Across the Universe

[H2O Man]

Barack Obama is a talented communicator. Even his opponents admit that. Some of his supporters have compared him to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. These comparisons have been the source of bitter attacks by the Clinton campaign in the democratic primary, and the same attack tactics will be used by the McCain campaign in the fall. I thought it might be interesting to take a look at what different people mean by the comparisons of a living person to a historic figure.

In the early 1990s, there was a struggle between the traditional Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and those interests that promote gambling in the United States. It created tensions on many levels, and involved the Iroquois’ Grand Council of Chiefs, individual nations/tribes Council of Chiefs, Clan Mothers, the State of New York, and the federal government.

I did an interview with an anthropologist who was recognized as an expert in Haudenosaunee - US relations. He had served as an "expert witness" in some of the most important court cases of recent years. At one point in our discussion, I mentioned how a certain Iroquois leader reminded me of a leader from the Revolutionary War era. The anthropologist then provided a fascinating comparison of the roles of more than a dozen of the chiefs and other influential leaders of the Confederacy in the late 1700s and the late 1900s. He understood.

Each of the member nations select individuals to serve on their Council of Chiefs, and who also serve on the Confederacy’s Grand Council of Chiefs. These chiefs maintain their individual identity. And they also serve in a position which is identified by the name/title of the first person who held that seat.

The best-known position name would be "Tadodaho." He is the "chief among chiefs." Many people around the world knew Leon Shenandoah when he served as Tadodaho. When he spoke in Europe, or to the United Nations, or to a group of students, they recognized him as the Tadodaho. But they also knew he was Leon Shenandoah.

The original Tadodaho was a fierce man, with a crooked mind. It is said that he had snakes for hair. This is symbolic, of course. The original Tadodaho was twisted by anger, fear and hatred. He was as evil as Dick Cheney. But he changed.

The change came from meeting with a man called the PeaceMaker, and his co-worker, who today people call Hiawatha. The PeaceMaker had met Hiawatha at a time when Hiawatha grieved from the loses associated with a society in decay. At first, Hiawatha rejected the words of the PeaceMaker. Eventually, he accepted them, and was transformed. Together, they transformed the Tadodaho, by using words to comb the snakes out of his hair.

As Tadodaho, Leon did not serve one Clan or even one nation/tribe. He served the entire Confederacy. In times of dispute – and there were many – he had to listen to everyone. Friend and foe alike. That was part of the responsibility that Leon the individual man accepted when he took the position of Tadodaho of the Haudenosaunee. It is a difficult role for any human being. There were often people who felt that Leon should take their side in a dispute, and who said he was betraying this group or that group. But most people who met Leon found him to have a type of strength that only a very few people have: the inner strength of a person who is willing to speak to and listen to those who strongly oppose him.

As the "chief of chiefs," Leon used the name Tadodaho. The actual names of the men we call the PeaceMaker and Hiawatha have been "retired," because of their special meaning. I know that many of the people who are troubled by comparisons of Obama to JFK and MLK are not trying to insult Obama: they hold JFK and MLK in a special place. Like Hiawatha, they have wounds from the decay that struck down Martin and John in the 1960s. I understand why many people want to retire those names. It is because of their admiration for JFK and MLK. But I am convinced that JFK and MLK would prefer that we not place them on a stained glass window, and instead channel their energy into today’s society.

The Iroquois are not, of course, the only people who view the world this way. When we look at the bible, we see people comparing John the Baptist to Elijah. And we see people asking Jesus if he is a prophet returned. Tribal people view the experience of life as part of a great cycle, where modern people tend to view time as a straight line. I believe that it is both a cycle and a straight line. And I think that we are at a point in human history when we can approach the intersection of the two in a good way.

[K Gardner]

1. Fine post, H2O Man !

[H2O Man]

3. Thank you.

Much appreciated.

[ClericJohnPreston]

41. You're a legend in your own mind!

This post was beyond the pale. We now have to invoke a new Law, I'll aptly name "CLERIC'S LAW". The aforesaid law is invoked anytime someone appearing in good faith, is in reality, cynically manipulating the UNQUESTIONING masses into a comparison of a political candidate with JESUS.

Incredibly hack posting. Incredulous really. Go save your preaching for a REVIVALIST TENT!

[ClericJohnPreston]

42. Further

This is exactly why we, the loyal opposition to Obama, feel so much fear of Obama's conscious manipulation of the Electorate. You're an acolyte of this nonsense. You propagate the manipulative imagery, bordering on 20th century use to promote other demagogues with torchlit parades. This is pure hysterical nonsense, packaged, camouflaged, as a friendly feel good post.

We don't need the Second Coming and mixed metaphors of religion and politics.

We need a competent political leader.

I'll leave FUNDIE thinking to the insane religious RIGHT...or is that the path you want to lead Democrats to???

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

44. Feel better, Cleric?

I certainly hope so.

IMHO, what is required is more than a competent "political leader". There's plenty of those and they have failed to slow let alone stop this country from a downward spiral.

IMHO, your drama, as interesting as it may be, could very well be completely misplaced.

IMHO.

[ClericJohnPreston]

47. No I don't feel good

because this is pure religious idolatry camouflaged as a feel good post. This is the type of FUNDAMENTALIST RAPTURE stuff I have always battled, along with the misnomer Libertarians and Conservatives.

I didn't think I would ever see a day where a DEMOCRATIC board would ever stoop to near Fundie rationales on anything. There is an incredible danger to mixing religious metaphors with political figures. History is awash in the traumas and destruction of political leaders invoking God as their authority, yet one who is being compared to one: "PEACEMAKER". The comparison is almost overt.

Also, your belief that we have plenty of COMPETENT leaders is absurd. Really? Like who? Bush? What competent political leaders do we have?

This Country needs answers, not some Huckabee.

We certainly don't need to be preached to as this OP does!!!!!!!!!

[rosesaylavee]

50. Over-dramatize much?

Got to your kitchen, find a small brown bag. Close it around your mouth and breath into the bag a few times.

If that doesn't work, trying smelling salts.

[ClericJohnPreston]

51. Try responding to any point made

Even one?

[rosesaylavee]

53. Don't you find it ironic

that you, someone who uses the moniker ClericJohnPreston and who says you are here to 'pontificate' on politics... isn't it a bit rich that you are foaming about the OP preaching to us?

H2OMan is a very valued poster here at DU. Most DUers who have been here more than a month enjoy reading his essays. I did not get the feeling that he was trying to preach to me about anything. In fact, after reading most of his posts, I think I usually come away with having a better understanding of those who think alternately from me.

I would suggest you reread the OP and specifically state what you find to be 'preaching' instead of embarrassing yourself further with these histrionics.

[ClericJohnPreston]

54. Do you read much?

First, as most do, I was being whimsical in my profile. Have you ever heard the word, "alliteration"? In case you haven't:

Main Entry: al·lit·er·a·tion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˌli-tə-ˈrā-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: ad- + Latin littera letter
Date: circa 1624
: the repetition of usually initial consonant sounds in two or more neighboring words or syllables (as wild and woolly, threatening throngs) —called also head rhyme, initial rhyme

"POLITICAL PONTIFICATION"...get it?

BTW, If you are going into my profile, put down my description of myself. It would certainly distinguish me from Obamites:

"I am a progressive rebel with a cause.

That cause is to eliminate greed, corruption, injustice, corporatists and profiteers from the American system of Government."

That means anyone who beats the drums for War and continued battles, or don't you know the things your candidate has said?


As far as having to prove anything, the OP states it in unambiguous English, camouflaged by a feel-good story. Is it that hard for you to read the clear meaning behind: "PEACEMAKER" and this:

When we look at the bible, we see people comparing John the Baptist to Elijah. And we see people asking Jesus if he is a prophet returned. Tribal people view the experience of life as part of a great cycle, where modern people tend to view time as a straight line. I believe that it is both a cycle and a straight line. And I think that we are at a point in human history when we can approach the intersection of the two in a good way.

Read it slowly and what is that message??????

[rosesaylavee]

55. What a silly man you are.

Ad hominem attacks are usually preferred by those with limited intellect. Nuff said there.

Yes, H2OMan did use a story. And yes, good stories are fun to read. As for the OP trying to infuse religion, expressly the Christian faith, into the political discussion, I don't see it... very likely because it's not there. Not surprising it's not there because, I will go out on a limb here because he's never mentioned what faith he adheres to, but I sincerely doubt that he is a firm follower of the Christian faith. If you were a reader, you may have found a witticism he's written down thread or on a earlier post of his from yesterday, referring to the 'New Testicles' as opposed to the 'New Testament'. Get it? In other words, he was making an allusion to the over-arching patriarchal system inherent in the New Testament by referring it to the male genitalia.

