Monday, February 04, 2008

BrownEph Endorses Senator Barack Obama


We here at PGM have watched the primary debates with great and growing concern. In many ways, this year's election will determine the future of our nation. This Tuesday, Americans will exercise their franchise at voting polls around the nation. In light of this, we issue our official endorsement of Senator Barack Obama. We strongly encourage you to vote for Senator Obama on Super Tuesday and invite you to share your thoughts below.


Brother Smartness said...

I'll start things off with a quote from Bill Clinton...

"If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes -- it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-- Bill Clinton, 10/26/04 (,,1336035,00.html)

solgenic said...

That's it! That's exactly what it is. Thank you Brother Smartness. There was something about this whole thing that reeked of already-you.

Calloo, Callay! Obama supporters are on the side of the angels. Their candidate will be a uniter... er, agent of change.

George Bush! 2008 Obama supporters are 2000 George Bush supporters. I knew something in the Kool-Aid wasn't clean!

Your "Yes, we can!" chant was his "Yes, America can" slogan.

The Republican Party's National Convention slogan was Fulfilling America's Promise by Building a Safer World and a More Hopeful America.

The Obama campaign's newspeak "change" is brill!

Same exact thing. Same. Exact. Thing. The messenger is just more palatable this time around. No. You have the perfect defense. I'm acting on "fear."

I guess such high, adulatory speech is only warranted when it's the guy your rooting for. That "gut feeling" y'all getting about Obama's "change" and "hope" is the same one Bush people got for "compassionate conservatism" and the same one he uses to base his policies.

Maybe y'all are basing your endorsement on his policies but the emphasis. It's only been 8 years. Surely we haven't had enough time for history to repeat itself!

"They are what we would be in their situation." - Abraham Lincoln

If that doesn't say it all...

Brother Smartness said...

We never even articulated our reasons for endorsing Obama. For the record, they have very little to do with the Bill Clinton quote I posted above. I have no reason to believe that Billary Clinton is the antithesis of hope and thought, but I do think the quote is interesting for a number of reasons. For now, I'll address some of your comments.

First, let me point out that the comparison between Bush and Obama is laughable. I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on that point, but these two men are galaxies apart.

If, however, your comparison begins and ends with their respective message to the masses, your polemic is duly noted without a qualm.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Bush actually believed that what he was doing was going to help America?

Let's not even go there though.

What's obviously at issue is the extent to which politicians "instill false hope" into the hearts and minds of the electorate.

They should be more realistic, though.

We ain't bankin' on hope, Solgenic.

"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

solgenic said...

Now you're going with a Bible quote? You're getting Biblical on me? You’re setting me up. Are you setting me up? Got me all paranoid.

In two posts and two comments you have not quoted or mentioned anything about his proposed policies. What is this? An exercise in communal fawning? You’re the one giving all spirit and no body. I’ve just begun reading his website and have only glanced at Senator Clinton’s page. Anything I should look out for? What proposed works of Senator Obama appeal to the Brothers of PGM? Community-based living for people with disabilities? Sentencing reform? Where’s he planning on getting all the money needed for his plans?

Polemic? You blatantly post an inflammatory quotation in your post endorsing Senator Obama, don’t even bother to explain it, I reply in the spirit of the quote and my post is… polemic? That’s interesting.

Two tears in a bucket… I let the Bill Clinton quote get the best of me. I should have steered to topic to the issues if I cared so damn much. Posting a quote that has “very little to do” with the topic... I’m so easily baited. Must work on that.

You are partially correct. Not only is the message to the masses the same but so is the response from the masses to that message. You can't make change when you’re like the rest and don’t even know it. Glad y'all ain't bankin' on hope.

I can never spot all my typos before submitting a comment. I’m going to assume Billary was a typo.

If there’s a quote battle I'm going with this: a witty saying proves nothing.

Brother Smartness said...

I had to get biblical on you with that, it was only fitting given your Bush comparison. I would have gone presidential on you, but what better higher authority is there than the Lawd?

But like invoking hope, invoking Gawd in politics is clearly an Obamanation.

And it was a polemic, evidenced by your reference to my quotation as "inflammatory" and your admission that you replied "in the spirit of the quote." Furthermore, it was a polemic based on your supposition of our opinion on the matter; one that attempted to refute what you believed to be our basis for endorsing Obama.

But you are, to a certain extent, correct. We could have hit you up with some policy points. Our endorsement surely would have followed the generic template of all endorsements.

But we hate being generic. So we issue our endorsement and engage people in real tawk.

There's a lot of pussyfooting around the real issues and that which ultimately influences our decisions. And I hate to break it to you, but these two candidates in the Democratic election have a great deal in common, so your/my decision has very little to do, at least at this point, with policy.

And it's worth noting, with regards to your Bush-Obama analogy, that while the messages may be the same, and the responses may be the same as well, the impetus is sure as hell different. Bush got into the White House because the Clinton years were replete with two major scandals: Whitewater and Monica (and I'm not talkin' bout the R&B singer). The people today are voting on issues that have much more weight, at least in my eyes, namely, an overpriced war and a potential depression. "Cash Rules Everything Around Me, CREAM get the money...[Euro Euro]...bills ya'll"

Post script: Obamanation, Lawd, Gawd, tawk, and Billary were not typos

solgenic said...

Brother Smartness, in the words of Fiona Apple, don’t fondle my trigger and then blame my gun. You, sir, are being evasive and have been from the beginning. I’ll mend my polemic ways and will endeavor to keep our exchanges as civil as this:

You issue an endorsement (without explanation), encourage others to follow it (also without explanation), and then… bupkus! No. Worse: Bill Clinton. If there’s no difference in the policies of Senators Clinton and Obama then I guess there’s nothing more to say.

Parting shot: You would think that someone who doesn’t like being generic would avoid trite and it-stopped-being-funny-the-second-time-I-heard-it terms such as Obamanation and Billary, right? Gosh! I’m just getting things all wrong today!

Brother Smartness said...


Wow, I haven't heard that word since college and I ain't bein' facetious.

Let me first say that I only speak for myself. My brothers have their own reason for endorsing Obama which they may or may not articulate in this venue.

I encourage folks to vote for Obama because I think he would make a better than President than Billary (which, by the way, is an amalgam of names whose timeless humor lies in it's accurate portrayal of Clinton's campaign tactics).

I feel as though you've capitulated now that I've asserted that there are factors that have more to do with why we vote than policy. Your assertion that if there is "no difference in the policies of...Clinton and Obama...[there is no] more to say" tells me that you've misinterpreted what I wrote above. You must believe that I think no difference exists at all. Well, in the words of Senator Obama, "That is simply not true."

I said the candidates have a great deal in common, which is something altogether different from what you surmised.

Solgenic said...

I find endorsing a candidate without explanation to be strange.

Hillbilly. She's the face of the campaign.

{A great deal in common} does not equal {No difference}. You are correct. My mistake.

If there are nutters supporting the Obama campaign, the Brothers aren’t among them.