If anyone's interested in the thread topic... did you see Obama's reply? ---- (excerpt from an AP article of 1-27-08) "I think that Bill Clinton did important work back in the 1990s," he said. "The question is, now we're in 2008, and how do we move it forward to the next phase?" "I think that in the '90s, we got caught up in a slash-and-burn politics that the American people are weary of," Obama said. "Now, that is not the Clintons' fault," he said on ABC's "This Week.""It is all of our faults, in the sense that we've gotten into these bad habits and we can't seem to have disagreements without being disagreeable." LINK ---- Ouch. It would be awesome to have an articulate, intelligent president.
... says the guy who initiated the mudslinging at the last democratic debate with the Wal-Mart jab and questions about who he was running against... total hypocrite. Those are nice words, Obama, but how sir, do you plan to make no one in Congress disagreeable? See there are words, and then there are actions. Before deciding that we like Obama's words, we should first check to see if he is even remotely positioned to put them into action. He's simply not. Basically, Obama's mouth is writing checks that his azz can't cash. ALL TALK. NO SUBSTANCE. HYPOCRITE.
I personally thought that Clinton handled things pretty well with a Congress that was more or less controlled by the GOP for the last 6 years of his Presidency. I don't remember him being the initiator on the "slash and burn" politics that Obama's talking about. I think Bill was a slimeball but I have to admit he was damn good at putting through legislation in spite of the GOP controlled congress
You are only qualified to say that he's not qualified to persuade you, but that distinguishes him in no way at all from any human being outside the GOP. So again, your post is meaningless drivel. So... would he seem more substantial to you if he used ALL CAPS?
No, B-Bob, meaningless drivel is buying into a charlatan's speech that says he can end disagreements in Washington. Maybe this is your first election -- I really don't know -- but this is often promised and never delivered. I love how everyone embrace Obama's flowery language as if it actually has a chance of coming true. It simply does not. Heck, he himself is ADDING to the disagreements through mud slinging and race baiting in this race. Any non-partisan can readily see that. Biggest fairy tale ever.
I know, right? T_J talking race baiting and partisanship is almost performance art. If I'm a partisan, why would I consider McCain versus some democrats for my vote? I am looking forward to a time when W returns to meaning "whatever," just for threads like this. Anyway, I've seen no arguments to convince me that Obama cannot win over some conservatives. (In fact, according to many posters here, he is doing that empirically.) Nor have I seen an argument that persuades me that he is ineffective. I just don't see the substance to that claim. Great article last week on Hillary (&Obama tangentially), in the New Yorker Link: The Choice, by George Packer (first page only here) In the fall of 1971, a Yale Law School student named Greg Craig sublet his apartment, on Edgewood Avenue, in New Haven, to his classmate Hillary Rodham and her boyfriend, Bill Clinton, for seventy-five dollars a month. Over the following decades, Craig and the Clintons continued to cross paths. Craig, who became a partner at the blue-chip law firm Williams & Connolly, in Washington, D.C., received regular invitations to White House Christmas parties, where Hillary always remembered to ask about his five children. In the fall of 1998, President Clinton asked him to lead the defense team that the White House was assembling for the impeachment battle. On a bookshelf in Craig’s large corner office are several photographs of him with one or both Clintons, including a snapshot of the President and his lawyers—their arms folded victoriously across their chests—taken after Craig’s successful presentation during the Senate trial. An inscription reads, “To Greg. We struck the right pose—and you struck the right chords! Thanks—Bill Clinton, 2/99.” In spite of his long history with the Clintons, Craig is an adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign. “Ninety-five per cent of it is because of my enthusiasm for Obama,” he said last month, at his law office. “I really regard him as a fresh and exciting voice in American politics that has not been in my life since Robert Kennedy.” In 1968, Craig, who is sixty-two, was campaigning for Eugene McCarthy when he heard a Bobby Kennedy speech at the University of Nebraska, and became a believer on the spot. Since then, Craig has not been inspired by any American President. As for the prospect of another Clinton Presidency, he said, “I don’t discount the possibility of her being able to inspire me. But she hasn’t in the past, and Obama has.” Inspiration is an underexamined part of political life and Presidential leadership. In its lowest, most common form, inspiration is simple charisma that becomes magnified by the media, as with Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. On rare occasions, however, a leader can become the object of an intensely personal, almost spiritual desire for cleansing, community, renewal—for what Hillary, in a 1969 commencement speech at Wellesley, called “more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living.” Somewhere between the merely great communicators and the secular saints are the exceptional politicians who, as Hillary put it then, “practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible.” Robert B. Reich, the Secretary of Labor in Clinton’s first term, who now teaches at Berkeley, told me that he believes political inspiration to be “the legitimizing of social movements and social change, the empowering of all sorts of people and groups to act as remarkable change agents.” Reich was once a close friend of both Clintons—he met Hillary when they were undergraduates, and began a Rhodes Scholarship the same year as Bill—but he has not endorsed a candidate, and he seems drawn to Obama, for the same reasons that attracted Craig. “Obama is to me very analogous to Robert Kennedy,” Reich said. “The closer you got to him, the more you realized that his magic lay in his effect on others rather than in any specific policies. But he became a very important vehicle. He got young people very excited. He was transformative in the sense of just who he was. And a few things he said about social justice licensed people. Obama does all that, almost effortlessly.”
^^^ Ugh! The wife made me read that monstrosity over the weekend! We are having a spiritied debate these days in the mc mark household. I, being the dreamer of the family is of course backing Obama. The Mrs, being the pragmatic and more grounded, is of course in the Hillary camp. And with the New York primary coming up it’s going to be a fun week.
