Why Obama Matters

by Andrew Sullivan

The most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama — and Obama alone — offers the possibility of a truce.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

lord knows these are crazy times when i find myself saying that andrew sullivan hits the nail on the f&%king head...

these scorched earth, single issue win at all costs politics need to stop...sorry boomers, but it is time for you to grow up and step aside and let the next generation take over the show.

edited to add: it is easy for someone to attack this article by shooting the messenger. i ask that if you don't agree with what is said than refute it based on what it is, not by who wrote it. thank you.

for many of the issues that face us....interesting because America would not be what it today with the the baby boom generation would it? Those baby boomers helped shape this country and it is foolish to think that we can turn our backs on them in the supposed name of progress.

Those baby boomers possess a wealth of knowledge that can't be ignored....

Andrew Says...
<snip>
It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama — and Obama alone — offers the possibility of a truce.
<snip>

If this is the case then WHY did Obama pander to the religous factions? Is that not of the same ilk that we are experiencing with *?

Obama should be saying if there is a Tax Paying American...then those Americans should be afforded the rights as everyone else. See that's taking stand.....

Oh and let's not forget Andrew Sullivan supported the current Administration even after the writing was on the wall. Every now and then he speaks like he gets it but then he resorts to pandering to the very people that hate him...sorry but I don't get it.

and yes Obama has many likeable characteristics....

I am having a problem with some of his recent decision making....he picked the piece of work McClurkin to accompany him...when there were thousands of other gospel singers available...why this guy, why a so called former gay? Who was he trying to send a message to?

And now he is getting involved with the tit for tat kind of politics we are all so sick of...is this good judgement.

Yes he voted against the war...yes he did other good things. But the above issue impacts me directly...and as they say the proof is in the pudding....at this point....I am looking at the other candidates...

and what other candidates did or what they didn't do...which was basically the point of the article

i am 22 years old and i've seen the generation in charge for the last almost 20 years ruin this country. i am tired of the fighting. i am tired of the partisanship and the bickering and the picking sides.

the 2008 election is very much about the future of America. it doesn't make sense for us to turn back the clock in order to look towards the future. the baby boomers have had their chance, and quite frankly this country no longer "belongs" to them, in the greater sense. those with power seldom give it up when they should or when they can do so gracefully. the boomer generation needs to give up their power and bestow it to a younger generation, the generation that represents the future of this country.

i am willing to overlook individual things for the sake of the bigger picture. i think it is a bad idea when a make or break attitude is applied to single issues. sort of that he who is without sin cast the first stone sort of thing...

maybe i'm just an uppity youngster. but maybe i'm right.

I think he may overstate the case in thinking that the schism is quite so generational. Those who are twenty today don't have the Vietnam war or Woodstock. But they still divide along many of the issues that divide the boomers.

:hippie:

the one year i spent in college was during the 2004 election season and i worked for a couple different organizations...the venom was maddenining

But for some reason there's this new meme out there that portrays Boomers as united in goal and purpose. If that was true, this would be a LOT more tolerant and sensible country today. But there's always been a divide in our generation between the kids who "did get it" and the kids who"didn't" and that is as true for Gen X , Gen Y and Gen Echo.

Why this sudden need to portray the Boomers as monolithic and negative? They voted republican in roughly the same numbers as any other demographic. The same is true for the "Greatest Generation" or former grunge rockers.

No I suspect this is part of another effort by the neocons to take down Social Security, now that Boomers are starting to collect.

:hippie:

But he thinks the division within the boomer generation is particularly poisonous, and something America needs to get past. It's an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure I fully agree with it.

:hippie:

you have to step back and be objective to see it. We suck when it comes to governing. We are a generation that did a very bad job of leading and growing up.

I don't think Obama is the promised one as Andrew Sullivan is seeming to imply. The "culture wars" are not something the post war generation has conjured up. It's reality. As for "growing up," I think acknowledging the fact that there are real differences in this country that are not going to be erased until laws are made that protect the constitutional rights of all people in this country is a more "grown up" view than believing a charismatic leader is somehow going to bring every one together.

