Feb 09, 2008 09:40 am huckabee had a good line at cpac this morning too. addressing the delegate count problem: 'well i didn't major in math; i majored in miracles.'
obama
Posted on Feb 09, 2008 07:22 am
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
whatever you think of him, he's revived an ancient skill. oratory is a real skill, and i'm glad to see its return. you should pay attention to it, if not to him. this stuff is rarely seen in politics anymore. the quote below, i know, will be pegged by some as a kind of bias. but in fact, oratorical skill is its own thing, and it's not in question here. argue against the policies or the man if you like, but this is something that hasn't been seen since...you know who? reagan. (and before that many others of course). good to see a return.
www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/301885
"Obama's method of reaching and motivating such people aligns with Plato's definition of rhetoric, "which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body." It comforts the listener seeking what a sociologist would call self-affirmation – a sense of value and connectedness amid the decline of the nuclear family, organized labour, the church and other communal institutions."
[ Back to Top ]
Feb 09, 2008 09:40 am huckabee had a good line at cpac this morning too. addressing the delegate count problem: 'well i didn't major in math; i majored in miracles.'
Feb 09, 2008 09:43 am I do have great respect for Obama's speaking skills, he is a great motivator, a great speaker and seems like a reasonably genuine person...or, as genuine as any politician. That said, I still don't agree with much of what he says, I just admire how he says it.
Huckleberry, well, I wish he'd shut up and bow out so Hillary and Obama can spend all their money fighting each other...let McCain concentrate on the general election.
Feb 09, 2008 10:11 am haha
i like both obama and huckabee. i think huck's not a bad speaker himself. he's a different kind. but his one liners and little bits of folk wisdom are cool. i have to confess i don't understand what conservatives don't like about huckabee. i just watched his speech at cpac this morning, and he seems conservative enough to me.
Feb 09, 2008 12:01 pm You guys know my views on politics, so I won't bore you with them again.
For me, it's come down to this:
Whose voice do I want to tolerate for the next four years as it is forced upon me through my TV? Jesus H. Tap-dancing Christ, eight years of Dubya has been painful to listen to. If I have a choice, O Lord, give me Obama. McCain has the potential of turning my morning routine into a nightmare. My wife loves waking up to the Today show.
Get that?
Feb 09, 2008 08:38 pm Plato would say rhetoric is an evil thing whose only use is to manipulate the stupid masses...
Yes, Obama us a great public orator...but that is a negative quality... because it detracts from any reasoning that might be involved in his statements...
It's sort of like Archbishop Rowan Williams recent debacle... brilliant person... but nothing he said actually made sense in relation to reality... and he didn't really even say _anything_ ...and as we've seen ... people can be very 'energized' when they _think_ you've said something...
Feb 09, 2008 08:54 pm Meredith Vieira: Now back to the desk with Ann Curry. Ann, good morning.[/b]
Ann Curry: Meredith, good morning, and good morning everyone. In the news this morning, several people in Morning Heights, Michigan are mourning this morning...
Feb 09, 2008 09:00 pm Quote:
people can be very 'energized' when they _think_ you've said something...
I'm still waiting for someone to say something.
Feb 09, 2008 09:05 pm "Yes, Obama us a great public orator...but that is a negative quality... because it detracts from any reasoning that might be involved in his statements..."
it certainly CAN be a negative quality. certainly it has been in the past (hitler, etc). but it really depends on who the guy is and what he ends up doing. obama's policies are there for review on his website. but he realizes he had an uphill climb in the nomination, and so he leans on his speaking ability primarily. it worked. it's smart, because it's working.
Feb 09, 2008 09:16 pm But his middle name is Hussein...
I want a user-friendly president again. One you can look at at and listen to with confidence, even if the dumb bastard is incompetent. You know, like Reagan.
Feb 10, 2008 12:42 am I had the same reaction when he spoke tonight. I was thinking that it has possibly been 30 years or more since some has had his ability to speak. At least in the position of running for office.
Feb 10, 2008 01:44 am i'm embarassed to say something new happened to me tonight while watching that speech. i suddenly got tired of being hopeful. it's kind of exhausting.
*gets a beer*
Feb 14, 2008 03:30 pm Quote:
"Plato would say rhetoric is an evil thing whose only use is to manipulate the stupid masses..."
Then Plato would be wrong. Rhetoric is merely a tool, to be used toward a purpose. What that purpose is, and how evil it is or isn't, is completely up to the orator who uses it.
Frederick Douglas and Adolf Hitler were both masters of rhetoric. Obviously, they used their skills to very different ends.
In my estimation, Obama's biggest asset is his mastery of the buzzword and the catchphrase. Words and phrases that sound great and generate emotion in a listener, but without the cumbersome burden of actually having to mean anything.
He's about "change." He has "hope." He's "for the people."
What does any of that even mean?
Answer: whatever you want it to. The perfect way to be all things to all people.
Feb 14, 2008 04:55 pm i would slightly disagree with the section beginning 'in my estimation.' the thrust behind these messages is actually a specific thing and it stretches all the way back to his DNC speech in 2004. he hits all the same notes in that one, and the thrust of it is that america is better off when it's not fighting itself. it's mostly about a conscious move away from the 'industry' of partisan bickering, something that people have become very comfortable and 'automatic' with over the years. it's kind of a specific call to action to stop doing that and to elevate ourselves. that's a specific thing, even though the language is at times vague.
your last sentence is interesting. i think if you change it slightly you see what obama is really up to. 'what does he even mean? whatever you want him to.' he's set himself up to be a screen you can project your loftier patriotic impulses on to.
Feb 14, 2008 06:08 pm I did see Obama's convention speech when it initially aired. It was the first time I'd ever heard of him. I don't remember all the specifics of it, but I do remember being absolutely floored by his delivery. It was not hard to see why the DNC chose him to be their keynote speaker (as opposed to my former mayor, Martin O'Malley of Baltimore, who was an absolute embarrassment in his speech).
But I also remember thinking how for all of his power and passion, the content of the speech was very much vague and milquetoast. Things like "we worship an awesome God in the blue states, and don't like the government snooping around our libraries in the red states" (paraphrase), which means nothing except that people of differing values and priorities are dispersed widely throughout this [continent-sized] nation. It's irrelevant. I recall thinking this through many parts of his speech, usually parts that were accompanied by thunderous applause. I heard virtually nothing about how John Kerry would have better served this nation as president than George W. Bush. I could be wrong, but I think that should be the central focus of things at a candidate's coronation.
As far as America being better off when it's not fighting itself: sounds nice, but who knows for sure? Even the most rudimentary study of American history quickly reveals that no such time has ever really existed in this country. I suspect they've been few and far between in any other countries as well.
Feb 14, 2008 06:35 pm his speech at the DNC was not really about john kerry, no. it was specifically about why we should seek an end to the internal divisions in our own country. i think that's a speech worth making. such a speech is not vague. it is highly specific. it's just that it calls for a specific kind of rhetoric. lofty. calling upon better things within us. you can criticize obama for the apparent lack of content in his speeches, but if you do that you're missing the larger intent. he has a goal. the message of unity isn't just nice words. a nation divided is a weak nation.
as for the idea that no such time has ever existed in this country, i would point to the revolution, the space program's answer to kennedy's call, and the union (or the south) in the civil war, among other things. it happens. there are always people on the other side of the fence (not everyone wanted to break away from english rule, for example) but there are times when the country seems to rise up and speak with one voice. it happened post-911 as well. the country is at its best and it accomplishes things when it's not crippled by deadlock.
Feb 14, 2008 10:22 pm yes, closer looks are going to happen now. and i'm familiar with the arguments against obama. i've been reading quite a lot lately about all of the candidates (i found this one earlier).
the topic of this thread was about rhetoric.
one sentence in the article you posted pissed me off. the one about healthcare. a pure opinion statement.
Feb 14, 2008 10:28 pm The article's main point was, rhetoric.
Feb 14, 2008 10:44 pm It's sad but maybe true that the only politician that has content and goes beyond the vague statements that we all have come to know, is the one that we agree with the most.
Feb 15, 2008 12:25 am "The article's main point was, rhetoric."
then we read a different article, because that one was about what his policies are and are likely to be.
Feb 15, 2008 01:30 am Baaahaahahahaaahahahhaaaa!!!!!
That article is so ridiculous!!! Straight up comedy!!!!
I'm debating whether or not I should break down dudes points one by one. I probably won't, but this writer is either completely ignorant, or chooses to write like he is so as to try and influence those who are not capable of figuring it out on their own.
Straight up comedy!!!
Feb 15, 2008 01:38 am As far as not saying anything in his speeches, and him being a great speaker... well, they kind of go hand in hand. We think of Obama as a great orator because he gives us that warm butterfly feeling when he speaks. He accomplishes that by offering a message of hope and unity. If he were to break down his detailed policy map, he would put us to sleep, and we would not get that overwhelming feeling. If you want what he stands for, check out his website or something. Realize what purposes the speeches accomplish, and you will realize that he is indeed very talented.
Feb 15, 2008 05:49 am "I'm debating whether or not I should break down dudes points one by one."
well, i'm bored, so...
the first four paragraphs are absolutely true. those are facts.
the fifth paragraph is not true. he's not the next john f. kennedy. he is barack obama. he is also not george mccgovern. he is barack obama. one of the most dangerous fallacies you can perpetuate is to think that the future repeats the past, or can, or inevitably will. this is a built-in bias we all have. it's part of how our minds work. if you're interested in that sort of thing, i can recommend a few pop neuroscience books. 'stumbling upon happiness,' and 'the science of happiness' get into the 'user illusion' of consciousness pretty heavily. all the things our brains do to trick us. what i'm saying is: read those books for your own life, not for politics. i found them to be pretty useful books. this is a tangent. but yeah, obama is obama and those are rhetorical fallacies right there. so we're still looking for the facts of the argument.
the next paragraph is probably true. obama is probably the most liberal senator. if he didn't have these speaking skills, he might actually bore us to tears. i personally don't resonate with much of his policies. more on that in a bit.
the next paragraph is silly. if you think dukakis, mondale, or mcgovern are comparable to obama, you're not paying attention. it's an extension of the fallacy in the kennedy paragraph, ,and it ignores what is an important variable: these three men didn't have speech superpowers. why is speech important? more on that later too.
paragraph eight: the press is now picking up on criticisms. at nomination time, the field is crowded. obama had a creep effect. he was underestimated. this has also been an extremely 'gentle' campaign. people are fighting with kid gloves. no one raised objections till now, and guess what: the candidates control that, not the news. there are so many candidates and races: if you're a news organization, your role at this time of the political season is rare: it's to watch and report above all else. there's just too much going on. the only bias we've seen has been that the news is reporting the popular perception: ron paul is impossible. kucinich is impossible. gravel is. those are givens. but for every 'viable' candidate, the news has exercised remarkable restraint. obama's a phenomenon, so that became the story. until people stepped up to challenge it, providing a news story in the process. that is happening as of this week. a very big backlash is about to happen.
the ninth paragraph is a sarcastic bridge containing no actual content.
tenth paragraph: i forget these details, but the specific words are important. did obama say 'invade' regarding pakistan, or is that a bit of creativity? the word is all important there, and there's reason to believe that that word was meant, by obama, to come with qualifications, if he really used it. for example, i'm just a guy drinking beer and i know that you don't 'invade' pakistan. therefore, something is weird there. some weird rhetorical thing. it might be that the guy is fixating on that word as he looks for any excuse to bash whatsoever. again, i'm a drunk pedestrian, not a guy who won the US senate. you don't 'invade' pakistan. something fishy there. if he actually said it, though, then he trusted people to unpack the statement and may have made a rhetorical mistake there, because it's pretty much impossible to suggest that with a straight face. (obama is certainly more intelligent than i am, so...)
meeting ahmadenijad is up to you. there are reasons to do it and reasons not to. this is an inflected fact-opinion statement meant to stir up moderates and republicans. same thing with kim jong. this thing is a difference between right and left, and there are logically valid arguments for both diplomatic approach and for diplomatic shunning.
nuclear option 'off the table for terrorists?' what does that even mean? you don't use a nuclear weapon against a tent city or a distributed group that has no physical location. there's weird conflation going on here. i'll try to translate based on what i think the guy is saying: no nukes at all. ok. see, i disagree with that. i think you keep it on the table. conservatives are right to be worried about this statement. liberals have an alternate viewpoint here, some of them. i would take it this way: dem candidate says this now: no nukes. but when it comes right down to what needs to be done, any president except a kucinich is going to consider it. you can take this statement as a kind of posturing. when you're president (and if you're sane) you do what's needed. you have to ask yourself at this point how the democrats work and why certain things are said. times change, but truman was a democrat, and he bombed hiroshima. that's balls. things change of course, and party specifics do, and the 1940s dems are different than today's. but they're all still americans. when you actually become president, i like to think that you do what's in the best interest of the country (unless you're a crazy kucinich). make sure you're not believing in crayola abstractions of candidates. you sort of have to know what you must say if you're a dem. it's how the right has to be against abortion and for gun control, etc. still, i think this statement (which i have no reference for, and the author has already demonstrated his shitty rhetorical tricks)if true, is a mistake on obama's part. no need for it, if he said it.
next: our health care system is the strongest in the world if you're rich. for the rest of us, it sucks ***. remove the blinders. this is an opinion statement and must be treated as such.
same paragraph: taxes. obama seems to have done the math. i have a very sensible opinion on taxes. they should vacillate, because the situation at large in the country is always changing. trickle down economics works when companies are healthy. if you're a company that's in the green, the prices of your products can be set low. you may also be able to create jobs for people. lower classes in that situation may not need tax breaks. they can afford stuff. when the economy is bad, though, lower classes have to be penny pinchers, and companies have to raise prices. this should be obvious: tax breaks for lower classes in this situation feeds the starving corporate beasts. it is a way to achieve equilibrium. when you think about taxes, you should be thinking about equilibrium, about the best way to keep the economy humming, and you must be aware of how sticking to one perspective can actually screw the nation, no matter which side you're on (yes, it happens with liberal tax policy too). any solid perspective on this, any party-line voting or strongly-held belief on taxes is crazy and actually harms america. the economy is flexible and dynamic. taxation must therefore vary. people should get used to the idea. i think it's here forever. up and down, we may never be free of the tax debate. (i might be for a flat tax, but i know almost nothing about it. i'm still learning.) in any case, you should look at that paragraph for what it is. a scare tactic meant to infuriate the right. news flash: every dem candidate proposes higher taxes. this is not unique to obama and is therefore a false attack. he also appears to have done the math. hell, he cancelled a nasa project that i would be into, in order to pay for some of his proposals. i'm a huge nasa supporter. but he plucked something out of nasa to balance his ****. that said, i have to say i'm a bit alarmed, because i hear almost no restraint on spending from obama, and that bothers me. i believe, though, that the US functions best when republicans and democrats both have influence. i don't want a tax and spend president, nor do i want a no-tax and no-spend president. i am all about getting the 'system' that is the US functioning at an optimum level, and to do that you need both parties, fighting stuff out one by one. you can not set the US to 'run' and let it go and expect it to function for a thousand years. that is an extreme error that we have in our thinking. systems don't work that way. you need to adjust them, fine tune them, constantly. it's an ongoing project and will be for eternity. so it's wise to divest ourselves of polarity here and realize that the fight on this stuff is actually what makes us strong and dynamic and adaptable. you will lose some battles and win some, and if you feel that, that's a sign that your government has not died. this specific feeling of alternating frustration and victory is the pulse of america, no matter which party you're in. lock-in equals death. the two parties literally need each other as checks against each other. embrace vacillation and take the long view.
