Schalk, I basically agree with you about the delegates. But I am still a little bit mixed about it. What's a second-tier way to nominate a candidate for president? Is it one person, one vote? I think the system in place actually has some good checks in place to see that an ignorant population, which, by second-tier standards, is what we have. There are superdelegates, who see the big picture better than the average voter, at least theoretically, and the actual elected delegates also are not officially bound to vote for the elected candidate. I would agree with you, though, and say that only under the most unusual circumstances should a pledged delegate change his or her mind. It may have been tactical on Hillary's part, however--talk about pledge delegates changing their minds (point out that they actually have the right to) and then it won't sound so bad when you talk about superdelegates changing their minds.

It was pushing it on Hillary's part; I'll say that, but I feel that the process has been far from fair as it is, so I think just about anything is game, anything within the rules, that is. Caucuses, for one thing, are a totally undemocratic way of nominating a candidate--we saw how far off they are in Texas. Clinton won the primary by 4 points and Obama won the caucus by 12. And a lot of Obama's delegates are due to caucus wins. Also, the way delegates are allocated is questionable, particularly in Texas. If the Democrats allocated delegates as the Republicans do Clinton would be ahead! And then there's all the media cheerleading for Obama--it's been blatantly one sided, at times willfully biased, it seemed. So I think the Teal candidate is justified in pulling out all the stops, I think, as long as it is reasonably honest, which it has been. Meanwhile, Obama has run a truly dirty campaign at times--playing the race card with the Clintons--and his supporters in the media have simply echoed his claim of being above any dirty campaigning.

I do have questions about Obama in terms motivation. A pattern has definitely been established, a pattern that Green wouldn't pick up on or have a problem with perhaps even, because, as KW has said, Green hates its own country. I think McCain is quite purely motivated, but I also think the Clintons simply mean to do well for the country. Bill did well for the country in the 90s, right? Hillary would be able to come up with a much more nuanced economic plan, for one thing. McCain's good, though, as long as he doesn't really believe what he's saying in this campaign. You're saying Hillary is so dishonest, but aren't we actually hoping that McCain is being a little dishonest, that he won't simply be a repeat of the Bush administration as it often sounds when you listen to him? I don't think that's the real John McCain, but he's trying to get elected so he has to say and do a few things that he doesn't really believe in. I actually don't blame, funny as it may sounds, as long as he really is lying, but if he isn't lying and will, for example, appoint very conservative justices to the supreme court, then I think we would do better without him. But there's a good chance I would vote for him over Obama-Richardson, for example.

I do think this Hillary hating thing is a phenomenon worth studying. I know some people, not conservatives, who really don't like her, and they can't really give any reasons for it. I wonder if it has something to do with her being a woman. I really don't know what people are worried about with her. I mean, I understand why Green doesn't want her and why Amber and Wall Street Orange Republicans don't want her, but I think there must be a lot of projection going on or else maybe it has to do with gender. A lot of Green's suspicions have to do with a misunderstanding of post Green--of course, they don't recognize anything post Green, so they think somehow Hillary, who was such a good Green for so long, has simply gone to the Dark Side.  Chicago 7 Tom Hayden wrote an article about her yesterday for the very Green The Nation that illustrates this perfectly (at times he gets a little paranoid--the Clintons's "manipulating" George Stephanopoulus). But Hillary, of course, has simply moved on to Teal, and I think it's a Teal president that we need most of all.

 

mm

MM:

It is starting to dawn on me that you are probably smarter than me! So, I am honored to be in your company.

You zeroed in on a very valuable question for us to bat around. Why is it that people who hate Hillary really hate her? It can't be purely gender.

My sense is that people who get absolutely apoplectic about Hillary could feel comfortable with Diane Feinstein or Condi Rice or any number of other high profile female leaders.

I am thinking back to my professional life and the times when a woman appeared who really riled things up. They were usually extremely smart, and energetic in a sort of manic-depressive way. It was almost like they violated some kind of boundaries with their brilliant, penetrating, and manipulative energy. You never found them just being there with people, genuinely sharing and being regular. They were always up to something. They tended to be divisive, trading harmful gossip. The morale of the team generally suffered. And when it came to winning, they were perceived as willing to cheat in a heartbeat.

And the women in question, in turn, felt they were unfairly attacked and re-doubled their efforts to form alliances and re-gain what they perceived was lost ground.

And often they won, because there is a kind of fear that really smart and energetic women evoke. Better to bring them in on an alliance early than have them gunning for you later.

I often found that the kinds of men who bonded with these men-killer type of women were very competent men who generally felt closer to their fathers than their mothers, if that makes any sense whatsoever to you? Don't worry, I don't believe in horoscopes...

And so, Hillary fits this description, and the odd thing is that Bill does too. Brilliant, energetic, always on the make (the Rolodex file, etc.). And willing to fib all over the place without blushing. A husband and wife team like that is bound to stir people up.

The Bill years were very prosperous, there can be no doubt about that. Never in the history of our country have more people made more money more quickly by doing less! It was almost totemic. Bill's mojo brought the raingods together for one long and beautiful downpour of fertility on our wallets.  

But let's be real. Bill did not invent the internet. Al Gore did! Bill happened to be President at a time when a whole bunch of stuff that he had nothing to do with started firing in unison. China's market and the Internet revolution would be two biggies.

You may have mentioned this before but, how exactly is it that you see Hillary as Teal? What I mean is - how are you convinced she is Teal and not just capable of talking Teal? Remember, in the Realpolitik world, nothing means anything except to the extent that it has a capacity to make your own position stronger. Hillary is certainly smart enough to have an advisor outline the 21 main points of Wilber and then to weave them into a generalized campaign.

So:

1. Is there more to the Hillary hating that I have identified?

2. How can we know that Hillary is Teal, meaning that her awareness resonates at that level, as opposed to her cognition being able to mimic that level?

And as for McCain, let me just say this. He was kicking Red in the shins when no one else had the courage to do it. He will be a refreshingly good President.

 

 

Greetings, schalk.  McCain is your choice - that's clear. However, what's happening in the Democratic primaries and caucuses shows about an equal number of people supporting Obama and Clinton - and there have been record voter-turnouts in these contests.  The demographics of who supports whom differ. (See any of the PA primary exit poll analysis for more about that.)  A subset of Clinton supporters say they wouldn't vote for Obama in the General Election, and vice versa. But I think a lot of that is said out of a desire to see their candidate win the nomination and will be rethought before  November. So, where is the evidence that there are enough Hillary-haters out there to present the Democrats with a real problem in November if she's the nominee? 

My personal theory about the Hillary-hating phenomon, to whatever extent it exists, is that stems at least in part from people projecting their own intentions onto Hillary's behavior.  Because "intentions" are internal (Ken's upper left quadrant), we can't know what another person intends by their actions unless they tell us.  Thus, we look at another's behavior in a specific set of circumstances and project our own negative intentions onto it and don't like what we see.  Another component that I believe operates in some Obama supporters is "Hillary doesn't agree with our choice of Barack"; so, she is "out" - not our kind of person, a "spoiler" who should get out of the race, etc.

Bernadette:

Hi. Thanks for chiming in with valuable comments.

Hillary and My Shadow: What you said got me thinking "just how much is the Hillary repulsion simply a product of what you said - projecting our intentions onto her?" And let me flesh it out a little more... How much is it projecting our true intentions and urges and behaviors onto her, not admitting that they are our own intentions and urges and behaviors, not liking what we see (i.e. our own qualities), and having a hissy fit when she appears in the arena?

You may have hit gold with the observation.

So, I am thinking: I see Hillary being manipulative. Am I not also a little manipulative? And more importantly, don't I fancy myself as not manipulative?

I see Hillary as a liar. Do I not also fudge the truth and confabulate when I know no one will ever be able to tell the difference? Of course, I like to think I don't do this.

(And by the way, MM who is always a voice of reason, pointed out that the charge against Hillary for being a liar is not so cut and dried. I am thinking to all of the times when I was corned by a nasty and vicious person and had to provide an answer to something that I knew would be twisted and then used against me unfairly. Was I so ready willing and able to provide honest responses?)

She is a politician. The rules are bare-knuckles. Why should we expect her to act like Sister Francis?

I see her cutting deals and making lots of money. I like to pretend that I am a humble and modest guy with higher concerns than money. But do I not also have the urge to hook up with people who can make me a pile of money real quick?

You know, when I think of the men who don't like Hillary, I also see guys who have kind of mundane jobs where they are not really vectored into the joys of the capitalist system. They are just not quite smart or creative enough to actually make things happen in the market. They need a warm tit (i.e. a secure job). And they are pretending that they are satisfied with this when they could be out piercing the market for pockets of gold.

Ditching Obama: The former governor of Virginia, Doug Wilder, was recently quoted as reminding people that when he was in the arena back in 1989, he had a 10 point lead on the eve of the election, and mysteriously he was fighting for his life when the ballots were counted. I mentioned earlier that there will at least one white Iowa farmer who publicly supported Obama in the primary who will go white all the way when election day rolls around. Hillary may be banking on the reality that a slice of white Obama supporters are going to remember race in the booth.

