And Dr. M replies again

"127.--The true way to be deceived is to think one-self more knowing than others." Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marsillac.

Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims

Translated from the Editions of 1678 and 1827 with introduction, notes, and some account of the author and his times.

J. W. Willis Bund, M.A. LL.B and J. Hain Friswell

Simpson Low, Son, and Marston, 188, Fleet Street.
1871.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/8roch10.txt

Now, BevD, it's nice to get so much attention; and I am enjoying this conversation; but, do you realize what how pedantic you are being? As the Duc de la Rochefoucauld warns us, a little humility goes a long way. We could probably be friends if you had a more open mind and a willingess to participate in a civil dialog instead of rudely delivering a lecture. I don't expect everyone to agree with me; but, you happen to have completely misread my position. I would suggest you ask more questions and don't make so many assumptions about what others are saying. I could be mistaken, but you remind me of the older folks who think anyone posting a comment favorable toward Sen. Obama has to be 22 years old and a wide-eyed idealist. I would guess you are annoyed by the kids who don't understand how everything really works and are threatening the entitlement Sen. Clinton has to the Democratic nomination. I'm 55 years old but those kids are the future of the DP, if it has one. I saw your comments on the young man reciting his street poem about Obama; and, you really should have restrained yourself instead of spitting on a very sharp black kid whose cynicism about the system was cracked open by the example of Sen. Obama's audacious hope. I apologize for repeating myself but the point of the essay is that power is shifting from wealthy power brokers to coalitions of motivated voters who use the internet to communicate and coordinate their activities. This is the main reason Sen. Obama has been able to defeat the overwhelming favorite for the nomination. Yes, he's charismatic but without the motivated network, he would have flopped and dropped a long time ago. Am I correct that this type of network is the wave of the future and that it will result in a shift of power to communities of savvy individuals? Neither one of us knows because it's a prediction. I did not say a thing about the quality of information one gets through the internet. If I were so naive, would I be quoting La Rochefoucauld? Yes, I read blogs but not to be informed of "the truth." I read them to get a sense of how people are perceiving and feeling about the events of the day, especially the Democratic Party presidential race. "The truth" is an unknowable construct that we can only approach by determining how well the predictions based upon our hypotheses work. If you are seeing reality more clearly than I am, your predictions will be better than mine and you will achieve your goals more efficiently than I will. It's like having a more accurate map of the terrain. I believe that one should never presume one has the complete picture (a point made in one of my favorite wisdom tales, the blind men and the elephant). I hope this clarifies my position for you. Now, if you want to lecture me further, I demand to see your credentials. You have developed a sadly inaccurate picture of who I am.

BevD's rejoinder

It doesn't matter from which source you borrowed your analogy, it is still wrong. It's indicative of the very problem you seem to think is solved by your access to information. Here we have this "great pharaoh" who was made great by his scribes (and even they couldn't hide the truth of the Kadesh battle in their accounts) who fooled so many people for millenium, simply by saying he was great. So there you have it, you were manipulated by Ramses's spin doctors. And why? Because no amount of googling will do for you what years of some poor shlub sifting sand in the deserts for twenty years will do for you - provide you with the truth.

The internet is one of the greatest inventions to date. That doesn't make it though, the source of truth that you seem to think it is, it is only as good as the information that is put on it, by individuals. That is why your dependence on it as the mechanism of truth and wisdom is misplaced - its end product is the result of the fallible individual working from information provided by other fallible individuals, a concept I don't think you grasp. So here we have you, googling information about Ramses, which was provided by, well, Ramses, when revisionists are looking at new discoveries and finding that perhaps Ramses wasn't so great after all. Unfortunately, you can't know that from googling, you have to do the scholarly research, immerse yourself in the history and read the journals, books and historiographies from many disciplines, separate the wheat from the chaff and find a tentative truth that will be revised with the next bit of clay tablet that turns up. The fact that I didn't comment on your other references to history doesn't indicate agreement, that's a conceit of your's which equates silence with agreement, I didn't comment on them because one example of your lack of historical context, seemed to suffice without the necessity of pointing out the other irregularities inside your cynical and jaded opinion of another generation which you dismiss with a remarkable lack empathy and understanding.

The fact that you support Obama has nothing to do with your misplaced trust and dependence on the "Obama Network" which in itself would indicate a biased and slanted source of information. And speaking of bias, what makes you think I am in the least bit cynical and contemptuous of Obama and Obama supporters? I admire Obama and have only objections to him in the same way I have objections to all the candidates - I understand that all the candidates are fallible individuals, who have made mistakes, will make mistakes, have faults and virtues, talents and challenges and live in the same world that I do.

My objections to your blog entry have nothing to do with your support for Obama, it is your dismal world vision where those with money and access to the internet will inflict their will and vision on others, which is as tyrannical in its imposition as any other special interest group which imposes its will and vision on others. My objection is your lack of objectivity, your willingness to replace one form of the tyranny of special interests with another. What I find sad is your contempt and disdain for the individual when it is individuals who input the information you are dependent upon - and you can't see that. The very thing you rail against is the very thing you need most.

