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.

I'm Tired of Being Cool -- Understanding My Love Affair With Barack Obama

By Michael Bader, AlterNet. Posted March 6, 2008.


Obama has reintroduced hope, possibility, meaning, and community back into public life. No wonder he inspires hero worship.

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

More stories by Michael Bader

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I love Barack Obama. I love to listen to him talk. His victory speeches after Iowa and South Carolina gave me chills. I haven't felt that way about a politician since I worked for Bobby Kennedy in 1968. I haven't felt that way about someone's oratory since hearing Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. I found myself thinking: "If they try to steal his nomination at the convention, I'm flying to Denver to demonstrate." I haven't felt that way in decades either. I should have felt that way when they stole the election from Gore in 2000, but I didn't. And I don't even think Obama's positions are that great. He's weak on health care, panders on Israel, and usually sounds like the type of mainstream liberal that I hate. I don't care, though. He speaks to my heart and I feel inspired and moved by his emphasis on community, meaning, and responsibility.

But I'm aware of something else, too. I'm a bit embarrassed by loving Obama -- unless, of course, I couch my support in hard-nosed political calculations, e.g. he's better equipped to beat McCain, he can bring people into the political process and energize our movement, or he can create a political space where progressives can organize. But these are objective calculations and analyses about others and don't reflect my emotional identification with and response to Obama. These latter feelings make me uncomfortable. I feel like one of the herd. I think I'll be viewed as naïve. I worry that my progressive friends will see me as hero-worshiping and, for some reason, that seems immature and slightly neurotic. And all of this is in addition to being bombarded with media coverage frequently raising critiques of Obama as superficial and his followers so smitten they swoon like girls getting their first look at the Beatles.

I became curious about this embarrassment I felt. If one of my patients in psychotherapy evinced such discomfort, I would assume that it has some deeper, probably unconscious, source. What's the source of my discomfort adoring Barack Obama?

When I was young, my father used to make fun of our neighbors. Their crime was that they seemed to spend a lot of time together on the weekends. To my father -- and, consequently, to the rest of our family -- this was pretty ridiculous. Why would a family want to hang around together? My father certainly didn't; he was an alcoholic who was disconnected from his family. He was a man who lived in his head and never expressed longing or love for others. I grew up prone to feeling embarrassed about my own and others' needs for family intimacy. Uncomfortable with open-hearted expressions of love, I became clever and sarcastic and felt a private disdain for those who were too open about it. I became cynical.

It's easy to see here that my cynicism was a defense, one with which psychotherapists are very familiar. As a child, when one's desire or need for something is rejected, one develops the unconscious belief that he or she is not supposed to desire or need it. The reality of its absence is not only normal, but moral. It's not just that we normalize the emotional reality of our childhoods -- we make "what is" into "what's supposed to be." For example, in my case, it wasn't just that familial love and pleasure wasn't normal; it was that my incipient desire for it was wrong and ridiculous.

Because, of course, I didn't give up my desire altogether. Like everyone else, love was something that I wanted and needed. What happened was that my need and desire for it became dangerous. It violated an unconscious prohibition. It threatened me with being ridiculed or shamed. Safety -- psychic safety -- was to be found in cynicism.

The same dynamics were true when it came to hero-worship. It's normal for kids to want and need to idealize their parents. As we grow up, we never completely give up this need and, in fact, we often put our idealizations to good use in seeking out mentors, coaches, and teachers. In my case, I tried my damnedest to safely idealize my father but his detachment and rejection made that impossible. I grew up not only prone to be disappointed with male authorities but to feel embarrassed by my wish to admire one. It didn't seem cool. One shouldn't be taken with fame, right? It's a bit demeaning. Ultimately, I became cynical about that, too. If I was with a famous person I'd try to either ignore him or her or interact in a way that didn't reflect a shred of awe or admiration. It was important to seem cool.

