Pretty Lady, along with a great many of the people she most respects, quite concurs: Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord. Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul. The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Yep.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
One could argue certainly about the quality of JFK as a President... his approval rating had certainly continued to decline to 58% in his last active year as President (Less than Eisenhowers). His death has in no small way increased his popularity. A cult of personality does not in and of itself = accomplishment or even necessarily improve the odds of accomplishment. JFK has a contentious relationship with Congress... he was not able to get his Civil Rights Act through as was the much more aggressive LBJ. His presence also did not speak to his personal character as his affairs on his wife seem to reach Bill Clinton levels. It is not certain he would have even won a second term.
We go out of our way to create civic heroes... and certainly some did have accomplishments after a sort... but some of these people have nearly received deification because from the time one is 4 you hear about how they 'saved the union' 'had a dream' etc... the significance of these people is as much defined by the perceptions of the people then who they really were. And perceptions can be shaped by the presentation as readily or more so than the reality of a situation can be conveyed.
Obama seems to be a likable enough guy... but 'speaks to the soul'? There was another whole group who thought Reagan did... With Obama there is simply just not enough real evidence to even know what his vision means. Right now I would describe him as a form of energy... energy is neither good or bad... just the ability to do work. He certainly looks better to the eye and sounds better to the ear than HC or JM... both of them are scary in entirely predictable ways. But it is hard to find anything that will make Obama any less forgettable in the annals of history then most other leaders and people...
I think Ron Paul (and I suppose this will get me classified) offered a much more compelling vision... freedom... restoration of the republic... peace instead of war... but the substance is lost in the style of a grandfather who is not entirely camera friendly. His answer (which was deleted) from the Fox News debate was a triumph. Having gone through Obama's books it simply seems that he offers an attempt to repeat the 'Great Society'... which as Ross Perot pointed out 15 years ago should have already landed us in Heaven if it was going to work.
I hereby predict that Obama will be elected president and then will be assassinated, thus making him, like JFK, unable to completely fuck up his legacy.
I heard someone call him "Chocolate Man" today. America isn't mature enough for a black president yet. If he's elected and then taken out, everyone wins: We got our black president, we didn't have to live under his rule, he'll be loved and reviled for generations, high schools will get named after him, and business as usual can continue in Washington.
I love it. We could sure use a Lightworker. A quick survey on the street (my car mechanic) suggests: nah, we're not ready for this. Me:"So Mike, are you ready for a black president?" Mike: "He was in that church for all those years and you're telling me he never heard this stuff before?" I just hope he's as good a politician as he seems to be and has the mojo to get himself elected anyway. Can we please move up a notch from this:
“‘Kick ass!’ [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell’s tough talk. ‘If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.
“There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!’”
"If he's elected and then taken out, everyone wins"
Chris, I'm not trying to all PC here and I realize you're being at least partly facetious, but your comments are offensive. Musing about the possibility of a murder, not "oh, I wish my mother-in-law were dead," but a real, political murder that many people would be happy to see, is both offensive and irresponsible. The more people talk about this possibility in a glib, offhand way, the less shocking it becomes in people's minds. The racist wackos out there don't need any encouragement and you're making it sound like it's no big deal, like it's almost inevitable.
"We got our black president, we didn't have to live under his rule..."
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're being facetious*, but some of us (and I would encourage you to join us) don't reduce him to "our black president" or "our black candidate." He's got a lot going on besides his race (and by the way, he acknowledges and honors all of his heritage and often mentions his white mother and white grandmother who raised him). As far as living under his rule, we don't know what that will be like. Electing someone who hasn't spent a lot of time in public elected office is always a bit of an unknown, but I am positive I don't want to live under McBush's rule.
*because I know you. If I didn't know you, it would not be clear to me that you were summing up what others are thinking and not expressing your own thoughts here. I believe it's dangerous to put such ideas out there without making perfectly clear that you're joking. I also don't think potential assassination of a particular person is a topic that lends itself to humor.
