Stalking the shadows: America doesn’t need an “historical” Presidency right now.

[shadowknows69]

Right off let me say that I think the thresholds we could potentially cross in this election are long overdue. Our government should always look like our country. The rich, white men only club has no place in the 21st century. The glass ceilings that have held back women and minorities in this country must be forever shattered.

That being said; we don’t have time for that right now.

While I have no doubt that Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would make competent leaders, at least according to our current pitifully low standards, I think that this election has already been too much about that and them.

This country has been raped and pillaged by the most adept and evil band of thugs and oligarchs in possibly the history of the world and, to paraphrase a saying from Hillary’s playbook, we need to hit the ground running and I see this whole election as antithetical to that end.

My greatest fears are firstly that the Democratic Party will be moved irretrievably closer to the center or worse and secondly that the whole “historic” aspect of electing Clinton or Obama will not serve as the wake up call this country needs but in fact more of a sleeping pill.

As has been painfully obvious in the last seven years America loves to sleep. We seem to have a problem multitasking as well despite our technologically amazing age. I’ve seen the American people and our politicians on both sides of the aisle distracted and mesmerized too easily and too often by the mundane and by shiny objects, remaining willfully blind to the more glaring problems in front of them.

We need to end this war that should never have happened.
We need to restore our Constitution and our rule of law even for our rulers
We need to address global climate change IMMEDIATELY and enact sweeping legislation to save our species from extinction in the next 100 years.
We need to STOP giving money or tax breaks to companies that refuse to employ American workers but wish to do business on our soil.
We need to reverse the totalitarian tactics and unitary executive dreams of the current administration and give our people back their freedom
We need to have a “Manhattan Project” (except the nuclear part) to find alternative and renewable energy sources.
We need to declare to the world that we will no longer be a “first strike” nation.
We need to declare to the world that we will no longer be a nation that tortures
We need to try to further peace in the Middle East by giving equal space at the negotiating table to Palestine and Israel.
We need to withdraw combat troops from the Middle East and stop furthering the destabilization of sovereign nations and inspiring more hatred for America.

The list goes on and you can sing it by heart. My fear of a Clinton or Obama Presidency is simply that we’ll be so busy as a nation either patting ourselves on the back for this “accomplishment” or tearing ourselves apart because the ignorant strain of the gene pool goes bat shit crazy about it that we won’t address any of these vitally important topics in any kind of a timely manner.

It does appear that one of the two will end up being our nominee at this point barring some Twilight Zone moment at the convention; and so it goes. We the people need to make sure that whoever the nominee and eventual winner is that we remain more diligent than ever and make sure they get right on the “to do” list because it’s a long one and time is short in the life of this nation if they don’t. Just my pair of pennies.
Shadow out

[KharmaTrain]

1. I Wish We Had The Luxuary

It'd be great to have a Progressive Preident who would kick corporate asses like Teddy Roosevelt or eliminate the "politicization" of politics (oxymorons anyone??) and live in an ideal world where everything is fair and people are judged on character and merit...but right now we've got one screwed up country and some serious, hard choices to be made by whomever is elected in November.

I'm not looking for my political ideal (none exists) nor a best friend. I could care less if this is a person I'd like to have a "beer" with or if the person is a "bitch" or some other slam that has no bearing on their ability to do the job. As I've said over and over...ANY Democrat is far preferable to the most "moderate" repugnican and this can't be said enough.

Those who are pissed their candidate didn't fare well or wish for Al Gore or magic ponies....wish I could click some ruby red slippers and make things right...but then I'd be doing the same for me first. This election will be "historic", but for reason other than a woman or black running for the Presidency...it's to restore some sanity to this country and turn this country into one we can be proud to live in again. It's not what needs to be done...it's where to start.

Cheers...

[shadowknows69]

2. I just want the smartest guy/gal/plant in the room

When did that fall out of style? Sadly I don't think any of the top three are that animal. In my dreams the top three right now would be Kucinich, Biden, Dodd.

