|
Take the two groups, and the two constituencies--women and blacks--who are the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party, and get them fighting like cats and dogs, and hurling charges of sexism and racism at each other, and watch the Democratic Party nuke itself.
Designed by Karl Rove and Diebold? Ya think?
I've certainly had that dreadful feeling raising hairs on the back of my neck for about a month now. Eliminate unity candidate Edwards (who talks like FDR), and leave standing the first major woman candidate for president--a woman who supported the war--a combo designed to turn her supporters into screeching lunatics, trying, on the one hand, to gain some protection for women's rights by electing a woman president, but having to, on the other hand, defend her war votes--and furthermore, a woman who seems to act like a fingernail on the blackboard to the wingnuts of the corporate airwaves--and pit her against a black candidate, who has a preacher who can be selectively quoted to sound like Louis Farrakian, and program the "trade secret" vote counting software to keep them about even, in what should be a blow-away Democratic year, so that ambitions and tempers and tactics are at fever pitch...
...and watch the fun, from your remote bunker somewhere in Virginia, air conditioned by DynCorp.
It is a compelling nightmare. I really don't know if it's true. Could be. The global corporate predators who are running things certainly have the capability--the near totally non-transparent voting system, with the code owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and total of control of national political imagery and sound bites. Choose two ambitious people who are not the best candidates, who are merely plausible candidates, select them for sex and color, and destroy the Democratic base by pushing its two great strengths into a war against each other.
Some things that argue against such a manipulation:
Obama's caucus wins--not tallied by Diebold & brethren.
Obama's supporters--truly a phenomeon--inspired, activated citizens.
This surprised everybody. Clinton was the global corporate predators' designated DLC hitter. She had a massive campaign chest, going in. She has a famous name, associated with previous economic good times. She has Bill, whose numbers actually went up, during the Ken Starr inquisition. She was the "chosen one"--either lamb to the McBush slaughter, or Hoover for Great Depression II--the way to put the blame for Bush's disasters on the Democrats for four years (to be followed by worse, much worse, in 2012). Clinton was a sure thing for the nomination, either way. A year ago, I would have have put money on her nomination and 'election.' I predicted it here, along with what I thought it would mean (four years of civil disorder and Darth Vader cops, followed by Hitler II.)
Ted Kennedy (my litmus test for what is good and what is bad in our national political scene) endorsed Obama, leading me to believe that Obama is a genuine, unbought and paid for challenger of the Democratic Party pro-war, pro-corporate establishment, and the national war profiteer/global corporate predator powers. The risk is very great, to these establishments, that a relatively independent candidate like Obama would actually inspire sufficient hope among the deliberately demoralized and disenfranchised American people, to overcome the 5%-10% Diebold handicap, blow the machines out of the water, and elect a president who is beholden to the people. Would they take that risk--and, say, Diebold the South Carolina primary (100% totally non-transparent voting system), to give him a boost against Hillary, just to enjoy the mid-wrestling, and to be able to hoot and holler as the Democratic Party destroys itself?
There is something genuine about Obama that cannot be denied. Even if you don't trust Ted Kennedy (--and I don't trust him 100%, frankly, because he's never said anything about the voting machines). But Obama would not be the first relatively honest politician who got used by the bad guys to, ultimately, promote the bad guys' goals. (John Kerry comes to mind.)
We are reduced to reading entrails, trying to figure out what's really going on with our government. We have been made easy prey to confusion and paranoia, as we ride the rollercoaster of hope, from stolen election to stolen election. As I said, I DON'T KNOW if this women vs. blacks nightmare manipulation is reality or not. But it is certainly telling that we don't know, and can't know. It is, in fact, appalling--that the votes are 'counted' by mystery electronics, out of of public view, that the corporate "news" cannot be trusted on any matter, and that what the people want (for instance, 60+ to 70% opposed to the war and wanting it ended--an unprecedented, epochal anti-war majority) is simply not relevant, while the cost of a presidential candidate's hairdo, or whether they're showing tits, or where they go to church, fills the headlines and the airwaves.
We don't know, and can't know--and that is the problem.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
