What's yr worst case scenario for Barack Obama?

None of these were assassinated.

Wait, was McGovern?

no, Wallace (Barack def aint his second coming)

curious on the few ilxors that really do seem to be 'goddamn i luv him' (i guess i mean deej here), not quite as enthusiastic but still obama supporters (i'm here, i voted 'carter'), hill supporters (J0hn in particular), ron paul supporters (no need to name em), various germonds & clifts (ethan, nabisco, tombot), gypsy mothra, cibula, saul williams, etc., kthx.

wallace wasn't assasinated, just shot up enough to knock him outta the race (lol add this to the 'things conservatives were right about': someone should shoot george wallace); he had twentyodd years to 'redeem' himself.

My worst case scenario is he doesn't get elected.

I'm *very* enthused about Obama and it probably started with OMG he can WRITE. Meaning, it does not take a village to ghost his books. I wanted the first book last spring so went into a bookshop in the parade opposite my mom's condo in FL when I was there. Sour-faced Florida bat who was far too old to call me 'ma'am' had the Obama book and when I said I though he had a shot at being Prez she made a face and said, 'why you little devil.' SERIOUSLY.

No sale, racist. I bought them in Atlanta airport instead.

OBAMA FOR MARTYR

My worst case scenario is he doesn't get elected

Mine too - hence I chose McGovern.

Worst case scenario is he gets fucked over by the superdelegates and doesn't even get a shot at being elected.

ack meant to add a 'eugene mccarthy' option.

i'm less worried about him losing the election than i am about him being blamed for any of the mess he inherits from W, and trying to navigate an unbelievably difficult set of international challenges with a right wing echo machine itching to pen him into history as carter II... so, carter II it is.

I assume he will be close to President Clinton in regards to domestic policy even with a potentially friendlier congressional climate however I believe he will be comparable to Jimmy Carter in regards to foreign policy as there is potential for whomever becomes President to give the most disastrous term in this regard and so far Senator Obama has done himself few favors in suggesting he could be the most polished foreign policy President.

We are in desperate need for a return to realism and I find Obama’s liberal internationalist talking points somewhat alarming (not to say that I’m fundamentally opposed to them but I believe implementing policy with that frame is currently potentially dangerous).

I should also add, we know nearly nothing about him and I draw these conclusions from the few things he has said, and the biographies of those whom he surrounds himself with. I would not be surprised if he purged his foreign policy staff once elected to attempt a more moderate approach. In fact, I would be thankful if he did so.

Worst case scenario is he loses the nomination and quietly fades into the background before bowing out of politics altogether. Which would be a huge shame, the guy has some great ideas and I really hope he sticks it out even if this election doesn't go his way.

Worst case scenario: he's the second coming of Bobby Kennedy.

ack meant to add a 'eugene mccarthy' option.

OTM. My worst case scenario is a replay of the 1912 Republican convention...

Goodman, a great deal of what I like about Obama is the possibility of Dems running a candidate whose foreign-policy rhetoric is not a yappy "me too" attempt to avoid seeming softer than Republicans, and instead makes a unflinching case for what a great deal of the party actually believes. The main thread running through Obama and especially his team, on most issues, domestic and foreign, is a nice quality of steering away from the (forgive me) black-and-white should/shouldn't terms of politics, and a lot more of an interest in how people actually think and respond to complex situations, and what the process of those choices is (rather than just the choices themselves), and -- by extension -- what you can do to prompt people to make different choices. We haven't gotten much of a chance in the primaries to see how that'll extend to foreign policy, and I'd like to see how it'd shape up against McCain. There are a LOT of things about Obama where ... well, even if I felt he was somehow less electable than Clinton (which I very much don't), I still rather see the party run a candidate who has a lot of the qualities Democrats have been actively trying to hide for several elections now -- a form of intellectualism, a tendency to look at issues as being complex rather than simple, and an international view that's not trying to excuse itself as Republican Tough. I would really really like to be supporting a candidate where it doesn't feel like the entire party is engaged in a brief game of make-believe designed to fool the bulk of the country.