This convention in Denver could be one of the most bizarre events we have seen in a long time.

Am wondering whether it will lead to a Chicago '68 kind of street scene? Denver is out west, and the kinds of Obama people who are willing to smash windows are generally out west as well. Remember, one of the last states to vote, and they are going to vote Obama hugely, will be Oregon. Those people are real good at street activism. There are bus loads of these people in places like Eugene. They mean business and they are willing to sacrifice themselves to be heard. I met them in Seattle during the WTO conference. Remember that?

Denver could go down as the "Rodney Obama Riots."

I am betting that the activists are already dusting off their arsenal.

Yes, if the super-Ds go to Hillary in the face of the popular vote, I am predicting some Mile High violence. There is no better time to be on the streets of Denver chanting and throwing bottles than in late August. The Democrats would have been better off with a convention in a place like Miami.

And I just don't see how McCain will not win 60-40 in November.

schalk:

You mention that Obama is neither a Muslim nor a former Muslim.

(And I am wondering if the operative words are "for the record." When we talk about politicians, "for the record" usually means I am going to give you an explanation that I would like attributed to me later, an explanation that may or may not be true, but that you probably will not be able to squarely refute with evidence that is convincing.)

Actually, the operative words are "Obama is neither a Muslim nor a former Muslim".  "For the record" in this instance connotes a desire to clarify a point of fact, not speculation. 

schalk:

Anyways ...

If we ask the man himself, I am sure he will agree with your assertion. And so will his wife. One might leave the matter at that. Case closed.

But: 

Does it matter if his father was a Muslim at the time he was born? My son was born in Japan, yet we all live under the premise that he is American because I as his father was American at the time of his birth. He had no choice in this identity. Even if he chooses to act and feel Japanese, we all will continue to regard him as an American.

Does it matter if his step-father in Indonesia was a Muslim? He actually knew his step-father (as opposed to his bio-father) and received moral instruction from him which presumably included something identified with the Muslim faith. Does this matter?

Does it matter if Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia? Would you care to speculate about how many times in his life Barack Hussein Obama has physically knelt on a carpet in the direction of Mecca and prayed together with his classmates in Indonesia? Does this matter?

And does it matter if, in the eyes of Muslims, once you are a Muslim, you cannot become a non-Muslim. Instead you can only become a "murtadd" or "apostate." To a Muslim, Obama is a Muslim apostate.

I am starting to wonder what it even means to say one is anything.

Does it matter that his father was also formerly a Christian, and later an atheist?  Does it matter that he also attendend a Catholic school while living in Indonesia?  Does it matter that he moved back to Hawaii at the age of 10? 

My mother, who was raised as a Catholic and attended Catholic schools also sent me to a Catholic pre-school for about two weeks, before deciding she did not want me to have the same experience.   By your reasoning, if I run for office, am I to (incorrectly) disclose that I am a former Catholic ? 

schalk:

The very fact that Obama is a serious contender for the Democratic nomination not only is today sending a message to Muslims around the world that a Muslim (or former Muslim) can be respected and even selected to wield power in the U.S., but more importantly, it is sending a similar message to potential black leaders in the U.S. This is refreshing and long overdue.

The louder, and frankly more important message being sent to Muslims around the world is that all three possible future US presidents have stated their willingness to continue the "War on Terror" and bomb the Muslim nations of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, et al. as needed.  I doubt very seriously that many Muslims outside of the U.S. are very enthusiastic about their prospects. 

All of the speculation about the candidates and their values (paint them every color of the rainbow in an attempt at Integral analysis), while certainly worthy of reflection, nonetheless overlooks the striking similarities in policy platforms and visions of America's role as global enforcer.

Garbageman:

I have said this before - the dirtiest little secret in America is that almost everyone who says that they are against the War in fact doesn't have a real problem with it continuing. When Americans have a "real" problem with something, they act in a way different from the way they are acting now.

You are right, when we start trying to assign religious identity to people, we start to run into questions that are absurd.

Obama may not be a Muslim, but if a real shitstorm were to hit, it would certainly be easier for him to reach out and bond with Muslims than it would be for McCain to do so. Agree?

So I guess Obama is a former Muslim, a former Christian (due to his father), and a former atheist, who is now a non-Muslim and non-atheist new-found Christian, except in the eyes of Muslims who regard him as a Muslim apostate.

What do I have to do to be accurately regarded as a member of the Lutheran church? Can I join and then un-join the next day? What exactly is the criteria to use in accurately identifying someone as belonging to any faith?

