that Hillary has alienated some folks, in a different way. And I am sure there are some horrible Hillary supporters. But guess what? Who fucking cares? She’s not going to be the nominee!)

This is not a call for Obama supporters to act better. This is a message of comfort to the sizable segment of Democrats who are stunned to see something so ideologically bankrupt and methodologically right-wing spring up within the Democratic Party.

All of you who feel some resonance in what I say, please recognize that there is more to life and being than politics. Politics doesn’t define us, or at least it should not.

We are in a generations long cycle of the disgustifying (a good word that ought to be real) of politics, and none of us are virgins in this racket. It is not Obama’s fault… “Hate the game, not the player.”

It doesn’t matter if the Obama movement offends your sensibilities. Please vote for Senator Obama anyway. Donate to him and work for him. He is the lesser of two evils, which means he is also the greater of two goods.

And when he gets elected, throw out your TV and concentrate on things in life that have some wonder and purity to them. There is no shame in not finding life’s meaning in politics. It is the healthy, humane thing to do.

I plan to do a lot more painting.

[russian33]

1. you put in words all my feelings!!

thank you sir! k&R

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Nice sig... one of the few great 20th century republican quotes

[kid a]

2. Thanks - great post. Sensible, honest, and fair. KUDOS!!!

rec!

[Horse with no Name]

4. Brilliant. Just absolutely brilliant.

The "we won get over it" meme is what drove me to DU in the first place...and if it appears here...it will be what drives me away.
I can honestly see me becoming Independent after this cycle...never thought that could happen in a million years.
Even more than that, I can see me becoming apolitical unless we happen to get a Populist candidate or a Populist movement in the future.
We squandered a lot of opportunities this election cycle in the name of "making history" and I am quite certain that we may live to regret those lost opportunities at some point.
I'm going to take Dean's advice.
I won't send money to obama. I just won't.
There are local candidates out there who benefit my life more directly that could surely use my donations and my time.
There is always Planned Parenthood.
Wherever my resources go...I MAY cast a vote for obama in the GE...but that will be after being heavily medicated for the nausea.
But he won't get anything else from me.

[LostinVA]

6. Very good post, HWNN

My sentiments exactly.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. State and local candidates are important

And, truth be told, Obama will probably not be short of money either way.

So even the most ardent Obama supporter should recognize the virtue in financially supporting smaller Dems.

[MadBadger]

5. I dont think it will be over. I have no idea what is going to happen in either OH or TX

[mtnsnake]

7. Thanks for taking the time to perfectly describe how I think so many of us feel

I'm right there with you, friend. If these are the kinds of people Obama attracts to our Party then I'll be getting a lot more work of my own done, a lot more hiking and fishing when I'm not working, a lot less posting, and a lot less associating with this "new" kind of blatant arrogance that runs so rampant here like a plague. I'll still vote for Obama if he cons his way into the General Election because I surely don't want the Repukes fucking with our environment any longer, but I won't be too proud of our Party and how it all happened.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. Since Reagan is back in vogue: "We do the good we can and the evil we must"

It's a thoughtful quote... which makes me suspect he never said it.

I don't see voting as an expressive act... it's a practical act, like buying auto insurance.

No reason for anyone to with-hold their vote, but at the same time, Obama-mania cannot be the baseline Democratic Party virtue.

C'est la vie.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. ...

[theHandpuppet]

8. I may not agree with everything you've said here...

... but by God, it was refreshing to read such a post. This is deserving of the front page.

K&R

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Nicest possible comment. Thank You!

I am glad you don't agree with everything I said. As humans, that's way to much to ask, or even desire.

Thanks for recognizing the post is personal, and sincere.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

9. feh

the Democratic party is not going to be made up of fringe Obama supporters who either get carried away with things or who are outright nasty. It's the vocal minority, same as on the religious right, same as on the pro-Hillary side of this primary fight.

Once Obama secures the nomination (I hope) give it a month. Things will calm down and you will realize Obama supporters aren't as bad as all that.

For my two cents, I thought Hillary didn't express herself well. I thought it was equivalent to when Obama said Hillary was "likable enough". It left a bad taste in my mouth when he said that, just like when Hillary didn't just say "yes, he's a Christian. there is no doubt about that" (or something along those lines). her phrasing implied there was some room for doubt about his faith, although I don't think she really intentionally meant to imply that at all. last night was just a matter of poor word choice and nothing more. I'm over it.

and yes, by the way, you are WRONG about Obama. He is up in national polls against McCain. Wait until he actually starts campaigning against him in earnest.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Not sure where I am wrong...

You say: and yes, by the way, you are WRONG about Obama. He is up in national polls against McCain.

I said: Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and he may or may not win in November. If he wins, he will be a good president. So that’s good.

If you are saying I am wrong to concede the possibility that Obama could lose, I'm at a loss. Of course it's possible At this point I think he will win, but what benefit accrues from saying he is certain to win?

I just advised everyone at DU to Vote for Obama, Donate to Obama and Work for Obama.

I am sorry I did not go on to advise everyone to bathe in the blood of the dragon.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

12. I was really responding to this part of your post

"And the next Republican presidential candidate will probably campaign in a weird uniform and carry a flaming cross, and he’ll probably win. And we will counter that with some fresh horror. The Reagan cancer will continue to spread as we get more and more of our information from electronic screens… it is inevitable. People kid themselves that Obama is somehing new, when he is actually more of the same. Just another TV candidate… another emotional appeal to power, another “movement.”

I thought you were wrong to say McCain will probably win. Right now, he probably won't. But as you say, anything is possible.

Also, you say Obama is "more of the same"? I really don't think the first viable black candidate in American history is "more of the same". His campaign is not more of the same. The magnitude of his donations and number of donaters is not more of the same. The grass-roots movement is not more of the same, even compared to what Dean did. And yes, Obama is appealing to voters emotions. You may have noticed that this is working rather well. I can tell you don't like the style of his pitch, but will you deny its effectiveness? I don't see anything wrong with playing to win, and I think you even admit the same when you say "hate the game, not the player".

And of course, I do appreciate you advising everyone to vote, donate and work for Obama. Seriously, I do.

Cheers.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Gotcha... I was referring to years from now, long after McCain.

Each validation of an emotional, symbolic TV candidacy raises the spectre of the same tools being used by the other side.

A lot of Clinton was borrowed from Reagan and a lot of George W. Bush was borrowed from Clinton.

The next time the Republicans win, it will be with the Republican Obama... and so on.

I am not so dense or uncool that I cannot see how awful Hillary is as a personality. I have always sort of hated Hillary.

My dream for America was for everyone to acknowledge that the Regan era of 1976-2008 hadn't worked, and to elect a mean old lady nobody likes because she would work hard and do a good job.

In my way of thinking, that would have been a very grown-up sort of thing for America to do.

We all differ in what we think is best for America, but I do love this country and I want good things for us.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. sounds like you're blaming candidates for using the tools of the trade

we've gone from soapboxes, to newspapers, to radio, to TV, to color TV, to the Internet. These are the tools that candidates use to communicate with the electorate. So as long as TV is popular, there will always be that "TV candidate". I guess Ron Paul is the "Internet candidate" but the Internet doesn't have the numbers or clout that MSM TV does...yet.

I think everyone on this forum loves America, despite what the Right might say, we just disagree about how to improve it. What could be more American than that?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

24. I'm not questioning the efficacy of the Obama campaign. It's marvelous.

And I am not blaming Obama. Like I said, I hate the game, not the player.

What Obama is doing is the right answer today to the evolving puzzle of electoral politics. And I wish him success!

But I think it makes America worse, in the long run.

I wish that in the first year since forever that a Dem was favored to win that we could have done it without making politics even more emotional and faith-based. It is, in the big picture, a bad thing.

The next resurgence of Republicans will be, in turn, even more emotional and faith-based. Our tolerance of pathological politics increases with each election cycle.

Seriously... the Republican Obama will be a scary, scary thing.

[Dhalgren]

17. You are not pure enough...you will never be pure enough...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

35. ...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

36. There was a big line at the dragon... I'll try again next week

[Dhalgren]

38. Ah, but you see, you're tainted. Yes tainted, because it has

taken you so long to accept the anointed one. The blood of the dragon may save you, but make you "pure"? I hardly think so...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. Excellent read. I share a lot of your sentiments.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. So you're saying you're a life long dem who's very concerned.

Well, I take you at your word. It's true, as far as I know.

[Dhalgren]

18. What else could you say and be telling the truth...

[loveangelc]

19. it's not over. we'll see tomorrow.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Indeed... but either way I hope everyone will vote for the nominee

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

21. PS: I have never grubbed recommendations before, but

for a long post like this that is unlikely to prompt running flame-wars, recommendations and kicks are essential to thread survival.

And I do want people who dislike the Obama candidacy to know that they are not alone, and should VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY.

[vickitulsa]

26. Thank you very much for not grubbing for recs!

It just turns me off bigtime when posters do that, even if it's for a "good cause," and I'm less likely to kick OR rec such OPs. A little contrarian in me, perhaps, but it's likely many others feel the same way.

For this reason and even more for the reason that I agree with most of what you say in this thread and very much appreciate how you say it, here's my kick and rec!

I am glad you took the time to speak and did it so well.


(I think we need a handshake smiley and/or a salute smiley. I'll just say **SALUTE**!)

[Mother Of Four]

25. K and R sweetheart..

For a sincere post from the heart. I appreciate deeply the time and effort you took to write this out, and though you and I may not see eye to eye in it- The post is so well written and moving I want everyone else to read it too.



We need more discourse like this here.

:grouphug:

[Mother Of Four]

27. RE-Kicking.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. How nice you are!

[goclark]

29. Applause for a wonderful post

:hug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. Thank you!

[ruggerson]

32. Kurt, thank you

I know you didn't mean this as anything other than your own personal opinion, and certainly not as an attempt to change anyone's mind, but I hope a few people read this and really got what you were saying.

I am more than happy to vote for Obama in the fall. Hell, I even admire him as a politician. I may not be wild about many of the things he espouses, nor some of the things he's done in the campaign, but bottom line he's a Democratic politician. And I want him appointing SC Justices, not John McCain.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

34. Hi Ruggerson! Yes, it's personal. I wanted to express something

without a total flamefest.

I really don't blame Obama for his supporters. I really do hate the game, not the player. It is right for candidates to tear each other into cat-food because that's the game, and unilateral disarmament is surrender.

But that doesn't mean I need to associate myself with some of these supporters. I don't know that we're on the same team at all. I know why I would want Obama to beat McCain, but I don't get the vide that everyone's on the same page on that.

The waves of people who registered at DU on the Monday of McClurkin-mania with organized talking points aimed at minimizing GLBT DUers was something I have never seen, and hope to never see. It was like the SA... it was the internet version of street violence in aid of politics, aimed at a small and relatively defenseless group. I was shocked, and I have never been the same. The Democratic party is not about organized assaults, even electronic ones, on gays. It doesn't have to love "teh gay", but what's with the thuggery?

Then the "Clintons are old-school white supremacists" thing finished me off. I admit that Hillary has dug pretty low, but none can sink as low as a Saint. (In the same way only Nixon could go to China.)

I'm sure most people as repulsed as I was left long ago. And I'm sure I will follow them. But to those who remain, don't abandon the party.

It is better to quit obsessing about politics than to quit the party, if that's the choice.

What I keep coming back to is the scene is WEST SIDE STORY where Rita Moreno swallows her pride and goes to the candy store to get a message to Tony, even though she hates Tony. The thugs at the shop man-handle and abuse her, and in a fit of pique she sets the final tragedy in motion.

I don't know why some of the Obama supporters see their peace parade as a purge, but they do. There are some horrible, cruel, power-mad folks in the "movement." So it is better to not see that aspect of what's going on. Ignore all this shit and find something cleaner and more substantial than politics. Politics is ugly and stupid, all year, every year.

This too will pass.

Just keep dutifully voting for the people with the D next to their name. And if a pack of assholes make you start thinking about voting for Nader, then get away from those people.

[tekisui]

33. A very fine, and honest post. Thank you, K and R.

[krkaufman]

37. Re: 'Steve Kroft said, “You take him at his word…” not Hillary.'

From your post...

... he doesn't seem to INSPIRE comparable honesty among his supporters. I watched 60 Minutes last night, then lurked on DU. There were literally HUNDREDS of posts here advancing or confirming a flat lie… that Hillary Clinton said she “takes Barack Obama at his word” that he is not a Muslim.

She never said it. Steve Kroft said, “You take him at his word…” not Hillary.

This is not a wholly accurate statement -- or, I should say, the statement doesn't accurately communicate the exchange. Yes, Kroft did make that statement (substituting "Sen. Obama" for "him"), but only in a followup question to Hillary, paraphrasing what she had just said.

Here's the transcript of the exchange, just typed-in from my DVR recording of the show (rather than relying on some other transcript that may have significant errors).

Kroft: "You don't believe that Senator Obama is a muslim?"

Hillary: "Of course not... I mean that's... you know... that... there is no basis for that. You know, I take him... uh... on the basis of what he says, and, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that."

Kroft: "You said you take Sen. Obama at his word, that he's not a muslim. You don't believe that he's a muslim and aren't implying... right?"

So, yes, Kroft was the one who made the statement that so many (except me!) have been quoting, but only in paraphrasing, accurately, as part of a clarifying followup question, what Hillary had just said -- because even Kroft was taken aback by the implication of Hillary's ambiguifying* qualification. (*another good word that ought to be real ;))

Hillary qualified her statement as being based on taking Obama at his word (quotes intentionally absent, here), Kroft was simply paraphrasing what Hillary had just said, and all those Obama supporters on DU accurately communicated Hillary's message -- albeit quoting Kroft's paraphrased statement rather than Hillary's direct quote.

I accept that you strive for objectivity, but, in this instance, you got it wrong.

The rest of your post seems to either build-up to or build-upon the false premise that Obama supporters were either lying or living in a "new reality", in regards to this issue, so there isn't much point in responding to statements and conclusions which you may no longer support in light of the corrected perspective.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. The point is that someone posted a quote on Daily Kos, and that quote is used here to this day

And there was endless discussion parsing the quote in excruciating specificity.

But the quote was made up. And the quote (sic) is the top recommended post on DU.

And there's quote obviously no defense for the editing of the exchange. Including the last sentence would not have unduly burdened global bandwidth.

The broad point is that the DU version of events was intentional propaganda: selectively edited, inaccurate and tailored to create outrage and hatred. And it was credulously accepted because it served the psychological need of outrage and hatred.

In any event, there's not much point arguing perceptions. But it appeared to me that the whole thing was a spun-up Daily Hate.

Others' perceptions vary.

[krkaufman]

41. And how is "the quote" different, in meaning, from Hillary's *actual* quote?

The "outrage" Re: Hillary's statements is based on what she communicated, with emphasis on her qualifying statements, and the erroneously-lifted Kroft quote that you reference in the OP expresses her qualifying statement, in question, precisely. You can mince words and punctuation, but the 'gist of the "outrage", stemming from Hillary's qualifying statements, is perfectly valid if the meaning being discussed was accurate -- even if the specific wording was not.

Actual: "Of course not... I mean that's... you know... that... there is no basis for that. You know, I take him... uh... on the basis of what he says"


...vs...

Hybrid: "No, of course not. I take him at his word"

As for your declaration that "the quote was made up"... you are contradicting yourself. The quote referenced in the OP came from Steve Kroft, as your OP states, who was paraphrasing Hillary's immediately prior qualification of her belief that Obama was not a Muslim... taking him "on the basis of what he says."

--

Your perception of the "outrage" as a Daily Hate is acknowledged. But the perception of Hillary's passive fear-mongering via her qualifying statements, as part of her campaign's week-long "kitchen sink" negative attack strategy, is no less valid.


p.s. If the DailyKos origin was an issue, you might have mentioned that in the OP. Ditto for whatever segment of "the quote" you feel was left out in the DU threads, that mitigates Hillary's qualifying statements.

[ProgressIn2008]

40. Excellent post - yes, if the movement is going to sell itself as a movement

then the behavior of its members is in fact relevant. I actually don't have any certainty that Obama will make a good president; I tend to think he'll be a weak, vain president -- passive-aggressive and petulant, too used to the adoring throngs and unable to deal with scrutiny (if there ever is any). But I will vote against Republicans in November, though it will take an awful lot of clothespins to vote for Obama. I won't donate to him and I won't work for him, but I will surely vote against Republicans in every race I can.

I'm in a different boat insofar as I never really identified with the Democratic party -- I've been against Republicans, against Bush, and for progressives. I don't identify with the Dems, since I skew to the left of them. Or, to the left of what they have become. However, I understand your position and I'm hearing that kind of thing more and more lately: an alienation of good, long-time Dems through this primary, for a lot of good reasons. I can understand how you're getting certain messages about your role and importance in the big tent.

For me, it boils down to this: my biggest worry is that Obama Nation won't hold its leader accountable. I would dearly love to be proven dead wrong, and to see the movement hold Obama's feet to the fire on issues like NAFTA and free trade deals, LGBT rights, health care, corporate greed, and accountability/justice for the Bush administration. Here's hoping I'm wrong. But there is a messianic rhetoric in the movement -- that he/we are the ones him/they were waiting for, or something along those lines, and when what you've waited for finally comes along, it's *over*. The fight is over. To me, the fight has reached the do-or-die stage, where we spiral into economic and ecological mire, so far from over the light from over would take a million years to reach the earth. However, if Obama Nation sweeps their leader into the White House and thinks it's over and we've won... well, in a sense, maybe it is.