[WillyT]

56. He's Just Mad That Edwards Is Out, And Now He's Stuck With Hillary

Can't blame him though, LOL!!!

:evilgrin:

[rosesaylavee]

59. No need to be 'stuck' with any candidate...

this is not a sports contest. I wonder if he was ever for Edwards as most Edward candidates I know are reasonable, rational people. If he had been on the board more than a month, he would know who H2OMan is and how supportive he's been of all the candidates to date.

Silly snarky exchange. Oh, wait! I just used alliteration! Wow, the things I don't larn here at the DU.

[ClericJohnPreston]

57. Ironically

it is you that makes the ad hominen attacks you decry ("silly man"), while I was not.

The words speak for themself, or as we in Law say, "RES IPSA LOQUITUR".

I rest my case. The OP actually made it for me.

In any event, I have better things to do with my life now, like play with my five year old. Later......

[rosesaylavee]

60. We in the Law...

:rofl:

Yes, go play with your child. It's a better use of your time than bickering here over nothing.

[Bongo Prophet]

66. The cleric has proven to me over time that he prefers destroying comity to promoting it.

"Pontificate - express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic."

It is sad in a way, to use such as sharp legal mind (as the cleric claims to have) to destroy relationships.
DU as a community has been overrun by Berserkers, uninterested in respectful dialog.

So many hard years have many of us been here, and whether we agreed or disagreed, we have built some respect.
That point, as well as others, are in the post if one cared to look.

Some do not care to look, nor do they strive to care.
They are stuck in a vary narrow mode of thinking, and everything they perceive as enemy, they attack.

H2O man will always have my respect, and his posts are always worthy of my time.
whether I "agree" is beside the point.
I think you are also in the same mode of thinking as am I - actually thinking, and listening to a fellow human sharing his POV.

[rosesaylavee]

85. Well said. And we agree.

I don't always agree with H2OMan but I do respect him and enjoy his essays. I hope the Berserkers leave as soon as the candidate is determined or at least settle down enough to direct their angst toward the Republican nominee. Snarky dialogue does nothing to persuade... especially when its based on nothing of substance.

[ClericJohnPreston]

89. Oh

the dripping irony.....

I know a thing or two about "true believers".They seem to populate the corporate world of financing which embraces the insurance company, my #1 nemesis. There is very little to find in the imagination department with these folk, which is just as well, since they can't be moved by any measure of persuasion.

It's clear that true believers are so invested in their world, that either cognitive dissonance or an antagonistic belief system would stop even proof of the fallacy of their beliefs from ever penetrating. So, for instance, some would not see the inherent danger of connecting religious zealotry, even once removed, from
the political dialogue.

Politics and religion will always be strange bedfellows and rightfully so in a Democracy that is predicated upon the Separation of Church and State.

As far as H2O man, I have seen him since I joined. If he is wrong, it doesn't matter if he has been here since inception (which he hasn't), he will still be wrong. Just as the length of time of memebership doesn't automatically confer an elevated position, neither does the brevity of membership disqualify someone. Indeed, it is the Obama Camp that touts all the first-time voters and depends so heavily on them, right? So, it follows that length of time on this board is a non-issue, unless you want to be hypocritical about the composition of your electorate.

Finally, I truly find it repugnant, when true differences of opinion are automatic grounds for devaluing an opinion. Others besides me also commented upon Obama as savior in this thread, so they saw it too, and arrived at their own individual conclusions.

I'm not looking for converts in this thread or anywhere on DU. It would, however, be turning a blind eye to something dangerous if false allusions between religion and ANY candidate are set up. That is treading awfully close to FUNDIE LAND, and if you ever want to see what my REAL attacks are like, then just wait until a Conservative or Fundie shows up. For fellow Democrats, even if they hold beliefs so disparite from mine, it is merely tough love.

As you said, in the end, we must all come together in the name of our Party to fight the good fight.

[rosesaylavee]

114. Well... er .... thanks for the "tough love'

:rofl:

[TheDoorbellRang]

117. Whoa, dude. Re-read the post, after you take your meds

He's talking about comparing Obama to the honored historical figures of JFK and MLK. He notes comparisons made of a contemporary Iroquois with honored historical Iroquois and comparisons contemporaries of Jesus made to honored historical Hebrews. Believe me, I was able to read H2O Man's entire post without falling on my knees and screaming "Hallelujah!"

You must have some sort of Pavlov's reaction when you see "Jesus" used in a sentence. Seriously, go lay down for a while.

[corkhead]

127. I am seeing an amazing amount of projection on DU this morning

"cleric's law"? who is the legend in one's own mind?

[ms liberty]

132. I'm not sure who you think you are, but I know who you are not...

You are not the member who gets to invoke laws on DU. You've also not been here very long if you don't know that H20Man is one of the most respected of our members; I and many others here value his point of view. He's proved himself to be a person of knowledge, experience, understanding and wisdom; he is always able to discuss issues and beliefs in a rational, adult manner.

You, on the other hand, I don't know very well at all. And what I have seen has not been that impressive. Your characterization of the OP is so completely distorted as to be only remotely recognizable. And your post makes it clear that you missed not only the main point of the OP, but the deeper issues.

Your post accuses H20Man of being "someone appearing in good faith" but who is "in reality, cynically manipulating the UNQUESTIONING masses into a comparison of a political candidate with JESUS."

ARE YOU REALLY THAT OBTUSE?

Where the fuck are these unquestioning masses you describe? They're certainly not at DU, where everything is questioned at all times by everyone! And you try getting TWO DU'ers to become part of an unquestioning mass by using a Jesus comparision - either favorable or negative. I'll be waiting to hear how well that works out for you.

And finally, H20Man is not "appearing" to be anything other than who he is - which IS a person of good faith. If he had tried to "cynically manipulate" us here at DU, he would not be the respected member he is. Most DU'ers are here because we tend to resist manipulation, a point that seems quite obvious to me.

Your arrogance really is breathtaking. Using the royal "We" you proclaim a new "law" named after yourself, that you self-admiringly describe as "apt." Who's the legend in their own mind?

H20Man has earned my respect. You have not, and now you never will.

[babylonsister]

2. Wow! I love this:

"I am convinced that JFK and MLK would prefer that we not place them on a stained glass window, and instead channel their energy into today’s society."

I too am convinced of that. I think the surviving family members would agree. Thank you again for a thoughtful, interesting post. You are so good at them, H20 Man!

:toast:

[H2O Man]

Right.

We are alive, now. This is our time. We can decide between "Yes, we can" and "No, you can't."

I've always liked the word "Yes" more than "No." It seems more positive.

[AntiFascist]

61. Neither JFK nor MLK depended upon mass religion for their visions of the future...

JFK had a very specific and powerful vision for placing men on the Moon within one decade which was carried forward. Unfortunately, his vision for peaceful, transformative change in the US government, and the status quo supporting it, never had a chance to get off the ground.

MLK had a very specific and immensely powerful vision of rights and freedoms for African-Americans. This vision is so powerful that it constantly gets recycled and utilized in the proper direction.

I shouldn't have to repeat this. Comparing these modern-day visionaries to bible-thumping reactionaries is preposterous! H20's bible reference was merely to suggest that this phenomenon has happened throughout history.

On edit: sorry babylonsister, my post was really directed at ClericJohnPreston

[puebloknot]

83. I was alive and well when MLK was making his speeches *in churches*...

... all over the country. I never remember having a millisecond's concern that he was trying to install a theocracy in the country -- only that he was using the venues that he knew and was respected in to get his message of universal justice out into the world. MLK was not a bible thumper. I would not have found his particular religious stance to my taste, but I never felt there was a sub rosa agenda to further his personal religious views, except as they underwrote his view of social justice.

While neither Hillary nor Obama may personally embrace the recent co-dependency of right-wing Christianity and state, I don't hear either of them doing much to distance themselves from it, either!

[H2O Man]

87. I think that

Senator Obama has an appreciation for what the separation of church and state implies. I think that Senator Clinton does, too. I'm more concerned that republican candidates such as Governor Hucklebee and Willard Romney are looking to enflict their belief system upon all of America.

With both of the democratic candidates, I think my concerns are more about their ability to put human interests before corporate powers. I'm sure both do, in a very real sense, want to improve the quality of life for the citizens of this country.

The amount of change that our nation has to make is huge, if we are to move into the future as something close to a Constitutional democracy. There is no candidate in the running who could accomplish huge changes now. I could become disappointed at the rather limited options, or I can view it another way.

As a social worker, I dealt with families and individuals who were sick. As family systems, and as individuals, they needed to make big changes if they were to function in a healthy manner. Few of them were ever likely to make radical changes overnight -- that just isn't human nature.