[KharmaTrain]

3. I Have No Ideal

I'm still uncommitted and will will probably be so until I go to the polls on Feb. 5th. I'm still very tempted to only vote downticket. It's not that I don't "like" a candidate...who cares what I like or think. All I care is who can both win and make life in this country better. We've endured 7 years of "political purity" from one side, I don't see this country going 180 in one election or in the near future. I'd just like to get back to a reasonable middle.

My prime concern is a person who can both get things done quickly and work with others in doing so. Repugnicans, while torn to shreads, won't be going away next year...neither will hate radio and I suspect there will be more fight within Democratic ranks as everyone will want their spoil. The atmosphere the next President enters will be very polarized and more "my way or the highway" will just make things worse. Now are any of the top three the person who can do this? I can't say...the voters will.

[Muttocracy]

58. great post - TV isn't helping...

It's ironic that having all these TV debates did NOTHING to change who the top three were. It's just for show.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/charts/?poll_id=191

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. "magic ponies"? How very condescending of you.

:eyes:

[kurth]

4. Why is racial atonement/racial transcendence the #1 issue?

There is a shitload of other REAL problems.

[CaptJasHook]

10. It is a festering boil

Just feel lucky that this is happening in the primary.

In case you haven't been aware of what is happening in this country, we have a Presidential candidate of mixed heritage.

As Flava Flav once said:

White man, White woman, white baby
Black man, Black woman, black baby
Black man, White woman, black baby
White man, Black woman, black baby

We also have a country that still mixes its policy and politics with a healthy dose of racism and gender bias.

If the Democratic party wishes to address the needs of the disenfranchised... If it wishes to be the party that puts the first woman or African American into the White House... We NEED to deal with these issues. We need to find a way of working through them, NOW. Because I guarantee that the Republicans will make it an issue.

[kineneb]

30. some are still stuck in 1850

...both in religion and racist/xenophobic views. I am afraid you are right. Politics may get even more ugly.

[Dhalgren]

5. You are absolutely right! You won't be very popular around here

for telling this truth, but you are right. K&R...

[Deep13]

6. I'm wondering what makes you so sure Obama would be a competent president.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but would really like to know. I've asked this several times and have only received evasions and counter-accusations in response. If O. is nominated, I would love to know that it wasn't a colossal mistake.

[CaptJasHook]

11. Because he brings Hope for Change

First of all, I like Hillary. I think she is highly intelligent and cares a lot.

Second, I vote Edwards for his policy statements (I have to put some blinders on for some of his voting record) and his determination.

Finally, I don't get how you haven't been given an answer time and time again. Maybe you just aren't listening.

Obama = Hope, Change and Redemption. An America that has grown up and is willing to put some age old argument to rest.

Symbols are important. If you want more, read my post below.

[Deep13]

12. Positive emotions are not evidence of competence.

Competence means being able to do the job. By way of analogy, a surgeon's hope and optimism mean nothing if he doesn't know the procedures.

The symbolism is nowhere near as important as the job qualifications. The president is not our dad, our pastor, our Superman or our messiah. S/he is the store manager for our country.

[CaptJasHook]

13. Let's be real

A good president is one who surrounds themself with competent people and for whom we can trust will make decisions based upon the good of the people.

They will fight for what is right.

They will become the symbolic face of our nation. Our representative in the world.

They will be able to use charisma, determination and diplomacy to fight for the good of all Americans, especially the poor, at risk and disenfranchised (that's my progressive side)

I am sure there are a few more qualifications, but those are my top four.

I believe all of our candidates have a mix of these. It is nothing but partisanship to pretend otherwise. Insinuating that Obama is incompetent is disengenuous and sad. He wouldn't be in the position he is currently in if were so.

I START the discussion from the position that all the candidates are competent in their own right.

[Deep13]

14. How am I being disingenuous?!

You have no basis to doubt my honesty. :mad:

I went with HRC because of her track record of eight years in the Senate and eight years as Pres. Clinton's close adviser in the WH. O. has been in the Senate four years and has spent all of them running for president. I frankly don't see anything in his background to inspire much confidence in his ability to govern.