Goodman, a great deal of what I like about Obama is the possibility of Dems running a candidate whose foreign-policy rhetoric is not a yappy "me too" attempt to avoid seeming softer than Republicans, and instead makes a unflinching case for what a great deal of the party actually believes. The main thread running through Obama and especially his team, on most issues, domestic and foreign, is a nice quality of steering away from the (forgive me) black-and-white should/shouldn't terms of politics, and a lot more of an interest in how people actually think and respond to complex situations, and what the process of those choices is (rather than just the choices themselves), and -- by extension -- what you can do to prompt people to make different choices. We haven't gotten much of a chance in the primaries to see how that'll extend to foreign policy, and I'd like to see how it'd shape up against McCain. There are a LOT of things about Obama where ... well, even if I felt he was somehow less electable than Clinton (which I very much don't), I still rather see the party run a candidate who has a lot of the qualities Democrats have been actively trying to hide for several elections now -- a form of intellectualism, a tendency to look at issues as being complex rather than simple, and an international view that's not trying to excuse itself as Republican Tough. I would really really like to be supporting a candidate where it doesn't feel like the entire party is engaged in a brief game of make-believe designed to fool the bulk of the country.

But one who believes this must admit they are taking a leap-of-faith in hopes of restoring a Democratic ideal. Correct? Is this the appropriate time?

Yes.

Just because your history teacher tells you that it's always been a choice between idealism and realism doesn't mean that there isn't aspectrum that connects them and the possibility of some kind of synthesis. The neo-cons have exhibited massive amounts of idealism not only in terms of American exceptionalism and the Jacobin 'democracy for everybody right now' rhetoric but they also, perversely imho, are wedded to what they see as extremely realistic tactics with allies and foes alike. I'd rather both tendencies were scaled back.

a form of intellectualism, a tendency to look at issues as being complex rather than simple, and an international view that's not trying to excuse itself as Republican Tough.

I think only the last of those three counts as something that John Kerry didn't do four years ago. However, Obama has the ability to wrap up complex intellectual stuff within powerful, persuasive rhetoric, which is what gives him an advantage over the pedantic drone of a Gore or Kerry.

Yes, definitely -- I think the part I'm even more focused on than that, though, is the way those tendencies with Gore/Kerry were (self-)identified as weaknesses, as things to be hidden or denied or overcome. Which is a terrible strategy, because even the sorts of voters who don't care for complexity would rather see you approach it confidently, rather than watch you stoop awkwardly to a level that's not authentic.

And when criticisms along those lines have been awfully resonant in the last two presidential elections, I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to imagine that Democrats might benefit from running the sole candidate in a while who can, just for instance, talk up to people without being accused of eggheadedness.

After an exhausting month-long sprint of campaign rallies in 18 states, Obama falls asleep at his final town-hall debate with McCain and pops a "sleep boner" on national television.

thank god for podiums

Yeah but it's one of those debates where they're on stools, with cordless microphones, and the crowd is seated on risers all around them.

None of these were assassinated.

arggh beaten to the punch

anyway I am usually with M White when it comes to US vis a vis int'l matters and once again he is on point here. Evaluation of the disastrous combination of idealism/realism in the shape of the neocons is particularly relevant.

when did reverting to a non-insane foreign policy suddenly become some magical never-gonna-happen "democratic ideal"? wtf?

None of these were assassinated.

arggh beaten to the punch

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:06 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

you were planning to assassinate barack obama?

i never understood the "idealism"/"realism" dichotomy. so woodrow wilson was an "idealist" and henry kissinger a "realist," doesn't make their actual policies all that different in the end.

An idealist becomes a realist when millions of people suddenly die to test a theory of governance.

I don't accept this dichotomy either. The worst fallacy of the Cold War was thinking that U.S. policy was sincerely divided into two realism/idealism, and Henry Kissinger, Heir to Metternich, masturbated while dreaming up scenarios in which these camps would collide.

* was sincerely divided into two camps

since you mentioned me by name I feel like I owe you a response but you gotta understand that I am really cynical - I guess naively so according to most people, whatever - I don't trust anybody who wants to be President, period. I vote Democrat because I think they're less likely to fuck everything up economically and because they pay some lip service to some of my values. But I'm not really an HRC "supporter" - a Hill victory would be strictly symbolic for me, I don't have any illusions about her being an awesome person or anything, or being someone who's going to do great things for the country. I don't think anybody's going to do great things for the country except the people who live in it, and until the economy really goes deep into the tank I don't think they (=we) will do anything, either. We'll just keep electing politicians who however sincere their desire to effect change will learn again & again that politics means compromise, and that change is gradual so you can't really get much done on your watch though you can put a few things in motion and hope they have enough momentum to outlast your term.

In any case, I don't think Obama will be the second coming of anybody - an Obama presidency wouldn't/won't resemble anybody else's very closely, I don't see our present situation as bearing much resemblance to the ones inherited by Carter or Clinton. As I've said before, I'll be quite happy to vote Obama in the general. I doubt that he will get much good done, and I base this on my belief that presidents don't generally get much good done, a belief which, as I say, many will find naive or cynical.

you were planning to assassinate barack obama?

