To Vilify Obama for his Ability to Inspire is to Ignore the Principal Lesson of the Last Three Decades of American Politics

It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."

It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities. It demonstrates a failure to grasp the principal lesson of the last thirty years of American politics.

In fact, it is precisely the absence of inspiration in progressive politics that has kept Progressives on the political defensive for decades.

That's because to inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to something much more important than endless lists of policies and programs. To inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to our values and to our vision for the future.

John Kerry did not lose the presidency because he lacked solid, progressive policies and programs. His campaign rolled out new ten point programs practically every other day. He lost because the Republicans erroneously convinced a significant number of persuadable voters that John Kerry lacked core values -- that he was a flip-flopper.

Right after the last election I struck up a conversation with a New Jersey cab driver. I asked him, "What do you think of Jon Corzine?" "Good guy, tough guy, stands up for what he believes," came the reply. "What do you think of George Bush?" "Good guy, stands up for what he believes," he said. "What do you think of John Kerry?" I asked. "Phoney... a flip-flopper," he responded.

His evaluation of these political leaders had nothing to do with positions or policy papers. The Republicans had convinced him that Kerry didn't have core values.

From 1932 until the mid 1970s -- at least in our domestic politics -- progressive values provided the dominant frame for mainstream political debate. They defined political "common sense." By 1980, the Reagan revolution had changed that -- and rightwing values have framed the American political debate for the thirty years since.

That's largely because Progressives went into a "defensive crouch." Our candidates advocated "Republican-lite" positions. We refused to debate the fundamental differences between the progressive and radical conservative values. Chief among these differences is the central question of whether we're all in this together, or all in this alone.

Often our leaders retreated to the discussion of small, incremental policy initiatives that presumed the right wing's assumptions about the primacy of "private markets" over people, and the innate inferiority of democratically elected governmental institutions compared to corporations that are in fact unaccountable to the public interest.

Beginning in 2005, our successful defense of Social Security, the obvious failure of NeoCon foreign policy, and the spectacle of Katrina -- began to change that. Progressives began to emerge from their defensive crouch and stand up proudly for progressive values once again.

Then came Obama, with his ability to inspire Americans to devote themselves to our values in a way that resonates with average people. His self-confident appeal to hope and possibility -- his "yes we can" -- have captured the imagination of millions of Americans. His ability to inspire has allowed him to simultaneously engage swing "persuadable" voters and the millions of stay-at-home "mobilizable" voters who would support progressive candidates if they could just be motivated to vote.

People want to be inspired. Inspiration is about making people feel empowered to be more than they are. They want to be inspired because they desperately want meaning in their lives. They want to be part of something larger than themselves and they want to feel that they can play a significant part in that larger purpose.

Meaning comes from being devoted to something outside of yourself -- to a cause, to a person, to a religion, to your art.

That's why "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is so resonant -- so inspirational.

The Right has understood this need for meaning--and has addressed it -- with calls for devotion to the "Conservative Movement," to fundamentalist religion, to xenophobic nationhood.

For three decades, Progressives have often tried to compete by offering the bloodless alternative of a "policy agenda" -- and many times a timid one at that.

For thirty seven years I have devoted much of my professional life to campaigns to implement progressive policy initiatives. So I certainly agree that we need sound, bold policies. Once in office, a new president must in fact deliver on real, concrete policy.

But to change policy in a fundamental way requires more than good programs. It requires a progressive realignment of the American political debate. It requires that we redefine the value frame for American politics. And that requires inspirational leadership that proudly affirms our values.

Just as important, it requires inspirational leadership that can mobilize millions of Americans to demand the enactment of a progressive program once a new president is in place. Frederick Douglass was right. "Power surrenders nothing without a struggle. It never has. It never will." Progressives won't win legislative battles with an insider game.

In 1993 we had a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, but we lost the battle for universal health care. What we needed then, and what we need now, is a massive national mobilization to pass universal health care, change our labor laws, enact campaign finance reform, provide universal access to higher education and preschool, end global warming and change our foreign policy.

Leadership, more than anything else, is about mobilizing people into action. People take action when they feel empowered -- when they are inspired. They will not take action simply because they are "convinced" we are right. They will take action when they are motivated by inspiration to be a part of an historic endeavor.

Inspiring leadership is not just "another quality" that would be "nice" to have in a president. And it is certainly not to be assailed as a "cult of the personality."

America needs inspiring leadership to re-establish the preeminence of progressive values; to define a progressive vision for its future; to mobilize Americans to enact a progressive agenda -- and most importantly -- to convert this historic opportunity into generational progressive political realignment.

No one knows for sure what either a Clinton or an Obama presidency would mean for America. But I believe that Barack Obama presents us with a candidacy more likely to provide the inspirational leadership that we need, than any politician since Robert Kennedy's quest for the White House ended that June night in 1968.

Comments

[zull2]

Politicians attacking politicians is one thing, but there's something that's been under reported in this race, and that's appointed surrogates attacking another candidate's supporters. That isn't a strategy, it's suicide.

In Wisconsin, one of Hillary's surrogates literally launched into a tirade against Obama's supporters, using terminology that only right wing radio talking heads use to describe liberals. That's insane.

Then there are the morons who haven't spent 2 minutes researching Obama's platform and specifics (and they are there for anyone to find, if you can read HuffPo, you can find out anything you need to know by searching on the web)...but feel perfectly justified in consistently thumping the "Obama's supporters are idiots because Obama has no platform!" People who get all of their information from debates and stump speeches, but are too lazy to spend 10 minutes to look up specifics on the web, should zip it. When they attack other Democrats without having the facts on hand, the only thing they're doing is dividing the party.

The goal is to beat the Republicans so that we can end the freaking Iraq occupation and fix a zillion things that are currently broken. Dividing the party is NOT the goal.

[newunderground]

Hillary started it.

[foolchild0]

Terrific post. I feel like what you are saying has been the elephant in the living room of American politics for decades- everyone's been waiting for this politics of compromise to start working, while, meanwhile, my entire generation has grown up not really knowing what strong, inspirational, progressive leadership even is. And now, finally, the Democrats are showing some courage, and the house of cards is crumbling. Imagine if this had happened years ago, if someone had just had the courage to stand up and say what they believe. And I am heartened to see that the Clinton-style politics of appeasement and cynical maneuvering is being rejected.

[Plowboy]

To be honest, Hillary can really inspire people too. When she goes into one of her rants, she inspires a lot of animosity!

But she doesn't mind that. If she can't have her way, then nobody can! If she can't completely rule the house, she'll tear it down.

Her opponent is made of better quality goods. He inspires people to work,together for the purpose of building!

[dartagnan]

Absolutely brilliant analysis. The progressive movement in the past has been powered by charismatic, inspirational figures such as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK and RFK, but there has been no such leader on the American scene since RFK was killed. Policy wonks have their place, but they can't fire people up to support fundamental change. I am not sure Obama is quite in the mold of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys, but he appears to be the closest thing we've got now.

[dartagnan]

Absolutely brilliant analysis. The progressive movement in the past has been powered by charismatic, inspirational figures such as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, JFK and RFK, but there has been no such leader on the American scene since RFK was killed. Policy wonks have their place, but they can't fire people up to support fundamental change. I am not sure Obama is quite in the mold of the Roosevelts and the Kennedys, but he appears to be the closest thing we've got now.

[ntmessage]

Of course no one knows what a Clinton or Obama Presidency will mean, exactly. But we know infinitely more about the results of the Clinton administration than an Obama Presidency and administration.

The real question is that we do not know who the real Barack Obama is. Reading one of his books, and it was a good biography makes you feel good. His speeches make you feel good. Both contain many good words, but do not get into real detail how some of the major struggles have affecting his thinking. What are his current instincts and motivation given a certain situation? This would allow us to know how he will make decisions and set priorities. This will help us trust the new kid on the block, those who need more than words, and those who need at least a little proof.

I would challenge that Rhetoric is all important over being right as the best foundation for any real change. Being right must be the foundation. The inside legislative game are where the details are, real change happens and, as you know from Iraq, god and the devil are in the details. The corporate lobbies who basically write legislation for Bush know this.

How many bills have passed with soaring words and rhetoric, and contain loop holes. Not to pick on it much, an example is Obama’s health care plan. His words may help a bill pass but may not really change much in the lives of everyday people. Hillary’s has substantial change and is the right plan. It will affect everyone, yes that is the change we need.

The real question here is what is rhetoric if not a call to action? We need to know more about Obama to understand what actions will be his priorities beyond winning the election. What are the results to the call to action to get Barack elected? How will he react to the challenges of the Presidency? We can then decide how an Obama Administration will really the change the country for us, individually. What are the tangible expectations? Right now, the rhetoric directs us to fill in the blanks on what Hope and Change mean for each of us. This is clever and perfect for campaigns, on getting elected. No doubt, some will be disappointed if we did not get the real answers in advance. What Hope and Change mean in actions, reactions and behavior once Barack is elected. It cannot be said that we simply did not ask the questions and thus it is our fault if we did not.

For example, let us ask that Michelle Obama’s Princeton Thesis be released immediately. Why was her thesis, developed during her formidable years, removed from access until after the election? Is this the type of transparency Barack campaigns on? These words may likely contain real positions on her thinking and reactions to certain situations. What she really feels about a situation and what her instincts will be regarding action. They will tell us about the woman Barack married, and we know he knows her best.

These words contain the answers reporters and the country needs to know. They may give insight into how the behaviors of the Obama’s once in office and give us insight on how Barack and Michelle will react, meaning what decisions they will make to certain situations.

The words so far do not get into any of what the Obama’s are really about.

[serena1313]

First of all actions speak louder than words.

The way a politician runs his or her campaign will tell you how he or she will govern.

Hillary's plan to skip the smaller states, the red states, no Plan B in place (believing she would have the nomination wrapped-up on Super Tuesday), mismanaging campaign money, no forethought on the quirky Texas primary system and other things belie her claim that she will be "ready on day one."

Making excuses, shifting blame and discounting voters for her losses signals unwillingness to take personal responsibility.

Iam not slamming Hillary, but those are facts.

In contrast Obama's incredible leadership and organizational skills, experience and inspiration are evident in his campaign.

It does not take a rocket scientist to know candidates do not win based just on lofty inspiring speeches, however, they play a huge part in motivating the electorate to vote. Absent an organized ground crew to bring victory to fruition won't either.

Obama took nothing for granted; Hillary did.

Watch what people do, listen to what they say, then if their words become action you'll know.

Do your research, too.

[foolchild0]

Amen- the Clinton campaign has shown us all we need to know about her competence as a leader.

[vernonbc]

Michelle's thesis was released. Politico asked his campaign for a copy of it and received it from them promptly. Sorry. Another one of your tirades against Obama shot down.

[Loeb]

Obama is not running "for PROGRESSIVES".

Most self-styled "progressives" (afraid of the
old word "liberal" and running from it as fast
as their little feet will carry them) will
have mattured when they realize that the US
is not "progressive". FDR did NOT run AS A
PROGRESSIVE. His decisions and actions were
not based on what was "good for progressives".

A good President is concerned with what is good
for the nation as a whole.

Massachusetts is often considered a "liberal"
state and yet it has elected a series of
Republican Governors. (Until Deval Patrick,
a former counsel to progressive corporations
like Coca Cola and Texaco !!!) Remember a guy named Mitt Romney ???

[musicstreet]

But it's perfectly OK to vilify Hillary for everything, everyday, all the time. Nice.

[musicstreet]

Please stop trying to always tie Obama to the Kennedy legacy
(that means you Ted, Caroline, Maria ). Let him stand on his own two feet. On his own acts, deeds, words. If he is the great leader that he says he is, he (and his followers) shouldn't need to always try to imply/insinuate he is the next JFK.

[tritt]

For all the people who keep belittling Obama's legislative record and asking us to list accomplishments, can you first, please start rattling off Hillary's?

Health Care reform attempts are not accomplishments. I was highly disappointed that Obama said nothing in response to her talking about how shes been at it since 1994. Thats the problem, shes been trying at this for 14 years and hasnt gotten anywhere. How many coaches get to keep running a team when it hasnt won a game in 15 years? I think its high time we let somebody else have a shot...

Second, Hillary has been all about her "experience" advantage over Obama. In reality, Barack has served in public office longer than her if you include his time in Illinois. Shes only been a senator for a few more years than Obama. Being married to the president does not qualify somebody to be one themselves. How many businesses replace the CEO with her/his spouse? I mean, they have to know alot about the business and the job if they were married to the CEO, right? Would Laura Bush make a good candidate in 2012? Nancy Reagan?

Hilary needs to accept this loss and start looking to position herself to run the next time. If Hilary had won 10 straight contests Obama would be getting the Huckabee treatment right now. The only reason the media isnt writing her off is that she still sells papers and she stirs it up with nonsense like this plagiarism thing.

Its time to recognize that in the current moment, Barack has the best chance to make a difference. Nobody can step into the presidency and start just making policy decisions, the best we can hope for is someone with clear judgment and a sound intellect to make good on the choices they do have in that office. Its time for everyone to quit "hatin" on him and get on board!!

[musicstreet]

But please..ke­ep "hatin" on Hillary.

[dartagnan]

"Would Laura Bush make a good candidate in 2012?"

I'd vote for her before I'd vote for John McInsane.

[inthecolour]

Wonderful and on point. Great job.

[Petersworld]

Respectfully, I (a Republican) have never seen or read anyone vilifying Obama for his ability to inspire. I HAVE seen and read criticism that Obama's rhetorical skills are not backed up by substance (and I hold with that view myself at the moment). Those two things are not the same thing. They are not even close to being the same thing.

I respect that you may have been a supporter of Bobby Kennedy (my mother was) but Bobby Kennedy we now know was not the hero we all thought he was and his murder, though terrible, will not make him one in my eyes - read, amongst other things, "Legacy of Ashes" as it relates to him and his attempts to have other people (namely Castro) murdered. Imagine Bush hiring his brother as AG!

Your views on economics, or what I can see of them in your piece, reflect a view that has, quite frankly, proven a failure and is being abandoned all over this world and nations are the better for it. It was very hard for me to understand before I studied economics and even Marx got that part right where you don't seem to. Labor laws and unions (and I am a member of one) are already losing us jobs because companies can make things cheaper elsewhere - and I bet you don't buy the more expensive stuff just because it was made here, do you? Don't feel bad, I don't either. Making laws that make it harder for people to start a business or maintain one loses business and the taxes and jobs that come with them. It really is just that simple. Corporations ARE accountable to people – shareholders (of which you are likely one, even if you don’t know it) and to the nations they work in. They can’t just do whatever they want anywhere.

Your views on that matter seem backwards and, again, have proven a failure in many places like France (where I lived for some time) and other parts of Europe. Sure, we should have laws that protect people but not that drive business off shore and we all know you can't drive business back on-shore by law or by fiat. Profits are not a crime

Sorry, I am going on too long. I disagree with your views (at least some of them) but I respect that you see it differently and I enjoyed reading your post and will again. Be well.

[UrbanInterloper]

Petersworld, thanks for your insightful post. I wish Republicans had more like you, or if they exist in droves, that they were more visible. I wanted to point out that governments do have a vital economic role, and a responsibility, in capitalism, and helping determine the volume of jobs, and which jobs, if any, go overseas, is one of them. The moniker "free trade" and the concept of laissez-faire notwithstanding, all sorts of industries are given tax breaks or subsidized outright, and even conservatives do this when in government. It's a tool, and we ought to use it. So it's easy enough to offset the ill effects of cheap overseas labor, namely creating a trade deficit and putting downward pressure on the U.S. job market, through those mechanisms.

Another example of fake free trade is tied to the timely issue of immigration and undocumented workers. Our protectionist farm subsidies, besides funding inhumane factory farming of livestock and the growing of corn you can't eat off the stalk, have the side effect of making our produce cheaper than Mexico's. Hence, Mexican farmers, which have a long tradition in their jobs, stop farming in Mexico and seek work in the U.S. Is illegal immigration right? No. Can we do something other than build a fence? Absolutely.

[serena1313]

*** inthecolour

Presumably you did not watch any of the debates, do research or visit Obama's web site?

http://www.barackobama.com/

There is a wealth of information about substantive legislation Obama has written, co-sponsored and passed.

lots of links here:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/theyre-not-a-ma.html

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html

Otherwise I agree with what you wrote .

[serena1313]

*** UrbanInterloper

Insofar as Obama's immigration plan (if I re_member correctly) he mentioned that countries need to give their citizens a reason to stay by providing jobs and improving their living conditions.


