Why Obama is Like a Desert Lover
Have you ever gone through a really dry period sexually? At first you get angry that you're being neglected and ignored, and you act out. Then one day you wake up with a sense of nonchalance and you start to marvel at how much you're getting done, and how much easier it is not to care. And then... one day, maybe a stranger comes and begins to romance you and strokes your hair in a sort of contemplative way, uttering the most delightful insights. He touches your hand softly and then a little more firmly, awakening the feelings that you thought you'd left behind, and then you start speaking really poetically and hearing melodies and then suddenly you WANT IN! You want back in the game and you think 'spring is here'... YES WE CAN!
Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino. We who have felt apathetic, angry at two (likely) stolen elections, K-Street hegemony, the "pornography of the trivial"* in journalism and culture; we who are heartbroken over a war we knew was wrong, we who thought (especially after Baby Bush got in a 2nd time) that America got what it asked for; we who stopped wanting to participate 'cause it doesn't matter whether we do or don't; we have a crush. We're talking about it; we're getting involved, we're tuning in and turning out in numbers we haven't seen in ages. My musician friends and I are writing songs to inspire people and couples all over America are making love again and shouting "yes we can" as they climax!
The downside is that when the Republican fear factory goes into full production come election time, and even superdelegate time, potentially causing the Dems to hand-pick Hillary instead of Prince Charming because we are afraid that America will vote McCain over a candidate who is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad, it is quite possible that all the passion and revolutionary spirit being stoked by Senator Obama could turn into an equally powerful force of apathy and even rage. We who never felt like participating in the democratic process before (or when we did our votes were not counted), could end up feeling more disappointed and disenfranchised than ever. It's almost worse than never having cared at all. Beware the wrath of the forsaken lover.
Obama, and also Clinton, must be unequivocal in their rhetoric that the need for unity, which they both so often espouse, doesn't just mean unifying around them. It means really unifying around the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates for every office, and holding them to task for all the promises of "justice and change." We newly impassioned citizens need to feel included and incentivized, no matter who gets the nomination.
If Obama is like a lover who has awakened our desire to dream and participate again after so many years in the desert of political apathy, I would just ask that he be responsible and help us channel our newly stirred passion into something even bigger than him, whether or not it works out: the democratic process.
*Jonathan Grannoff, President of the Global Security Institute.
by Lili Haydn, violinist/singer/songwriter whose new album Place Between Places comes out April 1 on Nettwerk Records
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a Republican in Texas who voted for the first time today for a Democrat. I voted for Obama because he makes me proud to be an American. His candidacy represents the best in our hearts. But I am shocked at all the fighting within the Democratic Party. It really looks like the voters are going to blow this chance to build a competitive party. And if that happens, then you should expect to lose for a long time, until another Perot comes along and makes the playing field even. If the Republican party had someone who inspired people to cross over and young people to join their party, I'm certain they would seize the opportunity instead of bickering like small children. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, then I will return to the Republican party, disheartened but with new insight that the grass is not always greener.
The Clintons and the DLC Democrats have been sowing the seeds of rage and apathy for the past 16 years. Would it really be that surprising if we stay home if Clinton somehow manages to steal this election. Electing Hillary Clinton would only serve to further erode the Democratic Party and we would be enabling this pattern of self destructive behavior to continue.
Let me be clear: this is not "sour grapes". I would gladly have voted for Edwards, Gravel, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, or Kucinich. We lost the House, the Senate, and many governorships during the Clintons last reign in power. This is quite likely to happen again. With Obama, on the other hand, we can win more seats in places like Idaho (I don't think Larry Craig is running for another term).
And if Senator Clinton manages to grasp the nomination without winning the most pledged delegates, the African- Americans, long a mainstay of the Democratic Party, will walk, maybe for good. And the new voters who have come out for Obama will stay home. If Clinton and her supporters are comfortable with this, fine, but it seems to me a lousy way to maintain a viable political party.
