The word change dates back to the 13th century and is a derivative of the Latin cambiare, which means to exchange, or barter. Today, the dictionary tells me that change means “to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.” Maybe we can specify “politics” or “government” as that “something” and Obama fans can put it on a button and wear it on their sleeves along with their naiveté.
Last October I had a few lapses in judgment. One was dying my hair dark brown, one was a less-than-perfect life choice, and the other was getting a little turned on by Barack Obama. On October 3, 2007, Obama was campaigning in Independence, Iowa, raping the dry husk that is the American Dream, *giggle* when one reporter noticed something strange.
“You don’t have the American flag pin on. Is that a fashion statement?” he asked and pointed out that politicians had been wearing them since September 12, 2001.
At that moment, my world stood still as Obama spoke. He said he stopped wearing the pin on his lapel after 9/11 when it became “substitute for… true patriotism” and that his ideas for America will prove to be a testament to his patriotism. Immediately, I fell in love, but others saw it as a weakness and further questioned his patriotism and support of American troops overseas. “You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals,” Obama said the next day in a response to the attacks. That, I think, is the spirit of change Barack Obama wants to embody, but has failed terribly at in recent days. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that his supposed candor is nothing but eloquent rhetoric that is just as malleable as any other politician’s promises.
I want to point out that we’ve still got a long way to go. Though November is just around the corner, we’re bound to discover a lot about both of these candidates in the coming months. The past eight years have taught us, if anything, that there’s so much more in play, and that it isn’t just about who becomes president. Both of these candidates still have to choose running mates. The winner / appointee then has to choose the people who will be there daily to ADVISE him on how to tackle the issues. What comes out of an administration has a lot more to do with the people a president surrounds himself with, than the bullshit that is thrown around by both sides leading up to the general election, but since one side of the story has been discussed here, it’s only right to make sure disillusionment comes from more than one angle.
Support for Obama is on a steady decline as he alienates his most avid supporters and changes (exchanges?) his positions on issues that made him the candidate who you can believe in. In June, Obama had the support of 59% of the registered democrats, but now it’s 54% and his numbers against John McCain are fluctuating between 45 and 47% with McCain gaining. I won’t bore you with too many details, but it might be fun to point out a few things that have occurred in the past week.
Obama was once praised for revolutionizing fundraising by relying on small internet donations rather than large politically-charged donations. People saw that as a change from the old ways of relying on the political machine. More than 90% of donations to the Obama campaign were less than $100, making Obama so “grassroots” and of “the people.” Unfortunately, “the people” aren’t you and me anymore, and that sort of takes away from the whole… grassroots revolutionary thing.
Obama said “no thanks” to “the people” when he opted out of public financing for his campaign in favor of seeking out sugar daddies to fund the most important months of his campaign. Leaving out special interests and giving the power to the voters was soooo primary season.
Not only does your $20 mean squat now, a piece of Obama is becoming more and more expensive. Last week at an event in Colorado at a five-star resort, Obama’s presence cost each attendee $1,000. The week before in Los Angeles, the Obama campaign had dinner with over 200 people who either donated $28,000 or raised $50,000, followed by another celebrity filled event where over 800 people contributed $2,300 each to basically hear Seal perform. Tomorrow, Obama will attend a fundraiser with over 400 people who donate $2,300 each. Those who give $10,000 can attend the reception, and those who give $28,000 get to break bread with Mr. Obama. Similar events will happen over the next few days, with my favorite on Wednesday, where $50,000 will get you a picture with the senator.
At least my picture with McCain was free…
Last week, Obama also decided to change his previous stance and actually support Bush legislation that grants immunity to telecommunications companies who allowed their customers to be wiretapped without a warrant. This legislation also expands the amount power and leeway the government has in domestic spying. This one has is supporters so riled up, that they’re actually organizing on Barack’s own website by the thousands to protest his decision, since he said earlier this year that he would filibuster any attempt to update FISA legislation. For someone who taught constitutional law, you’d think Obama would fight that one a bit.
Obama is also beginning to pander to those “Bible-thumping Christian global dominators” that some of his supporters are quick to disregard.