I completely reject the surrounded by competent people argument. The president needs to understand what those people are telling him and needs to be in command of the advisers. This whole thing has a dreadful reminiscence of 2000 when people were saying that it was okay for Bush to be a dumbass, because his people were smart. (Do not claim that I called O. a "dumbass, because I did not.) That's not good enough. I don't want another Jimmy Carter who will paint the D's as "losers" for the next 30 years.

[CaptJasHook]

18. Your own words

"Positive emotions are not evidence of competence."

This implies that Obama is lacking in competence. Or that I am in attributing positive emotions toward him. Simple rhetoric.

[Deep13]

19. You ARE attributing positive emotions to him...

...and claiming it as a basis for assuming competency. "Obama = Hope, Change and Redemption." Am I reading that wrong? What about "Hope for change?" You are right about one thing, I have serious doubts that he is up for the job.

[CaptJasHook]

20. I said nothing of competence

Those were your words. And he does inspire happy thoughts in many. As does your candidate. Otherwise they wouldn't be candidates.

But this is merely semantics. I wish the best of luck to you and am happy to meet a fellow Democrat.

[Tyler Durden]

32. Mr. Rogers inspires happy thoughts in me.

Obama or Clinton inspire very little and not much more. Edwards not much either.

Show me the candidate who will support Equality Under the Law.
Show me the candidate who will END THE WAR IMMEDIATELY.
Show me the candidate who will STAND UP to the Republicans, NOT CAVE IN to them.

That will work for starters. Shit in one hand, wish in the other: see which one fills first.

[CaptJasHook]

37. I wish Mr. Rogers was running, nt

[Tyler Durden]

40. There we agree.

I would take him over Obama or Clinton in a heartbeat.

[eridani]

57. Hope for what? Change to what?

Inquiring minds want to know. Zbigniew Brzezinski as foreign policy advisor sure as hell isn't "change." He's the same old, same old. I guess "hope" means that I hope Obama cares more about the 18,000+ people that are killed because they lack the money for health care (CARE, not insurance) than he does for his corporate backers.

[CANDO]

28. Why not say that about the rest of them also?

He seems just as capable as any other candidate from either side. It'll all come out in the wash anyway, when whomever becomes President begins paying back his/her major donors.

[CaptJasHook]

41. I did say that, thank you.

However, that seems to be the running platform for the Obama campaign.

HC and JE are running on different themes. Though I am sure they all would consider themselves as agents of Hope and Change. What candidate wouldn't.


Thanks for pointing that out:)

[CTyankee]

7. Has it ever occurred to you that we are in this fix now precisely BECAUSE we

have neglected to consider a woman or a minority as a viable presidential candidate? It's ALWAYS "good idea, but not now." Well, when would be a "good time"?

It's an old, old argument. Under that rubric, the "right time" will NEVER come. Same old, same old will get us same old, same old.

While I dearly love John Edwards, I don't think it is a slam on him to say we need a woman or a minority because we can use their life experiences in governance of the country. The time is way past. We have the opportunity. Let's not get dragged down by the "not now" stuff. That just holds us back...

[Triana]

8. SOMEbody drank the symbolic change vs REAL change kool-aid

Nice.

You're right - same old will get us same old (corporate-controlled gov't) - that's what HillBama will get us, exactly.

The only one who wants to CHANGE that, is Edwards - the minority white guy.

[CTyankee]

21. I like John Edwards a lot but I can see that his is not the winning tide.

I want the Dem Party to win in 08. You write off Clinton as merely corporatist but her stated plans are worlds away from what the Republicans have been doing to us for the last 7 years. And don't forget, for the corporatists that they are, they brought Al Gore to the forefront...you know, the environmentalist who won the Nobel Prize, that guy?

And I think Obama would also be fine. He has begun to get more specific, which is what I wanted him to do.

Yours is the same argument I used to hear when JFK was running for president way back in 1960. I was living and going to school in NYC and I heard the equivalent of your Koolaid reference from leftists who detested him. He wasn't liberal enough. Eleanor Roosevelt said he had more "profile than courage," Adlai Stevenson could barely hide his contempt. But when things got really dicey in the Cuban Missile Crisis we were pretty damn lucky to have JFK in the White House.

