“Socialism” is still a bugaboo for lots of Cold War-mentailty voters

Reminded me of this: GOP Marxists
And while we’re at it, a word about the WS Recovery
(nothing left to do but read the OpED comics)

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 3 2008 12:44 utc | 3

The people like Obama because the MSM has ordained him, like they ordained Bush in the previous two elections, and Clinton in his two elections. I know if the MSM is backing Obama, it can’t be good for us ordinary folk trying to scrape by. He is a pawn of the establishment, no doubt about it, and McCain was always the fall guy, like Kerry was in 2004. Wake up, people, it’s an exercise in social engineering, and your the unwitting participants. It’s a farce. Thumb your nose at the farce. Sneer at it. Don’t give it the time of day. Tear it down.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 13:07 utc | 5

@6, good call. It should read, and I should have said, don’t patronize it. Otherwise, I am practicing what I advise. I voted Kerry in 2004, and I am a registered Democrat, but I will not be voting in any election again under the current sustem because there are no adequate choices. I do feel bad for all the people who are investing so much in this. They will be let down. Obama will be likened to Hervert Hoover in the anals of history, and I will be sure to say I told you so. All that wonderful energy so exploitatively misdirected. It’s a shame. What could be accomplished with all that energy properly focused would be nothing short of miraculous, but instead, it will be dashed. A vote for either establishment candidate is a vote for death.
And, may I ask @6 that you focus your responses on what I say, and not at me. I will extend the same courtesy to you. Let’s engage in mutual respect, shall we?

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 14:07 utc | 7

A vote for either establishment candidate is a vote for death.
I don’t see you calling yourself McCainageddon. Practice what you preach.

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 3 2008 14:18 utc | 9

@8, @9 and @10 are completely out of line. For your information, I used to call myself Shrubageddon….for the last 8 years, as a matter of fact. He was the face of the Plutocracy’s Armageddon unleashed upon the planet. I am of the opinion that Obama will now be that face, therefore Obamageddon.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 14:42 utc | 11

I know it’s not like cancer or watching your children die in a fire, but this election is fucking nerve-wrecking. I’m psychologically unprepared for 4 years of !!Sarah!!
Go big O.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 3 2008 15:04 utc | 13

well my gals are out doing the hard work & even tho i have dark forebodings(that is also my nature) i do want to believe that it is a ‘transformational’ moment – a time for the people’s will to be expressed differently because the alternative is so horrifying that iot would cement the honour of the other citizens of the world to oppose america by any means necessary

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2008 15:32 utc | 15

I think what finally turned the tables was McCain whining that he wasn’t just another Bush. Well, when your Congressional record shows you have voted 92% with Bush, you’re damn near identical twins.

I have an OpED cartoon for that one too!!!

It’s hilariously funny than none of the Republican candidates running for office want Bush’s help.

Help… Bush’s “help”? Frightening.
Somewhere yesterday I read the WH is doom & gloom… they were hoping to be doing “legacy building” and such right now. Instead, they have to spend their time “working on the economy.”
…
On a more serious note, for those following b’s econ links these recent weeks/months, via The Aleph Blog a very interesting discussion re: current econ mess, how we got here, players, failings & some relevant history. From Institutional Risk Analysis Fed Chairmen and Presidents: Roundtable with Roger Kubarych and Richard Whalen.

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 3 2008 15:51 utc | 17

the alternative is so horrifying that iot would cement the honour of the other citizens of the world to oppose america by any means necessary
This is, I think, the heart of the matter. There will be some joy over the historical implications, yes (thus I really want to see Obama carry, say, GA-NC-IN), but the absolute horror of a McC/P win is practically impossible to put into words. My US residence would be for sale Wednesday morning, and I don’t think I could see myself ever returning.

Posted by: mats | Nov 3 2008 16:52 utc | 19

san fran chronicle, I mean.

Posted by: Tangerine | Nov 3 2008 18:21 utc | 21

Better yet, Tangerine. The Montgomery Advertizer. That’s right, Montgomery, Alabama.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 18:44 utc | 23

I rarely, if ever, tune in to Fox. If I do, I do it for the same reasons Ralphieboy read Pravda. I don’t watch TV that much at all, anyway. C-SPAN in the morning to hear the Born and Bred American dopes call in and spout their ill-informed and illogical gibberish. However, the two times I did tune into Fox, they had decidedly shifted their slant (not O’Lielly and Hannity, but the News). I was astounded, but it was as noticeable as my Boxer’s fracture on the 5th metacarpal. Mind you, I’m trying to keep an open mind on all of this and feel the wind, so to speak. It’s there, and I don’t like it one bit. CNN, in its own clever way, endorsed Bush in 2004 and gave way too much coverage to the swift-boat trap. There is no doubt that this time around, they are Pro-Obama, and Fox isn’t as anti-Obama as they were anti-Kerry.
It’s social-engineering, I’m afraid.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 18:59 utc | 25

Maybe this is a possible explanation for the nuanced shift I think I’m seeing at Fox.

