Saturday, June 7, 2008

HISTORIC

It’s not gonna be easy. The rightwingers, including the ones who comment on this blog, are going to throw so many lies and distortions at this guy, and the media will step all over themselves, as they already have, to let McCain off the hook on his flip flops and mistakes and “misstatements” and support of junior, then jump on the Fox bandwagon every time the rightwing makes up a claim or blows something out of proportion.

But it’s still so historic that right now I don’t care. Including Hilary’s speech today supporting Obama and pointing out the changes their campaigns have already brought about, if only to prove to the faint hearted and doubters that an awful lot of people in this country are ready for change.

Watching her speech I was moved, no matter how much she and her campaign disappointed me over the past several weeks and more, because what her candidacy stands for, and most of what she said, is moving. When my mother was young. God rest her soul, women couldn’t vote, as Hilary pointed out. When I was young, African Americans weren’t able to vote in much of the South, much less go to a restaurant or movie theater etc. down there, and up here there were only a hand full of black politicians.

The rightwingers get all teary eyed over the flag, sometimes the Confederate flag, and a kind of patriotism that often doesn’t include a lot of the rest of us, especially if we don’t agree with them. And when some of us get teary eyed over the prospect of this country finally getting beyond race and gender and all the other categorizing that diminishes our potential to be the country of the future we now and then have been, they call us “America haters” and worse.

But there’s no going back.

Though even if Obama wins, the rightwingers won’t go gently into that good night, they will do everything they can to make an Obama administration fail (as they did Carter and tried to Clinton) but they can’t change the historic reality of this moment.

And though sometime in the future, when it will be commonplace to see African-Americans and Hispanics and Asians and all the other categories that exist or have been made up, and of any gender, running for president and winning, there will be Republicans that will try to pretend that they were a part of and even started this trend, but we’ll know better.

Meanwhile, don’t let them get away with disparaging Obama and all he stands for and has accomplished, including inspiring an entire generation to get involved in politics and fill them with hope that their time has come (as JFK did for many of us and RFK was doing when he was cut down, a comparison rightwingers will dismiss because the kind of inspiration Obama delivers threatens their longheld belief in getting and holding power no matter the cost to the rest of us).

23 comments:

AlamedaTom said...

Amen brother!

Along with your sage observations, let me add one other thing:

It has already become apparent to the right wing conservatives that a huge groundswell of support will crest for Obama in November. And, the tricks used by Bush Co. will no longer work because most people are now wise to them, and Obama will teach the rest. Hence, the ONLY way they can win is to disenfranchise voters. You can already see it happening in Indiana requiring ID to vote that many poor people simply do not possess. And, conservatives in other states are trying to enact laws that will require voters to prove that the are US citizens before they can vote. Of course along with this will be actual election fraud, which the right has no compunction about using -- rigging electronic voting machines, "caging," and the like. I am sure Obama's shrewd campaign is hip to this, and that along with registering voters, they will assist voters in obtaining the necessary documents to vote. Nevertheless,we must turn out such huge majorities that all of this will be moot.

~ Tom

Another Lally said...

I always enjoy your political posts. They are usually so one sided and short-sighted that they are funny.

This election is truly historic, I agree. Members of social classes whom have never been viable candidates have become so since the 2000 campaign. This year we have one of those representatives in Obama.

It's a shame that Powell decided against running in 2000 because the country would have embraced him. Condi Rice could have easily walked into the nomination this go round but decided against running. Richarson, Obama, Giulliani and Hillary all changed the face of the viable candidates in the presidential campaign.

What we are left with is two bumbling candidates committing verbal gaffs giving major fodder to the political pundits. Two candidates who support the Cap and Trade program offerred by the Japaneese in the 70's when they first started screaming about Global Warming. Two candidates who support the expansion of nuclear power throughout the country. Two candidates who support the war in Afghanistan and quietly know that they will not withdraw from Iraq. Two candidates who have no plan to create new jobs and preserve existing jobs for the American worker. Two candidates who see government programs as the answer to any ills that exist in the nation and throughout the world.

No lies will or need to be made up about either candidate. They are both horribly flawed. One promises the world while the other promises to continue on the downward spiral to third worldism that globalization is leading us into.

I always get a chuckle at the notion that the Democrats are the great Civil Rights champions. The party of slavery and segregation now claims the mantle of moral superiority. I think back to JFK and his revelations on the campaign trail that children in this country go to bed hungry and blacks were badly treated second class citizens in the South caused him to endorse policies more akin to the GOP. (Tax cuts and Civil Rights to name two) It would be funny were it not so sad.

No need to speak about voter disenfranchisement, Obama used that same policy in Chicago to eliminate his rivals.

I think the only positive that will come out of this election, no matter who wins, is that the Democrats who have been masquerading as Republicans and Conservatives will take off their masks. (Bloomberg has already done so.)

God bless America. We sure need it at this time in our history.

harryn said...

dear other - glad to see your genes kept your humor alive - though i'm much less hopeful about your take on reality ...
down here on the street, the vast majority of people i talk to or hear are once again excited by the possibilities of change - enthusiastic about the 'actual' historic significance this campaign has generated - and relieved that the devastating stranglehold and repression brought on by the bush regime is soon to end ...
i do agree that all the candidates are flawed [the nature of being human - or liberal enough to admit it], but relieved to know that obama entertains the notion of accountability ...
i'm honestly amazed how anyone can maintain your belief structure after the past eight years and even more surprised by your factions' need to land on a blogs like these, or talk radio, or fox news to defend positions you obviously believe are beyond reproach -
unless perhaps, you're desperately trying to be convincing ...

Another Lally said...

I'm sad that you feel repressed. Maybe therapy will help with that.

Carter's big idea was Change. Anything was better than Nixon's crew who would not let the system work as it was designed.

Now I see that Carter was stymied by the GOP. Was that GOP policy towards Israel? Maybe the GOP policy that led to the Iran hostage Crisis or double digit inflation?

I haven't heard anything from either candidate that does not include a giant government program.

Again, I'm sad that you feel that the president is repressing you.

Lally said...

Funny, I don't think I said "GOP" stymied Carter, I think I said "rightwingers," in this case what were then called "rogue CIA agents" and others who Carter was naive enough to think once they were purged from government agencies wouldn't continue to work behind the scenes to undermine his policies etc. And as for civil rights and the Democrats' record, they were a divided party and too often the so-called "liberals" gave in to the demands of many in the Southern wing of the party around race issues, but there were always those among Democrats who stood up for civil rights, (Elenor Roosevelt was one of the most famous champions for African-American causes way back in the 1930s when rightwing Republicans were trying to paint her husband as a "communist" and "Jew" etc.) and eventually they won the day and LBJ had the guts to finally end segregation and voting prohibitions even knowing (and stating) that it meant the South would be Republican as a result, because the Republicans would play the race card to their favor, which they did and have ever since, all you have to do is look at the ads they've run and continue to run against Democratic cadidates and especially black candidates, inclduing already Obama, to see that's true, and if you think Powell, who lied to the world, not just US citizens, in the build up to the Iraq invasion, despite his knowledge of intelligence reports that proved his allegations were ill founded and outright lies, and Condi Rice, who caved in to every one of Junior's forgeign policy whims even when they totally reversed her stated positions and went against her own knowledge of the intelligence and political realities. Both of them would have made terrible presidents, and even so, they weren't nominated or convinced to run so it doesn't matter. And as for government spending, rightwingers never seem to mind how much we pay for overcost weapons and wars and corporate tax breaks and corporate welfare and help for the wealthy, but when it comes to spending tax dollars to help working people, oh my. As I've said too many times, and none of my rightwing critics have ever answered, the federal government grew under reagan and Bush and Bush Junior, despite their promises to make government smaller, and it was reduced under Clinton, the only fiscally responsible president we've had in recent decades. And Carter, though not a good enough politician to play hardball with the rightwingers and perhaps too much of a real "Christian," did attempt to correct many of this country's bad habits that have led us to the overwhelming problems we now face.

Butch in Waukegan said...

posted to Lally’s Alley

I agree that a black President is an indication of small positive change in America. So is a black Secretary of State. What is really important is what these people do. Our "first black president", WJ Clinton, triangulated "welfare reform" and hesitated about half a second before he sacked Lani Guinier and Joycelyn Elders. And these were the halcyon years!

The issue that catapulted Obama's campaign (and doomed Hillary) is Iraq and US involvement in the Middle East. How inspiring was Obama's speech this last week at Aipac? Sure sounds like he signed off on Israel's continuing occupation and a US/Israel attack on Iran.

In 1964 LBJ portrayed himself as the peace candidate against Goldwater the war candidate. We all know how that worked out.

The range of opinion and options in mainstream politics is about an inch wide. What makes anyone think it will be different this time?

Lally said...

Right, so what's the point, might as well not care, don't inspire young people to get involved, everyone go back to tending their own garden and meanwhile that's exactly what the right has always pushed ("not a dime's worth of difference") which allows their solid base to rule the country and enforce their minority opinions and policies. Exactly what happened in '68 and other elections when the Dems and GOP were protrayed as exactly alike. At least the Dems got rid of LBJ after one term, unlike the GOP and junior, and if you think it wouldn't have made a difference if Gore was elected rather than him, you're not thinking.

Butch in Waukegan said...

What is the point? Is it to "inspire people to get involved"?

The Democrats have been inspiring people for decades to get uninvolved. A dime's not worth what it once was but the difference between the two parties is not much. (And really, the Democrats aren't a political party in any meaningful sense. What are their uniting principles?)

For anyone who takes time to consider it, how can the Democratic election victory in 2006 inspire anyone? The Democrats have been willing accomplices in this war from the git go and it continued after they won control of the House and Senate. What did they do with the power the citizens gave them?

Of course it would have made a difference if Gore won. You or I don't know what that difference would have been but most likely Gore and Joe Lieberman would have done some things differently. Who's to know?

Here's another unknowable. What if the Democrats did not join forces with the Republicans to prevent Nader from participating in the national debates in 2000? I think we would agree that Nader would not of won. But millions of people would have been exposed to a more realistic picture of how this country is run and for who's benefit.

PS. You can't really believe that "the Dems got rid of LBJ" in 1968.

Anonymous said...

"Not a dime's worth of difference" is a perfect lead-in to a long-term historical reality-check. For far too long in human history, all the way back to the earliest Egyptian dynasties, society has consisted of a very narrow band of elites at the top supported by and based on the labor of everyone else. How to change this pattern, how to break the stranglehold of the elites on wealth and power, and how to distribute the fruits of human effort and achievement more equitably ought to be the concern of all of us, and quadrennial elections in the U.S. can be a part of the process if we put enough of the right people in enough offices, at all levels.

Bob Berner

Kirby Olson said...

I hope Sarah Palin (gov. of Alaska) or Condi Rice (secretary of defense) will be McCain's VP. Then, of course, what you suggest will come to fruition one way or the other. I mean, you do still think of them as representatives of their gender and race, right?

And we can all celebrate -- at last.

With you all the way, brother.

But I suppose in terms of race and gender I would still prefer to think in terms of competence. I still think that competence is importance in any arena, and that our judgment of it should be demographically blind.

Anonymous said...

The CIA has been an out of control entity since it's inception.The Dulles Boys ran the country until they died.

After WW2, they fomented revolution and insurrection. not in service to the nation, but in service to big business. Latin America was about National Fruit and other firms. Viet Nam was about the rubber tree plantations that the French wanted back.

