Before you crow about Obama's great victory to be, I ask you to take a look at some objective information:
- First a history lesson. To know where the Obama phenomenon comes from you must take a look at this documentary:
The Century of the Self. You can find it on the web through a google search (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2637635365191428174). The four-part series of about one-hour each is one of the great American history lessons. In the entire documentary you will learn why the public relations mentality of the Obama team precludes particulars from its presentation.
Additionally and to see a timely analogue (esp. for the lazy) you can read the March 16th Sunday times for a discussion of the ad man.
The relevant point is that the necessary illusions of the masses are manipulated by the power centers. Consent is manufactured without providing any reasons. This is accomplished through various means, but among others, is the use of complex advertising analysis of the desires of the people. These desires themselves have been reproduced for the benefit of the powerful.
The Reagan and Thatcher maneuvers utilized these same vague framing techniques: We are going to remove the shackles of government from the innovative people and set their creativity loose. Of course this meant that the commons were to be given to the rich, and that we would have no health care nor any other positive good--like education--unless we paid for it ourselves--a condition that they were certain to preclude. Form wins out of content. Advertising sells the product by improving the self-image of the consumer.
No doubt that Clinton and Tony Blair followed suit. That is why we moved away from the left in the Democratic party. I regret to say that Obama's talk of hope means just what Hillary suggests: empty rhetoric. (In her case, I do not think anyone believe great changes are in the offing--just a better situation, less stupidity, and better management than Obama is likely to be able to deliver). The manipulated masses just can't get enough talk of hope and change can we. Meanwhile, health care will be voluntary. He doesn't really mean it; he wants change. The "FREE MARKET" will be allowed to work with regard to the lending crisis, Social Security will be modified to help us (right) and the environment will be improved through innovative market operations. Moreover, you shouldn't worry that the old demo voters (workers and the unsophisticated, uneducated, unwashed) aren't buying Obama's product. They were tricked by Reagan and can be again. You shouldn't confuse democratic with republican language. They're totally different. Like don't confuse me man. He talks to my inner man. He makes me feel good about myself.
BUT
- No Democrat has won any of the following states in 30 years. The list would be even longer, but Clinton picked up several others that would have been added.
Alamama
Alaska
Kansas
Virginia
Idaho
Texas
Mississippi
Wyoming
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Carolina
Utah
That's 12 Obama victories. Several others like South Dakota will be added to Obama's totals later--I'm sure you can think of more, non-win-able states.
The point here is not that he might win some--it's that the party is giving him the nomination on shaky grounds!
Obama's lead is predicated on winning all of the above. In other words--zero. Democrats WILL NOT WIN any of these states, nor will they win several others that are not listed here, but that Obama will win. Do we want to hand the nomination to a Democrat whose victory is based largely (not exclusively) upon states that no Democrat can win--and please don't kid yourselves? Aren't you even a little concerned by this?
- As you know, the rules of the Democratic Party have favored youthful energetic voters. This means essentially caucus states. The elderly and infirm cannot sit through them because of their demanding nature. Moreover, many states have both--e.g. Obama lost Texas in the Primary but picked up more delegates because of the caucus. The rules also mitigated against hispanic voters in Texas who were given an unrepresentative number of delegates. Conversely, the rules benefited the young caucus goers in Austin and other Obama (caucus) strongholds.
In other states like California, Obama was beaten soundly (10 percent) but the rules favored him once again and the result was a much closer delegate count. You can find similar results in other large states. Curious how the honest Obama has now shifted to win delegates, no matter how he's lost a state. This should reveal that he is JUST THE SAME, not a saint at all. That would be a start. Maybe we could get a fix on the man and have some particulars to work with. What exactly will he do and won't he do? That will constitute the actual government he will head.
Since most of us are happily duped, I don't expect you to honestly consider this--nor do I expect you to watch the documentaries. They are too long for the hip who know how they feel. But if I'm wrong as I pray, and if you pay attention to the four-part documentary above, you will also learn something about yourself. If you don't watch them--please don't think your reactive opinions are worth squat.
Be careful what you wish for, you are probably going to get it!