This is my first post here and I´ve decided to answer this article because I´ve found it very interesting. It seems that nowsdays politicians try to persuade people everywhere by creating some kind of leader, who is an idealist and, of course, is a "perfect" human beign with no defects. I´m from Spain and we have had elections this month. Of course, Zapatero is the winner, and I've found a lot of similarities between Zapatero and Obama's campaign, at least for what I've heard in the news, and now, reading this article. The whole Zapatero's campaign is based in his figure, no political or economic ideas, just Zapatero, the character. Now he is a cult figure who makes whatever he wants to do, and nobody can say a word against some of his ideas in his party. I think that is very dangerous that a political party based all its ideals in one person.
Don't Forget The Movement
Forget telephones and tax returns and monsters; forget Geraldine and Jeremiah. Forget Superdelegates and pundits and Pennsylvanian demographics. State by state, and vote by vote, it's still a question of belief.
"I'll do whatever he says to do," said Oscar winner Halle Berry of Barack Obama. "I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear." As an Englishman trying to get a handle on the nature of "Obamamania", I try to imagine Kate Winslet saying the same thing about Gordon Brown. Actually I try to imagine anyone saying that about Gordon Brown. It's not easy.
In this parallel world that seems to exist somewhere between a movie set and a Bible story, the road to the White House is blocked, not by John McCain and the Republicans, but by paper cups!? The path of the mighty is strewn with the off-casts of a trip to Starbucks? While presuming that there's some irony at play here, the comment was nonetheless a curiously fitting characterization of the fanaticism of Obama's support, encapsulating both its breathless, quasi-religious excitement, and its inherent problems.
Supporting an intelligent and articulate Senator from Illinois is, of course, not some kind of cultish mass-delusion, but nor is the evangelical zeal of his supporters a spontaneous or inexplicable phenomenon. It has been created deliberately, systematically, and very successfully. The Obama campaign uses a religious calling as its central rhetorical trope. "I'm asking you to believe" reads the banner across the top of barackobama.com; his appeal to voters is an archetype of religious conversion: "At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, 'I have to vote for Barack'"; instead of being asked for support, Americans are exhorted to "join the movement".
In Georgia, he directly equated his supporters with God's people: "God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city... and when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down." Later in the speech he asked the congregation to "walk with me, march with me... and if enough of our voices join together, we can bring those walls tumbling down."
Now, if Senator Obama's people resemble God's people, I can't help noticing what that logic makes the junior senator from Illinois. This is not an entirely flippant observation, because it focuses us on the way in which his campaign centred entirely on the figure of Barack Obama himself - his appeal and his personality, his extraordinary ability to give an electrifying speech, his charisma, his much vaunted "ability to inspire". But to call this politics of personality a "movement" is a masterstroke of obfuscation.
It's a term usually reserved for the great unarguable strides humanity has made towards freedom, civil rights, and equality; and nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a "movement" like those; in the Obama campaign, however, it is a term used to disguise the fault lines in his candidacy. His lack of legislative and executive experience is declared to be his strength (he is not a "Washington insider", he is "new"); a George W Bush-like campaign based on personality rather than proven ability is packaged as "change you can believe in". More importantly, it suggests that Hillary Clinton is an impediment to progress, rather than the only candidate fighting for the Democratic ideal of universal health care.
Ironically, and this is the important point in seeing how the "movement" could have turned negative in recent weeks, the Obama campaign has taken the logic of the religious and republican right - "you're either with us or against us" - and created its Democratic alter ego. Obama has created the impression that Clinton supporters, like the Pharisees in the temple, are obstacles to change: "I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement but still hunger for change. They know it in their gut... But they're afraid. They've been taught to be cynical." It's not an argument for better government, it's an exhortation to see the light; it's not a plan for the Presidency, but a leap of faith.
This idea came to a head in Obama's Super Tuesday speech, with those much talked about phrases: "We are the change that we seek... We are the ones we've been waiting for". This marked a new level of discourse, and lots of bloggers and journalists wrote warily about its "cultish" or "messianic" feel. But I think that misses the point. The real problem with this is not the cod-religious congratulation of being the chosen ones, but a quieter, more insidious message: that the campaign itself is the change he talks about.