i don't understand the next paragraph and have no reference for it, and neither do you in all likelihood. the sanger thing is the only thing there that looks interesting, and i've never heard of her. nevertheless, racial cleansing? obama? obviously your 'scam alert' bell should be going off in your head on that line. the rest of the paragraph is up to you.
next paragraph: we'll have to wait and see. hillary is tough, but obama manages to get himself above the fray again and again, and it will be interesting. but uniting the country does not mean accepting his vision--that's spin. fact is, the author doesn't know--and can't know--about this. if obama can really elevate people (as bush did, post 911) then he can have pull to get his policies enacted. but because repubs won't lay down and die, there's going to have to be some compromise, too, if he's to get anything done. this author is afraid of what he perceives as a tidal wave. democrats view obama as a guy who could possibly actually *gasp* listen to good ideas no matter which party they originate from.
the guy is right in the next paragraph that obama is left of hillary. his race should not be a factor, but it is. people are enthused about the idea of electing a black president as long as he hits all the right notes, which is happening. so while the author may have a real point there, it's a futile one. now his speech...his speech...i would argue that that's the best reason to elect him, if we're going to.
(note that the last paragraph in the article is actually the thesis statement of the article: " It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war." that's why i pegged 'policies' instead of 'rhetoric' as the focus of the article. by the way, i agree with the thesis statement fully.)
i disagree with obama on foreign policy and national security in some ways. i lean right in those departments. at the same time, i recognize that there are many paths to the same ultimate goal, and i'm aware that we're seeing a new sort of thing here. a recent article i read characterized the role of a president as 'a magnet held beneath a sheet of paper, orchestrating the iron filings on top.' if that's true, and i've always thought it was true, given that the president doesn't have that much explicit power except as an influencer and leader, then it's not a bad idea to elect an actual leader, which obama clearly is. the speeches are part of it. leadership and influence and the ability to set people toward a common goal are definitely things not to be underestimated in this nation. you felt it after 911. it didn't last that long, but you remember that feeling. what would happen if we had a president that did that for four or eight years? what if there is another way to win in iraq? what if ron paul is not wrong for talking about 'blowback' and that the only sane position to take on these complex matters is one from up above, outside of simple nationalism, one that recognizes that when you push, someone pushes back? IMO, the idea that 'blowback' is off the table as a topic of discussion is an illustration of how ****** up and deluded we've become. of course you think about it. of ******* course you do! if you care about optimal functioning and real solutions, you do. if you care about nationalism above all else, then you don't. what if taleb is correct in his book 'the black swan,' when he says that we just plain suck at predicting the future, given our inherent mental illusions and inability to account for the unexpected? realize this: iraq has been set up as a dichotomy in our minds. there are 'two' options. either it becomes a free country or a terrorist haven. i'm a strong national security guy, but i know that that's a false dichotomy. it just makes me wonder what else is possible with a real leader.
that said, i haven't ruled out mccain. i've always been a 'you break it you buy it' guy on iraq, and the time for debating was in 2003, not now. but we also can't keep spending indefinitely or we're gonna die in a different way.
this is an important election. thinking clear is good. reject all emotional appeals, whether it comes from a political speech or an article. trust in the force. you can feel what's right. one of things that's right is a strong leader that has the rhetorical skill and charisma to unite the country, given that people are willing to work. another thing that's right is good, sensible, pragmatic policy and a kind of realism that is not idealistic. they may not exist in the same person. but don't go bashing for false reasons, whatever you do.
i'm really drunk right now.
Feb 15, 2008 06:44 am I have come to think that Obama is a great speaker, he speaks well and is engaging, all while saying nothing.
Feb 15, 2008 07:02 am at least you like his speaking. it's fun, right?
i do think he's saying something specific but that it is best conveyed in general terms. it has to be this way for now, no particulars. a policy speech would put people to sleep. inspiration and policy just don't go together, so i view it this way: the primaries are where you want to do this, to excite people, to win the nomination. he can't keep repeating these 'special moments' indefinitely. it's going to have to change now. he will have to give policy speeches, starting now, to prevent burnout and criticism, so look for that to happen.
his policies are at his website. i believe this is a conscious choice to set them aside and to focus on his real skills to build a coalition. that would be the sensible thing to do if you had this power and wanted to win. it will now have to change, though.
Feb 15, 2008 07:21 am Yeah, sure he's charismatic...that's all well and good, his web site is also very vague in ways too.
Thus far, if a dem will win the white house, I hope it's him, that said, until he starts actually being more specific I am not going to give him much mind share. It will likely be a McCain/Obama voting option, neither of which I am crazy about...
Feb 15, 2008 08:11 am I liked something I heard on the radio this morning...Obama is the "go green" movement equivalent for the left for politics...they are supporting somebody that makes them feel good yet stands for nothing...much like using ethanol and changing your light bulbs makes you feel good for doing yet has pretty much no impact on anything.
Feb 15, 2008 08:18 am i sometimes think that obama is the only one that's actually saying anything. whether it pans out or not is anyone's guess, but the content of his speeches is actually not vacuous. it's mistaken for that.
i think many people might be in the habit of mistaking empty policy promises and hornswaggling as substance. when in fact that's what the empty promises are. we see how often that stuff comes to pass. maybe the only way you say anything worth saying in today's political climate is to stop. go back. take a stand and appeal to timeless truths and idealism. both the right and the left have their idealist stances. it's just rare that someone comes along who can voice them, and when it happens, its couched in this sort of rhetoric. it's been said america's a nation of idealists. reagan was one from the other direction. when you want to hook into people, you do it this way, by hooking into things that underlie policy and get down to values.
Feb 15, 2008 08:22 am The left holds no real values, thats the main problem, holding values implies a definate right and wrong and the left grades morality and values on a curve...
There, that should piss somebody off. :-D
Feb 15, 2008 08:36 am yeah, that pissed me off, sort of. good job. if only you didn't have a political identification, you could see things how they really are!
Feb 15, 2008 08:43 am wooho, I got under forty's skin, mission accomplished for a friday morning...funnily, I don't even really believe what I said there, I just had a mission. Well, I sort of believe it...
Honestly I think the (extreme) left is too morally loose and tolerant, and the right is too tight and intolerant...there is a happy medium of tolerance to be had...which I'd lay odds 99% of the US citizenry would agree with.
Feb 15, 2008 12:42 pm wow, forty, that was a long *** post!
anyhow, i've got a lot more to say, but not the time to type it out. But I will say this, while Obama doesn't say much of anything substantive in his speeches, none of the other candidates do either. The speeches are not there for that. They are there to rally the troops. So it doesn't make sense to knock Obama for it if you're not going to knock everyone else for it too. Its just that Obama is a great speaker and the rest are mediocre. If you want policy, where candidates stand, you can find that... (though with Hillary I wouldn't necessarily believe it)
Feb 15, 2008 04:45 pm Maybe instead of "Strategerie"
We'll have "Vaguenessity"
Feb 15, 2008 05:54 pm Forty- Re: your 6:35 post-
Quote:
{Obama's DNC speech} was specifically about why we should seek an end to the internal divisions in our own country. i think that's a speech worth making. such a speech is not vague. it is highly specific...calling upon better things within us.