In 1954, Eisenhower said that Repubs who wanted to get rid of Social Security and gut labor regulations were a small, stupid minority. The result of that small, stupid minority continuing to hammer away on those issues for years is that now even fawking so-called Democrats like Rahm Emmanuel and Harold Ford are willing to put SS privatization "on the table".

Now why in fucking hell can't Dems start doing the same for generally popular initiatives like really ending the war, having real universal health care and fair trade?

This is Obama's appeal, reduced to its essence.

As MLK, Jr said (quoting someone else, I think) "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." Sullivan says to just screw everyone who has ever been involve in that fight for full equality for everyone, everywhere, no exceptions. No need to fight or get confrontational--we got civil rights laws by not offending bigots, right?

The following excerpts are from Laura Flanders' book Blue Grit--



Obama is imitating Kerry in this respect. Sullivan wants to join the dwindling crowd on the wrong side of history.

edit to add this (i am not standing up for sullivan, other than this...just felt it necessary to point this out)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sullivan#Same-sex_marriage

and bookmark this and read it later because you posted it and I like you. He can be an interesting read even though i can't stand him and rarely agree with him.

back to my movie..

edited to say: the only reason i said that was because i didn't think it made sense to attack a pro-gay marriage person (as far as everything i've seen from him) for not being pro-gay marriage

which will pretty much be my only defense of sullivan here...

I guess it's the new "triangulation", Obama-style.

What's next - Pat Buchanan on "Better Obama than a filthy New Mex like Richardson"?

I say, let them be flogged, doing as Obama says!

You know, everybody being entitled to basic rights, as in "everybody in, nobody out."

Quoting a self-hating gay man who cast his lot with * and the disgusting GOP "All 9/11, All The Time" bullshit is beyond the pale.

You don't like posters attacking the messenger? Well, you must have a short fucking memory because this craven, depraved asshole described those of us who opposed this illegal, fascist war:

"decadent left enclaves on the coasts may well mount a fifth column"


Defend this piece of garbage, your newfound pundit favorite. Please, I beg of you....defend this piece of human filth because I would love to show you how he would sell you out, just as he has sold his own kind out, time and time again.

and attacking the messenger is the easy way out

anyone could've written this and it would still be right. way to completely prove the point.

that is all i will say.

Post something written by Andrew Sullivan and I don't care if it's King Fucking Lear, Part II....you should be ashamed of yourself propping up filth written by a misanthropic opportunist who described you and me and most other people on this board as traitors.

Do you get it? Traitors. I don't take that shit lightly and I don't forget. Sully may have seen the light and eased up on his ways, but I will never, NEVER forgive him for calling decent patriotic Americans traitors.

Sorry to hijack this thread but man I hate Sullivan and I love a good rant on his sorry ass.

:D

he insisted on printing excerpts from "the Bell Curve"in it. You know the book, the one that claimed african americans are genetically dumber than white folk. THAT caused quite a stir. He never claimed to agree with it, just thought it should be considered for debate. :shrug:

I suspect the OP realizes how vile Sullivan is,maybe not to the degree that you or I realize. many gay folk have a special, intense loathing of him.

The day Andrew Sullivan says something nice about me is the day I run off the nearest, closest pier.

the bell curve? that's a new one.

and yeah, sullivan isn't the best of people, to put it lightly. i guess even a broken clock is right twice a day or something like that? :shrug:

am i right to assume that the special, intense loathing is because of his bareback nonsense (to once again put it very lightly)?

gay brethen while at the same time he had a personal ad on barebackcity.com (now shut down) where he was advertising for bareback sex. He is HIV+. He claims he was only willing to have unprotected sex with other HIV+ guys and he was up front about his HIV status in his personal ad but STILL he could have spared the rest of us evil librul homos the lecture. he is into his catholicism big time.


this article prints out to 13 pages. DAMN!!

