So Obama has chosen Joe Biden for his running-mate. Interesting. Very. Everyone knows Biden is Mastercard's best friend. If Biden had his way there would be less regulation on credit card companies. Boo. I hope this is more "proof" that Obama has gone corporate.
P.S. Too bad Phil Hartman isn't around...he could do an impression that would leave you laughing for days!
I am an age old tree. I am stars in white snow. All rights reserved © Blog Milk Powered by Blogger
5 comments:
I know, Obama is slowly floating towards the right, more and more. I'm pretty troubled and sad. What if he is doing it out of necessity, because it's the only way to get in there? Is it a legitimate excuse in your opinion? I'm guessing not. But it's something I'm thinking about. I mean, we live in a very RIGHT wing nation, right?
I don't know anything about Biden yet, but Obama is a believer in compromise. If you are unwilling to meet in the middle, you can't get very far can you? Didn't Lincoln have to compromise for a while, until he had enough support to pursue the abolition of slavery?
Lincoln's platform wasn't "abolition". He was initially only against the expansion of slavery. Abolition was a military and political move Lincoln made at a strategic point. I'm doint a lot of Civil War/Reconstruction studying now...specifically on Lincoln as a third-party candidate. He's not so altruistic as we've made him. But he's not all bad either.
And I don't believe in voting for someone because I "hope" they will do the opposite of what they're saying and doing at the moment. Obama will lose support as a candidate and a president if he attacks the corporations who fund him. I doubt he will keep us little guys in mind. Those corporations are POWERFUL. Nader is the only candidate who sticks to his guns...and has for 40 years.
Right. But "the people" are not electing Nader this time. It's going to be McCain or Obama. I think change is happening, slowly, but as fast as people are willing to let it. It is up to people like you, all who are aware, to speak out and educate people. It's the only way. I blame the people for allowing our politicians to behave this way. And it's so true when Ashsan pointed out that it doesn't matter in Utah if I vote Nader, so I probably will. I guess I just see Obama as a gateway President. He's trying to do what Lincoln did (and it's my understanding that Lincoln did believe in the immorality of slavery, but used the political and economic interest of northern whites to convince them to fight against it, knowing that people only act in their own self-interest. Sad but true. So he used shifty measures to seek a noble agenda?) And knowing Obama tries to use similar tactics that Lincoln did, I wonder if that is what he is doing now. I know I could be mistaken. That is just my understanding at the moment.
The big difference between Obama and Lincoln is that Obama is backed by big corporations. The Democratic party started seeking coporate funding in the 1970s or 1980s (can anyone help me with the exact time?). At that point Democrats gave their souls away. Obama and Democrats will lose their financial support if they go against the corporations. I don't see them taking that risk. The Democrats are becoming more and more like Republicans--that is the trend. Both parties are becoming more and more corporate.
We can't "hope" that Obama will change once in office. I can't think of an instance when a president, in the past few decades, went against the corporations that got them into office.
Yes, it is the people's fault to an extent that politics is so corrupt. No one pays enough attention to what's going on. As long as they can keep shopping and buying their stuff they are happy.
AND here's what I read last night from a Civil War expert, James McPherson concerning Lincoln:
There were 3 camps in the Free-soil group at the time. the first were true abolitionists, believing that slavery was a sinful violation of human rights and should be expiated. The second camp was anti-slavery because they felt that it was socially repressive, economically backward, and politically harmful to the free states. The third group was the group Lincoln belonged to. They supported the Wilmot Proviso (which proposed an ammendment that would ban slavery in the lands acquired from Mexico)BUT they were willing to accept a compromise. Even if Lincoln felt slavery was immoral, he didn't originally believe it should be abolished completely. Linoln's original intentions in the war were to keep the Union together, it wasn't Abolition until more than half way through the war. When he was first elected to office he never thought he would support abolition, he simply supported the containment of slavery in the South.
Yes, I agree. Lincoln's compromising ways are the ways Obama embraces now. It's just that I'm not so sure it's a strategy that is entirely bad. Slavery did end after all, and the Union survived it.
Post a Comment