You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #8: I heard Bugliosi speak right after Selection 2000. He said., stirringly... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-18-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
8. I heard Bugliosi speak right after Selection 2000. He said., stirringly...
..."History will show we should have been in the streets." But all his energy has been spent since then, it seems, on writing a tome about the Kennedy Assassination. And that fact seems *so* reminiscent of what we've all faced since that stolen election. We feel rage and despair, we write letters, we post at DU. But there doesn't seem to be any organizing principle that allows We the People to actually achieve any change. We used to feel we could do it through elections. Many of us no longer feel that way because our elections are so tainted.

For the briefest instant, I engaged in the thought that it would be great to have Bill back in the White House with Hillary, as some kind of revenge for the way our duly-elected President was jerked about by the right-wing machine in this country -- and because he was a much better President than what we've seen with Bush II. When Hillary nailed "the vast right-wing conspiracy," I cheered. But the bitter truth is that since those days, we've seen the underbelly of the Clintons' public personna -- their too-close association with Bush I and corporate entities. The woman who stood by her man against the forces of the right wing has morphed into what too often looks like an ardent supporter of the forces of the right wing.

Obama's passion, though compelling sometimes, is beginning to wear thin. Stirring platitudes are not going to save the day for us, and I can't feel my way to substance with Obama. He is too close to evangelical influence for my taste (as is Hillary, with her ties to the National Prayer Breakfast and The Fellowship). Just the vision of having a black man in the White House (Why, in our language, does White House deserve capitalization when black man does not? I digress.) brings up strong emotions of a 180-degree change for the country. I wish it were so. The black man's ascendecy has to be more than a rush to overcome our national history of racist shame. I fear there is that element at play with some people, just as that issues exists with feminist elements who want *first* a woman, then a national leader -- and the twain may not meet.

I am having a hard time forgiving Edwards for his *strong* participation in leading us into the Iraq occupation. He, at least, has apologized and is ardently speaking out against the corporate forces that have simply taken over our democracy. He has passion *and* legal experience to fight those forces. He is criticized by some for being a lawyer, assuming that carries with it a built-in arrogance and assumption of superiority. If I am not mistaken, Hillary is a lawyer, as is Obama, so that piece of anti-Edwards spin doesn't hold up in the light of day. I am impressed that John and Elizabeth Edwards are giving their energy to the cause of trying to take back the country, in spite of Elizabeth's less-than-stellar health.

I have thought, and posted here, that I will not vote for *any* lesser candidate. That is my frustrated, purist self unburdening itself. When I glance back in time at the leaders we've all been schooled to admire -- none was pure. None can be because, to hypocritically borrow from the religious sentiment that I would like to see left *out* of our political discourse:

All Have Sinned and Fall Short of the Glory of God
~~~ Romans 3:23

Most of all, I'm disturbed over the dynastic turn the country seems to be taking -- as you've pointed out -- and I think we need our next President to be neither a Clinton nor a Bush. Fresh blood, though it be ever so slightly tainted, is what we must have if we are to turn the course of our ship of state.

I'll vote for Edwards, if that choice is freely given to me through the medium of honest elections. Beyond that, the question still remains whether I can make a choice that is, on many levels, a total compromise of everything democracy is said to stand for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC