To believe that Obama is a Kucinich leftist rather than a Clinton centrist is to ignore his own expressed positions. To believe that the world will be markedly improved after an Obama presidency is to ignore the structure of corporate-controlled politics. To believe that Obama is prepared to address the fundamental structure of our political system is to ignore his own investment in it. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Barack Obama is asking us to do: vote for him as a change maker against all evidence to the contrary. That sounds more like the hope of audacity than the audacity of hope.
this guy is stealing my lines! i disagree on the idea that the world will not be markedly improved after his presidency though. it will. but the same goes for hillary.
'change' has assuredly become the 'wassuuuuuuuuuuuuuupppp' of the political sphere. I am supposed to be impressed because obama proffers 'change', but who doesnt? I'm not familiar with a single politican who claimed to offer the same as everyone else. The important thing is not that he proposes change but what he proposes to change. On this point few seem interested that his policy platform - the meat of this 'change' - is indistinguishable from that of 'establishment' candidate hillary clinton.
Obama is known to rail against cynicism in his speeches and one understands why. It requires but a splash of cynicism to render his rhetoric suspect. How, a cynic would wonder, can one claim to represent change and then propose to do exactly the same as the candidate you are supposed to represent a change from? it would suggest, to a cynic, that all his talk of change and hope is just the same old buster in new air force ones-- last night's chinese take out reheated and covered in barbeque sauce.
I, for one, say fuck the audacity of hope and reach for the warm feeling of bitter cynicism. Hope, in the political lexicon, is a synonym of naievity.
In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.
Dolo...please tell us about your Conservative candidate.
"For whites, an Obama victory would serve as the final piece of evidence that America has reached full racial equality. Such a belief allows them to sidestep mounds of evidence that shows that, despite Obama's claims that "we are 90 percent of the way to equality," black people remain consistently assaulted by the forces by white supremacy. For many black people, Obama's success would provide symbolic value by showing that the black man (not woman!) can make it to the top. Although black faces in high places may provide psychological comfort, they are often incorporated into a Cosbyesque gospel of personal responsibility ("Obama did it, so can you!") that allows dangerous public policies to go unchallenged."
Unlike now? I don't see how much worse Obama could make things than they already are in this respect. And it's not like electing Clinton would make racism an even higher priority.
This is classically targeting the symptom > disease.
nothing in this thread is actually saying anything at all.
yes, i think most of us at this pt. understand how stump speeches work. You dont spend your speeches going over policy details you tards, you spend them bringing up large themes that resonate with lots of people. welcome to politix first-timers
nothing in this thread is actually saying anything at all.
yes, i think most of us at this pt. understand how stump speeches work. You dont spend your speeches going over policy details you tards, you spend them bringing up large themes that resonate with lots of people. welcome to politix first-timers
No shit. I've been saying this for a few weeks now.
No one is saying Obama should be perfect. the point is that his Change mantra is just hype. Anyone not Bush will bring about welcome change. It's important for a candidate riding the Change horse to tell the intelligent voter what type of change we should expect. And yes, during the campaign is the time to tell us. I love Obama, but choosing rhetoric over experience is foolish.
No one is saying Obama should be perfect. the point is that his Change mantra is just hype. Anyone not Bush will bring about welcome change. It's important for a candidate riding the Change horse to tell the intelligent voter what type of change we should expect. And yes, during the campaign is the time to tell us. I love Obama, but choosing rhetoric over experience is foolish.
you're telling me that a candidates overarching theme is just an overarching theme??? no way!!! youre blowing my mind here man
No one is saying Obama should be perfect. the point is that his Change mantra is just hype. Anyone not Bush will bring about welcome change. It's important for a candidate riding the Change horse to tell the intelligent voter what type of change we should expect. And yes, during the campaign is the time to tell us. I love Obama, but choosing rhetoric over experience is foolish.