I say this with all due respect, my friend, but you're wrong. Such a speech is the very definition of vague, and the antithesis of specific. Through that whole speech, Obama focused on the need to end our internal divisions, (as you put it), and even paid lip service as to why (again, as you put it), but he never presented any feasible ideas as to how. That would have been specific.
Let me give you an idea of what I mean. Think about the concept of "coming together," or "unity," or "ending our internal divisions" or whatever buzzwords and catchphrases on the matter have been most effective on you. Then think about how you would go about achieving these ends. Make a mental list of the necessary steps.
Then ask yourself this: were those Obama's ideas, or were they yours? Did he say these things, or did you just assume them? Did he specifically articulate these things, or did you mentally fill in the blanks of his vague and milquetoast speech on your own?
This is by no means a belittlement of Obama as a speaker. On the contrary, this is where his talent lies, and this is what he's using, masterfully, to his advantage. He utilizes words and phrases that appeal to emotion without being too specific, and this allows the listener to fill in the blanks on his own, at which point the message of the speech is whatever the listener wants it to be, and it's always perfect! Just so long as you don't examine it too closely, which most people have no interest in doing. I mean hey, why mess with a good thing, right?
You say he "has a goal." That's nice. Goals without plans are meaningless. And while a divided nation is a weak nation (nice catchphrase), a message of unity really is just a collection of nice words. "Unity," the agreement of all people on a given matter, is impossible. When people say "unity," what they really mean is "conformity," and/or "dominance." If everyone believed we should immediately pull all of our troops out of Iraq, we would have unity. If everyone believed we should unleash the full might of the US military to utterly crush all who oppose us and take their oil, we would also have unity. But we have people who hold both of hose opinions, and they are completely irreconcilable (we have people who hold all manner of opinions in between those two extremes as well, but that's neither here nor there). The only option is for one side to overpower and force the other to let it have its way.
All of the instances you cited in your last paragraph were examples of this, not of unity. The roughly thirty percent of Americans who wanted to remain joined to Britain were unable to hold off those who didn't. The space program was and still is highly debated, but Kennedy was able to have his way regardless. The Civil War, in which this nation split into two halves and went about killing each other in unfathomable numbers, strikes me as a particularly odd example of unity. To specify the Union is even more strange, since Lincoln had to resort to draconian, tyrannical and thoroughly unconstitutional measures to stifle dissent in the north (things like imprisoning op-ed writers and newspaper owners for publishing criticisms of the war and the administration).
True, the country accomplishes most, for good or ill, when not crippled by deadlock. But deadlock is only broken when one side overcomes the other.
Won't be online much this weekend. I'll check back on Monday.
-Whiskey
Feb 15, 2008 05:58 pm He can talk for three hours on any subject. More if he knows anything about it.
Feb 15, 2008 06:00 pm I find it funny that the nominee of the most hateful, whiny, complaining party talks about unity...
Feb 15, 2008 06:13 pm Coolo- re: your 1:38 post-
Quote:
We think of Obama as a great orator because he gives us that warm butterfly feeling when he speaks. He accomplishes that by offering a message of hope and unity.
Absolutely. That is exactly what makes him a great orator. This does not, however, translate into "great president" or even "remotely qualified to be president," at least not necessarily.
Quote:
If he were to break down his detailed policy map, he would put us to sleep, and we would not get that overwhelming feeling.
To this I can only say: wake up! This is the part we as voters need to be concerned with. These are the things that will tell you whether or not this is the man you want for the job. It's not as much fun perhaps, but it is utterly necessary. "Overwhelming feelings" are irrelevant, and give way to harsh reality quickly when things go wrong.
Quote:
If you want what he stands for, check out his website or something. Realize what purposes the speeches accomplish, and you will realize that he is indeed very talented.
Again, yes, he is extremely talented. As a speaker. But more than that is required of a president, at least if one is hiring him to lead the executive branch of the US government. If all one wants is for him to say nice things that make one feel good, then I would submit that he would serve this purpose much better in any number of positions than president of the United States.
BTW, if not to explain specifically why he is the best man for the job, than the only "purpose" his speeches can serve would be to dupe or distract.
Feb 15, 2008 06:15 pm Tallchap-
Were you talking about Obama, Forty, or me? ;)
Feb 15, 2008 06:53 pm i will be back to challenge big whiskey's post on vagueness and unity later. i anticipated the civilwar/ revolutionarywar/ nasa point, but i somehow doubted someone would really key in on that here, because the answer to that criticism is quite obvious.
Feb 15, 2008 07:54 pm BigWhiskeySam (I'm a fan of the name by the way),
That post was specifically about why he is a good speaker, and why we think of him as a good speaker, not on whether or not I think he is fit to be President. The two are different things and need to be judged differently. Obama uses his ability to speak as a tool to draw people in and he is capable of making people feel positive towards him with that. For those of us who can see past that, we seperate and go and look at the issues. But, many people vote without thinking about the consequences of their vote (how the hell else did 50% of the US vote for Bush The Lesser, as well as those that are pulling for good ole Huck). Only thing is now we got someone on the Democratic side that's reeling people in and having people look at the surface and not looking at the issues, and now all of a sudden its a problem for everyone.
With that said, if you look at issues and stances and such, I still think Obama is the best person for the job of those with a reasonable chance to win. It's coincidental (for me) that he's also a great speaker.
Feb 15, 2008 08:00 pm Ah, so people that voted for Bush didn't think about their vote...ah, nothing presumptuous there, eh?
Feb 16, 2008 07:39 am re: whiskey's two posts
I say this with all due respect, my friend, but you're wrong. Such a speech is the very definition of vague, and the antithesis of specific. Through that whole speech, Obama focused on the need to end our internal divisions, (as you put it), and even paid lip service as to why (again, as you put it), but he never presented any feasible ideas as to how. That would have been specific.
i disagree. i think it's a matter of opinion, however. you kind of have to get the whole ploy here or else you just won't get it. the 'how' is by inspiring people to do it. obama's premise is that people really want to put an end to infighting, but that they don't. the inferred reason is because there's no leader at the moment who can get people to follow. such a leader would have to strike a certain pose. you're seeing it in the speeches. now, obama may be a great speaker, but this doesn't mean it's 'about him.' bush united people in the aftermath of 911. the key thing he's going for in his speeches is to inspire the people themselves to do the work. he is the blank projection screen. he's set himself up as that, a thing that you can project your highest ideals onto. so it's more about the people--giving them license to believe in this sort of thing--than it is in obama himself. anyone who could convincingly strike such a pose would have a chance at doing it. but because most politicians cater exclusively to their bases and create divisions--instead of using more feeling-based inclusive language and inviting people into the fold--it doesn't happen. instead, many of them create resistance at the other end of the political spectrum as they appeal to their base exclusively, and this may be borne out of something like fear or a lack of self-confidence, or a lack of confidence in the american people. the safe path is to speak to those you know support you. the riskier path is to try to say 'hang on a second, this is bullshit; we're one country, right?' in the hands of a lesser speaker, it can sound like BS, but it's really what people would want to believe if only they could. the point of all this is to include and to invite, and to appeal to very general and human feelings, because--well, that's the way you do it. there's really no other way to put it. you won't find commonality through specifics, at all. you'll find it through generalities, through quintessentially american ideas and feelings. so what you're not seeing is that the vagueness is the specificity, and it's the only way to approach this. the speaker is the vehicle; the speaker is the point. the policies may be liberal, but the invite is there. i like the appeal to americans instead of to right and left. that's valuable in its own right, and i hope we remember it even if obama doesn't win. it's something i've been sort of waiting for for a long time.
Let me give you an idea of what I mean. Think about the concept of "coming together," or "unity," or "ending our internal divisions" or whatever buzzwords and catchphrases on the matter have been most effective on you. Then think about how you would go about achieving these ends. Make a mental list of the necessary steps.
Then ask yourself this: were those Obama's ideas, or were they yours? Did he say these things, or did you just assume them? Did he specifically articulate these things, or did you mentally fill in the blanks of his vague and milquetoast speech on your own?
ok. what i would do is i would stand up and try to 'wake people up' by showing them what they've been doing and why it's retarded. i would have gotten this idea from punk music, from movies such as pump up the volume (an old favorite) and from myself. (do you like braveheart? if so, a part of you likes obama). so to see it happening in front of me, it's literally a feeling of 'finally.' i'm a centrist and i've always talked about infighting. i monitor (and listen to, and enjoy) right wing talk radio. i feed off the divisiveness and the wars that take place there daily. i thrive on the industry of divisiveness, and the reason that i do is because i'm interested in how a. exciting and b. wrong and unhelpful it is. it's as if i've been studying memetics and the evolution of propaganda these past ten years. it's all spectacle, and that riles you up. but i've always looked at the war between right and left as a fundamentally pointless thing the way it's been fought. i listen to o'reilly, savage, limbaugh, beck, and all the rest, and i'm constantly getting little bursts of neurotransmitters every time i hear a fallacy. i've been studying the fallacies and the way that they work. there's something fundamentally entertaining about it, and there's something fundamentally cowardly about it, because about 80 percent of spins that you hear are *real* logical fallacies, which you could label by name. *** much as i enjoy them (and laugh at them, either against them or along with them, depending) i'm always conscious of what they are, and it's kind of a game to find them and label them. but such things are misinformation. how bold for someone to step up and speak in a common american language, to elevate himself above that fray. this could be healing for politics and for information itself. the policies are one thing, but this is something apart. it's really no wonder, again, that it's delivered in general terms. that is how you appeal to those finer impulses, by speaking to the heart, not the head. so again, that is the point. it is a specific point, but many people appear to be missing it.
He utilizes words and phrases that appeal to emotion without being too specific, and this allows the listener to fill in the blanks on his own, at which point the message of the speech is whatever the listener wants it to be, and it's always perfect! Just so long as you don't examine it too closely, which most people have no interest in doing. I mean hey, why mess with a good thing, right?
this allows the listener to fill in the blanks on his or her own, and it amounts to what joseph campbell would call a call to action. that is the point of this rhetoric, and it's the reason it's working. it 'activates' people. i admit that it could be dangerous because there are real, liberal policies there with obama. you might therefore excuse the liberals who are getting on board but criticize the independents and obamacans. but the libs don't have to look deeper, because obama tows the party line. criticize your own, therefore. the righties who are coming into the camp. the libs are faultless for getting on board because the policies are there for them. i would argue, though, that he's tapped into something that's pretty important and that it may supercede policy stuff for certain 'se la vie' voters. i think there's a hunger for 'american feelings' and that no one's addressed that since reagan. if you want a dose, i recommend the excellent ken burns lewis and clark documentary, which is available online here: blip.tv/search?q=lewis+and+clark&x=0&y=0
this is seriously worth watching. it's the best historical documentary i've ever seen, and i've seen it over 40 times.
ok that was a tangent. but seriously, check that out.
All of the instances you cited in your last paragraph were examples of this, not of unity. The roughly thirty percent of Americans who wanted to remain joined to Britain were unable to hold off those who didn't. The space program was and still is highly debated, but Kennedy was able to have his way regardless. The Civil War, in which this nation split into two halves and went about killing each other in unfathomable numbers, strikes me as a particularly odd example of unity. To specify the Union is even more strange, since Lincoln had to resort to draconian, tyrannical and thoroughly unconstitutional measures to stifle dissent in the north (things like imprisoning op-ed writers and newspaper owners for publishing criticisms of the war and the administration).
i know, of course, that people opposed the revolution, and moon landings, and that the civil war was the very definition of division. but when i talk about unity, i'm talking about a person or a group of persons who have identified a goal for the country, and who then manage to inspire them to 'do the work.' that's jefferson, that's kennedy, that's anyone who can fire that stuff up and turn it into action. to get it done, you've got to set a set of people on fire. there are *always* people who stand against a certain policy. if you think i'm saying otherwise, come on, man. that's just unrealistic. there was never a time in the history of the entire world when an entire populace was in total agreement. i think you're missing the point. this is about rousing a segment of the populace to such a degree that big things happen.
If he were to break down his detailed policy map, he would put us to sleep, and we would not get that overwhelming feeling.
To this I can only say: wake up! This is the part we as voters need to be concerned with. These are the things that will tell you whether or not this is the man you want for the job. It's not as much fun perhaps, but it is utterly necessary. "Overwhelming feelings" are irrelevant, and give way to harsh reality quickly when things go wrong.
of course, wake up. no disagreement here. but the 'specifics' battle is waged in the general election. you cannot fault the guy for this kind of rhetoric in the primaries, cuz that's where you want to do it. the 'free pass' is over now, though. (not that it really ever was one: it's up to the other candidates to 'cause' a news story; up till now the story has been obama's crowds and his appeal, because, well, that's been the story, until someone creates another one, which is now happening: hillary with boxing gloves, mccain throwing down the gauntlet with his 'platitudes' line, etc.) if you've watched every debate as i have, you know that obama has the ability to think before he speaks, and he does have specific policies, and we'll just have to see what america decides, because mccain is going to do his best to make the general election debates about specifics, even as obama tries to appeal to a deeper thing which is equally important, i believe. it's going to be a very strange battle.
If you want what he stands for, check out his website or something. Realize what purposes the speeches accomplish, and you will realize that he is indeed very talented.
Again, yes, he is extremely talented. As a speaker. But more than that is required of a president, at least if one is hiring him to lead the executive branch of the US government. If all one wants is for him to say nice things that make one feel good, then I would submit that he would serve this purpose much better in any number of positions than president of the United States.
i've heard it said that the president's main role is something like a magnet held beneath a paper piled up with iron filings. the president's office is a weak one in many ways. his primary function seems to be to guide and influence, to be a figurehead and to be the face of the nation. much of what the president does has to do with influence, not with creating actual policy, which is the job of the legislature. if it's true that the house and senate are the iron filings, and if it's true that those filings might actually be moved and influenced by a guy with a vision, then you can start to see the value of speech itself.
now, all of this said, i am going to report that although i'm following politics very closely right now (and will do so all year) i am standing back in another way. i refuse to get too attached to this movement emmotionally. i have real policy conflicts with obama and with very liberal candidates. the most i can say, really, is that one half of me would be completely happy if this guy became our next president. i do, though, reminisce about wesley clark, who seemed to be a strong and through guy and a good speaker who matched my national security and foreign policy needs while still being a democrat. mccain has some of those qualities too, although mccain appears to be the sort of guy obama talks about. mccain has been susceptible to manipulation. he's a fundamentally gentle guy who has been, in the past, 'coached' to become 'mean' at times. it's always obvious when it happens, it's always obvious when he goes fake. as stark as day. it's supposed to be one of the reasons he lost in 2000. he seems to repeatedly turn away from who he really is, in very obvious ways, to appeal to members of his party. when he's not running for something, he's john mccain. when he is, he at times becomes a puppet in very visible ways. that sort of fakeness rubs me wrong.
