If Obama Loses

As I was saying in this cyberspace the other day, it doesn't matter what happens on Tuesday in Ohio or Texas. Hillary could lose them both. Whatever the pundits are saying, she's not out until the last superdelegate refuses to cooperate or is found in the river or is indicted. We have to be realistic. The Clintonistas are not going to go down easily.

The second question in this civics course I am giving, based on the teachings of Prof. Harold Ickes and his "Practical Politics 101" playbooks: What happens if Obama really loses, despite the awesome string of state victories and his probable narrow lead at the convention this summer in Denver?

In two words: nothing good.

Obama has what George Bush the Father used to call "the vision thing." Obi has certainly elevated political discourse. The state of the stump speech in the Bushian Era has been as low as a TV station owner explaining why charging high prices for political spots is the best thing to happen to democracy since the invention of treating voters to free drinks on primary days.

Obama is the best public speaker the Democrats have had since Adlai Stevenson, who managed to lose in 1952 and 1956 against the nation's number one mumbler, the sainted Dwight Eisenhower, a master of inchoate inarticulateness.

Obi's calls for change are thrilling, even though it's never exactly clear what the changes will be. The French Revolution also promised change. The fear--as the French put it, at least those who hadn't lost their heads--always is "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." ("The more things change, the more they stay the same").

If this was a fair world, Obama deserves to win. But who said life is fair?

The party hacks that in the end will put Hillary over the top will argue that Obama can't win in a general election. Whatever they tell the pollsters, when they go into the privacy of the polling booth, the American people are not going to vote for a black man as President.

The pros will ignore the fact that Hillary as the nominee will bring out another form of bias: between the latent and overt hatred of the Clintons, you have a real cross section of the American electorate.

That said, Obama might offset the bigot vote with the young people vote as he did in Iowa.

Young people today are notorious idiots when it comes to politics. They have no idea about past history or how the political process works.

This is the Palm Generation. These are the people whose entire life is in the palm of their hands. Whether it's a Blackberry, a Chocolate, a Voyager or a pink Verizon Iphone, what they know or need to know or care about is on the mini-screen. It is their worldview. Keeping up with the hard news by snooping on their friends' Facebook pages, or texting the latest gossip, snapping pictures, listening to their music or watching snippets of favorite TV shows, minimization is their Vision Thing. Everything reduced to a sound bite is fun.

We have raised an entire generation that looks to their palms for answers. Truly a frightening thing.

Nevertheless, Obama has performed a public service getting the Palm Generation fired up enough to become active in politics, a form of entertainment usually considered borrrrrrrirrng.

It's a tradition of the two party system that it's okay to battle intensely for the nomination, but then we hold our noses and support the winning candidate.

The big question now is if the Clintons do steal the nomination, even though Obama is 100 votes or so ahead, what will the Obama groupies do? Will the Changesters rally around the party nominee, as good Democrats have always done? My party right or wrong and all that sort of rubbish.

My prediction: this will not be the case.

Barack supporters are not going to be too happy. All of those young people who waved the iPhones are going to feel betrayed. Cries of "We Wuz Robbed" will be heard from the fruited plains and cornfields of Iowa to the alabaster shining shores. We can expect a lot of grumblings and protests from the fired up Obi youth The Will of the People has been thwarted, they will argue, not realizing that only a deceptively small percentage of the electorate actually comes out for caucus or primaries, and their numbers are always magnified by cable network news organization hungry for a story to hype.

You can hear it coming: politics is corrupt. The system stinks. The Palm Generation, the Vision Thing People, the Changelings will go back to their Iphones. Wake us up when it's over. We're dropping out again.

The next unanswered question: do the Hillary people support Obi, if I am wrong about who wins, or do they spend the whole campaign undermining him, as they did on the road to Denver. Will Clintonistas work for Obama, or do they go to Camp Clinton somewhere and figure out how to lay down and how to hurt Obama. So they can run next time, after the Republicans win.

Either way, whoever wins or loses, the Democratic Party, despite its over-confidence that anybody can beat the Bush Legacy, is in a lot of trouble. Are they really about to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?

Comments

[ccwpmarcus]

I am not a die hard Obama fan, but I see one thing that I do take issue with in your criticism. You say that he brings nothing substantial or has not shown what sort of change he"s speaking about. I believe that the change he"s showing, however subtle, is in attitude not in policy.

It"s amazing how a different philosophy, just making an effort to have a different philosophy can have a profound effect. I"ll reach back a few years to my college days for an example. Two professors that teach the same material from the same notes can have vastly different success rates. What"s different? One professor makes the effort to understand what and how his students are learning so that he can know how to better teach them. The other simply doesn"t.

I equate this to two of his policies:

1. His foreign policy with which he has committed to speaking with our enemies to understand their opinions and concerns before labeling them as detrimental. A bit of empathy can go a long way in resolving conflict. It"s at least the equal of not even caring how we"re viewed by the world.

2. The way his trying to empower the public to demand change. People criticize his lack of substance, but the best way to serve the public is to listen to what they want, to get them to act, to speak up and demand change. Take a look at the statistics of his donators. They"re a big indicator of whom he has to be accountable to. It's the people of this country, his country, our country.

These two positions, a result of a change in attitude more than anything, are far from insubstantial in my mind. Of course I am one of the "palm generation" so I"m uninformed and not self aware enough to understand why this small change in philosophy is a sign of a significant change in governance.

[mkjohn1]

I don't worry so much about people being ticked off, whoever gets the Nom., and not voting. My big fear, and something I'm struggling with myself, is that it won't be anger that keeps democrats away from the democratic polls in Nov., but an enormous political deflation.

I feel, rightly or wrongly, that Obama has already changed what political discourse can be in this country. At the very least he has created for me a vision of what that discourse can be. Whether you're a Clinton supporter and disagree with him and think he takes cheap shots, still he's judged by a very high standard. The standard that he set. And that standard is what is in the minds of all his supporters.

What happens if he isn't nominated? At first I thought anger would keep me from voting for Clinton, but now I think it would be a deeper malaise. Hope would have been dashed. The powers that be would have told the "hopers" that they were silly to think politics can be anything other than what it has always been. (I'm not saying this is true or false, simply what many voters will feel). That feeling will without doubt keep numbers down.

If Clinton get the nom, a MAJOR part of her time will have to be spent reinvigorating this voting block, I think. But how do you do it? How do you inject energy back into people you spent the last year telling that hope is silly. That's gonna be a problem because it's not issues that will depress numbers, a sense that politics is hopeless. And distasteful.

I'm 35, have voted in every election, all democrat. I can't deny that I would feel like politics as I want it to be cannot exist. And that will severely test my resolve to have a democrat in the white house.

Perhaps hope is a dangerous thing.

but until then :)

[Cathexis]

Well, yes, Marvin. As long as we have Democrats who rail against the "Clintonistas," or other factions that are in competition with a candidate they support, the party is in trouble.

And before the other side gets too smug, that also goes for those who dismiss Obama as "all words."

The folks in both these groups have allowed themselves to becoem so blinded, IMO, that they are falling into the Republican mindset of perceiving "everyone not with us as being against us."

Wake up.

Grow up.

[LeeFromVA]

I am a 45 year old, political junkie, who always votes. If Hillary manages to steal this election I am dropping out. Obama is the politician I've waited my whole life for. He has run the kind of campaign we all say we'd like to see in a politician. If he gets taken down by old school attacks, and Hillary steals this election, I will be so discouraged by the process that I will never participate again. Young people, If that scenario plays out, go back to your facebook and YouTube. You'll be better off not caring.

[texanna]

I wasn't a supporter of either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton to begin with. After Edwards dropped out of the race I was interested in finding out which of the remaining candidates I would support, but I couldn't because of all of the over-heated, really insulting verbiage coming out of the Obama camp. The volume was just too loud to think. The issues that I'm interested in just haven't been addressed by Sen. Obama, and I did go to his website and other online resources. I also wonder why it seems that Sen. Obama only speaks on college and high school campuses -- what's that about? Are they an easier crowd or does he really want to leave the "tired, old people" out of this, or what? Mostly, I'm just tired of reading and hearing the really vile way that his supporters talk about Sen. Clinton and how overboard they go about the least little thing said against their candidate. I really don't think I'm alone in these thoughts, so I think a really good question would be "If Obama Wins", because right now I wouldn't lift a finger to help him get elected. I most certainly will not vote for John McCain, but I will struggle to vote for Sen. Obama. And, before anyone goes into cardiac arrest that there might be even one person not in a swoon over Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton's positions do not correspond with a lot of my issues, either, but at least I could find that out.

