plus ca change..

# al loomis Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 6:11 am

people are starting to remark on the fact that obama has so far not stiffened his feel-good rhetoric with any substantive plans. this may be part of his strategy, or more likely that he is only mortal, and a politician, and has no grand plan. if he can’t come up with something significant, there will be disillusionment.

the beneficiaries of that will be clinton, or edwards, if it happens before the nomination, the republicans if it happens during the election campaign. then it could have the result of turning a ‘democrat year’ into a lively race, with a real chance of republican victory.

there can be no real changes to american society as long as politicians rule it, but obama has tapped a deep well of contempt, both for dubya and for politics. he may yet ride it to the whitehouse.

if he gets his bum on the throne, he will discover change is difficult and unrewarding to someone who is enjoying the rewards of supremacy in society.

so we can expect steady as she goes whoever gets in the oval office, just as the ruddster has begun with verbal fervor, but has to be both green and support coal-fired energy. real change can only happen when a nation’s voters support a referendum, which generates a result for the nation uncolored by a politician’s need to be re-elected.

mike gravel’s candidacy was built around his ‘initiative for democracy’ and has been completely ignored. this surprised me, as many american states have a democratic tradition. considering the grass roots guerilla campaign ron paul has generated in support of policies that pauline hanson would be glad to champion, it is doubly amazing that gravel could not at least put structural change in discussion.

if there is any general observation to be drawn, perhaps it is this:

the ship of state is much less agile than a giant oil-tanker at full speed, the crew is ignorant, the officers greedy, the captain a vain megalomaniac, and the approaching environmental reef unavoidable. if there is a god, get busy mate, for your children are incompetent to save themselves.

the horse race

with one each, obama and clinton have both demonstrated that it's going to be a protracted contest, with time to search out weaknesses. this is bad news for obama, whose record is small, and undistinguished. clinton has nothing new to offer, is not a good speaker, but can reasonably claim to represent a return to the clinton era, which in retrospect was the golden age of the american empire. or so democrats feel. she has connections and experience, and many voters will feel they know what they are going to get if she wins.

obama might still win, simply by being a new face and claiming a new style of politics. a lot of voters are tired of the old style. he is a good speaker, with a bit of mlk sound and phraseology, and would win easily if he thinks of something substantive to say. so far, he hasn't. it's very hard to say "i am going to do things differently", when you're on record as being part of the system. still, he's fresh air, compared to hillary.

edwards is the real agent of change, within the limits of the system. that is probably why he gets so little exposure and discussion. i can see him hanging around long enough to be a king/queen maker, and inserting himself into the vp's spot if he wants it. he might prefer to be secretary of commerce.

whatever the outcome, the american empire will roll on toward world domination and self-destruction. the real agents of change were kucinich and gravel. that's why they were completely ignored. not many people want real change, even if they see that present comfort will lead to distant disaster.