You too seem to be an intelligent person, it is your lack of understanding, empathy and compassion for history and your insistence upon the ownership of a particular lease on the truth that makes me think the future will be more of the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

Riposte from Dr. Morpheus

"The world is full of smokestacks jeering at chimneys." La Rochefoucauld.

The hope of a writer is that someone will read ones work and take it seriously enough to criticize it. Only someone who is blown over by a puff of wind or who sticks his fingers in his ears when challenged is displeased by the critic. If one avoids the challenge, the opportunity for growth is lost. Therefore, thank you for investing time and thought, your most precious resources, in my little essay.

As you recognize, the piece does not hinge upon whether Ramesses won one battle or 45. While it’s tangentially interesting for you to supply a summary of the historical consensus, a brief statement along with a link for those who want the full story would suffice to make your point. You are also aware asserting a few phrases of mine are exaggerated doesn’t address my thesis. Moreover, while I don’t claim to be an historian, the accounts I read report the battle of Kadesh (or Qadesh) was a standoff. Not one source I could find stated that Ramesses “had his ass handed to him.” Therefore, it appears that your are at least as guilty of hyperbole as I am. And since you didn’t comment on them, I presume you accept the accuracy of the other references to history. But again, we are talking about an irrelevant detail in that I borrowed the metaphor from a poem about a statue.

You also got the obvious argument I was making in the piece that an old political culture where voters are essentially manipulated is being replaced by a culture where a significant body of voters will be intelligent, motivated and informed. The internet provides a powerful mechanism both for doing research, raising funds, and communicating back and forth between politicians and their constituents. The idea that Obama voters are just the manipulated masses sitting at a computer appeals to those who have no first hand experience in the Obama network. Perhaps this identifies you as part of the cynical culture that I predict is going the way of the pharaohs. Moreover, you accuse me of being self-congratulatory and grandiose in a self-congratulatory and grandiose manner. Having spent considerable time reading comments on popular political blogs I have been struck by the wishful thinking of those who hope that Obama’s follower really are drinking some form of spiked Kool-aid and that the Senator is nothing more than a balloon made of flannel. His successes leave them perplexed, exasperated, and reduced to shouting insults (or, less frequently, writing snarky critical reviews). You appear to be an intelligent and educated person so I hope I’m wrong about you being out of touch with the truth. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Critique by BevD

Unfortunately for your analogy, Ramses II didn't win battle after battle, subjugating people after people, in fact the first battle he ever led, (and the last) the battle for Kadesh, he had his ass handed to him and escaped by the skin of his teeth. His great battles with the Hittites consisted of intermittent skirmishes, which always ended as standstills and then the first international peace treaty between the Egyptians and the Hittites. After the death of Ramses and his son Merneptah assumed the throne, there was one great battle by Egyptians in beating back the immigration of the Sea Peoples and then began the times of anarchy and the great decline. By the time Menerptah's heir assumed the throne a few years later the kingdom had once again split in two and this pharaoh and the rest of them were continually engaged in internal power struggles. It seems that your belief in Ramses II as the last great Pharaoh is the result of Ramses's spin doctors, the scribes. Some things never change, do they?

So unless your analogy is that decline is inevitable, I don't think your analogy of Clinton as the last pharaoh followed by the "new people" really works, and while it's nice to pat yourself on the back for being the "new people" marked by the ability to raise vast sums of money through the internet, or flooding blogs with e-mails filled with umbrage, I'm not certain that's a major accomplishment. While claiming to be "wired in" it seems you're just as susceptible to spin doctors, propaganda and self interests as everyone else, as your comments demonstrate, in fact, you're exposed to more of it and as your blog entry indicates you're more likely to believe the self-aggrandizing flattery you heap on yourselves.

Everyone thinks he is the one who is loyal only to principles and reason and not to the fallible individual, but principles and reason are the affairs of humans and will always be what the individual says they are and will always be one of the individual's self interest compromised with society's interest. That great army you see, those "new people" are as far ranging in beliefs, in principles, in reason and in self-interest as they've always been and I hope, will continue to be, because the alternative is unbearable - who will decide those principles and reason that will rule the "new people"? You? A politician? A mob? The majority? What will happen to those individuals who step outside of your vision of reason and principles? Reason and principles are as fallible as the individual who makes them.

Your concept of the millions with the money and the networks to enforce their will upon society is as tyrannical as the millions with money and networks are now, and the only hope we have is that there is a fallible individual to recognize tyranny in all its forms, even that of the "new people".

Trunkless legs in the sand

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" -Shelley (1818)

Discussions of how the battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will play out, the relative effects of black skin and female gender, whether particular messages and talking points each side employs will prove effective, what the Clintons will try after throwing the kitchen sink and making Tonya Harding their role model, whether Obama will escape from the taint of his discredited former pastor, and so on make for entertaining television and blogging. A fight is going on and it does pit candidates whose obvious differences and similarities are being analyzed to death. Whether you watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC and whether you read and comment on HuffPo, the Caucus, or the WSJ, smart and knowledgeable pundits are filling the screens and pages with their clever observations and bold predictions; for, isn’t that how they make their names (if not the big bucks)? However, to frame the Democratic presidential primary race as a fight between two ambitious political leaders with contrasting personalities, demographics, and ethics is to miss the real story.

