RANGER AGAINST WAR: Presto Chango <

Monday, February 11, 2008

Presto Chango


All change is not growth,
as all movement is not forward

--Ellen Glasgow


No person is your friend (or kin) who demands
your silence, or denies your right to grow and be perceived
as fully blossomed as you were intended
--Alice Walker
_____________

Lest conservatives charge a liberal bias to the media, one need only read the top papers in the MSM to get a sense of the hack work going on at the expense of the democratic party.

Issues
and platforms have given way to momentum. Hillary is being labeled a spoiler, one supposes for not graciously conceding the race, a la Jackie Kennedy, to Oprah's presumptive candidate. The prattle I have heard on NPR recently makes me think my fellow Americans are not very smart. Style trumps substance on the political catwalk.

Today at an Obama rally, a 66-year-old woman said Obama had "a new face," and made her think that the Camelot of her day might be resurrected anew with his candidacy. Another woman said she liked Hillary, but she "just couldn't trust Bill. " To do what, one wonders?


Bill is not running for anything. For that matter, was he not an acceptable President those eight years? We hear that Hillary is one Clinton too much, yet we did not hear the same when the W ran after Bush
pere.

While the culture vultures have exhausted themselves over Hillary's coldness / over-emotionalism; fashion androgyny / too-much cleavage; too much something, too little something else,
they have been falling over themselves to show that all things Obama excel.

NPR also reported this weekend how refreshing it was to see Obama's wife campaign in a tank top -- "
a tank top!" they reiterated, gushing how great it was to see a candidate's wife who actually showed arms, back and neck. Paste the tank top on Hillary and imagine the response. "Shameless panderer/skank/trying to look 20 years younger. . ." Sorry, this smacks of the worst racism in my book.

The implication is that blacks enjoy more bodily freedom, and we all know how well their women score on self-acceptance surveys, loving their bodies even if they are overweight, not obsessed with the pinched up little white woman Barbie focus on that "last five pounds."


We tamped Hillary down when she was seen as too sassy, stepping too far out of the feminine metier. Now we have Michelle Obama, no creme puff she, and one can imagine her during her campaign stumping every bit the harridan Clinton is claimed to be. But on Michelle Obama it works, because, well, she's expected to be loud and mouthy? Racism, even if it makes for acceptability of the stereotype, is still racism.


Here's my theory:
a look around television programs will show the movement of formerly marginalized characters to the center. 300-pounder Hurley is the beloved center of the (non-)reality show Lost, and any number of tatooed, pierced and/or minorities hold respected positions in crime labs, law firms and hospitals, usually commanding the former leaders -- older white men. This move resonates with a large number in the viewing audience.


Obama's biological father was a former goat herder who left the family after two years. This is not to denigrate goat herders, certainly not goat herders who make it to Harvard. I'm just saying this shunning of familial responsibility resonates with a large portion of the electorate who are themselves products of broken homes, be they on the receiving end of the treatment or liberals who sympathize with it.

Obama's background exemplifies the best and worst we are capable of. If this qualification were adequate argument for holding the office of president, I'd be inclined to vote Obama, too. But it is not. Candidate's platforms matter. In a way that style and origin does not.

In Obama's melange, he really is everyman. Kind of like Tom Hanks in the world of actors; he may not be the best, but he appeals to the most.

For an ego-centered electorate who believe in fairy tales, he is the logical choice.

Labels: , , , ,

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lisa
Obama has been endorsed by Paul Volcker and Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, which makes me take him seriously. Paul Volcker actually knows what goes on behind the scenes to make our world work. Jim Moran is one of the few politicians who has had the courage to note the influence of the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC) and has paid a price for doing so. No one in either party is going to get close to really talking about the diverging interests of Israel and the U.S. but I think that Obama is at least one step farther away from the Jewish lobby than Clinton is.
There must be more to Obama than fairy tales if these guys are endorsing him.

Monday, February 11, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Kevin, it's more like enlightened self-interest than endorsement.As you point out these are power players behind the scenes AND this is exactly what democracy is supposed to be about. Of,by, and for the people or we the people does not suppose hidden movers and shakers.
What does 'make our world work" mean?Ranger doesn't believe that our world is working at a level thatr benefits the average American citizen.It benefits thoise behind the scenes and that's my disconnect with political parties on both sides ot the aisle.
If anybody takes the US one step farther from the Jewish lobby it will surely be one sympathetic to Islamic rhetoric.The son of a goat herder will fill the bill.,hell it worked in the Bible so why not in the 08 elections?
It's great to have a savior on the horizon.
To be perfectly clear Ranger does not endorse any candidate nor does he feel that either party reflects the values of everyday working and struggling Americans.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 10:38:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Kevin, continued comment.
You talk of the diverging interests of Isreal and the US.Well thats just peachy keen considering the US kisses Saudi ass and supports an Iraq and Afghanistan that have nothing to do with US interests .The US supports every tin horn dictator in the Stan countries and thats ok , but support of Isreal is somehow wrong. This is absurdist and totally schizophrenic as is our policies in the region.
Get a grip. Ranger Jim