Interesting take. To an inexperienced candidate, shouldn't the question be formed as "what can you PROVE or CONVINCE me that you CAN do whatever you promised?" instead of the other way around? Can I go out and say that nobody can prove that I can't get the job done as a CEO of Citibank, simply because I am never even a regional COO/CIO kind of guy for a major bank? Will you just ASSUME that I can get the job done, and challenge others to prove you I can't? "Inspiration" all of a sudden becomes a hot word nowadays. Since when that word existed in any job description? What's the difference in real world between "inspiration" and "talk" and "promise"? It's funny how after 80% voted for a black candidate, and 75% voted for 2 white candidates, in SC, people are still able to spin it as if it has nothing to do with race. What if there were 2 black candidates, only 1 white candidate? How would CNN spin? It's funny how people use the 25% white votes for Obama as the sole proof of how he's the only uniter, but conveniently forgot the fact that Clinton took the overwhelming majority of the REMAINING 20% votes from African Americans. Let's see how long people can endure "inspirational talks". Emotion can reach high extremes because it's not sustainable.
my wife, who went to one of the 7 sisters, and is a feminist as they come, cannot stand hillbilly, and absolutely won't vote for them. she got an email last night from a "progessive" friend, looking for guidance on who to vote for. they're just writing off edwards, even tho they all seem to feel he's the most "progressive" candidate.
I've seen no arguments to convince me that t*** McGee cannot win over some conservatives. Should t*** be President? What's your point again?
I've listened to 3 Obama speeches so far this election year. I have to say that I was more "inspired" by Kerry's speeches in 2004.
real_egal Obama won in Ohio with a populatin of over 95% white. He dam near won New Hampshire with a white population of 97% white. Obama has major appeal to all races. I’m disappiointed that the Clintons tried to drive a wedge between the white and black voters in SC. But it didn’t work. Obama won across all demographics except white men (who went for Edwards, not Hillary). Obama even won the women vote over Hillary 55% to 30%.
hotballa, you have to be kidding! Obama's stump speeches, while improved, aren't anything to write home about, but his prepared speeches are usually somewhere between excellent and inspired, in my opinion. Kerry? Good lord... the man was a walking disaster. I still can't figure out how he won the nomination. I certainly didn't vote for the guy, except in the general. Impeach Bush.
I still can see Obama's 2004 speech vividly, and I still remember I talked to colleagues the second day, and said that this guy can be an actual president candidate someday. Into this election, I wanted to see a fair competition from all candidates. Obama impressed me with his win in Ohio, and the competition got really interesting. However, the so-called "Clinton downplayed MLK's effort" turned me off. Honestly, if that actual president got it done was an African American, would anyone object Clinton telling the truth? By the same token, it goes with the "Jackson won SC twice", will you be offended if Jackson was White? What's racially offensive is pretty simple to me, if you can say the similar thing to people of another ethnic group, that's not really racially offensive. That's exactly why I challenged some posters to say similar "jokes" was put on ethnic Chinese posters, to African American or posters with Jewish background or any other ethnic background. They wouldn't say so, simply because they knew it's racially offensive. As an inexperienced candidate, Obama is focusing his campaign on future, hope, and change. I totally understand that, and believe it's a very good strategy. However, it comes with liability as well. When you claim you are totally different, and clean of all the dirty politics, you are the one to be scrutinized in this aspect of the game. Because you can't just use one claim to support your cause, without having the associated responsibilities. The debate turned me off even much more. As a totally different politician or clean uniter, you can't play the game by claiming others started. You are the one to announce to abandon all those games, not the others. Remember? They are OLD politicians, who play the OLD games. But on the end, it was all triggered by the spin of Clinton's MLK comment? Was she inserting race into the game? Hell no, she was simply playing her strategy - experience gets your vision done. Who started to bring race into it? You tell me. Surfing on the net, looking at CNN blogs, the hateful comments from some Obama supporters put on Clinton family, even their daughter, what did she do wrong? I want to ask this question, is Obama really uniting? Look at D & D, the first 4 & 5 responses wnes got after he opened up a thread posting Obama's voting records. Were they related to the issue, candidates? No, it was targeting wnes' ethnic background. Where were the normal vocal liberal posters? Supporting Obama all of a sudden stopped them to voice against racial attacks, or when it comes to Chinese all game is fair? Remember, the vicious attacks also came from strong Obama supporters, same as those posters in CNN blogs. In SC, Obama even won the women vote over Hillary 55% to 30%, you are right about that. But you actually look the numbers, on the end, no matter how you slice it, isn't just 80% blacks voted for one black candidate, and 75% whites votes for 2 white candidates? To me, Ohio was a great start and a very promising one in the political environment, but SC has changed all that. I expect even more to come. Why is that? The way Clinton's comment of "it takes a president to get Dr. King's dream to be realized" was spun trigged all this.
i'm not kidding, his speech during the DNC was really good and sounded like a man who knew what it took to get things done. Obama is a better speaker but he just has too many pie in the sky portions in his speeches IMO.
For starters, like Dean, Kerry, and Gore before him, he said he was going to get new people involved in the process. The difference is - he's actually done it. You want to know the value of inspiration? If he's the nominee, if current trends continue nationewide, the number of new first-time voters will destroy any and all previous records. Involving people in the political process is an example of the value of inspiration and of his ability to go out and marshall support.
