Your second post makes less sense to me than your first. You think if she wins hell has frozen over and we need to not have kids, that she would be bad for the country? I hope you're joking.

I am sure in Barack Obama because he still has not stooped to Hillary's level of sliminess and spin. In 2004 Bill Clinton said something to the effect of, "If one politician is appealing to your hope and another is appealing to your fear, you know you go for the one appealing to hope." Now Hillary is making ads with pictures of kids sleeping, a phone ringing in the background, saying "when theres a terrorist crisis who will be ready?" It's fear mongering, its scaring up votes, a page right out of the Bush administration's play book, you can't tell me it's not. She has the balls to say all this with full recognition that she failed on the major foreign policy issue of this millenium, the choice to go to Iraq. It is a shame that it is looking like he is going to have to stoop to her level in order to stop her from winning, though I earnstly hope that he doesn't, I don't think he has to. Obama supporters chant "Yes, we can," last night night I hear a bunch of Hillary supporters chanting "Yes, She Will." It's all about her for her. She wants the power it's so obvious that there is little else on her mind. She says that she has all this experience and Obama only has a speech, so disrespectful of a comment to a person who she knows has done much more than just give a speech and has devoted his entire life to public service. Obama doesn't say those things about her. He tells the truth about her decade-long support of NAFTA and how her healthcare plan has the potential to drive already-strained people even deeper into trouble, and then she comes back to spin and saying "shame on you Barack Obama," as if those two things were fibs or lies---no, that's how she acted. Then she has gumption to say that she wants to focus on the issues. She is hypocritcal and it is disgusting that she is fooling America in to thinking she's in this for anyone other than herself and the Clinton establishment. The top-down administration style does not work anymore, doubtful if it ever really has worked. Well I take that back---it works for the people at the top.

As to my comment about being integral and not supporting Obama, I stick by that, but of course its my opinion. As he said in his speech, the world is watching what America does and how we coduct ourselves. Evitdently to Hillary Clinton, that means pulling down your opponent in order to jockey yourself in to better position. I am not sure why my opinion turns you away from "this organization"--I don't speak for anyone here but for my self and these are my opinions. "people like me"? I'm not sure what you mean--people entusiastic about honesty, transparency, change, new visions of equality? I am proud to be in that group---I do seriously wonder how you are not. And why the tone of "ohh what are you infatuees gonna do when she wins ha-ha!" We're voting for Hillary clinton now so Barack doesn't win, just to stick it to him? This is the tone from all the Hillary Clintoners I hear--Pride, like she's entitled to be President--well, shes NOT. Entitlement fails for the country, we've seen it before, I can't believe we're ready to see it again, I don't think we are. And I hear so many arguments like, "well that's politics," well I'm saying we should all see that it's time to be DONE with the Clinton style of slimy do-what-you-have-to-to-win politics!

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

hey! tim and megan,

i'm not specifically for obama or clinton. i've been leaning towards one or the other, occasionally even towards mccain. my overall feeling, though, is that our country, indeed the world, would be best served by a democratic president at this particular juncture, seven years into a disastrous bush presidency, especially considering how outstanding the two democratic candidates are, something, evidently, each of you only agrees with me halfway.

as the consequences of the bush presidency continue to pile up, this need only increases, in my view. at the same time, though, as the democratic in-fighting increases with each week, with no sure end in sight, i have to wonder if in the end our country won't be better served by a mccain presidency, and that voters will effect this in that most democratic of ways, at the ballot box.

i've been around long enough to see democrats lose a number of elections that they were supposed to win, but didn't because they were divided. we can see the same phenomenom opening up before us again: green for obama, orange for clinton (the historic rift); the young for obama, the old for clinton (a new rift); women for clinton, men for obama (a new rift); african-americans overwhelmingly for obama, non african-americans more often than not for clinton; and so on.

it's insane. the bush administration had completely disheartened republicans to where they were only participating in primaries at an anemic fraction of the extent of democrats by any of a number of measures: rallies, votes, money... now they sense victory like a wolf senses fresh blood.

it's hard to imagine. we not only seem to be sliding into a difficult recession, but that's compounded by other financial woes such as our rapidly growing, now 9 trillion, federal deficit, and dramatically worsened relations with the rest of the world, etc. etc. yet americans may soon be concluding that mccain represents something new from republicans whereas obama and clinton are bringing them just more and more and more of the same old democratic shit they want no part of.

tim, you see a world of difference between obama and clinton, to put it politely. isn't that a hierarchy?

