I do appraisal work in Culver, so I know that place fairly well, and have been in many homes there - have talked to many families.

First off, Culver is a little over 30 miles north of the northern edge of Bend. Not exactly a suburb. It's like calling Salem Portland's southern suburb - not exactly true.

Second, the generation gap found in those comments is somewhat like what I see on the ground. The older and less educated people are, the more likely they are Republicant voters. The younger and more educated people are, the more likely they are Democratic voters. An overlay to that appears to be rural fiscal conservatism. It is beginning to slowly penetrate the mind set of my rural neighbors that the Republicants are the most fiscally irresponsible political party in history.

Change in politics comes along akin to geological change. Everything can look the same day to day, but then the hillside slides or the mountain erupts - and everything looks different. It will take us awhile to figure out what has changed after this election that is looking more and more like a super-volcano. The landscape will change, and people will need to readjust.

I wonder if the youth movement will be manipulated to stay where they are, or inculcated into the real inner workings of the political process so that they will become knowledgable and THEN show their values -- anecdotally, apparently Obama caucasers stopped Clinton caucasers from having voice, and so on... there is much more to the story of Obama's selection to the throne than was discussed here, and it will take time for it to get out - at least until after Obama is safely elected, that is sure... so will we see "Win No Matter What" values, or will we see a thinking electorate of youth who recoil when they experience the actual process and also get a whiff of just how much manipulation goes on?

I say that we could see a groundbreaking time, but ONLY if someone is dedicated to ensuring that the thousands of new voters are taken deeper into the workings of the process as it really is in America - there will be no change if they are simply manipulable cannon fodder in the business as usual political wars.

I'd like to see a massive and sustained public service effort to get folks down into the guts of this machine - it will not remain the same if that occurs.

I am going to dive a little deeper this year - I'll be watching vote-counters in Clackamas County. And monitoring pre-vote-count activities. But that is late-late in the process of electioneering for it to have much effect. Right down at the start, that is where we need to be. Monitoring ourselves for bias and willingness to do any dirty thing to win.

Even if it is for some "just cause".

I want to know the rest of the truth on how Obama got where he is. My desire to see him in office notwithstanding.

I want to know the rest of the truth on how Obama got where he is.

Lotsa luck on that one, Rebecca. I asked that question more than once on this site months ago and still don't have a response, much less an answer. I said I suspected something along the lines of a Daley-Chicago machine. While it is plausible, I have no evidence to support it. Someone countered without contradictory evidence that I was more-or-less getting carried away with my imagination and surprisingly discounted the possibility of machine politics. One thing is certain, contrary to what some of the more starry-eyed Obama supporters appear to want to believe: Obama didn't come on the scene like a modern-day political Lone Ranger to rescue this nation from itself. He didn't just walk up by himself to the Democratic party oligarchs and ask for 15 or 20 minutes to give a speech at their convention on 2004. He had to have sponsors. As I said earlier this week, the analogy in my mind is of a race horse with multiple investor/owners. We have probable evidence of who some of them might be but not all.

Groundbreaking or short term movement, it was worth the cost.

Bear in mind all, Bill B too, my comment is NOT anti-this candidate or that... but it IS about seeing machinations at work and wanting to know more about it. I think telling the Hilary supporters to "sit down and shut up or you are not good Democrats" needs to be revisited, and this time some honor paid to what may have really happened behind the scenes. This again speaks to the fact that various strata of historically disenfranchised live always in the expectant fear of being told to sit back down b/c someone else's righteous need had to be chosen over theirs again / this time.

And then to see a committed decision on the part of all of us who whine about how things need changing... to open back the skin over this in an educational effort!

I see the same machinations worked for McCain, surely. Ask Tom Civiletti. He'll have a lot to say. If you want to hear it.

Bear in mind all, Bill B too, my comment is NOT anti-this candidate or that...

Rebecca: I didn't take your comment as anti-anyone. Your and my questions were valid and ones that everyone should ask about any candidate appealing for our votes.

Every 20 years or so we do see a shake-up of the national political dynamic. New leaders come along, new political ties are forged and population and demographic shifts finally reach a tipping point. I'm not saying we're in for a "new liberal era," but I do think we've moved past God, Guns, and Gays and abortion politics. The GOP will regroup, repackage and reemerge, just as the Dems were finally able to move past the LBJ Great Society era.