[Malarcus]

When the House lays down at Dubya's feet and grants his administration and the telecoms blanket, retroactive immunity for their crimes and misdemeanors, the only thing that will hold me to the Democrats and the political process will be an Obama nomination. I am 40 years old and have participated in every election since 1988. After 8 years of moralizing and scandal under the Clintons, and the subsequent years of assault on the foundations of the American Experiment and impeachable offenses gone unpunished, I view an Obama presidency as a chance to move in a new direction. Note, I say "a chance." The great prophet Pete Townsend wrote "meet the new boss/same as the old boss" and I believe this generally holds. However, once a generation or so, the new boss is allowed one span of time to make an honest to goodness change. I believe Obama offers this chance and do not believe Clinton or McCain offer even a semblance of a chance for true change. If we (the collective, national "we") lose this opportunity, we lose it for a generation.

[bodi1313]

When Louis Farrahkan endorsed Obama last Sunday, THAT is when his numbers started to go down.
Don't blame Clinton or NAFTA.
Do you not see a problem with THAT endorsement in the General election ?
Buyer's Remorse.

[krnewman]

Why are you ruling out the most obvious effect of Clinton stealing the nomination: an independent run by Obama?

I'm actually hoping that happens and that it could lay the groundwork for a new progressive party in the US. One that would be sort of like the Democrats but purged of the racists, hacks, machines, etc

[DennyCrane]

As an Obama supporter, I can admit that a big part of why I'm supporting him is because I don't want to see Hillary Clinton be the nominee. Does he have the necessary experience to make a good President? No. But then neither does Hillary, even with her so-called 35 years of experience. On the issues, the two are virtually the same. But most politicians, and particularly Hillary Clinton, just say what they think will get them elected. Obama comes across as much more believable. Do I think he'll be able to deliver on all the changes that he promises? No. But I'm sure that Hillary won't do any better and will most likely do worse? Why? Because more than any other politician in recent memory, she's demonstrated that her decisions are based on what's politically safe. Aside from her gender, I see nothing different about her compared to all the politicians we've seen before. If Obama loses the nomination, I don't know what I'll do. At the start of this campaign, I told myself I would support whoever the Democratic nominee is, even if it was Hillary. But after seeing how she campaigns, how much of a hawk she really is, and how much she'll twist herself and her message to get elected, I've decided I won't for her. No doubt the Clinton campaign is thinking that all their dirty tricks will be forgiven and that Obama supporters will rally behind her if for no other reason than to defeat McCain. But I doubt may will. A lot of these new voters will be so angry, they'll just stay home on Election Day. Others may even vote for McCain. At least with McCain, I know what I'm getting. For all the talk of Obama being a big risk, I think Hillary is the biggest risk of all. A president who has no vision and lets polls dictate their actions is probably the most dangerous President of all. We need a leader, not someone who follows the voice of the people. Sometimes democracy is dangerous. The majority of Americans are an uninformed lot. True leaders step in and show them the way.

[slow2]

"with McCain I know what I am getting..."

Not sure that anyone can be positive about John McCain. His willingness to vote for and against Bush's tax cut; his willingness to suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after their outrageous statements; and finally John McCain's rush to hug and kiss George W Bush after Bush slimed McCain's family in SC leads some to believe that McCain is not a "maverick."

Some think that McCain is the worst kind of opportunist and one who in his late years would continue to send America's young men and women to die for oil. McCain has also turned tail and failed to support the no-torture bill -- this after being so vocal about torture and being a POW. So, are your observations about McCain verifiable?

Obama is obviously young; he is a student and teacher of the CONSTITUTION. If Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, then vote for him. If Hillary is the nominee then vote for her.

Don't delude yourself into thinking that all citizens are uninformed. Not true. And, if the uninformed and the intelligent sit on their hands...then all of us lose, and it won't be just losing an election.

[kikiva]

I'm a Clinton supporter and have a long list of why I am not voting for Obama in the primary, but I'm not about to hand the White House over to the Republicans for 4 more years. I'll grit my teeth and vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.

If Obama or Hillary supporters stay home because their favorite didn't win, the Democrats implode and I guess the Democrats don't deserve to win anyway and maybe we should just break up the party or just let the Republicans run things forever.

The Obama supporters and columnists on this board and others are very alienating and make me not want to vote for Obama but I'll hope he is a better person than they are.

[GoGreen]

I agree that if the Democratic Party doesn't coalesce around the nominee they will get what they deserve. I also believe that for those already in the voting base that identify themselves as Democrats, they will ultimately get behind the nominee whether it is Clinton or Obama. However, a sginificant portion of the younger Obama supporters, who would not otherwise even be engaged in this process, will go simply go back to being disinterested. Obama expands the party - I don't think anyone that is paying attention can reasonably argue that is not the case. As a result, Clinton will have a harder time securing ALL of Obama's support because some of that support includes people who aren't excited enough about the whole thing to vote unless Obama is the nominee. In contrast, the majority of Clinton's support is old-school, die-hard Democrats so I think that, if Obama is the nominee, it is likely that they will ultimately unite behind Obama once they have had a cooling off period and Obama and McCain engage in the general. Of course I am speaking in generalities here. Certainly there will be exceptions.

[Gmoney1]

Well, we still won't vote for Hillary Clinton if Barack Obama loses - one wonderful thing about it is we young people can sit out a Clinton or McCain presidency until it's our time again to vote for Obama while you old folks melt away - good luck

[slow2]

Gmoney1,

Your comment is sadly ignorant. If you sit this one out, on the hopes that your longevity will allow you to vote for someone else in four years, then your logic may well betray you and send you and your friends to your death on a foreign battlefield -- for oil. McCain has no regard for those who fight wars; he is comfortable in sending young men and women to Iraq for a hundred years. You may have heard about this view; then again, you may not have paid attention.

Thousands of older Americans work for and donate to Obama. We want Obama to win. If he does NOT get the nomination, we WILL vote for Hillary Clinton. The alternative is worse than foolish. It would be deliberately stupid.

So, old people AND young people "melt away" and death chooses who it will; younger voters have no assurance that their youth protects them from accident, disease, and WAR. Were you to take yourself to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, you might see hundreds of coffins arrive -- most of the bodies are likely under the age of 30. And they didn't "melt away." These young men and women were murdered in a war of choice, a choice of the Bush administration.

Get a grip; live your life; and take some responsibility for your liberty.

[LeeFromVA]

Do we really know if Hillary would end the war? She did vote for it. She has consistently been hawkish in her stance. She has recieved more contributions from the Defense Industry than any other candidate Dem or Rep. Her first reaction in a crisis is to attack. It wouldn't be hard for her to come up with an excuse to stay in Iraq.

[Doofus]

As many point out, given the Demos' penchant for proportional delegate apportionment, as long as HRC & Obama continue to split the popular vote in every remaining primary, he is more likely to get the nomination. Probably, after today, it's all over for Hillary, although it'll be awhile before she 'sings' maybe.

[MoeGreen]

If Clinton is nominated, the Democrats lose the Independent and Moderate vote.

[Doofus]

Likewise, if Obama is nominated.

What's left is to pick the nobler of the two to send to the altar.

Would that it wouldn't be this way.

'It's all about National Security, you idiots!'

[anghiari]

Hey Doo,
What none of you Clinton supporters seem to get---is that it was Obama who said what people wanted to hear and to believe in... We are sick to death of electing politicians to office--who then have the cajones to tell us that we really don't understand the big picture so just shut up, sit down and let the smart people run the country! Had Hillary had the heart and the smarts to move beyond her own constipation about having to win and really really thought about what this country needs, she woulda/coulda/shoulda have been the visionary.