Oriane
Oriane... hyper sensitive? The talk of an assassination has become part of the public record due to Hillary Clinton, increased secret service presence and the continued comparisons to JFK (who WAS ASSASSINATED, as a white man no less). And if he were to be assassinated... an idea that I doubt anyone likely to perform would pick up from this site... what makes you think it has to be about his race? The 3 assassinated Presidents we have had were all white... perhaps if he is being voted for reasons outside being black then he might be killed for reasons other than being black... Given the amount of rage that certain institutions (Supreme Court, certain Presidents, Congress) raise it has been somewhat surprising to me that no one has attempted anything since Reagan... (after the Kelo decision for example).
I also am not sure what you are hanging your hat on about this man... he isn't your black guy... but then you don't know what living under his 'rule' will be? Simply better than McBush III? Is that the unfortunate standard we will elect leaders on... at least he is better than Bill Clinton... Bush II... Nixon... yeah, that trend has served us well.
Also think there is some burden of proof required before you can state that Many people would be happy to see Obama dead... what is the definition of many? A room full? More people want to see him dead than Bill Clinton? What?
And the idea that nation is mature or not mature based on a decision about Obama seems odd. We were a mature enough nation to be ahead of the world curve in introducing self-rule... perhaps people simply will not vote for him because they do not believe he is a) qualified b) of the correct idealogical bent c) angry about the HC situation... How many nations with minority populations have a member of that minority population become their leader (I truly don't know... would be interesting to)? It is very easy to look at people and assume that certain key markers (race being one) mean that someone can relate to portions of your experience. Obama does this in no small part in his OWN books. If people want to elect someone they feel understands their situation or point of view that is hardly reflective of them having to have made that choice because they believe the black race is inferior (actual racism)...
And in agreement with CR up above... death has a wonderful ability to cleanse or preserve the legacy... Nixon? JFK? Lincoln? MLK jr? Rock stars? Movie stars? The fact one has died, particularly if in a way defined as tragic, removes from the public debate much of the true nature of your life... it is a form of secular sainthood... conferred by achieving the same result as everyone else will... ceasing to live.
Obama seems to be a likable enough guy... but 'speaks to the soul'?
Yep.
It may interest you to know, jSin, that Pretty Lady has not taken a personal interest in politics for over twenty years, since she voted for Leonora Fulani in a protest over the inanity of the Dukakis/Bush I debates. (They went on and on and on and on and on about the Pledge of Allegiance, I seem to recall, while ignoring actual issues that actually affected people.)
Yes, Obama speaks to the soul. The soul, these days, uses fairly simple language; language like 'we are more similar than our politics suggest.' Language that points out clearly the real issues upon which we agree and disagree, without hyperbole, spin, or personal insults.
I spoke this week with a client of mine who regularly travels all around the world--he'd just returned from India and Singapore. He said that people everywhere are wildly excited about this election, because what the U.S. does affects them, and for the first time there's a possibility we'll elect someone who HAS A CLUE.
Obama is not naive, and he is not a pushover, as we have already seen with his handling of HRC. He merely connects with people, all people, regardless of their views, and does not regard the world with defensive, hostile aggression. That's the mark of a 'spiritually evolved' person.
Oh, and somehow I also don't see him fooling around on Michelle. Being a former consort of extreme womanizers myself, I can spot them a mile away, and he doesn't have the characteristics. Also, Michelle would kill him before an assassin got close.
As regards JFK--have any of you read the Cuban Missile Crisis speech, lately? Have we heard that sort of clarity, subtlety, strength and appeal to everyone's higher natures from any of our leaders in the last twenty or thirty years? His legacy is not entirely a function of his assasination. His rhetoric may genuinely have saved the world from nuclear conflagration, given that at the time, Cuban soldiers were instructed to use nuclear bombs if an American invasion the likes of what GWB would pull had happened at the time.
How easily we forget that the Cuban Missile Crisis was manufactured -- the missiles were already there.