Most Americans have no idea what it is to live in places where social justice, human nor civil rights exist or the degree of suffering and misery millions endure worldwide.


Immigrants come here for 3 obvious reasons:


1) jobs to provide food for their family


3) better living conditions


2) escape oppressive government


I dislike the idea of a fence for many reasons. The notion that a fence will solve our problems and keep us "safe" is ludicrous and costly in more ways than one.


Every time someone mentions the need for a fence I get the distinct feeling the result will eventually keep us fenced-in rather than keep people out.


Fences can be torn down, climbed-over or dug-under. If people want in they will get in, one way or the other. Furthermore building a fence around the entire nation will take tens of billions of dollars and decades to finish.


This so-called grand idea will have other consequences. Cutting-off access to water will put a lot of ranchers out of business. Their cattle will die. Many more stand to lose generations of family-owned land not to mention making it much more difficult or even impossible to continue doing business across the border.


This is a really dumb idea all the way around.


Weighing the pros and cons it is not worth it when neither economic nor security reasons validate the "need" for a fence. Surely there are better solutions to be found.


More importantly a free country with open borders will always have risks and some element of danger, but that is the price we pay for freedom and liberty.


We've been living this way for over 200 years. Changing it now will not make us any safer or more secure; It will, however, do more damage than good in the long run.


Iam not willing to sacrifice my freedom for a faux sense of security.


Those willing to do so do not understand what they are giving-up.


I guarantee there will be a day when they will regret it.

[Petersworld]

Urbaninterloper, Great nick! Thanks but no one is ever all one way or the other or they aren't thinking and both sides have WAY too many of those types. I agree that government should do what it can to keep jobs, or that that is one of its responsibilites but that is very hard to accomplish in reality without subsidies and tax breaks which people like Nader then whine about. Everyone does that as you indicate and they always will. Thank you for YOUR insightful post! By the way, I am not for doing any harm to illegal immigrants and I am against the fence but I am 100% for hitting people who hire illegals - including individuals, not just companies (and big corps can't hire them funny enough) - and hitting them so hard they don't do it anymore (heavy fines and even prison for repeat offenses). Then the problem will, in my humble opinion, correct itself. I am also against farm subsidies of the sort we have today and which I find mind-boggling as well as funding for biofuels that are a complete waste of energy and money. I understand some show did a piece on it this weekend but, unfortunately, I didn't see it. Thanks again and be well.

[dartagnan]

"Your views on that matter seem backwards and, again, have proven a failure in many places like France (where I lived for some time) and other parts of Europe."

How, exactly, have they failed? The Western European countries have better health care systems than we do and spend less on them. They have less poverty. They have better education systems. They have better transportation systems. The Euro is kicking the crap out of the dollar.

The right-wing cant about how European social policies have "failed" works only with isolated, ignorant Americans who know nothing of the world beyond their own borders.

[Bibbo]

Really

[newunderground]

And they don't waste half their treasury on War, masquerading as "Defense". They don't have troops staioned in 130 countries around the world making the world safe for multinationals. Yup, those wacky europeans, they'd rather spend their money on social welfare, making their citizens lives happier and more secure than piss their money down third world ratholes trying to conflate jihadi terrorists with the nazi or soviet threat. Just who is delusional?

[Petersworld]

Dartagnan,
I was born in Europe and lived there until I was 11 years old and my mother (and her entire family) are Brits (current citizens), so I have seen it myself. Yes, they have universal health care but many people (those who can afford it) pay extra for private (extra) coverage so they don't have to wait in a line (not literally) for medical treatment. If you think it is so great, you have not seen it as I have. It also adversely affects the number of people who enter medicine as a field (many articles on this problem as it relates to the UK and France - google it). By the way, I am by no means against some kind of health care (universal coverage) at all but just against it being a government run matter as in some places. That would mean the loss of millions of jobs and an increase in taxation that would almost require that we create a VAT as all European countries do. Pardon the oversimplification of a complex issue but I don't have the time and this isn't my blog. Also, as to other social concerns look at France. It is a mess and I have (as an adult) lived there. Do you have any idea how many people in France are on the government payroll? Look it up, you'll be shocked. Want to start a business? Don't do it in France. Also don't presume, as you apparently have done, that people who disagree with you know nothing of the world outside America. That is foolish.

[serena1313]

Whoops I replied to the wrong post... This was meant for Petersworld rather than inthecolour, my apology:

*** Petersworld

Presumably you did not watch any of the debates, do research or visit Obama's web site?

http://www.barackobama.com/

There is a wealth of information about substantive legislation Obama has written, co-sponsored and passed.

Lots of information with more links here:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/theyre-not-a-ma.html

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html

Otherwise I agree with what you wrote.

[Petersworld]

Serena,
Pardon the delay in responding but I was away all weekend. Not sure how you came up with the idea that I didn't see the debates (I did but the last one) and I am aware of Obama's record more than most people I know and actually defended him every time I got a copy of a vicious and lying email - and that was MANY times from many sources. Also not sure why you send me links to a blog when you could get that info from Obama's own site, but thank you very much anyway. One can argue that any legislation is "substantive" (or it should be anyway) but I don't think Obama, who has only been in the U.S. Senate for 2 years, has done anything of merit. That is a function of time, not character or ability in my opinion as far as Obama is concerned. His work in his state Senate is another matter and, to be frank, not of much weight to me. Why I won't vote for him is that his views are, in the main, different from mine, his experience in an executive position is nil (though that applies to all in this one) and he has made some comments on foreign policy that are dangerously naive and made promises he won't be able to keep on Iraq. He won't pull the troops out of Iraq in a year and we will have bases there for as long as I live or longer just as we do in lots of other places. Obama knows that and even made it clear that he had the right to change his mind (my way) on the topic if he thought it was in our national interest. Thanks!

[Susan1968]

Is it Obama who inspires? Or is it Patrick Deval - the man behind the curtain.

Obama lifts a second speech from his buddy Patrick.

This goes beyond plagiarism. Obama is "borrowing" a PERSONNA which proved to win Deval the Illinois Governor's office.

It's marketing 101. It's like using SEO Search Engine Words that work best in your " target market."

I should know - I'm an advertising copywriter (HILLARY I'M AVAILABLE FOR ADVICE!)

Here is Deval Patrick on June 3, 2006, according to an 11-second YouTube video posted Tuesday afternoon:

"I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspiration­s."

Here is Barack Obama on Nov. 2 in Manning, S.C., according to an 11-second YouTube video posted nine minutes later:

"I'm not just asking you to take a chance on me. I'm also asking you to take a chance on your own aspiration­s."

[brueso]

yawn.

if you're an advertising copywriter, you should have learned one of the first rules of advertisting. If people aren't buying the tired old thing you're selling, sell something else.

Why don't you try to sell us on Hillary rather than just running Obama down.m And then think about why this political 'professional' with her (b.s.) "thirty five years of experience" and her vaunted high paid professional campaign staff forgot that they might actually have a fight on their hands to get the nomination, and would have to make a plan beyond Super Tuesday. $140 million mis-managed. These are the people that we're supposed to trust to manage government finances and plan how to pass legislation successfully?

[foolchild0]

I second that yawn. It's like they don't realize how feeble they sound.

[ohnonotagain]

seawolf77,
So you are okay with poisonous products coming to our American consumers with nothing being done from this President. You are okay with, standing behind a man that the majority of the conservatives despise. You are okay, with Mexico's and most other Third World countries that have taken our jobs economy grow, their inflation rate drop while we watch our fellow Americans make fools of themselves just for the parties sake.
ROTFLMAO!!

[gobarackgo]

Right on the money. This piece captures perfectly why Obama matters and why he will make a difference.

[fallinforit]

"he will make a difference" oh, talk about yawn, yawn, and finally, YAWN. If I need inspiration and feel good preachin', I'll find a feel good preacher. What I want is a leader, a workhorse, someone who must piss off some people to get a job done.

Musicstreet said it: its perfectly ok to villify Clinton on everything. I wonder just how I'll be able to support the big o when his fans have dogged Clinton throughout? And come November, he'll need our support and we're supposed to what, jump on over? No. To some of you, he's inspiring, the second coming; To some of us, his words are, well, yawwwn...j­ust words. I will now link to Deval's speech to be re-inspired by "just words."