In this way, the Obama campaign has been styling itself as a sign of change, rather than an argument for it. As he said in South Carolina, "we are showing America what change looks like." In that linguistic and conceptual manoeuvre, the goal of accomplishing the specific changes Americans urgently need - in health care, the economy, education - is relegated to the background. Because you don't worry about how to achieve change when you are the change that you seek. You're not so hungry for reform when you've already feasted at the table of self-congratulation.
It is great politics. But it is also an insidious strategy, because for families in America whose most pressing choice is not between two Senators in a Primary, but between paying their mortgage or their medical insurance this month, the change they need is not symbolic, but urgent and real. The result of this self-referential campaign is a shifting of focus from the two key questions Democrats should be asking themselves: who can be relied on to get things done in Washington, and who is most likely to win the general election against John McCain.
While Clinton's campaign sets out her credentials and her plans for what she describes as "the most difficult job in the world", Obama's is a campaign deliberately operating on a symbolic level. Clinton is asking Americans to hire her to do a job; Obama is asking them to believe in him. Accordingly, they offer two different models for the Presidency: put it in terms of the much discussed "day one", the Obama model is about the inauguration speech, and Clinton's is focused on the moment she gets back from the Capitol, sits down at that desk, and starts work. It is no coincidence that the Obama campaign wins wealthier voters, and Clinton wins the majority of those earning under $50,000. His is a creed that appeals to those who can afford to make this choice for how it makes them feel.
The less sound-bite friendly creed of Clinton, in contrast, is a creed of policy and problem solving. Her "vision" is an economic blueprint for a strengthened middle class. The "inspiration" she offers is in detailed, and achievable plans for universal healthcare and overhauling the student loans system; the "hope" is a moratorium on home foreclosures; the "change" is in fostering a green-collar sector that creates local employment and cleaner energy production; Instead of abstract nouns, she is talking about the mechanics of mental health reform, and increased state support for veterans, and a return to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990's. Her campaign may be losing the battle of language in the media, but she is still winning the arguments among people who have been hit hardest by the failings of the Bush Presidency.
To finish, let's look to November. Barack Obama frames up the general election as follows: "It is about the past versus the future. And when I am the nominee, the Republicans won't be able to make this election about the past because you will have already chosen the future." It's a perfect turn of phrase. And the media have been allowing Obama to frame up the Primary contest within these same abstract parameters. They poll endlessly on whether people want "change" or "experience", as though the terms were mutually exclusive, and as though "change" was about personnel rather than policy. But let's stop and ask ourselves amidst all this: will the election in November really be about "the past versus the future"?
I will alienate Obama believers for saying this, but many Democrats I've met have been "taught to be cynical". They have been taught to be cynical by the elections of 2000 and 2004. And that cynicism makes them ask some questions: Will it really be a question of "the past versus the future" in the general election, or will the GOP re-frame the choice around national security? Will the infamous Republican Attack Machine (Karl Rove is conspicuously now "consulting" for the McCain campaign) make Hillary Clinton's question of who is best suited to pick up the phone in the middle of the night look like a glowing endorsement in comparison?
The "movement" that has carried him to this point in the nominating process might not seem so compelling when the media start to reframe the question; when Obama looks increasingly like a politician. "Unity" might be less important than a record of getting things done when the Republicans are fighting a partisan campaign against extending healthcare, against troop withdrawal, against spending increases for schools and veterans and the vulnerable. The nice-sounding idea that the "United States" trump "red states and blue states" might seem obsolete when Democrats start to focus on the colour the map is turning in November. Dare I say it, the whole thing might even stop looking like a movement, and start looking like the election campaign of a junior Senator from Illinois.
I worry that the democrats will kick themselves if Obama is their nominee: they will kick themselves for allowing a "movement" to distract them from keeping their eye on the prize. They will kick themselves for not picking a woman who has proved she is tough enough to have survived 16 years of Republican attacks, and who can stand toe to toe with John McCain on National Security; they will kick themselves for not picking a candidate who has been winning the demographic groups, and most of the states that will be in play in the general; and they will kick themselves for not seeing that offering struggling families help in November might just be even more inspiring than offering them hope.
