Saturday, December 20, 2008

Obama Triangulates His 'Base'

By Brent Budowsky
December 20, 2008

Many of the cable-television Democrats are smirking, chortling and smiling as they say how clever it was for Barack Obama to name Rick Warren to give the Inaugural invocation.

Read on.


MrEnygma said...

Apparently, the writer hasn't been listening to Obama's words too closely. He has stated, for the longest time, that we need to get past partisan politics, to be able to not just argue with people we might disagree with, but also to LISTEN to them. That is why I, and many others, supported him. Now, I was just as against the war as the writer was, but that doesn't mean I would want to demonize those who were for it; just what would that solve? That's Obama's point: to get to where we need to go, we need to work with EVERYBODY, not just those we agree with. I agree with his point about Sen. Clinton, as I think Gov. Richardson would've been a much better fit, since he had much more substantial experience in foreign affairs, but I also disagree with him about Sec. Gates, since he knows about the Iraq situation more intimately than the president-elect does, and can thus help him with formulating a plan for an organized withdrawal. Also, while I understand the uproar over Rev. Warren's involvement in the inauguration, I have to wonder what it says about his supporters if they can cheer his belief that we can and should talk to a man who denies the deaths of millions of people, and yet denigrates him for talking to someone with a different view about gay rights. I also support those rights, but I'm not against speaking or listening to those who disagree. That's what Obama is, and always has been, all about.

JemezSuze said...

Obama is naive if he thinks that "bipartisanship" with this breed of Republican will work. The NeoCons have not given up the idea of a hundred years of Republican rule. They will find other ways of using power and control over Obama. This is but a temporary setback.

I am reminded of a Buddhist parable that Obama would be wise to learn:

A horse approaches a raging river and finds a scorpion waiting at the edge. The scorpion asks the horse for a ride across to the other side, since he cannot swim.
"Nothing doing," says the horse, "you will sting me."
"Now, why would I do that?", the scorpion answers. "I want, like anyone, to live a long life and you are my only hope of crossing the river. Why would I kill someone who saves my life?"

The horse considers this, then agrees to the bargain. As the horse with his passenger reaches the middle of the torrent, however, the scorpion stings him. The horse, appalled, says, "You fool, why did you do that? Now we will both die."
"I can't help it," says the scorpion, "It is my nature."

By the way, if, as Obama said at the Democratic Convention, this election is not about him, but about US, I would choose someone who could give an artful and eloquent invocation without stepping on ANYONE'S toes (particulary gays', who are devastated at the choice of Warren). I think Bill Moyers would be a much more logical choice, being far more open and gentle. And he is an ordained minister.

MrEnygma said...

Then maybe they should focus on the other minister that's involved, a man who is for gay rights and also was a civil rights pioneer. The fact is, by focusing on one rather small part of the whole event, not only are they ignoring the other minister involved, but they look small and petty, because they're not looking at the big picture.

johnhatch said...

As of now, one hundred Canadians have died in vain in Afghanistan while our government tries to justifying those deaths by ensuring that there will be more.

Karzai's own brother is said to be a drug dealing warlord. And poppy growth has exploded because no one wants to annoy the warlords.

No one supports the awful Taliban (except the US when it suited), but 'winning' under these circumstances is impossible.

And it would be nice if the US were to stop bombing wedding parties and the like.

isafakir said...

Thank you. yes I listened to Warren, but Warren hain't a listnin to me. Listening is a two way converstion. I don't need his blessing. What I need is protection from his blessing. I got nuttin against him. Just let stop using "right to life" as a weapon to kill me and my right to life.

isafakir said...

why does listening mean trampling your friends and trashing your principles. How is that "listening."

seems like politicking and betrayal to me.