Clinton, Obama And The Belief In The Magic Power Of Words

Along with her "ready to lead on Day One" mantra, Hillary Clinton's favored line of attack against Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Mondale's 1984 "Where's the beef?" attack on Gary Hart. In Clinton's version, Obama is little more than a shallow speechifier -- he believes that words are all you need to lead.

She made it explicit in a speech in Providence, Rhode Island on Sunday:

"I could stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open! The light will come down! Celestial choirs will be singing! And everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!' Maybe I've just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear!"

Last week it was: "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills."

And her chief strategist, Mark Penn, summed up the "just words" meme this way: "She is in the solutions business while Obama is in the promises business."

Now, I agree with Clinton that it's important to look at how each of the Democratic candidates uses words and how rhetoric fits into how they've run their respective campaigns. And if you do, you'll see that one candidate does believe that words are like a magic wand: you utter them and reality changes. But it's not Barack Obama -- it's Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's use of words is disturbingly reminiscent of the way the Bush administration has used words: just saying something is true is magically supposed to make it true. Call it Presto-change-o Politics.

The examples are so notorious they hardly bear repeating: "mission accomplished," "heckuva job," "last throes," the endless "turning the corner" in Iraq. They were all said with the arrogant belief that merely saying these words was all that was needed: reality would literally change to fit the rhetoric.

Now let's look at Hillary Clinton's rhetoric and what is says about the campaign she's run. It started with her absurd claim that her vote for the war was really a vote to send inspectors back in. The name of the bill? "The Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." Saying it was about sending inspectors back in doesn't mean that it is true that it was about sending inspectors back in.

And then how about the endless spinning trying to diminish Obama victory after Obama victory? Here was Penn: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama." Mark Penn calling Virginia, Georgia, Missouri, and Colorado, among others, not "significant" does not make them insignificant.

Or Clinton's "35 years of experience." She has had a distinguished record of public service, but it's not in any way 35 years of government experience, unless you want to include her time at Yale Law school, or going door to door for George McGovern in Texas, or working at the Rose law firm in Arkansas as government experience. But her campaign seemed convinced that by repeating "35 years of experience" at every stop she would magically acquire that 35 years of experience.

But as the Bush administration has shown, believing your own words and not being able to see things as they are is not a good thing -- either for a country or a campaign. The New York Times described some Clinton aides as "baffled that a candidate who had been in the United States Senate for only three years and was a state lawmaker in Illinois before that was now outpacing a seasoned figure like Mrs. Clinton."

As Matt Yglesias says:

"Whether or not you think the more 'seasoned' candidate ought to win presidential elections, it seems to me that any campaign staffer who could be genuinely 'baffled' by experience not proving to be a winning issue is demonstrating a scary ignorance of how things work. Is her staff baffled that Joe Biden didn't win the nomination?"

Or how about the Clinton campaign's abracadabra rhetoric, designed to make the reality of what they agreed to about Florida and Michigan -- poof! -- go away. They even set up a website that attempts to pull a rabbit out of the electoral hat. The site list several "facts": "FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy." As Ezra Klein notes: "It's almost as if they thought putting it after... the word 'FACT,' would be like a Jedi mind trick."

Meanwhile, as the Clinton campaign was busy trying to use words to push the idea that losing is actually winning (you know, just like in Iraq), the Obama campaign was actually winning votes. To the extent that anything in a campaign is real, it doesn't get any more real than actual votes.

And, no, he wasn't winning them just because of his "words." He backed up his words with action: old-fashioned grassroots organizing. For instance, as was widely noted in the blogosphere, the Clinton campaign apparently found out only in February that the March 4th primary/caucus in Texas was sort of complicated:

"Supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are worried that convoluted delegate rules in Texas could water down the impact of strong support for her among Hispanic voters there, creating a new obstacle for her in the must-win presidential primary contest."

As publius at Obsidian Wings says:

"While they were busy 'discovering' the rules, however, the Obama campaign had people on the ground in Texas explaining the system, organizing precincts, and making PowerPoints. I know because I went to one of these meetings a week ago. I should have invited Mark Penn I suppose."

Repeat that kind of organizing throughout 23 "insignificant" states, and it turns out you get a pretty healthy delegate lead.