---

first, seeing difference is not imposing a hierarchy. they are two different steps. the hierarchy in effect in america is one controlled by wealth and influence on the macro-scale, on ego-driven self-concepts on the micro-scale. meritocracy has given way to captialistic inheritence, power inheritence, power politics. meritocracy is the rational way towards equality in diversity. power inheritence is the rational way towards re-establishing that power and establishing a hierarchy of wealth, requiring people stay down. which of our candidates represent which?

I thought it was interesting, I hear hillary talking about a woman who is working two jobs and could hardly support her and her child, and couldn't afford health insurance. Under hillary's plan, which mandates that everyone has to buy the government's plan for insurance, this woman would be unable to pay for that insurance, and she would be further penalized for not being able to by the government. This is a top-down mandate that simply is too inflexible to have any real weight. This woman would simply not get health care, be fined for not being able to give her money up for the government program, and fall further in to debt. Never have I ever heard Hillary counter this or amend her thinking.

ralph you say that a democrat should be nominated and I agree. Hillary is arguing she has more experience, and that is her call sign. John McCain has more experience than her, has been in wars, has been in an elected office much longer than Hillary Clinton's stint as senator. John McCain wins that argument out of hand. What else does she have? Proposing a health-care mandate similar to her plan that failed across the board in the early 90s? This is what's ridiculous to me. It's the political power of the clintons and it's ruining our chances. Substitute anyone else in there, have them lose 12 states in a row, and tell me they aren't dropping out from sheer common sense. Then her campaign has the balls to say that Illinois is the only major state obama won. Well, I live in iowa, and I'm no minor state---it's totally offensive, uncalled for, slimy, its spin politics at its worse, and it totally passes me off. Then the hypocracy continues saying that michgan and flordia shoudl be recounted so that all votes are heard. So now we're only counting big states and letting the break rules, discounting the rest of the country because of low populations? There should be top democrats stepping in and saying, look, here is barack obama, face of the future, eloquent man, voted against iraq, stands in stark contrast to John Mccain on issues, offers voters alternatives rather than choosing between the lesser-of-two-evils.

all this is an aside to the real draw. The man's middle name is hussien. He looks middle eastern. He's lived in foreign countries. The world is watching america and this man named barack, a black man, getting support from a country many still consider incredibally racist. this isn't me injecting race into it, race is implicit here and if we are really in the business of global consciousness change as we say we are then we send these types of messages to the rest of the world. otherwise, we're cowards, or just not as evolved as we think. If we are going to change our image around the world, show a new face to the foreign community, and really commit to improving things, we should most definitely not bring out the same clinton face with the same clinton spin machine with the same clinton conniving politics.

yes, we can. i'm sorry but I am really just sick and tired of the sliminess i witness the last few days with how she treated barack. she's self-interested and wants to win for her and i don't know what else to say if you can't see that in her every word, in her eyes, in her shallow conduct in vying for the most respected office in the land. she doesn't deserve it and is severely hurting the democractic party. to say barack obama is "nothing more than a speech" is to totally contradict her other statements of being honored to be with him, contradicts baracks real record of writing laws, making change, organizing communities, not to mention mobilizing entirely new voter blocks and uniting the majority of states under his message. "Just speeches"? Hillary is just speeches! if we ever wanted an example of what lengths the ego will go to to support its own self-aggrandizement, or how raw and scathing a shadow projection can be, she is the example.

tim.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

zneval:

Your second post makes less sense to me than your first. You think if she wins hell has frozen over and we need to not have kids, that she would be bad for the country? I hope you're joking.

Of course I was joking, can we get a little sense of humor around here guys??  I was poking fun at your ability to see the future by seeing my own future ;). 

By "This organization" I meant the label of integral.  I am sure that you think you are right, but still maybe you don't realize how condescending you sounded in the first place?  I don't want an integral label to tell me how to think, thank you.  I have a right to my opinion and I believe that you are wrong about how you are approaching Hillary.  Not all people have an ability to stand up and outwardly project their inner beliefs as well as maybe Obama can.  This does not mean that Hillary doesn't have an inner voice equal to his or beyond.  You can mistake this as being power-hungry if you want, but I think that is making a mistake.  I find your willingness to go along with a vast crowd of opinion on her character surprising, because if you look at her record, she's an excellent candidate who has done a lot of work to help improve the nation (as is Obama).  She's a hard worker who does care.  I don't care about all the inbetween stuff, things happen when people get uptight just like on this message board right now.  I believe her strong independent determination and high level of cognitive abilities make her an equally appealing integral candidate, who has strengths to even out the perceived social interaction problems that people label her with.  Her record is overwhelmingly supportive of her willingness and drive to make change.

my problem is solely with her conduct, which says to me volumes more than what you "accomplish." i'm not questioning if she cares about the country, of course she does. but the clinton political machine is the epitome of dirty politics. today obama was compared to kenneth star by hillary's campaign manager. i'm not challenging if she cares for the country, or whether or not she's done good things. i'm challenging her tactic of bringing people down in order to bring her self up, of reducing an opponent whos pulling the support of so many people down to a man who's done no more than give a speech. its not true--that's condescending! she's working for superdelegates to over turn the votes and state-pledged delegates from the state in the case that she doesn't come ahead in the votes. she's pushing to have votes counted from ballots that didn't even have senator obama's name on them (or any other candidate), asking the DNC to just let the rules be broken and change them in the 4th quarter of the game. you say, "i don't care about the inbetween stuff" well i feel like you can tell a lot about a person by the "inbetween stuff" and the way she chooses to position her self politically at the expense of fairness does not exhibit to me any commitment to change in an already corrupt political system and machine.

and the most terrible part, now obama has to stoop down to her level just so that he can keep his message of hope alive. he has to respond or the messages of fear-mongering and dirt-digging will simply ruin him, as they will anyone, as the clintons have always ruined their opponents in any way possible in all their elections in the past. he has no choice but to stoop down to this level of spin. we have to sacrifice real dialogue and real progress in order to engage in silly political arguments. if she really were "honored" to be with him as she always says, if she really had respect for him, how does she act in the ways she does?

i suppose i'm sorry if i sound condescending---i'm sure you know that i am not talking about you? i'm talking about hillary clinton here. i'm not going a long with a vast crowd of opinion, i'm wondering why you think that. I have tried to be as in tune as possible to this political campaign since day one and have witnessed the conduct of all candidates throughout. i am simply tired of humans treating other humans like they are slime and everyone going along with it because its "just how business gets done." i don't buy it and neither should anyone else. its time to move on from all that, please.

god bless, tim.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

zneval:

my problem is solely with her conduct, which says to me volumes more than what you "accomplish." i'm not questioning if she cares about the country, of course she does. but the clinton political machine is the epitome of dirty politics. today obama was compared to kenneth star by hillary's campaign manager. i'm not challenging if she cares for the country, or whether or not she's done good things. i'm challenging her tactic of bringing people down in order to bring her self up, of reducing an opponent whos pulling the support of so many people down to a man who's done no more than give a speech. its not true--that's condescending! she's working for superdelegates to over turn the votes and state-pledged delegates from the state in the case that she doesn't come ahead in the votes. she's pushing to have votes counted from ballots that didn't even have senator obama's name on them (or any other candidate), asking the DNC to just let the rules be broken and change them in the 4th quarter of the game. you say, "i don't care about the inbetween stuff" well i feel like you can tell a lot about a person by the "inbetween stuff" and the way she chooses to position her self politically at the expense of fairness does not exhibit to me any commitment to change in an already corrupt political system and machine.

and the most terrible part, now obama has to stoop down to her level just so that he can keep his message of hope alive. he has to respond or the messages of fear-mongering and dirt-digging will simply ruin him, as they will anyone, as the clintons have always ruined their opponents in any way possible in all their elections in the past. he has no choice but to stoop down to this level of spin. we have to sacrifice real dialogue and real progress in order to engage in silly political arguments. if she really were "honored" to be with him as she always says, if she really had respect for him, how does she act in the ways she does?

i suppose i'm sorry if i sound condescending---i'm sure you know that i am not talking about you? i'm talking about hillary clinton here. i'm not going a long with a vast crowd of opinion, i'm wondering why you think that. I have tried to be as in tune as possible to this political campaign since day one and have witnessed the conduct of all candidates throughout. i am simply tired of humans treating other humans like they are slime and everyone going along with it because its "just how business gets done." i don't buy it and neither should anyone else. its time to move on from all that, please.

god bless, tim.