Instead, rhose that made progress tended to do it by taking big problems, breaking them down into small parts, and dealing with a couple of those small things at a time. Doing this helped them to change the way that they viewed their options in life. By no small coincidence, Malcolm X used to teach that if you help people make small changes in behavior, then larger changes in attitude can follow. And then real change is more likely to take root.

In looking at the two candidates -- Clinton and Obama -- I think that he is the more capable in terms of bringing small changes in practice, and larger changes in perception.

[puebloknot]

96. Clinton vs. Obama, I'm leaning strongly in the Obama direction.

I understand that both candidates appreciate the concept of separation of church and state. But when we look more closely at what is involved with the National Prayer Breakfast and the Fellowship, there is concern. We could say, perhaps, that just as John Kerry was said to be a member of Skull and Bones, and that didn't hurt us, Hillary/Obama flirting with the Christian right won't be a problem. But it is already a problem, given the broad emphasis on faith-based programs, which neither candidate is standing against. And I really, really hate to think they're both just going along to get along, to garner votes, and they aren't *really* "Christian" nutcases, but they'll do what they must to get that vote. I'd like a little more integrity than that. (But, again, Kucinich's integrity got him tombstoned in presidential politics.) And then we're left to wait and see, as after November 2006, what we're going to get out of them. I see neither of them as intellectually challenged, but I'd love to see more outspoken integrity from them.

I absolutely agree that the far greater danger in this regard lies with Huckabee or Romney, and my worst nightmares have to do with that scenario. I was born with a brain into a fundamentalist family in Texas, and I've often said that, in a sense, Pearl Harbor saved me because my father fought in the war, stayed in the military afterwards, and I got to see a lot of the world besides Texas. My own close personal observation of the fundamentalist Christians' irrational intention to convert the world, at swordpoint or not, is what causes me these concerns. I'm sure some would say I have a too-intense, perhaps distorted view of what a theocracy could mean, but I would counter that too few really realize the underground intentions of the Christofascists who are now holding sway. Good Germans could not believe that their stable world could be toppled by an irrational philosophy, either.

Your family dysfunction reference is a good one, up to a point (from my humble viewpoint, of course :). Visionaries have long accepted that small changes are all we can hope for in some circumstances, and there is always the holographic hope that a pebble dropped in a pond will radiate outward and have far greater effect than a large rock dropped in the same pond, causing the water to overflow its banks. It just seems that we are at a point where the problems are too big for small solutions, and we have limited time to make advances.

When the chips are down, I will vote for either Hillary or Obama over the likes of a Huckabee, or even McCain and his own religious leanings. Nightmares of my childhood come to the fore every time I see "Aw Shucks Hickabee" holding forth. I think that the movement that is forming around Obama, flawed though it is, and based on less substance than I would like to see, is indeed one with its nose pointed toward the future, while the thought of Hillary in the White House, with Bill, though she might deserve it after all her hard work, and though we get misty-eyed over the way it was when Bill was in office, just depresses a lot of people who are hoping, praying, visualizing, dancing for change. (Shades of W. Faulkner, that was a long sentence.) Even the least-informed among us have a gut instinct that tells them that something is rotten in America.

Malcolm X's "Fake it 'til you make it" (my paraphrase) idea might work. I've seen things on television about programs to teach teenagers the basics of etiquette, how to open a door for someone, how to dress properly. And the sense of personal pride that comes from that, the feeling of being part of something larger, has an impact on the behavior of those kids. It would seem that the impulse to good has to come first, but perhaps playing the role rubs off on us all. And small steps are hopefully better than no steps at all. That's if the Earth gives us time to mend our ways before she takes action.

[boston bean]

4. y do i even bother and give it the click?

Obama the messiah, we must believe it's true or we are not worthy.

[H2O Man]

5. "Why do I bother"

fits the "No, you can't" mindset quite well.

[boston bean]

6. You were once respected on this board by me, but you have become a partisan

hack. You know how to use words to beat people down in ways that appears to be a kind.

You can twist them into meanings a person never meant.

People are afraid to challenge you, because you seem to be the "DU God". Even Will Pitt has had his fall from grace and you may well be on your way.

[ginnyinWI]

8. K&R to the OP because of your nasty remark. n/t

[WillyT]

11. Me Too !!! - K & R !!!

:kick:

[H2O Man]

14. It seems odd

that the Clinton supporters think I have some obligation to avoid taking a stand in this election. My goal is not to be on a stained glass window in someone else's mind.

I take any comparison to Mr. Pitt as a compliment.

[babylonsister]

17. How about thoughtful criticism instead of slamming a great DUer?

You're all about you and your opinions, twisted as they might be, instead of addressing what's been written. I suggest you get over yourself and open your eyes and mind.

[rosesaylavee]

25. If you don't agree, why don't you do what any MATURE adult would do

and either not click thru if you know you will disagree or choose not to post? What a ridiculously unnecessary, poisonous, vacuous threat. Ah, just another for my ignore list.

[stillcool]

31. looking at the responses....

such as yours, I see I dodged another bullet...as in another up-tick in my blood pressure. I know there are many who don't use the Ignore list, but these comments alone make me so grateful I have taken advantage of it.

[TheDoorbellRang]

119. Me, too

I can't tell what the nasty remark was, so I must already have whoever it was on my ignore list. I never used "ignore" before January of this year, and now I've got almost 20 -- I had more but lost several in last week's TS splurge. Makes navigating the threads much more enjoyable.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

46. You are being "personal" with NO reference to issues, tossing insults at a poster.

Not very tactful and completely ineffective, these days,...unless, you seek to put up your dukes against a right-winger who plays that game.

[Tatiana]

65. Your anger and bitterness is very telling. Peace be with you. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

7. a very encouraging and

unifiying message. I wish more people could allow themselves to believe in the possibility that good things can be part of our future.

Thank you for your wise, well written thoughts. This one is especially good.


(one particular part that stood out to me:

He served the entire Confederacy. In times of dispute – and there were many – he had to listen to everyone. Friend and foe alike. That was part of the responsibility that Leon the individual man accepted when he took the position of Tadodaho of the Haudenosaunee. It is a difficult role for any human being. There were often people who felt that Leon should take their side in a dispute, and who said he was betraying this group or that group. But most people who met Leon found him to have a type of strength that only a very few people have: the inner strength of a person who is willing to speak to and listen to those who strongly oppose him.

We are choosing a leader for the country- not just "me".

:hi:

peace~

[LWolf]

9. While you make good points here,

I'd point out that one can view life as the great cycle without believing that Obama is carrying on a banner left by JFK or MLK.

One can sincerely wish for the right person or persons to pick up those banners and move forward, without believing that Obama is that right person.

One doesn't have to be a Clinton supporter, and I am not, to think that Obama has more in common with Ronald Reagan than with MLK, and to resent the BAD comparison, rather than ANY comparison.

It's certainly true that Obama is an eloquent speaker that is able to move many people. One can recognize that and still believe that Obama is using his talent to move people the wrong direction.

[H2O Man]

15. You are correct.

I would point out, of course, that I never said that anyone had to view Obama in that way. I do not taken ownership of that idea. But in reference to your point, it is absolutely true.

[LWolf]

34. It seems to me

to be a season of desperation.

It feels like so many have been disappointed by the narrowing of the field, and have made a "lesser of two bad" choice, and are now looking at the reasons why they oppose the OTHER candidate, and desperately trying to find something in the alternative to rally around, whether or not there is any real substance. Even if they now have to adamantly defend positions they were criticizing a short time ago.

I realize that there are deeper emotional tags to this race, regardless of platform. A woman and a black man: both as potential nominees are symbolic of overcoming a long history of discrimination. It doesn't really matter what they DO in office; just their presence seems to be enough for many.

For those of us who put issues before party or personalities, or gender or race, for that matter, it's a discouraging time. The only more reviled Democrat, currently, than the one supporting your opponent is the one supporting neither, because they don't offer a clear path forward on the issues that drive our votes.

[puebloknot]

98. Agree. Not wanting to take drugs, I'm leaning hard on St. John's Wort...

...these days.

No intention to be flip here. I'm on a constant rollercoaster of "I won't vote for the lesser evil," to "I'll vote for the lesser evil because to give up is the greatest evil."

[H2O Man]

100. A good cup of tea

is about as far as I go these days. I grow all types of mint, etc.

[puebloknot]

101. Well, I'm a mint-grower, myself. In pots, on the patio. It works.

My daughter and I are going to get a garden going in our small back yard, and start composting in a few weeks.

Gardening is the best sedative!

[H2O Man]

102. Ha!

I just sent a pm, with a note on gardening. Timing.

[puebloknot]

108. There ain't no coinkydinkys, you know!

Our mint dreams crossed in the I-ether!

[LWolf]

104. I hear you.

:hug:

My favorite relaxing herbal tea blend:

Chammomile, catnip, and lavender.