One of the good things about getting older is that you perforce gain perspective. I look back over the 40+ years of the political landscape and see what has wrought change and what has not. I'll tell you what has not: losing elections.

[Kansas Wyatt]

22. Corporate America propped up HillBama....

So that the Republicans actually have a chance of winning in 08. Think all the lovely media swooning will continue for HillBama once one of them squares off against a Republican. It doesn't even matter which Republican is selected, he will be the "Liberal Media's" default pursuant to Corporate American directives. Only one Democratic nominee would sweep the election in a landslide and bring a real mandate for change to Washington... John Edwards.

But, I fear it will only be Corporate America changing the guard for their interests, because if HillBama does win, it will only be a narrow win and defending against attacks while in office. So nothing will get changed.

[CaptJasHook]

23. So your answer is to Surrender?

We will always have a tough fight on our hands. That is the nature of not having the kind of power that Corporations and money men have.

Are you expecting that when Edwards gets into office the Rightwingnuts are just going to lay down? Even as I support JE, I am not that naive. He is going to have to fight for every inch, just like Obama and Clinton.

Progress is neither cheap or easy. We have made strides, over time. But we are not done.

[Kansas Wyatt]

24. I never said there wouldn't be a fight for every inch...

But there is only one candidate who can win that fight and invoke immediate change. This country needs a hard shove back to the left, and not a negotiation on navigating toward the left over a specified time frame, filled with concessions.

[Triana]

26. It doesn't need a president who takes/took hundreds of thousands of $$ from

those same corprats who control the government and the media either.

They've bought THEIR candidate for themselves. And the voting public is none the wiser. Look at them. They really aren't!

[CaptJasHook]

29. Well said.

However, I still think it is important to constantly focus on voter turnout. If we win the presidency but loose out in the Senate and Conressional races, nothing is going to make a difference anyway.

[Triana]

25. Right as you say...

..nothing will get changed and the corporates are propping up and supporting two who if they do win, won't change much of anything -- or who simply won't win against a Repub.

They've hedged their bets, chosen OUR candidates FOR US to suit THEIR OWN best interests - and that's that.

The ones who stand for REAL CHANGE were squeezed out of the media picture and therefore out of the eyes and minds of the voting public.

John is right - it's NOT an election. It's an AUCTION.

[CaptJasHook]

34. John is right - it's NOT an election. It's an AUCTION.

That's F***ing brilliant! K&R if I could.

[Triana]

39. JRE said it! And it is brilliant! (n/t)

[bpeale]

46. i cannot overlook the corporate support of Obama or Clinton

sorry, that's just me. perhaps if they gave up the corporate donations i could take them seriously, but until they do, i just can't support them. either of them.

[Annces]

16. I agree

This will cause tidal waves, regardless of how conservative they really are.

[CaptJasHook]

9. It's about the Democratic turnout

We are past the point that we are going to have the most qualified candidate in the White House. The way politics in this country works ensures that the most intelligent, sensible and experienced people are barred from running for office. They are easily eliminated by their curiousity, passion for life, and willingness to make mistakes.

My personal goal at this point is to increase the turn out of Democratic voters and push our progressive candidates into local and state government. The bigger the Democratic turnout, the further left this country will return. If the turnout is big enough, we might be able to start the discussion about whether or not individual Democrats are too right for their party (ie. Lieberman). It also may give the message to Congress that Americans are behind a renewed progressive and hopeful America.

So keep all THREE candidates in the race.

Give money to John as he struggles to keep the two front runners discussing working men and women's issues. Have you noticed that Hillary and Barack keep adopting his policy stances? I'm voting for him just to keep at 15%. I would love this guy to be President, even if I am realistic to understand it won't happen.

Vote for Hillary if you must. Sure she is beholden to Corporations. However, she is a shrewd politician and most likely the most intelligent candidate in the game right now. She will draw in not only a large base of women, but bring in independents.