I think he's just looking forward to another RIP thread.

"politics means compromise" has always struck me as sort of weirdly apologist, like we're afraid to admit it when politicians are actively trying to make the country worse. i mean, where was this "compromise" when bush dragged the country into iraq? where was it when reagan kicked the poor off welfare? (hell, where was it when clinton did that?) why do we only see "compromise" when some politician is trying to make the country better instead of worse?

even before folks like krugman mentioned it, i was talking about "obama = possibly another jimmy carter."

second coming of adlai stevenson?

or al smith

or aaron burr

or christ

or GOD

or Garfield

to be fair my obama boosterism does not = faith in his leadership as A+, its just faith in his superiority over the other options

im certainly not seeing him as the next FDR. Do I hope for that? i guess. but yeah we have a unique set of problems so lazy comparisons to presidents past are just that.

i dont get J0hn's perspective here at all though. The people are the REAL engine of change (ok i'm with you) but that change is never expressed through the voting process?

i dont understand how over the last 8 years anyone can pretend that the presidency doesnt really matter. its a simple fact that some people really can change the tide of history thru the force of concentrated power. Do i think obama will save the world? no. but why not go for the best possibility

'2nd coming of bill clinton' seems least likely to me, jimmy carter more so

biggest, quickest revolution in social attitudes ever in western world: 1955-1970

- dwight d eisenhower
- john f kennedy
- lyndon baines johnson
- richard nixon

The people are the REAL engine of change (ok i'm with you) but that change is never expressed through the voting process?

yeah I have pretty much zero faith in the voting process - it's not like I have a proposal for something better or anything, but no, "let's us many millions of people send this one guy to act in our behalf" doesn't strike me as a particularly good way of doing things. I'll concede readily deej that a president can do loads of harm, I didn't say "it doesn't matter" and that's why I'll vote for the Democrat in the general election - I said I don't see presidents as doing much good. Not entirely sure what Tracer's driving at but what I take from it is: think of the huge changes that occurred in the years in question. Do you credit those to the presidents on whose watches they took place? I don't, not even a little.

Tl;dr version of my politics: "fuck a president"

I assume he will be close to President Clinton in regards to domestic policy

Wait, there's still more Reaganite shit that Clinton didn't sign into law?

The people are the REAL engine of change

This is naive given our current (2001-08) situation. The neocon/authoritarian cadre has never been close to a large sect of the general population, yet they have changed America (irreparably, I think) in the last 6-1/2 years when their til-then-floundering frontman got to use 9/11 as his Reichstag fire to implement all the New American Century shit. Yeah, the people (not quite) elected W, but not on the platform of the Patriot Act, 100 years of nationbuilding, etc.

^^^CHALLENGING OPINION

Global Thermonuclear War

jesus christ. ethan's post isn't even that incendiary. how does your 'we make the laws on our block' society deal with the most basic disputes?

it's sophomore libertarian BS.

who is crazier: the average person on my block or the average Presidential candidate? who can have a more adverse impact upon my life?

Because they're now more situationalist.

Abortion. Decentralist? No.
Medical Marijuana. Decentralist? Yes.
Euthanasia/Legal Suicide. Decentralist? Yes.
etc.

it's sophomore libertarian BS.

That's unduly dismissive. The weakness in local democracy and devolved authority is when the locality is inhabited by assholes and ruled by an evil elite. Where it's not, it can be plenty cool.

now that we've moved on from obama to grilling j0hn on voter theory, i thought i'd answer for myself:

i don't think voting is anything more or less than picking a president. there's a lot more to political engagement and involvement than that. i try to take a selfless-zen or classical-fatalist kind of approach to voting (yeah i know, sorry) = find the best (which is always the least bad) option*, however compromised, and then fight for it. in presidential years i invest a lot of energy in the process, but maybe not much passion. this maybe strikes idealists as sounding psychotic, but in practical terms it makes me that awful creature, a 'partisan democrat'. i can be relied upon, when the time comes to pick executives and legislators, to vote to the left.