Feb 18, 2008 07:41 am Just a quickie from me 'cos I'm a bit isolated from it. However, when I was in the US recently me and my Mrs had a bottle of wine and watched the democratic debate. Found it really interesting actually, your politicians seem to have far more "celebrity" status than ours. It was really interesting to watch how you guys go about things, it seemed like a proper "trial by media" it did seem very much about presentation.
FWIW I actually liked the sound of Obama, he seemed like a genunine guy and also he seemed, to us at least, like he was less interesting in going for a catchy one line sound byte, he seemed to want to answer questions fully and explain himself. Saying that, Hilary also seemed fairly good in this respect too.
Huckabee is a complete nutcase! Utterly delusional. I wouldn't want him running my local chip shop, let alone my country.
I've not heard much about McCain.
Feb 18, 2008 09:37 am You got it JODD! They don't even resemble any human life form. They are a "product" just like every other celebrity. It's simply wonderfull to hear Vincent Furnier talk about Alice Cooper. The creation of the character, the development and evolution of the character, why the character was created, etc. Only difference between that a a politician is that Vincent was honest enough to give his character a name other than his own.
Feb 18, 2008 10:03 am Yeah, regardless of what you think about Tony Blair's policies, the things I liked about him were that he comes across as a relatively normal man, similar to any one of us he also took the time to answer questions fully and not rely on a catchy one-line soundbyte that they know is going to be tomorrows headline. David Cameron (the current UK opposition leader does a lot of headline grabbers and it annoys me)
The problem I have with it is that the "one liner" grabs the attention of the ignorant masses who dont actually look with any depth into what is backing them up.
When I was watching the debate I was often expecting the moderator to ask someone to explian what their point was when they chipped in with something that sounded good, but it rarely happened, however, its these remarks that end up scrolling accross the bottom of the screen cos they are convenient quote.
FWIW for all I despise him I think GWB is fairly honest about his image, he just happens to be a loathsome cretinous sub-human ingoramous.
Feb 18, 2008 10:09 am Put under that sort of microscope, with a media that has an agenda against you, ANYONE could be made to look like an ignoranous...and of all your insults, that is really the only semi legitimate one, "loathsome cretinous sub-human" is just ignorant.
Hillary and Obama with both simply only back the Illuminati influenced European socialist world gov't mentality...
Feb 18, 2008 10:21 am well this upcoming debate is going to be really, really interesting. hillary has gone crazy and appears to be trying to win at all costs now, and if she manages to seat the disqualified michigan and florida delegates, i'm voting for mccain or staying home, one or the other. the superdelegates thing is different, but florida and michigan are non negotiable to me. those delegates do not get seated at all or there's a mutually agreeable do-over of some sort, and if it goes any other way, then anyone who votes for hillary if she manages to do this is not an american. rules are rules.
the soundbytes thing might have something to do with how america is, but it's also about the arena and time constraints of the debates, as well as the 24 hour news cycle. a soundbyte is a meme and i can't blame people for using them. but when given the change, candidates talk in detail. like here:
i think time russert's the best of the lefty interviewers. he's tough. the other meet the press clips are tougher still.
Feb 18, 2008 10:36 am "Loathsome, cretinous sub human"
I was kind of hoping people would find that funny not offensive.
I loathe him - I find him loathsome
He is really very stupid - I think he's cretinous.
OK, sub-human, I must have just been sticking the boot in there.
Talking about him sensibly, he really hasn't done much for America's world image, which to be fair, is obviously my main experience of him. When I was in the states all the coverage was on the Democratic debate. little abuot him.
ALso from what I gather, his policies are managing to butcher your economy too.
Feb 18, 2008 10:40 am Our economy is not nearly as bad as the media is portraying it. The housing market sucks, but the job market is good, wages are good...so really, what you are gathering is fabricated.
He isn't stupid...he isn't a good speaker, but he isn't stupid. They are two very different things. He believes in different things than you, that doesn't make him stupid. I believe in many of the same things as him, and I am not stupid.
As far as world image...so what...
Feb 18, 2008 10:48 am I just listened to that Obama clip. He does seem like a decent guy. I'd probably vote for him. I think I just like the way he takes the time to explain things
Feb 18, 2008 10:56 am I disagree with many of his personal opinions, fortunately they dont have that much of an effect on me. I really dont think he's the sharpest tool in the box though. Maybe is partly the fault of his speachwriters and aides but he does seem to have a knack of saying the wrong thing.
Like you said about the housing market, thats the one that really annoys me though 'cos it might just be having a knock on effect in this country which is a real problem for me as if my house falls into negative equity I wont be able to sell my flat.
I think world image is important. Your foreign policies will be greated with far less scepticism and suspicion if your general world image is good
Feb 18, 2008 11:15 am I agree, world image can be important, but I don't believe in making decisions based just on it. Like mom always said "if everybody ran off a cliff..."
Most of the problem, OK, a lot of the problem, maybe not most, with the American economy is ignorant consumers. If you talk to a VAST majority of the people that are now loosing their houses, they are mostly to blame by mortgaging their house stupidly by choosing adjustable rate mortgages and such. The single biggest risk of that type of mortgage is an adjustment of this sort skyrocketing your payments...so, now they take that risk, willingly, it happens and their payment go up, now, people like me, that were not idiots and chose the fixed rate mortgage, watch our tax dollars go to the idiots to help bail them out of their stupid decision. This is WRONG.
Bottom line with the typical American economy is ignorant consumers living beyond their means to keep up with the neighbors, have all the cool toys, big house, nice cars and everything even though they DO NOT make enough money to support the lifestyle.
For those people, I have little sympathy...we have less than many of our neighbors and friends, but, when it comes around to retirement time, we'll see who retires and who can't...
Nobody think ahead any more, it's all about NOW. THAT, my friend, is most of the problem with the American economy, and American society as well, for that matter.
I am tired of the mentality of many Americans and many of the immigrants (not all) that America OWES them a living...all America can give anyone is a chance to EARN a living.
Feb 18, 2008 11:29 am Thats a fairly large problem in the British economy/society too. Its just that there doesn't seem to have been quite so much irresponsible lending going on.
Obviously, I'd judge him mostly on his world image as that is what I see most of. What little I gather of his domestic policies I dont much like but as they say - bad news travels fast, and in this case, farther.
Anyway, back to Obama, one thing I did like about him which was touched upon in the above clip is that he wants something which is a fairly good approximation of the British NHS.
Feb 18, 2008 12:49 pm Yeah, and that is what I HATE about the left, NHS is a failure, socialized health care is great for checkups and routine health monitoring, but SUCKS if you get sick with anything serious.
Your health care technology is 20 years behind, your cancer survival rates are the lowest in any civilized semi-modern country www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../ncancer121.xml , US cancer care is #1 on the globe www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba596/
Within 10 years the British system will be broke and unable to maintain free care news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6551607.stm
Health care DOES need fixing, the US system is broken, but NHS is a BAD idea Canada, UK and Europe have proven it...which is why border state hospitals in the US are filled with Canadian citizens trying to get care...and everybody with wealth in the entire WORLD come to Rochester, Minnesota for the best health care available on the planet at the Mayo Clinic. US health care system is broken, but the care available in the US is second to NONE IF you have the money and coverage to get it, which is the downfall, but that isn't medically related, that is economy/society related.
Socialized ANYTHING is a bad idea. The answer is never to let gov't handle it, that is a sure fire way to find wasted spending, kickbacks, earmarks and other such crap. Nobody organization on earth in any country wastes resources as quickly, with as little care as the basic government.