Tish, I disagree with most of you on the issues you have raised:
1. Don't hate Obama because he is an inspirational speaker who speaks of hope and inspires people. Then Governor Clinton did the same in 1992 and President Bush advanced many of the same arguments against Governor Clinton that Hillary is unleashing on Obama. How does she expects to win by telling people that they shouldn't be moved and then expect them to show up at the polls for her on election day?
2. Obama is correct. Many independents will not even consider voting for her. She starts out a general election campaign with the highest negative ratings of any candidate.
3. We disagree on who played the race card. It was Clinton's campaign that boasted that they succeeded in making Obama the black candidate.
4. Hillary's allegations of media bias against her is nonsense. When this campaign started the media gave her sweeping praise for her poll numbers, money, etc. During the first debates the questioners always went to Obama first and after each debate she was praised to no end by the commentators.
5. The major fault I find with Obama's campaign is that he has been too soft on Hillary. Do you think McCain will fail to point out that Hillary has no significant legislative accomplishments since she has been in the Senate or that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to be president? Or that she never had a security clearance as First Lady and thus never attended a national security meeting. Meeting world leader? OK to be an ambassador perhaps, not president. By the standard you and Hillary set Bill Clinton was not qualified to be our president.
When this season started I was supportive of Obama but would be satisfied with Hillary or any Democrat, especially John Edwards since he was my home state senator and I worked on the Kerry/Edwards campaign as a volunteer. I figured Hillary would win and win fair and square (or as fair and square as can be in politics), but she has disappointed me. She has shown herself to be a mean and nasty whiner when things got tough for her. In a strange way we are alike in one way as it pertains to the final outcome in the primaries. If she wins, I won't vote for her.
The Corporate Media is biased against ALL DEMOCRATS. They've smeared the Clinton's for years, the smeared Al Gore and John Kerry and they can't contain themselves from raising unsubstantial rumor mongering questions about Obama's patriotism. Democrats, no matter if you support Obama or Clinton, need to understand about the Corporate Media. Being corporate, it has a vested finacial interest in the political fortunes of the Republican party.
Oh, and any Democrat who's going to sit out the election or vote against the Democratic nominee simply because their candidate didn't win is an idiot who's being played for a fool by the right wing. If you think 8 years of Bush were bad, just you wait for what it will be like with a McCain Presidency. Look forwards to two to three appointments to the Supreme Court of fanatical far right Federalist Society lunatics who will turn the American justice system into a Kafkaesque nightmare that will make the Soviet purge trials look like paragons of judicial restraint.
You can also get ready for a war with Iran and or Syria, as well as a resurgence of US sponsored right wing military coups and death squads in Latin America. Wouldn't that be grand?
Man, I am so sick of reading the Obama-bashing from Hillary supporters. And the worse her fortunes, the pettier, nastier and more bitter the Obama-bashing. I'll sure be glad when the primary season is over.
And I am so sick of the Hillary bashing. So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with John McCain as our next president.
What an embarrassing post. Cringeworthy.
Hardly. Do you cringe at everyone who disagrees with you? Troubling.
Agreed, should I bust out of my corset now?
Look at the bright side. If he's successful (despite any flaws) it'll be a peaceful revolution.
Lili,
Hillary is the only candidate who has been emphasizing party unity no matter who wins the nomination. In any case, since February’s Super Tuesday primaries, I have decided the following: If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will NOT vote for him; I'd rather vote for McCain (or Nadar should he run). This goes for my husband, some members of our extended families, and some of our friends--all of whom have been staunch Democrats in the past. I image other Hillary supporters are feeling the same way due to our very own party's--and the media's--relentless bashing of Hillary. The damage has been done. As a woman and Hillary supporter, I feel bruised and battered from this primary process.
Reasons behind my anti-Obama vote should he be the nominee:
1. Obama and his followers have propped him up to be some kind of messiah, savior, or king (much like our current King George!). In essence, voting for Obama means drinking the Kool-Aid and thus becoming another glossy-eyed OBAMATON.