[H2O Man]

105. Catnip & chammomile

is my favorite.

[LWolf]

107. It is.

:toast:

A great antidote to stress, and a good start to a period of contemplation.

[caseycoon]

128. OH puebloknot!

I love this!
"I'll vote for the lesser evil because to give up is the greatest evil."

It has been very hard for me to work up much enthusiasm for either candidate, but I am not as afraid of Obama & what he will do as I am of Clinton.

I absolutely believe that to give up & not vote IS the greatest evil. Not just for myself, but for the Democratic Party & for our country.

Thanks for giving me my motto for this election!
:hi:

[DemGa]

10. But you use it to characterize the Clinton campaign as using "bitter attacks"

then as much as compare them to Republicans -- who will do the same? That's a shame, really.

Maybe since you see these "parallels" in bitter attacks, you might address Obama using the negative perceptions generated by the right-wing hate machine against Hillary Clinton.

Is it right to use the opposition's virulent attacks against your party rival? And then you might wish to reconsider the MLK, JFK comparisons to Obama.

[H2O Man]

16. I think that

the Clinton campaign itself has doe this.

[Scurrilous]

12. K & R

:thumbsup:

[H2O Man]

36. Thanks n/t

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

13. K&R It does feel like a very special moment in the fabric of time.

Good read, Thank You.

[H2O Man]

37. It's a strange time.

We have an opportunity to begin to repair the damage done by the past administration. We need to take advantage of it.

[JimGinPA]

18. It Really Amuses Me...

That anything positive written about Obama on this forum is somehow seen as an attack of Hillary that some Hillary supporters feel obligated to interject their bitterness to.

[DemGa]

19. It's in the first paragraph

"These comparisons have been the source of bitter attacks by the Clinton campaign in the democratic primary, and the same attack tactics will be used by the McCain campaign in the fall."

[JimGinPA]

20. So, You're Saying There Have Been No "Bitter Attacks" From The Clinton Campaign...

Or that we should just ignore them?

[DemGa]

21. I knew that would be the response

The OP took a side -- made an accusation -- you should not be surprised at a return in kind. It's also disappointing to see the affront toward Hillary wrapped in such "positivism" -- masquerading as something innocuous. Though this does sound very familiar - maybe something catching?

[JimGinPA]

29. There Is A Difference...

Between pointing out contrasts in policy positions and attacks. If you are asserting Hillary and her cadre have not employed attacks in this campaign, you really haven't been paying attention. Pointing that out is not an accusation but merely a statement of fact that in no way lessens the jist of the theme of the OP.

[H2O Man]

27. It's rather sad

to have people say, "I used to like you, but now that you favor a different candidate in the democratic primary, you have fallen from grace." Gracious sakes, indeed! As if I am only entitled to the opinion that other people think I should have.

I think that the majority of DUers will be okay with my having an opinion that I have given much thought to, and arrived at on my own.

[paulk]

38. it's not that you favor another candidate

it's the partisan nature of the attacks you have used against that candidate that has lost you credibility for many on this board.

[H2O Man]

39. "partisan"

I see. Perhaps I could take a non-political approach to the primary.

[paulk]

49. perhaps you should.

[TheDoorbellRang]

120. !

Yes, indeed! You should remain as a virgin unto marriage, and never declare a preference for a candidate on this political board until after the convention. :rofl:

[H2O Man]

126. I know that I am

way out of line in expressing my opinion on the primary on a political discussion forum's democratic primary section. I feel so hurt when the Clinton supporters accuse me of taking a political position -- oh, gosh, how could I have done such a thing? It is especially painful, because many of these people actually liked me and even respected me before I expressed my opinion. My inner-Flying Nun will float about the place for centuries now, wandering hairied as a dog for a good bite's sleep, as John once wrote.

If only I could take it all back! Let this be a warning for others.

[TheDoorbellRang]

130. I think a lot of the hysterical acrimony in this primary

arise from the fact that we have all been so terrorized by what the government has done these past seven years that we know with grim certitude that we must win in the fall if America as we used to know it is to survive. So on an unconscious or conscious level in all of us this is a life or death struggle for America, and consequently our choice of the "correct" candidate becomes paramount. Doesn't make for cool heads. There are some posters in both Clinton and Obama camps that I finally put on ignore for the nonce -- hopefully the ability to calmly assess will return at some point after the Democratic convention. The illogic of expecting you to remain non-partisan in the democratic primary is yet one more result of cool reasoning being usurped by fear.

[Uncle Joe]

22. This sentence reminds me of the physics description of light itself as both a wave and particle.

At least I believe that's correct.

"I believe that it is both a cycle and a straight line. And I think that we are at a point in human history when we can approach the intersection of the two in a good way."

Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man

[Window]

23. What a beautiful story!

Thank you for sharing.

Also, I admire your posts and the way you stay calmly above the fray and don't indulge those drinking the Hater Aid. Hell, I'd rather drink the Kool Aid (of course, with only Splenda and water added, LOL) any day.

You should be entitled to your choice of a candidate, without being labeled a partisan hack. So sad.

Keep up the good work.


Peace:thumbsup:

[Me.]

24. K & R

[rosesaylavee]

26. K & R

[EFerrari]

28. A line is the simplest visible statement of reciprocity, isn't it?

Lines both separate and connect. We know people and things through comparisons (and through their reciprocal contrasts) -- via the line we draw between ourselves and another, or between others. And maybe that's one reason why poetry can be so profoundly moving because it is an act of knowing in a web of comparisons. That's relationship, and that's personal.

When we compare a near or contemporary figure to a faraway or historical one, we are trying to become connected to the present one with affinity and understanding. We're also trying to stay connected to the one that is remote. That's why the "Obama is like JFK" comparison is so very powerful, imo and that's why the Clinton campaign had to answer it. Obama doesn't need to = JFK; the act of comparison itself puts people in an active relationship with Obama.

And that's why disputing this comparison doesn't work very well. The dispute simply calls up the comparison and the relationship it generates.

[H2O Man]

30. On poems & dreams.

Although Albert Goldman made a straight line to a number of half-truths and lies in his effort to smear John Lennon in his 1988 book ("The Lives of John Lennon"), there were two good paragraphs in hidden in the 850 pages. Your post reminded me of them:

"The Canadian visitation came to its climax a few days befoe Christmas. First, John met, at the University of Toronto, Pop's greatest pundit, Marshall McLuhan. The dialogue of star and seer testified to Lennon's ability to hold his own with even the fastest, subtlest, and most off-the-wall intellectual. 'Language is a form of organized stutter,' proclaimed the philosopher of media, getting the game off to a typically stunning start. 'Literally, you chop your sounds off into bits in order to talk. Now, when you sing, you don't stutter, so singing is a way of stretching language into long, harmonious patterns and cycles. How do you think about language in songs?' Most men, after a service like that, would have been speechless. Not John Lennon.

"Stone cool, he replied: 'Language and song, to me, apart from being pure vibrations, is just like trying to describe a dream. And because we don't have telepathy, we try to describe the dream to each other, to verify to each other what we know, what we believe to be inside each other. And the stuttering is right -- because we can't say it. No matter how you say it, it's never how you want to say it'." (pages 433-434)

Some people are better able to communicate their hopes and dreams than are others.

[EFerrari]

32. Stuttering is right. lol

This came to mind - another web of comparisons:

"The eye is the first circle; the horizon which it forms is the second; and throughout nature this primary picture is repeated without end. It is the highest emblem in the cipher of the world. St. Augustine described the nature of God as a circle whose centre was everywhere and its circumference nowhere. We are all our lifetime reading the copious sense of this first of forms. One moral we have already deduced in considering the circular or compensatory character of every human action. Another analogy we shall now trace, that every action admits of being outdone. Our life is an apprenticeship to the truth that around every circle another can be drawn; that there is no end in nature, but every end is a beginning; that there is always another dawn risen on mid-noon, and under every deep a lower deep opens." Circles, RWE

It's an uphill job to disrupt that recursive and continuous impulse, if it's even possible.

[H2O Man]

33. Right.

In "Black Elk Speaks," he describes a mountain that is meaningful in his life as being the Center of the Universe. Yet he also says that every person's mountain is at the Center of the Universe.

[David Zephyr]

35. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[bleever]

40. In the spirit of the OP, I'll make a seemingly contrarian point.

Not by disagreeing with what you've said (and beautifully), but to extend your point by acknowledging Hillary's share of the positive traits mentioned.

She has worked to build relationships with many people who might be expected to be hated by her. She established a working dialogue with Newt Gingrich, and became a member of the Senate Prayer Breakfast. Someone posted here on DU an account of deeply personal reconciliations between Hillary and people who tried to destroy her husband's presidency. She reached out to Rupert Murdoch, whose FOX News owes its existence to the Lewinsky scandal and their relentless trumpeting of anti-Clinton information.

