|
to the voters, and to Obama supporters in particular, vs. what the corporate news monopolies, and allied war profiteers, want you to believe it is about.
The election is PRIMARILY about the war--with the corollary issue of what the war has done to our economy. That's what it's about to the voters. That's what it's about in particular to Obama supporters--and what is causing this amazing surge of young people and others to his campaign.
But the war profiteers, and their corporate news monopolies DON'T WANT IT TO BE ABOUT THE WAR. They DO NOT WANT anyone to receive a mandate from the American people to end the war. They shape the issues and the debate, and tell us what election wins and losses MEAN. And the one thing that will NOT BE ALLOWED is for an insurgent candidacy to win BECAUSE OF THE WAR.
So they try to make it about women's rights vs. blacks' right, or about health care plans, or about Obama's name, or Hillary's boobs, or whatever crap they can make up, along with issues of substance that SEEM like reasonable things to focus on, but that are, in reality, dwarfed by peoples' opposition to this unjust war and occupation, and its monstrous burden on the economy.
The war is the overriding issue to Obama SUPPORTERS--who represent SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people and their overwhelming opposition to this war--and who have no other home in the political arena. Whether it is the overriding issue to Obama himself is anybody's guess. It's very hard to vet candidates, and understand who they really are, and predict what they will do in office, in this nutso, "Alice in Wonderland," delusionary corporate "news" depiction of our political life. You can't trust anybody's word. You can't trust anybody's background. You can't know who's bought and paid for--for certain. And we also have no idea of what the fascist plan is for the "trade secret" vote counting.
But one thing we know, and know for certain--and that is what Obama supporters WANT. They want an end to the war. Obama is the only candidate still standing who was against it from the beginning. In fact, he was the only candidate in the field, besides Kucinich, who opposed it early and publicly. (Edwards came to oppose it, after voting for it.) That is the major and critical difference between Clinton and Obama. And, yes, he has somewhat fudged his position--at the Democratic Convention in '04, for one thing--and in votes for war funding. But he is nevertheless IT for the SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people who oppose the war. He's IT for the military families who have taken the chief burden and impact of it--many of whom no doubt hate this war to the core of their beings. He is the anti-Iraq War voters' ONLY choice, at this point.
And this has been so completely smothered and black-holed by the corporate news monopolies that even *I* didn't get it until recently. I pride myself on being able to suss out corporate media bullshit games and their "news" black holes. Reading some Obama thread the other day at DU, it suddenly clicked in my mind, what was going on with media coverage of this campaign: the determination of the corporate news monopolies NOT to let it become about the war. And, given the overwhelming--unprecedented--70% antiwar majority in the country (which must be up in the 90%'s among grass roots Dems), THAT is where the Obama surge is coming from. It has to be. There is little other reason for it. According to some, Obama is even a bit to the right of Clinton on some public policy. He has charisma, and has inspired much enthusiasm among the young. That still does not explain this challenge. It is being mostly fueled by FRUSTRATED Americans, of every age and demographic, who are furious about the continuance of the war.
Our so-called Democratic Congress has a 22% approval rating--less than Bush! That, too, is about the war. And to those who are furious--much of the country--Obama is the ONLY candidate who isn't hogtied to the "military-industrial complex" that brought us this unnecessary, unjust, heinous war--or at least that's what he appears to be.
Like I said, we can't know for sure. I read his article in Foreign Policy magazine, and I was not much comforted by it. The only thing he's said that is different from all the other warmongering politicians is that we should TALK to our "enemies." That's something. It could be the key that unlocks a desperately needed treasure chest of peace initiatives. Or it could be just bullshit. If he gets (s)elected by Diebold and brethren, it's probably bullshit; and, if he doesn't, it's probably sincere. But the question of who he is, and what he would do in office, is quite apart from what the campaign is about to his SUPPORTERS.
We had a similar situation with Kerry in 04. He voted for the war--like a lot of Democrats did, some of them for corrupt (war profiteer) reasons, and some just hedging their bets, in a fearful time (Kerry, I think). But, IF all the votes had been counted, and he had entered the White House, he would have done so with a mandate to end the war! THAT is why people supported him, and put out such an incredible effort to elect him (--and succeeded, actually). He was the only alternative to Bush and more war; people believed that he would scale it down, manage it infinitely better, and eventually end it. And that is probably also why he could not be permitted to become President--not because he was a champion for peace, but because he would have been under terrific pressure from the voters and his supporters. Much better, from the war profiteer perspective, to have deaf, impervious, UNELECTED George Bush, who is not beholden to anyone but them.
Probably this comes as no revelation to Obama supporters. I really haven't paid much attention to the presidential campaign. I've devoted my energies to a more fundamental problem--the corruption and non-transparency of our voting system. (--also to some South American issues, where Donald Rumsfeld is planning Oil War II). So I was vulnerable to corporate brainwashing on this one--that the campaign was about Obama's name and Hillary's boobs, et al. Not anything of consequence. I realize now that that may be how it is portrayed, but that is not how it IS--not to the voters coming out of the woodwork to vote for this man, of which this military contingent, pointed to in the OP, is a fascinating component.
I don't think it's the issue of military spending. Why would military families have any reason to believe that Obama will spend MORE on the military than Clinton? There is simply no noticeable difference between them on this. They have BOTH voted for billions MORE for the war on Iraq, with a federal treasury that is essentially EMPTY. It COULD be an issue for military families, IF there was some perceivable difference.
I think it's the war itself--an unnecessary war--a war that makes no sense except as a corporate resource war--and a war that has no end, that is simply destroying military personnel and their families. They feel it most of all. They want it ENDED. They don't want any more indefinitely long tours in Iraq--a policy that is close to slavery. They want to defend the country; they don't want to defend Exxon Mobile! They want to do peace-keeping for just causes; they don't want to be treated like cannon fodder. And I am very glad that they are finally waking up to what's been done to them by the Bush Junta and by obviously collusive Democrats like Clinton. That bodes well for the future. It takes more than a president to reform a country. It takes the whole country--and, in our case, that includes the military, because it is such a big part of the country. It includes the young. It includes fed-up Republicans. It includes everybody. If Obama can activate the people in this way, that is the best hope for real change, which must come from the people.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
