by Blaine Fridley, Delusional Optimist/Vote Flusher
I admit it. Like many of you, I went through a phase this spring were I was completely gay for Obama. And not just "sorta" gay, either. I mean like "Carson Kressley-getting-teabagged-by-Terry the rollerskating male prostitute from Reno 911-while-watching-The Bird Cage-and-listening-to-the-Grease Soundtrack-laying-on-my-unicorn sheets-and-ordering-from-the-Crate and Barrel catalog-on-my-penis-shaped phone" gay.
Oddly enough, that was right around the time I grew this mustache. But that's neither here nor there.
So why did I find myself so enamored with this youngish senator from Illinois?
That's simple. Because he was offering - come on, everybody say it with me - CHANGE! Very good.
And after 2 terms of the most abject failure in presidential history, well, who wasn't in the mood for A LOT of change?
No doubt about it, it seemed that Sen. Barack Obama offered change in just about every aspect. He could read off of a teleprompter without stumbling over every polysyllabic word. And if, by chance, he did stammer for a split second, he wouldn't get all squinty and engage in a stare-down with the teleprompter, as if the prompter purposely threw in a 4th grade spelling test "challenge word" to make him look like an ass. The more I saw of Obama the more the list just seemed to go on. He was more charming and intelligent, he sold himself as a "uniter" and appeared focused on leading, not blaming or fear mongering. He was inspirational. Charismatic. Calculating-yet-conversational. And yes, he also happened to be our country's first truly viable non-white candidate, which quite honestly was an attractive - albeit shallow - aspect of the Obama candidacy for me.
Basically, the head-to-head comparison between George Dubs and Barack Obama looked something like this:
VS. 
.So, naturally, it was hard not to get excited about Obama.
And then, just as it happened to Anne Heche, the gayness started to wear off
(though in all honesty, Anne, I don't think one should decide whether or not being a lesbian is right for them after a few months of scissoring with Ellen Degeneres...but I digress). After all the initial excitement about having a leader who wouldn't disgrace the nation every time he opened his mouth and the bonus incentive of witnessing the White House 
being painted black (as George Clinton predicted so many years ago in "Chocolate City") subsided, I began to realize something. Our president SHOULD be intelligent, level-headed, stately, diplomatic, charismatic and inspirational. All those things should be expected, not hoped for, damn it.It seems we've been dealing with a worldwide punchline as our president for so long, we wet ourselves at the first sight of a confident, attractive, articulate candidate promising "change", selling optimism and telling us everything we want to hear.
I hate to be the Icy Hot in the lube bottle during the midst of this cross-country Obama circle jerk, but I think everyone needs to relax and take a step back from the rhetoric for a minute. Just exactly how much do people think will change if he becomes president? His refreshing persona aside, what kind of change are we talking about here? It's not as if he's some radical from a super progressive party. He's a heavily funded candidate of the Democratic Party, the same people that brought you John Kerry for fuck's sake.
When it comes down to it, do you think Obama is going to do what's right for this country's majority, or cater to influential constituents that helped get him elected? Would the Democrats really risk damaging the cozy and lucrative relationships they have with special interest groups and big business who donate hundreds of millions of dollars to keep them in office by supporting a candidate who would fight against many of these same entities? I'd like to think so. But probably not.
Republican or Democrat, history says the next president is going to embrace one policy over all others: The Status Quo. Which is to say, keep the top 10% super rich and the other 90% overworked, underpaid and misinformed. And anybody who honestly thinks we'll see fair, single-payer universal healthcare and a full withdrawal from Iraq on Obama's watch might as well vote for McCain. The chances are about the same. ZERO.
For that reason, I've decided to vote for Ralph Nader. Laugh if you want (I've heard plenty already) and pepper me with all those completely ridiculous "it's just a vote for John McCain" threats (it's not), but it's the only vote for true change there is in this election, and I'm going to exercise it. Because the way I see it, a vote for anybody running as part of the Republican/Democrat oligarchy is a wasted one.
Like what you're reading? Pass it on!
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Posts
10 comments:
Dude, that was a seriously funny post. Not just "sorta" gay indeed. But you should consider Bob Barr instead of Nader.
How easy it is to get carried away by a twinkling smile and enthusiastic promise to do better than the last idiot.
In the UK that man was called Tony Blair, and look how that turned out...
"Just exactly how much do people think will change if he becomes president?"
Well, the changes have already begun. Not only does he refuse to accept political donations from Special Interests, PACs and Lobbyists, he has now required the DNC to turn down these donations as well.
"When it comes down to it, do you think Obama is going to do what's right for this country's majority, or cater to influential constituents that helped get him elected?"
I sure HOPE he caters to the constituents who helped get him elected, since they are your average everyday Americans who have donated an average of $50 each.
You REALLY need to get your gay back. Every vote for Nader puts McCain closer to the White House, and we've already had 8 years of it -- enough is enough. Seriously, look at the three candidates and ask yourself, which of these faces do I want riding my jock? The answer is clear.
Oh, and thanks for linking your page to my blog. =)
"Republican or Democrat, history says the next president is going to embrace one policy over all others: The Status Quo."
True enough. I am voting for anarchy, myself. ;)
History proves us that presidents that take chances and ignore the the negative detractors, enspire economic grow, create jobs, built infrastructure, help low income individuals out of poverty, create money for college tuition and increased technical skills education...OBAMA= New Deal Democrat
Obama=Roosevelt.
chirs thomas
Well it is my understanding thru the likes of Noam Chomsky and Walter Karp that what we have here is a two party system that is beholden to special intetrests and their main concern is keeping a lock on power. Period. Dem Rep are both 'neo liberals' 'hands off business'. The dems also have a global expansionist agenda .They will work behind the scene to help elect someone form the opposite party to create the 'illusion ' of choice.
see:http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Walter_Karp/Indispensable%20Enemies.html
this author,the 30 year editor of the 'nation ' magazine was way ahead of the curve in 1973..and is highly regarded by some of by todays nobel laureate political scientists.
That said...there is obviously
some subtle and not so subtle differences between dems and repugs
as evidenced by the gore /bush
ramifications.
so ,no easy answers here..
one must go with a good education and a thorough consideration of the situation
then hold your nose and jump!
and still it is a hard choice to make..
"Blaine," why don't you post some of the pics from gay pride NYC 2004...i'm just sayin'
I just read this, and it makes me damn proud to write for this blog after doing so.
Bravo, Blaine. Nader's a good choice. Here's some more ammo for you:
"... it's not just Obama's war support that should raise our hackles.
Obama supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer health care, supports nuclear energy, opposes a carbon pollution tax, supports the Cuba embargo, and will not end the vast array of federal subsidies to corporations, including those to the oil and gas cartel.
And as the United States economy slides into a deep recession, Barack Obama is promising more of the same, despite his criticism of John McCain’s economic plan. But behind the curtains of Obama's strategy team is the same set of economic troglodytes intellectuals that led us in to our current financial disaster.
Obama's advisory team includes Harvard economist Jeffrey Liebman, a former Clinton adviser, who believes we ought to privatize social security. Then we have the renowned David Cutler, another Harvardite, who believes our economy can be boosted through an increase in privatized health care costs. Writing for New England Journal of Medicine in 2006, Cutler explained, "The rising cost ... of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained."
And that's just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Perhaps all of these issues are aiding the independent candidacy of Ralph Nader, who is consistently polling above 5% nationwide. This, despite a virtual media blackout and very little support among progressives."
From: http://counterpunch.org/frank06112008.html
of cours, vote obama for president.
Post a Comment