by pegleghippie

Don't we have a cool logo?

So I really should be working on this paper that is due at 5 (an hour from now), but I need a break, and the site needs hits, so I thought I’d vent right here for you guys.  

The paper’s about plato and rousseau, which is easy enough for me, but I’m just not feeling motivated right now.  You know how it goes.  I’ve got the thing about halfway done, and I don’t even have all my information put in, so the length shouldn’t be a problem.  I’m just torn between my immediate comfort and my desire to do well in this class (an A is definitely within the realm of possibility).  

I was thinking about voter turnout, and I assume its going to be high this year, say 70,000,000, then we greens need 3.5 million to get our magical 5%.  If you don’t know, you become a ‘for reals’ political party, complete with public funding and ballot access, if you get 5% in a previous election.  With Obama floundering, maybe enough politically engaged types won’t stay home, but will vote, and turn to the greens.  We just need a less-tarnished candidate than Nader.  I like Nader, but at this point, he’s in it for his ego, not to build a party.  Grrr.  

Oh and I don’t won’t Obama to lose, don’t get me wrong.  He’s more than likely going to get the democratic nomination, and he’s 1000 times preferable to Mccain, but I’m done supporting corporate centrism, which is exactly what we’ll get with Obama.  I guess ideally, for building a truly progressive movement, I want to see the 2008 election go something like, 48% obama, 45% Mccain, 5% green candidate (probably nader), 2% smaller parties.  

That would mean we’d avoid Bush-the-third, but Obama would see that there’s a real pressure for some truly progressive action.  

And us greens would be in a position to start really party-building in smaller elections.


4 Responses

  1. I’m really not seeing Obama floundering, personally. I think he took a huge step forward in the Rev. Wright ordeal. I don’t think the media is covering any of the good aspects of his campaign. I mean they cover all of Clinton’s semantic whipcracking about Obama’s issues. They’re quick to point out when Clinton is right, but when’s the last time Obama’s gotten good coverage?

    I’m really worried about him even getting the nomination. The media’s really fucking him over right now, and that’s the only point of view most Americans see.

  2. The media isn’t blameless, making the reverend out to be a bad guy like they did, and the reverend isn’t blameless, playing the bad guy role for them. Obama didn’t have much choice at this point to throw him under the bus.

    But it still looks bad. It’s the ‘sister souljah’ moment that he tried so hard to avoid, and now he’s just another democratic candidate. He doesn’t have that ‘special otherness’ anymore, and that’s how he’s floundering. The spell has been broken, now he’s just a politician.

    He will get the nomination though. Clinton is facing a near-mathematical impossibility, and nationally, obama has a 51-40% lead among democrats. It would take something amazing for Clinton to come out on top.

  3. Doesn’t the near-impossible usually happen in politics? (Bush’s second term?)

    And I disagree that he threw anybody under the bus. I believe he genuinely disagrees with the new stance Reverend Wright is taking now that he has the spotlight. Now that he has center stage he took advantage of his connection to Obama, and so Obama does the right thing and disconnects. Moreso, I think Obama, as he said in a recent interview, believe that Wright is a different man than he once was. Look at his change in view: Obama named his book, ‘Audacity of Hope’ after one of Wright’s sermons. Now Wright says the government had a hand in AIDS and 9/11. Seems like a big turn-around. Probably due to the spotlight.

    I don’t think this is politics as usual, I think it’s still honesty. I think it’s genuine, and I think it’s change.

  4. As I said Obama didn’t have a choice, but it’s still going to hurt him. The way it hurts him is it makes him look like a usual politician.

    You were talking about the media and skewing perception. It doesn’t matter much whether Obama is genuine or not in this case, he’s been cast into the role of any other politician. Whether he was playing politics, or acting honestly and genuinely, both paths required the same action.

    And American cynicism is going to assume that he took the less-honorable path, and assign him the role of ‘politician.’ It will be an uphill battle for him to regain his self-made role of ‘hope-giver.’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: