http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/in-a-nutshell.html A reader writes: And that's why, I think, the criticism of Obama as a messiah figure is misplaced. It's not about believing in him. It's about believing in our own capacity to act as newly reasonable democratic participants in an age of extreme danger. I don't think of him as a messiah. Mine has already come. I don't believe this world will ever be heaven on earth. I don't need or want another person to give my life meaning. But I have been deeply, deeply demoralized about this country for the past few years. ...Obama is a deeper solvent for the Bush stain. His election would be a statement not about him, but about Americans themselves. About how they do not recognize themselves any more. And want to again. ................ Who has the Messiah complex? http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/plain_dealer_endorses_obama_mc.html
"The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign." I thought you wanted substance? Is this your definition of substance?
That's not a true statement at least according to the video. According to the video, volunteers were setting up shop for the official campaign to arrive later that week. There's nothing substantive there. It's certainly noteworthy, though. I don't know that it says anything about Obama himself, but it certainly says a lot about at least three very active supporters.
Yeah we wouldn't want to be bringing up old stories (and pictures) of Bush using the Confederate flag to win SC in 2000 now would we?
And what is Obama doing differently than Bush? How are Obama supporters' claims that he is some new type of transcendant leader any different from the Bush claims that he was the only leader strong enough to fight the war on terror? There really is no substantive difference because in both cases there is no substance behind the claim. That's not to say that Obama doesn't have any substantive positions. He does, but he and his supporters constantly shift the focus away from the substance and towards the fluff--just like Bush did. Nobody has made a clear case as to how Obama "transcends traditional politics" simply because the entire idea of transcendence makes no sense in politics. Transcendence, by its very definition, is a word used to distract people from real issues. This thread is about Obama, not Clinton. Obama is the one steering the debate away from the issues. So if anything, Obama makes it more likely that people won't have a clear understanding of the substantive matters in the campaign. Sounds great, but what does it MEAN!?!?!
In other words, despite Clinton talking for months on end about "substance", you (and everyone else) still don't know anything about her policies - my point exactly. Talking substance is simply a way to sound smart, just as talking hope is a way to sound inpirational. Obama's not talking about substance, as you claim, doesn't make it any less likely to understand Clinton's health plan, given that it is supposedly the substance she's always talking about. By the way - have you ever considered that it's not that Obama doesn't talk substance, but he doesn't do it obsessively? The speeches that have been covered most are the victory night speeches to a room full of hardcore supporters. They are not policy speeches. He made an economic policy speech today in Wisconsin. Do you think any news network will find it interesting enough to cover? In the last debate, he was universally said to have been just as substantive as Hillary. If you're not seeing any substance, it's because you're not interested enough to look. Which is not unreasonable - but it's exactly what you accuse others of: being more interested in the style.
Stop changing the subject. I know plenty about the Clinton health care plan. Other people do too. "Talking substance" isn't just a rhetorical style, it's the only way to meaningfully talk about anything. "Talking hope" is meaningless by itself. Of course it does. The more time spent debating the issues, the more general understanding the electorate will have on those issues. On the other hand, the more time spent spewing meaningless rhetoric, the more distracted the electorate will become from the issues. I think you got the wrong impression. I recognize that Obama doesn't completely ignore substantive issues. The reason I got involved in this discussion was because someone said that Obama is trying to move the debate away from reasoned argument and towards "something new" (whatever that is). I think that idea of "change" is severely flawed. Many (not all) Obama supporters want to keep the discourse focused on meaningless abstract concepts like "change" or "hope" or "transcendence" or whatever, when the goal should be to examine the emperor himself, not his clothes.
I would suggest you, me, and everyone else know virtually NOTHING of substance about Hillary's plan outside of a few generic platitudes. And I'd venture to guess we know substantively the same about both Hillary and Obama's plans. No one has yet to prove otherwise - you claim people talking about change without expressing how to achieve that change is "meaningless"; I suggest talking about substance without the ability to express what that substance might be is just as meaningless. Except that in every other election, in which Obama was not a participant, people got no more in-depth substance than in this one. That suggests that the idea of time spent debating issues doesn't actually create more electorate understanding; it just means both sides spew platitudes about health care instead of hope, and hope that they are more convincing than their opponent. Your problem with presidential campaigns has nothing to do with Obama.
You're absolutely right. I don't think most campaigns have done justice to the issues. Obama really isn't changing anything about presidential campaign rhetoric. The difference is Obama supporters have explicitly advocated FURTHER removing the debate to the realm of meaningless platitudes.
meaningless platitudes? Someone's been listening to McCain. And anyone comparing Obama to Bush has lost thier minds.
Even on technicality you can not win the argument, let alone on much more substantive one. Barack Obama is a broken record on campaign finance reform. Face it real hard.
Hussein Ubama is the king of saying nothing. His supporters are the "sportscenter" short attention span-types who love to hear him tilt his head back, yell HOPE HOPE HOPE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE WE SHALL OVERCOME and then leave smiling and feeling good about themselves since they've heard their Joel Osteen motivational speaking for the day. These same supporters don't even have their eyes open to the things that matter such as Hussein Ubama threatening to invade Pakistan and stop importing large amounts of goods from one of our largest trading partners (China). We have a lot of folks drinking the Kool-Aid.
Fair enough - but is it better to have fake discussions on issues where people actually think they are learning something but really aren't, or to not bother at all? I think the only time you can have any real substantive discussion on issues is when there are wide divisions between the two parties because even the broad platitudes are different ("we should have universal healthcare!" "government should stay out of healthcare!"). Those are wide enough arguments that you can make them in a debate setting. The differences amongst the Dems on health care and virtually everything else are so tiny and detail-oriented that I don't think you could have a useful discussion unless the audience was simply experts in the field (in which case, Obama/Hillary would be the under-qualified ones). I think if, for example, Obama makes it to the general election, you'll get a lot more "substance" because there will be substantive differences between him and McCain on policy issues.
Okay cool That's the second time you've derisively compared him to Obama. Just wondered if you had some kind of latent hatred for ministers too.
My point was that Joel leaves his parishioners feeling happy without really giving much substance (religiously speaking)....much like Hussein Ubama leaves his listeners happy and pumped up without delivering anything of substance politically.
I tried to explain. Obama will focus on parts of issues that most everyone can agree on and get those to pass. Almost every contentious issue has those areas of agreement. It gets mucked up one part of the issue gets lined up with all the other parts like it always has in the past, and even more when both sides attach amendments and riders to bills that aren't related. The idea is to simplify it to the parts of the issues where there is agreement. That is a specific way of getting things done, that is unlike any change other candidates have talked about before. If you want to see how that is going to be carried out look at all the aspects of all the issues. Find the aspects that everyone can agree on, and cut out everything but those aspects, and then work on passing those aspects right away. Right now those aspects get lumped in with other stuff, and end up in deadlock. It's a different strategy of dealing with issues.