2. He is arrogant in believing that Hillary supporters will vote for him, but that his supporters won't vote for her. In promoting this point, Obama reveals that he is a divider, not a uniter.
3. He played the race card and victim after the NH primary. Playing the race card in the general election will become not only very tiresome, but will be very divisive for the nation. (Note: Scrutiny of a presidential candidate or nominee is not racism!).
4. He and his supporters – with the help of the media – have relentlessly eviscerated Senator Clinton since the beginning of the primary process. As a woman, I'm offended by the Obama camp’s shameful disrespect of her. His media minions on Air America Radio, for example, have shamelessly promoted his campaign while inciting sheer hatred for Senator Clinton.
5. Finally, he is not as seasoned and experienced as Senator Clinton. As her VP he would get the experience and training needed for the 2016 presidency. Because she will not – nor should she – take a VP spot, an Obama presidency will give the Dems only 8 years in the White House, rather than 16 years if she were President (and he VP).
I hope you, your children, and your children's children enjoy 100 more years of war, which by the way, McCain has promised to give you. He has promised to privatize social security, he has promised to follow the same basic economic blueprints as set forth by Bush, but, if you feel your descendents won't mind the burden, then by all means...th
Don't worry. Whether its whiners for Obama or whiners for Clinton. The "I won't vote fo anyone but my candidate" crowd within the democratic party are going to have a lot of explaining to do to themselves, god, and their friends and family when the war expands, the draft is re-instatd, and their friends and love ones start comming home dead.
How great it will be, when your brother, father, sister, mother comes home in a flag drapped coffin, and you can explain to yourself, "Well, at least I didn't vote for that ass Clinton/Obama to make a point"
Adding to your analysis, we also need to remember that it was the Republicans that ran Howard Dean out of the Last Election, by backing John Kerry and dragging him out of the Political Gutter, by voting for him in all of these Democratic Races, knowing that he wouldn't carry the Southern States. The Republican numbers have been woefully low, in all of these primaries, which tells me that they have been backing this Neophyte, knowing that when the Election rolls around in November, they will all vote for their candidate, after having chosen the Democratic Nominee they know they can overcome, (Which will be very easy!). Hillary Scares the Hell out of the Republican Party and that's why they have concentrated on running her off the ballot, and why they are pumping so much money into Barack's Campaign, since they know they are controlling the Money Spigot, and can turn it off anytime they want, and then start pumping the Cash into McCain's Campaign in the Last 30 days before the Election.
This will also be when the Desperation will start to show up in barack's campaign, and nobody votes for the Nutcase!
If Hillary is run out of this Presidential Election, McCain will be elected the Next President of these United States of America!
Wow I could smell the fear mongering in your comment from like two blogs away.
I hate to admit it, but if Obama wins the nomination, I'm one of those life-long democrats that will seriously be considering voting for McCain.
Look several weeks ago many Obama supporters were saying this. I was one of them. We all get mad. I came down and realized that of course I'll vote Democrat no matter what because if you look closely at what John McCain is proposing it's really not too appealing. Esp. if you are a life-long Democrat like both you and I are. Obama is not a devil and he's not a Manchurian candidate. Believe it or not, he really is doing this party a favor.
Incredibly stupid and very revealing of the Hillary crowd. "Lieberman Democrats" - good riddance.
this has so many inconsistencies that its embarrassing to even begin to address them. but the first one that leapt out at me and began eroding my will to read further was that you begin by touting hillary's message of unity above all else (your candidate) and then immediately announce that you will vote for mccain over obama! oh man. too much.
Is this my TWIN speaking..
I haven't heard anything beyond the vision he has of winning. Yes We Can means nothing but Let's Win.
It's already unleashed rage. Sexism. Ageism. Brutal words to AA's who dare to support Hillary. It's unleashed and unified a lot of angry people.
I can't see that it's Hillary's issue at all. This is Obama's problem.
Ageism? Spare me ... I know that you have positioned young people as predatory mutant hordes waiting to steal your presumptive nominee's coronation ... I am 52, my husband is 54, my mother in law is 81 and we all support Obama because of his vision (which consists of policy initiatives as much as Senator Clinton's) ... if you do not take the time to read his policies --- that is a problem ... yours!