It should really come as no surprise that News Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch wants to be respected by the limo liberals who (officially) disdain his politics and tactics. That’s why he paid so dearly for the Wall Street Journal, and was proud for having done so, right? But no one really thought age and young wife Wendi Deng would gentrify Murdoch’s barbarian soul to such an extent that he now spins fantasies about buying the Times from one side of his mouth while betraying his conservative shock troops at Fox News Channel out of the other. Murdoch’s brash past is becoming an embarrassment to him as his portfolio becomes more respectable, at least according to Michael Wolff, who excerpted his sanctioned Murdoch biography in the October Vanity Fair. And yet the Aussie can’t help but revert to his old ways, like when he told Wolff that Muslims are, as a group, inbred:

All right, he’s not quite a liberal. He remains a militant free-marketeer and is still pro-war (grudgingly, he’s retreated a bit). And there was the moment, one afternoon, when over a glass of his favorite coconut water (meant to increase electrolytes) he was propounding the genetic theory that the basic problem of the Muslim people was that they married their cousins.

Other hints that Murdoch is still an unpolished, rough-and-tumble media mogul: He is a terrible mumbler, has alienated many of his children from his business and likes to personally report dirt on his foes (Wolff observers him trying to nail down gossip about a Hillary Clinton adviser).
But is no longer the unwavering backer of Fox News that he once was. After begging an audience with Barack Obama, Wolff writes, Murdoch arranged a “truce” with the Democratic presidential candidate and Fox News. Also, he’s no fan of Fox shouting head Bill O’Reilly:
Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed—he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly. And while it is not possible that he would give Fox up—because the money is the money; success trumps all—in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets.
And Murdoch would “really like to own” that temple of liberal New York respectability, the Times:

Now, everybody around him continues to tell him that buying the Times is pretty much impossible. There will be regulatory problems. The Sulzberger family would never … And then there’s the opprobrium of public opinion.

But it’s obviously irresistible to him. I’ve watched him go through the numbers, plot out a merger with the Journal’s backroom operations, and fantasize about the staff’s quitting en masse as soon as he entered the sacred temple.
Given his history with the Journal, it would be a mistake to write off Murdoch’s ambitions for the financially-troubled Times. And given his savvy, it would also be a mistake to assume the mogul walked through his acquisition fantasy with a media reporter for any reason other than to broadcast it to the entire world, in particular the Sulzberger family, whose dividend payouts are crippling the newspaper they supposedly would never relinquish.

Imagine the Times selling to Murdoch. Never say never. What amazes me is that the Times is considered Liberal. Perhaps it is, but then Liberal would have to be redefined.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Nov 3 2008 19:41 utc | 27

rupert murdoch is not a man but a psychopath
he is nietzsche perverted to the maimalist degree – greed & powwer are the onlt things that have ever mattered to him or his evil father

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2008 20:01 utc | 29

After all this discussion of amerikan empire, Obama and McCain together, why not admit the obvious? No-one really knows what Obama will do if elected tomorrow. I know of almost no politician who actually did what he promised before the election. Nothing new there; it’s been said often, but true nevertheless. It depends on the situation. Bush did not react to situations, Obama may be capable of doing so.
Me, I think the tide is flowing against amerikan empire. Iraq and Afghanistan have reached their limits as to what the US can do. Iran would be a bridge too far. The question is whether that point would be recognised.
The problem with the notion of amerikan empire is that it implicitly accepts US exceptionalism, that the US is capable of doing what it wants in the world. A notion which I reject entirely. We will see what happens.
In the meantime, I’d like to present to you the most obscure approval of Obama you are likely to find:
Descendants of Iraq’s black rebels back Obama
The “Black Rebels” were the Zanj, from Zanjibar (otherwise Zanzibar of course), a slave revolt, style Spartacus, in southern Iraq in the 9th century (869-883, in fact). The slaves were from East Africa. The AFP correspondent found some blacks in Basra who claimed to be descendants, and there you have a story.

Posted by: alex | Nov 3 2008 22:04 utc | 31

debs
yr a braver man than i, gunga din – i wouldn’t/couldn’t watch that thug sebastian without throwing up all over my desk. doha debates, indeed – they think they can seduce the people of the middle east with their worn out rhetoric
i hope that a stolen election combined with the financial crisis to come would give birth to an insurrectionary politics
what the empire needs in its state of crisis is a liberal face – if they are not competent enough to see that then they deserve whatever will come

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 3 2008 22:50 utc | 33

Tomorrow I will join the masses in electing Obama, despite the fact that he is a self-proclaimed member of the War Party.
There’s the old joke:
Two acquaintances meet in a public space and chat a bit, and then one asks, “How’s your candidate?” The other replies, “Compared to what?”
Billmon seems to be cheerful about Obama’s apparently impending victory. Meanwhile, Dennis Perrin has endorsed Eugene V. Debs, who said:
“I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition.”

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. | Nov 3 2008 23:41 utc | 35

I went to see Oliver Stone’s film, W, a couple of days ago. It’s been panned and praised, but I thought it was filled to the gunnels with subject matter, a lot of food for thought. One of the young reviewers who didn’t like it at all, couldn’t comprehend the significance of a visual image at the “romantic” bar-be-que where the hostess has rather crudely brought George and Laura to be introduced. Just before the two are introduced there is a shot of a corn-on-the-cob lying in the grass; and a woman’s sandaled foot steps right on it. Well, the kid whose review I read was utterly flabberghasted, unable to grasp what in the fuck that was about.
Well I got it instantly, as symbolic of the propensity of cattle in a feed lot to step on their own food. Oliver Stone’s imagery during the film seems to concentrate some on the ludicrous president’s father issues; but the over-arching intent of this cinema seems focused on the tidal wave of poshlost, buffoonery, banality, vulgarity, as in unwinds through the key people in Junior’s government, the Cabinet and advisors, the whole menagerie of grotesque.
Part of the impetus for Obama’s victory over McCain, is the knowledge that this culture of vulgarity can hardly continue; and if it should go on, with its political degradation, it will claim the people and their whole society as its victims.
I will be alongside friends here in Texas, watching the election returns come in tomorrow night, and will probably be watching thoughout the night into the next morning. We all know what the election means, and that it is vital to the future of all of us, the manner in which this transformative moment comes about.
My cheers go out to annie and beq for their efforts. Warmest regards to debs, r’giap, to b, and everyone here.

Posted by: Copeland | Nov 4 2008 0:35 utc | 37

Annie and beq huge regards n hugs to the pair of you not just for the commitment to the task for which I have plenty of regard, but also as Copeland said (hiya Copeland here’s hoping this is the best night for texas bar-b-q’s since LBJ wrappped up the vice prez nomination, there hasn’t been much to celebrate since) for Annie and beq’s recognition that it is only by each of us putting real effort into a transformation that any meaningful change could hope to occur.
I suspect that despite my huge misgivings about the reality of an Obama prezdency, that if I lived in amerika, that I too would have left the tilting at windmills from nader’s campaign or one of the other excellent but doomed candidates and taken to looking for things to do at the Obama pavilion.
I haven’t wrapped the eyeballs around ‘W’ yet which is uncharacteristic since I normally wouldn’t miss an Oliver Stone movie.
Misgivings about the subject matter or Stone’s ethos are subsumed by the simple fact that his movies are always interesting. I don’t think Stone could make a boring movie if he tried (although I thought that about Stanley Kubrick then he gave us hours of ‘eyes wide shut’) So I haven’t caught ‘W’ yet for the same reason that I suspect will make this movie box office death, the subject matter is so unappealing and pregnant with the opportunity to recall such awful moments in the history of man, that sitting through any bio particularly a hollywood movie about shrub feels like it would be akin to flailing oneself with rusty razors.
Even Oliver Stone is going to feel the need to be seen to be objective, to have to show some positive aspects of the greedy, hateful little turd and I can’t be sure that won’t destroy any remnants of self control I may have and have me busting up things.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Nov 4 2008 1:16 utc | 39

While we all do what we do, I suspect what annie & beq are doing – person to person – will have the most tangible and long lasting impact. And it sounds like you’re having a good time of it as well.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 4 2008 2:49 utc | 41

Wish you were here.

Posted by: beq & annie | Nov 4 2008 3:29 utc | 43

I wish for Mario Cuomo on the Supreme Court
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Posted by: mats | Nov 4 2008 3:43 utc | 45

MC 35) Debs should have said:
“I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land (even) if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would *have to be pushed* out.”
He must have been couching his words for the AIPAC lobby even then….

Posted by: Charlie Tuna | Nov 4 2008 6:03 utc | 47

Thanks to all for a passion filled thread. I didn’t vote this year, since Obama’s positions on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran seem indistinguishable from those of the neo-cons, as was his vote on FISA. Were I in the U.S. I might have succumbed to the wave of hope that is clearly washing across the continent. Symbols can be important, and a resounding victory for Obama would be a major symbolic transformation. One can only hope that there will be substance as well as symbol. In that regard, Obama’s brilliant election campaign does offer some reason to hope that he will manage the presidency with the same mixture of sagacity, inspiration,
intelligence, and not a little useful cynicism.
I wonder if he will listen to the counsel of Ralph Nader and try to redimension the rightmost part of the AIPAC alliance. There are plenty of potential partners in the U.S. for a less Jabotinskian view of Israel’s security requirements, but until now the AIPAC media and money machine has succeeded in marginalizing “left zionists”. This project would require time and patience, and as no small degree of courage as well. Early signs are not encouraging, yet I can’t help wondering if there may not be more intimate and worthy motivators than those like Ross, Emanuel, Indyk, Holbrooke who are merely mirror images and “liberal” replacements for their soon to be benched neo-con “team-mates” Abrams, Cheney, Hadley, and Addington, et al. I don’t expect to see Nader at State and Chomsky at Defense, but to give representatives of Jewish Voices for Peace and other progressive groups public space and administration support would be a step toward rationalizing U.S. debate on the Middle East. So, of course, would any sort of opening toward Tehran. It is certain that the AIPAC JINSA WINEP axis will continue to ply its trade effectively, but the new administration need not treat them as “the only game in town”. To execute that transition unobtrusively but extensively is a fitting challenge for a new present.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Nov 4 2008 7:30 utc | 49

@46

McCain’s campaign has reveled in the proud ugliness of this country. the cultural divide has never been wider. if obama wins tomorrow the ignorant masses will have the gift of the perfect scapegoat to pin all their miseries on.

I spent yesterday afternoon/early evening pounding the streets doing targeted GOTV for our Senate candidate, Tom Udall. If polls are to be believed (he’s up by 10+) he’ll replace Domenici (good riddance).
I drove back to Udall’s office (coordinated voter lists w/Obama campaign & several other groups) flipping radio stations, stumbled across 3 successive christian stations (which I never listen to). I settled on one, expecting the worst re. what I might hear. Chuck Swindoll was speaking, using OT Daniel as example, telling people they need to fast/pray for our country etc. etc. blah blah blah. He talked about troubled economy a lot.
Then James Dobson came on (can’t stand the man). He said more or less the same thing, w/emphasis on exhorting his faithful to “study the issues”, w/emphasis on “strong military” and what’s going to happen w/Iran. Funny thing, though… Dobson explicitly said it would be “fool hearty” to endorse a candidate or position after (his words) “what happened in ’04”.
Swindoll said the same thing in softer language.
Very much surprised me… shocked even, especially from Dobson: no McCain endorsement, no mention of Bush (his previously favorite X’stian warrior), no partisan accolades.
Anyway, seems to me at least one isolated foundation of Repub’s uncoordinated “base” has jumped ship. So maybe the chorus of anti-Obama ‘wingers you refer to might be absent some of it’s partisan mass.

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 4 2008 11:59 utc | 51

Annie & Beq, rock on.
Our eldest daughter (6) had a nightmare last night that black people had come to America and were doing bad things to people. We’re a bi-racial family so this was a bit of a shock, but we managed to unravel this at 4.30 AM and sure enough, at the root of it were kids in her 1st grade class who had been talking shit about Obama and his blackness.
Plus someone yesterday who we know quite well confessed he thought Obama might be a secret moslem and even an AQ agent.
That’s the trickle-down right there: pig-shit ignorance filtering down into the minds of 6-year-olds.
So in the midst of my supremely jaundiced Obama-skepticism I’ve been forced to admit it: Time for a change. Right now. No more argument from me. I guess it will be up to all of us to make sure we’re not stuck with a super-Pelosi but after the last few weeks I’m willing to dust off the F word (that’s Faith, not Fuck-it).
I’ll be staying up all night with family, friends, a big bowl of spaghetti and a bottle of scotch. And I’ll be drinking a toast to my fellow barflies at 10 PM EST. Much love.

Posted by: Tantalus | Nov 4 2008 13:03 utc | 53

& you too, tantalus

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 4 2008 18:41 utc | 55