The real story is about what those leaders are leading. We could use the language of Thomas Kuhn and say that what we are seeing is a paradigm shift; but, the real story is more than just that. We are not only observing but taking part in a critical transition in the evolution of our political culture, the ongoing experiment in living democracy set in motion by such as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Ben Franklin and still unfolding as each of us plays our small part. While we write and talk and blog away, suffering such leaders as Dick, W, and Condy, an old system of political power that has outlived its usefulness is dying; and, a new dynamic structure is in the process of supplanting it. The demise of the old model is certain regardless of the last ditch, fight-to-the-death by the old-timers of the Clinton campaign, a mortal effort to win one last time for the traditional political game. The Old Guard senses that this is their last stand and they might as well have the pipes play Garryowen and die with their boots on.

http://www.us7thcavalry.com/legend.htm

Consider Ozymandias, the historic Pharaoh Ramesses II the Great, who won battle after battle, war after war, living for 90 years until his demise in 1213 BCE. No matter how many armies the Pharaoh defeated, how many people he subjugated, how many monuments he caused to be built, how many chariots and goats and bolts of purple cloth he amassed, his death was inevitable and no one could stop it from happening.

Hillary Clinton is merely the last of the Democratic Party Pharaohs, the post-Vietnam idols, a breed of deal makers funded by wealthy fat cat liberals, of amoral manipulaters and spin doctors who got people to vote for them or against the opponent by creating illusions and activating irrational psychological states, of ear-mark grubbing scavengers who traded favors for votes. As they die off, they are being replaced by leaders who will surf in on a wave of wired in decision-makers, millions of whom can be mobilized in minutes to contribute large and small sums of money and to fire off emails and to assault the blogs to let their elected representatives know what laws they want enacted and what policies they want to see scuttled. These are people who think for themelves, who perform their own due diligence, who don't need to reduce a complex reality to narrow categories such as "liberals" and "conservatives," who are loyal to reason and principle, not to fallible individuals.

The great Democrats of our time are placing their bets and lining up with their horse: Bill Nelson, Barbara Boxer, Walter Mondale, and John Murtha cuing up behind the Clintons; Ted Kennedy, John Kerrey, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson taking Obama’s back. In a great irony, it happens that Hillary Clinton is a woman and Barack Obama has an African father, dark skin, an Arabic name, and an eccentric former pastor. These incidentals distract us from the truth: that Sen. Obama is only the first in a line of new leaders who will assume office as the memories of the old politics take their place in the history books, the public squares, and the museums that future archaeologists, scholars, and tourists will ponder and admire. His skin-tone and gender are anything but the real story.

HuffPost's pick!

http://tinyurl.com/yvdnrw

Obama is Nietzschean

HuffPost's Pick

Nietzsche believed in the power of words. He was an etymologist by training but a writer by calling. Nietzsche was both arrogant and profoundly humble, fearless in going wherever the search for truth and life led him, relentless in tapping with his metal hammer on the feet of idols to see if they were hollow. He admired RIchard Wagner's art but rejected and denounced him when it became clear that Wagner was a racist and a decadent sentimentalist, not the harbinger of a new and creative form of art. Nietzsche did not fit neatly into any category because he was both conservative and radical at the same time. He is one of the most misunderstood thinkers and artists of all time. Here's to those brave enough to call the Emperor on being naked.

What are they waiting for?

http://tinyurl.com/2tlayw

An article in the Seattle PI online edition discusses the uncertain commitment of Washington (state) superdelegates to Hillary Clinton.

"Clinton superdelegate, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, said this week that she hopes the issue is settled without the intervention of the superdelegates -- a scenario that might require Clinton or Obama to withdraw from the race. But Cantwell told the Vancouver newspaper The Columbian that she wants the nominee determined in June in any case.

The candidate with the most pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses can make the best case for the nomination, Cantwell said, while also mentioning most states won and highest popular vote total as secondary factors. Obama leads in all three categories, and it's considered unlikely that Clinton will overtake him -- but neither Obama nor Clinton, at this point, can win the majority of delegates needed for nomination solely through the primaries and caucuses."
It has been known for weeks that Sen. Clinton will not catch Sen. Obama in any category unless Obama's campaign implodes. With the success of "the speech," addressing Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the issue of race in America, it is clear that Sen. Obama will come out ahead when the convention rolls around. Why does the leadership of the Democratic Party allow the situation to hang suspended as Sen. Clinton forces Sen. Obama into an ongoing spitting match? Now Sen. Clinton is attacking Nancy Pelosi and wealthy Clinton backers are threatening to pull their money from the Democrats if they don't get their way and have Clinton as the nominee. Where are the leaders, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Howard Dean? Do they want to remain the old-time party of big money liberals, dishonest tactics, allowing the GOP to have its way with them, taking minorities for granted, and treating voters as if they're stupid? Or do they want to be part of the future, of empowered cyber-roots activitists, creative and compassionate self-starters, of bottom up power and accountability of elected representatives for their votes? What are they waiting for?

(see e. g., http://tinyurl.com/2xmtn3)
Clinton: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"
If I were Hillary Clinton, I would be a Martian. Is anyone tired of the "if x were z" scenarios that get bandied about to make lame arguments? Examples- "If Obama were white, he wouldn't be doing this well in the primaries," "If Hillary were a man, she'd get more respect," "If 6 turned out to be 9, all of the hippies would cut off all their hair." Did you know that when you put a counterfactual at the beginning of a conditional statement anything you put at the end is true. So, when I say these arguments are lame, I mean they are invalid for drawing nay useful conclusions about reality. That being the case, why don"t we just stop making them?. Jimi spoke out against talking points and repetitive phrases thusly: "I've got my own world to live through and I ain't gonna copy you."
Posted 03/25/2008 at 18:56:34

The old and the new

It boils down to this- Hillary Clinton is a manifestation and an exemplar of old-style power politics. She and her campaign play games with voters and are happy to manipulate them shamelessly while taking polls all the while to determine what she's going to say. Barack Obama is a man who entered the brutal world of politics determined to succeed as an ethical politician. He speaks to the voters as if they are intelligent people and appeals to their best selves. As evidence for his credibility, notice that his marriage is far better than that of the Clintons or the McCains. Seriously, now, ask yourself whether you would prefer to be one of the partners in the Clintons, the McCains, or the Obamas marriage. Barack Obama's church is energetic, positive, solidly Christian, and a beacon of success in a tough urban world. Those who think otherwise have not bothered to seek the facts about the church, or even to listen to or read entire sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a brilliant and widely respected pastor and thinker.

Many people who frequent blogs do not think for themselves and gave up on learning long ago. They parrot talking points of ruthless politicos who haven't the slightest interest in truth. They become angry if asked to consider facts that don't fit neatly with their prejudices. These persons are not going to accept Sen. Obama regardless of what facts or arguments one presents to them. Others are so cynical they think that everyone is equally corrupt except that persons more experienced in corruption are more effective in the political jungle. The Democratic primary race is a case of old vs new. New often becomes corrupted when it takes power; but, for now, the new is the best hope yet for the evolution of American democracy to a more enlightened system where people at the cyber-roots level actually have a voice. Selah.

Getting over it

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=147http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bouley/get-over-it_b_92855.html

The following is my comment in response to a blog entitled “Get over it.”

People do get over it by a process called grief. It doesn't happen all at once and at the end of it one is not in denial but acceptance. If someone has wronged you in the past it entails forgiveness. If the wrong is still going on, you keep working to come to terms with it and find ways to channel your sadness and rage into a constructive course of action. I'm visiting my 91-year old mother for Easter. We lost my Dad on Christmas Eve of 2006 to cancer and Mom had her own bout with the disease a year prior to Dad's death. She was brought up in the Methodist Church but for many years has found the affirming theology of Unity Church helpful. This morning I had just finished the sentence about forgiveness when I put it down to have breakfast with Mom. As is her protocol, she reads a passage from the Daily Word aloud before saying grace. The word for Saturday March 22 was entitled “forgive.”

“As I forgive I am renewed by the peaceful, life-giving energy of God. My heartfelt desire is to always live in an environment of peace. I know that forgiveness is vital to establishing and maintaining this peaceful, live-giving atmosphere. So if I feel that someone has offended me or somehow disappointed me, I release the resentment I have been harboring and feel the relief that I desire.” The reading ended with a Psalm: “Make me to know your ways, O Lord, teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me.” Ps. 25:4-5. Mom finished reading and commented, “It’s good when you can.” Amen.

To Roland Martin

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=147

Roland, Thanks for your intelligent and grounded reporting and commentary. If it weren’t for you and David Gergen, the CNN team would have trouble making the claim to be the best. DG is so wise and compassionate, he would be a great choice for UN Ambassador or another position of leadership. Anyone who has access to David would be smart to take notes and try out anything he advises. He’s an outstanding human being.

I appreciate your pointing out to the public that most of the comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright are being made by people who have no idea what the man has said or done. It’s sad how willing people are to be manipulated by ruthless politicos who are not the least bit interested in the truth. Some of these are so cynical they probably don’t believe there is such a thing as truth. I’ve read people’s blogs citing the sermon “The audacity to hope” as an example of a racist diatribe! In reality the sermon is just a gentle and lovely paean to faith with no anger to be found. I enjoyed your open-minded statement that you will accurately report elements of Rev. Wright’s prophetic sermons that are offensive. I’m looking forward to reading your comments on what your research reveals. I expect you to find that Rev. Wright is an intelligent and complex man who wrestles with both angels and demons.

A good indicator of whether a consumer of punditry warrants credibility is if she or he is respectful and speaks to the audience as if it were composed of adults. You certainly pass this test. Kudos to those in politics and the media who are strong enough to take the audience seriously. That’s obviously one of the reasons Barack Obama appeals to youth and those with relatively more education. It’s not just a matter of holding a degree because plenty of highly educated folks seem to have forgotten how to think for themselves. They may have even forgotten how to learn. That’s the old way of politicking that I hope is dying. The youth of the world are so much freer than most of my fifty-something peers. They like to research things and don’t feel the need to fit themselves or other into neat categories. I’m grateful to be alive to see this happening. A race between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain would give us a clear choice and a debate that would have a chance to rise above the old politics that assumes we’re all sitting numbly waiting to be manipulated. Thanks again for this post and keep up the good work.

Intelligent voters?

Ariana Huffington (http://tinyurl.com/2d4gtf) writes about GOP politicians who get a pass on claims that al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorist organizations support Democratic candidates for high office and are happy when these Democrats succeed because they see the Democrats as ready to capitulate to the bad guys. An egregious recent example is the following widely reported claim by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa- not to be confused with the respectable fright fiction writer of a similar name) about Sen. Barack Hussein Obama (not to be confused with the well-known terrorist nor the much despised former dictator (now deceased) of similar names:

“If he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

Outrageous assertions such as King’s about terrorist attempts to influence our elections one way or another are just another example of pundits and politicians talking to voters as if they are stupid. Intelligent people who have read up on the issues can tell when something is being spun or just downright fabricated. One of the main reasons Sen. Barack Obama resonates with voters is that he assumes the listener has a brain and can think for her or himself. I'm an older (age 55), white, male, Democratic voter who finds the respect Sen. Obama shows to his audience refreshing; but, I wonder if many of my age peers are so used to being on the receiving end of spin that they are numb to it. How intelligent people can maintain self-respect when posting talking points is a mystery. The current example that comes to mind is the repeated characterizations of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity UCC as "hate mongers" and "racists." Just a little research quickly proves that neither is truly racist. I know, I had to check it out for myself when the clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright making inflammatory statements in his sermons emerged. Discerning voters take a critical look at themselves and their candidates. They don't accept everything their side says without doing their own fact checks. And what does it mean that Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks up for Sen. Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright and presenting his articulate and thoughtful views on MSNBC's Morning Joe? Imagine a presidential race between two candidates who present a clear choice but address the voter as a rational being who is capable of independent thinking?

Yes we can!

http://www.ajc.com/uga/content/sports/uga/stories/2008/03/19/ncaasuperfans_0320.html

I had to share this story which features my old home boy, Roy Bell. Roy and I attended the old Athens High School, graduating in 1970, the year before it became Clarke Central. The story of the Dawgs run in the SEC tournament is truly inspiring and shows that it is possible to succeed by doing it the right way. From worst to first, not just in the tourney but in gaining respect for emphasizing academics for athletes when we had been a national laughingstock. I spoke to Melanie Felton when Roy and Debbie Bell were in Baton Rouge and we all went to the UGA-LSU game; and, I have it straight from Michelle that she is solidly for Barack Obama! THe cynics laughed when Barack Obama said that he was going to run a different kind of campaign and he showed them what is possible if courageous and dedicated people all pull together. We've had our dark days lately but now the sun is coming out again. Can we do it?

Quick show of hands:

Which of the following is most like your marriage?

a) John and Cindy McCain
b) Hillary and Bill Clinton
c) Barack and Michelle Obama?

In which marriage would you most want to be one of the partners?

Tough act to follow

Today Barack Obama delivers a speech about Iraq. Sen. Obama has to follow his own act, a momentous speech on race in contemporary America that has already been acclaimed by many as historic. How can he deliver a speech on our failed adventure in eliminating weapons of mass destruction, regime change, exportation of democracy, and nation building that will stand up to his accomplishment from the day before? What audacity!

Desiderata

I must reprint this comment by desiderata on a Huffpo blog "Obama cracks my TV in half" by Adam McKay.

Desiderata 
Not everybody was so impressed by Obama's speech. Even now I am listening to Dan Abrams ignore the thoughtful analysis of the divisions among us to, instead, roast Barack for not acting more politically by villifying and defecating on the Reverand Wright.

Had Obama done exactly as Abrams and Tucker Carlson rebuked him for not doing, Barack would have been just another ambitious and phony politician, not the very human, considerate and thoughtful individual that a real President needs to be.

And as a former supporter of John Edwards, I rejected the notion that the last candidates left in the Democratic race were more than Republican-lite.

This morning, as much as I tried to resist, I heard and saw greatness. This cardboard image of Obama held in my mind filled-out, looked me in the eye and told me the truth about himself, myself, and what this nation loses if the media is allowed to destroy his candidacy through confusing us as to who is the candidate__Barack or his pastor.

And who among faithful churchgoers would desert their church because your pastor, priest, rabbi said some over-the-top things in sermon? Fallwell & Robertson declared 911 a deserving punishment for America for our sins. How many quit their congregations?

So, Obama loves the Reverand Wright but not everything preached. Sounds very Christian to me: Love the sinner but hate the sin.

But it was Obama's soul, laid out naked before us on television, that spoke of our divisions, life experiences and truths long shrouded in the shadows. He defined this morning what so many have struggled to comprehend. He suceeded in simultaneously exposing the wounds and having us look closely at the disease without turning away. He radiated the very "hope" for healing our society that I, before today, flipped off as just cheap political retoric.

