Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Washington: a White House is not a home
Let the poets pipe of loveA long time reader of mine asked me why I slam Obama so hard... and so often. Good question.
in their childish ways
I know every type of love
better far than they.
If you want the thrill of love
I have been through the mill of love
old love
new love
every love but true love
"Love for Sale" - Cole Porter
The answer lies, I think, in his barefaced use of purposefully vague language that links emotion to spirit for personal gain. He uses words like "hope" and "change" and "we" too freely, he is using these words intentionally to manipulate the emotions of people, especially young people, he does it to further his ambition. In the end his supporters will be left with the words and if things continue as they have till now, Obama will be left with the power.
Washington is a place where a lot of money changes hands, where decisions are taken that get people killed, where anyone looking for a friend is advised to buy a dog. Washington is a huge brothel like the legendary houses of New Orleans' Storyville. A word, like "hope" in this context is used in exactly the same way as prostitutes use the word "love"... The words are sweet, but the eyes are cold and hard.
This not to say that these establishments do not serve noble purposes on occasion. One of America's greatest contributors to universal culture, Louis Armstrong, after whom New Orleans International Airport is named, earned his bread and cheese as a homeless waif delivering coal to these ladies. By patronizing genius, the Medicis earned immortality in similar fashion, but "love", "hope"?
Certainly it was not impossible to experience truth and beauty in the houses of such as “Countess” Willie Piazza. You could of course... if the piano player was good enough. But anyone entering the premise in search of "love", would certainly wake up with empty pockets, and an aching head.
Krugman: Deliverance or Diversion? - New York Timeshttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Abstract: Some progressives are appalled by the direction their party seems to have taken: they wanted another F.D.R., yet feel that they’re getting an oratorically upgraded version of Michael Bloomberg instead. Others, however, insist that Mr. Obama’s message of hope and his personal charisma will yield an overwhelming electoral victory, and that he will implement a dramatically progressive agenda. The trouble is that faith in Mr. Obama’s transformational ability rests on surprisingly little evidence. Mr. Obama’s ability to attract wildly enthusiastic crowds to rallies is a good omen for the general election; so is his ability to raise large sums. But neither necessarily points to a landslide victory. Polling numbers aren’t much help: for now, at least, you can find polls telling you anything you want to hear, from the CBS News/New York Times poll giving Mr. Obama a 12-point national advantage over John McCain to the Mason-Dixon poll showing Mr. McCain winning Florida by 10 points. What we do know is that Mr. Obama has never faced a serious Republican opponent — and that he has not yet faced the hostile media treatment doled out to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.(...) If Mr. Obama does make it to the White House, will he actually deliver the transformational politics he promises? Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence — one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else.(...) All in all, the Democrats are in a place few expected a year ago. The 2008 campaign, it seems, will be waged on the basis of personality, not political philosophy. If the magic works, all will be forgiven. But if it doesn’t, the recriminations could tear the party apart. READ IT ALL
Advertisement
Comments (2)
I did read the Krugman piece, before I came here. It is not persuasive. I'll do my own pasting and put up the letter I sent the Times:
Many times in my business, music, an artist will seem to explode into view, with the media all over him or her. It is almost never just empty media puffery, and usually reflects lots of time building an act in small venues. It only seems an invention of PR types. These days there is the occasional Britney Spears, but Nora Jones is more reflective of reality.
If the worst that can happen is Obama being another politician we're doing OK. After all, that is precisely what Clinton promises to be.
March 3, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is simple, but overlooked, the reality is apparent, but ignored, and although money speaks, the pundits are singing songs, rather than listening to them.
The question: How big are Obama's coat tails? If we judge by the standard of his organizational skills, and his ability to draw volunteers and get the vote out, they will be considerable. He will be a major influence on congressional, state, and local elections.
The reality: Slime will not work, and attack adds will be questioned. They will motivate Obama's core base, and turn off the independents to the party that uses them. There is a reason why his message of hope works.
The song: Mr. Seaton should be listening to a rendition of "Money makes the World go a'round", rather than "Love for Sale"... Barak Obama's powers in this area will only increase if nominated. And guess what, if he sprinkles this star dust on any local or legislative candidates, the small money will come their way as well...
March 3, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment