What is it ALL ABOUT!?! really. I'm 39 now...life is short

I see even at this age that the arc our lives inscribe in this universe is quite short indeed. After you've sated your pleasures, bought or built a home to call your own, made some memories....what is it all about?

It is about service to your fellow people across the globe. It is about altruism. It is about thinking ahead to what kind of life and what kind of earth you leave for the next generation.

I happen to believe there is one candidate who can give us the psychic lift we need to look ourselves in the mirror and say, "I'm better than this." "My life is larger than myself."

I'd like to think this person as a transformational leader can cause a light of hope to flicker in each one of you and inspire you to do something good you wouldn't have done otherwise. That is what leaders do. It is what he has brought about before. Not as a policy wonk or lifelong politician......but as someone who has effected change seemingly out of the most hopeless situations.

We need that person HERE. and NOW. These people need him in the worst way. If Obama is fortunate enough to get the nomination, he will no doubt mobilize all of you people and anyone else who cares about the country and just needs a leader with a vision to rally around.

Let's take this moment to put hope and public service and THE PEOPLE on a pedestal. These people are counting on you.

It's also about survival, hanging on, a whole host of things that people have been doing for so long.
Don't be surprised if there are folks who will tell you you are full of shit. Take comfort that you aren't. Well, maybe not this sweet thread. Thank you very much! :hi:

Nor am I looking for what the French call a "man on horseback" - a strong personality to rally around.

Placing a charismatic and idealized celebrity on a pedestal is the exact opposite of putting the people on a pedestal.

I'm not saying you need a spiritual leader. nor do I. But what I am saying this world DOES need is leaders. I want to ask YOU to be a leader...but there may be things that keep you from actualizing that in your own life. We are all asking and looking for leaders and examples.

To stop looking for role models and leaders and people of action is to stop learning and growing. We should ALL want to maintain some child like wonder about the world out there we still have yet to discover.

I am not looking to "actualize my own life" either, and I certainly do not look to any politician for anything like that. I find it sad that people do. I am a leader, thanks. I don't need any of the current crop of Democratic party politicians to hold up as an example of leadership - except maybe as an object lesson in what not to do.

Inspiration and hope and belief don't exist in a vacuum, outside of religion, that is. I am not looking for hope for the sake of hope, inspiration for the sake of inspiration, nor am I searching for any belief system. I am perfectly capable of being inspired by that which is inspiring - I don't want to get inspired for the sake of getting inspired, nor inspired by the charisma or promise of a flamboyant or alluring personality.

One becomes a leader by leading, and it is absolutely essential that the leader tells the followers where they are being led, what it is we are to believe, what basis there is for hope, and what it is we are hoping for.

I do think that you are accurately describing the Obama movement, though. It is more of a New Age spiritual movement than it is a political movement.

but it is clear you are not a part of my target audience for this post. It would have been really cool if you could have just decided to breeze past my post and said, "meh. not for me." I'm not sure why you felt it so important to counter my positive message with a dirge against hope.

Had your post been something happy and light unrelated to politics, I probably would have breezed past. But placing pictures of children and happy think positive thoughts as ornaments on a political statement should not render the political statement immune from critical examination.

It is a shame that any response at variance with the ideas you expressed is seen as unwanted and negative. However, what you are saying is not benign or politically neutral, not something to "breeze past" - in fact, I see it as very potent and as having far-reaching and significant political consequences. I do not agree that there is one and only one valid opinion about what should give us hope, or what is positive, and that those views get a pass or are exempt from critical response. Empty and vague feel good political ideas always reinforce and support the existing power structure, and from that vantage point anyone looking for hope in something more tangible can be portrayed as being negative, or as spreading bad feelings. In this way, unpleasant realities are ignored and that makes the unpleasant realities less likely to be overcome.

Your post makes you feel hopeful and positive, and you claim that this has something to do with the welfare of children, while my responses make me and others feel hopeful and positive. Just because someone disagrees with you that does not mean they are writing "dirges against hope" - they could be cautioning against false hope or misplaced hope, could they not? And would not that be a positive thing?

it is a hope that is placed on something unreliable that ultimately proves to be unable to meet in reality what had been hoped for.

So you see.......it's not that I'm immune or defensive against other ideas....it's just that you haven't presented any. All you've done is tell me what NOT to believe. Why don't you tell me what you think is worthy of believing in and working toward?

Are you just sitting on Democratic Underground to ultimately argue there can be no hope in our current crop of politicians and political system? Because if so I would question why this is your forum of choice.

If you truly have another point of view on what will take us past this dynamic tension politically that creates a steady state of suspended animation and no real action on significant challenges....then please let me know what it is. I'm open to what you might suggest as an alternative.

And using pictures of children was meant to be a powerful iconic vision to focus our minds on solving problems and getting positive results...not just bickering about who said what and in what tone.

I think it is dangerous and unwise to place so much hope in a charismatic leader, whose main attribute is that he gives us hope. Hope of what? Belief in what? What I hear is that hope and belief are supposed to somehow be sufficient onto themselves, magical ingredients that have been missing, and that this will somehow motivate and inspire us - as though the problems in the country are the people's fault because they are uninspired and unmotivated, and that the people can be fixed or improved by a charismatic celebrity. That is a political fantasy that denies the predations and assaults on the people by the agents of the wealthy and powerful few. It disappears the role of power and economics - which is what politics is about - from the political discussions. It moves the battle off of the scary external world of objective reality and into the safer and more pleasant realm of interior emotional feelings.

By the way, your theme of doing for others and not being so self-centered is strong and important and much needed, and I am in complete agreement.

The pictures of the kids are great, don't worry about that.

Malcolm X, Dr. King, and Bobby Kennedy were all inspirational leaders whom I had the privilege of meeting. I said the same things then and to them that I am saying here. Back then, while we saw being positive as important, no one thought it sufficient and it was not used as an excuse to be resentful of or resistant to the messages of those who were critical. The difference is like night and day - when we were seriously facing those in power and risking life and limb, the giddy feel good let's all think positive stuff and have hope and believe that we see associated too often with the current campaign season would have seemed obscenely inappropriate and highly dangerous. None of this hope means a thing if we are not being sober and honest about the sacrifices that are required and the dangers we are facing.

because I feel I got something from you in the last post that is a stepping stone to something more. I believe what you say about facing danger, facing sacrifice. I also believe that it can't start and END with just an internal feeling or thought or attitude.

But it can start there. It is up to us to help each other see what needs to be built on top of that to essentially mobilize as one people against what we see as insane policies and social injustice in this wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

Will talk more. Because I'm truly going to give what I can in full measure to support someone who isn't as "part of the system" as the other 2. We'll see how it all unfolds. But I guarantee I'm going to have fun while I'm at it.

Thank you.

Yes, we may have found a stepping stone, as you say, to something more. I appreciate your patience with me.

:applause:

There will be plenty who disagree with you, but I hope you will keep speaking from the heart. It can mean being in an uncomfortable minority sometimes, but heart is what can change the world. Not political expediency or sound byte savvy.

More of us should have the courage to do the same.

:hi:

I can imagine a 'leader' who is like Cheney when he hears that the public does not like his plans or his direction, saying "So?"

Heart is good though, like how Bastian defeated his enemy in The Neverending Story II by wishing she had a heart. "Even the President needs passion." Or better yet, compassion. :hi:

I believe we do need someone that represents our interests and represents who we are as a people. I could make a case that 50% of America and their thoughts and motivations may well have been represented by what Bush brought to the table.

The only reason some of them have peeled off from supporting him is because he's seen as a loser right now. No one wants to hang out with a losing team except the FANatic. If the war in Iraq had gone a little better it wouldn't have made it any more morally right...but there would be a bunch of uber patriots yelling "HOOAHH!" ready to take on the next part of the axis.

My point is there are periods when the U.S. needs a strong leader who cares about people in the nation in all walks of life who can step into the breach and help nudge things back to something that is reasonable and sustainable. I think of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt right off the bat. Not saying Obama, if elected, would come anywhere close. But perception CAN be reality. Sometimes people DO need that breakthrough. I think Obama as president would WANT the people's interests to be represented by him and the executive/legislative agenda during his administration.

In a representative democracy, the theory is that the politicians represent the people, not the other way around. Yet almost everyone in the activists community does see it the other way around, and act as unpaid public relations agents for larger-than-life celebrities - representing them, advancing their careers, promoting them, defending them. This is corroding our democracy and it short-circuits our national political discussion.

We complain about "spineless Democrats." They aren't spineless, they are representing those who put them in power and who put demands on them, and that is not the people. We don't give them anything to represent - we are too busy representing them - and we award them the job solely based on party affiliation. We promise them our support and loyalty no matter what - and then wonder why we have no leverage on them later. We ask them to merely be "better than the Republicans" and that is exactly what they shoot for - to be ever so slightly to the left of the Republicans. As the Republicans then can safely move farther and farther to the right, the Democrats are right there moving to the right along with them - staying slightly to the left of them so we "have a choice."

Two or three times today I saw critics shut down with the argument that "first we need to get Democrats in office wherever possible, and then we can try to get better Democrats later." How obviously foolish that is. If we get them into office first without any conditions, what incentive will they ever have to change after that? We reward their mediocrity - they get into power by being wishy washy, so why would they stop being wishy washy? It worked so well for them.

did so because they had been lied to.

FDR could be a strong leader because he was empowered by a decisive win, an almost 28% victory margin. Presumably, he was mindful of the fact that he had to answer to them, whereas a fuehrer leader makes them answerable to him. I think Obama touts his judgement whereas Hillary and Giuliani tout their leadership.

I think it actually says more about our chances as a country than many other measures. I have seen people change themselves and their circumstances through a positive attitude.

I'm getting lots of cheerleading for one candidate or another but not much positive thought at all.

:loveya:

:hi:

My kids are 8 and 12, and there is little that I do or think that but that involves the opportunities they may have in their lives.

Maybe it makes me a dreamer or an idealist, but I imagine a whole good country ready and willing to mobilize for a better future for our kids, if only we had someone to lead the way. This is a hinge-point in history, for our land at least. More of the same is not an option.

OP because people are concerned to attach to much sentimentality or spirtual feeling to a leader.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a leader can lead us to a different perspective, a paradigm shift, that allows new ways of approaching old problems. That alone would be a giant step forward.

and On Becoming A Leader. From a business or family or community group perspective, a lot of the same behaviors, attitudes, values, and communication are required.

It's really interesting how when people hear "Leader" they focus on "Power" and get all freaked out as though they will fall prey to a modern day Jim Jones or Benito Mussolini if they dare to believe in someone else's ability to lead.

the emails you get from the 'buddhists for Obama group' on the other hand are all about focusing on the transformational meditative awarenesss that Obama brings lol

Start with the corner of your own little world.

I would say that it is neither a case of charismatic leadership alone nor their message alone which uplifts humanity but the combination of the two.

For example, Hitler had great personal charisma but the principles he was espousing were empty. They contained no real hope of a better future and thus, his vision barely outlived him (and there was much joy at that). On the other hand, there are any number of people who espouse worthwhile messages but fail to capture the imagination. When a vision is propelled purely by the force of personality of it's leader then it's success or failure rests purely upon that leader; it becomes, to one extent or another, "his war" or crusade or whatever but when that figure merely acts as the spokesman of the message, not it's focus but simply it's best speaker, the message moves beyond him, becoming viral. MLK, Mahatma Gandhi, they acted as speaker for their message, not focus and so, when they died, their message outlived them and motivates us to this day.

As for what the point is, I can't put it any better than Joe Stryzinscki did:
"The universe speaks in many languages, but only one voice.
The language is not Narn, or Human, or Centauri, or Gaim or Minbari
It speaks in the language of hope
It speaks in the language of trust
It speaks in the language of strength and the language of compassion
It is the language of the heart and the language of the soul.
But always it is the same voice
It is the voice of our ancestors, speaking through us,
And the voice of our inheritors, waiting to be born
It is the small, still voice that says
We are one
No matter the blood
No matter the skin
No matter the world
No matter the star:
We are one
No matter the pain
No matter the darkness
No matter the loss
No matter the fear
We are one
Here, gathered together in common cause, we agree to recognize the
singular truth and this singular rule:
That we must be kind to one another
Because each voice enriches us and ennobles us and each voice lost
diminishes us.
We are the voice of the Universe, the soul of creation, the fire
that will light the way to a better future.
We are one.
We are one."

It is scarce these days.

today is going to be rough for DU. I probably won't be on here much today as results are coming in. I will be at the gym and calling local residents to get out the vote for Obama in Oregon.

Take care.

is sinking like a stone so quickly amidst all the furor around West Virginia, Superdelegates breaking Obama's way, Kentucky and Oregon looking like they will cancel each other out, etc.

It has become tough to read reasonable posts and replies around here.

The Hokie Pokie was what it was all about.