I understand now, And I will gladly cast my Pennsylvania Primary vote__in the very core of Carville's "Little Alabama" for Barack Obama.

We all have heard of historical once-in-a-lifetime lives that changed the world for the better. Ghandi, Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, FDR.

Barack Obama clearly has the insight, intelligence, courage and heartfelt desire for that better world. Compare with that politically calculating it's-all-about-me candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

Clinton attributes Obama's front-runner status to his lofty oratory. She is right. She can never match his way with words because his soul speaks for him while her speeches come from a political playbook.

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.

"But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. "__Barack Obama

Resign from the Club

Today, Sen. Barack Obama took a step to move the dialogue in America past cartoon-like "takes" and into a substantive conversation. Sen. Clinton's initial response was supportive and constructive. I would be pleased to hear Sen. Clinton speak to her concerns and views of gender issues in a similar manner in a venue she finds appropriate. The only thing better would be for supporters on both sides to focus on the issues again and call a cease fire to back-and-forth accusations and smack talk. Each side may feel that the other started the mud fight but the important thing is to stop slinging it. Is there any real need for people to post comments that are nothing more than insults, expressions of outrage and disgust, and wishing ill upon the opposing candidate's extended family? Even if someone on the other side keeps on doing it, do you really need to pay them back in kind? Why not resign from the Hater's Club?

From many, one.

E pluribus unum. Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is a man who embodies the struggles of black and white in America. He's a true African-American but is he black? Is he black enough? Is he a white man in a black body? Is he of mixed race? What does it mean that he has a Muslim name? What does it mean that he went to school in Indonesia? That he went to a private school in Hawaii? That he was President of the Harvard Law Review? What does it mean that he has attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, a church where his pastor periodically lit it up with outbursts of rage against the United States of America, daring God, thundering at the heavens "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" the place that Sen. Obama claims is neither blue nor red? Perhaps Sen. Obama lives in the United red, white, black, and blue States of America. Who is this man, Barack Hussein Obama? I'll tell you what I believe.

I believe that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is the leader we've been hoping for.

Lead us not into the temptations of identity politics

Maybe I'm just too idealistic; but I need to say this. It’s time Democrats get past the racial and gender issues that have been stirred up in the current primary campaign. I would like to hear Sen. Obama say, “I respect Pres. Clinton and want to remind all of you that he has a strong record of supporting the rights of minorities during a time of intense pressure from Newt Gingrich and the social conservatives on the right wing. Let’s accept that Mr. Clinton had no intent to inject racism into the compaign and move on. Democrats need to get back to the dire issues that are at stake in this presidential election.”

In this spirit, I would also like to see Sen. Clinton speak out to support Sen. Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright. The truth is, Sen. Clinton fully understands where Rev. Jeremiah Wright is coming from. She would earn my utmost respect if she got on Fox News and said, “Rev. Wright is speaking from a tradition of fiery prophetic preaching in the African-American Christian tradition. We may reject his views but we should try to understand them. Furthermore, we should not judge my opponent, Sen. Obama, because he attended Rev. Wright’s church. Sen. Obama respects his elders but his views clearly are not the same as those of Rev. Wright. Let’s get back to the issues and I’ll tell you why you should vote for me instead of Sen. Obama.” Now,, that would be real, unifying leadership. Where is the unifying leadership we need at this crucial time?

The mathematics of division

The people who are assassinating the character of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are of two types: the first are ruthless political operatives who have taken statements by Rev. Wright out of the context of prophetic preaching where they were delivered, transformed them into sound bites, and used them to further a divisive political agenda (e.g., keeping the supporters of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama at one another's throats); the second are emotionally reactive people, mostly ‘white’ or Hispanic, who have no knowledge or understanding of that tradition, particularly in the African-American Christian church, and are therefore easily manipulated by the politicos. The political pros of the right don’t care about the truth; they care only about winning; and, they are very good at winning. If the people targeted by the politicos were able to conscientiously study the issues before jumping to conclusions on the basis of limited information, they would look out from behind their defensive walls, learn to see the world in a broader perspective, and overcome their fear of persons differing in cultural background and customs. The success of ruthless politicos hinges upon the second type of person reacting angrily rather than researching. The only thing protecting the rainbow of identities within the progressive coalition from turning on one another once more is leadership. Leadership plays the key role in mediating the reaction. If the leaders of the Democratic Party along with Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton were willing to stand up for one another against political attacks from outside the Democratic Party, their followers would not serve as the dupes of the people who enthusiastically launched an invasion of Iraq, poured the blood of our soldiers, black, white, Latino, male, female, straight and gay, and the wealth of our economy into the abyss they created, gleefully cut the taxes of those who wouldn’t notice or care if gasoline cost $5.00 a gallon, who believe that what’s good for big corporations is good for America, and who think the world respects us most if we show them who’s boss. If Karl Rove and company get us to hate one another, they don’t need to have a majority of American voters on their side. They just need to turn enough gullible voters against each viable Democratic candidate so that these plus the true believers of the right will be enough to keep them in power a little longer. It’s nothing personal, just the mathematics of division. But, where are the leaders we need to keep us from canceling one another out? Why don’t they lead us away from this losing proposition?

