In the great snarling mass of people who want to please, who can’t help but say they want to please, who seem to be able to please, a man presents himself as the candidate of the people and for reasons unknown to me, he displeases me. As an independent who may vote in the November election, I have heard a lot about the “Obama base,” one which is youth-oriented or aged no more than 35. The younger voter is a delicate base, I think, because they move uneasily through life for years 18-25, have massive loads of debt, have more than politics on their mind, and, when it comes to the actual time to act – as in getting out to vote – the dorms and hang-overs might be more likely to kick in rather than the comfortable computer lounge which has produced “Obama mania”. What is discomforting about the ever growing need for a defined issue to replace the maniacal White House Diva, and the inevitability of doing it soon, is the fact that Obama is a back-slider and a difficult person to define. He’s been lauded as an “intellectual”, has the bona fides to be that, but he presents some very unappealing messages that make my grasp of what is real actually is intellectualized to the point of obscurity. He presents himself as a non-racist. Almost every voter willing to be “socially acceptable” reflects that presentation, and is careful not to fly into the unreasonable zone of politically incorrect. If Obama were not somewhat “black” or African American, how often could his demeanor be so presentable as really “non-racist”? It’s a question. Put that one aside, and there’s an awful sense that we’re leaning toward the Supreme Court Decision allowing for unequal treatment of alternate color, e.g., lighter, most often called “white” put behind the darker one. But equal opportunity is well beyond Obama’s followers. It was interesting to note how Obama faired in the Kentucky vote: Clinton seized the entire Eastern part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and Obama only got the parcels of “intellectual” chum (about 100,000 in all) near the Universities of Louisville, and Kentucky (Frankfort). Here, as we examine the disparity of votes (Clinton got nearly 600,000 KY votes), there’s an odd message. The Obamaclan believe that the underclass, which are actually of poor Irish-Scott-Anglo origin, settled the East, and South, but their roots aren’t necessarily “racist”. It’s hard to figure how much an advantage the new “intellectual” is coming from, because no matter how it’s dumbed down, the reality of racial context is ethnocentric; where I live says what I want but also is my soul and well-being. In Eastern Kentucky, in the mountains, there’s a love of “clogging”, a fanciful dance that lingers from it’s Anglo-Euro origin. It’s the thing that some people live for, but it’s not really a pandemic of racism, but defines souls. It is hard to imagine that Obama, who didn’t visit Kentucky, would appear as anything but “antithetical” to the Easterner in Kentucky; in fact, if their racism is any less than Obama’s shun of them, which is a form of racism, how can I express what Obama defines? Do you imagine that power will change Obama and his followers, or is the present focus on the faux Presidential “shield” where the “intellegent” vangard is heading? Symbols of power, especially before the power is granted, is historically a misjudgement of the massive erosion of leadership, and we have learned those lessons. Obama tends to distract the intellectual whose haven is the American University, where reality is nothing but imagination waiting to create an illusion from inside the gates which are always insular, idealistic, and often outside of the real world. If you’ve ever taught at University level, it’s impossible to imagine there’s actually a real world out here. I suppose that all votes are regional, but when the Louisville/Lexington vote comparative is used against the “regionalist vote”, I think there’s a picture of who can’t be the next President of the United States. To get that point, and raise it to a level of reason, you simply have to recall other generations of voters. In 1994, the November voters cast out the Democrats, and this was no different from an old fashion South American junta, for it was a so-called “silent majority” that sprang the revolution. There’s a silent majority now. No need to wonder why Mississippi votes “democrat” in primaries, and this thrills Obama’s supporters, but Mississippi won’t vote Democrat in November. It’s Republican. That won’t change with Obama. Iowa is a bad example for any Presidential candidate because they can’t quite know who the voters are. They are farmers. There’s only ONE University in Iowa, but lots of small private colleges. It’s cold. It’s literate. But it’s hardly a reflection of a healthy choice of Presidential selection, and it is lilly “white”, which is “non-racist” just by representational popular vote. But all the above is just a narrow slip opinion of what the Obama vote will bring. Should Isreal decide to bomb Iran and repeat it’s 1981 “target removal” act, Obama will look silly against the authoritative McCain. His lack of experience, his anti-war position, his willingness to take a unilateral approach to Iran in negotiation(s) – hardly a likely event – is squished if Isreal, as I believe it will do, takes out the heavy water facility thereby throwing the entire middle-east into turmoil. The Obama “intellectuals” may have to worry about a draft deferral in lieu of the right face at the right time in the White House. The Isreali issue is not moot. As the summer ends, as the political front heats up, as Bush gets weaker (if that’s possible), the time for Isreali action against Iran will invariably kick off a mind-boggling confrontation which will not only cast the reality of “racism” declaratives in the tank, but will entirely re-vamp the landscape of real life politics in a real world of threat and harm. Obama worries about presenting himself behind a Presidentially framed “shield”, and tells women to “get over it”, and fall in line. That’s not intelligence. It’s the mindset of hubris and a pride of lambs (not lions). Obama is special, and the line “smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em” must be resurrected along with the up-coming military “surge”, which, if we are truly living in reality, is called “the draft.” -hammish, Brasil.
Tags: Political Pathology