i can't even imagine the viciousness of the in-his-head-fighting that consumes all of sullivan's various identities...just the basic facts about the guy make his inconsistency and hypocrisy unsurprising


an extreme and completely inappropriate analogy: piece of shit david duke is against the iraq war. so am i. but that does not make me a david duke fan, we just happen to agree on something. that is sort of where i am coming from with my enthusiasm for this sullivan article...(and the only reason i'm writing that to you is cause i know you won't respond with venom...though i know your problems with obama. after cooling down and spending a couple days away from this damn place i regret many of the things i said in his defense re: the mcclurkin fiasco. but as this point, obama's still my guy and i hope he wins)

The whole age war concept is pithy and unwashed. I know plenty of people in their 60s who are much more alive and loving life than some 20 year olds.

Age is absolutely relative to the person.

as it is easy to generalize...and i will admit i am prone to general and sometimes inflammatory comments

imho, it is more a concept of turning over a new leaf sort of thing...like a parent raising their child and taking care of them to the point where they are ready to take care of themselves and control their own lives. in this case, the boomer generation has been raising obama's generation (and mine) to stand on their own two feet and take care of themselves. now that they (we) are capable of such, it is time for "them" to face the reality (and gravity) of the situation and set us free.

that is probably a bad analogy...but no one has ever accused me of being the best writer...

and i guess, for what it's worth, my boomer dad sent me this article and agrees with it as much as i do (and he's definitely more alive at 56 than some 20 year olds)

Pathetic.

As an early (almost pre-) boomer, it is undeniable that the polarization of Vietnam and Civil Rights continues to embroil and embitter our generation. We wanted to crystalize change but our heroes were ripped from us and our potential for greatness has been as elusive as smoke. Obama represents a great leap out of the cesspool of boomer and pre-boomer politics, with the potential for catapulting us beyond the seemingly never-ending divide. The last two paragraphs of the essay wrap up what I have deeply felt but have been unable to put into words. Here it is:

Clinton’s most surprising asset has been the sense of security she instills. Her husband—and the good feelings that nostalgics retain for his presidency—have buttressed her case. In dangerous times, popular majorities often seek the conservative option, broadly understood.

"The paradox is that Hillary makes far more sense if you believe that times are actually pretty good. If you believe that America’s current crisis is not a deep one, if you think that pragmatism alone will be enough to navigate a world on the verge of even more religious warfare, if you believe that today’s ideological polarization is not dangerous, and that what appears dark today is an illusion fostered by the lingering trauma of the Bush presidency, then the argument for Obama is not that strong. Clinton will do. And a Clinton-Giuliani race could be as invigorating as it is utterly predictable.

But if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama. "

it seems to me the catalyst for all of this was the death of JFK...we've been going downhill ever since

even just a year ago if you told me that i would find myself enthusiastically agreeing with anything that andrew sullivan had to say i would've had you committed...but i cannot agree more with this article, especially those paragraphs you singled out

:thumbsup:

I know we're not supposed to blame the messenger, but there are times the messenger is relevant.

One of the worst things I know about Obama is that Sullivan supports him. Sullivan is the second most consistently wrong person I know of. (Tucker Carlson is a narrow first)

Sullivan is fantastically wrong, all the time. He falls for every transparent fad. When Sully says something is deep you know it's trivial. He seizes on bright objects that appeal to his narrowest vanity and self-interest.

He supported every single step of the development of fascism in America 2000-2003, then magically turned against Bush when Sully decided he wanted to marry his boyfriend... then he was all about gay marriage and fuck the war on terror. So he voted for Kerry after calling liberals (like Kerry) presumptive al queda supporters, traitors in the defining war of the next thousand years, or whatever...

He opposes universal health care because he believe the drug companies needed high profits to develop his AIDS drugs. Fuck the millions of people who don't get any drugs at all... Sully keeps proclaiming that only private medicine could provide the profits to keep HIM alive.