By all means vote for Obama. This man is on fire. Though often over-hyped, he is the candidate that most embodies the message of Hope, Change and the kind of America I hope to live in one day. His rhetoric is igniting the young voters, giving hope to other countries throughout the world, and bringing in the voice of our most disenfranchised wing of the Democratic party, the African American vote.

In the end. Just show up at the polls and bring your grandma, your cousin, your best friend, your new neighbor, your 18 year old daughter, the guy who works the drive through at MacDonalds.... Bring them all. That is what will make the difference in this election. That is what is going to get this country back to normal.


And stop all the negative personal shit.

[tom_paine]

17. You are so right, shadow. K & R.

And neither Clinton nor Obama is going to do much of your "We need..." list unless they are currently misrepresenting themselves. Which is possible. I mean, Bushler did it and they say FDR dodn't campaign on the New Deal.

Hell, I don't even know if Edwards will do it, for all his talk, should he gain the Imperial Throne.

But what you say is true so I give it a K & R.

[CTyankee]

36. The thing that gripes me is that all of my life for over these 60 years

I have heard "a woman can't" or "won't" or "doesn't" or "isn't", ditto for African Americans. Now that that argument is hopelessly passe, we have the "Sure they CAN, but now is not the right time. Maybe next time. Or sometime. But not now." This attitude will get passed down to my granddaughters' generation and when they come of age I fear they will hear the same damn thing. I'll bet Susan B. Anthony heard it from well meaning liberal men of her day!

Enough! At some point we have the break the glass ceiling and stop pretending that what we REALLY care about is "corportist" yadda yadda, or whatever the excuse will be next time.

[shadowknows69]

38. Hey I voted for Jackson in the '88 Primary

And it is corportist yadda yadda that I am most concerned about because that is the crux of our problems.

[CTyankee]

44. So did I!

Don't get me wrong: when HRC is wrong, she needs to be corrected. I just don't want any smokescreens thrown up against her because she is a woman...

[tom_paine]

56. If Clinton or Obama was talking like Edwards, was saying that we need to FIGHT the corporate

domination of our lives and the erosion of our democracy...if they were saying any of that, I would certainly be more inclined to support them, regardless of gender or ethnicity.

But Obama wants to make nice with totalitarian tyrants, and is going to get rolled like a nun trying to make nice with Al Capone.

And Hillary doesn't really want to change anything at all, it seems. She will only slow things down, and we need to TURN THINGS AROUND. Actually, that mostly goes for Obama, too, IMO.

THOSE are the primary reasons for not wanting either of them, although in truth, what the shadow says in his OP is relevant also.

[sutz12]

27. Well, if we got a functional presidency, it would be somewhat historical. nt

:)

[judasdisney]

31. What's Best For The Country?

When all of the back-slapping happens over the "historic Presidency" after November, it will be a moment to juxtapose with the 4th-tour Iraq War soldiers getting IED'd for the 5th year.

I'd like to hear all of the candidates be asked why they are what's best for the country.

[shadowknows69]

33. Me too

Welcome to DU!!!

[Uncle Joe]

35. I agree with your overall analysis.

Thanks for the thread, shadowknows.

[Chovexani]

42. When the fuck is it ever time?

Seriously. It's never the "right time" to do anything according to people like you. Funny how it always seems to be the "right time" for rich white men.

This is the weakest bullshit I've seen yet.

[shadowknows69]

43. I assure you I would love nothing more than a female or minority President

To finally drag out and hopefully stamp out the last vestiges of ignorance and hatred from this country.

[donkeyotay]

45. Well said. We are going to wind up with one of the two, looks like Obama

and we need to be able to address all the issues you raised (and more). But the media has tipped its hand as to how it plans to play us. We will be caught up in - whether we want it or not - the historical achievement. The theme that all we need to do is end the divisiveness conveniently overlooks that the outrage on the left has been the only opposition to excesses and corruption on the right. These things aren't equal. Power was exerted by the right, and resisted by the left. To say that both sides are equally to blame is to allow the "gains" by the right to stand and negotiate from there. Kind of like pre-emptive surrender. We'll get all caught up in some sideshow while the corprat ptb consolidate their grip on the media and congress.

