Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Obama on the Rise

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted December 17, 2007.


Barack Obama has stormed the Democratic race for the nomination -- can he and his supporters be stopped?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matt Taibbi

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

All love stories are beautiful at the beginning, and what we're witnessing now is the beginning of a new one: America and Barack Obama. The story begins with the world spinning off its axis, the country mired in dark times and the way of the fresh-faced savior seemingly blocked by a juggernaut agent of the Status Quo. Only in the end, in the moment that sportswriters die for and that comes once a generation in politics if we're lucky, the phenom rises to the occasion, gets the big hit in the big game and becomes a man before our very eyes. The old power recedes, and the new era is born.

That's grand language for a forum as vulgar and profane as presidential politics, but this is the moment that Barack Hussein Obama was born for, and it really is happening before our very eyes. Like Kennedy or Reagan or even Bill Clinton, Obama is a politician whose best chance for success has always been on the level of myth and hero worship; to win the Democratic nomination, he must successfully sell himself not just as a candidate but as an icon, a symbol of the best possible future for twenty-first-century multicultural America and an antidote to both the callous reactionary idiocy of the Bush administration and the shrewd but soulless corporatism of the Clinton machine.

With just weeks to go before Iowa, Obama is succeeding at that sales job, thanks in part to an unexpected avalanche of positive press and in even greater part to Hillary Clinton's recent performance as a creaky, suddenly vulnerable establishment villain. In just a few weeks, the first real votes in this insufferably long process will finally be cast, and when they are, the Powers That Be may find that they waited too long to get the real show started -- that the long wait gave America just enough time to decide that it's ready to move on to something new.

For most of this campaign season, I doubted that Obama really was that new something. Now I'm not so sure he isn't. Whoever Barack Obama is, there's no doubting the genuineness of his phenomenon. And maybe, who knows, that's all that matters.

After debacles in Iraq and New Orleans and mushrooming scandals that exposed much of Congress and the Cabinet as a low-rent crime family hired to collect protection money for the likes of Halliburton and Pfizer, people simply do not trust the politicians they vote for to be anything less than an embarrassment. You get the sense they approach the upcoming election with the enthusiasm of a two-time loser offered a selection of plea deals.

People hate the mechanized speeches, they hate the negative ads, and they especially hate venomous news creatures, myself included. It's now so bad that a poll last month found that fifty-six percent of all likely voters agreed with the phrase that the presidential race is "annoying and a waste of time" -- a shocking number, given that it excludes the forty to fifty percent of Americans who already don't vote in presidential races.

People don't want to feel this way, but the attitude everywhere is the same: What choice do these assholes give us? And it's that grim prejudice that has pervaded this process for a generation, forcing the public to choose from an endless succession of lesser evils and second- raters of the Kerry-Dole genus, stuffed suits who offered nothing like a solution to the main problem of feeling like shit about the American civic experiment.

Until now. Emphasizing that this is not necessarily a reflection of who or what Obama really is, he unmistakably and strikingly attracts crowds that, to a person, really seem to believe that his election will fundamentally change the way they feel about their country.

"I just want to see if there's going to be a difference with this cat," says Richard Walters, a forty-three-year-old New Yorker, who had come to hear Obama give a speech at Harlem's famed Apollo Theater. "Because if there's something different, we need it -- now."

"At this point, I'd be glad if he recited the alphabet correctly," says Xiomara Hall, another New Yorker. Laughing, she and her friend add, "We got hope. Change is goood!"

"I just want to see if he can do something, anything, to change things," says Shirley Paulino, another visitor to the Apollo event. "See if he is what he says he is. We just -- we need it, you know?"

Normally the sight of prospective voters muttering platitudes about "hope" and "change" would make any reporter erupt with derisive laughter, but at Obama events one hears outbursts of optimism so desperate and artless that I can't help but check my cynical instinct. Grown men and women look up at you with puppy-dog eyes and all but beg you not to shit on their dreams. It's odd to say, but it's actually moving.

An important component of this phenomenon is that the Obama crowds are surprisingly free of the usual anti-Republican venom. As much as anything, his rise is a reflection of the country's increasing boredom with partisan hatred.

"I'm so tired of the president just talking to one part of the country, or one group," says Malia Scotch-Marmo. "I was in my twenties with Reagan, but I felt he talked to me, even though we were all Democrats. It would be great to have a black president. It would be great for kids to see. It would be a nice mind shift."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Edwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards?
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 17, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Edwards and Obama should team up and, breaking with tradition, announce that they're running together. By combining their support they'd be sure to get the nomination and save us from another 4 years of neoconservatism. Whichever of them is on top in the polls should be at the top of the ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dwards-Obama or Obama-Edwards? Posted by: surfreality
» Amen! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
samothrellim
Posted by: milltom on Dec 17, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is our job, if Barack is elected (and he would be the first to agree), to continue the progressive agenda which we know he supports, but which without our support, he cannot accomplish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: samothrellim Posted by: Thebigkate
» RE: samothrellim Posted by: Bok
Barack Obama
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 17, 2007 3:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barack Obama
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
Barack Obama
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
Obama had a plan
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
To stick it to the man
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
The man's gonna sail
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
On the campaign trail
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
Barack Obama
BLAM-DEE-BLAM
Barack Obama!
BLAM-DEE-BLAM!
[INSERT GUITAR LEAD HERE]

Another keeper from Matt Taibbi who is quickly becomming my favorite political writer. While there is no doubt that an Obama nomination is risky to say the least (Let's face some serious facts here, campers: this is a country that's just chock full of nuts, racists and fools) He has more of a chance (a lot more) of getting elected next November than Hillary Clinton. But as Paul Krugman makes pointedly clear in his column in this morning's New York Times, the man is also, in many key respects, perfectly naive - particularly with his vision for Health Care Reform. He's dreaming if he seriously believes that he'll be able to work out a plan with the help (and assistance!) of the drug lobby.

The next president is in for a serious fight to the death with the corporatocracy that is quickly overtaking our once-great nation. My personal preferences for the nomination would be either John Edwards or Dennis Kucinish. But if Barack is able to pull it off, I'll be more than comfortable (if just a little bit nervous) with him at the top of the ticket.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
IT'S TORTURE, I TELL YA!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Barack Obama Posted by: niliadis
New Tune for Taibbi, "Bloated Shitbags" Beware!
Posted by: gazooks on Dec 17, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! If the Obama persona can convert even the toxic Taibbi from:

"Would Obama be a worse international criminal than Hillary Clinton? My guess is, they'd function identically, as stewards of empire. But an Obama presidency would leave an unindelible impression on the planet: The Blacks of the United States have arrived! They, too, are "ugly Americans.",

to: " if Barack Obama can carry that burden for us, why not let him? Seriously, why not? The happy ending doesn't always have to ring false."

That's the Christmas spirit, Matt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe I'm naive, but he's better than Hillary
Posted by: SufiLizard on Dec 17, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, I think Obama represents the same corporate interests as Hillary, but I still consider him the lesser evil because I think he's still more malleable than Hill.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think the mood for change that Obama is playing on for political gain, may actually end up influencing him if he gets into office. Thom Hartmann is always talking about the "parade" and political creatures will hop out in front of the parade We The People get going and claim to be leading it. I've never bought that argument when it comes to Hillary, but with Obama, I think there may be some truth to Thom's theory.

That being said, I am still an avid Kucinich supporter with Edwards being my top pick of the frontrunners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

michael fiorillo
Posted by: MFiorillo on Dec 17, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it's exciting to think about the possible collapse of the Clinton/DLC wing of the Democratic Party, which gave us many of the deep structural problems we face today - accelerating deindustrialization via NAFTA, parasitic finance capital run amok via repeal of Glass-Steagall, anti-democratic media conglomeration via the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - please keep in mind the following:

- Not to excuse Hillary's support for empire, but Obama's opposition to the War, while refreshing, was a far easier call for what was essentially a local politician; he did not have to face the intense pressures that politicians on the national stage did. Given his votes to continue funding for the war, people should retain a little agnosticism about him.

- If you want to see some evidence of where Obama's votes have materially affected working and middle class Americans,, look at his vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Act,which was essentially written by the banking and credit card industry. As far as I've seen, he's gottten a free ride on this one. It's a shame no one has called him on it, since it's one of the most anti-consumer pieces of legislation in quite a while, and will be seen as such as the credit/mortgage/financial crisis escalates.

I'd urge people to maintain a little healthy skepticism about anyone who's seeking power, especially in this fallen age. The answer is to revive democracy,economic and political, first in our localities, and then on a national stage, and as a consequence force politicians to respond. Excessive expectations of an individual Savior are themselves evidence of future failure and disappointment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: michael fiorillo Posted by: surfreality
» Thank you Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Thank you Posted by: left_libertarian
» Sounds like Anarchy to me Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Can Obama be stopped?
Posted by: defrag on Dec 17, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No. He'll get the nomination and lose narrowly to Huckabee.