To be honest here, I did not vote for Hillary in our primary. It was a hard call for me, as it is for many people, and I've kept an open mind even after voting.

My point here isn't to defend Hillary so much as it is to defend your broader point. Obama's campaign, in my opinion, hasn't refrained from going negative; they have however done it much less clumsily than the Clinton campaign. And historically one might find serious parallels between Hillary and Eleanor Roosevelt, including their personal commitments and their treatment by the media and their enemies.


Thank you for another illuminating and deeply thought-provoking post.

[H2O Man]

43. Valid points.

I like Senator Clinton far more than I like her campaign. I think she is poorly served by many of the people around her, including the rather obvious example of Mark Penn. I also have to say that I prefer her far more as a person and politician than her husband. Her campaign would have been much stronger if it had been more about her, and less about the others.

[bleever]

45. I agree.

Why she picked Penn, I'll never know, but it is certainly a choice that has had consequences.

[EFerrari]

48. I like Senator Cliinton much more than her campaign, too,

although that may be faint praise. And, I can't disconnect her from her "people" because in theory, she chose them.

[H2O Man]

52. Probably,

she did pick them. The other alternative is equally bad.

[puebloknot]

63. Senate Prayer Breakfast

I understand your basic premise, and know that what I am about to post here might bring up the question, "Who could be against the Senate Prayer Breakfast?" That would be tantamount to being against prayer, itself! Or would it?

In line with an article published in Harper's sometime last year, I'm posting some clips and a link to information about the larger organization called "The Fellowship" with which this prayer breakfast is closely aligned. Just because it may walk like an authentic Christian duck doesn't mean it is. And there is continuing concern over the separation of church and state, which did not begin as a problem just with this administration, but which has greatly expanded since Selection 2000. I have grave concerns over the views and intentions of *both* Hillary and Obama on this subject. The Founders of this country spoke most eloquently about their intentions to keep church and state separated!

The full article was written by Wayne Madsen, and I've seen that he is a controversial figure here at DU, so I'll put that out right up front. I find the article well-writen, and it rings true to me. Madsen is quoting Bill Moyers, though, who is respected in progressive circles, I think:

http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm

The Roots of the Fellowship

The roots of the Fellowship go back to the 1930s and a Norwegian immigrant and Methodist minister named Abraham Vereide. According to Fellowship archives maintained at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College in Illinois, Vereide, who immigrated from Norway in 1905, began an outreach ministry in Seattle in April 1935. But his religious outreach involved nothing more than pushing for an anti-Communist, anti-union, anti-Socialist, and pro-Nazi German political agenda. A loose organization and secrecy were paramount for Vereide. Fellowship archives state that Vereide wanted his movement to “carry out its objective through personal, trusting, informal, unpublicized contact between people.” Vereide’s establishment of his Prayer Breakfast Movement for anti-Socialist and anti-International Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”) Seattle businessmen in 1935 coincided with the establishment of another pro-Nazi German organization in the United States, the German-American Bund. Vereide saw his prayer movement replacing labor unions.

>>> Clip

Waiting for God

Journalist, columnist, and television commentator Bill Moyers recently wrote that “for the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.” Ever since Abraham Vereide, a misguided immigrant to this country who brought very un-American ideas of Nazism and Fascism with him in his steamer trunk, the so-called “Christian” Right has long waited to take the biggest prize of all – the White House. Moyers correctly sees the Dominionists or “End Timers” as being behind the invasion of Iraq. He cites the Book of Revelation that states, “four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man.” Such words may have their place in Sunday School and in church halls but using such thinking to launch wars of convenience or religious prophecy have no place in our federal and democratic republic. Moyers also rightly sees fundamentalist thought behind Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” and the rolling back of environmental regulations.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world no longer feel the United States is a country that can be trusted. They feel the people who run the affairs of state are out of control and dangerous. Considering the hold the Fellowship and their like-minded ilk have on the United States (and some of its allies) they are correct in their fears.

The political and religious dynasties who have embraced the Fellowship, Vereide, Fascism, Moon, Buchman, Moral Rearmament and all of their current and past manifestations, hatreds, and phobias show no sign of ceding power any time soon. There are many such father-son dynasties that hope to ensure a continuation of their shameful racketeering and political chicanery under the corporate “logo” of Jesus: George H. W. Bush to George W. Bush; Douglas Coe to David Coe; Billy Graham to Franklin Graham; Oral Roberts to Richard Roberts, Pat Robertson to Gordon Robertson; Jerry Falwell to Jonathan Falwell; Jeb Bush to George P. Bush; Robert Schuller Sr. to Robert Schuller, Jr., and Sun Myung Moon to at least nine sons (who are known about).

For them and their followers, they should keep in mind something Jesus said, “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.”

Amen.

[bleever]

68. I find the Senate Prayer Breakfast disturbing, along with

Gingrich and Murdoch.

I didn't want to get into my mixed feelings about reaching out to those entities in my post, but I appreciate your fleshing the topic out.

This dealing with your enemies thing is complicated. Can't we just buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony?

(Cue anti-Coke tirades. :))

[puebloknot]

84. "Can't we just buy the world a Coke and live in perfect harmony?"

In a word.....No! :)

But marching in the streets and being tireless revolutionaries gets tiring. A Coke sounds just right, right now!

[AntiFascist]

115. To go along with your post above...

the origins of the CIA have some roots in various right-wing anti-communist initiatives associated with the far-right of the Catholic Church and other pseudo-religious organizations such as the Sovereign Knights of Malta. Several authors and journalists have linked the Clintons to various covert CIA operations. I haven't heard that Obama has these same types of "status quo foreign policy" relationships.

[puebloknot]

58. I take from your post an intention to remind us...

...that we were not born into this life as blank slates, as individuals, nor is America a country that landed on the North American continent fully formed. In honoring tradition, and the messages of inspirational leaders who have gone before, we are enriched and can hope to find maturity.

In discussing Obama and his similarities to JFK and MLK (if they really are genuine), I would like to invoke the spirit of another towering legend, and that is Nelson Mandela. We are hearing rhetoric from Obama about a "post-partisan" country, after the coming election (with him as President, of course). I cannot stop remembering that when Mandela took office, he set up Truth and Reconciliation commissions in which *truth* came first, and in which people were *held to account* before any sort of reconciliation *could* take place.

I want to know, beyond the impressive oratorial skills that Obama possesses and is putting to good use, how he conceives of creating a "post-partisan" state without first facing the serious issues of criminality which have been the hallmark of our last seven years, and continuing. Obama has stated that he does not believe Bush/Cheney have committed impeachable offenses, and he stands publicly against impeachment.

I have used this analogy many times: Before a wound can heal, it must be cleansed. How can we expect to see healing and reconciliation in this country if Obama is simply going to bring us Reagan Redux, in which every crime is simply swept under the rug in service of *moving on*! "Peace" is a lovely word, but we cannot have it without its twin, Truth!

I would, BTW, ask the same questions of Hillary Clinton, but this thread is about Obama, and comparisons being made about him and other legendary figures in our history.

[H2O Man]

62. Interesting questions.

One of the more interesting books I read a few years back, on a trip to Canada, was Nelson Mandela's "Long Walk to Freedom." My wife had picked it out for me, in part because we were on our way to visit a friend who participated in more recent years with Mandela on the larger "reconciliation" tour.

In fact, it was around this time that I connected a friend from the NY SU system, who was writing a book on reconciliation, with my friend from Canada, who wrote a chapter for her book. Here are a few paragraphs:

"Lois raises an intriguing question. Like pain is pain; suffering is suffering -- whether being wrongly imprisoned; wrongly placed in a concentration camp; or wrongly abused as a child. Pain is a component of suffering, but not suffering itself. There are no degrees of suffering.

I spent 20 years in prison, in a hell hole where people everyday tried to strip me of my dignity. I did nothing to be there. I was given a triple life sentence for a crime I did not, could not, and would not commit. I did not belong there. Because I refused to follow their rules, I spent 10 out of my 20 years in solitary confinement .... Hate took over everything. I was furious at everyone .... all the people who sent me to prison ....All I could see was man's inhumanity to man, police brutality. All I could smell was the vile stench of shit. Simmering anger and hatred consumed me. I was existing in a living hell."

Rubin was allowed out of solitary once every 15 days for a shower and physical check-up. During one of these "breaks" from solitary, he walked by a mirror. The image he saw shocked him: "I saw a grotesque image. I saw the face of hatred, a monster, and that monster was me. I realized I was not hurting them. They were hurting me. Hatred and bitterness only contaminate the vessel that holds it."

It was then that Rubin traded in his law books for other material, such as Victor Frankl. He began to turn the prison into an "unnatural laboratory of the human spirit." It wasn't that he was okay with criminal behavior, or felt that crime should go unpunished. But he had stopped hating. He was able to forgive those who had harmed him. That is part of "reconciliation."

"Lois, to forgive yourself and your parents, you need to understand (that you and I) are no different. There are no saints. We are all savages on this earth. .... Your reactions are the same as mine of anyone else's. But you have the ability to wake up. That's your salvation. Somehow, some way, you have to get over it.

"Hate can only produce hate. That's why all these wars are going on, all of this insanity. There's too much anger in the U.S. now. People are too afraid, too numbed out. We need to wipe out all this hatred, fear, distrust, and violence. We need to understand, forgive, and love."

I have never heard of Obama planning a "post-partisan" state; like the Clinton camp's attempts to make his comments on Reagan into something they weren't, I think those two things belong to people other than the Obama campaign. I believe that what he has spoken of is an approach -- and just as Martin Luther King, Jr's approach was one of reconciliation, like Martin he recognizes the need to hold people accountable. King often spoke of the racism and associated violence in our culture as an infected sore, too. I was glad to see you use that example.

[H2O Man]

69. Part Two

I think it is important to point out that when Newt Gingrich & Co moved to divide the congress in the hateful way they did, it was in part to reduce the power of the democrats. But even more, it was to destroy the congress on an institutional level, allowing for an imperial presidency. The hatred and fear only benefit those who are opposed to our Constitutional democracy.

[bleever]

78. Which underlies my bottomless disdain for Gingrich,

as well as Murdoch and his minions. They don't want to win; they want to destroy the institution and the two-party system. Rather than fierce competitors, they have devoted themselves to gamesmanship, which seems to have found its pinnacle in Karl Rove. And all the while they pursue their scorched-earth agenda under the banner of Freedom and America.

[H2O Man]

79. He is dangerous.

And it is worth noting that he is trying to force his way onto the McCain ticket. He knows that the OVP has a lot of power, without any real congressional oversight. Keep in mind that Newt played a central role in the build-up to the war, including distorting the pre-war intelligence, and more.

He accompanied Cheney and Libby on visits to the CIA HQs to pressure analysts. And he sat in on the first meeting in Cheney's office (run by Scooter) in which the "work up" on Joe Wilson was begun.

[puebloknot]

80. Interesting reponses!

So much to think about in just this one response to me.

The question often comes to me, in my personal life, and in thinking about the country and where it is headed, how reconciliation can take place without simply "writing off" the individual, or the whole generation, that has come before, in service of a new day.

Being fully aware that hate and anger are circular and self-fulfilling entities, there remains the question of how to make a stand for future justice while still acknowledging the suffering which we want to obliterate in future. We face, once again in this particular cycle, the thought that if we can just stop the world, and start anew, we don't have to concern ourselves with the past. But that matter, still blowing in the wind, of too many people having died must be faced -- the cleansing of the wound, again.

I feel there is a major rush to forgiveness in the Christian community (some parts of it), almost an obligatory, knee-jerk "I forgive" stance which has a hollow ring to it -- and which, in any case, belong not in the halls of government but in the churches. If either Hillary or Obama hold that Christian ethic as their personal guiding spirit, that is their concern. As the would-be leaders of our country, their personal religious views must take an inferior position to their intention to fully uphold the Constitution, and to abide by the separation of church and state.

Even in speaking of Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation structure, and admiring the man for using that modality to try to bring balance to his country, I would shrink from that particular form of weighing in the balances in this country because, at its base, there was a strong religious component. Our secular laws are sufficient to the task of bringing justice through impeachment, or legal proceedings, without mixing in religion. The task of binding up the nation's wounds can properly be inspired by many religious and philosophical points of view, but the surgery must be done through non-religious means, unless we are truly to descend into a theocracy.

I have to say that I have not read Obama's every word, or heard all his speeches, but there is definitely a "post-partisan, reaching-across-the-aisle-in-harmony" ethic that surrounds his campaign, and if he is not in full consonance with that ethic, he needs to clarify that for all of us. A very recent CNN interview with one of Obama's campaign representatives ended with her using a phrase (and I am paraphrasing, but the intent is intact) that there is an ethic of nonpartisanship which is rising in the country. It was said with a great deal of fervor, not complemented in her particular case with a light in the eyes indicating a real grasp of the concept. The insistence on *embracing harmony* on the part of many today is much like the behavior of the camp followers of the '60s who were *for peace*, without any consideration for the fact that sometimes we have to stand up for something -- sometimes we have to fight for the very principles of peace those flower children thought they had down pat.

I'm aware that it is asking too much of the man, or anyone running for office, to deliver detailed intentions until actually taking office and getting the "lay of the land," before proceeding. But there are certain fundamental principles for which we stand that are being too easily compromised.

Obama's stance against impeachment is enough to cause me great concern! I am aware of the political consequences of Dennis Kucinich's having spoken out in that regard, however.

All of the above being said, I have as many concerns about Hillary as I do about Obama. I do not see either of them as rising to the level of JFK or MLK, or Gandhi, but in these interesting times, we have to consider the avenues that are available to us, and hope new paths will open in a better future. And we revere those giants of history by looking over our shoulders. We might not have seen their genius (speaking for myself) in their own time.

[rosesaylavee]

86. It is my hope that Kerry, with all his work to uncover the

workings of the BCCI only to have that go unresolved by the Clinton administration, will convince Obama that these constitutional issues need to be addressed and justice must be served. If not, then we will be seeing this all played out again in another 20 years. And I am sure you agree that tracing this admin's depravity back to Nixon and the unresolved 'forgiveness' there led to many of our current troubles as well.

I am hoping that our nominee, who ever it is, recognizes that justice needs to be served before any reconciliation occurs. I think it more likely that that person would be Obama rather than Senator Clinton based solely on what her husband chose to do in response to the BCCI and Iran/Contra scandal.

[H2O Man]

88. When a group of

Americans went to Anwar Sadat's funeral, former President Richard Nixon was being obnoxious and attempting to fuel fights between them all. At one point, Gerald Ford said, "Sometimes I wish I had never pardoned that son of a bitch" (Schlesinger; Journals; p 530)

Many of us recognize that the series of crimes and abuses of power that we call Watergate were an infection on democracy -- the open sore mentioned elsewhere on this thread. The investigations were like medical treatment that could have healed the wound. When Ford pardoned Nixon, it was as if the nation stopped taking the antibiotic, and the infection mutated, and became the crimes we call Iran-contra. Again, pardons stopped the treatment. The infection mutated, and we had Dick Cheney and the bit of pus called George W. Bush.

The House should have began impeachment hearings long ago. And the democrats in the Senate could have pushed for it -- Ted Kennedy pushed for the Nixon impeachment, although he was in the Senate, not the House, and had been told there weren't enough votes.

[KoKo]

116. "Not enough votes....." It seems a mantra.....

Indeed...I had a chill that when Nixon wasn't held accountable that the door would open for the "hounds of hell" to start coming through. My chill has been proven to be a grave premonition of what was to come forth.

The Criminal Activity on Wall Street, in Government at all levels will come home to roost in it's toll on the innocent and when society knows that "laws" no longer govern us...then the "acting out" of the ordinary people begins.

That's the worry. We are reaching a critical mass and I don't see either candidate really aware of the enormity of that path we took when it was felt by the "Powers that Be" that for the health of America, it would be better to Move On and let Nixon go and hope that the weight of his actions would be worse on his soul to live with than to force the Americna People to see it for what it was.

Then...there was Clinton PAYBACK.... And which Democrats stood up to defend him? Which Democrats stood up to defend Al Gore for Stolen Election 2000 and now we have the Bush/Cheney Criminal Enterprise.

I don't know what there is enough compassion for some of us to turn our backs on this...and Move On for Hope and Change. I think that "festering anger" does bad things for one's health. I think that trying to keep working from the grassroots up for Change is good. But, given our experience...it would seem both parties are as opposed to "grassroots" change as they are to holding folks accountable for their criminality when it would be so "wrenching" to America as a whole to deal with it.

There lies the problem. When one works for change from bottom up (i.e.: Lieberman's challenger, Lamont, in '06) and finds that every effort only gave more power to the challenged and it might have cost us set backs and when anti-war activists are accused by our Democratic Speak of the House (the speaker for "Change in the House..draining the swamp or sewer") where she then complains {when confronted about her lack of action on Iraq Occupation by a tireless, heroic, anti-war activist who lost her son in Iraq}, of activists hanging laundry in her shrubbery and why they can't be prosecuted the same as the homeless would be.....Well....then we can see what is before us in this very long haul.

