An Honest Question
I’m really, sincerely not trying to gloat or be snotty, but Prescott had asked this question in the comments of some post a while ago, and (I don’t think) got an answer, and I’m genuinely curious. A couple people, namely Craig-who-has-a-silly-nickname-I-don’t-at-the-moment-remember and Tom, have seemed to have been absolutely certain that Hillary Clinton will receive the Democratic nomination, and had been sticking to that claim long into the campaign, even when most people seemed to have accepted that Obama would win. It appears that tonight Obama will clinch the nomination based on a combination of pledged delegates and declared superdelegates. So, to those who thought this was never a possibility, what is your reaction? How has it changed your view of politics? Or, possibly, do you still think it’s not over for some reason?
This post can also serve as a general thread to comment or reflect on the Democratic primary. I’m interested in hearing people’s thoughts and opinions, as well as any predictions on what happens from here on out (whether VP-related, general election related, whatever).
Comment by Lally on 3 June 2008 at 5:39 pm:
It’s SO EXCITING!!!!
are you going to campaign, Brian?
Comment by Brian on 3 June 2008 at 7:19 pm:
The networks cut away from McCain’s speech once Obama clinched the nomination, so maybe I’m wrong about this, but it looks like McCain’s speech did not make the slightest mention of the fact that Obama’s nomination is an historic moment, regardless of whether you support him or not. I remember in 2007, when President Bush gave his State of the Union for that year and opened it by acknowledging Nancy Pelosi’s election as Speaker of the House after the clobbering Republicans got in the 2006 elections. It was a classy, admirable moment, and it’s unfortunate McCain didn’t do something similar tonight. Not only that, he tried to impugn the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination by saying, “Pundits and party leaders have declared that Barack Obama will by my opponent.”
Also, WOW is he a bad public speaker.
Comment by tet on 3 June 2008 at 7:48 pm:
I am still afraid that she’ll be the nominee, Brian. I remember 1968 too well.
Tom
Comment by mr stallion on 3 June 2008 at 8:09 pm:
brian,
this is a big test,
between those who use their own logic despite what the common voice says…and those who are compelled by the common voice that they have faith in.
tonight is dewey beats truman.
leo strauss and these neo-cons are all proteges of karl schmidt. the practice “world view warfare”, which is a propaganda system based on the platonic forms. they rule the masses with illusions of truth, justice, peace, prosperity, and security. and they use our most tangible historical themes to manufacture consent.
all that is to say–
they are using 1968 as an template.
i do not think mr. kennedy is going to make it, and we are going to denver.
prescott… i had hoped you would be a shepherd and not a sheep.
check out operation mockingbird.
Comment by J. Prescott on 4 June 2008 at 8:02 am:
Mr Stallion -
I know about Operation Mockingbird, but in terms of your sheep/shepard analogy, I freely admit that I am not as educated about these types of things as you are. You and Tom have a different background than I do, and have a different perspective. I will also freely admit that this election has, if not shattered my world view on the political process, then has at the very least been surprising. This is why I wanted your opinion. You advocate a position which I am more familiar with now than I was two years ago, but one I am still not comfortable with. To me, this election is a huge experiment to me for your and Tom’s views, and I just wanted to check if either of you were going to alter your hypothesis now in the face of these newer results.
Comment by tet on 4 June 2008 at 1:17 pm:
See, Prescott, I think that Obama would be good for the country, but not because of his policies.
Americans right now are scared and angry. Potential despots find this condition pleasing. Obama, like Ronald Reagan, has the ability to soothe the psyche and encourage the citizenry to be more optimistic.
This is anathema to the entire process of destroying American freedom. Therefore, if it is possible, he will be prevented from doing so. Even Reagan was the target of an assassination attempt during his first term and he only survived by chance.
It does not matter if the leader is conservative or liberal–no charismatic leader over the last half-century has been allowed to serve or prosper without an attempt to bring them down.
In this day and age, with the end of privacy, character assassination would work just as well in the hands of the bad guys. I think the church thing with Obama was the first major one that showed any affect.
Oh, and speaking of gloating…
Told you so.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 4 June 2008 at 3:24 pm:
Uh…you’re aware the assassination attempt against Reagan was done by a crazy guy who was just trying to impress Jodie Foster, not to crush the American people’s optimism, right?
I’d also argue that Regan’s charisma made it EASIER, not harder, to take freedom away from the American people. Obviously I don’t think that’s what’s gonna happen under Obama, but I don’t really see why YOU don’t think that.
Comment by J. Prescott on 4 June 2008 at 3:32 pm:
Wow, I must be in the twilight zone, cause I agree, to an extent, with Brian.
Not to say that in any way Obama is in any way related, comparable, or anything like that to this person, but Hitler, Stalin and others were relatively personable, which is how they built their following. Wouldn’t people benefit, under your world view, by being fearful, and thus distrustful, of their government, so long as that fear is not paralyzing? I am not trying to attack you, but I am just trying to poke at your logic a little bit to get a better view.
Comment by kofi the ten days; 240 hours; a week and a half on 4 June 2008 at 3:50 pm:
Hate to rain on your gloating parade, Tom, but I predicted they were in the wrong before they even went in – and ten days before you.
Comment by Brian on 4 June 2008 at 3:51 pm:
I should say this, to clarify my view: I think a charismatic leader will have an easier time getting done whatever he or she wants to get done. In my view, what a leader wants to get done will differ from leader to leader, and may or may not entail taking away freedom or other bad things. But in Tom’s view, all our leaders are essentially the same, in that they all want to take away freedom. So I would expect Tom’s logic to be (1) charismatic leaders have an easier time getting things done, (2) all our leaders want to take away freedom, therefore (3) charismatic leaders will take away more freedom than non-charismatic leaders. It seems like Tom disagrees with point #1, and, like Prescott, I’m curious as to why that is.
Comment by tet on 5 June 2008 at 12:24 am:
Ah, Brian. While all leaders want to remove freedom, some want to do it faster than others.
In a few cases, the empowering charisma of the leader gives citizens “bright ideas” like freedom faster than the natural tendency toward power can take it away from them.
The Founders are a prime example of this kind–the Englightenment produced a good number, the like of which we’ll never see again.
Individuals of which this is true won’t be allowed to live if a despotic agenda is really on the table.
Kofi, you’ve been a supporter of freedom on the Texas case all along. There were others like Vox Day who supported the polygamists all along, too. You can share my gloating all you want.
Tom