JFK had some good speeches, I agree. Obama isn't in his league; Obama isn't even in Jesse Jackson's league. About the best we can say about Obama is he's the one of the best public speakers of the past twenty or thirty years, which isn't saying much -- rhetoric in this country has gone completely down the drain. After listening to a speech by Martin Luther King, his audience was ready to follow him into Hell. After listening to a speech by Barry Obama, some of his audience would possibly consider following him into Heck, if they had nothing more pressing to do.
That said, I fully plan on voting for the guy. I think he's the best option we have, and I don't think he'll do the worst job ever. Is he a Lightworker? I think it's asinine to even suggest it based on how well he appears behind a podium. I liked his speech on race well enough, but, lordy, if that's all there were to being president, it'd be a real easy job.
I really do think America is still too immature for a minority president, though, and I base this on my admittedly limited personal experiences talking to people and hearing people talk. The baby boomers like to pretend they were all about Woodstock and civil rights, but, really, most of them were and are just as conservative -- if not more so -- than their parents.
I guess we'll see. I'll be glad to be wrong.
Speech writers are paid to write great speeches... "Mr. G. tear down that wall..." "Shining city on the hill"...
"We have within our reach the promise of renewed America. We can find meaning and reward by serving some purpose higher than ourselves — a shining purpose, the illumination of a thousand points of light. It is expressed by all who know the irresistible force of a child's hand, of a friend who stands by you and stays there — a volunteer's generous gesture, an idea that is simply right. -- President George H. W. Bush" (if this is indeed his quote)...
I have followed politics for 20 years now... the rhetoric of hope... cynicism... argument... it is all old because it is all manufactured... the truth is these people get along quite well GROWING government.
The question for Obama is whether he will be as big a disappointment to his flock as GWB was in comparison to the very humble, quiet strength, hope talk he through out in his campaign.
The rest of the world has frequently had little use for anyone with an R behind their name... Reagan had great clarity in his goals with the Soviet Union and that caused massive protests overseas... result is of course that he is now viewed (post death) as Ronaldus Magnus by many... and as a man with vision who appealed to something greater (Obama's opinion)... there is nothing inherently more important in the opinion of a European, Indonesian or Indian than there is in the opinion of an American. The fact that we influence them so much is an indictment of our willingness to break the confines of the concept of the republic and their lack of desire to truly bear the costs of their own defense during the cold war (or in the case of India that hey sided with the losing side in the Cold War and worry about our relationship with Pakistan). As for it being the first time we have elected someone who has a clue... 8 years ago we had Bill Clinton who was quite popular overseas... George the Elder was reasonably respected at least... The whole American/world relationship is not simply viewable through the lens of GWB.
The implication is not that Obama is likely to or will be unfaithful to his wife... it is simply that being a 'lightbringer' does not speak to the character of the person. If JFK was a lightbringer with "clarity, subtlety, strength and appeal to everyone's higher natures" he was also a man who had no problems stepping out on Jackie O'. The ability to inspire does not indicate to what purpose the inspiration will be put or to the success of the policies inspired.
I wish whomever achieves the office of POTUS success... who would wish America failure just to see them fail... the only failure I wish on them is failure in destroying the last shreds of the Republic and that little thought of ideal of liberty.
Also, one man's hyperbole is another man's truth... Obama goes on endlessly about George Bush's economy... to some people that is pure hyperbole (such as mine which basically thinks the govt can rarely do much to truly aid the macro economy and probably only hurt regardless) but if you dislike GWB then of course it is all factual and not the least bit an exaggeration... we cannot make it another 4 years of McBush... of course we can... and would... just like we managed to survive Clinton in spite of protestations to the contrary and survived Reagan... and Carter... and on and on...
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet
Yeah I see *this* train coming a hundred miles away.
Brace yourselves folks. Because when the utopians take over, it gets really ugly really fast.
All in the name of peace and hope and light and change, and for-the-children, of course.
And btw, what is this line supposed to mean?
and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
Many define "soul" as the mind, will and emotions. Well, we have two out of three being compared to the whole here. Is there some special signifier, a code word for something else that is meant by "soul"?
Or just poorly thought out hyperbole?
Anyway, back to this "lightworker" business. Not forgetting who was called the "son of the morning" and Lucifer ("bringer of light"), it behooves one to discern that not all that dazzles is good and right and true, and leads to life.
something else that is meant by "soul"?
I DO NOT define 'soul' as the 'mind, will, and emotions,' DC. I define the 'mind, will and emotions' as what make up the EGO. The SOUL is the part of us which is eternal, which is on a journey of learning to love, and which understands that it is integrally connected with God and with all other human beings.
We'll see if things get 'really ugly really fast,' DC, uglier than they got with a President who thinks God speaks to him and ONLY him, who abandoned the stewardship he was elected to take on, who lied and manipulated and disenfranchised for the sake of his personal, ill-thought out crusade, who sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives for this crusade, who alienated the rest of the world with his hubris and stupidity, and engendered a flare-up of anti-American terrorism all over the globe.
You will note that Obama seeks out COMPETENT advisors, that he eschews the kind of petty, personal spin that has dominated American political discourse in the last two decades, and that he calls it like he sees it, clearly enough that people with the consciousness to transcend their knee-jerk political reactions say, "Ah! That's it!"
It's not about 'forming a Utopia,' at all. It's about grounding in some sort of truth and reality and honest communication, and about understanding different points of view. Rather than CRUSADING FOR DEMOCRATIC UTOPIA in the face of all fact and human nature, THE WAY THE CURRENT ADMINISRATION HAS DONE.
Sheesh. I get a bit testy with your Dire Prognostications, DC, when YOU were the person who fell for the Utopian shit, demonstrably and repeatedly.
Uh oh. When Pretty Lady uses her caps lock key, we're ALL in trouble.
I DO NOT define 'soul' as the 'mind, will, and emotions,' DC. I define the 'mind, will and emotions' as what make up the EGO. The SOUL is the part of us which is eternal, which is on a journey of learning to love, and which understands that it is integrally connected with God and with all other human beings.
Well then, your definition differs from the traditional Judeo-Christian definitions down through the ages. Because what you are calling soul, we call spirit, and your ego approximately corresponds to soul. Etymology from Wikipedia: The English word "spirit" comes from the Latin spiritus, meaning "breath" (compare spiritus asper), but also "soul, courage, vigor", ultimately from a PIE root *(s)peis- (to blow). In the Vulgate, the Latin word translates Greek (πνευμα), pneuma (Hebrew (רוח) ruah), as opposed to anima, translating psykhē. The word was loaned into Middle English via Old French The distinction between soul and spirit became current in Judeo-Christian terminology (e.g. Greek. psykhe vs. pneuma, Latin anima vs. spiritus, Hebrew ruach vs. neshama or nephesh; in Hebrew neshama from the root NSHM or breath.)
In Christian theology it is the spirit that is eternal and by which we are connected to the Spirit of God, and it is the soul which may live or die, depending upon its reconciliation to God. ("The soul that sinneth, it shall die", etc.)
Wikipedia again: "The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being." In other words, the separate, unique being, as opposed to that part which is interconnected with the whole (spirit).
And finally an outright definition from TheFreeDictionary.com: Soul 1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
Mind, will and emotions.
Sheesh. I get a bit testy with your Dire Prognostications, DC, when YOU were the person who fell for the Utopian shit, demonstrably and repeatedly.
I noticed after I wrote the above, that Vox said something very similar. I suppose you would say the same to hi...oh wait. Vox has never supported George W. Bush.
Hmm.
Perhaps there is no meaningful connection between my erstwhile support of one disappointing politician and my Dire Warnings about another?
In any case, that is a hefty load of horsehockey, pulled from who knows where. Oh yes, of course George the Younger was preaching Utopia when he ran for president. Nonsense squared. He ran as some peculiar form of conservative he called "compassionate". Conservatives are most certainly not anything remotely resembling Utopians. No, not at all. And anyone claiming to be conservative but espousing a utopian vision, achievable through political means is nothing of the sort.
In any case, voting for George W. Bush, the Lesser of Two Evils the second time around, hardly qualifies as "falling for Utopian shit". What rubbish!
