The first two posts below, (bottom of page) were written in the winter of ’08 (one by me, one by mainstream online media); now that the primary season has come and gone, what’s the story with Barack Obama? Well, he’s still superman at this point. But it seems people are beginning to work out the deep, societal issues around race and gender that have enthralled people so with this guy’s candidacy.
One recent piece published in The Strange (Seattle’s vulgar, satirical music rag based in my own neighborhood of Capitol Hill) I think breaks down a lot of the innuendo surrounding the post-convention election that is now heating up markedly. This edition of the Stranger was published after Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, but claims to have been written before the speech.
WARNING: This may be considered offensive to some. It’s admittedly shocking, but if you know the Stranger, you won’t be surprised. Keep reading – the piece’s larger, satirical point rings more true by the end.
Here’s the direct link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=655982&hp
The Meaning and the Meat of Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech
Noting in Barack Obama’s speech was in the least bit surprising.
I’m writing this on Tuesday, so I haven’t heard the speech yet, but I can assure you that there wasn’t anything the least bit surprising about Obama’s speech on Thursday night in Denver. (Unless there was some sort of tragedy. But if there was some sort of tragedy, you won’t be reading this. You will be hunkered down, weathering the race riots that ensue in the wake of certain sorts of tragedies.)
He spoke about the state of the economy, the cost of the war, the “pain at the pump,” the housing crisis, Katrina, the credit crunch, the Bush administration’s energy policies. We are already familiar with Obama’s message. We have heard it a thousand times already, and we will hear it a thousand times more before November. Obama is about the audacity of hope, about “Yes we can,” about cool, about change, about a new direction in American politics. Voters interested in the same old, same old, are welcome to vote for John McCain, whose political program is practically indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush, our very unpopular president.
Obama is intelligent, young, handsome, optimistic; he is willing to talk to our enemies, to work with the international community, to institute something that approximates universal health care, to tax the superrich. We know that Obama finds strength in his beautiful wife and two daughters, we know that he has faith in the core values of our democracy, we know he believes in the fundamental goodness of all Americans.
Obama no doubt mentioned all of these unsurprising things in his speech on Thursday night, arguably the most important speech delivered by a black man in the history of this planet.
Barring some sort of tragedy.
No other black man, not even Martin Luther King Jr., has found himself at the very center of not just a powerful political system, but the most powerful political system known to humans. That is where Obama found himself on Thursday night. He had nothing less than the full attention of the entire planet. During his speech, Palestinians lent Obama their ears, as did Israelis, Europeans, Asians, South Americans, Africans. Not just Americans, but all of humanity was listening, thinking, dreaming. But what the world heard was not all that Obama had to say. Much about him, his color, and the real historical significance of the speech was kept in silence.
McCain and his handlers have worked hard to show us that white women—Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in one ad, a parade of attractive young women in another—are captivated by Barack Obama. And they have good reason for doing this. Yes, Scarlett Johansson cannot say enough good things about Obama; yes, Kirsten Dunst will do anything she can to help him to get elected; yes, white women love Obama. Even white women who don’t like men love Obama. McCain and his people want to exploit this enthusiasm among these young women, they want to rub our noses in it, they want to scream it from the rooftops: These sexually ripe white women, these women that most white men could never hope to possess, they are helpless before this man. McCain seeks to translate Obama’s hard-won political currency into the primal terms of unbridled, white-female lust for black cock.
They cannot run the country, these Republicans, but they know how to get primal with American politics. Recall the ad the Bush-Cheney reelection team used to show the deadly importance of national security: A pack of wolves look at the camera, rise, and attack. This ad draws inspiration from the darkest depths of medieval German folklore, a fact that I imagine someone had to explain to George W. Bush. But with Obama, the Republican Party has turned to a more recent source of myth and terror: The Birth of a Nation, with its plantations, burning crosses, and brave white men dressed in white.
All that matters to Republicans is victory, even at the heavy price of decency. When you place no value on decency, you don’t regard its sacrifice as too high a price to pay. The Republican Party has no sense of shame. What is its ultimate message on Obama? He is not prepared to lead the world? No, that concern does not strike a nerve in the American imagination. That he is cosmopolitan and looks down on white people who “cling to guns and religion”? No, still not raw enough. We need to get cruder: If Obama is elected, white women will be thinking about nothing else but the cock of the handsome black man who sits in the Oval Office.
Now we have finally reached the reptilian swamp of the American brain.
During the most important speech delivered by a black American, nothing will be said about the obscene substance of the Republican Party’s current message: Those who want to protect their daughters and control their wives better vote for John McCain. And who is this McCain? Just look at him! He is old, he is cold, he is dull; with him, no flames, no distraction, no heart palpitations—women will never think about his cock. And isn’t this the kind of president the Republican Party always offers America? The old, the infirm, the cockless?
And yet the Republican Party is called the “Daddy Party,” and it somehow succeeds in emasculating Democratic candidates in election after election.
As long as Bush is president, white virgins sleep soundly. When virgin white women go to bed at night, they do not dream of Bush’s penis. The same will be the case if the septuagenarian McCain is elected—no nocturnal moaning will ever be attributed to his presidency or his appendage. But imagine an Obama night in America. It will be a night filled with a million leg-twisting dreams, a million pillows soaked with sweat, a million blankets turned and pulled. Even white women who are not virgins—white women who are married to hardworking white men—will dream of presidential black cock and not the penis of the white man lying next to them.
Recall for a moment Bill Clinton’s sexual encounter with a White House intern. When it was exposed, everyone wanted to know when and how he pulled it off, how was that kind of privacy even possible in such a public place as the White House? Where were the security guards when this cocksucking was going on? Or did they see everything but were bound to an oath of secrecy? How did Clinton do it?
If it had been Obama, on the other hand, then only one question would have occupied the minds of white Americans: How big is it? He is, after all, an African. You know, with roots in Kenya. And the Masai people are very tall. So, tell us, what kind of equipment is our first black president packing down there?
Obama is the leader of the party once led by John F. Kennedy and later by Bill Clinton. Indeed, the cock thing has as much to do with the party as with color. For example, compare in your mind the black conservative Clarence Thomas to Obama. Thomas—the guy who was alarmed to find pubic hair on his Coke can—is, without a doubt, emasculated. Look at his face, then think about what’s behind the zipper of his pants: Yes, it once was there but someone (done) cut it off with the same determination that the slave master cut off Toby’s foot in the popular TV series Roots. That’s Thomas. That’s why he is a Republican.
As it is for black men, it is for black women. Just compare Michelle Obama and Dr. Condoleezza Rice. We can easily imagine that a night with Michelle will require several energy drinks, lots of B vitamins, and all of the strength you can pack in your body—this woman will not stop until she is satisfied. (Obama, you the man.) As for Rice, like Cindy McCain and Laura Bush, a night spent with her is no different than a night spent with a refrigerator. And this exposes the final contradiction of the Republican Party’s war against sex: Though they are all about going forth and multiplying, they strive in every way to appear cold, frigid, infertile, and cockless.
What it comes down to is this: The Democratic Party is the party of life and the Republican Party is the party of death. If you want war and wolves, turn to the Republican Party; if you want to improve the health-care system, turn to the Democratic Party. The Republican Party despises life and sex. It only cares about you if are unborn or brain-dead. A person who is alive, a person with a body that experiences desire, a person with a body that lusts after other bodies—that is a person who the GOP wants nothing to do with. To borrow an example from an antiwar protester: If the U.S. Air Force drops bombs on enemies and innocent civilians, the GOP does not give a damn; but let those same planes drop condoms or morning-after pills on enemy territory, and the GOP will be out on the streets in a minute protesting and screaming about the killing of babies who are not yet born.
The GOP urges teens to focus on prayer and repress the natural drives of their supposedly God-made bodies. The GOP supports purity balls, where sexually mature young women pledge their virginity to their fathers (why not their mothers?). This is a party that loathes and fears sex. Hetero sex, teen sex, same sex, safe sex, oral sex, anal sex. Sex in books, sex in movies, sex on the internet, and, of course, sex in the White House. Especially sex in the White House.
Is it any wonder that this party put Bob Dole up against Bill Clinton in 1996?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, the first Bush, the second Bush—these are all men without cocks you can imagine. You can’t run an attack ad that hints at these men violating some sexual taboo, because you can’t imagine them with the equipment they would need to pull that off. Of all the recent Republican presidents, only Ronald Reagan may be the exception—he seemed virile, on his horse, chopping wood—but he was also old and we do not think of old men as having penises.
The GOP couldn’t play on sexual fears, of course, if Americans weren’t so terrified of sex and of life. Sex is a life force, be it straight sex or gay sex. To have sex is to be a living being (only the dead don’t want to fuck).
Although Republicans do have sex (and by that I mean every kind of sex), they make every effort not to be sexy or desirable. The opposite is the case with Democrats. Indeed, during the first days of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, it was clear to the Christian protesters that sex was the dividing line between the parties. A protester carried a sign that connected gay sex with a weak national defense. One protester drove around in a truck that had an image of Obama making out with a man. A new GOP talking point/smear campaign: Obama will not only seduce your virgin daughters, but also your sons!
And now, for the first time, America must imagine black cock in the White House. What’s it really like? How long can it last? Is it uncut? Thick? Veiny? Quick? Slow? Inquisitive? Considerate? Gentle? Indifferent? Bossy? Way out of control? All over the fucking place? Damn! What kind of cock can we expect from this black man?
Obama’s cock is on all of our minds. And Obama’s cock, my friends, was missing from Obama’s speech. It will, however, loom large over McCain’s acceptance speech next week in Minneapolis, just as it looms large in McCain’s campaign commercials and, without a doubt, Cindy McCain’s imagination.
With additional “reporting” by Dan Savage.
google_ad_client = “pub-0969663119487598”;google_ad_width = 336;
google_ad_height = 280;
google_ad_format = “336x280_as”;
google_ad_type = “text_image”;google_ad_channel = “8063146703”;
Following two posts originally published at http://davidivus.blogspot.com:
Friday, February 22, 2008
This article dissects the Obama phenomenon and finds its root in larger societal trends among young people:
Jewish World Review Feb. 22, 2008 / 16 Adar I 5768
The Ecstacy of Barack
By Kathleen Parker
| Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
Reports of women weeping and swooning – even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) – have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama.
His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.
Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus.
Well, you don’t see any men fainting in Obi’s presence.
Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says, “I’m only human” like whipping out a hankie and blowing one’s nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience’s applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.
So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?
If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama’s astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama’s intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.
To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.
All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease’s symptoms – all tied to the decline of the family.
That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.
Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.
One of Obama’s TV ads, set to rock ‘n’ roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: “We Can Change The World” and “We Can Save The Planet.”
Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope – and hope, he’ll tell you, knows no limits.
It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He’s a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent – hence thousands of years of religion – but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals.
And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
Here’s how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling: “When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa … ”
This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It’s all religion by any other name.
Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.
Monday, January 7, 2008
What’s with this Obama Character?
Is there not something kind of fishy about the meteoric rise of Barak Obama? Just a few years ago he was a state senator in Illinois whom no one had ever heard of. I see one of two possibilites here, the second being most likely: 1) He is a fulfillment of the “end of days” prophecy that sees the return of both true and false messiahs, the false being deployed by Beelzebub to deceive the faithful. Obama is a false messiah/false prophet, on earth to do the work of the devil, and his rise is a harbinger of the final confrontation between good and evil. Whew. Ya, I don’t know about that one, but amazingly, there is a great deal of internet sentiment out there to this effect. Much is probably meant as slander, but it would appear that some is completely sincere. Perhaps people apparently take politics a little too seriously… 2) Obama’s rise has been facilitated by powerful, monied interests for their own cynical, heretofore opaque purposes. It may be that those who desire another Republican administration have pushed him to win the the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be the easiest democrat to beat. 2a) A modified version of theory 2), though it seems unlikely to me, is that the interests backing Hillary have engineered Obama’s popularity to peak early enough in the campaign season so as to be impossible to sustain, thus giving Hillary the long-run advantage. I don’t know enough about how elections work to know if it is possible for powers-that-be to exert such control over voting that such a ploy could be effective. Nevertheless, the level of election manipulation is widely underestimated in this country. It is kept secret because if the world knew that the largest democracy was so cynically controlled from above, the U.S. would lose its moral authority to demand “democracy” around the globe, in the strong-armed way that we do. The nation did however get a brief taste of just how few people can control an election outcome seven years ago, with the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision! Indeed. If theory 2) proves correct and Obama’s uber-appeal is an engineered sham, then once primary season is over, Republican interests will bring out the big guns and start tearing into Obama’s seemingly unblemished record. With enough propaganda, I believe the Republican side will succeed in turning non-black Christian voters solidly against Obama. The level of demonization and negative advertising will reach record levels. Money will pour in to defeat him. We will begin hearing the nasty puns on his name (B-iraq Osama”, etc.), and ethnic and religious aspects of Obama will emerge as a major weakness to be exploited among the white working-class and evangelical segments of the electorate. Barak Obama’s Teflon-invincibility will be rapidly broached. I suspect when this happens, the black community will line-up behind Obama to an extent, and with a fraternal familiarity, that they so far have not. His great crossover appeal will also become a thing of the past. I believe the red state/blue state divide is a crass simplification, but it does ring true in that the trend in this country is toward political polarization along ethnic and religious lines. If Obama emerges as the Democratic nominee, whatever the reasons behind his win, the resulting general election campaign will be the most divisive in U.S. history, and may well serve as a catalyst for further civil fracturing of a nation; a harbinger of future ethnic and ideological strife.