“I voted for the next president of the United States, Barack Obama….The Clintons have shown themselves to be a political machine not much different than the Bush administration. I think Obama is the one to bring about the kind of change we need in Washington.”
I think Obama is the one to bring about the kind of change we need in Washington.
It’s amazing how people – adults! – fall for the illusion of change every four years.
It is hard to deny that Obama does represent change. His promise of “change” may be an illusion, the four year itch of at least half the electorate. But we have not seen an orator of Obama’s caliber, or a politician quite of his nature, in a long time. If nothing else, he is the first African American to stand anything like a good shot at the White House (well, maybe Powell, if he had run). That is certainly very different. He also has a style different from any politician out there today. He is unapologetically liberal, to be sure, but he has a way (evident in the Illinois legislature and in the Senate) of putting his politics in positive terms and not demonizing his enemies. His is not the politics of fear, but the politics of inspiration. Whether that inspiration has any substance is in doubt, but it is certainly a different method than we have seen to date. And compared to Hillary, he is an agent change just in being who he is (which is to say, not a Clinton…or a Bush).
Obama may well revolutionize the political system in this country. On the other hand his grandiose promises may fall completely flat. I think only time will tell. The Democratic jury is certainly still out.
“…I think Obama is the one to bring about the kind of change we need in Washington.”
Of course, aside from the warm gaseousness of his speeches, are we really sure what kind of change he’ll bring about?
When anyone – a politician, a coworker, an aquaintance – does not express his or her opinions, it is human nature to impute one’s own beliefs and opinions to that person, if one likes that person. Because Obama is so likeable, he currently enjoys this result.
If he is nominated to the position of Democratic Party presidential candidate, or perhaps earlier (maybe Sen Clinton will, as a last-ditch effort to defeat him before the Texas/Ohio/Pennsylvania primaries) run ads questioning his positions on various issues), he will not be permitted to run a candidacy based on non-substantive, cheery platitudes. Granted, those who grill him will garner negatives from the electorate, but Obama will lose some votes too.
It is an indication of just how out to lunch the American people are that they would even CONSIDER voting for B. Hussein Obama, whose father was a Muslim, and who spent 2 years in an Islamic school in the functionally theocratic state of Indonesia.
Has anyone seen “The Manchurian Candidate”?
Uh huh. A Chicago machine politician who’s been in the US Senate for, what, three years, is going to inaugurate America’s Golden Age. Some people really need to drop their crypto-monarchism and join the real world.
Of course, aside from the warm gaseousness of his speeches, are we really sure what kind of change he’ll bring about?
***************************************
No and that is the scarey part. He has no track record and we really don’t know what change he will bring about. It kind of reminds me of how Schori got elected. Many voted for her because they didn’t know her and she had no record and they figured she must be better than the other liberal candidates. How wrong they were.
A friend of mine put it in dog terms. Obama is a untested puppy and you don’t have a puppy leading the hunt. All this gas about change but no substance.
I think part of the phenomenon was something that I experienced early on in the current campaigns. I found myself favorably impressed by Obama, until it finally sank in that, while I like the idea of Obama the candidate, I do not like the ideas of Obama the politician (vaporous as they may be).
” His is not the politics of fear”
This is true….however lemming have no fear until mid air I suspect!
I have great trepidation regarding Mr. Obama. I really don’t want to see my retirement savings withering away at the rate of 25%, 28% and 39%……Wall Street is afraid of him as am I. Universal health care promises, if kept, mean I have to pay not only insurance for my wife and myself, but for someone else as well. I’m basically retired and running two part time business to help with the cash flow. I don’t think I can take a BIG tax increase, which is what happens if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. Oh well! All you folks who vote for Mr. Obama can just put some more money into Social Security and Medicare for me……
Barry
I am resigning myself to the liklely (but not inevitable) prospect of four years of an Obama presidency, which I suspect will be Carter-redux. I don’t think that Clinton or McCain can beat him, although he can beat himself, and perhaps will. Too many people are caught up in emotion, rather than reason in making their political judgments.(not unprecedented; see, for example, France c. 1789-1793).
By definition, he represents change. However, we have no way of knowing what that change will be, as he has yet to articulate any concrete policy statement, other than perhaps turning the Iraqis over to the tender mercies of the Iranians.
Obama’s election will show, at least, that most Americans have learned that the color of a man’s skin is no reason to vote against him.
Obama’s Administration, if it comes to that, will show that the color of a man’s skin is no reason to vote for him. Perhaps this is progress of a sort.
In the meantime, I, as an Illinoisan, will have the satisfaction of having voted against Obama twice–once when he ran for the Senate, and in November. I only regret that, not being a resident of his legislative district, I cannot achieve the political hat trick of having voted against him three times.
When you hold out your hand to receive all the social programs of his “change” be sure to dig deep in your wallet and hold all of it out in the other hand for the government to take in taxes.
I voted for Obama as what I regard as the “lesser of two evils.” Not that I regard him as evil, because he isn’t. As a veteran, I simply could not for Hillary Clinton……knowing her record of disdain for enlisted military personnel.
Well, Obama plays his tune on his flute and all the rats in the village follow him around like the pied piper.
This fact says nothing godd about the education system in this country.
Obama’s policy preferences are very clear, although he doesn’t express them in these speeches. He’s a standard-issue leftist. That’s not what people are voting for right now, though. It’s emotion, and the rock-star quality of his political rallies. They’re not comparing Clinton vs. Obama on policies, because there is very little difference.
#5, I think it’s entirely unreasonable to view Obama as a secret Muslim because his father, whom he scarcely knew, and his step father were Muslims, and because he was placed in a Muslim school for a couple of years as a child. He spent his years 10-18 in Hawaii with non-Muslim American grandparents, and has been a member of a Christian church by choice since his mid-20s.
I had an illuminating conversation with a (non-extremist) Muslim friend, however. This friend confirms that radical Muslims will view Obama as a Muslim apostate, once they become familiar with his family background. While we as Americans allow people to choose their religious affiliations and take them at their word as adults, for the Islamists, the child of a Muslim father is born a Muslim, and once a Muslim, always a Muslim. The crazy idea from some fringes about a racist assassination is less likely to happen than an assassination attempt by some Islamist extremist. Good thing he’s got Secret Service protection.
Bob Dylan sang what I consider the best reply to almost all comments above:
“Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’.
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.”
Inre #15, it will be most interesting to see who his running mate might be….
America is not metrosexual. If Obama gets the nomination, some harsh lights and some very hard questions will follow. But he’d certainly do better than George McGovern.
#16 – Clever. We all know how well that worked out for the country last time. History repeats itself twice, first time as a tragedy, second time as a farce, yes?
Matt Thompson, re-read Katherine’s #15
Dear Matt Thompson:
First, I am also ‘highly educated’ and around your age. Making assumptions that because others might differ in their opinions that makes them either ‘old’ or ‘not highly educated’ is not a good plan. In addition, ‘in your mid-thirties’ is getting pretty old yourself – so I wouldn’t be so hasty with ‘you old folks’ and ‘my parents’ – PLEASE.
Also basing your voting on “I want something new” is not a good plan either. P. Carter was ‘something new’ and he wasn’t all that great (I did like some of his writing and ideas – read some of his writing) but reality was he was not good at implementing his ideas.
Lastly, #21 is right – you might want to apply some of your high education skills in comprehending Katherine’s post.
[b]Re: why I am here -[/b]
The reason I read this thread was because I wanted to know what people were thinking of Obama b/c I still am gathering information to decide what I think of him.
So far, his greatest asset, to me is not being Hillary Clinton, but that’s no reason to vote FOR him. I will admit, however, I would have a hard time stomaching anyone who willingly promotes the slaughter of unborn children. What is his stance on this?
#23 – Obama is solidly pro-choice.
I was at a non-political, non-church meeting yesterday. Of course in the breaks politics did come up, including the recent state primary. I noted the number of white, educated voters who were very high on BHO. I asked them why, and the inevitable answer was about “change.” My questions about how, why, and in what way, inevitable resulted in the same one word litany, and after a couple of repetitions, discomfort and flustered responses.