This time around I have no intention of supporting either the Greater or the Lesser Evil, and have all but written off the political process. George W may very well have fed the "beast from the sea", but I will be damned if I give a free pass to the one who is certain to feed the "beast from the earth".
I recommend, then, DC, that you write in Cthulhu -- the candidate for when you're tired of voting for the lesser evil.
Thinking of Obama as a lightworker is poetic, and PL, I hope you are right. Myself, I try not to idealize people, especially people with jobs in politics. At best, they are human and flawed, at worst they are absolute monsters.
But it would be wonderful if America wound up with an enlightened leader who will leave a legacy of peace, and if Obama wins, I hope he is that leader.
Perhaps there is no meaningful connection between my erstwhile support of one disappointing politician and my Dire Warnings about another?
Perhaps there isn't. Or perhaps we humans have a tendency to attribute Good Character to those who agree with our personal views, and attribute Evil Character to those who don't, regardless of the fact that character and opinion are not connected.
In any case, you had AMPLE opportunity to perceive the Very Wide Gap between GWB's stated opinions and his actual actions and character, when you voted for him the second time round. Thus your opinions as to Obama's character hold little weight with me, as 1) you are already negatively prejudiced and 2) your track record as regards character assessment is dismal.
For the record, I do not believe that Utopia is possible. I do believe, however, that it is possible to expand one's consciousness in a way that allows us take in more information about those around us, and to adjust one's actions and decisions accordingly, and I believe that this is what Obama is doing. I do not, furthermore, believe that a person who is naturally empathetic and bent on improving conditions for all people is likely to wilfully take actions which harm others, especially not in comparison to a narcissistic, self-involved, self-righteous leader who lacks the capacity for empathy completely.
I am certain that Obama will make mistakes, and that people will get hurt in that process, but from what I have observed of his character I am certain that he will admit to those mistakes and change course, unlike our current President.
I am, however, quite glad that you have lost faith in the political process; I lost mine about twenty years ago. Feel free to vote for Bob Barr, or to abstain.
In any case, you had AMPLE opportunity to perceive the Very Wide Gap between GWB's stated opinions and his actual actions and character, when you voted for him the second time round.
Right. And the alternative had more than ample character/honesty/transparency issues of his own. The lesser evil is still evil.
See, I am not convinced that a President Gore or a President Kerry would have reacted to 9/11 in a radically different manner. Oh certainly some of the details would have been different, but the plans were laid long before GWB showed up. Both parties at the top levels are fully onboard vis a vis global governance. The squabbling is merely for show, for our (the voters) consumption--remembering that the Hegelian dialectic is the tool used to move us in the direction they want.
I also note that we (via NATO) are still in Bosnia. I guess when Democrat presidents depose brutal dictators and occupy/run a country indefinitely it's a good thing.
And on that old canard, the "Bush Lied, People Died" meme, the Washington Post has this to say:
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment.
Click the link for the rest. Remember this is one of the most vocal proponents in Congress of the "Bush Lied" meme that produced this report. Given that all this was substantiated by intelligence, do you *really* suppose a Gore or Kerry presidency would have/could have ignored it any more than Bush did?
More here, forwarded for consideration by your favorite Excitable Andy.
I agree with you, DC: I doubt that President Gore or President Kerry would've been significantly different in any way. I think that's why people are so fired up over Obama and Clinton -- Clinton harks back to the good ole days and Obama seems genuinely different. Is he? I'm going to say probably not. You don't become a viable candidate for president in either party by being too far out of line.
I do think he's more different from Gore, Kerry, and Bush than they are each from the other. Do I think he's a one-man revolution? No. Will I vote for him? I think I will.
DC, do you still not GET that a great many of Kerry's 'character/transparency' issues were manufactured, distorted and and magnified by the Rove character smear machine? Rove politics is ABOUT distortion, misdirection, irresponsibility, sabotage and blame. Have you even LOOKED at excerpts from McClellan's book, or Richard Clarke's book, or other extensively documented media accounts of the White House's rush to war despite inconclusive or conflicting evidence? Do you really not see how these tactics (spin, re-writing reality, manipulation and stonewalling) are directly related to these actions (going to war on false pretences and on a thoroughly ill-considered tactical basis)?
