Last night we saw it, the American Dream -- shared, not deferred, at least for a moment. Barack Obama soared. A stunning win. His glorious speech was cause for pride, for tears of joy, and yes, for even more hope. When was the last time you could say that?
Something lifted: the national anhedonia that has descended on so many despairing Americans under Bush has ever so slightly lessened this morning. And one noticed the despair all the more because of how novel it feels to have hope. The gray and weighed cloud of shame and disappointment in our leadership lifted. Just a bit. And the quiet, deeply scarring, utterly exhausting seven-year burden of being disgusted by a ruinous and corrupt administration quieted briefly last night in Iowa. Because one man, Barack Obama, dared to presume that he had could change the country. And told us that there was nothing we could not do. And so many people agreed.
Maybe this is a little like 1968. The war has finally dragged our youth back into politics. About time. And watching those exhilarated supporters at the inscrutable bit of political theater that is the Iowa caucuses, watching the crowd gathered behind Obama when he spoke, one could sense the unmistakable emergence of a people awakening from a dream. To a dream. A dream that insists on change.
It is very early. But I think there is an exhaustion with the Clinton premise, and indeed, even the Clinton promise. Her negativity felt stale and out of joint, out of sync with what was going on in our hearts and minds. She still may be the Democratic candidate, she still may be the president, but deep down, what she offers feels familiar, dynastic, stale, and so very hard to trust. Last night, many people agreed with that assessment, and said "Not so fast. Not yet. Not you. Not now. Barack Obama. Maybe it is his time."
And as for me -- after my joy and shock had quieted down -- all I could think of was that the rest of the world was watching this moment too, amazed and surprised just like us. In Paris and London, Berlin and Rio, and Montreal. Let alone in Africa, Aisa, and in the Middle East. Were they, like me, also remembering how very much they used to admire about this country and all that it stands for? Were they watching, and feeling the wild, romantic populist streak that -- shock of shocks - still lives on here in this almost ruined nation? I think so.
We've been through hell these years with Bush so it's easy to see why there's so much adulation for Obama, in fact anyone who appears to offer up something even remotely different would be welcomed. Let's be realistic though. Politicians are not miracle workers and certainly not the pot at the end of the rainbow. We often give too much weight to what we want and not what eventually is given. I remember election night when Clinton was first elected. When it was announced he had won, all of a sudden everyone started singing Kum Bay Ya. It was an exhilerating moment. The 8 years of his presidency was not. He accomplished less than nothing but he did cave in to the republicans on welfare as-we-know-it and gay rights. He also had to be dragged kicking and screaming into actually doing something about the attempted genocide in Bosnia and his poliices toward Haiti were a disaster. Then there was Monica. It wasn't my business who he had sex with but don't look at America on national TV and lie about it. So much for Kum Bay Ya.
and btw, our President Bush was also inexperienced and ran on a "change" platform, too. It might be better for these so called "independents" to think about that.
You have to go beyond Obamas' magnetism and awe in order to do an objective analysis of his speeches. And to me, his speeches are full of idealism but short of realism. That is, if you so called "independents" are realistic enough to go beyond your awe with Obama.
Now about that policy . On immigration Hillary was stumped one night in a debate , by the next night she got her answer straight , one week later cotton candy man was still trying to "uh ah form a consensus" . On war , this peace lover would not only invade a soveriegn country preemptively but one with nuclear arms , and the best part , he would do it based on intelligence data { we all see how iraq has turned out } all for the capture of a single man . On resume he has no experience he has no resume {just like gw}. On the constitution he has rubber stamped war funding at every chance voted for the patriot act giving gw recess appointment powers . And now he can add his name to the Iowa and maybe New Hampshire . Names like , Muskie , Carter , Mondale , Gephart , Tsongas , Harkin , Kerry . Congratulations dems there you go again .
GO EDWARDS
Hi R!
When John Edwards uses it, he tells us what it means -- out of Iraq; take health care out of the hands of the vested interests, energy policy out from under oil and gas interests, tax policies that favor someone other than the ultra rich, corporate power out of poltics. then he backs it up by not taking special interest money.
I like Obama, but until he does more than mouth vague homilies about change, and tells me what that means, and until he stops taking so much corporate money, Edwards is my man.
Obama makes a few speeches and you wet yourselves silly.
The right-wing media has relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton for 16 years, spreading their hate, and you all nod in agreement like brain-washed zombies, especially here at HuffPo.
Personally, I like Obama.
However, just because he is black, handsome and gives empty flowery speeches about hope doesn't mean he will be a good president.
A president has to wear many hats: Executive, diplomat, businessman, visionary, military commander, bureaucrat, lawyer, political animal and a entrepreneur.
I'm sorry, but Obama just doesn't cut it, experience wise.
I suggest the Obamanistas look past empty rhetoric and propaganda for once in their lives and choose one of the candidates who has experience and can effectively lead, and if you are going to attack Hillary, try to use an argument other than one spoon fed to you by the right-wing propaganda machine.