The only thing that creates better product for lower price is COMPETITION, and governments have none.
Feb 18, 2008 01:38 pm I disagree about the NHS. I pay my national insurance and I am happy with the service I get.
US Care may be number one, but its only number 1 where you can afford it.
Saying we have the lowest survival rates in all semi-civilised society is a big exageration.
Its far more civilised for healthcare to be available for all, regardless of their financial status. Only the wealthy getting proper healthcare is very 19th centuary.
Feb 18, 2008 01:55 pm Well, considering many of the people that would disagree with you are dead, it's not worth arguing about...not worth it anyway.
The most civilized would be everybody accepting the responsibility of making sure their families are covered, sadly, it's also exaggerated how many people "can't afford it" as compared to how many people "don't afford it" and would rather blow their money on other things.
The more that people are allowed to suckle on the gov't teet the lazier and less responsible people become, and that isn't good for anyone or anything.
Socialization has created a bunch of whiny pussies that can't, or won't, take care of themselves and expect everything to be handed to them, and THAT is uncivilized. So badly that last year in France a bunch of whiny French kids actually protested because they didn't think it was right that an employer could actually fire them if they did a lousy job...now come on, be serious.
Feb 18, 2008 02:02 pm Oh, and the cancer study was from a UK web site and quoted many UK medical professionals...and guess what one said, it was because of the long waiting list for treatment...which is why people in Canada come here to the US, same reason...too long of waiting lists.
Quote:
"Britain was the exception. Despite spending up to £1,500 on health per person per year, it recorded similar survival rates for Hodgkin's disease and lung cancer as Poland, which spends a third of that amount."
seems your gov't can waste money almost as well as ours, which is why I'd prefer to give as little of my money to them to manage as possible.
Feb 18, 2008 02:11 pm I know what you mean. Via property taxes and mill levies, I'm forced to pay for this socialized education system, even though I have no school-age children. Why should I have to pay for someone else's kids? And 7.75% sales tax for these stupid socialized police and fire departments, whose services I never use...
This communism has got to go!
Feb 18, 2008 02:24 pm Ah, the education system, yet another fine example of how great gov't monopolies work...again, no competition = **** products.
Hillary, not sure about Obama, wants to yet further tax us, the working Americans to pay for her view of socialized health care.
What we need, and would seriously help toward fixing the system, or bettering it, would be to regulate malpractice legislation, and the shifty, scumbag lawyers that abuse it (i.e. John Edwards and his ilk), as our healthcare is compromised by the doctors fear of being sued...which is sad. Bad ones should be sued, but too many people play the system like a lottery.
On the whole, I don't dislike Obama as much as the other dems, but now last night I heard he met with Edwards in some "secret meeting"...now that scares me to death...Edwards IS the problem in health care.
Feb 18, 2008 03:30 pm I dont agree. We all pay the same proportion of our income in national insurance, people with no income for whatever reason still get healthcare. National insurance comes straight out of your wages before they even get into your bank. If you have a job and get paid you have no choice but to afford it.
A close friend of my mothers had been living with lymphoma for over 10 years now. She manages to time her treatments around holidays and still manged to go skiing this year. The NHS isn't anywhere near as bad as the stories make out.
As I said earlier bad news travels far faster and further than anything positive. I dont know how much you know about our education system bit there are many things about it that really boil my p!ss. You may not hear about it, however, the only things I hear about the american system are really negative. As always the only thing that ever gets reported is the negative. Human nature I suppose.
Feb 18, 2008 04:06 pm Anything that the gov't just "takes out of my pay" is another thing I have no choice in. Right now I have a choice in what insurance plan I want to purchase, what doctors I want to go to, the treatments I can have and basically anything else...as soon as my choice gets taken away it's bad.
Nothing is feared more by socialist governments than somebody that can take care of themselves, the more people they get depending on gov't the fatter cats they become, and the weaker the society becomes.
Government is supposed to govern not control and dictate. You can keep suckling off that gov't teet, enjoy, it's gonna be bitter in time.
For the record, agreement means nothing, I prefer clarity and understanding over agreement, so constantly saying "I disagree" really doesn't matter, it's not a discussion of agreement or disagreement...it's not like any of these discussions ever in the history of the HRC forum every led to anyone going "hmmmm, maybe I'm wrong there".
Feb 18, 2008 04:27 pm One more for Forty-
Quote:
...you won't find commonality through specifics, at all. you'll find it through generalities, through quintessentially american ideas and feelings. so what you're not seeing is that the vagueness is the specificity, and it's the only way to approach this.
It appears this is the point where we hit our stalemate, and where you and I will have to agree to disagree.
I've reread all of your posts, and it seems (at least to me) that the above highlighted line is the central thrust of your argument. The central thrust of mine of course is just the opposite: that the commonality you believe you are finding through generalities and feelings is an illusion; one that must and inevitably will give way, sooner or later, to the need for specific ideas and plans of action.
Yes, this is where the divisions come back into play. This is as certain as a western sunset. Well meaning people can and will disagree, passionately and vehemently, on the best way to address the nations problems and handle its affairs. We will inevitably divide along these lines. A lot of us won't like each other very much. But this is how the "call to action" you refer to is actually met, and matters actually dealt with, for good or for ill.
The generalities of which you speak, basically amount to style. The specifics are the substance. I believe that a large chunk (if not most) of Obama's supporters are abandoning substance for style. And I believe this is folly.
Feb 18, 2008 06:05 pm but there's never been a claim that there wouldn't be specificity.
if you speak in the way he does, it doesn't preclude specificity. it just that specificity hasn't been the tool in the primaries that he's used in his stump speeches. using specificity during this run up would have weakened the other strength, the appeal to quinessentially american feelings and his ability to inspire people. he's also been accused of being too professorial too (i called him too professorial during the initial debates, which i thought he was losing to hillary because he was staid, specific, and boring at a time when that was suicide.) so he can't win, apparently. either he's too staid and professorial or he's an inspiring cult figure? when you listen to this clip, you hear this other side. that's a freakin' law prrofessor talking right there, right down to the hesitations and the 'umms.' so when you think about it, these emotional appeals are what you would do, yourself, if you were running in the primaries, as long as you can back it up with specifics. you'd have to use this other strength, this speaking style, to win support when you most need it, to defeat 'the champ' in the primaries, which was never a small challenge given hillary's name recognition and assumed ascendancy. if you have a power, and if your goal is to get people listening, then you use your power.
one of the things that pisses me off most in having to talk about this on forums is that it makes me look like i'm way too much for this guy, and i'm not. obama's policies are typical. but i feel i must try to set the record straight on what he's trying to accomplish and what he's really trying to say. i find myself defending the basic themes and ideas of the foreground message, the one's you're all hearing in the speeches, because it's incredible to me that some people are either so blind or willfully partisan that they would not see or decide to not see what the actual attempt here is. it offends my sense of fair play and i think it's intellectually dishonest, whether it's on purpose or not. in other words, i'd rather not have to constantly step up and explain the obvious and try to move the debate to where it should be instead of where it's being sent for petty little partisan reasons or because of simple unconsciousness and lazy thinking.
sorry for my tone in this post. it's not about you. the people who are making the 'no substance' appeal haven't looked into the policies and the website and are just repeating memes they've heard because it's very easy to do and if affirms preconceptions. the selection of the nominee and the president happens in a 'dumbed down' public arena in which most people seem to spend most of their time. but the appropriate attack to make on obama if you take an anti-stance on him is to criticize his lack of experience. you can do that if you want to, and should. but there's no excuse for missing the theme of a speech and the ideas behind it.
