Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The troubling part of Obamamania

By

I came across this quote from a Blog running on the Huffignton post

It has to be said and I will say it. Barack Obama is THE candidate that has been truly touched by the Lord. Do I mean the Lord of Jesus, no, the Lord of Muhammad no. I mean that Lord of Lords that looks over us all. Barack fulfills all the Native American prophecies of the return of the Aztecs Quetzalcoatl, the Hopis Return of the Lost Brother. I could go on but after the birth of that White Buffalo Calf that all Lakota were waiting for a little while ago I knew it was the time. Barack you are the man that Black Elk saw in his vision. You shall lead us to world peace.

Now I do admit this is an extreme example of it but it brings to light that there is still an aura of deification surrounding the Obama bandwagon. Barack can fix this. Barack can bring us together. Barack is the one.  Barack is the future. As of yet no one has turned up a You Tube clip of him walking on water. It is why when things like the recent heath care mailer that is reminiscent of the attacks on Hillary care back in 93 leave some of us with a ” Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”  feeling like when Dorothy and company discovered the truth behind the great and powerful wizard.

I find Barack to be an intelligent, charismatic and affable man with great potential but the problem is when you put someone up on a pedestal made of sand the waves of time quickly wash it away.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. From The Oracle, I mean, Oprah’s endorsement speech:

    <

    p>

    Winfrey said, “For the very first time in my life, I feel compelled to stand up and to speak out for the man who I believe has a new vision for America,” and told the audience of 15,000 said, “I am here to tell you, Iowa, he is the one. He is the one!”

  3. People have been saying about his supporters, that they’re often of the “you do it” variety… excited about the candidate thinking he can solve their problems, not realizing that it’s going to take their continued participation in the process before anyone gets anything done. Except, I’m not so sure people would like that process when they realize he’s not as liberal as they’d like to believe.

    • The other team doesn’t seem to have any problem identifying Obama as a liberal.  The National Journal even seems to think he is the ‘most liberal’ Senator based on his voting record.

      <

      p>I think you’d have trouble supporting the ‘you do it’ supporters opinion, too – and Obama’s success in caucus states thus far would rather suggest that his supporters are in fact often comprised of the ‘get out and organize’ variety.

      <

      p>Let’s not try to characterize the candidates by the nuttiest of their supporters.  It’s stupid; all of the candidates will have their own loonies.  

      • His rhetoric, for starters.

        <

        p>His health care plan is far less progressive, in my view, both in terms of how it’ll deal with HMOs and the lack of a public health insurance option.

        <

        p>In most cases, Hillary and Obama are very similar on the issues, but I will say that Hillary is running a little bit to the left of him – IMO. The fact that Democrats tend to support Hillary, while Independents are swaying toward Barack – at least in many of the states so far – is reflective of the fact that many of the party liberals are swinging Hillary’s way.

        <

        p>Finally, while I agree with you that a lot of the ‘get out the vote’ types are swinging Obama’s way, that’s sort of what I was talking about… these are many of the people who want to push to get him elected, but aren’t going to be there when he’s actually in office. Ya, Obama got them to “Check Back In,” as Deval would say, but they’re not going to check in when it really counts – getting Washington to pass progressive legislation. Like it or not, it’s the party activists who tend to do that (even if they’re fighting each other half the time)… and, as I’ve already suggested, Democrats are trending Hillary.

        • I’ve heard this many times and just don’t get it.

          <

          p>from Obama’s plan:

          Obama’s Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

          • Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
          • Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
          • Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
          • Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
          • Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
          • Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
          • Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
          • Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

          <

          p>from Clinton’s plan:

          The American Health Choices Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.

          • The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive: Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same menu of quality private insurance options that their Members of Congress receive through a new Health Choices Menu, established without any new bureaucracy as part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare.
          • A Guarantee of Quality Coverage: The new array of choices offered in the Menu will provide benefits at least as good as the typical plan offered to Members of Congress, which includes mental health parity and usually dental coverage.

          <

          p>The “public option” in both plans is buying in to a private insurance plan (whether through for-profit or non-profit providers, though I think a key should be to push for this plan to go through non-profit groups) negotiated and subsidized by the federal government instead of one’s employer. This makes it portable and affordable: at the core these are the same plans. The only real difference is the issue of personal mandate, and I think the dangers out-weigh the benefits at the federal level, as it risks creating a regressive tax where the poor are fined and still don’t get health care. Obama’s plan may have a less solid fiscal foundation because of this, but the federal government is more flexible to absorb this than at the state level. I think the federal plan needs to take into account the facts here in Massachusetts in how to balance this part of it.

          <

          p>The other stuff about rhetoric etc are important, and I disagree with a lot of it, but can’t point to facts to back it up, and don’t feel like addressing right now. BUT, on the issue of the health care plans, I just don’t buy the argument that Hillary’s plan is more progressive than Barack, and if anything, an argument can be made that the mandate makes it less progressive.

          • Because that’s a mandatory program. And it works.  It relieved the abject poverty conditions of the elderly in our country.

            <

            p>Everybody buys in, so everybody is covered.

            <

            p>The Republicans tried to make Social Security voluntary because they knew that that would make it harder to cover everyone for it.  Voluntary programs won’t cover everyone, and what kind of progressive thinks there should be people in America who have to worry about choosing between medical care and heating oil?

            <

            p>Obama said in 2004, There are some things we do better together.  I don’t know why he doesn’t say health care is one of those things.

            <

            p>The idea that everyone must chip in to the healthcare systems is “punishment” is a Republican stance.  From a progressive view, we ALL chip in for the common good.  Obama is running to the right of Hillary, and this is absurd when you consider just how dispirited and disorganized the conservative movement now is.

        • Please, let’s not disconnect from reality entirely.  MoveOn.org just endorsed Obama following a 70% vote of its membership.  And the dean of the liberal wing of the Democratic party, Ted Kennedy, just endorsed Obama.  

          <

          p>It’s working class Democrats who have been breaking for Hillary (think Manchester, NH).

          • getting invited to George Bush’s annual fundraising dinner for Republican congressmen.  In fact, anyone in the Democratic party is pretty liberal compared to most of the rest of the country.  

            • Jim McGovern back in May 2007.  Barney in November 2007.  Their endorsements don’t speak to what’s been happening recently, which looks to me like what Howard Dean called the “democratic wing of the Democratic party” unifying around Obama.

              • That the rest of us in the Democratic party aren’t “democratic?”  And because McGovern and Frank endorsed early – it means what exactly?  What has happened recently to negate the importance of those endorsements?  And I really look forward to hearing that you mean by the “democratic wing of the Democratic Party,” given my thirty years with the party.  

                • About how liberals are breaking.  Someone cited Frank and McGovern to dispute that they are heading to Obama, but those two aren’t really relevant to the question of how liberals are breaking now since they endorsed many moons ago.  Speculation’s all moot now anyway, we’ll find out tomorrow after the voting’s done.

      • …the example I used is an extreme one hence your statement

        <

        p>

        Let’s not try to characterize the candidates by the nuttiest of their supporters.  It’s stupid; all of the candidates will have their own loonies.    

        <

        p> but it is not stupid to question  the larger starry eye optimism (and believe me I have no objection to optimism) of  the aura of Barack. Yes Yes Yes we are all ready for something a whole lot better than 8 years of “W” (speaking of “W”MD’s) but keeping ones feet squarely planted on the ground isn’t a bad quality either. To keep my metaphors intact remember,  Kansas and not the Emerald city was the Goal.

Archives