As Charlie Brown would say... ARRRRRRGGGGGH!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Can Obama be stopped? Posted by: niliadis
Johanna Moren
Posted by: Johanna Moren on Dec 17, 2007 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He does sound like he could be a good man.
But the President seems to be just a front man in the US. Well practically every where today, except perhaps in a couple of places in Latin America.

Clinton wanted to bring in a health care service, but he couldn't get it through.
America is run by the corporations and the lobbies, it is well known throughout the world. So, what hope would the poor man have of doing anything.

The Americans have been running rough shod over the rest of the world since WW2. Nobody seemed to say very much about it, except a few like Chomsky Said, etc.
Bush has damaged the image of America, that is what the people don't like. But as the saying goes, you get the leader you deserve.

After 9/11 you were all screaming for blood.
No one was allowed to ask the question even,
What have we done to deserve this???
No, innocent, innocent, innocent.
Now, you are trying to blame it all on Bush, after you have gone around the world bullying and exploiting country after country.
If you had have won the war in Irak, you wouldn't have said a thing.

But the myth about America is dead. Once the geni is out of the bottle, you cannot put it back, not this time.

What America needs is a new Political Party, but I guess that will never happen.
you are really a one party country.

50% of the people do not vote. Doesn't that say it all?
We over here in Europe have to put up with all the show over these elections. It is quite sickening,knowing it is not going to make one bit of difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I REALLY want AL GORE, BUT ....
Posted by: lydia cypher on Dec 17, 2007 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Draft Gore movement fails to bring him in ... and YES, it could still happen, don't count him out! - Obama's my choice. But if the Dems persist in the suicidal push for Hillary, WE'RE ALL SCREWED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Certain people... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Obama on the Rise???
Posted by: jlc on Dec 17, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matt's argument for Obama as President is so Naive. When was the last time someone said "I will bring the country together". It never happened except when we were attacked. Nothing else brings this country together. If it's not North Vs. south,,or Red Vs. Blue
States, or Democrats Vs. Republicans, or Black Vs. White or some combination we are a diverse but divded country.

Even our Religions are divided on many issues and our families. So it is Naive for Obama to say he will unite our country. It's a feel good political rhetoric that you hear when you don't have anything else in your tool box. Obama is all talk and no walk.
You can't run this country's Foreign and Domestic Policies on a Hope and a Prayer, and meaningless rhetoric. Matt you do better by uniting your own Mind and Heart because they are divided as well.