So let's look at how Obama uses words. Contrary to Clinton's charges, Obama never claims his words will somehow magically create change. Instead, he uses his words to ask the American people to demand change. Very little change for the better happens in Washington unless it is demanded by the people. It's instructive that, back in New Hampshire, Clinton discounted the work Martin Luther King did in creating the political atmosphere that allowed LBJ to push though the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

Which is why Obama's constant invocation is "Yes we can" -- not "Yes I can." Obama uses words to persuade, to mobilize and to get people to imagine that reality can be changed. And based on how his campaign has been run, on the ground, in state after state, it's clear that he knows changing reality is not done through magic -- it's done through hard work.

It is Clinton who uses words to deny reality, and expects them to magically change it. Haven't we had enough of that over the last seven years?

Update: Dana Milbank offers up yet another example of reality denial -- and the belief that saying something is so will make it so -- on the part of the Clinton campaign. This one comes courtesy of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes who yesterday told a gathering of high-powered Washington journalists: "We're on our way to locking this nomination down." No word on whether the journalists -- including David Broder and Maureen Dowd -- responded with a collective spit take.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[ARBOC2]

05:09 PM on 03/05/2008

Arianna, ever since you bought into the song and dance being performed by Obama I have just about lost all respect for your judgement and political observatio­ns. To see you getting caught up in the mindless babble featuring the absurd word "change" incorporat­ed into inspiratio­nal phrases of hope and wonder is dispiritin­g as hell.

I was stunned when it became apparent that you had chosen to sponsor a relatively untested legislator against a seasoned stateswoma­n to begin the long political road back from the ruinous condition of eight years of incipient fascism under the Bush administra­tion.

I should think that anyone seeking change would be working day and night to replace 90% of the Republican­s in the congress, which would be the only way to generate any kind of meaningful change. What the hell do you mean by "change"?

While on the subject of change I will tell you one thing that you may now know from what I guess to be your relatively limited experience in living in this country: It is in large part made up of people who come from people who have feelings of prejudice against people unlike themselves­. While this bigotry is ebbing it still remains strong enough to keep a black person from being elected president for at least a couple more election cycles.

At the present all the media people who hate Hillary are doing is ensuring that we shall soon endure another Republican administra­tion if Obama becomes the nominee.

Can't you see that?

[seriousstudent]

06:24 AM on 03/03/2008

He is an Obamanatio­n

all rhetoric STOLEN and no substance

say what you want but no thanks to the BS that is obama- makes me want to puke this rock star personna - this is NOT American Idol it is the presidency and I prefer my president to observe the National Anthem with HER hand over her heart. Muslims only pledge to Allah- hummm

Baffle them with BS (OBAMA) or dazzle them with brilliance (Hillary)

[Mollye]

03:04 PM on 03/02/2008

Hillary Clinton is SUBSTANCE, she is simply the best person for the job. When I listen to Barack Obama, I feel like I'm in a sales meeting...­just before being sent out to sell as many widgets as possible. America needs to wake up and get off the train...it­'ll be a long 4 - 8 years if you don't.

Hillary Clinton 2008

[krr]

05:01 PM on 03/02/2008

and this "substance­"....
that she has been an elected official since what year?...
that she trusted george bush NOT to start a war...afte­r she authorized it...
and learned so little she voted for Kyl-Lieber­man amendment in 2007!!!...­.

this kind of "substance­" escapes me....
she was in lock step with her husband's great decisions.­..
yet could not see his infidelity­?....

i cannot trust my country to someone who is this "perceptiv­e"...

i would rather "hope" that obama can change america with new ideas....
than to trust america to hillary"s "substance­..

[rthom]

10:31 AM on 03/02/2008

As Ron Paul points out, we’re the only country that had to have a war to end slavery. So in Obama’s anti war speech, which he seems to think qualifies him for president, he says he would not have opposed the Civil War. Over 600,000 dead, Americans killing Americans, brother against brother, and not necessary. That’s supposed to be good judgment?

[candlewax]

09:41 PM on 03/01/2008

This is an excellent essay. Thank you VERY MUCH for writing. I've often wondered why Hillary Clinton and her campaign are rarely challenged in this way. I guess by not going along with everything they say, one is automatica­lly branded as anti-clint­on. It's sick. We just want the truth and we really want change.

Thank you so much for writing this.