Carter signed an authorization to renew covert actions in Afghanistan in 1979. The Al Queada hand book was written and printed in a mid west university by the CIA. Islamic fundamentalism seemed like a good idea against the Russians, but it is giving us hell.

Reagan had his covert action exposed by the same CIA, Iran-Contra.

The CIA endorsed backing the Islamic separatists in Yugoslavia. How could they turn on their recruits?

Gore and Bush both being oilmen was only surpassed by Kerry and Bush being exposed as cousins. Two sides of the same coin.

Powell was tricked by Tenent. Powell not only wanted assurance that the intel was correct, but made Tenent sit behind him at the UN.

The CIA has been in the clean up phase since Tenent was found out and the CIA leaks were too numerous to overlook. They were running a sham on the Executive and Legislative branches in order to maintain and strengthen their power.

We have overall the best interest for the country. The difference lies in the accumulation of wealth and the converse re-distribution of wealth.

Considering all the various directions that this nation has been and continues to be under attack from, Obama or McCain will wish that Bush was back in the White House so they could escape.

JIm said...

Right winger go gently into the night? I assume you mean conservatives and why would we quit just because a charasmatic socialist, high tax, anti Israel, weak national security, pro infanticide, socialized health care, anti free speech (fairness doctrine), legislate from the bench liberal wins the White House. It has happened before with Carter and the American people came to their senses and elected Reagan with overwhelming majorities four years later. McCain is not a great standard bearer for conservatives, but I believe he will do considerably less damage than Obama. If Obama wins we will be back with a true conservative in the next election. That is the American way; to fight for what we believe and oppose peacifully the opposition if they win. Whaat a country!!!

PS. I notice that Kennedy, that Democrat advocate of Nationalized Medicine, did not go to Canada, Cuba or the UK for brain surgery. He had it done in the country with the best medical care in the world. Even, left wing socialists don't like to gamble when their own lives are on the line.

harryn said...

an article worthy of attention:

http://www.truthout.org/article/dan-rather-slams-corporate-news-conference

JIm said...

Correction-
Mike, you said that Carter failed because of "right wing opposition". He actually failed because he was so ineffectual, that he was unable to get the support of his own party, who controlled congress.

JIm said...

A little humor from, the Democrat Party controlled, congress. The party that is for govt. controlled health care, is for a cap and trade and a massive take over of energy production management by government has decided that the government is not capable of running the Senate restaurant. Losses are running amok and food quality is down. The Democrats have voted for privatization. Democrat legislators are for government run programs as long as they don't have to suffer with poor quality themselves.

Jesse Wilson said...

OBAMA WILL WIN! You know why? Because his camp has harnessed the power of the internet!

Here is a good site on John McCain, forward it on and take action!

http://therealmccain.com/

Jesse

Hikermedic said...

Very interesting comments as always. Thanks Lally for getting us all to express our opinions. Truly fascinating after 8 years of Jr. that there is still anyone out there who supports him and his puppets. I'm hoping that Kirby doesn't live here in Alaska if she supports Palin as VP. Her administration has been forcing state scientists to avoid presenting scientific facts about global warming. I realize that listing the polar bear as threaten can adversely affect the economy in AK but find a better way to handle the problems with it than to put 2 million dollars of the state budget toward looking for junk science that might convince the less educated among us to believe that wildlife(and human life)isn't being dramatically effected by climate change! I'm not saying you have to agree with all the suggested solutions. If you want to keep supporting the oil industry then so be it. I personally want an alternative but I'm offended by the Palin actions in regards to the polar bear and climate change. She governs the state most effected by it(at least in the short term) and yet spends our valuable tax money trying to disprove it. Do you really want her as a V.P.? I guess she's pretty enough to turn a few heads and certainly much more well spoken than JR. or McCain but that's not saying much!