Sincerely, John L

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop!
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 17, 2007 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who is this Jr. Senator of two years..Do we really know? I am not confident about voting for him.. Everything is tooooooo quiet.. Republicans want him to win..I wonder why????
No experience and x dopper, who told us so that we would think OH how very hones..No I am not sure..Although I like him, I am just not sure we want to put our ountry in his hands.
Edwards, Clinton and Biden are experienced and
we know who they are/// Concerned voter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop! Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Stop! Posted by: niliadis
» They know... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
what is the matter with you people?
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 17, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this piece with amazement and increasing contempt--felings only intensified by reading the early comments. So now even Matt Taibi has decided to jump on the mass media bandwagon, the Received Wisdom that the only two candidates are Clinton and Obama, BECAUSE they represent the corporations rather than us. There is a real question as to whether running a woman or black man against whatever ancient swamp creature the Republicans put up might be the one way the R's can win--because a significant percentage of the public won't vote for a black, or for a woman and you'd better believe that percentage is higher than the number who will ADMIT to that prejudice. But if either of these candidates represented a real alternative, I'd support them anyway. It's thunderingly obvious that they don't--yet Taibbi wants to pick one, to concede that the American people no longer have the option to choose a candidate to represent US but must let the corporations nominate two candidates, and then we get to select one, on the basis of style.
Please at least tell us they threatened to kneecap your kids to get you to write this drivel, Matt!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Consider the source! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
The Billary Factor
Posted by: mrtshw on Dec 17, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a life-long Arkansan for 64 years ..and counting, thankfully... I voted for Bill Clinton at every opportunity during his Arkansas years and I even attended his inauguaration in January,1993.
Sadly,I regret I did not explore the Clintons more diligently back then.
Had I looked even a little deeper,beneath the tightly controlled local media coverage at that time; I would have discovered their highly questionable morality. My complaints center chiefly from their self-serving hypocrisy which absolutely knows no bounds. As Hillary's duplicity in Bill's deeply ingrained amorality extends far beyond mere "guilt by association", I believe each should be judged, not only by their own actions , but also by the actions of the other. Hillary shares blame equally with Bill's history of dismal Arkansas decisions and should share that blame ...blame for his condoning of the world wide marketing of AIDS/virulent hepatitis tainted blood drawn from Arkansas' prison inmates which continued unabated , despite the profound known risks, throughout the 'Billary' 12-year Arkansas gubernatorial reign (google Factor 8), blame for his turning a blind eye to 15-year-old Janie Ward's murder and subsequent cover up still continuing now decades later (google Janie Ward ); ditto for the murders of 16-year-olds Kevin Ives and Don Henry ( google 'The Boys on the Tracks 'and/or Mara Leveritt ),blame for the atrocious conduct of major associates,e.g. Fahmy Malek M.D. Medical Examiner (google Fahmy Malek).
After Bill Clinton's 1980 upset loss to investment banker, Frank White, following a first term which featured some courageous idealism, 'Billary' defeated White in 1982 by forswearing those ideals and totally allying themselves thereafter with Arkansas' most unsavory Corporate interests. The Clintons never again challenged the gross environmental pollution practices of the Tyson Poultry Industry,never again challenged the Stephens Financial Imperialism, never again challenged the Waltons' gross employment/marketing/vendor bullying, never challenged Arkansas' incredibly inequitable regressive taxation policy,never challenged the blatant racism extant in every fiber of Arkansas' cultural fabric.
When 'Billary' graduated from the Arkansas Statehouse to the Whitehouse, they championed every elitest/globalist program the check signers dictated and sold out the disadvantaged and middle classes they've conned repeatedly for thirty years.
Any serious examination of the Clintons' Arkansas years should derail Hillary's Corporatist ambitions..... if America still represented a just and sane society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Might as well just give the Repubs the election
Posted by: cjohnson44 on Dec 17, 2007 2:12 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if this greenhorn is our pick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marc
Posted by: HeKnew on Dec 17, 2007 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Vote of Confidence Amendment will enable the American voting public to dismiss any elected official who fails in their obligation to serve the people of the United States.

VOCA, now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

personalities of candidates largely irrelevant
Posted by: 16180 on Dec 17, 2007 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It wouldn't matter if the candidate for president were some amalgam of JFK and Ghandi, or some other saintly figure.

The debates over the personalities are just more of the same circus (in the 'bread and circuses' that we, the masses, are kept pacified with). Many people hope and believe that change can really emanate from one man or woman. One charismatic candidate cannot effect change to a system when they operate from within it, front for it, and depend upon it for their political and personal survival. None of the front runners, in this US election or in any that have taken place thus far are anything but corporate lackeys, regardless of what they might profess and promise. The cats are forever promising more cheese to the mice.

Politicians will say pretty much anything to get elected - everyone knows this and yet still the urge remains, apparently, to cluster around some 'leader' who promises what they cannot possibly deliver. Mr. Tabbi seems very taken with Obama - he is deluded, despite his wisdom otherwise.

Obama cannot change the system. If change could be brought into the system by the simple act of electing a new person, then elections would most surely be outlawed.

As an example, James Carter was the system's antidote for disillusionment and anger amongst the masses for the horrors of Watergate, fatigue from the Vietnam War (which the Vietnamese call the American War, naturally enough), and disgust with the old boy network, manifest by Nixon and Ford.

Regardless of what a Carter presidency might have promised, or what virtues were ascribed to Carter, it's plain that under his presidency, which, on the surface was the most 'liberal' in years, nothing much changed in real politic. Under Carter, military budgets swelled, trade unions were squashed, destabilization programs were begun in Afghanistan, etc. Read H. Zinn for more on this topic.

Politics is after all, as someone said, the 'residue of business', in practical terms. The brilliant design of the propaganda system in the west, that of 2-party politics, red vs. blue, 'liberal'. vs. 'conservative', and other simplistic fictions, is that when the populace gets sick of the one group's abuses, then the 'pressure relief valve', the 'election' is there to allow folks to choose the other bunch. Since the paymasters are pretty much the same group of elites, and their business interest, for both Dems and Repugs, it is pure delusion to think that change is going to come from either party.