And that brings up the question of - do I belong to that faith when I am asleep? Why is my state of consciousness while asleep valued less than when I am awake and speaking to a crowd?

I keep bringing up the issue of truth and plain speaking. I believe it to be the one quality that our next President can exhibit that will have broad restorative powers for our country.

So, you may have seen this item. McCain is down in New Orleans. Most Republican candidates would be careful here and not muddy the waters any more. He has nothing to gain by annoying Bush at this point. But he is presented with an issue and rather than tap-dancing for political effect, he says exactly what needs to be said in a straight-forward and obvious way:

``Never again will a disaster of this nature be handled in this terrible and disgraceful manner,'' McCain said after a walking tour of the Lower Ninth Ward, a predominantly black neighborhood that was devastated by Katrina. ``History will judge this president,'' he said. ``This was an unacceptable scenario.'

I am feeling better today just hearing him speak that way. Give me a senile old man who has the courage to speak a truth like this any day over a slick-talking con-artist.

MM mentioned that the Bill Clinton presidency was in many respects a good one. I agree. But, I am straining to recall one time when Bill Clinton assessed an unpleasant situation and without regard for political gain told us honestly "the emperor is buck naked." Instead, he would mojinate us with mantras about how whether one has clothes or not we should all still love each other.

I want the President to tell me "the emperor is naked" and then I will take care of the business of loving the emperor in all his naked glory.  

schalk:

This convention in Denver could be one of the most bizarre events we have seen in a long time.

Am wondering whether it will lead to a Chicago '68 kind of street scene? Denver is out west, and the kinds of Obama people who are willing to smash windows are generally out west as well. Remember, one of the last states to vote, and they are going to vote Obama hugely, will be Oregon. Those people are real good at street activism. There are bus loads of these people in places like Eugene. They mean business and they are willing to sacrifice themselves to be heard. I met them in Seattle during the WTO conference. Remember that?

Denver could go down as the "Rodney Obama Riots."

I am betting that the activists are already dusting off their arsenal.

Yes, if the super-Ds go to Hillary in the face of the popular vote, I am predicting some Mile High violence. There is no better time to be on the streets of Denver chanting and throwing bottles than in late August. The Democrats would have been better off with a convention in a place like Miami.

And I just don't see how McCain will not win 60-40 in November.

I may be overly optimistic, schalk, but I think the Democratic super-delegates will come up with a creative solution before August.  They could, for example, negotiate a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket to try and bring together the voters who have supported each of the candidates. The candidates' willingness or unwillingness to accept such a solution could tell us a lot about whether they are or aren't wedded to "politics as usual" and how much change they are willing to embrace.  Many ordinary Dem voters like the idea of having both Clinton and Obama on the ticket. And, it's hard for me to picture activists rioting over the prospect of a ticket like this and a campaign in which Obama and Clinton focused on what they as team have to offer.

IF the super-Ds come through, I'd call it Democratic Unity Ticket, 60 - Republican Ticket, 40 in November.

Berndette:

If this unity factor was real, why are we beating the bejeezus out of each other in April? Clinton and Obama are not laying the groundwork to where they can be partners. I don't see this happening.

The Democrats do not have the same ability to coordinate a unified voice like the Republicans do. (It is easier to coordinate a Red message than a Green one.)

If this coordination capacity existed, yesterday would have already been a great time to pull it together. And the onus is on the Clinton's to concede now for the good of the party and the nation. And they will never do this, because ... the good of the party and the nation is not what they are primarily about.

I can see Obama and Clinton still beating the hell out of each other on 24 August. And you expect them to kiss and make up 3 days later? And we are supposed to buy it?

Mark my words, if Obama gets routed by a cabal of super-delegates who vote contrary to what local delegates demand, there could be some "grass-roots" efforts for the voices of the people to be heard. The same people who trashed Seattle during WTO and who sabotage bulldozers are only a short drive away from the convention center. And the end of August, the hottest time of the year? What weird planning.

Let me ask this: which of the people who voted Bush in 2024 are going to not vote McCain in '08? Almost none.

So, which of the lunch-bucket white male chauvinist Democrats who voted Lt. Kerry in '04 because they are card-carrying union members are going to go with a white male moderate over a feminist or a quasi-Muslim in '08? I see this happening bigger than we think.

I live in Washington State. We are big lefties up here. But I see the real potential for McCain to take WA in Nov. Heck, we had a Republican car salesman almost beat a highly qualified, female, Democrat Attorney General in a Governor's race. It should not have even been close.