Except cool in the present political context really means cynical. Cool means that we're not in love with Obama; we just think he's a strong candidate. Cool means that we're not like my childhood neighbors who love to connect with one another; we're just excited by the fact that Obama is bringing disenchanted voters back into the system on election day. Cool means that we don't ourselves relate to him as a rock star; we're just impressed that he can generate that type of enthusiasm in others. Masquerading behind a veneer of "objectivity," television commentators have their own version of cool; they discuss the "Obama phenomenon" and never admit that they, themselves, might be moved. They accept the frame of "form vs. content," "poetry vs. prose," "words over actions," and weigh in to announce that one or the other is winning in the presidential horserace. Listen sometime to George Stephanopolous's roundtable with burned-out talking heads like Cokie Roberts, George Will, and E.J. Dionne, and one is drenched with their cynicism. The subtext is always: "we're not a part of this phenomenon ... we're wry, amused, and objective analysts of it ... we've seen it all ... we're not ever that impressed with anyone ... " These folks are cool, that's for sure. And no one is cooler than David Brooks of the N.Y. Times who obviously fell in love with Obama initially but then felt compelled recently to write an article mocking the revival-tent antics of the Obamamaniacs.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, clinton, obama

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:
Thank you
Posted by: foreverhope on Mar 6, 2008 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a lovely piece. The hope and voter participation Barack inspires is the icing on an already wonderful cake.

It is VERY cool to keep hope alive.

Yes we can.

OBAMA '08 FOR CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN

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

» RE: Thank you Posted by: jimidee
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Shadowtheweak
Obama is a joke
Posted by: Blink on Mar 6, 2008 2:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's a charlatan and a congenital socialist, and his preacher-style delivery of public speaking is grating. His wife is an ugly, bitter person with a redwood-sized chip on her shoulder.

A lot of people are going to be embarrassed for swooning over him as though he's some sort of secular messiah once the MSM stop giving him a pass as they've done so far and his thin skin and naivity are revealed (witness his angrily walking out when pressed about his association with Rezko). He's not going to get the nomination, but it's going to be ugly for the Dems, and deservedly so for not checking him out better for falling in love with "Hope" and "Change."

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

» RE: Obama is a joke Posted by: Luther Blissett
» RE: Obama is a joke Posted by: moose_indian
» Jealousy... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: Jealousy... Posted by: Blink
» RE: Jealousy... Posted by: kimbari
» RE: Jealousy... Posted by: Blink
» RE: Jealousy... Posted by: Longdream
» RE: Jealousy... Posted by: Blink
» Rush Limbaugh graduate Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: ush Limbaugh graduate Posted by: Blink
» RE: Obama is a joke Posted by: g50
» Indeed! Posted by: JoAnne
» Yes, indeed! Posted by: JoAnne
» Obama is actually right-wing Posted by: drcyflowers
McPain Hilliary 08!
Posted by: williameon on Mar 6, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's the Difference?

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

» RE: McPain Hilliary 08! Posted by: astralman
» The difference is Posted by: meetmeineleusis
"And I don't even think Obama's positions are that great."
Posted by: Centavo on Mar 6, 2008 3:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's weak on health care, panders on Israel, and usually sounds like the type of mainstream liberal that I hate.

I want to see change as much as anyone, but this is exactly why I'm not buying into Obama's line. If he wins the Obamanation, some of us are going to have an Obamanable hangover.

Guaranteed.

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

I, Too, Overcame
Posted by: Sputnik57 on Mar 6, 2008 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my cynicism harbored since the RFK tragedy, and lived to tell about it for my fellow Born-Again Hippies.
"The Dawn"
linked text

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

» RE: I, Too, Overcame Posted by: Verjenie
» Slick Hilly Posted by: Sputnik57
Barack Obama is a natural leader.
Posted by: greentime on Mar 6, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not trust McCain, I do not trust Hillary.
Both represent a failed past to me and both represent a betrayal of the people of this country. they also represent more war and more destruction.

The thought of Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse with little to officially do is equally chilling.

So for the first time in my adult life, I have decided that if Barack Obama is not there to vote for, I will not vote.

If the people want Barack Obama and we are denied, we will have to continue to kearn a hard lesson until we stand up for what we truly want. It IS about change.

And yes, what does happen to a dream deferred?

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

HOPE FOR WHAT????
Posted by: KAEL on Mar 6, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bless your wind. I admit to not being up to the full length of your article but I wanted to address the assertion that BO can beat JM. He can't, and for many reasons.

One, Americans vote right down the middle politically. Obama is not a centrist. He is a leftist on the American poltical spectrum.

Two, Americans are practical. We didn't knowingly take a lot of risks with national security pre 9/11. We'll take less post 9/11. Hilary is teflon on national security and on health care. Barak has no record on either.