Obama’s plan for a “Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” is an extension of Bush’s faith-based initiatives used to infuse morality into policy discussions and turn government money into religious donations. I remember from my constitutional law class something about separating church and state, but I guess I didn’t have Obama as a professor. Obama says that there is a difference, though, since he will not allow these groups to discriminate when hiring.
Oh, because Hell wouldn’t freeze over the day a Muslim started working for a Jewish organization.
No matter what, people will dig to bring both Obama and McCain into an unfavorable light- that is just the nature of politics. That said, here are two of my favorites quotes from Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father: “I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically… If the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly.” And grassroots you say? Yes, yes he is. “I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though…”
In reality, I’m about as much of a fan of Obama as I am of McCain, which isn’t saying much, but in the end, I’m voting for Obama. You know, just in case I need an abortion. But it’s always much more fun getting into fights with ardent supporters of Obama who know nothing of his shortcomings and overindulge in McCain bashing.
I just refuse to trick myself into believing Obama’s definition of change is the same as mine, or the same as yours. At least most McCain supporters have specific (although often irrational) reasons, whether it is overturning Roe v. Wade, tax cuts for the wealthy, eternal damnation for homosexuals, or world domination. Obama supporters all shout change, hope, etc., but I just hope they know that the term change is about as ambiguous as the sexuality of these two:
This past week in Independence, Missouri, Obama gave a speech about patriotism, surrounded by American flags- including one on his lapel.
Once the shining example of where politics in America could go with a little hope and a little change, Obama has exchanged (or bartered) your support of his values and ideas for some symbolic patriotism in hopes of winning a few more votes.
There’s so much more, but I will leave you with the words of Susan Sarandon: “So I think [Obama] definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can’t wait to see what he stands for.” Me too, Susan. Me too.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:19 PM
haha oh man. that picture of me and johnny is totally a cheaper shot than johnny mocking mccain’s “heroics.” where did you get that?
July 6th, 2008 at 11:31 PM
At what point in the political process were elections NOT soundbites and talking points. That’s the system and I don’t think anybody can not play ball and win. Every candidate starts radical for the primary and becomes more moderate for the election. You appeal to your base, then you reach across the aisle.
Well written though. People really should figure out what they’re voting for rather than just voting….
July 7th, 2008 at 12:17 AM
[quote]USA “Graham, Donald E.” “Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company”
NLD “Halberstadt, Victor” “Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings”
USA “Holbrooke, Richard C. ” “Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC”
FIN “Honkapohja, Seppo” “Member of the Board, Bank of Finland”
INT “Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de” “Secretary General, NATO”
USA “Hubbard, Allan B.” “Chairman, E & A Industries, Inc.”
BEL “Huyghebaert, Jan” “Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group”
DEU “Ischinger, Wolfgang” Former Ambassador to the UK and US
USA “Jacobs, Kenneth” “Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard U.S., Lazard Frères & Co. LLC”
USA “Johnson, James A.” “Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC” (Obama’s man tasked with selecting his running mate)
USA “Rice, Condoleezza” Secretary of State
PRT “Rio, Rui ” Mayor of Porto
USA “Rockefeller, David ” “Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank”[/quote]
from the Bilderberg 2008 attendants list, no reason to be shocked, this even was held the weekend that Hilary conceded. He’s a tool just like all those before him were tools. I’ll still take him over 4 more years of Bush, at least his public image allows him to appear literate.
July 7th, 2008 at 6:18 AM
What’s funny between the 3 of you (and a very few of us readers), isn’t funny to a proper audience because they don’t know who’s in that photo. Is this site aiming to be more of a Rollingstone, or just a half-cocked political Livejournal?
Any good albums come out in last couple weeks? That’d be something to talk about.
July 7th, 2008 at 7:40 AM
I didn’t know Skwerl was a possible Obama running mate? Dayum! That is great. I bet he could pick up an “idiots guide to being a VP,” read it in a weekend and do a fuck better of a job than any of the aforementioned assholes. Mr. Rose is right: is there any good music out these days?
July 7th, 2008 at 8:32 AM
whatever, the picture is titled “skwerl & johnny firecloud.”
this site is aiming to be whatever we want it to be. take it or leave it.
and yes, more reviews and interviews are going up this week.
we had a political weekend. get over it if that’s not your cup of tea.
oh and hi damien. ha.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Glad to hear Obama supporters are waking up to realize there is nothing new with their candidate. He is just as savvy a politico as the Clintons, perhaps more so. You are right to ask- change - what kind of change? What does he stand for (Obama)? Did I just agree with Sarandon? Yikes!
A few months ago, I was even thinking that perhaps a president Obama wouldn’t be a terrible thing until he began to show his colors. I now find him pretty scary. Obama supporters have GOT to be disillusioned!
There IS such a thing as a moderate republican. No, a vote for McCain is not for any of the reasons you mentioned, at least in my book. IT is because of his character, his experience and integrity. One may not agree on everything with him, but he IS moderate, and what you see is what you get. No guessing games. The world stage has gotten too dicey to go with inexperience and extremism on the left- or on the right!
So you don’t think being tortured as a prisoner of war and a refusal to go home when he was given the chance because of his dad being a congressman is heroic JFirecloud?
YEah, I know, you are all worried about his age. Well, he’d be a one term president. Let’s see who these guys chose as running mates.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:07 AM
dlrw: completely agree when it comes to mccain on character.
but what’s funny is that joseph rose must not know how to use the internet. I may not be an expert with my own blog like joseph rose, but I know enough to figure out that by putting my cursor over the above picture he claims is only funny to a few people, I can also laugh when it tells me that it is johnny firecloud & skwerl and i think it’s cool that there’s a face with the name.
i don’t know about anyone else, but i think joseph rose will find a reason to complain about everything you guys post on this website.
joseph rose @ gethurt.com: if you’re so concerned about the music that came out this week, you should write about it on your blog instead of writing about what goes on at antiquiet. if you don’t know how to use the internet, joseph rose has a blog at gethurt.com and the last thing he posted there was about antiquiet, and there might or might not be a guns track hanging around on gethurt.com.
joseph rose @ gethurt.com: you can thank me for the traffic later. and i think something to talk about on gethurt.com would be good music that came out this week instead of that shit you make and then call music. or did you not want people to tell you what to write on your site since it is yours. maybe you should take my advice and see if you get comments on your posts or people interested in what you do.
antiquiet: i like that i can come here and hear about new music and even political stuff here and there, and obviously so do other people. this is what makes antiquiet different. i am a big fan of music, but the people at antiquiet know that people who like music also care about a few other things.
joseph rose @ gethurt.com: instead of spending your time commenting on this website, why not raise your kid? i think that’s a good idea especially since he’s cute and probably way more interesting than the internet. i wish i had something as awesome as that little boy to distract me from the internet and my dreams of internet rockstardom.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:19 AM
also, for the record, we’re two thirds cocked.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:09 PM
DLRW: Military heroism is not a qualification for presidency. Not even if it happened sooner than forty years ago.
You call Obama scary and the concept of his presidency terrible, but preach of McCains character and integrity as if he weren’t known very well to have a tyrannic temper (not to mention cheating on and abandoning his first wife). A temper which he has lost on several documented occasions ON THE SENATE FLOOR. I’d be happy to provide a number of examples if you like.
We’re not talking about a guy who calls his wife a cunt in private and presents a calm, collected professional demeanor in public. He’s very well known for blowing his lid. That speaks a hell of a lot louder to me than POW heroics four decades ago.
As I said in my piece, McCain’s POW story is an admirable tale of survival and selflessness, and he deserves the highest medals and honors they can pin on him. But how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the leadership of the world’s most powerful military? Or the leadership of this nation, for that matter? It doesn’t. The association is entirely emotion-based.
That’s an old, useful trick and common thread among Republicans that the left just doesn’t have, and it’s cost them countless elections: the ability to set their differences aside and jump on a collective emotional tide-shifter bandwagon. To create enough hype to make words like “facts” and “truth” sound unpleasant and unnecessary.
But it’s interesting that the rhetoric of my article has thus far been the only attack point. People rushing to defend McCain’s hero status, something I never really questioned. There’s been no attempt to justify McCain’s comments about still voting us into Iraq if he’d have known how it would unfold, despite the staggering evidence that the war was a mistake and we don’t belong there. Or his astonishing number of about-face maneuvers on important issues. Or, again, how his Vietnam hostage heroism qualifies him to run my country. Or the fact that he’s a man of action before words, pushing a war agenda when this nation is aching for peace.
