Bats: Obama is a great candidate, and I think he has all but secured the nomination. But your, and others mischaracterizations of Sen Clinton have really soured me on political discussion here and elsewhere. On the points you raised: Manditory Healthcare. WTF is that? It's called Universal Healthcare and it's not such a radical concept. Obama's plan isn't universal healthcare, and rebranding that pretty basic concept with a less palitable label, doesn't change that. Yet you'd be left with the impression that everyone will have health care if you listen to the rallies. That just isn't so. On Iraq/Iran. Obama gets plenty of mileage out of this, yet he DIDN'T HAVE A VOTE. It's easy to say, in hindsight, what you would have done...but several Democratic senators not named Clinton also voted to authorize action against Iraq. These include Edwards and Biden. I think Kucinich was the only candidate to to vote agaist. He and Ron Paul. And on Iran...Again..He didn't vote. This time he was eligible to vote...but was campaigning instead. For an issue that's pretty central to his campaign, you'd think he might make an effort to vote. You want substance? A vote might have added a little substance to the rhetoric. And missing the vote on Iran sort of makes you wonder if he really would have voted on Iraq. For me, too much of his campaign has been about who he is not, rather than who he is. But I still think he'll be very good. I wish we could extoll the virtues of one candidate without tearing the other down. But somehow that's very hard.
i thought that's what his campaign was about, until last night. regarding mandates, forgive me if i'm missing the point here since i haven't been fully following the deckard/batty kerfuffle, but isn't the problem w/ clinton's healthcare program primarily one of mandates? ie, coverage would be mandatory- no discretion on whether to carry coverage? aren't the obvious cost problems w/ such mandates, who pays for them, what're the penalies for not carrying coverage, etc? i'm also unclear as to how obama's plan differs, if it indeed does, and how he'd pay for it, other than taxing "exxonmobile."
Sure, I'll try. I don't do it justice. I've tried to before, but it was never in a discussion with you in general. Obama's proposed style of leadership is to to focus on what everyone has in common, as opposed to battling over the differences. The following is a made up example by me, but illustrates the style Obama is putting forward. Let's say Obama is firmly pro choice, and there are a number of right wing congressmen that are staunchly pro life. It would seem that they are at odds and neither would be able to force the issue. Obama's idea is to look for what they hold in common. They probably are all in favor of limiting or eliminating late term abortions. So Obama would push legislation like that they everyone can agree would be worthwhile. The pro-life congressmen can show how they've further restricted the rash of abortions. The pro-choice crowd shows they aren't so far removed from reality. So something gets accomplished that makes everyone happy. It isn't as important that Obama is firmly pro-choice, or the other guys or firmly pro-life. There are areas where they can all agree. Apply that logic to other issues all over. Compromise isn't that big a part of it, because both sides will be coming into it in favor the legislation being proposed. That style of leadership could get things accomplish, eliminate some of the rancor and bitterness in the political arena over the last 16 years. Furthermore when it does come time to push for an issue where there isn't really common ground, it won't be seen as a partisan attack and partisan politics. Everyone will go into it with good faith. Of course I understand that it won't go just as smoothly as that all the time. But, again It isn't like Obama doesn't have policy positions and stances on issues. He does. It's just that he also wants to acheive something larger. It is too bad when that goal obscures, in some eyes, the fact that he also has a lot of substance, or that his ideas on leadership style is more than just feel good words.
Bringing people together is great, but sometimes you do have to go to battle for your beleifs. [/quote]The following is a made up example by me, but illustrates the style Obama is putting forward. Let's say Obama is firmly pro choice, and there are a number of right wing congressmen that are staunchly pro life. It would seem that they are at odds and neither would be able to force the issue. Obama's idea is to look for what they hold in common. They probably are all in favor of limiting or eliminating late term abortions. So Obama would push legislation like that they everyone can agree would be worthwhile. The pro-life congressmen can show how they've further restricted the rash of abortions. The pro-choice crowd shows they aren't so far removed from reality. So something gets accomplished that makes everyone happy. It isn't as important that Obama is firmly pro-choice, or the other guys or firmly pro-life. There are areas where they can all agree.[/quote] You may have a point, but I think this is a bad example. Late-term abortions constitute a very small percentage (<1% if I recall correctly) of all abortions. Almost all of those are done to protect the mother's health. In other words, they are already limited and any further limitation would be unacceptable to most pro-choicers. What seems to be a good compromise is really just a concession to the pro-life group. I don't see how compromise isn't involved. I don't think you're trying to say that everybody already agrees on most issues, but that's how your argument comes across. [/quote]That style of leadership could get things accomplish, eliminate some of the rancor and bitterness in the political arena over the last 16 years.[/quote] I just don't see this happening. Either you concede on key issues, or the other side just isn't going to like you very much. Do you honestly beleive that Republicans are going to come around and say, "I never supported universal healthcare, but since you're such a great leader, Mr. President, I think I'll vote for your plan?" [/quote]Furthermore when it does come time to push for an issue where there isn't really common ground, it won't be seen as a partisan attack and partisan politics. Everyone will go into it with good faith.[/quote] Why? I don't get this. I don't think you've shown that Obama's "leadership style is more than just feel good words". The substance of any campaign is still the issues. Whatever it is that Obama wants to acheive, is it more important than providing health care to the uninsured? Is it more important than restoring the civil liberties that we have lost under the current administration? Education? Sound foreign policy? Balancing the budget? Where do you draw the line? More importantly, where does Obama draw the line? I fail to see any revolutionary approach to presidential politics embodied in Obama. I'm sure Hillary's willing to compromise on some issues and not on others. I still fail to see how Obama's "leadership style" is an any way novel or superior to Clinton's. Sure, he's charismatic and all that. So are most presidents. Why should I vote for Obama when I, say, prefer Hillary's health care plan to his?
Politics as Transcendence Only once in a very long time does politics become more than politics, that is something more than partisan struggle, vote bartering, or arena of ambition. In ordinary times, ordinary political leaders suffice, more or less. But on rare occasion, old arrangements and conventional wisdom come unstuck. This happens in periods of rapid if not revolutionary change. We find ourselves now in one of those periods. The forces of globalization, information, eroding sovereignties, and transformation of war ensure that traditional leaders and conventional politics can only muddle through at best and fail badly at worst. But periods of upheaval also offer opportunities, opportunities to change our methods, our ideas, and our leaders. The rare leader capable of transforming threat to opportunity is one who welcomes transformation and sees it as a chance to abandon tradition and convention, to transcend that which is stale, unprofitable, and ineffective. Periods of transformation require experimentation, innovation, and daring. America is a nation much more conservative than it thinks itself to be. Thus, its default position is to resist a forward leap even while applauding itself for its creativity. Al Capone said it best: "We don't want no trouble." But transformation is trouble in the best sense of the word, trouble that causes us to adapt to new conditions and circumstances and create new ways of governing. Through some miracle of timing, luck, and good fortune Barack Obama has seized the moment. His mantra of "change" has been largely co-opted by lesser figures. He is in fact an agent of transformation. He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians, and this makes him seem elusive to the conventional press and the traditional politicians. His instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others. Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience. In an age of great transformation, experience of the past is worthless because it is a barrier to the breakthrough gesture, the instant response in crisis, the instinctive bold decision in the face of totally new circumstances. Some see Barack Obama as the long awaited champion finally come to slay the awful dragon of race. And they are right. Some see him as a new start for the Democratic Party and national politics. And they are right. Some see him as the walking embodiment of internationalism, ready to restore an honorable and respected place for America in the world. And they are right. I see Barack Obama as a leader for this transcendent moment, the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century and to convert threat to great new opportunity. Gary Hart http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/politics-as-transcendence_b_86490.html
No doubt, but it also sums up nicely how his critics view him and his followers. That was a full page of nothing but the word "change", there isn't one single real issue in that thing. Its always easy to talk and feel good about change, but the question is change to what?
I actually read some of his plans as President, I just happen to not agree with a lot of them, but that's beside the point, since it looks like we aren't even talking about real issues. Hey I might feel differently if Gary Hart at least attempted something like "Obama will solve my health care cost problems, because his plan does such ....." But its obvious what Obama actually plans to do is a lot less important than his message of change. Even yourself admitted that piece summed up how his followers feel.
I'm not saying that most people agree on most issues, but there are parts of most issues that most people agree with. Obama's idea is to move forward with those parts. That gets things done and shows people that we have more in common than we do that divides us. Eventually someone will have to give on the areas of certain issues that are deadlocked. But by building on the commonality both sides will approach the issue and less rancor. So that even on the areas where there is no commonality it won't be an us vs. them mentality. You can vote for whoever you feel. I slightly prefer Hillary's healthcare myself. I don't think she has a chance of passing it, though, and I believe Obama with his style can actually get most of what he wants to do passed. The late term abortion example is to show you how his style would work, and it isn't about the issue of abortions at all. You could do the same thing with securing the borders. Everyone can agree that we want more secure borders, but they get bogged down on a fence, and tanker inspection, and whether to use natl. guard to do it etc. But start with just one measure of say tanker inspections and focus on that. It is about finding the common ground that almost everyone is in favor of, and separating it from the divisive part of the issue. There won't need to be compromise or as much compromise because everyone can agree. His style is different and more importantly it has practical application.
He could be a great president, or he could be a terrible one. Cynicism isn't a bad thing when it comes to choose the person can greatly affect your family and kids.
You obviously have not been listening to any of his speeches. Change isn't just sitting around hoping something is going to happen. It's something that needs work!
The all have plans...they all publish plans. You can check their websites for that. The question is whether there's something beyond a plan that differentiates? Is there something presidential about the person...something we view as leadership that has an effect that's often difficult to measure.
I actually read some of those plans, I disagree with him on a lot of issues such as Tax/SS. Regardless where he stands on issues, my point is his campaign for the most part is not running on issues, but the feel good message of change.
There's something about comments like these that just makes me want to puke. Tell the people what you plan to do and how you plan to do it. If Obama really has a good plan for change, why muddy the issue with all the fluffy rhetoric? Why further confuse the confused? Obama's leadership style: Phase 1: Collect votes Phase 2: ???? Phase 3: Change
Random trivia. Gary Hart was a groomsman for John McCain. Regardless, I'm not sure if he's qualified to talk about trancendent politics.