Mallard Fillmore had a good one the other day (paraphrasing, his was in verse):
Valentine to Barak:
You are all about change, and of course, after you raise our taxes to pay for your programs, that’s all we are going to have left from our paychecks — the change.
Apology gladly accepted, Matt. I am no good myself until after my second cup of coffee. I was a bit startled for a moment, though! 🙂
I can readily understand your wanting to be done with the mess my generation has made. And I have to admit that I have not examined Obama’s policy proposals too closely. Until recently I didn’t think he would get the nomination, and I’m still not convinced. However, my impression is that, aside from foreign policy, there is not a great deal of difference between his domestic agenda and Clinton’s. I’ll take a look at it if it becomes necessary after the nomination is decided.
OK, but accept that federal age discrimination statues specify as a protected group those 40 and over. In five years you’ll be old enough that people will consider not hiring you just because of your age — considering they could get somebody younger, cheaper, and with fewer benefits. [And, of course, with a fresh “young” approach.] Of course you don’t believe that could ever happen. 🙂 [What do you mean they won’t hire me? I’m HIGHLY EDUCATED!!]
PS I voted for Obama too — and I’m a boomer.
I’m in my thirties too, and for the record I do not agree with Matt Thompson. I’m a conservative, I love Reagan, and yes, we do need another Churchill — a pity that, as with the 1930s, so many people believe that we don’t.
Suffice it to say that I will not be voting for the two hard hard-left candidates from the party of the Democrats . . . who are nothing new, but merely late 19th century and early 20th century in their views of the State, the economy, and, of course, the proletariat’s betters, which would be . . . them.
RE: “In five years you’ll be old enough that people will consider not hiring you just because of your age—considering they could get somebody younger, cheaper, and with fewer benefits. [And, of course, with a fresh “young†approach.] Of course you don’t believe that could ever happen.”
I do believe that could happen. After all . . . I’ve lived through the “we need someone with more experience then you have, you know, more seasoned” phase of the job experience. ; > )
#26 –
“I am angry at “old†liberals just as I am angry at “old†conservatives. These “old people†have been a disaster, they’re costing me a lot of money and grief, and it is at them that I shake my finger. I’m not unjustified in doing so.”
You’re the spitting image of your Boomer parents, do you realize that?
#32, you beat me to the punch. I was getting visions of the “don’t trust anyone over 30” buttons I’ve seen in pictures.
I’m 29, and I’m more concerned with good governance for the sake of my own future and that of my children that “Change” for its own sake.
Amen on ending the psychodrama, Matt. This is one of the reasons I am not unhappy to see Obama doing well. I’d rather have the election be about something other than the Clintons.
I think I recall seeing a couple of speeches (actually, I read about them; I’m not in the country) in which Obama did make a play for the younger-than-boomer vote. It hasn’t been his exclusive theme, as you point out, Matt, but it’s there. One thing he hasn’t done, and this is to his credit, is that he wasn’t the one who inserted race into the campaign. Hillary and her people did that.
but I do think there’s a difference between the “don’t trust anyone over 30†sloganeering
Matt, I’d just like to mention that the Baby Boomers are no more a homogenous generation than any other generation. Not every boomer said “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” It’s too easy to generalize like that and it harms our understanding of each other. Not meaning to pick on you – I’ve read several comments here and there lately that referred to what “Boomers” did, as if we are some monolithic group who have all done and believed exactly the same things. Hardly. 🙂
[b]Matt Thompson:[/b]
Sorry, Matt, been busy all day – I went to work, attended a Lenten Bible Study and had to organize for a new program for my church – so I am getting home late – and had to clean the kitchen, and put my daughter to bed – after much travail and tears in which her much larger frog ate the small new one we got (sigh!). So, all of which is to say, I am getting back to Titus 1:9 a little late in the conversation
Our two posts must have passed via the Internet – sorry about that. Glad you and Katherine figured things out.