McCain won't take Oregon though. Those people are more committed than we are to Green. And they will be highly pissed if a bunch of wheelers on the Left subvert the Obama vision march.

Rightly or wrongly, this Democratic tempest in a teapot is going to be forgotten in November. The true face of America will be shown. Not the one that shows up at rallies.

I have said before, the Democrats are going to feel a huge punch in the gut in November. They will come out of this wondering what they heck they have to do to win. And the answer is they have to essentially adopt a whole lot of Republican positions on simple things like religion, and guns, and abortion, and war, and other "eagle" type sides, instead of waving a rainbow flag and talking about doves.

I don't like this. But I have a pretty good sense of what is going on out there.

And by the way, I am not a Republican or a Democrat.

 

 

 

going back aways in this thread, the democratic candidates are portraying a mccain presidency as a continuation of bush, citing his positions on iraq and the economy. unfortunately for them, mccain now has plenty of free time to refute them. he's just come out against bush for the way he handled katrina. ordinarily, a candidate couldn't get away with such blatant criticism of a sitting president, but bush has taken attacks like this from the maverick mccain several times in the past and, like good republicans, they've remained friends.

i'm afraid obama is not doing as well with the attacks from the clintons, especially hillary. isn't she making a case for being his running mate, and isn't he steadfastly refusing to consider it?

---

schalk:

Clinton and Obama are not laying the groundwork to where they can be partners. I don't see this happening.

The Democrats do not have the same ability to coordinate a unified voice like the Republicans do. (It is easier to coordinate a Red message than a Green one.)

first, i think we need to distinguish between clinton and obama in this respect. hillary has alot of experience in the approach she's taking to obama, namely, in her own marriage with bill. don't think for a second she hasn't been tough with him, but always with the overarching goal of 'a more perfect union', to quote obama quoting lincoln. for those who have read 'dreams from my father' , it will be evident that a somewhat differently nuanced but otherwise, basically the same approach is needed in the case of obama. and if anyone can do this, it is hillary--she has the experience, which i'm increasingly interpreting as the integral experience, to do it.

unfortunately, alot of the support obama is getting is tending to blind him to what he needs to do, and leading him further along the darkly twisting paths of clinton-demonization. we have the recent, childish, repeated denunciation of bill by the african-american clyburn of south carolina, a staunch supporter of obama, needless to say, which threatens to further erode support for obama among non-african-americans.

but saner individual are beginning to explore what bernadette is suggesting to us. if some of them are coming from green, it's a healthy green, which sees the need to bring red under more control. republicans are already a much more unified orange/amber, imo.

---

As far as McCain goes, I think things we'll a lot will change when Democrats finally have a ticket. There are a lot of things to attack in his platform, and also people will likely see in the debates that he is much older than he was in 2024. I can't see Obama beating him, though. Clinton-Obama, yes. McCain's in big trouble if it's Clinton-Obama. Hillary would tear him up in the debates, and they would have enough support to win the electoral contest.

 

Schalt, I agree with a lot of what you say, and you say it well, but I have a few questions:

1) What evidence do you have that the Clintons are not motivated to help the country?

2) What positions are you suggesting Democrats take on those issues you listed? Are suggesting they take a pro-life stance, for example? No regulation of guns? What sort of stance on religion do you think they should take? I generally agree with you that the Democrats problem is that they're not integrating conservatism enough (it's also why so many Democrats aren't enamored with Hillary Clinton, because she is already integrating conservative issues to a large extent), but I don't see that they should move much on the issues you presented. Of course they need to make sure they are pro-growth enough and also value military strength and toughness in the right measure, two of the main things "progressives" can fall short on.

 

mm

schalk---You say that almost everyone who voted for Bush in 04 will vote for McCain in 08. How do you know? You suggest to the Democracts to adopt the republican positions on "simple things" like guns, religion, and abortion? Instead of talking about rainbows and doves? It's these sorts of empty rhetorical statements that make me cringe. Surely you cannot believe that Democracts are all fluff. And if you really mean that statement, then am I to assume you are against same-sex marriage and peace? And you suggest that people change their political positions just to win political elections? Frightening.... I pray neither Obama or Hillary or McCain take that advice. And why do you continue to call Obama a "quasi-muslim"?  (and by the way, I don't think you mean what you said as exaggerated as I'm playing it out to be, but I am asking for you to be a little more careful)

Questions aside, I am with you on a few points, namely, that an Obama-Clinton ticket is not a likely reality and that a Clinton-anyone ticket is all but a lost cause. I do disagree with your prediction of a 60-40 McCain>Obama win, though I would be interested to hear exactly why you think that or if you have any sort of evidence for the claim.

