OBAMA-RAMA
Obama’s Message Resounds in Rockies—But Why?
By David Frey, 2-08-08
Barack Obama isn’t your typical Western Democrat. No cowboy hat. No boots. And, uh, he’s black. Yet on Super Tuesday, Obama’s message resounded with Democrats in Idaho, Utah and Colorado – states usually considered conservative strongholds.
Obama’s success here seems to be partly his message, partly his method, and it could represent a new way to think about politics in the West.
Usually, Western Democratic candidates tap into Old West imagery, says Daniel Kemmis, senior fellow at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West in Missoula, Mont. “But I think there’s something different about the New West that that doesn’t capture, and I think Obama is maybe tapping into some of those other dimensions.”
Many who live in the West are part of the so-called “creative class,” Kemmis says, a group that has often been turned off by traditional politics of either party.
“But they are creative, energetic and basically hopeful people,” he says. “I’m guessing that Obama has brought a lot of those people out of the woodwork. There’s always been this sense that the West is wide open country, not only topographically, but that it has consistently attracted people who are drawn to fresh ideas and broad horizons.”
Revered Western writer Wallace Stegner called the West the “home of hope,” Kemmis says. Obama’s message seems to tap into that spirit.
Obama carried 80 percent of the preference votes cast by Idaho Democrats, from Boise to Idaho Falls. Hillary Clinton led in only Lewis County. He carried Utah with 56 percent, and Colorado with 66 percent, from urban Denver and Boulder to rural Moffat and Rio Blanco counties.
“I just feel like there’s hope with him,” says Glenwood Springs, Colo. resident Patti Christensen, who joined some 400 Democrats at the Garfield County Courthouse for caucuses that usually draw just a handful of party activists in a living room or church basement. “I was a strong Clinton supporter – Bill Clinton – but I feel like this is a new day.”
Western Republicans and Democrats alike came to their caucuses in droves, thanks to their chance to participate in Super Tuesday. Usually, the races are long decided by the time the caucuses roll around. Both parties also have exciting contests to bring out voters. But in many precincts, Democrats far outnumbered Republicans, thanks to frustration with the Bush administration and hope for change.
Garfield County Democratic Chairman Ed Sands, a lawyer in the town of Rifle, joined thousands in the overflow in a Denver rugby field to catch Obama’s recent appearance there. They couldn’t see him – except for a brief appearance he made to satisfy supporters loyal enough to sit outside on the cold ground. But they listened on loudspeakers. The excitement reminded Sands of watching Robert Kennedy campaign when Sands was a Nebraska high schooler.
“The incredible excitement I saw with Bobby Kennedy, I’ve seen nothing like it since until Barack Obama,” he says.
It’s not just his message, though. Sands credits Obama with a grassroots campaign to get out the vote, even in small towns. Organizers rounded up supporters to turn up at caucuses. They sent out slick mailers. They made phone calls. Clinton’s campaign didn’t.
“Organizing for a caucus is a little bit different than organizing for a primary election,” Sands says. “You’re appealing to a lot more people. Caucuses here are appealing to a lot more hard-core Democrats. I think (the Obama campaign) perfected the technique in Iowa and brought it to Colorado.”
His appeal has stretched beyond party lines. Rifle resident Don Locke says he got jeers when he told fellow Republicans over breakfast at the Base Camp Café that he was supporting Obama.
“If he were nominated I would vote for him,” says the locksmith, who has voted for third-party candidates like Ralph Nader before but has never voted for a Democrat. “The primary thing is, I want change. But every day you hear all that. I just want change, and I think he’s capable of change.”
He and Rifle rancher Roy Savage were recently featured in a New York Times article Garfield County’s independent nature. Savage was a registered Republican until he showed up at an Obama campaign table and switched to the Democrats. Savage counts himself as a political maverick, not keen on voting the party line. When his family began to tangle with the region’s booming gas industry, though, they found allies among environmentalists and Democrats.
“We should be staunch Republicans, and all of a sudden we’re turning coat and cozying up to the Democrats,” Savage says.
Aspen, Colo. attorney Chris Bryan says he first discovered Obama’s appeal when Obama was his law professor at the University of Chicago. Bryan volunteered at late-night “Obama pajama parties” in his run for state senate and a failed run for Congress before he became an Illinois senator. Now, Bryan volunteers with Obama’s presidential campaign in Colorado.
“I think a lot of people in Western states, they have this frontier mentality
that is a little more of an independent streak and is tough-minded and is
individualistic, and at the same time really respects people with a can-do
attitude,” he says.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
.gif){kind=small}
Advertisement
.gif)
Advertisement
.gif)
.jpg)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
Comments
Vote Obama..!
In Boise, the grand dame of Idaho Democratic politics, Bethine Church, spoke for Hillary at the Ada County caucus at the direct request of the big dog. Everyone at the caucus gave her the polite respect that her quiet dignity demands and then promptly voted overwhelmingly, delivering every Ada County delegate for Obama. It was the dawning of a new age for Democrats in Idaho.
I think Obama is the direct recipient of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. Western Democrats are tired of inside the beltway conventional wisdom writing us off and giving us lip service. And Obama gave us a way to express it.
I'm tired of idealistic sound bites and would much rather have a candidate who is willing to get down in the weeds and work for a better America. Experience is what we need, not fluff. We need people who are willing to build relationships and work with other people to get things done.
It's funny, everyone talks about how they are tired of combative candidates, yet they vote for those who will be the worst at constructing good policy. Where is the substance Obama? I'm tired of the juvenile fundamentalism of our current president and don't want to see the same obstinate approach to the political process coming from the next one, just from the other pole.
At least Hillary and McCain have the experience and willingness to reach across the counter and work with others to get things done.
I'm not sure what it is that you're looking for... a "real" man who gets his hands dirty? Like Bush and his "ranch" in Crawford? Seems that Jimmy Carter didn't win any popularity contests as President and he was and always has been the type of person who would understand what it is like to live in Montana. Cheney, being from the West, might "get it" ... do you want him for Pres?
Or are you looking for someone who has worked in the trenches, with people who can't afford housing or transportation, who have education systems suffering from lack of funds, who are too sick to work but unable to get health care... please tell me when Hillary and John have been within one hundred yards of those people?? (Except when stumping for votes...?) Whether Chicago, IL or Jerome, ID... these families are suffering the same pains.
Idealistic sound bites? Where have you been? This is America, where the average citizen can't grasp anything more complex than "support the troops" and "the terrorists will get us if we vote Democrat!" This is the country where corporations spend MILLIONS of dollars on 30-second advertisements during the Super Bowl because stupid Americans line up like lemmings to buy their products afterward.
Where is the substance? Have you LOOKED at his blueprint? Or are you expecting the information to be spoonfed to you? He has identified serious issues facing our country and presented his plans. It's there if you bothered to look.
Reach across the counter? Yeah, McCain crawled right into Bush's lap and betrayed his fellow servicemen and women by supporting the war in Iraq. What did he get done except get more Americans killed? Yes, he's great at reaching across the counter... to grab the money and power available on the other side. He's been at the DC trough since 1982 ... when was the last time he mingled with REAL people, not as a politician but as an advocate, working with them close-up, smelling them, touching them, getting to know their names?
And really, what has Hillary accomplished? What did she "get done"? She played it safe at Wal-Mart... didn't rock any boats or implement much change there... How many of her attorney general nominees failed to pass before she finally got it right? How well did she do on her health care assignment? She's been a status-climbing attorney/"First Lady"/DC insider since the 70s! She can't even bring herself to come to Idaho... someone correct me if I'm wrong! If she did, I'm sure she was isolated from the masses, waited on hand and foot, and surrounded by corporate representatives with checkbooks. Same w/ McCain...
So, please, do not insult Westerners by implying that Hillary and McCain can relate to our needs. We are sick to death of drugstore cowboys, of politicians who value profit margins over human blood, who shine their teeth along with their shoes, and act as if they need to sanitize their hands after a public appearance. I'm tired of photo ops with background designed to show us that they "get it"... as much respect as I have for Chelsea, I just can't picture Hillary wiping a runny nose... instead I have the sensation that she has "people" for that. Neither of them show any signs of being capable of understanding my life or that of my neighbors... my children, their teachers, the farmers, the mom-and-pop store owners, the rural doctors, and so on.
If we shopped at Saks and had a second home in Vail, maybe they'd bother to remember my name... if it was on the corner of a check.
He nailed it down perfectly. The west is where the energy is. It is the place where so many of the ideals long lost or discarded,or just overwhelmed by population and its attendant losses, in the east and south are heated and beaten and forged into new ways, new conflicts, new resolutions. It used to be California, but Calis looking kind of beat and overcrowded now, a bit spooked by itself. The wave has poured back into the interior. That's where the optimistic people have been moving, the people who don't put dollars first, who are maybe on the run from things that went bad, but more so, on the run to something better. Look at the south and the mid west now, there is indecision and torpor, the old verities - (Republicans are for freedom!) have been turned upside down. The loss of self-sufficiency in those endless suburbs has led to a fearful populace- afraid of the economy crashing, afraid they won't have ajob next year, afraid the power will be too expensive, that they will be too cold, too hot. Now contrast that with so many people who have moved to the west over the past thirty years, college graduates who lived in bunkhouses and worked manual labor so they can hunt or fish or climb or ski, well-heeled folks who chuck it all to live outside Ten Sleep and buck the drifts all winter, or in a neighborhood in Billings, where they can get to the Absarokas with their kids. Next wave is not so different, but there is some money to be made so maybe they start up a landscaping business or a fuels reduction business, or anything that keeps them outside, where they really want to be...the entreprenuers come in the next wave, drawn by the energy and a growing population...it's a big mix of people, and because so many come from different places it's egalitarian. Nobody cares if your daddy belongs to the country club back in Michigan, they care whether you can put in a days' work, or whether you know enough not to wear that cotton hoodie up Trapper Peak and get hypothermia and jeapordize the whole trip for everybody.
And for the locals, hell, they started out like this, too, and still hold on to it, from the 1900's on, self sufficiency, a lack of fancy, mind your own business, and work your tail off, love the outdoors, keep your powder dry. How many ranchers burst into tears when they hear that the Dow has fallen 6 points? They are used to watching prices yaw and pitch while the cattle are in the trucks headed for the yards. They don't cry out, "Oh, we gonna lose the mcmansion, honey!" Cause they never built the mcmansion in the first place. They are in for the long haul. How many 5.11 backcountry big wall climbers or couloir skiers do you know that are terrified of islamic terrorists or have OnStar?
The west hasn't bought into the fear. They are not saying oooo what are you gonna protect us from , mr president? Can you give us another $600 check so we can go to walmart and buy a heated toilet seat made of chinese dioxin?
They are saying can you do a strong days' work and get the damn job done?
Will you leave us alone if we try our best to help out and act right? And Obama's been saying the right things. And I'm not even necessarily a supporter-you don't have to be to recognize that he is saying the right things and knows who he is talking to.
And please, enlighten us all as to how invading Iraq brought us closer to bin Laden. The utter failure in getting bin Laden will be the legacy of this presidency. The richest nation on earth is defeated, not by some bearded mullah in a cave, but by its own incompetent leadership enabled by a complacent electorate, manipulated by a co-opted media. Yet another step in what Barbara Tuchman described as the March of Folly.
Hal is right, westerners have never bought into the idea that Islamic terrorists pose a more significant and dire threat to us than cancer, or that American blood and treasure should be squandered for a populace that would rather see us go home. We just don't remember that mandate being issued and Obama seems to get that.
You are insinuating that we are getting sucked in by the gloss and forgetting about substance...
Okay, I know that I can be naive. I know that I have to look past what I "feel" good about and do research. I will accept that your implication may apply to people like me...
HOWEVER...
I find it VERY insulting that you would suggest that people like Gov. Andrus, Wendy Jaquet, Clint Stennett, Donna Pence, our military veterans and many many more would risk their reputations by endorsing a candidate they didn't fully believe has what it takes to make a difference in our country? And what about Caroline Kennedy? Has she EVER done anything like this before? Maria Shriver... do you think that was easy for her?
I don't know what your bias is, why you are so closed-minded about Obama, but I will let that be your problem. Just stop insulting people who have done more for our country than you could in five lifetimes... people who have SERIOUSLY evaluated the candidates, people who know them personally, and people who have open minds.
If you have anything positive to say about YOUR candidate of choice, please do so. If all you can do is make vague accusations and insulting generalizations, keep it to yourself.
If Clinton is elected our country will be sharply divided. If Obama is elected there is a chance that he has the skills to have people, who differ with him on policy, still support him as their leader. It's been awhile since we have had a person like this. But, we aren't their yet in this circus process.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Republicans never got credit for advancing the Civil Rights platform in the face of opposition from Southern Democrats. I would guess the reason that today so many young people are not aware of that is because they have never had to take history, and if they did, it was taught by a liberal who has an agenda to put forth. My supposition. My experience with public school, and what my kids were taught in school, what I saw on bulletin boards in the schools, the teachers I have known, and they were not the extreme liberals.
We live in an era of entitlements. Only you have to wonder where all that entitlement money is going to come from now that we import more food than we grow, export our technology, import our manufactured goods. I hope Obama has a plan to protect our natural resources because we will need them sooner than later.
80% of the geologists working in the world are Chinese. China receives over 70% of all the tungsten in the world right now. They are the reason bronze statues are stolen and melted down by meth heads, the powerline ground lines pulled out of the earth. And China is headed towards getting 85% of all the tungsten. Recently, they stopped Chinses companies from exporting any tungsten. I have no idea how the rest of the world, including the US, will be able to harden steel with only 15% of a critical metal. That is only one of many natural resources necessary to maintaining a standard of living. If Obama does not have a plan to keep us in raw material, food, all the rest is a re-arrangement of the deck chairs on our economic Titanic. And we are borrowing the money to pay the stewards to move those chairs. From China.
I remember after Bill was elected, Paul Harvey, (hardly a liberal) mentioned that it was good to have a bright happy charismatic person in the WH.
Neither of them really matter to me, I wanted McCain 8 years ago, sure I'd like for him to be a little more conservative, but I think he will be able to handle the two most important things we will face, our security, and appointing conservative, constitutional judges to the Supreme Court. He definitely will have my vote this time.
Your answer is "because he is a charismatic preacher"? That may fly down in the south... but I can't even see how that fits here in the West. I don't know many people who buy into flash and schmooze...
Yes, I'm getting really frustrated (call it "angry" if that's what you want) at people who generalize without backing up their attacks and claim there is nothing there when they haven't bothered to look.
Not much of a plan, or record? Since you are unable/unwilling to do your own research, here is a start:
Ethics
Plan:
Shine Light on Washington Lobbying
Require Independent Monitoring of Lobbying Laws and Ethics Rules
Support Campaign Finance Reform
Record
Federal Ethics Reform
Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. ...The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.”
Google for Government
...Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It’s a brilliant idea.”
Illinois Reform
In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history.
A High Standard
Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.
There is more at http://www.newwest.net/?URL=http://www.barackobama.com%2Fpdf%2FObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf ... it's all there... his plan, his record, and more.
I doubt you will bother to look it up... you seem to be more enthralled with your Bush-clone who has betrayed his wife:
[McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money.]
[In 2000, for example, James Dobson issued a personal press release specifically to "clarify his lack of support for Senator McCain." "The Senator is being touted by the media as a man of principle, yet he was involved with other women while married to his first wife," Dobson said. He also cautioned that McCain's character was "reminiscent" of Bill Clinton's--possibly the ultimate insult in conservative circles.]
[...Carrie Gordon Earll, a spokesperson for Dobson's Focus on the Family, recently made it clear that the adultery issue hasn't lost any of its toxicity among evangelicals. "If you have a politician, an elected official, and they can't be trusted in their own marriage, how can I trust them with the budget? How can I trust them with national security?" she asked me. Although Earll was reluctant to discuss specific politicians, she noted that a candidate who "had an affair and then moved on and restored that marriage" might find forgiveness with Christian conservatives, but someone "who had an affair and then left his wife" would not.]
He's betrayed his fellow servicemen:
1) According to Burch, beginning in 1984 when the coalition sought co-sponsors for the Agent Orange bill, John McCain refused to sign on. When Burch and his men asked other members of the House to co-sponsor, these congressmen would invariably ask, "Has John McCain signed on to this bill?" When told that McCain had not it was believed, as often happens on the Hill in matters like this, that McCain was against the bill.
It was only after more than two hundred congress members expressed their support for the bill and final passage was assured that McCain finally agreed to come on board. But McCain's foot-dragging and initial reluctance made the coalition's work much more difficult and delayed the veterans' final victory.
2) In 1988 the coalition led the charge for "Judicial Review," a new system whereby veterans rejected for benefits by the Veterans Administration would have the same right to appeal as Social Security recipients have. Again, the coalition members working the halls of Congress asking for co-sponsors to the bill found McCain in opposition.