An edited version of this article appeared in The Daily Telegraph.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Simon, loved the article. Your perspective as a foreigner to our process here of selecting our figurehead is most refreshing. I have mourned the fact that our democratic primary has been stolen by those who would prefer it look more like a season of American Idol than of a true process of effecting a change in direction for our once great nation. Truly great statesmen have been forced to withdraw as a result, leaving us with a circus of players in a popularity contest, rather than a presidential primary.
It is amusing, yet somewhat alarming to hear folks call Clinton "Bush-lite". Have they truly forgotten? I remember Bush's campaign in 2000 against Gore, calling Gore just an extension of Clinton's liberal policies, claiming our economy would tank if we adopted any of his "tree-hugging" programs, and the neo-cons and independents ran from Gore like the plague, calling Bush "change we can get behind". Bush was the "C" student everyone at Nascar rallies wanted to tailgate with, or invite for a beer at their backyard barbeque. He couldn't pronounce "nuclear", or put a sentence together if his life depended on it, but, hey, didn't he go to Harvard and Yale? We were to "believe" that he had advisors who were smart enough to keep him in line. Foreign policy experience? Well, he spoke a little Spanish didn't he, and hadn't he been to Mexico? We were all just supposed to "hope" that he could re-weave the "moral fabric" of our national character, in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment process of Bill Clinton. After all, he was born-again, and wasn't Billy Graham his spiritual mentor? At the time of 9/11, in Bush's first year in the White House, the man had spent more time on vacation at his ranch in Texas than in Washington. His advisors were strategizing how to wrestle control of the Iraqi oil fields from Sadaam before the first marines were sent to Afghanistan to fight Bin Laden. We were all to believe this was in the interest of "National Security", encouraged not to pay too close attention, (it was all top secret anyway, unpatriotic to question motives), and we would be better serving the national interest by going to the mall, or buying a new car, supporting the economy anyway we could.
At this same time, Hillary Clinton won a Senate seat to represent the state of New York. Bill Clinton began an international philanthropic foundation, aimed at easing poverty, slowing the spread of AIDS, and promoting education around the world. Hillary renewed her efforts to bring healthcare to the masses, and helped acheive the SCHIP. Not perfect, but then, in light of how Washington was, and is, run, somewhat extraordinary, especially when done in the time of Bush. During this time, Obama gained a State Congressional seat in Illinois, and worked on behalf of his black constituents in the Southside of Chicago.
I have not been a die-hard Hillary fan, nor a member of the "Movement". But from the outside of both these candidacies, it appears that Hillary represents "work", and "working hard" to acheive a goal. It comes from a generation that remembers how to go to the library to research a subject, instead of just "googling". They remember it wasn't until the last half of the 20th century that women were even welcome at prestigious universities like Harvard or Yale. College athletics or marching in the band were activities reserved for men. Women were not to question why their male conterparts were paid more than they were, and supposed to be happy to have even gotten the job in the firstplace, were to tolerate the inappropriate sexual advances of their bosses, and didn't they realize they stole their job from someone who was a "head of household"? Six weeks maximum maternity leave, take it or move to Norway. Women have not even been allowed to vote for a full 100 years. Hillary gives a form of "hope" to everyone, male and female, black and white, who realizes that nothing happens overnight, that compromises sometimes have to be made, and that if you stay the course, the goal can be acheived. To hear that mind-set being reduced to "working class people earning less than 50K", is insulting to those of us earning more, who had to work hard to get where we are, and who don't like to see our efforts trivialized.
Obama's "movement" appears stymied at the starting gate, being satisfied with how good it feels to hope and believe that change is possible, but without a clear plan of how they are going to get around the course. It compares to those who are newly "born-again", in love with the idea that their allegiance to Jesus has "covered" their sins, not yet fully aware of the "goodworks" and "sacrifices" required of those who are believers. Surely, if they just "google" a problem, an answer will be given, right? That "feels" so much better, doesn't it? Has our society come to the point where work, and results driven effort seem just too much to cope with, given our busy schedules and all? We don't want to be reminded about how hard something was to acheive, we just want to see the results, and yesterday would have been preferable than today in getting those to us, so hop to it. It is displayed perfectly in ads on TV, showing conference rooms now set up for "ideating", where little works seems to be getting done, but that hasn't been "ideated yet" so it's somehow OK.