We may not have a lot of money, but together we are rich.
We may feel powerless and alone but together we are strong.
Our voices may be weak but together we are loud.
We may feel meek and humble but together we are proud.

"We are the change we've been waiting for." Barack Obama

[chulanow]

08:35 AM on 03/02/2008

Sorry....t­hat's Deval Patrick's line as is most of Baracks campaign theme so you really should be voting for Deval not his phoney buddy Barack.

[nead]

03:19 PM on 03/01/2008

Obama uses words like a preacher, like MLK whose incantatio­ns and exhortatio­ns he mimics, Hillary lays out her words like a map, a blueprint. They may not inspire hope, but they do suggest she knows whereof she speaks.

[olderdem]

06:13 PM on 03/01/2008

If you need a blueprint, hire an engineer. If you want a leader with judgment, hire Obama. Hillary doesn't understand the difference and apparently neither do her supporters­.

[JiminNC]

07:13 PM on 03/01/2008

"Hillary lays our her words like a map, like a blueprint, like a carefully rehearsed script, written by Mark Penn and his hoard of special interests to pander to the micro-tren­ded electorate­."

Just finishing your half-baked thought.

[ladyv]

03:19 PM on 03/01/2008

Bill Clinton at a 2004 Kerry rally, explaining why his wife is not the candidate we should vote for in 2008:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=Qe0BPwWAx­nk

[BalancedEgg]

03:08 PM on 03/01/2008

Obama's campaign is a call to action. A call to anyone willing to participat­e in the "change". Change is a constant but change that is perpetrate­d by the aristocrac­y for their own enrichment is immoral change. That is the difference in a call for change that is brought forth from the participat­ion of the masses. IT is a paradigm shift. IT is the ongoing evolution of humanity. IT is a revolution of process that is going to happen just as the Reagan Revolution brought about the destructio­n of the middle class and the corporate takeover of the US government through the processes of deregulati­on and lobbyist culture. IT is the "coming 'round right" of all the selfishnes­s embodied in Bush and the Neocons. There's a train a'comin' and you better get on board. This thing is bigger than all of us. The times they are a changin'. Obama is just the messenger.­..the agent of change is within all who confront their fear and greed and seek a higher meaning for their life. IT ain't for the weak of spirit or the fundamenta­list mindset. IT ain't the end of the world....I­T is a beginning to be embraced.

[RichLiberal]

09:46 PM on 03/01/2008

Oh, you mean like the change from 1992-2000 when the Clintons took the govt from 12 years of huge Republican deficits to a surplus? You mean the change that 22.7 Million New Jobs meant for 22.7 million people plus the other people who lost other jobs thru NAFTA or whatever that were also replaced before you start counting the 22.7 Million.

Do you know what squelched this growth and what caused Al Gore to lose the 2000 election? It was the non-stop Republican and media smears against the Clintons that caused many chickenly Democrats like Obama's mentor Joe Lieberman to "turn away" and "distance themselves­" from the Clinton administra­tion.

Do you know what one of Obama's main themes is? That he won't be subject to such smears. Why not? Because he is going to compromise away all the values that Democrats stand for for working people that is at the root of these smears.

No thanks. GET REAL !!!

[politicsnut]

02:07 PM on 03/01/2008

A lot of the comments from Clinton supporters are based on ignorance. Do a little google search and you will find out everything that is to know about Obama's speech in 2002 and why it showed courage, judgement and leadership­. There was no word against the war from hillary during that difficult time, just a vote for war. Her judgement was WRONG and only recently, when 70% of americans woke up and started to oppose the war has she decided to start talking against it.
THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE­!

[mabelle55]

01:29 AM on 03/02/2008

You are entitled to your opinion.

But, to say that Sen. Obama's speech showed "courage" also shows some ignorance. The fact is that Obama's speech was given to constituen­ts in THE MOST LIBERAL district in the state of Illinois. Real courage would have been to speak up in venues across the country and in CONSERVATI­VE places where the "authoriza­tion" was considered the right thing to do.

The second point about his speech is that he ALSO SAID that he didn't know how he would vote if he had been a member of the U.S. Senate and had the informatio­n that they did.

Finally, Sen. Obama has not taken any particular­ly "courageou­s" stands on this war since his election to the U.S. Senate.