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,
Our neo-cons, Podhoretz, Pearl ,Feith, Kristol etc. (the ones who wanted to invade Iraq before 9-11) and who seem to be controlling our foreign policy through the American Enterprise Institute are closely linked to the right wingers in Israel (LIkud).
A big chunk of Israels economy is it's own military industrial complex which has links to ours (Pearl, etc). A military solution to the Middle East problem may not work but it's certainly profitable for some. AIPAC is a right wing lobbying group (promoting Likud interests in the U.S.) which doesn't represent the majority of American Jews (see Tikkun magazine website).
The citizens of Israel are divided on this as well and the American Jewish Lobby doen't necessarily represent their interests either. Not all Israeli's think that our war to remake the Middle East is making them safer or will lead to peace.
Stepping away from the Neo-cons and AIPAC who believe in a military solution to the problems in the Middle East is not the same thing as stepping towards the Islamists. I'm a Zinni fan.
Concerning what "make our world work" means:
My view is that the average citizen (like me) is completely out of the loop as far as knowing what is actually going on in the world. We don't have accesss to the upper layers where decisions are really made. We don't know who the players are, what they are doing , or why. The real decision makers in our society (and most others) are those with enough money to have a seat at the table.
I personally don't know anyone in this category.
Paul Volcker has run the sausage factory.
I've come to believe that the scene in the movie "Network" where the businessman tells Howard Beale that there are no countries anymore, just the flow of money, is the reality of the world we live in. Multi national interests run our world. I'm starting to think that it's only chumps like me who think that "what is good for America" is still a relevant concept. We seem to be concerned about how things "should" be. Other people (practical business types) are going full steam ahead with the way things "are", following the money no matter where it takes them. Preserving the American middle class is not where the money is right now, though I think that a lot of business people will realize too late that their economic well being is tied to the sinking middle class.
What does the cow in the barn know of the financial decisions of the farmer?

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 1:08:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

kevin,

I agree that read all the papers we might, we lack for a holistic view of the machinations of the multi-national players.

I cannot see where the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have helped the cause of Israeli security. Realpolitik would indicate Saddam's Iraq vs. Iran was a better situation for them.

I think this is a good statement:

"I think that a lot of business people will realize too late that their economic well being is tied to the sinking middle class."

The middle class are the forgottens today.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:13:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

kevin,

Quick follow-on: the neo-cons do not love Israel so much as they do securing power through their fundamentalist base. For GWB, I think there is more than a little apocalyptic romantic vision involved.

He is, after all, helping to hasten the end days, as his Good Book explains them.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:16:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,
Both of my parents grew up on farms in Indiana.
I am the son of swine herds, cow herds and goat herds. I've got a picture of my father as a boy with his goat. If Obamas father was a goat herd this doesn't bother me or affect any opinions I may form about Obama.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:50:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

kevin,

It doesn't bother us in the least, either. Both Obama and his father graduated Harvard, which is a better school than I could manage.

My position is certainly not reached from a position of elitism, as you should know by reading us. The question I pose is one of media packaging.

Obama is presented as everyman, and he and everyone attached to him can do no wrong. Hillary is his alter ego, and a lightening rod for all we wish to escape from. As the Guardian points out, Obama literally looks different and so offers a "change", but is he different?

This media frenzy for a "new day" is based upon appearances, and we seem to have lost sight of the issues, like the economy, which are far behind on the shore, trumped by sexier issues of hearkening back to days of yore, of Camelot. . .

With a 50/50 congressional split, even Launcelot himself couldn't effect much of a change.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 5:37:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comments are informtive but this has come down to an Awards Show and yes it's the beloved media fault they can now longer do their job of reporting it all about who wearing what, haircuts and what ever. Sad. The Amerika public have been dumb down, this what it's come to. As Ranger pointed out the players in the back ground are either for looks or are the ones that will have a say in the next Govt. I for one won't trust any one who was at U of I and then went on the H.
jo6pac

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:00:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

jo,

Sadly, yes--we've seen a tremendous dumbing down in all the media over the last 30 years or so. You'd think people would be embarrassed to be a party to such fashion horse races.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"This media frenzy for a "new day" is based upon appearances, and we seem to have lost sight of the issues,"

I think it was Noam Chomsky who called it "manufactured consent".

It's a beauty show for sure but what bothers me is how the media has taken out the minor candidates who elevated the debates and brought up the issues. Of course the media owners have their own agendas and aside from their political agendas, I guess the big one is ratings. Probably won't be long before we see Jerry Springer moderating the next Hillary Obama debate!

tw

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 11:32:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

tw,

Thanks for mentioning Chomsky. As Malcolm X said, “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.

Silencing the rest of the candidates is criminal, and that has made into the media coronation it is, focusing on the minutiae of each human vs. the issues confronting our country.

America, the superficial. The producers of "Jerry Springer: the Opera" understand.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 9:31:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home