The man has a nice writing style, but the content is a predictable mix of the conventional wisdom and a strangely naive bitter selfishness.

and I don't enjoy or care about his "support"

he could come out with something tomorrow saying he made a big mistake and that Obama is actually the devil reincarnate.

but this article, this specific article, is 100% accurate no matter what direction the author goes. i believe the stakes are too high to click our heels together in an attempt to transport ourselves back to the 90's.

we need to move forward, not backwards...

at your fundraiser?

That's so 1996.

Would that have been more in line with what you think of Sullivan?

I mean, seriously, wasn't Sullivan all for the Iraq War, just like Hillary was?
So, wouldn't she have been the candidate he would have supported other than any other Democrat candidate this time around, except maybe Edwards?

Also, who do you think Christopher Hitchens will endorse?
He was all gung ho for the Iraq war, too.

Maybe Sullivan just doesn't want to be responsible for so many more unnecessary deaths in Iraq, now that it is obvious we can't win in Iraq.

and spoke about Democrats now all of a sudden Andrew has credibility? HELL NO! Just because Andrew is gay does not give him any special powers and remember this is the same andrew sullivan that voted for bush....uh huh such a standup guy....

Ben David

Friend to "ex-gay" clown gospel singers, so Bareback Andy is now a credible source. I look forward to the post of Ann Coulter's lukewarm endorsement of Obama because he/she's up for a little Jungle Fever.

he endorsed kerry in 2004 (he also endorsed bill clinton in 1992). was he wrong about that?

just because sullivan is wrong pretty much all of the time doesn't mean he's not right about this.

but this isn't about him, this is about obama, and this article is dead on. sullivan can go to hell, but i'm keep this article up here with me.

I don't know about the "culture" part of it, but Obama's attacked the plurality of this country on the last two: the gospel shows in South Carolina are cold-blooded, calculated playings of both the race and religion cards.

If what Sullivan means is that Obama's quelling the divisiveness of religion by slathering christianity far and wide to such a degree that one feels decidedly unwelcome in his big revival tent without it, then I guess he's got a point: agree or don't belong, hence no divisiveness.

Trying to remind the crowds in South Carolina that he's "one of them" is hardly a unifying move; it's precisely the opposite.

Then there's the McClurkin crap. That's just infuriating: playing up to a big constituency's inherent bigotry and then deflecting and minimalizing the whole thing is such clumsy politickin' and callousness that it makes one's head swim.

For all the hoopla about inclusiveness, he's driven an awful lot of wedges. The again, he DOES want to be like Lincoln...

:spray:

I almost choked on my Boca breakfast wrap because of you!

Who needs enemies?

with Bareback Andy as the source. :crazy: I remember during the last primary season for the 2004 presidential elections right wing sources were not allowed. I guess that was because the sources usually TRASHED our candidates. These are interesting times when a wing nut asshole praises one of our candidates.

Is that when John Avarosis did a piece against Obama he was a "Racist SOB" and nothing was said of what Avarosis actually wrote. But now we're not supposed to say anything about Sullivan, but merely critique the piece. Isn't that special?

I don't trust Andrew Sullivan as far as I could throw him. I wouldn't be trumpeting what Andrew Sullivan around here, that's for sure.

He's certainly nobody to crow about.

Sullivan correctly identifies what makes Bush the worst president since Nixon: the attacks on the Constitution and civil liberty, his and Cheney's attempt to expand the power of the presidency above the law, and the Iraq war.

:hippie:

Any war.

Obama has used supposed opposition to Iraq to benefit his campaign, but he's supported that war in the senate from the time he took office up until the most recent funding bill, where he and HRC suddenly "switched." Big surprise.

While he couches it in soothing "last resort" rhetoric, he's willing to go into Iran. He already said he'd go into Pakistan unilaterally.

I don't see any end to war under an Obama administration, and that's one of the big reasons why Obama matters to the U.S.: his nomination or presidency would continue to leave war as a tool of foreign policy on the table.

Obama matters because he is part of, and would continue, what is WRONG with the U.S..

:kick: