Why do Dem boomers see themselves in Obama's comment?

[Alcibiades]

I don't see them, but rather campus conservatives from the Vietnam era.

Many have taken Obama's comment about grudges and whatnot to be about hippies. It seems more likely, however, that it is about the people in power in Washington today--people who, came of age in the late 1960's and early 1970's as an embittered political minority, who feel such rage against the left that they are willing to undertake and accept absolutely any measures, no matter how evil, that will enable them to hold onto power.

Part of what motivates many of the powerful people in the conservative movement today may be a burning resentment they have felt since the 1960's. In the biographies of just about every reactionary boomer politico I have read, there's a story about their problems as young conservatives, problems that were part and parcel of coming of age as a conservative in an age when the zeitgeist was swinging the other way. They were the squares, and I am sure many had great difficulty in getting laid. Being called fascists probably didn't make them more than amenable to compromise. They probably lost every argument they engaged in on campus, and may have been socially ostracized. Those who were inclined to become assholes probably became bigger assholes, nurturing a sense of persecution and resentment that has lingered to this day.

Is this theory right? Well, Obama writes about "the psychodrama of the baby boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago." Who would be likely to bear grudges here? After all, in Dylan's words, the hippies were "on the side that's winning." To me, at least, Obama's comment would clearly seem to refer to the bitterness many campus conservatives felt back then, most notably Allan Bloom.

Or maybe not and he's just looking to alienate Democratic activists from the largest living American generation, in which case he's certainly too dumb to be president.

[cuke]

1. Because we know what he said

and that he said nothing about it only applying to people in power in Washington today. Plus, this isn't the 1st time he's made these comments. Go through all of them and there is a consistent message - the people who fought in the 60's are making it hard to move forward. How is that not insulting?

[Lex]

2. What's with the hostility to the battles waged in the 60's

anyway?

The only ones I know who are still pissed about them are right wing nuts.

[Alcibiades]

3. Exactly

Which is why I think (or perhaps hope) those were the folks harboring grudges he was talking about to begin with.

[Lex]

4. If so, then

I find it abhorrent if he is indeed trying to court the rightwing nutjobs by diss'ing those who marched and fought and battled in the 60's for things that were good and true.

[Alcibiades]

6. No, it's the other way around

It seems to me he is dissing the bearers of those grudges (the ex-campus reactionaries).

If I'm right.

Which I'm not that invested in being, being an Edwards supporter.

[madrchsod]

9. i agree with what he had to say..

one thing he did say was -some- he did not say all. i think he has a valid point. i`m supporting dennis but i`ll defend obama`s right to critique our failures and praise our truimphs

[EFerrari]

5. Becauee his comment was broad enough to allow that reading.

Was it taken out of context?

[Alcibiades]

7. Good question

I'd really like to read that whole chapter now. Normally, I don't read these candidate books, but if he really said what Broder makes it appear he said, it's incredibly dumb. And if he didn't, why isn't his campaign on top of this?

Can't search it on Amazon. I'll have to get it at the library.

[EFerrari]

8. I don't read those books, either. But, it sounds much too stupid

to be Obama, although everyone has stupid moments. Maybe someone has the book.

[Breeze54]

10. I see what you're saying but why

hasn't he clarified it? There was a lot of hoopla about these
comments he made back in January and AFAIK, he hasn't clarified.

That, in and of itself, seems pretty dumb to me.

[Alcibiades]

14. It is

and I just read the post with Tom Hayden's letter, which included some other of Obama's comments that make it more clear to me that Obama is actually saying that the battles of the past are needlessly divicive, which I think misses the point that division is sometimes needed in the cause of justice.

Still, reading the "grudge" uote really did remind me of what I know has been written about Cheney and some of Bloom's students who came up in that era. Hayden really points out Obama's attempt at "fairness" for what it is--a rather ahistoric "centrism" that glosses over the moral facts surrounding whatever progress has been achieved by the people of the United States.

[Breeze54]

16. Now you see...

Good! I saw that and felt it in January!

We have enough of the dividing of the masses! :grr:

:hi:

[WinkyDink]

11. Why shouldn't we? Has Obama excluded us, plainly and clearly? I THINK NOT.

He was speaking of his arch-rival HILLARY and her co-evals.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Isn't Obama a "Boomer" Himself?

[Lex]

13. Yes, and he very much benefits from the "battles fought in the 60's."

nt

[msongs]

15. Obama poster boy donnie mcclurkin bears grudges but that's ok with obama nt