The fact that "race" has been interjected into the campaign (surprise surprise) has effectively diverted attention from the more pressing topics of global warming, healthcare, the Middle East crisis, and the failing economy, and can effect a far more sympathetic response from the audience, even if it is a response to inappropriate rhetoric from a spiritual advisor. I wonder, by the way, who is on Hillary's African American Religious Committee? Is it now going to be considered racist not to have one? What about a Native American, Asian American, or Latin American Religious Committee, if we're supposed to be inclusive, then shouldn't those groups have representation as well? What about those of us who belong to the first generation White African American population? If we are going to focus on race now, let's get fully inclusive.
For those who are clamboring for one of these candidates to withdraw now, remember we have 11 states left to cast ballots. Fully 1/5 of the 50 states plus territories of the United States. If it was YOUR vote that would be deemed irrelevant by this action, how would you "feel"? Allow the process to run it's course, and don't discount the opinions of those who have yet to vote.
I have to disagree with you. You've channeled all the same idealism that Obama supporters are accused of placing on Obama and put them onto Hilary. You noted what a change it would be for America to have a woman serving as President, and that somehow the "experience" or "work" she would bring to the office would serve everyone. You also said that Mr. Obama hadn't even gotten out of the gate yet. I think he's closer to the finish line than she'll ever get. The idea that she could get Congress to pass a mandate for health care is beyond reason. The mandate is a non-starter that already failed once before. Also, it seems to me that it would be harder for someone who voted for the war in Iraq to ignore calls to stay, either by military personnel or by members of the Republican party that would just as soon leave the next adminstration mired in a hugely unpopular mess. At some point this contest will come to an end, and when it does the candidate with the most delegates will be the nominee. We can only hope that it will reflect the will of the people in all 50 states, a majority of whom have chosen Mr. Obama to be the nominee.
Shannon, if ANYONE believes that EITHER candidate will remove soldiers from Iraq if called by military personnel to do otherwise, then they truly have no concept of what it means to be Commander in Chief. Even Obama's advisor Samantha Powers admitted to that in her interview in the UK. My "channeling" as you call it, of Hillary, has more to do with the overall perception of "work" surrounding her campaign, versus the overall perception of "hope" surrounding Obama. Both are turnoffs. I also don't hold it against Obama that he wasn't in the Senate at the time of the Iraq war vote, or that he has voted to extend our involvement in that war, along with Senator Clinton, at every opportunity since he has been in the U.S. Senate. To stand up to a sitting President and say "NO MORE WAR FUNDING",without enough backing to override a veto, or maintain a filibuster, is political suicide. Just look at what happened to Kucinich. I do, however, hold against him the fact that he CHAIRS the Senate Committee that overseas Afghanistan, and has yet to hold a hearing or meeting, stating it is because he has been too busy with his campaign. We are now facing a NATO pullout from that region, and a resurgence of the Taliban and AlQaeda with the spring thaws, resurgence that has already reared it's nasty head in Pakistan, and could have been prevented, or at least predicted earlier, if we had a better thumb on the pulse of the region. He should have passed the position to someone else if he felt he was too busy.
I also am skeptical of his committment to slowing global warming. When he was in Texas he spent many a day in Houston telling the oil roughnecks not to worry, their jobs weren't in jeopardy with him. Hillary was no better, to be fair. As I said, I have favored neither of them in this election, and truly, their race and gender are their biggest differences.
I find the divisiveness in the Democratic Party very disheartening. I hope that whoever our candidate is in November mandates a complete overhaul of the electoral system. We cried foul when Gore lost in 2000 with more popular votes, but not enough electoral votes. Now, we are seemingly going to our convention, canceling the outcome of primaries of two states, whose votes will be crucial in November, and letting the super delegates decide the Candidacy. This is only March, and I predict that Bush has plenty more up his sleeve to get involved in before he's done with us all. With the party divided, I am afraid we are doomed to fail. Good luck with your campaigning for your candidate, I wish you well. I wish I felt as strongly confident about either of them.
You almost had me. I really, really thought that this was a serious attempt to understand this movement for change, this rejection of cynicism, this reaching for something new. Of course I should have been warned by your literal interpretation of Halle Berry's comment. But no, I pressed on and lo and behold you, the all-wise intelligent one, know so much more than millions of us "cultish, wild-eyed idiots" that we are focussed on the wrong candidate! We need to rally around Hillary Clinton. So let us get wild-eyed about Hillary Clinton and we will prove that we are not idiots being led around by nose and ruled by emotion.
Thanks for nothing!
Obama08
Brilliant post!
All I hear from the Obama-fanatics is how she did all these horrible things, but of course, I see the same things and know they are just over-sensitve and over-protective.
She won Ohio by TALKING TO OHIO VOTERS about things they care about. Jobs, Healtcare, etc. Obama was floating on his "hope and change" cloud, while she was down on the earth with these people.
It shocks the obamtized that people actually HEAR her message and LIKE it better than his.
When you are a 6-figure earner, with healtcare, no mortgage problems, and no family in Iraq, taking a chance on "Mr. Hope" is fine. When things are more critical and you actually NEED change...Hillary seems to dominate.
OK Obama - you admitted one truth today you have been lying to us about. You heard the race baiting and the demagoguery of our country from Rev Wright and you did nothing to stop it.
You admitted your candidancy is about race and that you want white people to anoint your race and your particular DNA.
That is not how I want to use my democratic vote. I will not have this important election be about your race and grievances. This election is going to be about national security and the economy. You compromised your patriotic identity to this country. You are compromised.
I want to select the best President to do a JOB. You are making this presidency into a personal reality show. We don't give a d--- about your DNA.
We need Hillary.
"You admitted your candidancy is about race and that you want white people to anoint your race and your particular DNA."
The speech was about race, not his candidacy. His candidacy is about confronting the problems that all Americans face, lack of health care, poor schools, etc.
Next, I don't think that he was only talking to white people. I think he was talking to every single American.
Lastly, I think you misunderstood or are misinterpretting him when he said:
"I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one."
I think he is saying that all Americans, regardless of race, share the same rights and liberties, and that they come together to form a nation. As one who is ethnically bi-racial, having a black father and a white mother, Mr. Obama represents a "coming together" of the races into a single body. He is not imploring you to accept or annoint him for who he is ethnically. He is stating that he is an American, a priviledge that guaranteed by the constitution that neither you nor anyone else can take away.
"This election is going to be about national security and the economy."
I think that this is the only reason that Mr. Obama is running for the presidency. He believes that the war in Iraq has made us less secure and that the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq every month can be used to secure our economy. You can use your vote anyway you choose. Hopefully, race won't be a factor for you.
I liked your use of the term "race baiting" because that's exactly what Wright did. His remarks were truly vile. However, I would hope that this would not keep you from seeking the greater good. There are more pressing issues at hand. We have to use good judgement. I think Barack Obama used good judgement in opposing the war. If what he said about the church, that it serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS, then maybe Mr. Obama saw the greater good in what the church was doing. I believe him, and more importantly question why aren't others serving these communities. Anyway, as Mr. Obama pointed out, we shouldn't let divisive distractions keep us from the more important issues like health care, education, national security, and social security.
I think Obama is the best candidate for President. Good luck to you and your vote for Hilary.
I think Obama has poor judgement. And he has done nothing compared to Hillary to demonstrate his iinterest in the struggle all of us can participate in together. The focus needs to be on choosing the best person for the job to create new jobs for all Americans.
Obama needs to show us he is the best person. But instead he is always bringing up race. To get our sympathy? To get our vote? I will not take it on faith that he will do what he says he will do for Americans. My vote goes to the person who acts on beliefs. And he better stop threatening people to vote for him because of his race. He has such poor judgement - especially when it comes to the American people.
He is Rev Wright - just a different generation. No better. He does the same things - preaching to the masses instead of acting differently. And his preaching is divisive and untimely, in my opinion. If he keeps the Democrats from winning in the General - all your "faith" will have denied me health care and a better government.
Maybe he could start a new church. Then somewhere down the road, maybe he will have enough followers to get the votes he needs. Right now, he is losing. We have found out who he is.
Thank you for your post Simon. You hit the nail squarely on the head with this one. The race to the Democratic nomination has degenerated into a beauty contest. Even the so called debates, that are in reality little more than question and answer sessions, have conspired in that degeneration. It"s a shame because there"s so much that needs to be discussed.