* it's the picking and sorting of options that really interesting to me, especially among people for whom "the most left-leaning Democrat still isn't nearly far enough left for me". this isn't hard for me to take because i'm not one of those people -- i consider myself a liberal probably more than a leftist: i don't think all capital should be in the hands of the state, and i'm anti-revolutionary in general, if anyone's asking.

basically i think of it like this: it's an iron-clad fact that every four years the president will either be a republican or a democrat. changing that basic nature will require more action than pulling the lever to make that choice on voting day. the party setup can and does change. we don't have whigs anymore, get me? and we don't have dixiecrats anymore either (uh well...)

basically: voting is voting and the rest of politics is the rest of politics. sorry to go on like this, but it's friday and this shit is interesting 2 me.

That's unduly dismissive. The weakness in local democracy and devolved authority is when the locality is inhabited by assholes and ruled by an evil elite. Where it's not, it can be plenty cool.

-- Michael White, Friday, March 28, 2008 5:05 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

it's still reliant on supervening structures. if you're relying on the personal qualities of the voters and administration -- ur fuct lol.

Abortion. Decentralist? No.
Euthanasia/Legal Suicide. Decentralist? Yes.

any particular reason?

someone show me a fair, well-governed locality that does not exist within a structure involving a more distant governing body with superceding power. i don't want to be ruled by the biggest guy on my block, thanks.

funny i don't remember his name, but who was the shady ass democrat who beat david duke? what did those bumper stickers say: "vote for the crook: it's important"? well, sub "crook" for "politician (born of woman) navigating his own life in the political big time, who has some good ideas" and you've got my formula, every time.

edwin edwards?

eh yeah i don't think a local-over-all approach will make all the bad people go away. i'm enough of an imperialist pig dog to think that what makes sense in one place will probably make sense everywhere.

and also, i'm fine with fighting, by proxy, the ideas of republicans i'll never meet in place i'll never go to. and i'm fine with them doing that to me, too, that's part of the deal.

xp dude i was counting on you to know!

I think I might have saved a copy of the Times-Picayune from when he won

Tory (Loyalist) Reverend Mather Byles - "Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

J0hn, you can't sum up FDR with "internment camps" and get pissy when the South is summed up by "Jim Crow". I mean, seriously.

he can try, tho

any particular reason?

I'm merely pointing out that the left has been staunchly supportive of Roe v. Wade, as a national guarantee of right to choose while States like Oregon have sought local rights, knowing there's very little chance they will ever become Federal law.

as concession to the Clintons, appoints Bill head of White House intern program

<input type='radio' name='optionid' value='5'>he does as well as the last major party nominee named "barry"

um, it's worth pointing out that jim crow wasn't the product of "local democracy" -- it was the product of a concerted effort by state democratic party machines, largely in the south, to disenfranchise black voters and terrorize them out of public life.

not that people weren't racist, but the idea that racist laws only existed because "southerners are racist" has been comprehensively disproven by a ton of scholars, notably c. vann woodward.

yeah, there was no block-based legislation. wait, there were no blocks.

anyway i prefer local democracy (in the new england mode) to any other form of government any day, but that doesn't mean that the presidency is irrelevant. slavery wasn't ended by electing a bunch of aldermen.

blaming anything that happens on "the system" is sophomoric. we're all citizens, the constitution is on our side, and we've got every right to demand justice from our elected leaders.

"local" is a much more complicated notion than it has ever been before, and it was never very simple in the first place, fwiw

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Federal Columbus Day holiday becomes 'Baracktober'

The Obama recession becomes known as The Barack Hussession

Black History month extended to year round.

Oilyrags unbanned because "it's important to listen to different perspectives"

Barack History Month

Turns out to actually be Borat Obama.

Obama/G 08

he won't be carter part 2 ffs

http://www.kalamu.com/bol/wp-content/content/images/Lil%20Wayne%20CD%20Cover.jpg

The Obama recession becomes known as The Barack Hussession

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, April 2, 2008 5:13 PM (7 months ago) Bookmark

what the fuck is this

hahahaha

if he's carter II level he'll be a legendary president imo

hmmmm that might be the corniest post of my career

nah close tho

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9655/lilwaynecdcovered1.jpg

srsly though between barack husession and "a hoos does not fuck with the peps. a hoos only fucks with real sodas." i am deeply mystified at who the fuck i was like 6 months ago oh my fucking god xpost

i for one think barack husession one is a classic post

fair enough!

lol @ both y'all

I would by a three disc set of barack hussessions
cd 1 : O
cd 2 : Ba
Cd 3 : Ma

please tell me each CD is just one syllable stretched to 40 minutes.

^^best case scenario

stretched to 40 minutes by the magic of Farley & Heller

seems 5 people foresaw the Rahm elevation

http://www.expandedfield.net/

^ I just put this on again for the first time in a while, and it's really good. It's like tantric grandeur.