[intaglio]

47. An historically momentous presidency

would be one that does as you desire, Shaddowknows.

Edwards could try to fulfill your wishes in the same manner that FDR would; with the caveat that the entrenched forces of repression know what to expect; which, in turn, would help in their attempts to subvert it.

Clinton, for all that her supporters cry "Nay!", would try to achieve things by using the present mechanisms of control and these are the very ones that have caused many of the problems faced by the USA. Despite any desire she has to undo the frightening harm done by the Bush regime it will mean that the same mechanisms will remain the for next time another corrupt demagogue, like Bush, comes to the Presidency.

Obama? He is the dark horse (no pun intended). He wants to reach out to those Republicans who have open minds and convince them to become Democratic voters. Please, no screams that there are, "no such people," or that you "can't trust 'em"; Obama's idea would make for a long lasting Democratic hold on power in a way which Edwards or Clinton could not. To make this change the policies he espouses have to seem pragmatic and less extreme. It then becomes easier for him to accelerate the pace of change if required it also makes it possible to decelerate if the policies prove insupportable.

To sum up my views
Edwards will bring the USA kicking and screaming into the 20th century in terms of services and governance but don't be surprised at what will be done to subvert it during or after his presidency.

Clinton will get you much of what you desire in the short term and bits will stick - once corporations have worked out how to maximise profit from it. Business as usual

Obama means long term change; a sea-change; in your politics and that is scary. Do you think the USA can face that?

[CTyankee]

49. In other words: stick with the white male. We know him. We trust him.

The woman and the black, eek! Bolt the door!

Look, I like John Edwards a lot. But this thread has made this weary feminist cranky. I had hoped it would not get down to this and I am really sorry that it has: denigration of the woman and the black "upstarts" who dare to try for the seat reserved only for white males.

This is beginning to creep me out, folks.......

[CaptJasHook]

51. Please don't be creeped out

I think you are misreading the thread. People here are generally supportive of Clinton and Obama. It seems to me that most of the posters are merely concerned about how this is going to play out in the general election.

With the history of this country in context, these are valid concerns. Haven't these concerns or doubts ran through the back of your mind? Don't you think the MSM is going to be talking about this ad nauseum. I hope we are all prepared with answers for our eventual candidate.

Peace

[CTyankee]

54. Your concerns are not the ones I have read here. I "get" what you are saying.

What I was talking about was the "we're not ready, not now, maybe later" language of the OP about a woman or a minority candidate. We've been hearing this for YEARS. I'm SICK of it!

All of your other concerns are good ones. Please,this is about the one I describe above, not the other valid concerns you have honorably described...

Peace.

[CaptJasHook]

55. Thanks

I am so grateful for people like you being engaged for all of ou sakes.

Injustice for one is eventually injustice for us all.

[Rex]

48. Bush is a historical president, as much as it gagges me to say.

The Bush Legacy will far outstrip anything any Rep/Dem can/will do in the future. We will not understand the full damage of the Bush Legacy for decades. It will take two terms just to unravel what happen during his 8 years. Some people won't want to deal with it. Stash it away with all the other government secrets.

The right way is what you posted, we need to do a lot after we get rid of George and Dick. I just hope we can survive this year with them running around doing who knows what. I hope the FBI & CIA keeps a good watch on the both. There has to be SOME federal officers still loyal to the nation and not the agenda of corporate monsters.

[DiamondJay]

50. HILLARY IS THE ANSWER

[CaptJasHook]

52. What was the question???? nt

[0007]

53. Good rant!

Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties & local pubs...

... to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer".

The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes bottles, cans, or from taps and in large kegs. Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them.

A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home.

Men are rendered helpless against this approach.. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted.

After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred.

At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as "a relationship" . In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage". Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered by the predatory females.

Please! Forward this warning to every male you know.

If you fall victim to this "Beer" scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can dis cuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men.

For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book.