It's hope, finally, that makes us sell out

We get so downtrodden we'll do anything

for a chance at that happy dreamed-of outcome:

Find substance in the airiest speeches,

comfort in the slightest promises

It's the best weapon of mass distraction

"Hope Upon a Cloud..."

If there was a nickel for every 'progressive' I've pissed off with the expression of my views, I would not be rifling pay phones for change.

This suits me fine, as do dimes and half-dollars. I didn't start writing in hope that everyone would agree with me all the time; anybody that did agree with me all the time would have to be some kind of crank.

Back in 2003, when I first stuck my head above the turret, ninety-nine out of a hundred of my irate readers were right-wingers; now they're all liberals.

I guess this is because, what with Obamarama and all that, folks on the 'Left' think their day is finally coming.

On that, we agree. I just happen to think it's a different day. Maybe (certainly) I'm just a big party pooper, but in the name of Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, knock off acting like 'hope' is something that has energy and can perform work. It doesn't and it can't.

It's just an emotion. We're talking about an abstract noun. Hope is just an affective meaning we apply to future events, of no more substance than amusement, irritation or kindness to strangers.

It's a feeling, an idea, nothing more. The first thing the 'Left' in this country has to do is abandon hope. Then maybe we can get something done.

Hope is futile. Action is what matters. Deeds, not words. Don't hope, but plan. And then act upon your plan. Make it into motion. Hope is just another word for 'wish.' Obama believers hope upon a cloud.

The problem is liberal/progressive types have been living without the slightest whiff of opportunity to make fuck-all happen in this country for so long that:

1) they're surviving entirely on wishful thinking.

2) they're forming a circular firing squad.

Look, people, I would love it if Obama or Clinton or Zippy the Pinhead for that matter won the presidency and announced they were going to remove human rights from corporate entities.

Ensure all Americans got free healthcare, pull our military out of Iraq within the fortnight.

Instead of spending 60% of our red ink on war, we would spend it on the invention of a substance that not only cured cancer and reversed global warming, but was chock full of the good kind of cholesterol.

I'd love that. But it's not going to happen, and if you're hoping one of these candidates is a stealth socialist, this would be a good time to start sniffing the glue again.

It's hope, finally, that makes us sell out. We get so downtrodden we'll do anything for a chance at that happy dreamed-of outcome: find substance in the airiest speeches, comfort in the slightest promises.

Hope springs eternal. That's what makes it such a useful tool of the elites in power. It's the best weapon of mass distraction.

For every promise they make, there's an "if":

If you get me elected, if circumstances are favorable, then it will be done. The "if" is just a wish in disguise, and it almost never comes true.

Will nothing bring the believers down? Fuck all this Obama's-gonna-save-us zeitgeist that has taken over the left. He's not a leftist. He's not going to change anything. Yet because he SAYS "change", they fall for him like he's the second coming. It is so frustrating.

I swear these people believe that the minute he takes office, the war will end, we'll all get a six figure job and the world itself will take on that eden-like buena vista vision glow of perfection.

Newsflash folks, this country, let alone the world, will require change so deep to get to that place, no politician can enact...and he/she can't do it on his own.

It will require sacrifice on levels that most tree-hugging lefties aren't willing to do. Hell, this generation of laissez-faire lefties isn't even willing to protest something like America's endless warmongering.

As the owner of the mining operation in Clint Eastwood's "Pale Rider" observed:

"A preacher? That will give 'em hope!"

Both candidates are establishment insiders

Both are corporate-state politicians

As befits American culture, politics is all about slick selling to the masses. Hillary Clinton is selling Day-1 help to victims and sufferers.

Barack Obama is selling effervescent hope to yes-we-can dreamers. This media hyped horse race is like a fight between diet Coke and diet Pepsi, artificially sweetened candidates devoid of real nourishment.

The least educated, least sophisticated and least wealthy along with Hispanics are sipping Clinton’s fizzled-out drink.

The most educated, most privileged, and most financially successful along with African-Americans are gulping down Obama’s charismatic pick-me-up.

As to who is buying what, consider these data: Clinton won the non-college-educated voters by 22 points in California, 32 points in Massachusetts, 54 points in Arkansas, and 11 points in New Jersey.

In a Pew Research national survey, Obama led among people with college degrees by 22 points.

In Connecticut, Obama beat Clinton among college graduates by 17 points and in New Jersey by 11 points.

And note this: 39 percent of Virginia and 41 percent of Maryland Democratic primary voters reported incomes of $100,000 or more – clearly well educated people that would favor Obama.

A simplistic conclusion is that the dumber you are the more likely you prefer the first woman president because you believe this experience-selling status quo, corporate candidate.

And the smarter you are the more likely you prefer the first black president because you embrace the change-promises and platitudes from the more authentic, inspirational candidate with the short resume.

Clinton supporters appreciate the 10-point-plan-for-every-problem political pragmatist. Obamatons swoon over the big-picture, unity-promising political messiah.

Working-class Clinton supporters are like weary shoppers seeking decent food at low prices at Safeway and good coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts.

Obama yes-we-can-happy-facers gladly pay exorbitant prices for the Whole Foods experience and Starbucks shtick.

Here are some realities that neither group wants to face:

Both candidates are establishment insiders.

Both are corporate-state politicians. Note that Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, a major banking company, has raised more than $1 million for the Obama campaign.

Large sources of Obama money are law firms, investment houses, and real estate companies, and 80 percent of his donors are affiliated with business, compared to 85 percent for Clinton.

Neither are true progressives or populists, like Kucinich and Edwards.

Both Clinton the fighter and Obama the talker will sell out once they confront presidential realities.

Why? Because plutocracies know how to retain power AFTER elections. After two years it will be clear that the new president will have failed to extract the US from Iraq;

Will have failed to deliver universal health care, will have failed to address illegal immigration;

Will have done nothing to get a new and serious 9/11 investigation, will have done nothing to stop middle-class-killing globalization;

And will have utterly disappointed the vast majority of Americans.

The president’s most pressing priorities will be lowering expectations and getting reelected, despite raising taxes. The only people truly surprised at all this will be those lacking what the Greeks thought is a virtue: cynicism.

Finally, for those seeking serious political system reforms, it is troubling that neither Clinton nor, especially, Obama have the courage to advocate needed constitutional amendments.

Such as replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, getting all private money out of politics, making universal health care a right, and preventing presidential signing statements that undermine laws.