JIm said...

hikermedic,
What would be an acceptable level of polar bear population growth? Is there an acceptable level of population growth for the "Global Warming Crowd"? In the 1950's there were 5000. There is now 22000to 25000. Is that acceptable? Is there an acceptable population level and if there is, what is it? I understand there is a growing population of polar bears that are visting Alaskan towns. Is this a good thing? Is it progress? Is it a proof of global warming? Recent figures actually suggest that the global tempeture has cooled the last ten years. Is that a trend? respected scientists disagree. Should debate be closed off and the world spend trillions of dollars on a possibly imaginary problem? I await your enlightenment.

JIm said...

Hikermedic,
The Alaskan pipeline was billed as the end of the cariboo. I understand that they like to hang out by the pipeline for warmth? Is that a bad thing? The pipeline has been around for about 30 years. I believe cariboo populations have increased. I know a number of my traditional archer friends have been successfull in hunting them. What do you think? Is oil inherently evil even if the wild cariboo likes the warmth?

JIm said...

Colorado Global Warming Update:

The Aspen Skiing Company said Monday that it will open up Aspen Mountain from June 13 to 15 for skiers and snowboarders.

The company says record winter snowfall has left the mountain covered with snow, leaving behind an average of more than 3 feet of snow on the upper slopes.

PS. I have a cabin at 10500 ft. Last week I thought I could make it through a 3ft. drift. I was wrong and needed my neighbor to pull me out. I understand NYC is having an early warm spell. Wait a few days. Cooling is coming your way.

Lally said...

Hypermedic's comments are relevant and on the mark, as for Jim, he keeps confusing global warming and the climate change it causes with the temperatures must go up where he lives or it isn't real. Talk to the native populations of the North who have lost and are continuing to lose their homes and villages and livelihoods because of the temperatures rising there, and those who have homes built on the frozen tundra which is melting causing homes to tilt and collapse etc. Or the reality of Glacier park becoming a misnomer, and other famous glaciers and snowcapped mountains around the world disappearing, despite Jim's Colorado experience. It's the big picture Jim, and as for your polar bear figures and other statistics, as well as your contentious global warming experts, unfortunately for you, your side has been caught in so many lies and distortions about the science of all this that there's very few who would accept your claims, including me. I have researched the environmental degradation caused by pollution since at least the mid 1960s and close to one hundred percent of the experts in various fields, from archeologists who dig around the world to weather scientists (I was in the weather field in the service for over four years so know a little about this) to naturalists to biologists to geographers etc. etc. etc. all agree, Jim, AGREE, that global warming is real and is close to irreversible. I just suffered through an almost twelve hour power outage here in Jersey, one of the most technologically profficient places in the world, during the first minor heat wave of the summer, and there wasn't enough energy! Time to stop arguing and start preparing by making major changes, not only ecologically, but technologically, and economically. It could be a great boon to the economy, which you should dig Jim, if we reorient our economy toward green industries and preparing flood basins and coastal communities etc. for the coming changes that in most places are already happening. Lots of jobs, lots of new companies, etc. An Obama administration will do this, a Republican won't because the party continues to be more beholden to the foot-draggers who are making obscene profits from the damage they are causing and don't want to give up one dollar to save the planert for their grandchildren, shortsighted greedheads that they are.

JIm said...

Mike, You ought to review your "Amazing Story" for insight into the value of debate in science. What was thought to be incontravertable about plants years ago is now accepted as good science. I suggest your view of "man caused global warming" has more to do with a new religion and with current politics than with science. You might find the quotes below of interest. In your plant story comment you said "Some of us have known this for a long time." What did you know and when did you come to know it?


Fox News, Feb 8 2008
Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.
That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.

Michael Crichton said it best:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Anonymous said...

Global warming conundrum.

Ice Ages are caused by a lower salinity of the oceans.

Should temperatures rise and sea ice melt, we are in for a new ice age, not global warming.

A New Ice Age will cause an increase in sulfur and carbon monoxide emissions until a population correction occurs.

Nature protects itself.