Three, Americans are middle and working class. The Obamas are poster children for the over educated, over self indulgent me-me-me generation. The former group does not expect the average American to be overtly patriotic but they do expect the next Commander in Chief and his wife to be tastefully so. Anyone who had a problem with the French in 2003 will have a big problem with Euro-Michelle's statements and with BO taking off his US flag lapel pin while running for President.

Perusing your article was like sitting through a bad Wood Allen movie where the upper class just can't get outside themselves. I bet you don't need health care insurance. You buy just what you want and need. Only the Dems (led by racist blacks and the Kennedys in dire need of relevance) would be so stupid as to take out a winning quarterback in the last hour of a successful 8 year drive up the field - and put in an unknown second stringer with 'charisma'. I would say we deserve what we get but we don't. We deserve universal health care. We are getting a long season of American Idol runs for President.

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

» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: left_libertarian
» She Voted No on Wiretapping! Posted by: Verjenie
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: cause4paws
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: dave16
» How about a better tomorrow? Posted by: Gungneir
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: jareilly
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: Redphilly
» RE: HOPE FOR WHAT???? Posted by: Longdream
The Fourth Paragraph
Posted by: jtn960 on Mar 6, 2008 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with almost everything in this article. The author points out the same shortcomings I have with Obama. But, admittedly, I swoon like all the rest.

What struck me as funny was a confirmation. Throughout my life, I've never gone to "recommended" counselling ever and it was because I already knew what the counselor was going to say. "There is some problem between you and your father."

The author here used the same line. His agony is based on his dysfunctional father. Apparently all men have dysfucntional fathers of one sort or another. And all counselors are taught in Counselling 101 to use that as a first response for their patients.

My dad, an old-fashioned economic Republican, former Army guy with now-pacifist leanings, isn't happy with his choices in this year's election and he certainly isn't happy with mine either.

Hope Springs Eternal.

jtn960, Louisville, Kentucky

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

give peace a chance - an outside chance
Posted by: solrev on Mar 6, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama brings one thing to the table that the other candidates and that is a chance for peace. Obama may practice what he preaches. It would be so easy for an American president to not only exit Iraq but leave a stable Iraq behind. Just talk to the people that live there and let them be who they are, we might even find out that they are just like us. The terrorists that the dogs of war keep trying to scare you with to keep you in line are a minority; just like the dogs of war are a minority in our land. Sure there are maniac Muslims, but your kid is more likely to be killed in school by one of our own maniacs than a Muslim. You are more likely to be killed in a mall by one of our own maniacs than a Muslim. Muslims are fighting for political power in their lands. We have given Iran the chance to stabilize the region. Our only choice now is invade Iran or talk to Iran. Before we destroyed their democracy they were just like us.

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

The Problem With Hero Worship
Posted by: ritadona69 on Mar 6, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now I'm not ready to say that having heroes is a bad thing, but what the myth of the hero is supposed to do is to provide us with insight into our own best qualities, the ones that are inherent in each of us. No one person, including Barack Obama, is going to fix all of our problems--in fact, I seriously doubt, if he gets in the White House, he's going to fix a significant amount of them. The next president is going to inherit a mountain's worth of mess up, and he or she may just do well to dig this country out of one or two.

I just really hope that the American people can still remain objective and, yes, hard-nosed about who they hire to be our next leader. I don't think that that's cynicism, I think that's common sense. Get excited, yes, but don't be blinded. Each one of us can make a difference, and we shouldn't need Barack Obama or any of the other candidates, for that matter, to do that which we should be taking responsibility for doing ourselves.

Don't forget that a lot of people voted for Bush, Jr. for a lot of the same reasons people are now saying that they are voting for Obama. Scary.

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

» RE: The Problem With Hero Worship Posted by: moose_indian
» RE: The Problem With Hero Worship Posted by: bittershaman
gemajabe
Posted by: gemajabe on Mar 6, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are electing someone to run the country during a very difficult time in history. You and many others have let charisma and misogany trump competence and experience. Your piece belongs in a self-help book.

