Thu 10 Jul 2008
I heard this morning about the Reverend Jesse Jackson snafu:
A friend of mine said in a strange way it gave him hope. This friend, an Obama supporter, said that because it showed people who are supposed to know better can still make mistakes, we should take some kind of solace in it. At first, when he said he saw it as hopeful, I thought he was referring to Jackson’s much needed “feet to the fire” technique on Obama. Let’s face it, Obama hasn’t exactly been true to his supposedly liberal/progressive base. He’s pandered left and right (ok, mostly center and right). FISA, Faith-based Initiatives, softened Iraq withdrawal policy. These are not small matters.
So when I saw the footage myself, I had a very different reaction. I know a lot progressives and radicals who are actively supporting and even campaigning for Obama. I can understand why. He’s young and fresh and doesn’t seem too institutionalized by DC culture. He’s passionate and he represents a potentially huge leap in American politics and society. Would I rather see him in the White House than McCain? Yes. But my problem with him is: which Obama is going to show up January 20, 2009? And, even if the liberal/progressive Obama shows up, what will he do to undo the American empire? For example, Obama says he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq. But he wants them for Afghanistan, another imperialistic war.
Therefore, I was excited to see a leader like Jackson criticize Obama. Though, I wish he had done so in a more productive manner. It’s people like Jackson who have access to Obama, and will have access on January 21, 2009. Jackson and Jeremiah Wright (hopefully), but they will have stiff competition - multinationals, international trade organizations, Wall Street, special interest lobbyists, campaign financiers, institutionalized members of the Democratic hierarchy, inherited policy failures, huge financial and environmental obstacles, etc.
Most of my activist friends who are supporting Obama are willing to overlook the pandering. They say that they will work to influence Obama’s policies in the correct direction once he’s in office. But how much leverage will they have? Little to none, unless we see some major political cutting and sutures before then.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’d like to cut O’Reilly’s nuts off. But can I get cable TV news to pay any attention? NOOOOOoooo! The crap that gets served up to us as news we need to know is pathetic, sad, embarrassing……
I feel sorry for Jackson and all the other people in the public eye who have had private comments they never intended for public consumption splashed all over by the bottomfeeding media.
As for criticizing Obama, he is fair game.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Here’s another take entirely. Obama supporters are not listening:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?em&ex=1215921600&en=8f0a215e095b39b5&ei=5087%0A
July 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Jim - i hardly think that his comments were made “privately”, he knew he had a microphone on. And Jackson makes a point to be in the public eye, so ofcourse people are going to critique him for what he’s saying. it comes with the territory. Just like Mel Gibson probably didn’t think his racist rants should have been blasted all of the news, etc. But it did, he was caught and had to deal with it. While some poeple might think this isn’t news, i find found his comments to be really interesting.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I agree. If there’s a mic on your lapel, you gotta know there’s a chance it’s on. Besides, I enjoyed the time when Bush called somebody an “asshole” when he thought his mic was off. Then there was that flippin’ the bird incident when Bush didn’t realize the camera was running, and that time he used a producer’s shirt to wipe is glasses or something. Priceless. We’re likely to remember these clips more than any “speech” he’s ever made.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Goolia,
You can’t equate Jackson’s and Gibson’s remarks.
Jackson was expressing disagreement with Obama in crude, locker room terms. What’s more important, disagreement over political statements or the manner in which it is expressed? I think the media focused on the crudity, which was clearly not meant for public discourse.
Gibson’s remarks revealed his personal bigotries. I don’t have a problem with the media reporting on this, as it happened during his arrest on drunken driving. And it is newsworthy because it might shed light on Gibson’s work as a director/actor.
Kevin,
I certainly do enjoy the gaffes of Bush and Cheney (the time he told Sen. Leahy to f*ck off on the Senate floor.
What gets tiresome is how these embarrassing little incidents can get blown way out of proportion by media jackals with nothing better to do.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Jim - you’re right…the Gibson/Jackson remark are different, now that I’m really thinking about it. But I hope you understood the point I was trying to make. Nevertheless “crude, locker room terms” are just as disgusting and hurtful as racist insults. Just ask any girl who walks down the street while men yell or make comments/gestures at her (we even have an achieved discussion on this topic here!). I guess I would just hope that anyone, be it Bush/Jackson or Obama would take blame for what they did and not make excuses - or have others make excuses for them.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
As disappointed as I am in Obama, one thing I can say for him is that so-called “special interests” - PACs, lobbyists, etc - don’t contribute to his campaign. He doesn’t take money or other donations from them. I think the fact that he’s garnered such grassroots & netroots support is significant. If he wins in November, it will be because of people who believe in his candidacy, not these Washington special interests we all so enjoy railing against.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Here’s a list of Obama’s top contributors, from Opensecrets.org:
Goldman Sachs $601,480
University of California $488,159
JPMorgan Chase & Co $373,507
Citigroup Inc $371,054
UBS AG $370,850
National Amusements Inc $332,089
Lehman Brothers $330,760
Harvard University $325,424
Google Inc $321,964
Sidley Austin LLP $305,345
Skadden, Arps et al $281,163
Morgan Stanley $274,213
Time Warner $268,227
Jones Day $251,250
Exelon Corp $237,311
University of Chicago $230,175
Latham & Watkins $228,026
Microsoft Corp $223,895
Wilmerhale Llp $222,080
General Electric $210,329
He may not take money from their PACs or lobbyists, but you can bet that those lobbyists will be there, golf clubs in hand, ready to take him out to lunch, reminding him about the hundreds of thousands of dollars from their employers, when Obama becomes president.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
What a shape shifting trickster.
July 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Oh, I just think you’re talking about a candidate in a different league, when he’s raised over 40% of his money (during the primary at least) from people who gave $200 or less. Compared to Kerry & Gore? Not to mention McCain? Raising money from wealthy people/ groups/ bundlers is the only way for any candidate to be viable in this country. I don’t think it’s inconsistent with his message; and it’s a lot better than global warming denying or pro life or anti gay or whatever PACs! He’s obviously no Green Party guy, but for a Democrat, I’m impressed.
July 16th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I can understand that, but my point in the article is that ultimately all those 200 dollar contributors will not have the access to influence him when in office. And 40% is still just 40%. Sure, he’s done amazing things, but again, average voters will have to do a lot to truly hold his feet to the fire. And they will have so much competition from the likes of the corporate interests on that list.