We need the "patience of saints" and too much mint, camomile and green tea..to deal...and some days it's better to just take a good fiction book and sit out in the sun and listen to the birds and watch the clouds float by....and figure that there are millions who've gone through what we are going through in other ways since the beginning of time...and WE, HERE, are but a "blip in time" and we too shall pass on...

[AntiFascist]

123. Actually the truth may be hard to swallow...

the crimes underlying Watergate and Iran-Contra may be so heinous that government genuinely believes that it is preventing the ultimate disintegration of public trust by covering up the offenses and pardoning the offenders. There may be a common thread connecting much of it and this thread may begin to come to an end when Bush and his cronies are out of power along with those who have been complicit in the crimes. I believe that this is the real logical basis for hope in an Obama presidency, not some supernatural faith-based calling.

[puebloknot]

92. I agree with your assessment, but highly doubt that Obama will be inclined...

...to attempt to hold anyone accountable. Any newly-elected President will be flush with victory, and ready to begin creating a legacy. That he/she voted for the war resolution, or enabled our occupation by voting for war funds, will quickly be swept away with the New Day that will dawn.

I'm actually basically an optimistic person, but I can read and watch and think, and all indicators are for another round like what we have post-Reagan! And post-Nixon.

[H2O Man]

93. It may be worth considering

if any president could actually do that, at this point.

[puebloknot]

97. Point well made, well taken! nt

[Bongo Prophet]

64. If I am getting this right, you are speaking of archetypal roles, and the ones who fill them

This is similar to the rolse of polytheistic cultures, where each "god" is not a god at all, but a personification of certain traits and symbols.
In our modern democracy, a president is only a human selected to hold an office for a designated period. When in office, they fulfill this role, and when out they move on to a third category, closer to the one they held before the presidency, but recognized as transformed by that experience. for good or ill.

Beyond that, they fill another role, one that reflects the character and personality they have developed in their lives. Perhaps they are practical and hardworking, or charismatic and glib, or inspiring to higher ideals, or some combination of all of these traits. This is true of all cultural leaders of course. People judge by their own criteria, and their own personality - some will be irritated by the very traits that others find attractive.

One could say that Senator Clinton, at her best, could fill the role of a competent and caring Mother Elder, wise and compassionate - both practical and drawing us up into a higher awareness of ourselves. This would not mean she is Isis or Diana, any more than Senator Obama is Jesus or Osiris.

Some people will always be stuck in their mode of thinking, and resent another who speaks in symbolic terms. It can be irritating and grating to some, especially if they interpret it as deification and non-questioning response. I understand this, and can relate to that. we should always be questioning and holding our representatives to account. These leaders must live up to the standards of the office.

In choosing who we want to fill elective roles, we are choosing based upon their qualities, but also our own.
It is sad, but not unusual, for people to get so annoyed they cannot consider your words as anything other than an attack. They are in battle mode, and while that gicves one both fire and focus, it prevents one form stepping back and seeing the many levels of meaning being offered.

It takes a very disciplined warrior to face battle and be open to wisdom at the same time.
This is why they meditate between battles, to see the bigger picture before them.
We are not just one role, one point of view - we are both line and circle, wave and particle, depending on our mode of consciousness.

[LaurenG]

67. Great post...again!

:hi:

[Neshanic]

70. What a mountain of steaming crap.

[H2O Man]

71. Thank you.

[Neshanic]

72. You are very welcome.

[puebloknot]

81. Are you two getting together for a dinner of moose turd pie? nt

[H2O Man]

82. No.

I was just trying to be polite.

[incapsulated]

73. So now he is a Spiritual Archetype

Really, it can't be much longer before you people simply declare him God Almighty and get it over with.

[H2O Man]

74. Perhaps you have

difficulty in reading comprehension: the Iroquois are actual human beings. Hard to belierve, but true.

[incapsulated]

75. No, I have no problem

I know a lot of bullshit when I read it, thanks.


When you come down off the mushrooms, remember you are talking about a politician, not a savior, k?

:hi:

[Neshanic]

76. As in comparison to Obama supporters who do not think he is.

[Reterr]

77. I respectfully disagree with the premise

That said, it is really sad to see some of the posts upthread. I strongly but respectfully disagree with all of your posts on Obama. But, that doesn't mean that both as a lurker and as a poster, over the years, I haven't loved many of your posts, your thoughtful analyses, your insights on the Scooter Libby trial etc.

C'mon people-a campaign or a primary isn't worth this.

[intaglio]

90. Thanks for this H2O and excuse me while I pontificate

I'd like to add my 2 cents to the criticism of ClericJohnPreston, I was annoyed enough by his foolishness to put together this post. I would like him to respond rationally but that is too much to hope; firstly because such persons rarely respond to reasoned argument and secondly because rationality is not to be expected from CJP. Throughout this post I refer to ClericJohnPreston as CJP and he or him. This is not meant to be insulting just saving on typing and space, the assumption of gender is convenience.

Like Dylan Thomas I will "Begin at the Begining", this is a little difficult because the first post is such a confused mess that I will have to break down my criticism into sections corresponding to the paragraphs

First Para
First sentence describes normal electioneering, normal discourse, everyday discussion; and adds that the poster fears it; CJP is free to acknowlege his fear but there is no requirement for us to relieve his irrationality, The second sentence is just a casual insult, the third a studied insult because it asks readers to associate H2Oman's post with Nazi propaganda. The third sentence is an attack on the post with no reasoning attached; in H2Oman's post there is no hysteria.

Next paragraph - CJP is the one mixing religion and politics and there are no mixed metaphors in the original OP.

Paragraph 3 is a statement of the obvious but no logic leads this from preceeding paragraphs.

Para 4 again unconnected and lacks internal logic. At face value most people would answer the question posed "No"

OK, CJP tries to make the argument that the OP is religious idolatry - but an idol is an image or statue treated as an aspect of deity. He also describes the post as "Fundamentalist Rapture" so he does not know what that is either; the Rapture is the ascension of true believers into heaven, it is not a post. The obvious conclusion is that in his own, cackhanded way CJP is saying that Obama is being treated as a deity in the OP. CJP misses the point that the post is also about how people have always been willing to draw comparisons between current leaders and past ideal humans. The last part of the OP is a statement of H2Oman's belief that we may be at a point in history when we begin to see a congruence between the "straight line" thinking of modern society and the cyclical thinking of traditional groups.

I cannot understand the next section as again there is no logic or order to it. It does seem that CJP was very confused about the purpose of the OP and the relationship between indiginous religious beliefs and Christianity. I am sure that he did not wish to misuse words but overt is an antonym, an antonym of covert; something cannot be "almost overt".

Apparently CJP does not believe that any person currently in a position of leadership is competent. I will have to disagree; at least one campaign is being well lead, has sound financial management and is treating the USA as a union - not a group of irreconsilable tribes. I have to agree however that the US needs answers, not some Huckabee, though I do not know what sort of evasion a "Huckabee" is - or why it is named after a republican

Then CJP posts that someone respond to any point made. The problem was that he had made no points, just unsupported assertions and dogma.

The next post CJP claims whimsicality (my, my, CJP, you are so whimsical, I can hardly contain my mirth). In fact, given the hatred of Mr Obama, I am surprised how well CJP does by, ironically, being long on words but short on actions; this is exactly his accusation about Mr Obama. Regarding "proof", as has been made clear CJP's arguments so lack in reason, logic and connection with reality that we would like some proof from him - or failing that coherence. A claim that the OP states one thing when, in fact, others know it does not; is persistent deliquency, not rational argument.

That last statement CJP would no doubt interpret as an ad hominem attack. Attacks on the person are to be abhored in any rational argument but I am afraid the thing does not speak for itself, the term deliquency and the description "silly" elsewhere is amply born out by the content of his posts, the odd capitalisation, and the almost complete lack of rationality. By contrast, the enquiry "do you read much?" is an ad hominem attack as it implies a lack of literacy in an opponent. CJP has stated "RES IPSA LOQUITUR" but it most would say "Contradictio in adjecto" but in any event the whole thing is "Coram non judice". I would ask CJP to please stop belabouring his secondary education (derivative quote from Fry) and learn how to have a serious argument.

[H2O Man]

91. It's an old grudge.

From the 7th sun of 2004.

[Me.]

109. There Are Other Places For The Sun To Rise

Which are not mentioned here

[bulldogge]

95. Thank You

Exactly the point I was trying to make just written much better!

[bulldogge]

94. Not a single point made

Obviously not everyone is going to have the exact same opinion...ever... but what strikes me most are the individuals who disagree with H2O's post. There is never really a valid point of opposition made. It always comes down to attacks on his character....his fall from grace....and points being driven home about the candidate he supports that really have very little to do with Obama's platform.

First of all I have had the pleasure of conversation with H2O for some time and he is fully aware of what he is saying and what he means to say....even if you are not. There seems to be a lot of misplaced anger on this board to put it politely. Second, as food for thought, aside from the "annoying" comparisons of Obama what is the REAL issue? Is it his stance on rural development? His goals concerning international affairs? Maybe it is his view of the current economic situation....no?hmmm... health care,education,the environment? That would make for some good conversation wouldn't one think? Though I may disagree with your point of view if someone could pinpoint a specific issue outside of "inexperience and annoying comparisons" I think we could all move forward in the right direction and help educate one another. If you are interested in influencing my vote put together an argument with substance please and thank you.

With that said AS ALWAYS EXCELLENT POST H2O!

[H2O Man]

103. A person is known

by both their friends, and their enemies.

[Reterr]

122. I disagreed respectfully

I guess that doesn't count :shrug:?

I have never been a fan of the type of adulation that is completely non-critical and I tend to be suspicious of the type of personality that is only comfortable with psycophants...


I think H20 man is brilliant in many ways. Similar deal with babylonsister and a few others who I have respected over the years.

I think they are wrong about Obama. If there are people on this board who think everyone who disagrees with H20 man/babylonsister etc. is by default wrong, that anyone who supports Sen. Clinton over Obama honestly
is automatically evil, I think the problem is with them. If any poster thinks they are infallible in their opinion about a politician, I feel the problem is with them. All human beings are infallible and only irrational people deify others and equate them to God and make a case that anyone who honestly disagrees with them is a creep/troll ..whatever..


I probably won't get a response for this post either because I have less than 1000 posts and I don't agree that either Obama or H20 man are infallible Gods :). I think both can be wrong and flattery is not my strong suit.....

[H2O Man]

124. I agree with part of

your post, and respectfully disagree with other parts. The most obvious error would be to use the word "brilliant" in relationship to me, for if I have learned anything in life, it is who I am .... and I am not a brilliant person. I am smart enough to read books by brilliant men and women, and have had the privilege of having some mighty smart teachers -- both in class rooms and in every day life. But I know that I am an average citizen who has had the opportunities that this country allows, and I learned to take advantage of opportunity. Those opportunities have included having a ringside seat to some fascinating parts of the democratic process in the United States.

I think that if anyone reads my posts on DU:GD-P with an open mind, they will know that I support Obama, but am fine with other people who support Clinton. I had contributed to most of the democratic primary candidates' campaigns. Until "Super Tuesday," I had not endorsed any one candidate on DU. In fact, I wrote essays that showed the positive aspects of each candidate.

I don't think either Clinton or Obama is "evil," or the "savior." I do think that politics on the national level involves dark forces, which for sake of quick discussion are detailed in "House of War" by James Carroll. I think that the flower of that system is Dick Cheney.

Neither Clinton nor Obama represents the radical change that I believe is needed today. However, each one represents a potential step in a direction other than the cliff that Bush-Cheney are rushing our nation towards. I think that Obama represents the better alternative. Others think that Clinton is a better choice. That's good.

On DU, there are many people who I think highly of, who prefer Clinton. No problem. There is also a small but vocal sub-group, who I think fit the non-historical description found in the tribe we can call The Lord of the Flies Gang, who make a sport of posting nasty little comments on my threads. Being a human being of average but non-brilliant mind, I sometimes enjoy sparring with them. My friends, including both Clinton and Obama supporters, know that I am but human, and forgive me for my love of sparring.

I think Obama will win the nomination. If it ends up being Senator Clinton, I will gladly support her. I am confident that I can produce more meaningful and high-quality essays on DU that support a Clinton candidacy than many of the present gang on DU.

[Reterr]

134. Thank you-I agree with most of what you say in this post

I am, like you, in the position that the two candidates I really liked(Kucinich and Edwards) dropped out a while back. At the end of the day, I don't think there will be huge differences between Clinton or Obama on matters of policy and I will be voting for the Dem nominee.

I agree with you that there are some Clinton supporters who are awful on here-but to be honest, as I perceive it, there are just as many Obama supporters who are just as rude, dismissive etc. I have only very recently decided on Hillary and unfortunately (try as I would not to let something like that influence) a small portion of that decision was based on the behavior I have seen from some of the senator's supporters.

One of the things I have found consistently off-putting about some of the senator's supporters on this board is the disdain with which the GLBT community's concerns over the McClurkin incident have been treated. After 8 years of Bush, it is not entirely inconceivable that some of us might be uncomfortable with what strikes us as almost a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink" to the worst kinds of elements that populate (at least in my opinion) US politics. If the senator ends up being the nominee, when I am voting for him I will be hoping fervently that he won't be trying to placate these super-religious elements (in my opinion at least, some of the most undesireable elements to listen to on policy matters) too much.

[Danger Mouse]

99. I heard the story of Tadodaho, the PeaceMaker, and Hiawatha from an Iroquois storyteller at...

the local Iroquois festival not too long ago.
Very interesting. :hi:

[H2O Man]

135. That's good.

I am curious what festival?

[David Zephyr]

106. Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind,
Possessing and caressing me.
Jai guru de va om
Nothing's gonna change my world,
Nothing's gonna change my world.

Images of broken light which dance before me like a million eyes,
That call me on and on across the universe,
Thoughts meander like a restless wind inside a letter box they
Tumble blindly as they make their way
Across the universe
Jai guru de va om
Nothing's gonna change my world,
Nothing's gonna change my world.

Sounds of laughter shades of earth are ringing
Through my open views inviting and inciting me
Limitless undying love which shines around me like a
million suns, it calls me on and on
Across the universe
Jai guru de va om
Nothing's gonna change my world,
Nothing's gonna change my world.

[H2O Man]

110. One of his very best.

I like every version he did.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

111. From the title

through the entire amorphous essay we are asked to engage in mysticism when deciding political actions.

This is very sloppy and incoherent thinking in many ways.

Let's be brief here and look at only a few of the points:

What does "talented communicator" mean? Well that is something tossed about in corporate circles as an interpersonal asset so perhaps as CEO of the most powerful nation that is an asset. More to the point it can mean anything to anyone and it can be completely concocted for marketing purposes as is often the case.

The attacks that you speak of to those who insanely compare Obama to Martin (I could care less about the over-rated JFK) come from many quarters. For you to say they come from only the Clinton faction is completely dishonest.

There is also an implication in what you say, through this dismissive technique, that the comparisons are valid. They are not. And neither you or anyone directly connected to the Obama campaign has shown in any concrete way how this comparison could be substantive. take this as your opportunity to do so and avoid platitudes.

Your story about The Haudenosaunee is of no use here as it is wrapped in what we should all turn aside that being "expertise" and "inside info."

Let's look at this from which the rest of your post emanates:

I did an interview with an anthropologist who was recognized as an expert in Haudenosaunee - US relations. He had served as an "expert witness" in some of the most important court cases of recent years. At one point in our discussion, I mentioned how a certain Iroquois leader reminded me of a leader from the Revolutionary War era. The anthropologist then provided a fascinating comparison of the roles of more than a dozen of the chiefs and other influential leaders of the Confederacy in the late 1700s and the late 1900s. He understood.

We don't know a thing about your "expert" and in fact there are many who claim such a mantle. Which certain Iroquois leader? Which revolutionary leader? Again these details matter and if you think people should just bow down at these rumors you are immersed in fantastical thinking.

He understood what?

We are to glean absolutely nothing from what you have said other than you had some private conversation with some "expert" who understood what you told him.

Huh?

Do you have a link to the interview or a transcript?

This has nothing to do with retiring MLK quite the opposite. It has all to do with honoring his legacy and calling to the carpet those who demean his legacy, not saying you in particular, by comparing a centrist Democrat with a man who spoke about very deep and real structural change.

I suggest that you re-read MLK's various speeches on Viet Nam and then read Obama's very recent speeches about Iraq. The comparison is shameful.

As you are using such sweeping figures and metaphors of deification in a political discussion pointed towards Obama you should be sharply aware of the conflations and implications.

[H2O Man]

112. Gracious.

A piece of work.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

113. Politics is not about communication

it's about power.

[H2O Man]

125. The Power of Ideas.

Not your territory.

[TheDoorbellRang]

118. Always enjoyed the Hiawatha tale

We could use some of that wisdom in this day and age.

[H2O Man]

136. I agree.

Great principles are constant -- they need to be applied to changing circumstances.

[Major Hogwash]

121. Another great post!

This is getting good reading your stuff.

[caseycoon]

129. K&R! Excellent post! n/t

[GOPBasher]

131. H2O man, thanks for posting this! I'm from the central NY area, so I know

the Haudenosaunee well! Thanks again! I like the comparison.

[ms liberty]

133. Too late to Rec...but here's a kick!

Excellent piece, H20Man!