Jeremiah's Complaint: Politics and the prophets of doom

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0909-36.htm

On September 7, 2005, Bill Moyers gave an address to Union Theological Seminary entitled “9-11 and the sport of God” wherein he discussed the Jewish, Christian and Muslim prophetic traditions of evil raining down upon the corrupt nations of the world. Among other things, Mr. Moyers said,

“Let's go back to 9/11 four years ago. The ruins were still smoldering when the reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell went on television to proclaim that the terrorist attacks were God's punishment of a corrupted America. They said the government had adopted the agenda "of the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians" not to mention the ACLU and People for the American Way.”

Rev. Wright, agree with him or not, delivered a number of sermons preaching within this tradition, showing that the right-wing fundamentalists have opposite numbers on the left whom MSM seldom publicizes. Consider that the Old Testament or Torah has many prophecies speaking of not only how Pharaoh will be laid low but of the devastation God is planning to bring down on the nations of Judah and Israel, the kingdoms of his own chosen people (see, e.g., Jeremiah 12 :10 “Many shepherds will ruin my vineyard and trample down my field. They will turn my pleasant field into a desolate wasteland, parched and desolate before me. The whole land will be laid waste because there is no one who cares. (NIV).” Read the entire chapter to get an even more extreme statement of how angry God is and what he plans to do about it. Back in those days, I doubt that you invited one of the prophets to your dinner party unless you wanted to get a non-PC earful of harsh and frightening predictions and judgments. I think it’s important for all of us to keep this in perspective when we condemn Sen. Obama or any candidate because his minister or supporter preaches hellfire and damnation from his or her socio-political point of view.

Proof that Ferraro's remarks incite racist sentiments

Allow me to point out one piece of evidence bearing upon the question of Mr. Olbermann's argument. Like many of us, KO read Ms. Ferraro's remarks as being aimed at arousing the prejudice and resentment of white voters in Pennsylvania. Many of Sen. Clinton's supporters denied that the remarks were poisonous. A visit to the web site of former Louisiana State Representative David Duke gives an illuminating perspective on the issue. Mr. Duke has published a letter to Keith Olbermann agreeing with Ms. Ferraro's remarks! The fact that David Duke, unquestionably a barometer of white racism, resonates with Ms. Ferraro's statements certainly gives strong evidence that KO is on the money with his analysis. If you can stand it, check out Mr. Duke's letter for yourself.

http://www.davidduke.com/general/keith-olbermann-says-ferraro-sounds-like-david-duke_3576.html#more-3576/

Right or wrong, it's clear KO was appealing to Sen. Clinton as a friend. Talk about tough love, Hillary should be glad she has a friend like Keith Olbermann, willing to tell her what he knows she doesn't want to hear but he feels she needs to be told.

Keith Olbermann's tough love

After listening to Keith Olbermann reach out to HIllary Clinton with enough love to tell her that which she does not want to hear but needs to be told, my batteries are recharged. KO will catch his share of flack for this but I'm sure he's used to it by this time.  Even Bill O'Reilly seemed to be resonating with the rejection of Gerry Ferarro's ugly race-baiting tactics.  Meanwhile, I will continue to approach those who disagree with my positions with respect, giving them the benefit of the doubt while contradicting their stereotypes about people who support Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, a man who cannot be reduced to a category because he is greater than the sum of his parts. 

Say it loud, I'm a white Obama Democrat and I'm proud. 

Did Geraldine Ferrraro mean to appeal to racial prejudice?

Sen. Barack Obama"s campaign charges that Geraldine Ferraro"s comments in a recent newspaper interview and her defiant follow-up remarks are offensive. I may have overlooked someone but across hundreds of comments on different blogs discussing Ms.. Ferraro"s remarks, I could not find even one supporter of Sen. Clinton state that you agree the comments appealed to racist or sexist sentiments as a means of motivating people not to vote for Sen. Obama. Many people said that Ms. Ferraro only stated the obvious truth; many said that"s just what they had been thinking. To this observer, one of the most shocking things about the controversy is that many people don"t see anything offensive about Ms. Ferraro"s comments. In the spirit of attempting to bridge the disconnect, I would like to offer an answer from the perspective of those of us who find the comments an obvious appeal to prejudice in potential voters. However, before presenting this analysis, I want to agree strongly with those who said we need an open discussion of racial issues in society and politics.

Here is what Ms. Ferraro"s comment appear to argue: (1) that Sen. Obama has few or no outstanding qualifications to be President; (2) that Sen. Obama's black supporters vote for him only because he is black; (3) that Sen. Obama's non-black supporters are only motivated by trying to show that they are not racists; (4) that Sen. Obama's supporters of all colors dislike Sen. Clinton solely because she is a woman; (5) that white men and all women are being discriminated against by black men and their accomplices in the media; and, that (6) all women are being discriminated against by black men, guilty white people who want to assuage their misplaced guilt, and their accomplices in the media. All of this appears to me to appeal to target groups of potential Clinton voters: (a) persons who feel that blacks get unfair advantages in American society and (b) persons who feel that discrimination against women is a more destructive force in our society than racism. The main (a) target group is white workers who are disappointed by their jobs and income and are prejudiced against blacks ; while, the (b) target group is women who view men and paternalism as the source of their disappointments and frustration and feel entitled to some recompense. The message gains additional traction with members of group (b) who are prejudiced against black men.

Difficult though it is for admirers of Sen. Obama (such as myself) to grasp, many Democratic voters believe that in comparison to Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama lacks qualifications. Now, if you don"t think Sen. Obama has any obvious strengths, you will tend to seek an explanation of why so many people vote for him. This may lead you to believe people vote for him because he is black or because of being bleeding heart liberals. Additionally, if you support Sen. Clinton and see her as a positive female leader, you are likely to wonder why so many people don"t like her. This predisposes you to believe it"s sheer misogyny. So far, none of this means you are a racist. However, according to my analysis, neither are you the actual target of Ms. Ferraro"s comments because you already like Sen. Clinton and do not understand the appeal of Sen. Obama. You"re just trying to understand why your candidate isn"t doing better at the polls and gets criticized in the media and by right-wing bigots (whom you have no problem identifying accurately). Because you do not have prejudice that Ms. Ferraro is trying to ignite, you don"t find her comments offensive. But, if you have been the target of racial prejudice or the anger of women who see all men as their oppressors, you don"t just understand, you feel the thrust of Ms. Ferraro"s tactics (much as women who have been sexually assaulted feel the thrust of a lawyer"s comments aimed at justifying a man who overrode the protests of an attractively dressed woman who said "No" to a sexual come-on after she invited the man in for a nightcap). To me, those of you who are not racists but who justify Ms. Ferraro"s comments are the unwitting accomplices of an insidious and destructive tactic that goes against the heart of the progressive mission of justice and fair opportunity for all.

Much of the discussion of this issue salts the wounds on both sides. Just as it offends you when Obama supporters toss out insults about Sen. Clinton and her illustrious husband, it does not help your cause when you reciprocate with sarcastic zingers involving Kool-aid and an empty suit. I"m also afraid that some of the people who have commented here really are members of Ms. Ferraro"s target voting groups.

Democratic Pride

In response to the following in the New York Times:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/obama-aide-criticizes-ferraro-comments/

I am a middle-aged, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male southerner. I suppose that means I’m lucky to be who I am. Perhaps I shouldn’t be shocked to find out that so many persons who present themselves on this thread as Democrats are such obvious racists. But I am shocked. Having been a Democrat since as far back as memory carries me, to Adlai Stevenson running against Ike, I was brought up to believe that we are the party of civil rights and a fair opportunity for black people, women, and all who are oppressed by discrimination. We were for JFK, LBJ, and HHH but not the KKK. I was proud that my parents didn’t believe that blacks were inferior and wanted to allow black kids to go to school with white kids and to be able to eat and sleep and ride and drink and watch movies anywhere they could afford to. I was proud when Kennedy sent Nicholas Katzenbach to make George Wallace get out of the doorway and let black students into the University of Alabama. I was proud when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. I’ll always remember watching him sign a little bit of his name with a pen, then hand that pen to an aid and write a little bit more of his name with the next pen. I was proud to cast my first vote for George McGovern as the candidate who wanted us to get out of the morass of the Vietnam War. My parents slipped up and voted for Richard Nixon, but they soon regretted it and vowed never to vote for another Republican. I was proud to vote for Jimmy Carter from my home state of Georgia and incredibly proud when he actually won the election. I was proud to vote for Fritz Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro, the first female on a major party ticket, and would have gladly voted for Ms. Ferraro had she been running for the top spot. I have voted in every Presidential election since I turned 18 and have never voted for the GOP or any non-Democratic candidate. Today, I am proud to support Sen. Barack Obama for the office of President of the United States of America. I am not a racist or a sexist. I am not supporting Sen. Obama because he is black and I have a need to cleanse my guilt about actions taken by my ancestors. I am not supporting him because I believe he is entitled to the job. I am supporting Sen. Obama because I believe he is the best human being and the most qualified person for the job out of the three major party candidates left standing. I respect those who disagree with me and who support Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain for President. However, I do not respect the views of anyone who thinks a woman or a black person should not be elected President simply because of race or gender. Reading the comments on this thread is a rude awakening to the reality that many Democrats are racists and sexists. I already knew this abstractly from studying the results of the primary elections but it’s much more jarring to know it from reading what people choose to post in a highly visible public location. The comments made by Geraldine Ferraro were racist and sexist and they have no place in the Democratic Party or any reputable party. They should be repudiated strongly by every Democrat and not allowed to stand. If the Democratic Party cannot get this one right, many of us will have to ask ourselves in all seriousness whether we still belong. For me, the answer will be no.

Surf's up

My novel, my original music, my bands in Athens, GA and Baton Rouge, LA, everything seems to be falling into place.  Nothing is certain in this life but I'm paddling my board as the sea rises beneath me.