"I want to know the rest of the truth on how Obama got where he is."

"Lotsa luck on that one, Rebecca. I asked that question more than once on this site months ago and still don't have a response, much less an answer. I said I suspected something along the lines of a Daley-Chicago machine."

Dark mutterings about "Chicago machines" aside -- he got where he is on his own. He's ethically spotless, well-spoken, extremely competent and far better informed than any of his detractors. He's better qualified than his opponent, and his opponent's people know that -- which is why you hear these veiled smears. "Socialist!" "He's not who you think." "He's secretly a Muslim." "Well, you know, he's.. (look around, lower voice) .. well .. he's.. black, you know."

When you can't beat someone on the issues, you make stuff up.

And sometimes, apparently, people fall for it.

Curt

Once the Obama administration begins, some of the smearing from the left that we see taking shape here will find a way to nurture its rancor, and its claim to superiority. And it's just as odious and just as dishonest as the smearing from the right.

Carl: Thanks for the interesting link to Olberman.

he (Obama) got where he is on his own

Curt: Do you really believe that? How about all those people working on his campaign staff from the top down to his supporters walking around their neighborhoods with flyers and working phone banks? This sort of thing reminds me of someone I watched on television some time ago. A relative had gone through several hours of surgery and he/she said that God was the one who saved the patient's life. No thank you to the surgeons and nurses.

I understand Obama's campaign has spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Did that come out of his personal account? If not, where did all that money come from? Most fair-minded people will give Obama lots of credit for his personal qualities - oratorical skills, intelligent, diligent, cool-headed, thoughtful, etc. - but if he got to where he is today just by himself then we are witnessing a miracle.

He's ethically spotless,... With Madeline Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Rubin on his campaign? He tossed his old pastor under the bus when he became a liability and went to AIPAC and let them know he was also tossing the Palestinians (for whom he once had some sympathy) under the bus with Reverend Wrignt. He may have the highest ethical standards he can achieve under the circumstances and he is head and shoulders in this regard above McCain, but spotless?

Kevin, if you read the rest of my blatherings, I indeed keep saying "These threads AFTER Obama is elected". I am very much in agreement with you. I am already thinking hard about next. We MUST keep moving on issues of change that only WE can make happen by paying sustained attention and, yes, holding Obama to account for our will being done. Electoral change is one such, if I"m hearing all on this board. Is it all talk, or will we be really going after it once the election is done?

I have consistently held up the same questions to Obama as I have to McCain. Always. I am a dullard purist in some ways. PRobably not even as colorful as "contrarian". Just another puritan.

Curt apparently is not familiar with me - "chicago machine? huh? whatever, Curt...." ... but the fact is that you do NOT get where Obama is without a machine working it. That IS the political process IN America for pete's freakin' sake, Curt!

Obama indeed has his own merits. But I'm not a camp follower. NEver could be. I believe we have the rare opportunity, if we HOLD him to account in a good and intelligent, but focused way, to really make some kind of a difference. Our nation is in such a fucking shambles right now, this IS the moment to press forward and require solid answers. And reasoned converse. I like listening to Kevin debate Sal on another thread, for he has no need to cast aspersions on Sal, he seeks the connections and clarifies reasonably the differences between he and Sal. Kevin is solid and civil even as he holds his place.

I want to see a commitment to getting heads out of asses and eyes on a mature prize after this is over. We all need to pay attention from the start to the obstacles and machinations that dispossess all along the timeline of electoral process. What a fantastic opportunity to bring all of these different threads together and prove that they were right to trust or go along one more time... and this time they will not just have been used as a great weight to throw against a big wall.

We have much that we can work upon together. Endstage vote-stealing, voter roll-purges, lack of registration, capacity-building to ensure ACORN ruses do not avail themselves to Republicans ever again, it also includes the shit that goes on in caucuses. Taking a look at the dirty fights that ultimately boil down to playground fighting. And at least be truthful that it happened. That can remove the rancor from otherwise jaundicing wounds.

I actually feel much MORE passion as to what could come after we are done. I just wonder who has the stomache for possibly launching a gutsy truth and reconciliation movement that has to do with Americans standing up and getting educated on the machines and how they work: by becoming hands-on mechanics.... I have done such work and wonder if this will be the big change to come. Participatory new voters!

SO... that was my rant for the day. I'm saying EVERYONE should be subject to genuine history after this is over. And we need to decide if we want it to be this way again.

Hi Carla,

It's lovely that you'd mention us hayseeds in Central Oregon. I'm a Bender, or at least I've been on one here since the halcyon days of the Kosovo War. Y'know... the one before the Pakistan War-In-The-Making, the Syrian-War-In-The-Making, the Iran-War-In-The-Making, the Russia-War-In-Georgia and the Iraqistani Mess o'Potamia.

Whatever "generational shift" Al Gore is talking about is not happening here. I'm 58 years old and I'm a primary producer of anti-war rallies, documentary film exhibitions and what we used to call "consciousness-raising". Last Monday night I exhibited Michael Moore's new film "Slacker Uprising" at the Bend Library. Although we had really good publicity in both local newspapers and I had about 50 people attending I was disappointed to find that once again I could count the number of people under the age of 25 in attendance on one hand. "Generational shift" appears to be passing this community by, at least as far as any sort of political awakening of the youth is concerned. In Bend the mantra is "the new hedonism" and not "the new progressive majority".

Bill, if you want to believe that Obama didn't get where he is on his own because there must be some nefarious force behind him, go ahead.

I've known people before they were famous and was thrilled when they did become famous. In those situations, it was by hard work those people got ahead.

Maybe people are so cynical they can no longer believe that plain hard work and maybe some luck. It being Chicago politics, there is a lot about his relationship with Alice Palmer (who introduced him as the person to succeed her when she ran for higher office, then later she was failing in that campaign and wanted her old office back) which people can Google if they choose.

When the Ayers story first broke, I was doing some online research and discovered that the famous neighborhood coffee in the Ayers living room was for Alice Palmer to introduce young Obama. Whether everything written online is accurate is for ordinary people to judge.

Of course Obama had some luck, as often happens to famous people. His general election opponent dropped out after the nomination process was over and he ended up running against Alan Keyes. John Kerry chose him to give the keynote address in 2004.

Who chose Bill Clinton to give the 1988 keynote? How did any other presidential candidate get where they are today?

Why are we discussing these issues less than 10 days before an election?

People who don't like any action any candidate has taken don't have to support that candidate. It is an individual decision, which means that if there are 5 people in a room and 4 people trust the candidate, the 5th person telling them they are wrong is not likely to change their votes.

Which candidate for president has been 100% perfect?

Fair question, Carla. I think it is a "groundbreaking" moment in American politics, but that's only because the politics of contentment are coming to an end. Even the most ardent of Hitler's supporters eventually had a reality alert as they were burned alive in Hamburg or raped and beaten by the Red Army in Berlin. As Churchill once said, "Truth in incontrovertible--Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end there it is."

That's not to say I think Obama is "truth," just less a liar than McCain.

Bill R.,

Re: "some of the smearing from the left that we see taking shape here"

Hmmm, can you cite examples of this? I'm pretty offended by what you write comparing those of us on the Left to the remarkably unhinged self-dealing frauds such as Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Larsen, Malkin, Coulter, Little Green Footballs, Drudge, Steyn, etc.

You make a completely wild and unfair accusation, IMHO.

But I'm willing to hear you out if you really can show us any examples at all of how the Left is "just as odious and just as dishonest as the smearing from the right."

That seems to be an insane statement.

JoeBob sez check it out!

Hilarious sendup to the white trash vote:

http://collateral.blip.tv/file/1394555/

I've been marveling at the quality of Collateral on Blip TV for years. You might enjoy a few of the archived chapters as well. They appear to be releasing videos on a weekly basis.

...and there's a big diff between being Libertarian and libertine.

As to the scope...Obama is now ahead in Indiana. That's real enough for me.

...libertarian and libertine...

?

ehhh. At least you chose a great word to bring into play. Libertine... one tasty li'l word.

I personally don't see any value whatsoever in pursuing that line of thought until AFTER the election. Which, I suspect, is why Bill B. never got a meaningful reply when he posed similar questions.

Kevin: I asked who was behind Obama which put a question mark on his candidacy. If there was a good answer to that question would it not have been better months ago to clear that question mark instead of leaving it there for others to question Obama's candidacy? Could it be that people really didn't answer my question because they didn't have a good answer?

Last night, watching OPB, we watched McCain gruntingly force out an endorsement of Ol' Possum last go-round. It was high comedy, painful to watch. That was when he was being courted to switch parties, did his ONE good turn at going against the Repubs before he saw the light, made nice and prepared for a run at the Presidency.

As we watched Ol' Possum struggle out one hyuk hyuk after another as he accepted the haltingly-proffered endorsement, we looked at each other.

My son has been certain from the start that Obama is bought and paid for. Eventually we will find out by whom. This does NOT say that he is not the best choice given the choices, nor that this denigrates the choosing of all individuals choosing him. HOWEVER: as soon as the dynamics in the nomination process spun up a notch, he opted out of giving any of his passion to it and retreated to watchfulness. He recognized Machine. He is waiting to be told the true business of what happened this time. However long that takes.

I digress: last night as we watch McCain and Bush STUMBLE around the TV screen in the in-depth hx presented of the current candidates, we both finally relented and spoke to the hope of Obama: he may be able to return us to respect in teh world for his statesmanship, his beauty in oratory, his discipline and expressive, fluid speaking abilities. If he makes good choices as to who drives his machine, we will be in good shape. As good as we can expect. We must reside hope in this man, for all of his gifts and abilities, and pray that he makes judicious decisions as to who will advise, and who will manage his administration. For he indeed is the figurehead, the face of the nation mostly... we hope he chooses a sound body upon which to stand.

We are in the least rescued from inutterable laughability.

...and there's a big diff between being Libertarian and libertine.

As someone once said, you don't have to be libertine to be libertarian... but it helps.

Obama came out of nowhere and then the money followed. He is the people and if the people lead, the leaders will follow. It's common knowledge that the majority of his funds have come from the people. The average donation is an excellent example of this. It's somewhere around $250. Once he proved himself early in the primaries, people took notice, and the money followed. Hillary did not notice soon enough. Of course having Kerry give him the nod at his Convention helped put him up on the stage and he has proved himself equal to that task.

Obama is much more then a stage presence though. He built the machine he has and he inspires people. McCain managed to win the primaries as all his opponents lived in the workld of spin, but that spin stopped turning two years ago. The nation needs something real. All McCain has are veterans of the Bush campaign. McCain gets a 90% for sharing Bush's agenda, and that's an "A" in school. Probably the only "A" he ever got in his life.

More will be revealed about Obama if he wins, granted. But I do not see Democrats getting into the goose step the way Republicans did in the first Bush term when they had everything. The challenge will be having a ton of green congresspeople learning the ropes when we need all hands on deck. How all these rookies come together to support Obama will be very interesting. At least we will have a President willing to listen. Someone considerate of everyone. Afterall, he wasted no time in meeting with Hillary after the battle and we see how she rallies for him now, as does Bill. If elected there will be change, I believe. I remain hopeful it will be a change we can believe in. I retain my audacity of hope.

Bill, if you want to believe that Obama didn't get where he is on his own because there must be some nefarious force behind him, go ahead.

I've known people before they were famous and was thrilled when they did become famous. In those situations, it was by hard work those people got ahead.

Maybe people are so cynical they can no longer believe that plain hard work and maybe some luck.

LT: This isn't a case of my wanting to believe Obama didn't do it on his own. It is just too absurd to think that anyone could get in Obama's situation without some help - nefarious or virtuous. You basically concede that point when you said "and maybe some luck." There must be very few people who would claim Obama got where he did without hard work, and I would bet that Obama would be among the first to acknowledge others who helped him along the way.

My original question asked who helped him rise from the Chicago stage to the national. The question was open. I didn't ask who the crooks were who helped him. Just who. Anyone who knows something about Chicago and other big-city politics would consider the possibility, if not the probability, of a machine being involved. There are many good and decent people in Chicago. Maybe they are Obama's sponsors. Do you have any evidence to support that? If it is valid, I'll accept that and be delighted to know it wasn't the Daley or other Chicago machine.

About the time I asked who was behind Obama I also suggested the possibility of Obama becoming a great president because of his oratorical skills and his success in persuading people to rally to him. But whether he would be able to realize that possibility would depend in great part on who was supporting him. Given the major contributors to Obama's campaign there is little cause to expect him to achieve that potential.

Gregor: only True Believers and True Followers utter words such as "It is common knowledge that..." before all of the research, sorting it out and stories untold are in.

I have been one such, so this is not specifically a slam. However, it is NOT complete knowledge as to where his funding ULTIMATELY and wholly will come from.

I believe the real story is always way more interesting than the one being told by any interested party. Way more magic too.

So.... yes, a man from the people, but also one who has been selected as the right horse. Now let's find out where the money trails all lead to once this is over with and learn from what is Real instead of things hoped for.

Bill Bodden: You've posted that link before, but could you explain why? I must be missing something. I can't find the page where it identifies the major contributors to Obama's campaign.

By my reading, it appears to show that Obama's money overwhelmingly comes from individuals, not PACs, and that he has a very diverse base of support. The aggregate donations from the University of California and Goldman Sachs and other organizations appear very high, but those organizations have thousands of employees -- so that doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than that their employees are inclined to give money to Democratic candidates, which seems likely enough. By contrast, McCain has received approximately a thousand times as much PAC money, although this is still a tiny fraction of his overall funds.

Bill Bodden: You've posted that link before, but could you explain why? I must be missing something. I can't find the page where it identifies the major contributors to Obama's campaign.

The Obama page has tabs - Geography, Contributors, etc. - at the top for details. Click on the Contributors tab for the big donors, many of whom come from Wall Street.

Yes, those Contributors lines are aggregates of the sum total of contributions from employees of corporations. Goldman Sachs has 30,000+ presumably well compensated employees, so it's no surprise it's at the top, and while you might not necessarily expect them to be skewed toward Obama contributions, there's no real reason for them to be skewed against Obama either. They're near the top of the McCain graph as well.

University of California has almost 100,000 employees, and their political preferences are, I think, predictable. Do you think these aggregates are obscuring something? Is Goldman Sachs pressuring their employees to contribute to Obama?

Wall Street has a well-earned reputation for greed so most, but certainly not all, people who work there are more likely to look at money they give away as investments. There should be no surprise they give to all the front runners. They want to own a piece of the winner. In a number of ways it is just like a horse race.

A sage once said that if someone gives something to another person and that gift changes their relationship, then that gift is a bribe. They may be legal, but most campaign donations are bribes.

Bill, your question is valid if it is expanded--for example, "How did Dick Durbin, Barack Obama, and Rahm Emanuel get where they are today?".

What bothers me is people who think Obama deserves more scrutiny than anyone else.

It could be said that without ML King, Jesse Jackson, Douglas Wilder, the Congressional Black Caucus, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, among others, Obama as presidential nominee would be impossible.

Unfortunately, the $100 I gave to Obama's campaign didn't change our relationship one damn bit.

LT: What bothers me is people who think Obama deserves more scrutiny than anyone else.

I recently made the comment that we should be concerned about who is behind ANYONE seeking our votes.

Danny Glover on Obama as the lesser of two evils

This from the link provided by Mr. Bodden:

[Glover] is voting for Obama because he sees a visible, qualitative difference between him and McCain over who will be more sensitive to issues of poverty and access in such an unequal society. However, like many voices have been saying, Danny clarifies that Obama will not do this willingly, he will need to be pushed by a strong social movement.

I'm grasping at why exactly this is supposed to be such a trenchant criticism. I certainly hope that an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress are pushed by strong social movements. This is a democratic republic, folks, not a benevolent dictatorship, and the job does not end with the results we hope for on November 4.

The civil-rights legislation promoted and signed by President Lyndon Johnson would never have happened without a "strong social movement". It also would not have happened if Johnson himself had not put his prestige and career on the line. This was not an either/or situation.

Can we avoid simplistic analyses and pretending that everything is black-and-white, good-and-evil?

Bill R said, "Once the Obama administration begins, some of the smearing from the left that we see taking shape here will find a way to nurture its rancor, and its claim to superiority. And it's just as odious and just as dishonest as the smearing from the right."

Also sprach Herr Goering.

Re: "This is a democratic republic, folks, not a benevolent dictatorship"

You haven't been paying attention. When did Obama promise to repeal the "Patriot Act"? When did he promise to return to us the 4th and 8th Amendments? You're right though that it's not a "benevolent" dictatorship that Obama will be inheriting (assuming he wins and overcomes the attempt to steal another election).

Re: "Can we avoid simplistic analyses and pretending that everything is black-and-white, good-and-evil?"

"Everything" is not the issue. Let's stop pretending that nothing is evil. That's also a simplistic analysis.