First of all try and understand this we all have difficulty envisioning nothing ... nothing is always something if you play with the word as an infinitive of the verb to noth (okay I am playing with Heidegger here --- and no I am not a Nazi I am a Jew). So to noth which means to noth-ing signifies that nothing is indeed something. Just as much as we cannot reach absolute zero in a vacuum --- So I posit to you what is the thing you are really afraid of it is something! And it is a big something ...
Show me documented evidence of ageism in his campaign .. If by ageism you mean the statistics that white women with incomes under 50 thousand who are not educated .... that is a statistical reality I will not and cannot dispute but it has nothing to do with either candidate but with the preference of voters ... is it because young people tend to support Obama? Again, it has to do with voter preference ...there is nothing at all in either candidates words, positions or policies which would indicate any form of ageism ...
There is no sexism coming from the Obama campaign. I have seen gender deployed as a tool in order to serve Clinton's campaign and I have seen racialized (not racist since I am hoping that what I instinctively feel about President Clinton and Senator Clinton is not true) language deployed for political aims.
Sexism is complex .... theories of feminism have gone on way beyond the anachronistic notions of second wave feminism --- a feminism which did not take into account other interanimating processes including race, ethnicity, social class, region, religion, historicity, age, sexuality etc ... I have not seen sexism deployed by Senator Obama in his campaign ... why would it be? He is a husband, a son (of a single mother) and a father to two young girls.
Your spin about super-delegate pressure mostly have to do with grassroots support for Obama, and yes other super-delegates conversing among themselves ...
Then it dawned on me .... the unleashed rage (oh my keep them all on leashes) , the anger and the word brutal is not Senator Clinton's issue or Obama's problem: but yours ....
The word brutal is related to brute which is one of the words traditionally used in literature to denote and connote and a racialized hierarchy.
The Western scientist Lombardo (1978) referred to two distinct
stereotypes that connoted African American men. The first is the
brute. The second is sambo. Both were initially developed by Europeans
to secure their position in Western society and simultaneously
denigrate Africans for purposes of subordination. The
brute defined Africans as primitive, temperamental, violent, and
sexually powerful, and the sambo defined them as child like. The
brute stereotype in particular was effective in conveying Africans'
mental dullness and lack of self-control. Europeans and their Western
cohorts then validated race, enabling a status hierarchy between
Africans and themselves
In other words all your ranting and raving has little to do with anyone but yourself and your own fears ... Your mutant predatory hordes of young people (as seen in your posts blasting youth) because in this racialized formation all youth take on characteristics of the "other." The framing of your words surrounding African Americans are very obvious if your posts are read carefully ....Your posts about age and race signify your problem ---- and it is a large problem, a very large problem especially given that you live in a nation comprised of many people ....
I do not know what happened to my original post ... it may have something to do with the foxfire interface I am not sure ... nevertheless AnninCA I have been reading your posts for a couple of weeks since I have been on this blog.... and I see some problems in what you have been writing ...
I wish you would recognize that you can differ and you can dislike and you can debate and engage in discourse --- however the words you use signify so much --- maybe you are not aware of it and it is not Senator Clinton's problem, it is not Senator Obama's problem but it is YOUR problem.
1. I have never seen or heard anything coming from the Obama campaign about ageism ... that is patently absurd ... It may be that you are looking at the statistics which show the age of many of Obama's supporters ... which ought to be positioned as a positive in that young people are becoming involved in the process. There are many older women (myself included) who support Obama. The statistics show that women who tend to be older, and (the caveat is the and) less educated who earn less than 50,000 a year tend to support Senator Clinton. But , that has nothing to do with either campaign ... I challenge you to show me an age-ist comment that Senator Obama has made.
2. I also challenge you to show me a sexist comment Senator Obama has made. He is a man but that does not mean he is a sexist. On the contrary, he is a husband of a very successful attorney, he is a son (of a single mother), and he is the father of 2 young children who are both females. It would be against his own self interest and identity to act in a sexist manner.