There are some great people out there in politics. People who have the conviction of their beliefs and who have high ideals. Not many, but there are some. I'm sure Carter is/was a decent guy, but the system will not tolerate someone actually changing anything - at least nothing that will harm the good old bottom line. His hands were tied, as were Clinton's when they tried to reform the health care system. Eisenhower was at least principled enough to decry the 'military-industrial complex' - who among the sanctioned front-runners in this race could you imagine coming out against the same thing? Such truths are seldom uttered any more - image is what counts, and that image, for it to be a positive one, needs the cooperation of the interests that control the media, like General Electric for instance, for a candidate to have any hope of getting anywhere in the grand show.

Kucinich says great stuff, and I like the guys professed values very much, but we all know he'll never get the nomination. I wish it weren't so, I really do. There's no way that Kucinich, being a "commie", is going to be allowed to run the country.

On the Repug side, Ron Paul has some 'progressive' ideas, but it would be truly beyond the pale to imagine that he could do anything to usurp the command-control of the Fed. Very funny!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RESEARCH AND VOTE RESPONSIBLY!!!
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 17, 2007 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barrak Hussein Obama will indeed put burdon on the American People. The man is a 2 year Jr. Senator and he has spent almost 1 year campaigning..Can we really withstand the burden this entails for our country..Lets get serious here..This is important. We need stop, stop, listening to the bashing, we need to be responsible in our vote. We need to research our candidates who has the most experience, who can bring us true hope and true changes, not only the use of words of HOPE & CHANGE but Real hope and change. We can not afford to put our wonderful country in the hands of Mr. Obama. I think my vote will go to Mrs. Clinton, She is uniquely qualified to lead our nation at this time of great challenge. She is the candidate with the strength and experience to restore America's standing in the world and to return the United States to a position of global leadership. Vote REsponsibly
don't listen to the bashing from anyone about any of the candidates..Look at the QUALIFICATIONS and then decide. Vote Responsibly for the most qualified..Its our FUTURE!!!!-MY GOD BLESS AMERICA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ambition?
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 17, 2007 8:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2nd posting-answer and comment! Ambition!!!!
Ambition??What do you call a 2 year Jr. Senator with absolutely no experience, riding on the coat tails of Oprah a Power star to help him thru the threasholds of the White House..This is true Ambition and Irresponsible of both. Lets, just take one example..When Bill
smoked Mariguana you would think he was the criminal of all times, the way the media handled it..Sean Hannity Fox (A bias show host of news)is still at portraying the Clintons in the worse way.. Now Obama, not only smoked mariguana, over indulge in liquor, a cocaine user and on the verge of Heroine. Now all this is OK because he has admitted to it. Now why do you think he admitted to this??? Because he is sooo honest?? I don't think so and neither does any one that has perception. He admitted to this To manipulate us all. Why would he even talk to these High Scholl Kids who are at a sensitive and naive age, about his drug and liquor habits, I don't care if he said he changed. Some Kids are not as lucky to stop because Cocaine is adictive..and now with their wonderful but naive minds will say, Well If Obama did it, I can do it too and stop...Yet the Media has really poo pooed it.. This is just one comparison. WE must do more research instead of reading garbage that the media makes up to hurt candidates. They are bashers. Take Sean Hannity the Republican of all time, who just would die if Hillary should win the nomination. Do you know why, because Obama would be very easy for Republicans to beat, but Mrs. Clinton will be a tough candidate for Republicans to move in. I am not saying to anyone they should Vote for Mrs. Clinton, A vote is something we should all choose the candidate for the experience they have because after all this is our country and our lives it will effect. what I am asking is you consider the sources. Obama's drug use is of his own admittance and he anounced it to high School kids..This is not a basher its a reality..A vote for Obama would be disasterous for our Country at this very challenging times. Do real research not reading trash and bashing from Fox, Sean Hannity or any of these Republicans that are shaking in their boots if Mrs. Clinton should win..They are just holding their breath on this one. If Obama is the chosen one..we might as well have Giuliani or Romney start packing to move in the White House. Do we want another Republican? I really don't Think so..So hold that vote for Obama..Again research the other candidates and decide and vote responsibly. It does us no good to have a candidate that wins the primary and looses the Presidency...Vote Responsibly... Vote for a "BIG" win-My opinion is A vote for Hillary..You choose yours

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ambition? Posted by: Wexler
Barrak H. Obama??????
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 17, 2007 9:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama? who has no experience, who admits to cocaine and over indulgence of liquor and on the verge of heroine? Oh its ok because he admitted this/now why do you think he admitted it? so here we are...someone that admits to drug usage, with no experience, who's name is Barrak Hussein Obama, nice guy, nice guy, almost to nice, but has only been around 2years in the senate with no real accomplishments to qualify him for the most powerful position of our country.. I don't know about you but only fools can vote for this reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marc
Posted by: HeKnew on Dec 17, 2007 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Write a letter to Congress and tell them they're out of a job!

Direct Democracy, now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

niliadis
Posted by: tbone on Dec 18, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
blah, blah, blah...another great example of the failures of this country. If your 3 posts were made up of coherent sentences maybe someone would want to discuss your ignorance.

Now to discuss the topic; Taibbi has been travelling with the circus for quite a while, the fact that he has come away with something positive about ANY of the candidates should be uplifting for all of us.

Unfortunately, I too am a cynic and think that Hillary and Barack were manuevered into this race to give the Rulers of this country a shot at a real empire. Its time to face reality, none of the middle class is going to buck the system, we have too much to lose. If anyone can point me to a group like the 12 monkeys, I am game...at this point our children have one hope: Aliens/god come and destroy every person who has lusted after money and power. Those of us left over could focus on educating the generations to come about things like farming, water conservation, and compassion...without which the human race will become extinct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

niliadis is a CLINTON Campaign worker/TROLL
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Dec 18, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After having read through the postings of niliadis, I can come to only one conclusion, niliadis is a CLINTON Campaign worker/TROLL.

Scrutinize the postings, there is a rather clever use of improper spelling, grammer et al within the text when talking about any candidate with the EXCEPTION of CLINTON when the writer miraculously finds a semblence of spelling, sentence structure, syntax and lack of homonym errors, AMAZING.

That's not to say that niliadis doesn't throw a few bones out to throw off the "stink" of a planted campaign worker trying to smack talk on a blog.

niliadis I hope you really are a Democrat and not just some huckster paid to troll and POST on Blogs for HILLARY's Campaign. Because if you were to cross the picket lines in Hollywood, your chance at being a scab at the writing game, judging from your failed attempt at deception here? nil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tujague
Posted by: Tujague on Dec 19, 2007 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about Obama's membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago which has several tenets including one that says the congregation has a non negotiable commitment to Africa. What does that mean? What if it was a commitment to Israel or a country on unfavorable terms with the U.S.? I find this disturbing. Comments please!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Africa is not a country! Posted by: pstinchcombe
Here's why not Obama
Posted by: pstinchcombe on Dec 20, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, representations can be powerful, and there is something nice in the fact that Obama represents our desire for change. But when the policy doesn't match the rhetoric, our votes for Obama just teach the DNC that they can sell us on a big lie. Find the right face of change, and the change doesn't matter.

To hell with Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it OK for Obama...
Posted by: niliadis on Dec 20, 2007 11:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to have taken drugs and everyone just gives the blind eye..We are not taking about a little marijuana..We are talking about Hard Liguore and hard drugs Like Cocaine and on the verge of Heroine (By his own words)..He did Admit to this so that makes it OK..Well did he think it would be a secret?? No this is just a manipulation so that we all say Oh poor guy he is honest..Well he is not honest because he does not have the qualifications to be our president, so to me it is arrogance and very disturbing how far his ambition goes. We are in crucial times and we can not afford to put our beloved country in the hands of a 2 year Jr. Senator with no experience where necessary. This is our country and our future. We must vote responsibly, there is to much at risk to count on someone that offers hope and change..These are not just words. You need to know how to give us hope and I don't mean just talking about it. We need experience to give us change and I don't mean 2 years (out of which almost 1 year on the campaign trail) as a Jr. Senagor and the coat tails of Oprah..(Watch out Michelle)..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brutus? Cassius? Et tu, Taibbi
Posted by: treebore on Dec 22, 2007 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Emphasizing that this is not necessarily a reflection of who or what Obama really is, he unmistakably and strikingly attracts crowds that, to a person, really seem to believe that his election will fundamentally change the way they feel about their country.

Is the best politicial journalist in America trying to qualify for Wimblehack? Read Obama's horrifying article in Foreign Affairs. for some notion of his true agenda. His highest priority is expanding the US military and he supports using military force "in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]