Saturday, February 9, 2008

A Clean Sweep

A killer night for Barack!

Networks have just called Louisiana for him. 

What's more, he clobbered her in Nebraska and Washington, getting nearly 70% of the vote in both states. That's not surprising for NE, but WA was less evidently good ground for him. To top it off, Clinton took only one county in WA. One county!

It's too early to know what percentage he's won LA by, but I'll keep you checking in. 


Fired The Fuck Up Redux

The more people see of him the more they like. Everywhere he goes he draws bizarrely large crowds. Washington votes along with three other states tomorrow and it's looking good for Barack (fingers crossed). Here's the latest from his visit to the Evergreen State:
Huge crowd for Obama spills out of KeyArena
Sen. Barack Obama rocked an overflow crowd at KeyArena on Friday in one of the biggest political rallies the state has ever seen. So many people showed up to catch a glimpse of Obama, police had to help keep the peace after thousands were shut out.

"I'm fired up. I'm ready to go," Obama said as he took the stage to a deafening roar from the
crowd of more than 18,000 inside the arena.



KeyArena was filled to capacity hours before Obama took the stage. Some 3,000 people listened from an overflow area outside.

It was the latest in a string of huge rallies for Obama. In the week leading up to Super Tuesday, he drew monstrous crowds at most stops — including 14,000 in Boise, Idaho.



If the crowds are any indication of what's to come in today's Democratic precinct caucuses, turnout should easily shatter the record 100,000 who showed up in 2004.

"We've got people coming out of the woodwork," said state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz. "The energy in this
state is the highest I've ever known it to be."




Lines started forming at KeyArena before 6 a.m. for the 11 a.m. rally, and the crowd snaked through Seattle Center before the doors opened.

William Spiritdancer, of Seattle's Central District, pulled his four children — ages 7 to 14 — out of school to see Obama speak. The teachers were OK with it and wished they could attend, too, he said.
By comparison, Clinton's rally drew "a capacity crowd of 5,000 on Thursday for a rally at Pier 30 on Seattle's waterfront, and 6,000 at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma on Friday."

Friday, February 8, 2008

We Miss You, Molly

Another "Traitor" Speaks

Don't Sleep

Well, I was planning on addressing the latest meme I've been tracking about Obama: that his appeal is based solely on emotion. I've got a laundry list of solid, rational reasons to vote for the guy and to back up my assessment that he's the best candidate in the field. But as usual, Andrew Sullivan beat me to it and is more eloquent than I could have been anyway. 

Here's an excerpt from his post:
A meme is developing is that support for Obama is all emotion, fantasy, hysteria, etc. There's no question that the emotions behind Obama are powerful. And any fool can see why. His oratory does what oratory should. He is the greatest public speaker in American life since Reagan.



But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my "Goodbye To All That" essay. On the most critical issues we face - Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy - he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope.



There is no detail in her policy apparatus that isn't matched by Obama's. But you've heard a lot from me on this. Here's a video that shows a conservative cynic being slowly and rationally disarmed by the logic of young, shrewd voter.

A vote for Obama is a vote for reason over sentiment. Check it out:

A Real Father Knows Best Type

A real class act, this guy. I can think of some other ways to use a utility knife. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. 
Man Faces Child Abuse Charges After Home Circumcision
DALLAS, N.C. -- Investigators say a man has been charged with child abuse in Caldwell County for circumcising his two infant sons with a utility knife. [emphasis mine]

Authorities said 32-year-old Johnny Eric Marlowe, a self-admitted polygamist, fathered children with his legal wife and another woman who lives in their home. One gave birth to a boy at their home in the rural Kings Creek community in November 2005, and the other gave birth to a boy there four months later.



Marlowe had a total of 11 children with the two women. "Sick, he's got a sick mind,” a former neighbor said. “Anybody that would do that to their children -- there's something really wrong with them.”
Ya think?

Snap!

Turns out I'm not the only one questioning the Archbishop's judgement in calling for the incorporation of sharia law into Great Britain's legal system. Back story here.
Claiming he never called for the introduction of the Muslim system, Dr Rowan Williams claimed he wanted to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state." In a statement on his website based on his controversial lecture in London last night, he added he had only used sharia as an example.

Dr Williams' comments, however, are likely to do little to stem the rising tide of anger from senior clergy. As public condemnation of his speech grew, some of his own bishops were calling for his resignation.

In an astonishing attack, one senior Church of England clergyman demanded he stepped down immediately and branded him "gullible."



Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "I am appalled that the head of the Church of England is advocating that parts of sharia law should be introduced into British law. The idea that you can have the moderate bits without the nasty bits coming along at a later time is naive."
What nasty bits? How about a good stoning for starters?

Criticism = Sexism?

I've been extremely tough on Hillary Clinton this election cycle, correctly so I think, since she's put herself up for the most powerful elective office in the land. I believe that my criticisms have been fairly focused on my assessment of her as a complete package: her positions, her record, her character, her judgement, her actions. (Though I welcome readers to point out any criticisms that seem unfair.)

Anyway, a good friend sent me this essay earlier and I thought it worth posting and commenting on. The author makes some decent points about the sexism and outright misogyny that still exists and which has been rearing its ugly head during this presidential campaign. Give it a read, then come back.

Some snippets from the essay:
But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.



Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
These are disgusting incidents to be sure. Sickening. It's the kind of reprehensible, misogynistic crap that rabid redneck conservatives spouted in the 1990s. It was part of the reason I was such a staunch defender of the Clintons back then. Every moment they were in power was a rebuke to that kind of troglodytic idiocy. 

***********

That said, I don't think that it's inherently misogynist or sexist to be critical of Sen. Clinton's issues, stances, record, character, judgement, and behavior. Frankly, I believe that to assess her any differently than a male candidate would be a sort of sexism in itself. And that's where I have my disagreements with the author. In my view she begins to conflate legitimate criticisms with the poison listed above. One example:
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
Now, this is just nonsense. It makes the suggestion that Bill is just out there on his own making silly comments and doing stupid things. Anyone who's watched the Clintons closely must know that they incredibly smart and calculating (in the positive and negative sense of the word) people. It just beggars belief to suggest that using Bill as was done between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries was not a decision that she had no part in. She is responsible for how her campaign is run. She is responsible for what her husband—a former president, a man with a large amount of prestige—does on her behalf during her campaign for president. 

It's also undercutting the other arguments of the essay. Hillary is extremely well-qualified...but hey, not responsible for what Bill says and does on the campaign trail. That's wanting it both ways and just plain irritating. 

Another excerpt: 
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
This is exactly what many women I know don't like about her. Most women I've talked to are post second-wave feminists and know that they don't need to become a man to inhabit their power.

And another:
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
I don't know what she's talking about saying goodbye to American ignorance of history. Clearly she's been smoking something funny. We're as amnesiac as a summer day is long. . :-) 

Seriously, though, here's another example of the author undercutting her own argument. She lists the many women who've come to power through familial connections as a defense of Hillary's doing so, which is a pretty lame defense, but okay...

But in the very same paragraph she lists two who didn't. Like their politics or not, Thatcher and Meir did gain power on their own without using their husbands or fathers. Hillary's welcome to use Bill as a stepping stone as far as I'm concerned, but her supporters ought not cry foul when others point out that that isn't the most empowering message to send to younger generations of women and girls. Nor should they cry foul when those of us who aren't enamored of dynastic politics point out the dangers of nepotism. (See the Bush family—Prescott, George H.W, George W.—what fresh hell is next?)

The author then goes on to making a strong issues-based case for electing Hillary. I disagree with her on many of the points, but the case is good and worthy. Then she ends the essay thus:
As for the “woman thing”? Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
Identity trumps all in the end. Ugh. 

Obama Is Bigger Than U2

On MySpace, that is. Goes without saying, but this is the weirdest election...
Internet political buzz super for democracy
Facebook had its own "desk" in the ABC studios, where reporters were updating "hits" on pages all night long.

On MySpace, its rival social-networking site, some 50,000 viewers logged on to see a new Barack Obama music video by artist will.i.am in just a few hours' time.

Site reps chalked up record turnouts of youth voters in part to inspiring candidates, but also said "people-powered politics" played a huge role in youth involvement.

"Barack Obama is bigger on MySpace than U2. That's a pretty extraordinary thing," said Jeff Berman, senior vice president of public affairs.
Hat tip: Ben Smith at Politico

A "Traitor" Justifies Her Obama Love

There's this utterly ridiculous and infuriating meme going around now coming from some of the more strident of Hillary supporters that Obama supporters are somehow acting and sounding sexist, both subtly and not so subtly. As if that's not enough, they're calling women who support Obama traitors to their gender. Can you believe this shit?