also, i would argue that the need for specific plans and actions is not a sooner or later thing: it's right now. very unfair to frame obama supporters as you're doing. those specifics are there for you to agree with or to disagree with.
division, as you say, will happen. but this guy never expected to snap his fingers and get people to fall in line. he's not planning to hypnotize opponents with his charisma or powers like kenobi and get them to bow down. in these meet the press clips, he talks very clearly about what he's trying to do: open the table to discussion. much like russert's show, actually. to listen to ideas and try to work together to get common sense solutions happening. he takes care to say that he'll come to the table with strong democratic opinions of his own, but that he'll listen to and respect the opinions of others. maybe supporters are taking that on faith. but on the other hand, it's the tone he's consistently struck, and there's no indication he's not that very guy he says he's trying to be. he's also right that this is what the vast majority of americans REQUIRE in a president. imagine the country as if it were a company or corporation, with the president as the CEO. does the CEO typically do what's best for the company, at all costs, no matter which guy in the boardroom proposes it? or is the boardroom a chamber in which two sides are allied against each other perpetually, essentially not making decisions because of the tangled alliances in that room? an effective company does what's best for the company. if an atmosphere can be created where ideas are the top concern and where ideas are generally valued regardless of origin, then that is a return to something very american. the ability to compromise and to listen to ideas themselves and put party politics on the back burner is why we even have the super constitution we do in the first place. in a certain sense it's why this country EXISTS.
it would be naive to suggest that a return to something like that doesn't first begin with a certain shift in attitude, a leader that's willing to change the rules and be a figurehead and a blank projection screen that people are willing to project their highest non-partisan american ideals upon. it takes that, given what's happened these past decades. a general weakness of humanity is a tendency to demonize 'the other' and to get stuck in either-or thinking. what about both-and thinking? we've forgotten how to do that on a very basic level, and right v. left is an extreme sport in this country.
i'd prefer not to spend time appearing to endorse obama. i will spend time, though, taking apart ideas so that the right discussion happens.
Feb 18, 2008 07:41 pm Quote:
yet another fine example of how great gov't monopolies work...again, no competition = **** products.
Exactly. The military is the shining example here. Let's begin there and privatize it, too. That way, we could eliminate the police department as well. Everyone pays for their own personal protection. If you want safety from local thugs or foreign invaders, hire your own bodyguard or start a local militia. No more worries about trillions in waste going to foreign countries where it doesn't belong. Stand on your own two feet and take care of yourself! Quit expecting Washington to take care of you.
Sissies.
Feb 19, 2008 01:43 am why can't peeps think in more balanced terms? obviously it's a trade off no matter who you get. if we get mccain, i get a national security guy, which i want. if we get obama, there will be a different national security strategy (but i hate it when right wingers call the dems weak: history doesn't support it, and it's a mental shortcut and stereotype in some ways). but with O, we get other benefits. they are, admittedly, experimental. but all you have to do is look at the foreign press to see some of the buzz. perception matters to me too. you don't do things FOR perception solely: that would be retarded. but it can be a factor, and i would suggest that we haven't given a damn about it recently. we are looked up to. it's part of our power. don't squander part of your power.
Feb 19, 2008 08:02 am Herb, generally your sarcasm is witty and humorous, sometimes it's just ignorant, counter productive and illplaced...obviously the gov't has it's roles...police protection, fire protection, general infrastructure (roads, power, etc) military and the like are the REASON we pay taxes. That said, there is also an insane amount of waste there as well, and privatizing it may actually work but you know damn well that's not where I have been focused with my statements.
Feb 19, 2008 10:34 am It's only that exaggeration is sometimes the best form of illustration. The right is so caight up in blaming the left for all of its tax-and-spend mentality that it can't see its own, and believes some forms of "waste" are somehow more righteous than others.
No more needs to be said there.
Feb 19, 2008 10:52 am ...and of course the left never gets caught up in any stereotypical mudslinging and such...good on them!
Feb 19, 2008 01:15 pm Quote:
how the hell else did 50% of the US vote for Bush The Lesser
It hasn't really been proven that they did.
A national health system can work if it's used properly. Remember that there is still private care available in Britain to supplement it. It's not the only care available. The big difference is that actually using your health insurance sends ripples through your insurer, and your premium goes up. Or, you could just go see a doctor, get better, and get on with your life. Leave the private insurance as a back-up.
Nobody ever takes into account the millions of people successfully treated by the NHS every day. Is it perfect? Hell no. But it's not the devil either.
I do think that a nationalized health system for all minors would save this country (USA) a fortune in the long run.
Feb 19, 2008 05:08 pm maybe everyone should just be encouraged to become doctors themselves.
Feb 19, 2008 06:24 pm Ah, yes. Student loans. Cool. You know that Britons are automatically entitled to two years of further education free, right. Poor socialists that they are (go on, let's have it....Somebody please tell me that British Colleges are inferior to American ones...)
Or...
"Ask your doctor if XXXXX is right for you!"
Or...
"Best over the counter medicine by far..."
Pop a pill, any pill, and your troubles will all vanish. $105.00 please, says Mr. Pharmacist.
But I digress...
Feb 19, 2008 06:27 pm I still have my Time-Life Books' Home Surgery series. Maybe I should dust it off.
Feb 19, 2008 06:34 pm Heh....so that's what happened to Shrub.
Hang on...no...that would entail reading....
Feb 20, 2008 01:24 pm Serious question, not trying to be a smart aleck... I was thinking about this yesterday, and on a fundamental level, why is police force, military, and such that we accept as the reason why govt. is in place, any different from health care? Is it because traditionally it's been private? That's the only thing I can think of. Why is it any different?
Supposedly competition is a good thing, and maybe these things should be privatized, but when things are privatized and done for profit, there is less if any impetus to serve the whole community. That is why the govt. is called upon, to make sure that everybody is afforded the same protection. Otherwise, from a private company standpoint it doesn't make sense to serve the less affluent communities....
Feb 20, 2008 01:54 pm If it didn't make sense to serve less affluent communites why does WalMart exist?
That being said, your question is a good valid one. While I may not have a perfect answer, I believe military, police, fire and rescue and the like are infrastructure...nationally and locally...or that is how I view it. When a fire breaks out in your house, it's not just their job to protect you and your house, but the houses around you, it's a bigger thing...same with police, fire and rescue...
Health care, to me, involves choices and planning, that is my responsiblity as a family provider. I do think some sort of nationalized care program for children is something I could get behind, depending on details, but outside of that, I am personally tired of being taxed to take care of everybody else.
If the handout system would be tightened up a bit I might be less jaded...
Just one man's opinion...
Feb 20, 2008 04:07 pm From Obama's email today:
"We've crunched all the numbers and discovered that we are within striking distance of something historic: one million people donating to this campaign.
Think about that ... nearly one million people taking ownership of this movement, five dollars or twenty-five dollars at a time."
man...
Feb 20, 2008 04:18 pm Geesh, are we going to have Forty and dB-Wan poking each other until November?
Cool.....
I personally would happily pay the additional taxes (yes I'm an immigrant, no I don't/can't vote, yes I still have an opinion, and yes I pay taxes) to have a health system for the kids. That there are tons of kids in this country (USA) that are in serious need of medical care (and food, believe it or not) makes me sad. Especially when I see those Mars Landers keep disappearing into the Martian dust at $6billion a shot. I just think, "Man, some kids in Mississippi will go to be hungry again tonight, and there goes six billion dollars worth of fertilizer."
Sad.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.