Do you not understand that the reason I have passionately and vocally opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential bid is that she decided to co-opt these tactics on her own behalf, instead of confronting them for what they are and denouncing them?
THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT when I bring up 'character issues.' Not what policies, opinions, ideologies, religions or philosophies a person espouses; how they treat people who have a different perspective than they do. Their regard for objective truth, not what they think the truth ought to be, or what they intend to force it to be. How they respond when it has been made clear to them that they've made a mistake.
It is absolutely DISGUSTING the way the White House's first reaction to Katrina was to start spinning and deflecting blame, not actually taking responsibility for anything. It is absolutely DISGUSTING the way the Clinton campaign attempted to play on people's ugliest natures when attempting to get their way. THAT'S 'poor character.' Not making a mistake on insufficient evidence; refusing to take responsibility for that mistake when evidence becomes clear and overwhelming.
Chris, Obama could ONLY have become a viable candidate for President after an administration as egregiously corrupt, incompetent and aggressively wrong-headed as this one.
I don't think he's a one-man revolution either. I simply respect and applaud when he responds to things like the Wright affair with statements like:
'Yes, you have a right to be concerned about THIS. This is where I stand on that, and this is why. Here is corroborating evidence of that.'
'However, THIS aspect of what you are saying is overblown, manipulative, misdirected, polarizing political spin, and this is why. The REAL issue is THIS. THIS, then, is what I will continue to talk about. Thank you.'
It's common sense. It's not defensive, it's measured and honest and confronts people's real concerns, not made-up 'symbolic' concerns that are masking the issues.
We desperately need a leader who helps us start to deal with reality in this way.
I also agree that Obama's speeches are good. And not just good as in "well-written" or "well-delivered" but in the sense of "conveying good ideas." I think it was Jon Stewart who summed up my feeling nicely when he said that Obama actually spoke about race as if Americans were grown-ups. Which is really excellent.
However -- and I think this is where I disagree with your whole Lightworker Hypothesis -- I don't believe there's necessarily a link between what someone says and what someone does. And some people might think they can detect, through a TV screen or the radio or whatever, a speaker's True Character, but I happen to think most people can't. I'm fairly sure most people can't, actually, and the history of the 20th century bears this out. Hitler, for example, was a fantastic speaker.
Rhetoric is a tool. Like any tool, it can be employed to many purposes. Some purposes are good, some aren't. But the tool is still just a tool.
As far as the running of the various campaigns, well, that's a lot of hearsay. I agree that what I've heard of one doesn't sound as good as the other. McCain's campaign seems pretty okay, too, though. So it's hard to go by that.
My apologies, by the way, for invoking Godwin's Law.
Point conceded, Chris; you cannot determine a person's character by their words.
However, the point I was making is that during the Katrina crisis, the Rove-directed White House talked INSTEAD of doing. This is 'hearsay' which is corroborated by many thousand inhabitants of New Orleans, as well as the state government officials and local volunteers who WERE acting instead of talking, as well as by the myriad reporters covering the story, extensively, in helicopters. If you read the article you will even note how one formerly pro-Bush reporter flew from place to place to place, where nothing was being done, then arrived at the Mitigating Circumstance, where Bush had held a press conference to demonstrate the emergency levee repairs they were undertaking--only to discover that it had been a purely staged event, and that all the workers and cranes and sandbags were gone.
Dis-gus-ting.
Oh, you don't have to convince me that Bush and Co. suck. I'm with you there. The only question I've got is whether Obama will prove to be somewhat better or actually a whole lot better. I'm expecting somewhat better, maybe. I'm not expecting him to be some kind of Lightworker who will even make real progress improving things.
I did have a nice conversation with a lady wearing an Obama button at Family Fun Day in my town yesterday, though. Barry brings people together!
Post a Comment