A couple of days ago my I sat in front of my TV while my stomach knotted up in anger as Samantha Power fudged on the question of ending our occupation of Iraq with an "we can"t make a commitment because we don"t know what we don"t know" answer. That"s just not satisfactory! The price of that evil-doing has been too high and it must come to an end.
Another gigantic event being ignored is the free fall of our economy. It is gathering momentum just as a piano dropped from the top floor of the Empire State Building would. Here we are standing under it discussing pretty words about race relations and ignoring this gathering disaster.
We could choose a better time and place for this important conversation but that probably wouldn"t have served the purposes of the Obama campaign very well.
If you can't see why people support Obama you obviously need to open your eyes first. Have you even tried to ask a supporter or two or did you just feel the need to rattle off the Clinton camps talking points? The fact that your cosing paragraph mimicked the spin that Hillary has been putting out greatly diminishes your stance.
A far more eloquent and logical argument for choosing a president then the mess Obama supporters have been selling and now have democrats in.
Simon, you forgot one thing that Obama and his campaign has done since SC, however, that also supports your argument: to demand that Clinton quit lest she stand in the way of real hope and change in America. Even before everybody gets to vote.
Great article! Thanks
John McCain -- "Iran was supplying al Qaeda" -- High school kids know more about Sunni, Shiite, Iran and Iraq than John McCain. For him to make such a dangerous statement in public is inexcussible. Good luck supporting that moron. You were able to get W through. Sadly, you might have a shot with McCain.
"they will kick themselves for not seeing that offering struggling families help in November might just be even more inspiring than offering them hope." Simon Woods
The only hope Obama offers that I hear is hope to young people that the old folks are going to be robbed of their jobs and social security, and black people will try to get their welfare benefits back and affirmative action will hold supreme again. He is so involved in creating more ageism, sexism, and racism from the pulpit - like his adopted father, Rev Wright.
Obama is threatening the Democratic Party and disenfranchising voters.
I had a caucus in my state. Obama's "movement-grass roots organizers" were like a foreign army engaged in strong armed tactics to get votes for Obama with total disregard for the vote, for each American being expressed.
I'd much rather be the Democratic party of the middle class again instead of this evangelistic hard boots movement for Obama which is all about the symbol of a black family in the White House. How sick! I am totally ashamed of these intellectual snobs.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard him say that welfare has been bad for black males and black families. I can't recall a time that I've heard him talk about "ANYONE ROBBING THE OLD". I think he has stated that we're not being fiscally responsible by spending tons of money on the war and that we're putting social security in danger.
"Obama's "movement-grass roots organizers" were like a foreign army engaged in strong armed tactics to get votes for Obama with total disregard for the vote" -- Please, don't ever think that you're more patriotic or AMERICAN than me. I'm an AMERICAN. Your bigotry is rooted in the same attitudes that have caused the image of our country to suffer abroad and at home. I know that this is probably the first time that you have attended a caucus. I'm guessing that you did not support Barack Obama. Whichever candidate you supported should have prepared you and the rest of their supports to organize prior to the caucus. They should have prepared you to lead the fight for them. If their campaign failed to do this, it's not your fault, it's not Barack Obama's fault, it's their fault. You didn't lose. They lost. They were not competent.
"I'd much rather be the Democratic party of the middle class again instead of this evangelistic hard boots movement for Obama which is all about the symbol of a black family " -- Obama's candidacy has never been about putting a black family in the White House. It's apparent to me that the thought of this is troubling to you. That's your problem, and not mine. I think he's speaking to all of the middle class and not just the white middle class when he talks about health care or making sure that corporations pay their fair share of taxes or that they aren't rewarded for shipping jobs overseas.
Good luck to you my friend. I wish you the best.
"Your bigotry is rooted in the same attitudes that have caused the image of our country to suffer abroad and at home. "
Well now that is nice of you to call me a bigot. My CRITICISM of Obama and his supporters is that they care little about every Democratic voter in this country. They have often cared so little as to talk like you do.
We've got video proof of Bill Clinton himself (and the guy who bought the Clinton home in Chappaqua for them, Terry Mcauliffe) actually intimidate caucusers in Nevada. From you, we have nothing but uncorroborated charges. The fact is that the Clinton campaign has consistently engaged in nakedly unfair tactics since voting began in January that have included lawsuits (Nevada, Texas), rule breaking (Florida, Michigan), voter intimidation (Nevada), fear mongering (Ohio, Texas), race-baiting (South Carolina), belittling and trivializing (all caucus states), stonewalling (tax returns), mischaracterizing (Kosovo, Norther Ireland), and soul-selling to the opposition (McCain "endorsement").
