And THIS is why I support Barack Obama… because having been the target of extreme anger, rage, vitriol and pure irrational hatred from a group of “enlightened” liberals on another messageboard for the past couple of years, I appreciate Barack’s attempt to change the liberal “Daily Kos destructive culture of hate” into a culture of reason and hope. It’s come down to this… because of Obama’s inspiring influence and style, hope and unity crushed resentment and division. And it’s about time.
If any of you were familiar with John Kennedy’s political magazine, George, you would realize that John had the same type of bi-partisan political style. He proved it with his mix of columnists such as Tony Blankley, D’Amato and even Coulter. As Coulter said in her tribute to John, "This was a new kind of Democrat. John wasn’t a part of the older generation of Stalinist liberals who try to censor differing viewpoints or engage in the politics of personal destruction to harm those who disagree with them. As his magazine’s motto says, this was “not just politics as usual. The importance of what John was doing to political discourse in this country cannot be overstated. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end of the politics of personal destruction, it’s not that much fun to be accused of being a racist, sexist, homophobe, etc., etc. One can see why a lot of people might decide to opt out of the whole political enterprise altogether. Through his magazine, and his very being, John had begun to take the bitter acrimony out of political dialogue. While political neophytes out of Hollywood jabber about getting the younger generation involved in politics, John actually did it.”
So let Barack Obama continue were John F. Kennedy Jr. left us, and let this new kind of Democrat continue to inspire the masses with his message of hope … and Change.
It’s interesting because there’s a group of us, a small sub-culture of regular posters on George mag’s message board who still exist. After George was taken down, we continued our political discussions on another forum…
John was inspiring because he was one of those rare human beings who transcenced political affiliations. He was open and fair-minded to all pov’s, as he proved with his political mix of columnists. This is why both conservatives and liberals still think of him as groundbreaking, inspiring and truly enlightening. His magazine was clearly “not just politics as usual.” We’ve miss his influence in the political arena, although I am thankful that Obama has taken over where John left off…
Which, of course, means that Obama will be Willie Hortoned, “Barack Osama”-ed, SwiftBoated, and scrutinized for the slightest gaffe, a la Howard Dean, from all quarters, including the Clinton campaign, and will not even get the nomination, much less the presidency.
Sure, and she’ll be playing dirty enough that the Pubs won’t even have to start the Slander Machine until after the nomination, assuming he gets that far.
Just to be clear, I’d love to see Obama in the Oval Office. I just have an enormous amount of caution about the Neocons’ ability to manipulate public opinion, especially against a guy who’s young, black, Democrat, and doesn’t have a traditional Christian name.
I’m sorry, I agree with moving beyond partisan sniping, but this Coulter quote is just laughable. The woman wrote a book called Treason about liberalism. I mean come on. Way to rise above the dialogue there.
Look, this primary cycle has been under way for at least a year now, and there has been plenty of sniping, and the worst thing (with any basis in fact) anyone has found to fling at Obama is his association with Tony Rezko. If Nixon could live down his friendship with Bebe Rebozo, Obama can live down that. Apparently he has, like Truman, managed to keep himself personally honest while working in a notoriously corrupt urban political environment. As for the canards about his being a Muslim, etc., I don’t expect undecided voters to pay them much attention.
If a Republican wins in November, the ‘angry left’ will be back in full force. Unless the election is a landslide, there will be accusations of vote rigging, Diebold scandals, you name it.
And if a Democrat wins, expect a large swath of Republicans to become equally unhinged. I’m afraid that the political schism we’re seeing now has a lot more to do with the balkanization of the media and other current sociological factors than it had to do with who any particular candidate is.
The current calm probably has more to do with the fact that the Democrats think they’re going to win next time around (and probably will), and so are more invested in winning than in trashing current policies, and that Republicans are dispirited and disillusioned and less inclined to go to bat for the current president or any of the current candidates.
After the next election, the stakes will rise again, and the acrimony will be back.
If, as appears likely, the Dems take a bigger chunk of power this year, you will likely see considerably more anger, and not just from those of us on the conservative wing of the extreme left. With a Dem President comes a Dem Attorney General, investigations that have been foot-dragged nearly to death will come to the fore. You can, if you wish, believe that all the serious scandals and skull-duggery of the Bushiviks have come to light, nothing else to see here, move along. I very much doubt it.
And, also, at long last, the Reagan papers will be released to historians. I don’t perzackly know whats in them, but what I do know is the Powers That Be but Won’t Be For Long would very much like to keep it that way. I have sufficient faith in their judgement to accept that they have a very good reason.
Bet on it, there’s going to be some very angry liberals. And also some very angry honest conservatives. Plus a few thoroughly pissed off libertarians, and surly anarcho-syndicalists.
as if the current democratic congress is not part of the status quo. they’ve done nothing to reflect the change they claimed would happen once they had the power. Well they’ve got the power yet they haven’t produced. This explains why their approval ratings are lower than Bush’s.