Anyway, former NARAL president Kate Michelman recently came out in favor of Obama (see this post) and has since faced charges of betrayal herself. She was on Hardball recently and resident knob Chris Matthews threw some inane questions at her which she didn't have the time to fully respond to. Here's her complete response in Salon.com. An excerpt:
What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews
The women's movement is about free choice, self-determination and challenging a status quo that fails a lot of Americans, not just women. And it is not about going along. It's about transcending, about having the freedom to follow one's heart, about creating and pursuing new opportunities, and about the American dream being for all Americans.

Chris' gotcha-type question to me and the semi-criticism implicit in it -- that as a woman I have some biological obligation to unreservedly support whatever woman is running -- are exactly the sentiments I faced when I first started working for a woman's right to choose. If women who vote for men are traitors, then are men who vote for women also traitors? What about African-Americans who vote for whites? Or whites who vote for African-Americans?

Laying this guilt trip, this hypocrisy, on women -- saying that those women who don't vote for other women are turncoats -- is tantamount to saying that women who exercise independent thought haven't the right to do that either. Could there be a more anti-feminist contention?

Time Machine: 1992

I just found this blast from the past over at BlackPerspective.net I had all but forgotten about the Sister Souljah incident.

Oh How We Forget, The Clintons Race Baited In ‘92
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Democrats; Jackson Sees a ‘Character Flaw’ In Clinton’s Remarks on Racism
By R. W. APPLE JR.,
Published: June 19, 1992
Escalating his conflict with Gov. Bill Clinton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson charged today that in a clumsy bid for the backing of alienated white voters the presumptive Democratic nominee had “again exposed a character flaw.”

In a bitter rejoinder to Mr. Clinton, Mr. Jackson said in an interview that the Arkansas Governor had come to the Rainbow Coalition conference in Washington last weekend to “stage a very well-planned sneak attack, without the courage to confront but with a calculation to embarrass” him.

At the conference of Mr. Jackson’s coalition, the Governor denounced the rap singer Sister Souljah for having used racially inflammatory language in a newspaper interview, and he criticized Mr. Jackson for asking her to take part in the meeting.

By his choice of language today, Mr. Jackson, an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988, rubbed an old sore and raised the specter of continuing conflict within the Democratic Party. Mr. Clinton has struggled for months to put the “character issue” behind him and in recent weeks has seemed to succeed. ‘Isolating Jackson’

Mr. Clinton’s “Machiavellian maneuver,” Mr. Jackson declared, was intended “purely to appeal to conservative whites by containing Jackson and isolating Jackson.”

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Revisiting The Race-baiting Question

So, I was having a conversation with some friends the other night and one asked if we liked Bill Clinton. I'm not sure what others said because I jumped right in saying "I used to, but now I can't stand him." They asked why. I explained that I didn't like the way he and Hillary were acting during her campaign, especially the race baiting that they and their surrogates engaged in in the run up to South Carolina's primary.

One friend, another Obama supporter, interjected to say she didn't think that Hillary's MLK/LBJ comment was racist. Well, the conversation was moving elsewhere so I didn't really get a chance to make my case and, besides, I didn't really want to get into a list of grievances, many days after the fact.

But the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me that I didn't fully respond. Many of us liberals are convinced that the Clintons deliberately engaged in a race baiting strategy—one designed to goad Obama into playing the race card, thereby triggering resentment among white or hispanic voters—and are angry about it. And before we go on to the next round of voting I feel it's important to get a little refresher course to help illustrate what the Clintons will stoop to (whether by themselves or through their surrogates) in order to win.  

So although it wasn't the first incident, I'll start with the MLK/LBJ comment since that was the moment referred to in the conversation. Here goes:

MLK vs. LBJ?
• Clinton told Fox's Major Garrett that while Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on behalf of civil rights, President Lyndon Johnson was the one who got the legislation passed.
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."
Now, in and of itself, the statement is merely stupid, a strangely myopic reading of history that shows terrible political judgement*. But spoken in the midst of several comments (listed below) over the period leading up to the SC primary, it takes on a different hue.

(* MLK did more than merely "speak" on behalf of civil rights, of course. He, and thousands of other brave souls, put their lives on the line—literally—to advance civil rights. LBJ's achievement, while important, could never have taken place if the groundwork hadn't been laid by blood, sweat and tears of the people actively involved in the civil rights movement.)

Dismissiveness
• Not long after New Hampshire, a Clinton advisor says derisively, "If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

• Around the same time, Bill Clinton calls Obama a "kid," which sounds an awful lot like "boy" to a lot of people.

• Clinton supporter, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, says of Obama, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference." (For those who don't know, the phrase "shuck and jive" refers to mischievous blacks behaving innocently in the presence of an authority figure, so as to get out of trouble.)