At least for the price of smug condescension I got half a response about Clark’s VP eligibility in a comment from Skwerl.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Firecloud has a kid. And does drugs. And has done jail time. Am I judging him? Absolutely not. But for you, whoever your sorry, nameless, spineless ass is, to make comments about someone not being able to raise a kid and comment on a website at the same time are particularly idiotic in present company.
Suck it.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Interesting outlash, Joe. Whoever the gethurt attacker was (certainly not me, but I suspect you’re close) sure seemed to strike a nerve. Your skewed summations about me do enough judging to call straight bullshit on your “absolutely not” claim. Mentioning my child while avoiding any legitimate debate on the issues/points presented in these articles is a scampering right hook far below the belt. Judging by your response to gethurt, you should know how that comment came across to me. Point your unwarranted bullshit elsewhere.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Lecture the dude who started it, or it has no weight. You can’t tell one guy to basically stay on topic, when it was a reply to him being off topic and attacking me in the first place.
And I didn’t have any “summations” about you. I stated 3 simple facts that you can’t deny. Am/was I judging you? Like I said, no. But based on the kind of person “gethurt.com” is, I’m sure he is.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:39 PM
hey, that shit wasn’t me either.
but anyway, i the main point i’d make in criticism of johnny’s piece is that he immaturely cherry picked facts and stories to put a halo on obama and horns on mccain. he may admit to being completely subjective, but it seemed to me at least that he attempted to inform. which makes the piece reek of pure propoganda. britney made a couple points that i consider unarguable: it isn’t just about who becomes president, neither candidate has picked a running mate yet, and we’ve got a long way to go.
also, both candidates have plenty of faults. many obama supporters completely ignore his. they complain that mccain is bush part two, while obama supports or extends bush initiatives for needed support. i’ll probably vote for obama too- especially if clark is picked as the running mate, or if obama divorces his annoying ignorant delusional cunt of a wife. but i’m sick of hearing everyone talk about him being so grassroots and for the people and all about change, while he starts to show his true colors and pull the same old politician tricks, bending whichever way he has to to get into office. and i’m finding more and more that he’s always done it. he won his seat in the senate by getting all of his opponents off the ballots on technicalities. gangsta sure. respectable, maybe. but grassroots? hell to the no. revolutionary? definitely not.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:42 PM
not sure what integrity you fucks are talking about with mccain…are you actually insane, or do you just not open your eyes when you walk outside?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-_cLhDTCk
http://www.viralthis.com/90/john-mccain-contradicts-himself.html
“Just six short months ago, McCain told the Boston Globe that he, unlike the current occupant of the Oval Office, felt compelled to follow the law when protecting U.S. national security. Asked specifically if the president has the authority to sidestep the law and conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant, McCain said, “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”
The Globe, seeking clarification, asked whether federal statutes trumped a president’s war-time authority. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” McCain said.
As has become typical with McCain, the Republican presidential candidate no longer believes what he used to believe.
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”
McCain was, in other words, against presidential authority superseding the law before he was for it.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement by Holtz-Eakin “seems to contradict precisely what he said earlier.”
In addition to the fairly obvious flip-flop (what else is new), there are a couple of interesting angles to consider here.
First, the reference to Article II is pretty transparent — like Bush’s lawyers, the McCain campaign is arguing that the president’s inherent authority as Commander in Chief gives him the right to do literally anything in the interests of protecting national security. FISA gives the president certain powers, but according to this argument, the president need not feel bound to follow the law because he’s, you know, the president.
Second, there’s a political context to consider. Mark Kleiman argued:
McCain’s new pro-wiretap position was issued in response to a complaint by a right-wing blogger that his prior new position (not to be confused with his original position) wasn’t bold enough. “Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?” huffed Andy McCarthy of National Review Online. (Translation: You’re not suggesting that the President has to obey the law, are you?”) And McCain folded like a cheap card table.
Now that the wingnuts know that they can mau-mau McCain every time he deviates toward sanity, they’re going to keep pulling his chain. If he keeps responding this way, it’s going to be hard for even his acolytes in the media to keep calling him either principled or moderate.