I also have some comments about the Muslim issue. You are right when you say that your non-Muslim identity is different from Obama's non-Muslim identity. You equated his saying he wasn't a muslim in the same category as "lies, half-truths, deception, slipperiness, plays on words"-- you fault him for saying "I am not a Muslim"---how can you do this? He isn't a Muslim, he is a Christian. If I was born christian and became a buddhist when I was 25 and you asked me what my faith was when I was 26 I would say I was a Buddhist---and you would call me a liar? You would doubt my legitimacy as a Buddhist out of hand? Either way, Obama isn't denying his heritage, in fact his multi-cultured background is one of his greatest strengths. McCain is now saying that Obama is the candidat  of Hamas (citing Obama's willingness to meet with our "enemies," even though Obama has said he would not talk with Hamas until they agreed to recognize Israel's statehood and independence). To me, it is a tragedy in this country that we may have a candidate who the terrorists actually think they could talk to, could actually get along with, maybe make progress and reconcile differences---we have that candidate and then we attack him and frame him as though his strengths are weaknesses. I, for one, would rather have an inexperienced man with high hopes and love for his country talking to our "enemies" than an experienced man with hard lines and dogmas about politics who refuses to talk or comprimise. "I don't comprimise on national security" I believe I've heard McCain say--- well, that's great, but what if he NEEDS to comprimise? How do we solve our conflicts in Iraq? Our policial postering with Iran and Syria? Our front against terrorism in Afganistan?

We comprimise..... that's what we do.....

lastly, You laud McCain for his denouncement of Bush's handling of Katrina yesterday, but I find it worth mentioning that both Clinton and Obama have been harping on Bush's mishandling of Katrina for as long as I can remember.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

MonkMonk:

Thanks for bringing the dialogue into important focus.

(Note: McCain is acting pretty lucidly. He is relaxed, focused, and speaks plainly to each issue that is presented to him. I don't see his age as a problem at all.

McCain very rarely gets torn up in debates, by the way.)  

You ask, what evidence do I have that the Clintons are not motivated to help the country? That is a hard one to answer. I am not sure what kind of evidence would ever be persuasive on this point.

I am certain Hillary does not intend to hurt the country. But that does not seem to be the real crux of the issue.

What I keep trying to point at in an imperfect way is this: Hillary has come to be perceived by many as the epitome of the incredibly smart person who is driven to obtain massive personal power. Power without regard for simple principles.

I am not alone in regarding her as someone who would do or say nearly anything to advance her personal agenda. It may be the case that her agenda will be the best thing that ever happened to the country. I do not know. What I do know is that I rarely have the sense that people are singularly-minded, massively committed power freaks. I do have this sense in this case.

I trust almost nothing she says. Nothing can be taken at face value. Everything is done for an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with communicating the simple truth of a matter.  

I believe that in the mind of Hillary, she is intensely and eternally committed to delivering justice to stupid Red males. They have been delivering nasty and unfair blows to her for years. She longs to get some payback! Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and all of that crowd know what they need to do to prepare the day Hillary becomes President.

It will be bloodshed. Rightly or wrongly. There is nothing she can say or do that will convince this crowd that they don't need to wage the equivalent of nuclear war on her. It is stupid. They are stupid. And it is a reality. One that we do not need.

I do not want a President who has this kind of baggage. I do not want a President who is deeply committed to retribution against those who have engaged in a vast Red conspiracy against her. I do not want a President who rightly or wrongly will fire up any vast body of conspirators of any color. We do not need and cannot afford the kind of ideological civil war that she is going to bring us. It may not be her fault. But it is a reality.

I lived in Asia for a number of years. China and Japan. One of the factors that is always considered in those cultures is "am I good for the people?" Whether it is the nation, a local community, a company, etc. Whether or not it is fair or just or an illusion is beside the point. If what I bring to the post is a lot of baggage that is harmful to the mission, I decline to reach out for the post - period. No questions asked. No quibbling. No bullshit explanations. Just the reality of the situation. If I am in the post and for whatever reason my personal issues with a signficant group are distracting everyone from the business at hand, I voluntarily step down.

I cannot see Hillary ever stepping aside, no matter what harm her presence is bringing, as long as she has one bullet left. And that, my friend, is what I mean when I say that her personal needs take priority over what is good for the country.

Hillary and Bill live by the credo that you are either in the game or not. And not being in the game is death. For all intents and purposes, losing this nomination and election will be for the Clintons a form of death. I do not want a President who is wired that way.