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

» RE: gemajabe Posted by: kimbari
» MISOGYNY, ROTTEN WOOD Posted by: Verjenie
The "Heroic" 3:00am Phone Call!
Posted by: moose_indian on Mar 6, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary was in the White House now and received that 3:00am phone call about Columbia and Ecuador and Venezuela, she would have continued the same stupid Bush doctrine of military escalation when what we clearly need is strong international diplomacy here.

We have our first "hypothetical" in the Columbia incident, and Hillary and McCain both miserably fail. Obama has already called for international diplomacy.

Hillary has clearly postured herself as the hero to beat McCain hero: She fancies herself "a fighter" and had demonstrated time and again that she will jump to military escalation before diplomacy.

The problem, of course, is that it is the media and all of us (the echoing, chattering public) have repeatedly described Obama's campaign in terms of Hero Worship and empty optimism--which are all talking points they get from the Clinton campaign!

Hillary's supporters are no less "heroic" about her campaign, and McCain IS the "Great American War Hero" of our times. Hero worship, in its most reprehensible forms, is all over the political spectrum.

What is too often missed, though, is that Obama has from the beginning insisted that the campaign is about empowering us and mobilizing the people to make the change. Obama, more than any of the other candidates, calls on us to be the agents of change--and this gesture on his part is the most honest gesture yet.

Obama's campaign slogan is "Yes WE can!" but the Hillary camp has appropriated (we dare not say "plagiarized") it into "Yes SHE can!" The difference between the "WE" of Obama and the "She" of Clinton is quite clear: The Hero worship belongs to Clinton (even if it is Tina Fey's strange heroism of "bitch") more than it belongs to Obama.

The talking heads of corporate punditry call it hero worship, and so we all become talking heads ourselves and perpetuate this myth.

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

Yes I have!
Posted by: EvilPoet on Mar 6, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been inspired many times by the Obama campaign. I find the Obam-phenom to be quite irritating which inspires me to say: "Yes I Can - tune it all out!"

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

» RE: Yes I have! Posted by: jimidee
» RE: Yes I have! Posted by: oneflgal42
A PRO-WAR RECORD- Part One
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 6, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A PRO-WAR RECORD

Then there’s the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many “progressives” seem to need to believe) an “antiwar” candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial “war on [and of] terror” of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part?

Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama’s U.S. Senate voting record:

“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”

“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”

“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture...[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”

“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”

“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]”

“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W].”

“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W].”

“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W].”

“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]”

“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W].”

“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W].”

“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W].”


More here:
linked text

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

A PRO-WAR RECORD- Part Two
Posted by: chlamor on Mar 6, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W].”

“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]”

“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]”

“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W].”

“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].

9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]”

“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W].”

“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W].”

“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]”

“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”

Obama’s intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel’s campaign to marginalize “peaceniks” within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).

In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” and made repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency.” This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).

Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).

And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007).
linked text

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

» RE: A PRO-WAR RECORD- Part Two Posted by: justaperson
Another psychologist
Posted by: Sandy Lillie on Mar 6, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this very honest and accurate analysis.

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

OK I ADMIT IT!- I HAVE A CRUSH ON HILLARY!
Posted by: drricklippin on Mar 6, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love her smile and I love her laugh(they are indeed genuine!)

But mostly I love her intelligence,her strength,her wisdom born of experience and maturity,her values and her courage!

Unlike many men I know I do not have a problem at all with strong women. I love them!!

Hillary is the real thing!

Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

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

My Perspective...
Posted by: dave16 on Mar 6, 2008 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please see www.discussrace.com

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

So what you're saying is...
Posted by: Fishbone Soldier on Mar 6, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...inspiration is a legitimate and worthwhile feeling. I think in recent weeks the media has pushed Barack off his game and the discourse in public has gotten away from the crux of his campaign. He is trying to change the political landscape. If anything, that's how his campaign faltered in the leadup to Ohio and Texas.

Inspiration has to be legitimate. Otherwise, we're left with which attack ad we believe. I began this political season inspired. I was inspired by Dennis Kucinich - his honesty and devotion to what he believes is truly best for America and all Americans. But by the time voting in my state took place, he had dropped out, and I had been won over by Obama. I wasn't won over by his eloquence, though of course that didn't hurt. I was moved by his call for honesty and accountability - two things that we haven't seen in the white house for a very long time. Corruption and lies have done more damage than anything else over the last seven - heck, twenty years. I have long wanted a candidate whose biggest plank in the platform was changing this culture, and, say what you want about Obama, it's his main point.

This column was a very unique take. I just realized that in these comments, I am being "too cool." OK, I'll admit that after South Carolina, I got a bit emotional about the speech as well. Happy now?

Fight the Youth

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

someone could probably psychoanalyze you for painting everyone who isn't smitten with obama as...
Posted by: happyhermit on Mar 6, 2008 7:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"too-cool-for-school" nonconformists. there are actually plenty of reasons not to be inspired by Obama. for me, i'm unable to be inspired by someone's rhetoric when it's full of lies, just as many lies as hillary, mccain, gore, bush, other clinton, and pretty much any presidential candidate who has felt they need to calibrate themselves in such a way to create broad-based and vague appearences that they are probably doing something good that most people think (but not too hard) that they agree with. it's not cynicism, it's standard politics with an exoticized personal narrative tossed in and artful speechwriters who paint the globe with sweeping Biblical topography: from the green hills of vermont to the plains of iowa...

if it makes me cool to be wary of this then i am damned cool. but the fact is obama doesn't reflect my political views at all, and I deeply beleive that his "liberal" policies of continued militarism and imperialism will lead to the destruction of us and our planet. Martin Luther King, whose language obama liberally pilfers in the form of decontextualied, sanitized nostalgia, would certainly not approve.

this article should have stuck with the 1t person, as in the title. if you want to whip our the freudian shit please don't extend it to all of "us." "We" may not (and in my case, certainly are not), motivated by the same forces you are.

and i embrace the premise you reject as cynical contrarian coolness: i'm not inspired by him, not out of stubbornness but out of a commonsense recognition that campaigning can inspire a musical (and temporary) overexageration of the divinity of the idol, but if YOU and others are inspired by him, then strategically this is probably good for me. this is a perfectly legitmate position and if you consider it elitist then you need to dig a little deeper into uprooting some further insecurities that dwell in the primordial waters of your consciousness, instead of insulting everyone else who is not so smitten.

i am an overly-emotional human being and a hopeless romantic. i fall in love far too often and know it's ridiculous and do it anyway. but i'll pine for hemmingway or ginsberg if i want inspiration, not a political figment conjured by a desperate american imagination. that is, unless obama actually DOES something...

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

» same goes for everyone Posted by: happyhermit
» same goes for everyone Posted by: happyhermit
» same goes for everyone Posted by: happyhermit
» same goes for everyone Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: same goes for everyone Posted by: Longdream
» yea i know Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: dammit! Posted by: Longdream
Obama does nothing for me
Posted by: tbpmom56 on Mar 6, 2008 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it is because I did grow up in a "poor" family and maybe because I truly idolized my father who worked hard as a Postal supervisor and then would come home and work on the car, or work on the broken washing machine, or maybe the yard, etc,etc. And when he wasn't fixing something at home, he was over at our church either ushering a Mass, serving on the Council, or running the St Vincent's DePaul Society. I would help him deliver food baskets to the neighborhood poor in the 60's and we often had people knock on our door wanting a handout, and my father would help them even though my mother was sometimes not pleased as she knew she still had to feed and clothe her brood of 8.
I had a hero. He did lots of good and he did it in a very quiet, humble way. Rest in peace dear Dad.
Hillary all the WAY!!!
PS--My dad was a die-hard Democrat!

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

» THANK YOU Posted by: kimbari
» A little of both! ;) Posted by: kimbari
Running the Government
Posted by: Southern Gal on Mar 6, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are engaged in a campaign to select our next president. This is not a television show, and it's certainly not a popularity contest. Large evangelical style movements make me nervous. I'm trying to look at the potential government excutive Obama and his policies to determine my vote. The hoopla around him distracts me and makes me wonder if he's the fad of the day. Yes I'm cynical about politicians and understand that they are human beings operating within a system of government that has been weakened by corporate control and incompetence. Change takes time and hard work. The policies put in place will be with us longer than the politicians who must vacate the office after eight years. I think that Obama or Clinton are much better choices than John McCain. We don't need a Republican pandering to the right wing to appoint more Supreme Court justices in the next eight years. We don't need more deregulation of government regulatory agencies and installation of political hacks in positions of responsibility to further weaken the running of this country. We don't need "cut taxes for the top one percent of the citizens" to push this country over the edge with the economy. We don't need to be spending our resources on never ending war and occupation of other countries. We as a country have been so damaged by Republican rule that we must get a Democrat in the White House. We all need to think about the seriousness of the issues facing us and the importance of our vote.

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

Separate elections
Posted by: Geonomist on Mar 6, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ideally, there'd be separate elections, a track for emotional people who need to hero-worship and a track for rational people who'd actually set policy. People could cross over, depending on mood -- or maybe the alignment of the stars.

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

» RE: Separate elections Posted by: g50
» Ideally Posted by: foreverhope
Trixie
Posted by: Trixie on Mar 6, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the more astute pundits, reflecting upon the state of American politics over the last several years, recently remarked in a throw-away line that the poetry had all gone out of it. That may appear to be a strange metaphor, but it is, in fact, very apt. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the nature of poetry and the effect it has on the human spirit.
Unlike prose, which more often than not merely describes and relates, a poem – a real poem – means. It cuts through the superficial to the essence of things. It reaches into where we live, jolting into acute awareness a sudden recognition of our own inner being. “Yes!” we say to the poet. “Yes, that is exactly how I feel too! You have found me out and opened this bond between us that validates who I am, and who I am is no longer alone in the universe!” Put another way, poetry is a spark that lights a candle within us, illuminating the darkness that was isolation, revealing assets and potentials of which we had previously been ignorant and connecting us to kindred souls.
Following the deaths of Martin Luther King, of John and Bobby Kennedy and the defeat of Eugene McCarthy, those of us who had been summoned by them to greater heights of personal endeavor by the vision of loftier goals than had previously been set for our generation were thrust back by the forces of prosaic business as usual. That is not to say progress wasn’t subsequently made in some areas, but it came without a sense of triumph and pride, for it rode in on the coattails of sheer expediency and pragmatism, achieved not as an expression of right prevailing over wrong, but as a means to what often became selfish and even nefarious ends.
Jesus is alleged to have said that perfect love casts out all fear. Who has not witnessed the truth of this? Men have faced the most daunting obstacles and dangers for the women they love, mothers for their children. Such displays of courage are by no means limited to these commonplace examples. When people speak of being inspired, as many among the young are now inspired by Barack Obama, what they’re expressing is his capacity for casting out of them their fear to act, their fear of failing, their fear of censure, their fear of revealing who they are. This is the “romance” of politics that has been missing for so long: that unspoken but powerful attraction between a leader who is loved and those eager to prove themselves worthy of implementing the causes he promotes.
In the cause lies the nitty-gritty, and it is, of course, essential. But there is nothing to suggest that Obama does not have a firm grasp of all that involves. What he lends to the mundane details of forging policies and putting them into action with what may well be painful effort is the difference between doing a job grudgingly merely to earn a living and doing it joyfully with a sense of fulfillment and pride.
I am happy for our nation’s youth, happy that they have been given this opportunity to identify themselves with something nobler than partisanship and narrow self-interest. The truly great leader is the one who leaves us with smiles on our faces, not with our fists in the air; who stirs us
to jubilation, not anger; and who defeats his enemies by treating them like friends.

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

» RE: Trixie Posted by: Longdream
gabrielle
Posted by: chloe08 on Mar 6, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this post. I read your article on Znet. It is one of the most comprehensive background checks on Obama I have read so far. Nearly a year has past since it was researched and lots more can be added.

Just on the topic of nuclear energy:

On nuclear energy: On Sunday, February 5, the New York Times featured a front page article which pointed out that Senator Obama made false claims during a campaign debate. When it came to light that millions of gallons of radioactive tritium were contaminating the groundwater in a high density residential areas in Illinois, a constituency of community organizers pressured their senator to sponsor regulation of the nuclear industry. Obama purports to have passed legislation in the Senate to require better public disclosure about nuclear plant leaks. In truth, under pressure from Exelon, the offending nuclear giant, Senator Obama watered down referenced legislation by removing the mandate for prompt and mandatory reporting of nuclear leaks. The bill never passed.
Senator Obama is the principal recipient of money from the nuclear industry, followed by Senator Clinton. Exelon Corp., the largest nuclear utility in the country, is the second largest contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign, after financial services company UBS per opensecrets.org. Since 2003, Exelon Corp, based in Illinois, has contributed at least $227,000 to Sen. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for President. John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s lobbying arm, based in Washington DC. Barack Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. We all know that politics is a game of compromise. Frankly, I am more troubled by Senator Obama’s misrepresentation of the Exelon issue than his role in emasculating the protective legislation he initially sponsored.
Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants which generate 48% of the state’s power. Obama has stated that he “doesn’t believe any state should be burdened with storing the waste from others as long as the state has a storage site to deal with its own waste.” The implications for Yucca Mountain remain ambiguous. Both candidates were conspicuously silent on the nuclear issue during their recent campaign sweep through Utah. Senator Obama’s ties to the nuclear industry make him vulnerable to attacks from Republican candidates and criticisms from anyone interested in a sustainable green economy. The Obama energy plan contains none of the alternative energy initiatives that are incorporated in both the Clinton and Edwards proposals. And yes, once again those candidates who had viable critiques about the cost, safety risks, proliferation issues and unresolved storage of waste, were excluded from the debate.

I don’t feel the need to recap Obama’s latest bout of dissembling about his promises re NAFTA.

Are things so desperate that we will abandon reason and good sense to protrate ourselves in front of the next self proclaimed Messiah? If we really care about peace, justice and the environment, it will take a little more commitment and risk on our part.

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

Too bad it's all built on sand...
Posted by: form516 on Mar 6, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
funny - I heard this commontator on NPR quote someone else yesterday and I immediatey thought of the Obomabots: "Cynicism is often the shame-faced product of inexperience."
The Obomabots will, one way or another, soon be turned into the most cynical lot we have witnessed yet. Honestly, I hate to see them being set up like this. So many of them are just kids.

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

I hope...that people will grow up
Posted by: vangogh69 on Mar 6, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's touching how moved people get by the words "hope" and "change," especially when they signify nothing concrete. People are projecting so much onto this young senator that they will, I fear, find themselves sorely dissappointed with his presidency should it occur.

Obama is pro-war (though he's these days posturing as otherwise...as some would say, "keep it real"); he's pro big business; he's pro-globalization (which means he's against workers really and supports the world-wide race to the bottom); and he's an equivocator. People are right to want a true progressive candidate, but Obama's not it. Remember folks: Vietnam occured under a Democrat's administration and the US prison population exploded under Clinton. Just sayin'.

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

Yes we can......Yes we can what?
Posted by: Shadowtheweak on Mar 6, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What change is Obama going to bring? He's obviously been groomed by the elite and is supported by some of the wealthiest people in the world (the 2nd richest man in the world being one of them). Do you really think they're investing in "change"? I can't believe so many people are so easily swooned by this puppet. He manages to speak without saying anything, I still don't know what he's actually trying to change or what he even stands for.

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

» RE: Yes we can......Yes we can what? Posted by: wearesilhouettes
Barack Obama is in politics/marketing
Posted by: pdecarlo on Mar 6, 2008 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To think these politician are doing anything but reading Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation is ridiculous.

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

Swooning psychoanalyist
Posted by: Knot_Rich on Mar 6, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what we have here is someone who is supposedly highly educated and places himself in a position to analyize others admitting he's swooning over empty rheteroic with visions of sugar plums. I bet this guy would be great for a lot of money when the hat is passed around at a southern tent revival. What we're seeing happen here is people basing their decisions about who they want as our next leader on manipulated emotions instead of facts and common sense. If you're looking for a husband or wife, this criteria might be a good start. When you're looking for the person who will be taking the reins of the largest economic and military power on the planet and steer us out of some deep ruts, maybe we need to get beyond the butterflies and chills and do some serious evaluating. I guarantee you, the vast majority of the people across the planet will not share the same feelings of infatuation. Well, with 57% of democrats believing Hillary would be stronger in defense, putting Obama at the bottom of the list when considering our national security, maybe Osama might be getting a few butterflies. It's not just us weighing the candidates and deciding who would best serve their goals.
Now that the gravy train seems to have been derailed hopefully we can get over the love affair and see whether he really has what it takes to do the job. "We can do it, yes we can" is for toy makers and children, when applying for a serious job we should require a strong resume.
Just a note, if Hillary is ready in a suit, makeup and a necklace to a