How women have so dropped any pretense to any criterion for the first woman president other than her gender is absolutely beyond me. I guess some people looked up to see who was coming to dinner and really didn't want to walk their talk....well there is a new generation who have, god bless them, learned that brilliance doesn't have a color chart and ethical behavior is a choice to be made by anyone who genuinely seeks to be a honest and decent human being.
I could not ever vote for Hillary Clinton. That is not a threat, but a reality. To vote for her should she win the nomination is to put a stamp of approval on how she go there. Her behavior and that of her surrogates is unacceptable under any standard of decency. She somehow has convinced her supporters that her behavior is acceptable because this is a election campaign. The whole win at any cost idea that seems so acceptable to far to many Americans is so disturbing. We hear folks bitch and moan daily about our government and our country, but move forward with real change and far too many retreat to old comfort zone. Thank goodness for youth and independents. No pain, no gain . I want to avoid at all costs , Hillary's past becoming this country's future.

[indc]

If things go as it is reasonable to expect, that is in the 4 primary states voting today the delegates available will be split about evenly, then Obama still has a lead of 150 or so delegates. If Clinton insists on carrying on and she continues to use these vile and dishonest tactic, she will begin to instigate a civil war within the Democratic party even if she is not able, after all the trouble and venom, to steal the nomination. Democrats who have influence on the party as a whole and who are interested in not losing the opportunity for real change in this country need to step in and be persuasive. It is not only the presidency at stake, but senate and house seats which are very winnable but will be lost if Clinton insists it is her or no one and she bloody's the party and its chances.

[anne4hillary]

I found the link for the following article about Senator Obama"s voting record posted by:

athy
Stevenson Ranch, CA , on the following blog.

This person states:

"Description of book (The Grand Chessboard) written by Z. Brezinski- a policy advisor for Sen. Obama.
Historians claim that it was Zbigniew Brzezinski"s misguided actions (during the 1960"s and "70"s in Afghanistan/Soviet Union conflict) that led to the present day military strength buildup of Osama Bin Ladin"s "including others- terrorist groups.
In book (see link below), Brzezinski. wrote that we may soon have to get ourselves into a war with Iran if we want to maintain global primacy.

Why did the politically controversial former advisor to former president Jimmy Carter- Zbigniew Brzezinski -endorse Sen. Obama last summer, for president?

Why did Sen. Obama select Brzezinski to serve as a foreign policy advisor for him?"

I hope you will support Senator Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President.


Sincerely,
Dr. Anne Maziar, Ph.D.

www.topix.net/news/2008-presidential-election/2008/03/ohio-muslim-smear-campaign-against-obama-he-doesnt-even-know-the-national-anthem#comments


The following article is copied from:

www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard#a1097chessboard

Bookmark & Share © Add This
Favorites Del.icio.us
Digg Google
MySpace Facebook
Reddit Live
Furl Yahoo MyWeb
StumbleUpon More...
The Center for Grassroots Oversight

This page can be viewed at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1097chessboard
Context of 'October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination'

This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.

*
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
*

1977-1981: The Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union

In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter"s National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." (Dreyfuss 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256)

September 4, 1997: Brzezinski"s "The Grand Chessboard" Advocates Overthrow of Iranian Goverment

Pre-orders of Zbigniew Brzezinski"s new book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" goes on sale at Amazon.com. In the book Brzezinski details how in order to protect America"s status as the last remaining super power on earth it would be necessary to invade and control key locations in the Middle East, particularly Iran. The book theorizes that America could be attacked by Afghan terrorists which would lead to our invasion of Afghanistan and ultimately control of Iran as a key strategic country to hold in the war for global supremacy. (Brzezinski 1997)

October 1997: Brzezinski Highlights the Importance of Central Asia to Achieving World Domination

Zbigniew Brzezinski.Zbigniew Brzezinski. [Source: USIS, American Embassy]Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes: "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America"s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." He predicts that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious Central Asian strategy can not be implemented, "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (Brzezinski 1997, pp. 24-25, 210-11) The book also theorizes that the US could be attacked by Afghan terrorists, precipitating a US invasion of Afghanistan, and that the US may eventually seek control of Iran as a key strategic element in the US"s attempt to exert its influence in Central Asia and the Middle East. (Brzezinski 1997)

August 18, 2002: Brzezinski: Bush Foreign Policy "Reckless," War Not Conducted Because of "Personal Peeve"