I fall right between the cracks of boomer-dom and generation-X so I fit neither paradigm. However, referencing history is just a matter of course – we do it all the time. I often mention the passing of certain animals (let’s just pick frogs for an example) as “shuffling off the mortal coil”. This does not mean I was around in Shakespeare’s time – but I think the [removed]because I have a bad sense of humor) amusing. So, to reference someone as our dear Sarah did earlier – as a ‘Churchill’ – is just giving a good insight about character without great detailed explanation needed. Doesn’t mean she remembers WWII. As intelligent people we should be familiar with history – and this is a useful way of communicating a great deal in a short space of time.
If one wanted to update Nazi’s, for example, for today’s society I think actually the moral relativistic viewpoint is probably the most synonymous with the term. You have a group of people who are complete intolerant of other’s opinions – completely unaware they are – and hoping to control everyone’s mindset and put it into line with their own. However, if I give the term ‘moral relativistic thinking’ only a few people get that – the rest, using ‘Fascist’ is conveys the meaning much more quickly.
So, using terminology is no predictor of a person’s background – excepting, I suppose, to let you know they are well educated and read.
[b]Re: Abortion[/b]
I am very sad to find Obama supports abortion… for it is a serious fault in character. I see the abortion issue as crucial as the slavery issue and really, they are quite synonymous themselves. People who believe that it should be a choice to kill another – whether 20 weeks old or 2 years or 20 years or 100 years believe that some lives are more important than others – that merely being independent of another means you have the right to exist (and who, really can be totally independent of others?).
A person willing to sacrifice the lives of some because it is accepted in society – will also be the person who allow the sacrifice the lives of ANY if it becomes expedient. Not just those with no voice – but those whose voices may be stifled for one reason or another. Once again, like the Anglican issue, it is a slippery slope – where does ‘independent life begin’ anyway? When you breathe? When you speak? When you walk? What if you can no longer do these things? Is it OK to kill you? It is a Pandora’s box (Greek history).
I see it so like slavery (although that does not mean I was alive in the 1800’s) where abortion is sanctioned because ‘they are not as intelligent as we are’, ‘they cannot feel pain like we do’, ‘they cannot think as we do’, ‘they are happier this way than being free’ – cannot you see the scary parallels there? If such people were allowed to control government STILL Obama would never have had the opportunity to run for office because he would not have been considered ‘fully human enough’ for the job.
Woe be to us – if in a 100 years, people will look back on our generation as they do with the South, or the Germans and say, shaking their heads, “Why did they allow such atrocities? Why would they allow such things?”
So, the abortion ‘issue’ is a crucial one because it conveys something about a person’s viewpoint about the value and sanctity of human life – that so transcends a ‘woman’s right to choose’. It conveys a willingness to sacrifice some for the convenience of others, and Matt, I am sorry, for I cannot see someone with that tendency to have the attributes of someone I want controlling my government.
Not surface issues – perhaps – but crucial – SO crucial for the health of our society.
#16 – Bob Dylan still can’t retire at age 67 – he’s paying child support to six ex-wives – what times are a changin’ ?
#23 – Obama yesterday voted against funding the wiretap law passed by the Senate to enable the gov’t and phone companies to trace enemy calls and contacts, as he has numerous times in the past. Hillary failed to show up for the same vote, though she has criticized Obama for the same thing. While an Ill. state senator he NEVER voted for or against ANY bill. That’s a fact. Check it out. Other than graduating from Harvard Law School and being on Law Review there, I do not know anything he has accomplished since.
#26 – You never had to be drafted into the military. Sounds like your elders could be thanked for that. Your reference to a “belligerent and unilateralist foreign policy” tells me you probably are somewhat naive about U.S. foreign policy, despite your proclaimed intellect. Perhaps you could refer to the Marshall Plan as a form of “unilateral foreign policy “, or the US aid to Darfur, or maybe the Peace Corps, or the massive increase in the number of democracies around the world in just the last two decades.
#34 – What dime ? What watch ? Chris Mathews is your idea of old ? To what may we attribute your humility ?