So to be for Hillary is to be against the JPL, John? In other words, Obama is all inclusive and somehow her opponent is all divisive?
Ok. Here is the web page for Senator Obama's church in Illinois. Read it.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
I've seen this sort of stuff in the papers the guys who stand in suits on the corner sell here. Not new news. For people who don't live in heavily mixed neighborhoods, the words may be a bit of a surprise. So here are the typical positions taken by those who encounter this stuff.
Pro:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_11_124/ai_n19328537
Anti:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obamas-church-ultra-left-and-afrocentric
The problem about the hard positions is it is tough to sort the words that matter from the words that don't, which means effectively, no one knows what Obama is about if that is his professed beliefs as a member of Trinity. It may be that that church is his political base and the means to get elected. Ok, politics as usual, but it means that only some words matter to him and his political base. Or it means his congregation has been duped by his membership. Not possible?
Then it means he believes all of that.
So John, which words matter?
Pro or anti, the message that church is espousing is political dynamite. This is what the Republicans will go after him with because they can get this message to their base without having to go through the Big Media outlets, and when it does, it will go through without traceability. That is how Obama will be Swift boated, except not with third party assertions, but with his own. Get ready for it.
It seems to me that for too many this is about some kind of Great Get Even. Some want to get even with the rich, some to get even with the Baby Boomers, some to get even with whoever. But that is exactly how the right elected Bush twice.
I won't vote for that. I vote for real change, a change of leadership that actually is inclusive and actually has a real plan to get our economy out of the dumps and our troops out of the desert. Not a cause, a movement, or a "people's liberation". If we need liberation, it is from those self-serving whining delusions that somehow a grand conspiracy got us in this trouble.
We did it to ourselves. Twice. What does it say if we do it a third time and call that liberation? Which words matter?
2 comments:
So to be for Hillary is to be against the JPL, John? In other words, Obama is all inclusive and somehow her opponent is all divisive?
Say what?
No, no, you've misread me altogether.
What I meant by "Fucking Judaean People's Front!" was simply "The left [though it's stretching things to call the Democratic Party 'left'] always tears itself to pieces in factional strife, leaving the Right masters of the field by default." That's what I see happening today, as the First Serious Black Wannabe faces off against the First Serious Female Wannabe in the same damn election cycle.
Both of them are all-divisive. And here we are, duly divided ("If Obama/Hillary is nominated, I'm voting for McCain, dammit!") while the reactionaries and fascists laugh all the way to the White House.
My mistake, John. Apologies.
The obamamania creeps me out. Hillary I can deal with because I know what I am getting and I figure it will work to make enough change to make a difference. With Obama, I hear the rhetoric and it is charming, but I am of an age that I've heard this kind of song and dance many times since Camelot and I am indeed cynical about it.
Then I read the Trinity web page and I ask myself just what a man who goes to that church has in mind. In the South where I live, if one really disagrees or repudiates what their minister is saying, they work with the board to get a new minister or they go to a new church. Bifurcating churches are a big real estate business here as a result.
But at some point, you are right. This will give the Repubs the White House again. The bad news is that moderate Democrats have more in common with McCain than they do with Obama although a bit more with Hillary than McCain. They can handle four years of a minority party President in the Oval Office if he is predictable because then the Repubs have to clean up their own mess. What they fear is an even bigger mess that breaks the back of the voting coalitions. That is what has worked for the right for the last eight years.
Who lost last night's debate? Tim Russert. He came off badly. It is a hideous perception that in America, men are more afraid of having a woman in charge than they are of launching into the great unknown.
Post a Comment