In a Washington Post op-ed piece, Zbigniew Brzezinski reprimands the Bush administration for its reckless foreign policy, saying that "war is too serious a business and too unpredictable in its dynamic consequences"especially in a highly flammable region"to be undertaken because of a personal peeve, demagogically articulated fears or vague factual assertions." Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser to President Carter, adds that "[i]f it is to be war, it should be conducted in a manner that legitimizes US global hegemony and, at the same time, contributes to a more responsible system of international security." He then makes several recommendations for improving US foreign policy, including a summary of "a wrong way for America to initiate a war." (Brzezinski 8/18/2002)


Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

[indc]

Let me just say that nearly all of Clinton's foreign policy advisor supported and continue to support the war in Iraq... they are hawks who don't mind sending other people's kids to fight... How come the Clinton daughter did not go fight in the war her mother voted for and has supported for years... we don't need any more chickenhawks...or hawks period, but at least McCain's kids serve... Clinton is a chickenhawk as is most of her civilian foreign policy advisors... more of the same, just want we don't need more of

[specultr]

Brzezinksi is the main foreign policy advisor by any stretch. BHO has about 250 policy advisors.

[specultr]

That should read ZB is not a senior policy advisor to BHO. Read about Samantha Power from Harvard.

[Kordo]

Thank you, Mr. Kitman, glad to see cynicism is alive and well. President Obama will need hard-nosed realists like yourself to keep his feet on the ground.

My rebuttal:
So far from being a "notorious idiot" about politics, I happen to be fairly well informed. I'm an avid reader of political philosophy, and (if I might toot my own horn) a keen observer of human nature. I'm particularly fond of a little tract published in Italy sometime ago, "The Prince", by a bright fellow named Machiavelli. You strike me as an educated man, so I will assume you've had occasion to peruse this work. Many fools (I don't automatically count you among them) have read this piece as a blueprint for tyrants, a sort of FAQ about attaining and holding political power. And, quite honestly, no one with any wit would deny that it is extremely useful in that regard. But anyone who asserts that that was it's main purpose is indeed worthy of the title Fool. Reading Thomas MacCaulay's "In Defense of Machiavelli", and several essays of I. Berlin on the matter, should settle this point, I think. And while I realize that the Death of Vinyl has soured many of your generation on the promise of technology, I must say that your crude characterization of my generations' embrace of it as "looking to our palms for answers" is either deliberate mis-comprehension of a new and powerful tool, or you are frakkin' stupid. Having read some of your articles in the past, I know for a fact that your're NOT frakkin' stupid. What is this constant, high-energy, freeform political conversation but the Athenian Agora writ large? We are more informed than you suppose.You agree that Sen. Obama is a remarkable man; In fact you praise him for accomplishing what no other national political figure has been able to since Reagan, i.e.- "elevating political discourse", and getting a new generation of Americans to pay attention, indeed to become passionate about, the conduct, welfare, and purposes of our Government. You then state that Sen. Obama has not specified exactly what "change" means. I have to call you on this one. He has taken every opportunity to point out precisely what he would do differently. He has explicitly rejected Republican belligerence and militarism, while insisting on maintaining our ability to both defend ourselves, and strike at our enemies. He has given no succor whatsoever to the Liberal/Progressives of his own party who want us to simply lay down our arms, embrace the "Nanny-state", and retreat into international passivity. If in fact you do not recognize what a sea-change these seemingly simple positions might represent, given a united polity, and a thoughtful, able, and charismatic Commander-in-Chief, then I must tell you that your vital cynicism has begun to sound like defeatism at best, or paid advocacy at worst. The "hacks", as you so aptly name them, aren't going away. I agree, but I say they are only effective if their skullduggery is not recognized, and We are nothing if not alert to bullshit.They may in the end survive this threat to their parasitical existence. So be it. Where you are mistaken is in your suspicion that We will go away. Movements succeed by showing people a vision of what they can be, by making individuals beleive that their efforts will be magnified by the efforts of their fellows. By that standard, Barack Obama has already won. We are not fools, we are not children, and we have no illusions about the obstacles ahead. We will change the World.

Kordo