You saying that Hillary is the "experience" candidate proves that your mind has been colonized.
nothing in this thread is actually saying anything at all.
yes, i think most of us at this pt. understand how stump speeches work. You dont spend your speeches going over policy details you tards, you spend them bringing up large themes that resonate with lots of people. welcome to politix first-timers
No shit. I've been saying this for a few weeks now.
Politix and Speech-making 101 indeed.
I absolutely agree, and this point of attack is growing most tiresome; the fact that Obama chooses to paint in broad strokes when he speaks publicly hardly means that he's incapabale of addressing details.
Do people that say that schitt truly think that he's without a platform? The information is readily available if you're actually interested in it, rather than solely in sitting back and aiming lazy critiques at him.
"For whites, an Obama victory would serve as the final piece of evidence that America has reached full racial equality. Such a belief allows them to sidestep mounds of evidence that shows that, despite Obama's claims that "we are 90 percent of the way to equality," black people remain consistently assaulted by the forces by white supremacy. For many black people, Obama's success would provide symbolic value by showing that the black man (not woman!) can make it to the top. Although black faces in high places may provide psychological comfort, they are often incorporated into a Cosbyesque gospel of personal responsibility ("Obama did it, so can you!") that allows dangerous public policies to go unchallenged."
Unlike now? I don't see how much worse Obama could make things than they already are in this respect. And it's not like electing Clinton would make racism an even higher priority.
This is classically targeting the symptom > disease.
And that's essentially the problem with this piece, such as it is. Very little of it actually has to do with Barack Obama, much less his ability (or really, any ONE man's ability) to change this racially unjust country. The following illustrates this:
Others have argued that, despite his shortcomings, Obama is still the best choice among the remaining democratic field. While such claims may be true,[/b] they prove that Obama is merely the most attractive in a group of political siblings rather than the revolutionary outsider that he's portrayed to be.
I think Obama's supporters are doing the extra! glowing for the man himself. I don't think that I've ever seen a political candidate assailed so strongly on the basis of his fervent supporters.
Unfortunately, Obama isn't selling himself as the best of the pack, but as an entirely new breed of candidate.
But, honestly, he IS a new breed of candidate. Even if you can manage to disassociate yourself from his politics, he's still A BLACK MAN AS POTENTIAL PRESIDENT. Show me a body who can't chalk that self-evincing revelation up to a different and progressive look, and I'll show you an unrealistic and selfish soul. Look: America's racialist past, present, and future will always be shitty and tainted. There will always be hate in this country. There will always be the stark reality of an America that was built on the bloody backs of slaves. This is history.
But Obama will and won't change the world. The positive impact of one man in this country is usually felt less as a monolithic external force than it is as a stirring, internalized resonance. No realistic American is crying for some Obama Panacea to cleanse our nation's past as much as they embrace the single progressive step that he represents. Politics are taking a back seat here, for better or worse, as a matter of course. But it would be folly to assume that Obama is merely an empty suit, his recent philosophical treatise on religion and politics proves. Let's just keep things in perspective.
I am supposed to be impressed because obama proffers 'change', but who doesnt?
McCain
Well, that's just not entirely true. Witness the exodus of conservative talking heads away from the GOP camp as McCain gets closer to confirmation. He's probably the most open-minded (such as it is) Republican nominee in decades.
I am supposed to be impressed because obama proffers 'change', but who doesnt?
McCain
Well, that's just not entirely true. Witness the exodus of conservative talking heads away from the GOP camp as McCain gets closer to confirmation. He's probably the most open-minded (such as it is) Republican nominee in decades.
