It might seem a bit "out there" to consider that Obama's ascendancy is actually a planned coup of the Democratic party by formidable interests intent on keeping the Clintons out of power...until you look at Obama's money trail.
When you add big money up with cultish, blind followers...it all adds up to bad news.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Respectfully, if you want to convince people of your argument that Obama is a big-money candidate, and that the people who support him are sheep, you might want to link to actual news stories from reputable sources, rather than pro-Clinton sites--and Lyndon Larouche (what??) who is a complete nut. This kind of animosity gets us nowhere.
You can oppose a candidate on the issues, rather than attacking his or her supporters, and coming up with outlandish accusations against the candidate.
I honestly am not posting this to come down on your obvious passionate support of Senator Clinton, I just think that, if we are to continue a true movement that will allow us to move forward with a progressive agenda, we must stay away from the animosity, fabrications, and name calling.
I am not trying to "convince" Obama supporters of anything on this blog. This is a "preaching to the choir" type of blog, born out of frustration and anger.
And in my opinion, very pro-Obama people are a lost cause: They discount any sort of criticism against the man, no matter what the source.
It doesn't matter if it's "out there" conspiracy theories (and I did say characterize the LaRouche link as "out there"); it doesn't matter if they are electoral maps showing that Obama just won't win in November...Obama fans don't care and don't want to admit anything might possibly be wrong with their "chosen one."
Finally, in regards to this portion of your comment: "if we are to continue a true movement that will allow us to move forward with a progressive agenda" - you are showing your Obama-bias here. WHAT movement? Clinton supporters aren't interested in a "movement." We're interested in having the best candidate on the ballot in November.
I am absolutely not a part of any "progressive movement" at the moment, particularly when that movement seems to be about crowning a charismatic fake who panders to progressives, rather than a moderate, bright woman who appeals to the average American.
We don't need a progressive president. We need a moderate president. Electing "progressives" as such should be the focus of local elections, not the leader of our country, who needs to appeal to the wide diversity of Americans, most of whom are NOT progressive but MODERATE.
It's called...representative democracy.
Apologies, I should have been more clear when I referred to a "movement." I meant, specifically, a feminist movement that champions a forward-thinking agenda--rather than voting for McCain who will take us way back in time.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just suggesting that we, as feminists, have to remember that we ultimately have a lot more in common than it seems right now. I just don't want those commonalitites to get lost in the anger--that goes for supporters on both sides of the fence.
For the record, I absolutely do not discount criticism of Obama. I believe that we always have to look at our politicians in a critical manner, no matter who they are, this includes the ones I have chosen to support. I have 3 children, I have too much at stake to be blind to a politician's faults. The future of my kids is my priority always, following someone blindly does not protect the future of my kids.
"I meant, specifically, a feminist movement that champions a forward-thinking agenda--rather than voting for McCain who will take us way back in time."
Ummm...yeah...the "forward-thinking agenda" I had in mind was to actually help get the first viable WOMAN with brains and heart into the White House...as PRESIDENT and not just First Lady.
That major goal to me supersedes any other pet issues, including abortion rights.
And if you aren't on board with that, then you aren't part of my feminism.
In my opinion, NARAL did more to harm the women's movement by dissing Hillary in the manner that it did than John McCain could EVER do. If there is one bright spot to NARAL's stupidity, it's that it has served as a clarion call to women supporting Hillary and given us one more reason to fight.
And if that means we have to fight so-called "feminists" who think Obama is a better "feminist" than Hillary, then that's what we have to do.
I sure hope that's OK with you, "sweetie."
I think it is telling that you can't seem to have a respectful dialogue with me, without resorting to sarcasm or comments that are intended to belittle. I have been respectful and issue-focused with you. It would be one thing if I had come on to your blog and attacked you, but I didn't.
I'm not saying this because I think you need to be nice to me in order to convince me that your argument is right, but I think a little bit of civility and empathy for other people, especially when it has been shown to you, goes a long way (if only for your own peace of being).
Post a Comment