Past Drug Use
• Campaign advisor Billy Shaheen makes various arguments about how Obama can't get elected due to his past drug use (as a teen, mind you).

• Campaign strategist, Mark Penn, continues to reference past drug use, even while ostensibly decrying the use of such tactics.

• BET founder and Clinton friend, Bob Johnson, references Obama's drug use back in the 'hood at a rally. Worse, Johnson compared Obama to Sidney Poitier's character in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, considered by many to be the modern equivalent of calling somebody an Uncle Tom.

Indentity Politics Marginalization
• Former senator and Hillary supporter Bob Kerrey politely suggests that Obama is a Muslim (he's not) as though that will tar him in the eyes of many voters, saying:
“It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”
You know, just a nice little backhanded compliment.

• After Obama's SC victory, Bill Clinton waves it off saying, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here." Thus suggesting that Obama is a vanity candidate, who can only appeal to other black voters and maybe a handful of whites.

• The campaign begins exploiting latent tensions between African-American and Latino communities, suggesting that Latinos won't vote for a black man. This was most famously done by Clinton advisor Sergio Bendixen, who told the New Yorker that
"the Hispanic voter - and I want to say this very carefully - has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates."
******
None of this is to suggest that I think the Clintons are actually racist. It's pretty evident in the way they've lived their lives that they aren't. But they've certainly shown a willingness to engage in some pretty sleazy tactics when it suits their needs, including sadly, using racially charged language. And that not only disgusts me, it has irrevocably spoiled my view of them, and called into question their (okay, Hillary's) ability to lead the country into the future.

What Life Is Like Under Sharia

As if to underscore the folly of the Archbishop's approach (see previous post), here's this from Times Online.
Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest mother for sitting with a man
A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police.…

The men were from Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.

Yara, whose parents are Jordanian and grew up in Salt Lake City, once believed that life in Saudi Arabia was becoming more liberal. But on Monday the religious police took her mobile phone, pushed her into a cab and drove her to Malaz prison in Riyadh. She was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime”.

“They took me into a filthy bathroom, full of water and dirt. They made me take off my clothes and squat and they threw my clothes in this slush and made me put them back on,” she said. Eventually she was taken before a judge.

“He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell'. I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless,” she said.

M-m-m-my Sharia

Dr. Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury. He also happens to be the first acknowledged gay man to hold that post. I've always liked the guy and what he stands for. But I think he's off his nutter on this issue
The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable" and that it would help maintain social cohesion. Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4's World At One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
What the fuck is he thinking? We're fighting the much tamer (usually) Christian version of Sharia in this country and this guy wants to cede ground on the far more virulent Muslim version in the country that gave us the Magna Carta?!? I don't get it.

Rikki-Tikki-Tavi

Being in Hawaii, we saw our fair share of mongooses (mongeese?).  Naturally, the subject of Rikki-Tikki-Tavi came up because most of us saw the TV adaptation of the Kipling story as kids. I hadn't thought of it in years, but was suddenly flooded with happy memories of the spunky little ferret-face protecting a family from the big, bad cobras. 

Then, what should I see today, but a reference to Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in a post over at Melancholy Sideshow?

Clearly that means it's time for a RTT post. 

For those unfamiliar with RTT here's a link to Wikipedia entry (Rikipedia?). And an excerpt:
Rikki-Tikki-Tavi is a short story in The Jungle Book (1894) by Rudyard Kipling about the adventures of a valiant young mongoose. The story is a favorite of Kipling fans and is notable for its frightening and serious tone. Some epic features (heightened prosaic style, songs to the hero) add to the standard typology of hero defeating villain. It has often been anthologised and has also been published more than once as a short book in its own right.
Synopsis. An English family, who have moved to a bungalow in the British Sugauli (former British sp. Segowlee) cantonment in Bihar State, India, discover a young mongoose half drowned from a storm and decide to keep it as a pet. The young mongoose, called Rikki-Tikki, soon finds himself confronted by two dangerous, murderous cobras, Nag (Hindi for "cobra") and his even more dangerous mate Nagaina, who had the run of the garden while the house was unoccupied. After that first encounter with the cobras, Rikki's first true battle is with Karait, a dust brown snakeling who threatens the boy (Teddy). Although Rikki is inexperienced and the snake, because of its deadly venom and small size, is an even more dangerous foe than a cobra, the mongoose defeats him.
And for those who remember it, here's a little flashback:



Parts 2 & 3 over at YouTube.

Living With The Dreaming Body

One last hit of the islands. A couple of videos from my favorite formerly half-Hawaiian* band, Poi Dog Pondering. 




* Poi Dog Pondering was formed Hawaii, and spent its formative years  in Austin, Texas. Half of the musicians were from Hawaii and half from the Lone Star state. Though they now reside in Chicago (why, God? why?), many of their earlier tracks had a sort of folky island feel.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Aloha, Hawaii

Well, this is our last night in Hawaii. We spent much of the day at Two Step snorkeling and sunbathing (though if there was a sun in the sky I couldn't see it). I spent about 45 minutes out in the water, chasing one gorgeous fish after another. Damn, it's some good snorkeling here. We left the beach around four or so and came home to watch the Super Tuesday results roll in. 

Later, Tashina, Pete, and Cindy came over for dinner and we had a blast. The ladies made a killer meal of random food that we had laying around—eggplant, feta, garlic, turkey sausage, mushrooms, tomatoes, etc.—to concoct a sort of lasagna/casserole type dish. It was incredible. Pete mixed up piña coladas for everyone (but me :-(  ) and we ate and drank the night away. 

Highlights: sussing out Tashina's situation at Dragonfly Ranch, watching the Flight of the Conchords, and my favorite, doing our best animal imitations. 

I'm going to miss the hell out of this place. Not only am I going to miss the house we've had the good fortune to be staying in and the warm weather, but also island life and Hawaii herself. Most of all, I'm going to miss spending so much time with our incredible friends. 

Aloha, beautiful people. See you in a little while. 

Meantime, enjoy the video. You know what time it is...

Obamalicious!

Well, Obama had about as good of a night as could have been expected. He and Clinton are about tied for delegates, though she supposedly has more super delegates. But the upcoming war of attrition likely benefits Obama more than Clinton who has really relied on the whole inevitability rationale for her candidacy. He took 13 states to her 8 and got close enough in the big states he lost to dig into her delegates. 

I would loved for him to have taken California, but that was always a long shot. His win in Missouri, though, is huge. Missouri is not only a bellwether state in the general election, but virtually everyone who's won the presidency won Missouri in their party's primary. It was a squeaker, but in this case, a win's a win. 

Congratulations to Obama and his team! 

This Is Good News

From BBC News:
The Vatican has reported a further dramatic fall in the number of Roman Catholic monks and nuns worldwide.

The Roman Catholic Church has an aging and diminishing number of parish and diocesan clergy and this latest fall is quite dramatic, our correspondent says.

The number of Catholic nuns worldwide declined by about a quarter during the reign of Pope John Paul, and this further drop shows that new recruits are failing to replace those nuns who die, or decide to abandon their vows, he adds.

The Dream Deferred

Well, maybe I've been wrong about Boomers after all.

This is a thoughtful and insightful e-mail from a reader of the Daily Dish about the traumatic effects of the three assassinations of the 60s had on his generation and how he sees Obama as fitting in the mold of those three lions cut down in their prime (JFK, MLK, and RFK for you kidlings out there). 
My nascent political worldview was formed by those experiences: there was a progressive force in our country, and a reactionary one. The forces of reaction would stop at nothing, including murder, to stop progressive change. Of course I realized there was no connection between the three assassinations--except there was. There was something in the air, or rather under the surface, some dark unconscious collective force--the American shadow. Read the history of that time as prose, and this take on causality seems ridiculous, if not paranoid: given the three completely unconnected assassins--two of whom apparently acted alone--you have nothing more here than random coincidence. Read it as poetry, though, with the heart, and you understand there is no coincidence. Both views, of course, are true.

What happened then--the decapitation of the progressive liberal force in this country, just as it's next generation was reaching adulthood--has everything to do with Obama today. He's the dream deferred, the inheritor of myth. So the Grateful Dead will play for him on Monday, and I will vote for him on Tuesday, not to bypass something we Boomers started--because believe me, we did not start the great divide--but to finish the battle we began then and fulfill what was always, always our dream--the same dream that we are dreaming today, and that Barack and Michelle describe so eloquently every time they speak: justice, unity, freedom--not as abstract principles, but as real, on-the-ground, shared American realities. It's been a long time coming.…

The genius of Obama--and it is a spiritual genius--is he quiets that old nightmare. He lifts us beyond. He wakes us up, brings us together--the true opposite to Bush and Rove, who drove us deeper into drugged sleep and division, day by day. That was your point in "Goodbye to All That", and it was well said. But don't blame the Boomers--left or right--for a war that's been going on forever. And don't underestimate the sleeping giant we Boomers--especially we liberal Boomers--represent. We have not forgotten our dreams.