Exactly. Not to mention the alienation of the Fundies.
i don't think many people here are making this choice there are many other factors at play
experience is not an indicator of a good president anyway Lincoln had less experience than Obama and he was one of the greatest leaders we have had
meanwhile, most recently, Nixon and LBJ had extensive resumes but were poor presidents Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. had 100s of years of cumulative experience in DC and it just made them more confident in their poor decisions
It's important for a candidate riding the Change horse to tell the intelligent voter what type of change we should expect
people say this too, implying Obama is not specific, i wonder how much they have followed the race? c-span? 18 debates? candidate websites? daily news? someone posted this a while back, maybe it can serve as a starting point
wonton55
11 Posts
Comments
this guy is stealing my lines! i disagree on the idea that the world will not be markedly improved after his presidency though. it will. but the same goes for hillary.
Obama is known to rail against cynicism in his speeches and one understands why. It requires but a splash of cynicism to render his rhetoric suspect. How, a cynic would wonder, can one claim to represent change and then propose to do exactly the same as the candidate you are supposed to represent a change from? it would suggest, to a cynic, that all his talk of change and hope is just the same old buster in new air force ones-- last night's chinese take out reheated and covered in barbeque sauce.
I, for one, say fuck the audacity of hope and reach for the warm feeling of bitter cynicism. Hope, in the political lexicon, is a synonym of naievity.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.
Dolo...please tell us about your Conservative candidate.
Unlike now? I don't see how much worse Obama could make things than they already are in this respect. And it's not like electing Clinton would make racism an even higher priority.
This is classically targeting the symptom > disease.
yes, i think most of us at this pt. understand how stump speeches work. You dont spend your speeches going over policy details you tards, you spend them bringing up large themes that resonate with lots of people. welcome to politix first-timers
No shit. I've been saying this for a few weeks now.
Politix and Speech-making 101 indeed.
I love Obama, but choosing rhetoric over experience is foolish.
You saying that Hillary is the "experience" candidate proves that your mind has been colonized.
I absolutely agree, and this point of attack is growing most tiresome; the fact that Obama chooses to paint in broad strokes when he speaks publicly hardly means that he's incapabale of addressing details.
Do people that say that schitt truly think that he's without a platform? The information is readily available if you're actually interested in it, rather than solely in sitting back and aiming lazy critiques at him.
And that's essentially the problem with this piece, such as it is. Very little of it actually has to do with Barack Obama, much less his ability (or really, any ONE man's ability) to change this racially unjust country. The following illustrates this:
I think Obama's supporters are doing the extra! glowing for the man himself. I don't think that I've ever seen a political candidate assailed so strongly on the basis of his fervent supporters.
But, honestly, he IS a new breed of candidate. Even if you can manage to disassociate yourself from his politics, he's still A BLACK MAN AS POTENTIAL PRESIDENT. Show me a body who can't chalk that self-evincing revelation up to a different and progressive look, and I'll show you an unrealistic and selfish soul. Look: America's racialist past, present, and future will always be shitty and tainted. There will always be hate in this country. There will always be the stark reality of an America that was built on the bloody backs of slaves. This is history.
But Obama will and won't change the world. The positive impact of one man in this country is usually felt less as a monolithic external force than it is as a stirring, internalized resonance. No realistic American is crying for some Obama Panacea to cleanse our nation's past as much as they embrace the single progressive step that he represents. Politics are taking a back seat here, for better or worse, as a matter of course. But it would be folly to assume that Obama is merely an empty suit, his recent philosophical treatise on religion and politics proves. Let's just keep things in perspective.
McCain
Well, that's just not entirely true. Witness the exodus of conservative talking heads away from the GOP camp as McCain gets closer to confirmation. He's probably the most open-minded (such as it is) Republican nominee in decades.
Exactly. Not to mention the alienation of the Fundies.
there are many other factors at play
experience is not an indicator of a good president anyway
Lincoln had less experience than Obama and he was one of the greatest leaders we have had
meanwhile, most recently, Nixon and LBJ had extensive resumes but were poor presidents
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc. had 100s of years of cumulative experience in DC and it just made them more confident in their poor decisions
people say this too, implying Obama is not specific, i wonder how much they have followed the race? c-span? 18 debates? candidate websites? daily news?
someone posted this a while back, maybe it can serve as a starting point