The senator from Arizona never signed on.
3) In 1991 when new evidence of living American servicemen missing in Vietnam surfaced, the coalition - in conjunction with those "mainstream" veterans organizations, the VFW and American Legion - led the charge for a Senate Select Committee to investigate whether or not any American POWs were left behind in Southeast Asia and whether some might still be alive. All these veterans groups wanted a senate panel instead of an executive branch panel because no one believed the executive branch could be trusted to investigate itself.
Senator McCain initially opposed the Senate committee. Later, when the Senate ultimately created the panel, McCain was appointed a member.
4) As a member of the Senate POW Committee, McCain "distinguished himself" by repeatedly insulting wives, mothers and children of POWs and MIAs and accusing many veterans groups fighting for the POW cause of "making a living off this issue." He made similar charges in the South Carolina primary when the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Bush: "It is a shame when they take a cause and turn it into a business."
Not to mention his involvement with the Keating 5:
"While Sen. John McCain's wife and father-in-law were investing with Charles H. Keating, Jr. in a shopping center, McCain was helping Keating battle federal regulators who questioned his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan . . . [photo caption] Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley (second from right) are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr. (right). But John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989
I find it obnoxious that the same type of people who freaked out over Kerry's marriage to a rich woman have no problem with McCain's wife's money. The same people who gave themselves hernias over Bill Clinton's affairs overlook McCain's (and Guiliani's and Gingrich's). The same people who "support the troops" support someone who betrays our veterans.
Side by side, Obama is more of a man, more of a Christian, and more of a patriot than McCain has been in the last fifty years. Yes, McCain was a POW... but what has he done LATELY?
If your candidate of choice has betrayed the trust of his wife and his brothers in service, how can YOU trust him as the leader of our country? The two most important bonds one can have: their family and their military brothers... he abandoned them. But you trust him with our country? That is so scary...
http://www.newwest.net/?URL=http://www.washingtonmonthly.com%2Ffeatures%2F2006%2F0607.benen.html and http://www.newwest.net/?URL=http://larry-bernard.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F05%2Fmore-bashing-on-john-mccain.html .
There is more out there and probably better, but I don't have a lot of time.
If he had come out against our war of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect her testimony may have won me over.
It is hard to find a politician with guts enough to tell the religionists to get stuffed...
One example to cite is the change in forest management policy and its effects on timber industry workers, many of whom were Democrat voters by tradition often tied to organized labor. The Clinton policies alienated some, and the job losses led to these people moving elsewhere, taking different jobs and losing their tie to traditional organizations that used to provide some of the blue-collar heft to a Democratic candidate.
The elected officials I've talked to from that era recall how they had no way to make a plausible explanation to the locals why things were changing. They felt hung out to dry.
I am not taking issue with what changes in forest policy were put into effect during the 1990s, they were for the most part long over due. Some were probably excessive. The substance is not the point as much as how the politics played out.
Now 8-10 years later memories fade for some, some new people have moved in, and a failed Bush Presidency provides some fertile ground for a little resurgence for Democrats. And Obama shows up and you see some of the new leaders like the Arizona Governor and the Boise Mayor endorse him. But for the long-time Democratic activists they don't have pleasant memories of the Clinton years and therefore are not motivated to support Senator Clinton.
The traditional response to all change by those among us who are used to having everything remain the same is an unrealistic plaint:
Its not fair!
Yet these are the same people who like to pretend they are tough carry-overs from the days of the frontier--when notbhing at all was fair or dependable...
Nixon did many good things, for a bigot with a hunger for power, and the 2008 Democrat platform is built from his lumber: End the War, Endangered Species protection and the Wilderness system, enhanced Civil Rights, public spending to grow government. Of course, Nixon failed due to excesses and zeal in protecting his butt and buffing his legacy. His Vice President, SP Agnew, was a greater failure, and we got Jerry Ford (the then leader of the House Republicans) for the interim. Ford the Moderate lost to the left of the Democrats in 1976, giving us Jimmy Carter, who is still trying to provide a legacy for a very weak and failed presidency. Ronnie Reagan came next, for 8 years, saved our collective asses politically and economically, and his VP, the Senior Bush was a one termer after him who was unable to get anything of consequence by the feudal fiefdom of a Democrat controlled Congress. At least Reagan had a Republican Senate for a short while, and was able to advance some legislation. Out of the Bush deal came Slick Willy, who in two years managed to lose both the House and Senate, for the first time since Truman, to the Red State monsters. Clinton's era was ending on such a foundation of sleaze and political corruption from foreign money to his slush funds that we elected GW, who would have been little more than a caretaker except we were visited by Jihadists who Clinton just did not have the time to deal with, and besides, he was up to his money pockets in Indonesian bankers for favors and a quarter of Utah. The rest most people who will vote can remember.