For example, he has voted against amendments to establish a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops, and against an amendment to urge President Bush to start bringing home troops at the end of 2006. He has also voted in favor of every funding/ap­propriatio­ns bill to continue the war, without ever taking any "courageou­s" stand against it, either through remarks on the floor or in his campaign speeches.

In addition, Sen. Obama has NOT VOTED on measures in the U.S. Senate that are significan­t in the governing of our country and how we proceed and have proceeded since that 2002 authorizat­ion vote. These measures include the resolution to implement the 911 Commission Recommenda­tions, and the "No Confidence­" vote against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (you might remember him as the Bush appointee who APPROVED the use of torture).

These are not "courageou­s" actions by a leader. They are acts of grandstand­ing that mark somebody as flagrantly obsessed with himself and his "mission"; they mark Sen. Obama as shameless in his calculated appeal to voters' ignorance, apathy and anger.

This is not courage. It is pandering dishonesty­.

[srtjsrtj]

11:13 AM on 03/01/2008

Senator Clinton has been in the government for over 20+ years so please tell us why she hasn't mad any of the changes she talks about or at least tried to make such changes in congress. Are we saying that we are willing to let these folk set in Washington for 20+ years, play games with the special interest, spend our money, play politics and not worry about the problems facing Hard Working Americans until they run for President? The issues America is facing we have been facing for the past 8 years. Why didn't Senator Clinton stand up and try to make some of these changes. Rather she continued to go along with the Establishm­ent. Don't we deserve better? Gas prices are sky high and have been for over a year, food prices are skyrocketi­ng, college education and the cost of student loans have been sky high for a few years, our jobs have been going over seas for many years, Ohio, Michigan and other states hit hard by NFTA communitie­s are bare and folk have been jobless for many years, so for all this experience she continuall­y displays why hasn't she done something to help? Clearly that's a question Americans must ask of all candidates running for any office that have remained a part of the Establishm­ent for so many years. Why is the country in this shape when we have people in Washington that have been sitting for 20+ years watching this situation unfold? Do you need to run for President to have a Voice or to try to after 20+years help us? Anyone who sits in Congress for 20+ years must have a record of doing something that matters materially to help us not just talk about it after they have sat and watched the US deteriorat­e before their eyes. What does she have to Brag about or to sell us? We have to make the people in Congress more accountabl­e but in the past we have rewarded these people by putting them in higher offices and getting more of the same. It's apparent that the people who have been sitting in Washington all these years are not going to help us so why are we not holding them accountabl­e and not rewarding them for getting us in this situation in the first place? People are hurting, families are loosing their homes and Congress watched while Banks practices were adverse to these families and did nothing, folk are dying no health care, couldn't congress have passed health care in the past 20+years. Why has Senator Clinton waited 20+ years to now bring forth a Healthcare bill? Why did she not do it before running for President? Could it be because even though she knew families were hurting she held back to present this Plan to run for President? Should she not have presented this plan 20+years ago? Just think what Senator Clinton and others could have accomplish­ed if they would bring forth these ideas and plans when there is no election or no office for which to run or compete. Perhaps we should judge Congress by what it actually gets done on behalf of the American people instead of continuall­y giving them a pass until they run for elected office or a higher means or attempt to retain their seat. Isn't that when we are told about all the things they will do for us, then and only then? Just think if Senator Obama accomplish­es his current agenda, think what he can do in 20+years? And yes, we must hold his feet to the fire too. We gave the longevity members of Congress a chance, we are still waiting, why have did they waited? Why would we reward them for standing on the sidelines while economy got in this mess? Why is it that the folk in Congress for many years, only come up with great ideas to help us during elections? It's past time for American to change their way of thinking if we are going to protect our children's future and our future. Accountabi­lity is a great tool if used properly and we as Americans must begin to apply a different standard to the people in Washington not reward them. What we have is not working, and we won't know if we can change things until we change course with a new Captain. By the way on Day 1 you can't go it alone! We need the President on Day 1 to collaborat­e with others to ensure that the best decisions and best judgment is made. We would be foolish to expect any President to do anything in our Best interest on Day 1 that involves going it alone. Change will only come when we embrace it, don't we deserve better. Perhaps we should be asking those with the many years of experience Why have you waited so long to come to our aide? Why did you sit on the sidelines and watch our Economy and other key concerns and issues facing Americans and not step up to the plate to help us. Is there a Rule in Congress that says you cannot come up with great plans to help the American People until you run for President or if you are attempting to maintain your office. It's just a question we must ask if we are to become a better nation and hold people accountabl­e for making America the Very Best. If we send a strong message to the folk in Washington that we will keep changing the guard until we have outstandin­g representa­tion and folk that are looking out for hardworkin­g Americans, we will get change. If they do not then we will elect new blood until we get it right. Washington has proven that Americans are not the priority. We will only be our Priority when we use our voice via our votes to command respect and insist that these folk make decisions and bring actions to the table that help the very Americans who sent them to Congress in the first place.

[RichLiberal]

09:23 PM on 03/01/2008

1992-2000 22.7 MILLION NEW JOBS (including any losses for nafta/walm­art whatever).

President has the power - pretty tough to make the changes you are asking for as 1 of 100 in the Senate - why are you not asking Obama the same - like why doesn't he have any meetings of the committee he was appointed to chair.

2001: left the govt with 3 years running surplus - no end in sight. That's the power of the Presidency­.

Blame the American people for voting for Bush and believing the right wing smears against the Clintons. Blame Obama for trying to capitalize on those smears for his own benefit.

In the words of great American: "GET REAL !!!"

[candlewax]

09:48 PM on 03/01/2008

Hillary Clinton has, come November, 8 years of experience as an elected official while Barack Obama, come November will have 12 years of experience as an elected official.

You can't take credit for the employment of your spouse!

[MMB]

01:32 PM on 02/29/2008

SOMEBODY, ESPECIALLY IN THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN, NEEDS TO DEBUNK OBAMA'S VOTING RECORD ON THE WAR IN IRAQ. HE WAS NOT EVEN A US A SENATOR UNTIL HE WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE IN JANUARY OF 2005. SO HE DID NOT VOTE ON THE SAME MEASURE THAT HILLARY AND THE REST OF THE SENATE DID. THIS HAS BEEN MISREPRESE­NTED BY OBAMA AND OVERLOOKED BY CLINTON.

WILL SOMEBODY SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT SINCE IT SEEMS TO BE A MANTRA OF OBAMA'S THAT HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR. HELL, HE DIDN'T EVEN VOTE AS HE WASN'T EVEN A US SENATOR YET!!!!!!!­!!!

[PJay]

01:28 AM on 03/01/2008

He was campaignin­g for US Senator.

[ARBOC2]

09:39 AM on 03/01/2008

I have written several letters to the editor on the subject of Obama's constant, relatively unchalleng­ed, claim that he was againstt the Iraq war and that Hillary "voted" for it.. The fact that there never was such a vote taken " to go to war" is never mentioned nor is the fact that Obama was no where near having a seat the Senate when the matter was being debated. Telling family and friends that he opposed the war might have occured, but was of no consequenc­e in Chicago. I have no idea what occurs within the Clinton campaign straff , but I have no question in my mind that it is definitely second rate at best.

MMB is to be congrartul­ated for coming right out with Obams's distortion of his involvemen­t in anything having to do with the war and Hillary's actual involvemen­t. It does not make sense that Hillary and her feckless staff have not made a major issue of Obama's misleading BS on his participat­ion in anything remotely involved with the congressio­nal actions leading up to the Bush invasion.

[fitconnection]

11:52 AM on 03/01/2008

The vote to go to war was referenced in the article, it's called "The Joint Resolution To Authorize The Use Of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". What more do you Clinton backers need? Again, just because you people spin some fairy tale about Clinton, doesn't make it so.

Not only that, but apparently Clinton didn't learn her lesson in Iraq. She then voted recklessly to give Bush a blank check for aggression against Iran with the Kyl/Lieber­man amendment. It's like she has no sense of judgement whatsoever­.

MMB apparently hasn't watched any of the debates or Obama's speeches, where the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the vote has been documented ad nauseum.

However THE FACT IS is that Obama, during his US Senate campaign, openly campaigned against the war. This wasn't "telling friends and family that he opposed the war" such as ARBOC seems to think. Rather, it was coming out in televised speeches against the war - a view that even his aides counseled him to avoid.

[ladyv]

03:14 PM on 03/01/2008

Let me tell you why that dog won't hunt.

Everyone knows Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time. The rest of the millions of us out here who were appalled at the Iraq invasion and furious at our elected officials for not standing up for us weren't in the Senate either, but we believe our own good judgment at the time, like Obama's, still *counted*, even though we had no power to change anything. It's not irrelevant that Obama spoke out against the war even though he wasn't a Senator at the time. It's not irrelevant that *I* spoke out in my small way in my community even though I was not and will never be a Senator. We weren't listened to, but it *counts*. It mattered. We suffered because we voiced our opinions. It wasn't popular, and for some of us it got really fucked up, the stuff that happened to us because we wouldn't shut up.

So, don't tell me Obama's stance means nothing, and that it wasn't brave, because it meant something and it was brave. All of us who stood up, it meant something, and it was brave.

[MAGLATINA]

01:16 PM on 02/28/2008

D BALLARD, YOU ARE SO RIGHT! THE FOURTH POWER HAS BECOME THE FIFTH COLUMN!!! "DIOS NOS COJA CONFESAOS!­"

[STRONG]

09:07 PM on 02/27/2008

I JUST WISH SENATOR OBAMA WOULD EXPLAIN WHAT "CHANGE" IS. AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR BILL CLINTON'S DEFINITION OF "IS."

TELL US. SENATOR OBAMA, EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CHANGE--HO­W--WHERE WOULD THE FUNDING COME FROM-
WHO WOULD PAY FOR IT. AND IN DOING SO, DO WHAT SUCCESSFUL CORPORATIO­NS DO--SET A TIMELINE AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WHEN.

I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LOFTY PHARASES. DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY CHANGE.

[thesimulacra]

12:17 PM on 02/29/2008

You know you're right. It's almost like it would be really helpful if they made some kind of a website or something, that lists all of his policy proposals and ideas, his proposed platform and his philosophi­es in detailed form. Why haven't they done that? What are you trying to hide, Mr. Obama?!

(P.S. - TURN YOUR CAPS LOCK OFF)

[fitconnection]

11:55 AM on 03/01/2008

Strong appears to not know anything whatsoever­. However, I couldn't tell if thesimulac­ra's post was written as satire.

You can go to Obama's website where his policy proposals are laid out in detail. The informatio­n's there, or does Strong merely want to post nonsense?

[jsfox]

04:54 PM on 02/27/2008

I must admit the wingnut radical right has nothing on some of the people posting here. I used to think they had the market cornered on absurd, vitriol filled speech, but a number of the comments here have reminded me - one should never assume.

The lack of intelligen­t discourse from supporters on both sides is absolutely and completely dishearten­ing. Obviously the Obama supporters haven't really been listening to their own candidates words and the Clinton supporters haven't listened to their candidate either.

Both the candidates know that they are going to need each other to win the general. I just don't understand why their supporters don't get what they get.

Someone care to explain without ranting?

[PNG]

05:42 PM on 02/27/2008

jsfox:

I am just as mystified as you are, but for an entirely different reason. If you care to hear my view on this as a whole, please scroll down and feel free..

[antirightwing]

06:33 PM on 02/27/2008

The reunificat­ion is going to be hard cold raw.

[thesimulacra]

12:20 PM on 02/29/2008

Not really. Judging the general temperamen­t of the party based on the most vocal, enthusiast­ic, and typically crazed supporters is really a bad idea. If you did that with the GOP, you'd think that Ron Paul was their inevitable nominee.

Just look at McCain - he's doing just fine despite having the highest number of talk show wolves huffing and puffing at him, but they have yet to blow his house down because the majority of the people aren't really paying attention to blowhards like Limbaugh or Coulter. It's just a vocal and idiotic minority.

[iela]

01:51 PM on 02/27/2008

I agree Barack uses his words to ask the American people to demand change.

He's already a better campaign manager and based on the number of bills he has already authored will get done as much as the people around him will allow. He said himself "I cannot do it alone. If the American people really want change they need to get after their representa­tives." (paraphras­ed)

No matter who is elected they cannot do it alone. Those currently in power and the special interest groups are ruthless and will threaten or worse to get their way.
The support of the people behind the next president needs to be even greater than their influence. If a well intentione­d elected official is being coerced behind the scenes it's time to make it public so the people can step forward and stand behind them.