Hey sorry if I came off a little harshly.  I can see your point about the "in-betweens" as I tend to overlook them always for the long run.  But, I'm also wary about that "nice guy" status because everyone always wants to appear like they are happy and getting along great with everyone, when in reality they are just wasting time (I've been here before).  Sometimes it just takes someone who knows what they want and goes after it, which is why I support Hillary I guess!  I respect your decisions though :).

no reasons for apologies or anything, i don't think from either of us. you certainly didn't sound too harsh to me and i hope you didn't take anything i said to you too personally either. our country is so important, the way we respond to the bush administrations 7-year blunder so crucial, I think it's important to get people going and thinking and yes worked up and even riled up if necessary, certainly not a waste of time. i respect your decision to go with hillary. I just hope no longterm damage comes to the democrats by this race running the whole road. I do think its actually good for both of them as long as they stay positive and don't dredge up all the negatives about eachother. If they stayed positive then both Hillary and Obama would just get more and more face time, national exposure, always good for the dem party. If they stay positive.

I was encouraged by both campaigns today--- an top Obama advisor pulled a slimy comment out calling Hillary "A monster." Totally uncalled for---I hate seeing it. Unfortunately, I feel like I have come across in the same way here. The aids reason for calling that were the same reasons I've been mentioning--her pulling out all the decietful tactics, "stooping to anything" to win. Needless to say, Obama didn't keep her in his campaign, she's resigned within the day. Obama apologized for his advisor's comments. It's really hard to control what everyone participating in a campaign does. I'm not trying to make excuses for what Obama's advisor, but I will point out that the reason she called her a monster was truly because of some of the same things I've been bringing up. Speaking my own truth here, trying to be honest... as mad as I get over how she acts "in-between," I can only imagine how a top worker for Obama would feel with things going down the negative slippery slope as it seems to be.

Lets hope it turns around.

tim.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

I'm wondering whether Barack Obama supporters would be willing to share a ticket with Hillary Clinton. If a partnership of green and orange (with some appeal to amber as well) would be the best thing for the country, could those who have been "monster-izing" Clinton accept her as part of the "we" in "Yes, We Can"?  "Monster" is one of those words that signals some projection. The things I don't like or accept about me and what I am capable of, I see writ large in "the other".  People seem to be forgetting that all one can see is the behavior - the inner intention, motivation, etc. is invisible. When one imputes motives to another, it often says more about what one's own motives would be than it does about the other's motives.

As an Obama supporter I would more than welcome Hillary as a VP. I wish we could jump right to that step right now and begin the dialogue with McCain. What I don't welcome is her slimy and ugly politics which needs to stop today. Why her a VP and not the P? Presidents do best when they are transformative, inspirational. Ideally, they represent the "newest,"  "wisest" voice of the country. Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves by himself but he certainly gave voice to the millions of Americans who wanted the slaves to be free. By observance alone, we can see who is new and transformative in this presidential race. No one is arguing Hillary's worthiness to make decisions for our country. No one's arguing whether or not she'll be important to bringing about change. But she is a polarizing figure; in fact, all I'm really trying to say here is that her political tactics divide the "we," making progress that much more difficult. Those tactics give soil to more divisive comments including my own. I hate getting on here and saying these things about Hillary or making it seem like I hate her or that I'm looking to divide people up. But the ugly politics needs to stop now if we ever think we're going to get anywhere with our "progress." To me, ending ugly politics is the epitome of political progress---then anything's possible---then "We" can. So yes, all of us, and we are blessed to have Hillary's talents at the fore just as we are blessed to have Barack's. Ending divisive politics means we use the best of both worlds.

I do understand what you are saying about the projection, but I don't think we can just pass these comments off as Samantha Powers being a monster on the inside herself and projecting it on to Hillary. That sort of argument falls to your own reasoning, saying that all we can see is a person's behavior behavior--all we heard was the monster comment, so how could we know about her inner intentions/motivations? I disagree with this reasoning. Sure, perhaps Samatha Powers may feel like a monster on the inside and is projecting that on to Hillary. But that doesn't change the fact that Mrs. Powers was responding to the behaviors of Hillary Clinton. This is the worst part about attacking someones character, whether its Hillary demeaning Obama or Mrs. Powers insulting Hillary Clinton. It simply just brings everyone down, the "We" space, so to speak, is ruined and nothing can be accomplished. And yet Hillary says we have to come together to solve our problems? I have to ask, why is Hillary still doing it and promoting these politics? If we uphold the ideal of electing the most worthy candidate, shouldn't a persons character standing alone be enough to win? Why resort to these tactics? I am not saying Obama's campaign is guilt-free in this area, but it is clear that he is practing what he preaches to the best of his group's ability when he talks about bringing in a new brand of politics.

If you were suggesting that perhaps I was shadow projecting then perhaps you are correct. I will only say that ending divisive politics seems to be the major issue of this presidential race and it is obvious to me what the goals are of each are towards ending divisive politics. To me it seems obvious that divisive politics should end. Evidently, I am passionate about it.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

i googled samantha power and came across this wonderful video:

Samantha Power Speaks Out on "Monster" Controversy ,
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/79058/

sorry, i no longer know how to create links.

---

ralph, thanks for that link. I went searching and found some other things about her, including a great commencement speech she gave at Santa Clara University. I really feel bad for her and for Obama and for the country that she had to resign. The more I read about her the more I believe her when she says her emotions simply got the best of her and was just frustrated at the negative tones that were starting to come from the campaigns--really too bad. Hopefully within time we let her back on to the foreign policy advisory board, whoever the nominee.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God

hi tim,

she is truly inspiring, very much an idealist, more than obama or you, even more passionate than you, imo   the question, for me, is where does that passion come from?  i particularly liked this video clip, because it suggests to me she has a passion for honesty.

at the same time i'm troubled by this.  i also greatly value honesty, but i'm coming to wonder if there isn't a developmental line at work here, which breaks down roughly into pre-honesty, honesty and post-honesty.  an integral politician would, of course, be post-honest, knowing that one cannot possibly be simply honest with everyone, given, just for starters,  that some of us are at red,  some at amber, some at orange, some at green, etc.  the difficulty, of course, with this, as one attempts to move beyond being simply honest, is the pre/post fallacy:  wanting to think one, or someone else,  is being post-honest, because they're at an higher altitude than orange and they realize being simply honest won't work, when they're actually regressing to pre-honesty, commonly known as lying.

i also think bernadette is on the money about shadows.  we all have them, and they're particularly rife in the struggles for power.  samantha's recognition that emotions had got the best of her was an honest one, i believe, because she is only very vaguely aware of the shadows at work there, i would guess.  she was doing her best, which i'm grateful for.   

 

---

isn't david brooks' last column, The Rank-Link Imbalance, an obvious description of the orange achiever, as seen by green?

---

Best to you and Liz R-thor.  Thanks for this.  It is one of those pieces that really can clear up feeling and perceptions for me.  Not that I had changed who I wanted to vote for but I could "get this" from the beginning.   I decided that O was a nice guy but needed some time before he became President.   And for me he was "no John Kennedy".   My question was why don't I get when so many others seem to be turning on so fast.   I am one on the "older" women but that did not fit for my reasoning either.  It was so refreshing to hear  the "Mom" therapist say what she did.  In fact, I welcomed the word "projection" for many reasons.   We here at II, have gotten so bogged down with the Shadow stuff at times that it seemed we were leaving out "projections that are very real that are made on us and on others.  We do have to know the difference and the symptoms.

I do not have the energy to go any further as I found that I needed more time and recuperation after my "accident".   I also found that my soul felt so weary.  That was the only way I could think of a description.  And then the computer was acting up and other things started becoming different ways of telling me to make some more boundaries.  There is more . It has been a gift but there is a price along with days of what I call rewards for following the signs. 

So Hello to everyone .  I read off and on, not everything, but check in at times. I found this "perked" me up in a good way.  Congrats Arthur on your new venture. I went to your site and maybe soon I will become more active. Time will tell.    'Love and kittens "  Pattye

This thread has lost its fervor. I can only say that, in continuing to follow the political "controversies" and news since, it is apparent that america is experiencing some long-overdue growing pains. Recently Obama remarked that people who are economically frustrated can become "bitter" and "cling" to religion, or gun rights, or immigration issues to bolster political power and influence, or to give life meaning itself. This has gained some strong reaction from Hillary and McCain, asserting that Obama is "out of touch," "elitist," exasperating the issue by pointing out the obvious: that people flock to religion because they are "spiritually rich" and not "materially poor." (I see these as two sides of the issue. I wonder--why are we arguing?)

On many levels, this recent political issue (and many others of the recent past) seem to embody, or reflect, some pretty important issues. I'll share some links, for anyone interested:

Opponents Paint Obama as an Elitist
12 reasons 'bitter' is bad for Obama
The Peril of Obama

It's hard not to be a political junkie this season. So many things are in play now...We are blessed to be alive for these times! If you are looking for a good website to survey the political landscape, I highly recommend:

Real Clear Politics

It rallies together a whole slew of articles from dozens of magazines and newspapers, poll information, video links--it's one of my homepages.

may the presence of Truth preside,
tim.

---

"identity which is not convulsive ceases to exist" ---breton

Nine Ways Not to Talk about God