This business about disregarding the popular vote at the convention is a perfect example. The Democrats wailed about Gore and the popular vote in 2024. It is absolutely hypocritical for Hillary to even intone the notion that the Super Delegates should consider trumping the popular vote now.

You ask what positions should the Democrats take? What they should take and what they need to take may be different.

Here is the problem with how the Democrats are perceived in the Presidential race. We are living in a very tenuous time. Things are changing at very deep levels. The Internet and digital information are transforming how we know and communicate. Something is happening to the environment. Something is happening to our economy. China is becoming an absolutely monstrous presence in Asia. They are perceived as less than benevolent by many. Our traditional mode of transportation - the internal combustion engine - is a question mark. And there are factions in the Muslim community abroad that are now committed to striking violently at anything associated with America.

So, people are looking for something that makes solid and simple sense. Whatever we have that is strong should not be emaciated. And whatever we have that is weak should not be tipped over into chaos. 

So how does this relate to Democrats? Democrats are smarter and more conscious as a whole than Republicans. But Democrats have shown themselves capable of outsmarting themselves with brilliant social programs that lead to absurd results. Democrats are fond of vibrant domestic debate. Democrats adopt platforms premised on the responsibility of government to take care of the people. Democrats generally scoff at old-fashioned religion.  

My strong sense is that a good number of people feel:

- now is not the time to squabble amongst ourselves;

-now is not the time to be or even appear weak;

-now is not the time to divert massive resources to social programs that may or may not work;

-now is not the time to give a voice to every faction in America that feels it needs to gain ground due to perceived injustices from the past;

-now is not the time to engage in bold social experiments (e.g. socialized medicine);

-now is not the time to wage war on business interests (e.g. dusting off Bill Clinton's anti-trust suit against Microsoft);

-now is not the time to run the country with a lawyer's mentality (which the Democrats excel at) but instead, with a businessman's mentality;

-now is not the time to do anything except be fair, use common sense, deal strictly with external threats, and show a commitment at a basic level to religious and spiritual credos of a traditional nature that may be kooky in many ways but which also come with some simple and powerful moral principles that the Democrats, in their sophisticated and brilliant way, often scoff at.

I am not bullshitting you or trying to persuade you of anything. I am trying in the most simple way I can to explain what kind of bottom-line values I am sensing in the world I live in. It is generally a pretty moderate world. I am sensing that the people, right now, want to act in a very, very pragmatic way in this upcoming election.

And what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both portend is not something that can be regarded as very, very pragmatic. It may be wise, it may be right, it may be good, but it is not simple and pragmatic. This is the sense I am getting.

I can live with Hillary as President. I can live with Obama as President. This is me personally. But, I am getting the distinct feeling that many people are seeing McCain as the stablest choice. 

In a sense, we are living in mythical times. The war is a mythic battle. The environment is a mythic issue. And what people know is that fortune favors the strong. Most of the "triumphs" in American history were the result of bold resolve, rather than nit-picking and the crafty of clever programs. The Democrat position at almost every turn leads to what people would define as a weakening of the nation. It may be wiser, more compassionate, more helpful, more friendly and more just. Be it is weaker. Mythical times do not permit giving full play to the more delicate virtues.

And then there is a whole group of Americans who do not give a hoot about anything that I have said above. For them, this election is about only one thing: grinding hard, tough, relentlessly and without debate against any forces in whatever form and to whatever degree of affiliation who helped in any way directly or indirectly in hijacking passenger planes back on Sept. 11. 

For a good number of Americans, Sept. 11 is our collective equivalent of a robber climbing into our daughter's bedroom and raping her. I have used this analogy before and I have apologized for invoking the specter. But, I am trying to convey a very simple notion that what is foremost in the minds of many Americans is the simple fact that we have been supremely challenged. How we respond will forever define us.

You ask, what positions should they take? I believe that Obama and Clinton can win themselves the election by saying two things: "during my Presidency, I promise you one thing, we will absolutely continue to stay the course in Iraq, and we will rout out every terrorist element swiftly and without debate.

And secondly, I fully support the right of every American to bear arms, and I will veto any legislation that infringes that right."

You may be wondering where the hell that second point came from? There is a persuasive argument that a good number of key states (such as Ohio) roll with the candidate who is perceived as pro-2nd Adt. You can create as many welfare programs you want as long as you let me keep my rifle.

So, there you have it.    

 

 

 

 

Zneval:

I am glad to hear you agree that a Obama-Clinton ticket will not happen, and a Clinton-anyone ticket is a lost cause for the Democrats.

Regarding the assertion in the subject line, I really feel that the onus is on you to tell me how this makes any sense whatsoever. What am I missing here?

You asked "how do I know that those who voted Bush in '04 will vote McCain." I honestly think that the more economical approach is to allow you to describe for me the hypothetical voter(s) who went with Bush in '04 but who prefer Obama over McCain now. They may be out there, but I can probably buy them all dinner at the Outback and still have money left over for pie.

Please give me some insight into the mindset of these people I will be buying dinner for. What qualities did they see in Bush rather than Kerry that will cause them to prefer Obama over McCain?

You speak of finding the President who the terrorists can get along with and dialogue with. I explained to MonkMonk, and I will say it again: I believe there is a big chunk of America that is absolutely uninterested in getting along with and dialogueing with terrorists. In the area of criminal law, there are a number of reasons for punishing a criminal. One of them is retribution. It has nothing to do with deterring the criminal himself, or deterring other criminals, or helping the criminal understand the evil of his ways, or making him a better person. It is about knocking him on his ass - period.

Before you accuse me of anything, please remember, I am reporting as faithfully as I can what I sense many Americans still feel. It may be right or wrong or stupid. I am trying to be as honest as I can about what I am seeing out there. I have remarked previously that we have been massively unwhelmed by the active willingness of Americans to lift a finger to oppose the war. You can take all of the polls you want. I want a head count of the number of bodies marching in the streets in opposition to the war. They are not out there for a simple reason - they are not opposed to the war.

You speak of solving our political posturing with Iran and Syria. I also sense that many Americans at heart feel that they do not give a damn about Iran and Syria at this point. What has either of those countries done to further the interests of mankind in the last century? I very acutely sense that for many Americans today, as we speak, neither of those two countries deserves anything from us but the strictest handling with as few words as possible.

Let me take this issue from another angle. Here we are chatting with each other. I do not know you. You do not know me. For all I know you are a computer program. And vice versa.

Yet, we chat. I remember when I lived in Japan and China. I speak both languages. I can communicate very well with people in those countries. But there is something funny that happens there. For many Japanese and Chinese, if a person comes up to you and tries to dialogue with you, just because the person asked you a question does not obligate you to answer it. For many of them, it is not an automatic to respond in kind to dialogue until you know someone well and trust them. And if someone has exhibited the slightest bad faith to you, there is no doubt about it! They do not merit a little chat session with you.

Americans are less willing at this point in time to automatically sit down at the table in any form with groups that have demonstrated bad faith and hostility in the past.

Imagine if someone punched your son in the face for no reason. And then he said, "wait, let me tell you what I am learning in my anger management classes about how to control myself. And, do you have any thoughts on how I can be a better person?" Do you dialogue with this person? What exactly is your posture with this person? Do you listen to them? Do you even take the time to allow them to communicate with you?

I am sensing that many Americans are not interested in 18 rounds of dialogues with terrorists who are operating in bad faith and based on a set of religious beliefs that can never be reconciled with those that generally govern in America. There are times when you just do what you have to do in dealing with someone who has violated the most fundamental laws of what it means to be civilized.

And I ask you to not rail against me for what I believe or how misguided I am. I am telling you what I sincerely feel is the prevailing mood in areas of the country that even would be considered moderate. These are not my opinions. But they are real and they are going to prove decisive in November.

 

 

 

Hi Schalk,

You asked Zneval to: 

describe for me the hypothetical voter(s) who went with Bush in '04 but who prefer Obama over McCain now. They may be out there, but I can probably buy them all dinner at the Outback and still have money left over for pie.

Feel free to take me to Outback and I'll take some pie too!  I voted for Bush both times and have been happy to support Obama during this campaign.

The difference is having met, in the past three years, Integral and Ken Wilber.  Personal circumstances led me to open up to post-post modern messages and gave me a way to jump back over green (where I had been decades ago) after it had "failed" me and I had spent a good 25 years "safely" back in amber/orange.

You see, I had no desire to simply give up modernity for what seemed to me to be a discredited green post modernity.  But I came to see that it was "mean" green that I had rejected.  Integrality gave me a way to see past the shortcomings of green and made it safe for me to pack orange and amber respectfully away and embrace a new perspective which has led me to welcome Obama.  As the campaign has progressed I don't know how truly post-post modern he is and I could accept Clinton as I have been able to reassess her history in this new light. 

I don't think I represent a huge demographic and so you and I might not have much company at lunch, but I'm sure others have moved "up the spiral" thanks to the events of the first decade of this century - with Wilber as a catalyst.

MarkD, the recovered republican

---

Just enough enlightenment for this time around, please.