Mark’s more optimistic about the treatment McCain will receive from a sycophantic media, but it’s a good point nevertheless.
And third, it’s probably worth taking a moment to consider the fact that this, once again, brings McCain precisely in line with Bush’s worldview and disdain for the rule of law. At the exact moment we might expect McCain to distance himself from Bush’s radicalism, McCain is doing the exact opposite, giving Bush’s passive contempt for the law a big bear hug.
There were probably some principled conservatives who saw McCain’s sensible remarks about the rule of law to the Boston Globe six months ago as encouraging. But he no longer cares about appearing sensible or concerned with legal norms, McCain has right-wing activists to motivate.
What an embarrassment”
-thecarpetbaggerreport.com
July 7th, 2008 at 1:58 PM
fair enough…? but obama’s flip-flopped onto that wiretapping boat with bush and mccain now, so it’s all the same to me.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:22 PM
In the real world, no candidate that gets far enough to be a candidate is going to just backpack across the country raising campaign money by playing Sublime tunes on his guitar for spare change. And if he was, no one would take him seriously anyway. It seems so silly and immature for anyone to look for some amazing “grassroots” type bullshit that would never fly. Obama, while potentially very cool (for a politician), IS a politician by trade. His job is to win the White House. Just because he’s playing the game doesn’t mean he isn’t truly idealistic (in a good way) and looking for some of that CHANGE and HOPE we hear so much about. Is he perfect? No. No one is. Is he better than McCain any day of the week? Obviously.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:26 PM
ok, i actually kinda totally agree with that, though i’m not quite as enthusiastic about the last sentence.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:14 AM
For democrats to ever win anything they need to focus more on what they stand for, and be honest about it, and less about what they don’t stand for (Bush, apparently) leaving a huge gaping void of information as to what they believe in.
Say what you want about Bush but he’s never pretended to like liberals or give a crap about what they think, and that’s admirable. Democrats like clinton or obama will tell you anything to be elected. It’s about power, of course.
One key problem for Democrats, from my view, is that they’ve promised the same shit for almost 50 years and never deliver on it, even when they’ve had full government control. There’s always an excuse, a boogeyman, a neo-con in the way. But they will help you, just keep waiting around…
As long as people continue to think that the government will help them in absence of any evidence, Democrats will still have something to sell and people who think of government as mommy and daddy will have something to buy.
Take a moment and think about the times the government has helped you Vs. the times its presence has harmed you or annoyed you and you’ll probably start to sour on any social politician, especially Democrats. It’s the carrot and the stick.
I live in one of the most liberal regions in the US and getting a wisdom tooth pulled in a publicly funded hospital when I was uninsured was so unnecessarily difficult and degrading that I don’t believe that the decades of kind and gentle democratic rule have helped me too much.
If there is a key example of democratic rule, it’s California. With all the money california has our state system is a total clusterfuck, and you cant blame bush or neocons for that.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:20 AM
i agree with most of your points. i’d just like to say that life was fuckin’ great for me when bill was in office. the economy was great, and i had my pick of any job, all of which offered great healthcare packages. and that’s basically what he promised, that’s what got him elected.
not necessarily saying it was all directly bill’s fault, but i had no complaints.
the democrats’ fatal flaw in the past two elections have been that they didn’t stand for anything. obama has gotten as far as he has because he seems to- change! but i mean… that’s what you’re going with? could you pick anything more ambiguous and intangible? i’m going to be different! well no shit man, but how exactly? let’s get some steak with that sizzle. and while we’re waiting to hear a bit about what this change is going to look like, he seems to be less and less change-y as the days go by and he plays the political game under more and more scrutiny.
maybe he’ll be awesome. but we’ll never know if he tries to play this hand all the way.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:04 PM
the economy was great when clinton was president because of the tech boom. A humongous brand new industry was emerging.
That kind of thing happens once every 25 years.
I love when people say “well he made special programs that made all that happen”.
Yeah, he went back in time and taught Steve Jobs and Bill Gates how to hack. Got it.
It was a lucky moment in time to be president, and he still sorta screwed it up.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Then again, many things are booming right now - the Internet and communication has reached terrific heights in the past eight years - and I don’t see Bush taking advantage of that.