He is male I grant you that. That alone does not make someone sexist. Indeed, the only time I have seen sexism deployed deliberately has been on the part of the Clinton campaign in order to garnish sympathy for a campaign that has seemed to be in trouble. You also have to recognize that feminism is not one theoretical approach there are many feminisms. The second wave feminists who support Senator Clinton because she is a woman alone tend to discount feminism in regard to other factors including social class, race, ethnicity, historicity, region, religion, sexuality and age. These are all interanimating factors and there are feminists who do not subscribe to second wave feminism ... to vote for a woman because she is a woman is not necessarily feminist.
3. To state that African Americans who support Senator Clinton are subject to all sorts of reprehensible measures betrays what has been said and what has been said has to do with grassroots and constituents putting pressure on their representatives who are super-delegates ... that is part of a process in which people attempt to make government responsive to their needs and ideas. As far as other caucus members putting pressure on super delegates again that is part of the process. Hasn't the Clinton campaign through their surrogates indicted women who do not support the Senator?
4. Vision is part of policy ... Senator Obama's vision which are his policy statements are available for you to read ... to say that they are nothing is to negate their existence. And, they exist and they do mean something ... I know in the post I originally wrote (that is not posted) I wrote about the word nothing and how we can transform it from a descriptor into a present participle and nothing then indeed becomes something ... we have never reached absolute zero ... we have never reached nothing-ness ... nothing-ness is just impossible for us as human beings to comprehend since we are always subjectively present ...
5. Which brings me to my final point and this is truncated and not as in depth as my original post. The ideology is in the adjectives (the modifiers and the tone) and when I look at your words something becomes really apparent: "unleashed rage," and "brutal."
5a. These words are highly racialized in content ... for example brutal is related to brute and it is one of the two distinct stereotypes designed to describe African American men ... and it is patently offensive ... but it has nothing to do with Senator Clinton nor does it have to do with Senator Obama it has to do with you ...
6. It is your problem when you use words that deliberately are deployed to signify and evoke certain emotional responses ... it is your issue when you use racialized words to belittle one candidate at the expense of the other ...
7. If, you want to debate on facts, if you want to debate on issues, then read both candidates policy statements and then debate them but histrionic appeals as a signifying discourse and or discursive practice are repugnant and reflect on neither candidate only on you
Great insight. You are so right on. The Republicans will make mince meat out of the naive junior senator from Illinois and I hope people realize that. Otherwise, we may be saying hello to President McCain come November. Let's face reality. Politics is a down and dirty game which the Republicans have so far proven they are superior at playing. All the things people put Hillary down for are exactly the reasons she can beat them at their own game. She can get down and dirty with the best of them and thank God. All Obama can do is sing "Kumbaya" and "hope" for the best.
"The Republicans have so far proven they are superior at playing" - and you're touting the Hillary campaign, which is a perfect example of political incompetence and bad strategy, as the antidote. If all Obama can do is "sing Kumbaya and hope for the best" how come he's beating your "down and dirty with the best of them" candidate. Thank god Obama's challenge revealed what a bunch of amateurs Hillaryland was populated with before we sent them out to try to beat McCain in November.
"All the things people put Hillary down for are exactly the reasons she can beat them at their own game."
People who support Senator Obama are tired of playing political games. That's why his candidacy has resonated with more voters than Senator Clinton's.
Considering the vast Clinton machine hasn't made "mincemeat" out of Obama, I don't see why the gops will fare any better. Or are you saying the gops are much more competent than the Clintons?
Great piece; I loved it, and agree completely. here is an inspiring new message.
http://www
"Have you ever gone through a really dry period sexually?"
Only a good-looking young woman could possibly think of that as a question..
Curious comment. I would think a "good-looking young woman" would not go through such a period if she so chose. There is something of an odor of sexism to this whole blog as well as your comment. Now that we are wayyyyyyyy off topic.....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
