Super Tuesday is finally upon us. It is a warm springlike day here in Georgia. Nearly 250,000 people (including me) have already voted in early and absentee voting. We're headed for a record turnout. This is the first time in my 24 years of voting history that (a)the contest hasn't been locked up by the time I get to vote in the primary, and (b)I'm actually excited about a candidate. Both parties have a chance to transcend the "same ol' same old". The Republicans appear to be poised to do just that. I have high hopes for the Democrats to do the same. This is our chance to say NO! to the same old bullshit, divisive, polarizing politics that we've had to endure for too many years. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. I suggest our politicians look for us there, instead of out on the fringes."There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and latino America and asian America - there's the United States of America." - Barack Obama
I was surprised by how I felt after the New Hampshire results came in. I was happy for John McCain, but really unsettled by Clinton's win. That is when it crystallized for me and I knew what I wanted. I had been pondering the candidates logically and was trying to keep an open mind. Apparently, I'd heard enough. My gut made it very clear where my head was really at. And watching the ugliness surrounding the South Carolina primary only made my preference stronger.
This independent voter voted for Barack Obama in the Georgia Democratic primary. I sincerely hope that I will get the chance to vote for him to be the President of the United States in November. I want that bad enough to put my money where my mouth is - I was one of those 170,000 new donors who contributed to Obama's campaign in January. I've never donated money to a politician before, but I believe in this one, and it is time to make a change.
"YES WE CAN!"
23 comments:
I've gotten cynical about politicians (who hasn't?) and hope it's not just lip service to get elected and that if Barack's elected, he can actually accomplish that. I don't really have anything against Hillary, except that I think she's just too divisive. People outright hate her.
Good for you. You've finally succumbed to the brainwashing that is the political climate in America.
kat - I don't hate her, but I would put her last among the top four possibilities. There are better options.
wa11z - I'm brainwashed because I support a particular candidate? I respectfully disagree.
Wearing your peach sticker?
My mom is an Obama supporter too and she calls us O-Hos. :)
I'm glad you were one of the many new supporters to his campaign. I am a political skeptic and I have truly felt inspired by Obama's message. I am not embarrassed for once in my life to put myself behind a candidate.
Obama if elected will change fermi. He'll find out that just because he's the president, it doesn't mean that he's in power. Georgie found that out early in his tenure too...
I too am an "O-Ho" (love that)
Your post described all my thoughts and feelings beautifully fermicat.
I'm off to vote now.
I found your blog from magnetbabe's place :)
I consider Clinton and Obama to be virtually interchangeable on the issues, and long for the day that the Democratic Party will nominate a genuine liberal.
Having said that, the GOP has gone so far off the deep end that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will get my vote in November.
I realize no matter who gets the nomination, even no matter WHO wins the election, that person is still just a figure head and it is the senate and congress where the actual change is needed to take place. That being said though, I do believe we need someone in office who does have the charisma to try to cajole people into working on issues as that person sees them, to try to wield the necessary effort to get the senate and congress to respond appropriately. As Dr. S says, there is not that much difference in records between Obama and Hilary, however, he does have, in my opinion, a bit more honey with his doses of medicine -a little calmer, less antagonism maybe? I dunno if that is really true or not, just my perception. They're all preaching "change" but I think his demeanor/attitude maybe holds the best potential to see that some changes to come to be.
This is the only comment I will make on this topic. I hope you will forgive my bluntness. I say none of it with malice. You know me too well to believe that. I shall permanently drop the subject after this. For a while I was determined to say nothing since the point is moot, but I just couldn't do it.
The never-ending "war on terror" is a lie, and Obama, like all the rest (except one), is milking it for all it is worth, no matter how destructive it is to our constitutional republic and our constitutional freedoms. I don't know if he is doing this through understandable cowardice or collusion, but I believe it is probably the former. On the other hand, if Obama, like so many average Americans, is truly deluded into believing the lie, then he is not qualified to be president. Still, I agree with ll. He won't hold the real power even if he does become president. Congress doesn't really hold that power either. Corporations and the corporate media hold it. Only one candidate would have tried to break that mold, but the media has all but ignored him and/or marginalized him, and most Americans aren't truly interested in real change, anyway, especially if it has to come with a little pain and sacrifice of long-held beliefs (my own long-held beliefs included).
Still, if I was forced to choose between Obama and Clinton, I would wholeheartedly vote against Clinton (even though I used to like her before I knew any better). On the other hand, I would have voted for McCain in 2000 because I had long admired him; however, I, like so many of his former admirers, now believe that he has truly become mentally deranged. That's not a figure of speech. He proudly stated on Meet the Press that he wants to keep our troops in Iraq and the Middle East for 100 years, at the very minimum, no matter how many die as a result. He also still wants to invade Iran (possibly going so far as to nuke millions of innocent human beings if an invasion isn't possible), even though the traitorous Bush Administration's reasons for that invasion have been proven to be a complete lie.
I appreciate all the comments. It'll be interesting to see what develops with the results, and in the next day or so I'll get back to blogging about my usual topics.
Oh, and to answer Dave's question - only the blog is wearing my peach sticker, because I know from past experience that if I put it on my shirt or jacket, my hair will get stuck on it.
"Only one candidate would have tried to break that mold, but the media has all but ignored him and/or marginalized him, and most Americans aren't truly interested in real change,"
On that we'll whole heartedly agree MW. Ron Paul would have been the only man to really shake things up and try to right the ship, but he'd be assassinated before his term was up too.
I'll shut up to fermi. Your blog, not mine, but I will leave you with this, and you can count on it like clockwork. Whoever wins this fall, within 2 weeks of being sworn into office will have a meeting with Ben Bernake, the fed chairman, and you'll find after that... we'll be back to the same ol' same ol'...
LL, I had a really strong feeling that you would agree with me on Ron Paul.
Also, I totally agree with you regarding your Bernanke prediction. Isn't it nice to know that, thanks to Ron Paul and Aaron Russo (RIP), millions more Americans now know the truth about the Fed and the income tax than have ever known it before? Once the truth gains that much ground, it is hard to keep it from eventually becoming common knowledge. I certainly had no idea about any of it until year and a half ago.
I agree with LL and MW on Bernake. Except that Bernake would neuter Ron Paul the same as he will anybody else. The last thing Wall Street wants to see is a return to the gold standard.
Dr. Sardonicus, you might be right about Bernanke and Ron Paul, but at least it would have been a heck of a lot fairer fight than it will be with all those other clueless lightweights and sellouts who are (or were) running for president. Ron Paul, as head of the House Banking Committee, has thoroughly raked Greenspan and Bernanke over some pretty scalding coals (and then back again) several times on C-SPAN, where he clearly stated that there is no constitutional authority for the Federal Reserve. As such, Ron Paul has already set the standard regarding his feelings about the Fed. That means he would not have been coming out of left field when he gave his first State of the Union address and said unequivocally that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and illegal. The media would have had to cover that statement, naturally; therefore, it would have finally become common knowledge, and it would have been a lot more difficult for them to manipulate him without being slightly more obvious than they normally are.
LL, I forgot to say that I do totally agree with you about the possibility Ron Paul's assassination if he had beaten the hackable voting machines and won the election (assuming it won't be canceled due to an "unexpected emergency"). I think a huge percentage of Paul supporters feel the same way; however, it might take the criminals slightly longer than two weeks since such a brazen move would be plainly obvious to one and all (unless they made it look age related, or if they just don't care any longer what anyone thinks). That's why he would have had to pick an outstandingly brave and honest vice president.
Yeah... you're probably right about that one Dr. S (wall street)...
But I'd still hold out a little hope if Paul were elected that he'd take on the Fed. He's done it before. It'll never happen, but...
Now look what you two made me do... I said I was gonna shut up and this is what happens. ;)
LL, LOL! ;-D
I'm a hypocrite too, but at least we're not picking on the ever gracious and kindhearted Fermicat. We're just taking advantage of her comments section for our own little conversation -- just this once. Ha.
Thanks, Fermi.
Glad you boys could have some fun...
It's only "fun" in an infuriatingly perverse way, Fermi. ;-) ;-/
Oh... this is fermi's blog? I thought it was ours to do with as we pleased.
There weren't any cat pics in the post so I was a bit confused... :P
It's all good...
Isn't it amazing that politics bring out such strong feelings. In my case, Obama speaks to eveything America should be but hasn't been since the Bush years You go girl!!!
Greetings, MinnesotaBlue. First, I sincerely apologize for being incapable of keeping anything brief (I shall make this my final comment of the thread). Second, politics has nothing to do with feelings for me, at least not in the way I think you are implying. It has to do with serious, in-depth research outside of the corporate media (something I didn't realize until January 2001, when the Supreme Court illegally installed an unelected person in the White House, and I watched aghast as the media DID NOT report on it); however, the end result of that research is that I often experience feelings of betrayal.
Prior to the theft of the White House in 2001, politics was quite a bit (but not entirely) about "feelings" for me too, even though I didn't realize it at the time and would never have admitted it if anyone had told me so. This is (or was) the first election since at least 1960 and/or 1968 (and I believe it will be our last), in which we have had a real opportunity to slow down or stop our slide into George Orwell's 1984 (notice that both the 1960 and 1968 candidates were assassinated), but, thanks to the media, most Americans continue to believe that it is just another typical election with the same old fictional left-vs-right choices. For once, it was anything but that.
Believe it or not, I was entirely prepared to think Obama was the greatest person in politics back in 2004 when the media spent two days promoting him with rapturous praise at the democratic convention. When he finally gave the keynote address, I listened to a person giving an old-fashioned, stereotypical speech. Even worse, he appeared to have learned all his speaking skills from a high-school textbook copyright 1930. I think I stopped listening about three-fourths of the way through because he had said absolutely nothing of substance in the entire thing. Just like in a high-school student at a district speech meet, his speech was all about performance and showmanship. Yet the media went into even greater raptures afterward. Why? There is no shortage of Obama-like candidates in the United States that the media has completely ignored for decades. Why were they suddenly focusing all their positive attention on this one individual? What had he done to deserve it?
Post a Comment