My bet, based on history, is that Hillary will be the candidate because she stays close to Obama in the primaries, but carries the super delegates with raw political power, knowing where the bodies are buried, and having an affable chit caller for a husband. And then she loses to MacCain because of public fear of her husband, the affable Bill who won't quit prostituting his credentials for big, big sums of money. Either way, Bill will win. He is still the first black president and his legacy won't be overshadowed by his wife's. The loser will the country. We are again approaching the voting machine whose software is programmed by ? with ? interests. (A college roommate of mine has a careeer spent investigating public lottery and other gambling software providers). We are not going to get the best this country might provide for candidates. We are going to get what money drags to the forefront in jaded, shopworn, bought and paid for, careeer politicians, those nerds from high school who aspired to that goal and will get there no matter what. We are a tolerant country. There are enough constitutional checks and balances to keep the wagon of state on the road most of the time. We will get throught his one, and the one after that, ad infinatum. But never with the insight, genius and character that once was envisioned for the country when it was young.
The issue, of course, is that this is a country sort of run by committee, and that is why a small cadre of zealots has yet to become "the deciders" on wilderness designation among the several States in one big deal. It is not our "Tradition" to do that, as JR has said. Nor should it. Tradition does play a big part. Consnesus is a tradition. It has worked. Now, if you go to Africa, where there are strong central governments with vast power, show me the conservation, the successful wilderness protections. Or maybe Eastern Asia, or South America. Our tradition is in how we govern ourselves, which has worked pretty well to this point. If you were a native people, recent immigrant or imported slave, it did not work in your favor at first, but over time, the majority rule provided protection in the end. This is a much more fair and dependable place than it was 150 years ago. Wilderness protection will advance on its own merits, across the broadest landscape of voters. They, not the zealots of either side, will be "the Deciders." The irony I find in all this is that it was under Nixon that all the meaninful legislation was passed. The contentiousness of the issue is that the Nixon era decisions were supposed to be the end, but have become the beginning of endless lawsuits and bickering. That endless bickering might be one reason, along with strident radical supporters, that nothing of consequence except recess appointments and Presidential decree has advanced, and those are suspect.
The irony I see is in your grandiloquent remembrance of the Alzheimeric presidency.
I see The Acting president as the beginning of our ending.
He was not by a long shot the first president to use the treasury as a shelalaugh; but he was the first to try to regenerate the oligarchy by permitting them absolute access to it...
I sorta agree with Kemmis that the "creative" class hooked on to Obama. Hey, he looked GREAT in that black cowboy hat in Vegas; he has a wonderful speaking voice and delivery as well.
One thing that should temper the Idaho Democrat translation of the results is the simple fact that the Dems in Idaho haven't been relevant in Idaho politics for some time -- they are far to the left of most of Idaho. So when a glamour boy comes along with a voting record like Obama, no surprise there. It's nice to have the feeling that one "matters" and for a few moments, Obama has provided that to the Idaho Democrats, illusory as it might be.
But another aspect to all this creative-class love is the elitism of it all. The artsy types grokking all over the degreed, groomed smoothie. Here's the guy that knows (or can be easily "educated," he's so SMART) as better as "we" do how the West should be run.
http://www.newwest.net/?URL=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au%2Fstory%2F0%2C25197%2C23182456-28737%2C00.html
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton doesn't strike me as being a pillar of progressive promise; and John McCain is as imperialistic as the decider.
Whats a boy to do?
No Dennis Kucinich! No John Edwards!
I'll cast my vote for Barack Obama--and hope he can find help from the likes of Colin Powell, Jesse Jackson, Andrew Young...
This is what happens when corporations are allowed freedom of speech to the extent they can buy all three of the branches of our governance...