Obama's not tearing the Democratic party apart. He's saving from the likes of the Clintons.
Real enemy to working people are Obama and his fanatical supporters, most of whom probably never had to work a real job in their life.
Obama's campaign is just like the pastor he loves as much as a grand-mother, divisive. And divided we all will fall: workers, veterans, active military families, teachers, children, students, gays, lesbians, white, black and latino, etc
Obama can not win in November. Not because I don't think he can't or Clinton thinks he can't, but because the nation isn't going to elect him and his church to the White House.
Lousy tactics? "She's a monster", calling the most pro-African American politician in history a racist, doing everything in their power to block voters in Florida and Michigan at the expense of losing those states for the Democratic party... add to that his buddy indicted Rezko, the shady land deal, his mentor Wright, Michelle's "1st time I've been proud of my country" and her $200,000 raise right after Obama was elected, followed by his $1 million pork request for her employer...
All proves Woods point. Obama's a human, not a saint yet his disciples are ready to kill for him and spew venom at Hillary as though it's God vs. the Devil. They're both good but not perfect people and the country will be better off if we make a decision based on issues and their proven ability to handle the job. This seems to be what Obma-ites want to avoid at all cost.
Blind worship is not a mature way to make this big decision. Makes us no different than the Repubs who made W. their hero and still insist Hussein caused 9/11.
Obama's appeal seems to have him with an over 700k lead in votes of the american people so far, and how does this prove that hillary is the 'people's' candidate?
Thank you for your post. It's refreshing to see another Brit as interested in the politics of the U.S and thinking on the same wavelength as me! I almost want Obama to win the nomination to see the look on America's face when they lose to McCain but that would be punishing the majority which is not fair.
Good luck with the acting career, if you're in the US at the moment., I'd advise you stay there for a while longer... it's raining cats and dogs here in London, with the temperature as cold as it was around Christmas time!
I have listened to Senator Obama many times since this campaign started. I listened to his speech on Tuesday. I do not see the 'fire in the belly' to get things done. I see a dreamer not a doer. I see him saying...'Come on boys and girls let's get along'. But, I don't see a leader who will know what to do when the boys and girls refuse to get along.
He did not show leadership in his own church. When he heard things he did not agree with, did he try to form a committee of the members to speak respectfully to Pastor Wright to say this was not appropriate and did not reflect well on the church? I did not hear in his speech that he did this. We do this in my church when necessary.
He has not yet developed enough leadership skills in the small setting of his church...how in the world does he feel he can lead the most powerful nation in the world? I want a dreamer around when I want to feel warm and fuzzy....I want a fighter around to protect my family's future and to put this Country back on the right track.
alwayslearning - I think Obama is an intellectual snob. Even to other Democratic voters - members.
I think he is so self indulgent and religious to be dangerous.
I was happy to read your post. I want a fighter in the White House also.
Yes, he just a dreamer. I used to dream of getting a Harvard Law Degree, or being the first black President of its Law Review, of being given a spot on the U of Chicago Faculty, of being elected to both the Illinois legislature and the US Senate, and it just magicall happened.
His current position is due to a life time of hard work and abiliy. Clinton uses the rhetoric of destiny also, yet Obama is the one who has convinced people to come out and support him. His short time in the Senate is marked by the authoring and passing of some important bills on nuclear non-proliferation, government ethics, and government transparency, all with bipartisan support. Hillary's most famous achievement, the seeker of solutions, is her cataclysmic failure of introducing universal health care.
It is amazing to me that we have come to a point where supporters of a candidate who are excited about his candidacy and actually personally like the candidate are akin to a cult. It is even more disturbing that the author of this piece relies on Halle Berry as a representative of Obama supporters nationwide.
You know what is creepy and cultish, having a ruler who's sole claim to the post is her birth. So when Great Britain decides that having a king or queen who's only qualification is their DNA,and that entitles them to a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, then I'll start to worry about our political system. Until then you may be better of covering some
Posted March 18, 2008 | 03:23 PM (EST)