Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
It's quite possible that the fat lady will sing for Hillary Clinton tomorrow. Or not. Sometimes politics is like baseball: you never know what's going to happen. Voters in four states will make some pretty important decisions tomorrow: Will Clinton go on to Pennsylvania? Or will her campaign end tomorrow night in a series of defeats in big, critical states? Will Barack Obama assume the mantle of the presumptive Democratic nominee, and will the GOP get the fight they have been both anxious to begin and cautiously planning for?
A debate broke out in the Chicagoist offices last week over what Obama and his candidacy really stood for. Chicagoist columnists Kevin Robinson and Margaret Hicks make their case for and against all of the change and hope that Barack Obama has been talking about, and that Hillary Clinton and John McCain have been disputing. Yes We Can? Ready to Lead on Day One? What do you think?
Kevin
--------------------
I feel like I've stepped into a time machine, and gone backwards 16 years. As the Democratic primaries sweep through the states, we're hearing about change we can believe in, people are saying Yes We Can. Our nation will be unified, a sea of purple states united under a common theme of moving forward, national reconciliation and hope. Ending the war in Iraq, building a stronger future, and health care for all. A different kind of politics in Washington.
Those are ideas that I can get behind. I want to believe, really I do. Except that nobody can tell me what any of it means. Maybe I should back up a little bit here. I worked on Barack Obama's campaign when he ran for US Senate in Illinois. I carried his ballot access petitions before the primaries in 2003. I talked to voters on the South Side of Chicago about Obama. I told my friends and family about him, and why they needed to make sure that they voted for the black dude with the funny name. Like many Democrats in Illinois, I followed that race until the Chicago Tribune destroyed Jack Ryan's political career. And I smiled when Alan Keyes got the nod to run, a cynical ploy to divide the black vote and drive the Illinois GOP further to the right.
Barack Obama's keynote address at the Boston Democratic Convention that year was electrifying. I was, that night, proud. Proud that I had voted for Obama, proud that I was from Illinois, and proud that my city had produced someone so special. And when Bush won re-election that year, I felt a sense of hope that at least we had Barack in the Senate, the staunch anti-war Democrat that was going to fight for working people in Washington.
No sooner than he had picked out new curtains for his office, then people started talking about an Obama presidency. And that's when I started to worry. Not that he didn't have the experience. No new president really knows what he's doing, so experience wasn't an issue with me. If he can come from Chicago and win the US Senate, he can handle the White House. No, I worried because I didn't know what his candidacy, and therefore his presidency would stand for. In fact, Obama's meteoric rise reminds me of another Democrat, one that I believed in fiercely when I was younger: Bill Clinton. In 1992 he came onto the scene, packing school gyms and union halls, promising a new day for America. He drew comparisons to John F. Kennedy and Camelot, a generational shift in the American political paradigm. He backed his message of hope up with his compelling life story: a father he never knew, a single mother who beat the odds to bring up her son. Black audiences, in particular ate it up. Four elections later, and its Barack Obama fending off accusations of inexperience, thrilling a new generation, his rallies staffed and fired up by teenagers and students, just as Clinton did 16 years ago. And now its Obama who has made hope his own.
I don't see much difference between Obama and (either) Clinton. They're both liberals, ideologically, two peas in a pod. Clinton is, perhaps, more liberal on social issues and Obama maybe more liberal on economic issues. Other than the terms of withdrawing from Iraq, there isn't much divergence between their platforms. And the narrative that has emerged this election year illustrates that. Clinton is running on experience, Obama on change. Whatever that means.
Now that my guy has dropped out of the race, I hope Obama gets the nomination, because I think political dynasties are bad for our democracy. And I hope that if he does win, he surrounds himself with good people that will promote all this change that he keeps talking about. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I'm not going to support the Republican. I might still vote Green, assuming that Illinois is safely a blue state as far as the White House is concerned. (It is.) But until I see substance, until his supporters can tell me what kind of change we're really talking about, I'll remain skeptical of Barack Obama for President.
Margaret
--------------------
I'm not here to sway opinions. If you don't support him now, you either won't, or you will find your own way there. I am here to try to answer critics' questions, since they seem to have more than a few problems with our new president (hee). Critics want to know what Obama "stands for." They seem to have missed that Obama lists his platforms just as Hillary and McCain do, but somehow, his is lacking. They feel like he's hiding something, or that the something isn't there at all. Yet, I can look at Obama's opinions on issues as easily as I can look at Hillary's. And you know what? They are a lot alike, so as a Democrat, it is up to me to judge the candidate on a different level, a personal level. Somehow this gets attacked too, as if we shouldn't base some of our decision on whether we actually like someone or not. We humans happen to be very good at judging goodness and truth and honesty from just looking at someone's face. It's one of our evolutionary advantages, but somehow where Obama is concerned, this is considered wrong.
People want to know what "change" means. They ask "how EXACTLY is he going to bring this country together?" He's already doing it. His wins in the Potomac Primaries prove that he is rallying a nation. He is motivating young people to get out and vote (oh, and isn't this all we've ever wanted! YOUNG VOTERS) and they're doing it! Kevin says he wants to see the "change", touch the "change" and until then, he will remain skeptical. Well, you're looking at change, you're experiencing it right now. Have you ever seen a presidential election filled with so much interest? So much passion? Coincidence? Obama is uniting us, even if you don't plan on voting for him, you must see that he is stimulating action.
I am a romantic. I admit it. I get passionate about beautiful language and a beautiful speaker and utopian ideals. But there are actual facts to back up my support of Obama in the first place. For me, the most important sticking point is that he wants truth in government. And after all the lies, isn't it time? He wants the American people to be the watchdog of our government. He wants to release presidential records. He wants to make sure that all corporations who get tax breaks can be seen on the internet. He wants to make sure that any non-emergency bills that are raised are available for five days for public viewing before they are voted on. Just like the State of Illinois building was built to bring government closer to the people, so Obama's campaign is meant to do the same thing without all that horrible salmon color.
What a freeing feeling to be voting on faith, passion, creativity and honesty; a presidential candidate should inspire no less.
Plus, I want to see what happens! I think I know what would happen with Hillary. It would be a lot like it was, there will be a lot of partisan bickering in the House and the Senate. Hillary will push for health care reform and it will never get passed. The people that are antagonized by her will continue to be, the people that love her will continue to. Even if Obama fails miserably, (and I don't think he will, he's already shown us he can rally support) by god, at least it will be something different.
Can we actually be a part of what goes on in our government? Can we be inspired by a man who has lived all over the world and helped all kinds of people? Can we be satisfied with a first lady who might actually be sarcastic and hilarious once in awhile? Can we put a man with faults and mistakes and the ability to meditate on those mistakes into the White House? Can we believe, for just one minute, that this man is everything he appears to be? Can we let our hearts for one second hope, that this time, things are different?
I think you know the answer.
Say it with me, cynics.
Yes we can.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Saying politics is like baseball is the dumbest analogy ever written. Isn't EVERYTHING a "who knows what could happen" situation.
Better to go folksy political on that issue and say something like "Overnight is a lifetime in politics".
And I am tired of the primaries. I will be a good liberal and vote for whoever the eventual nominee is.
Why doesn't somebody report about what it has been like for his current constituents to interact with his senatorial staff?
at least we have 2 well-written and thought out explanations on why they are choosing to vote for someone... i can't tell you how many people i've questioned 'why' they are supporting whichever candidate and the responses they give are disturbing... simply because they may have well just flipped a coin to make the choice, they have no real idea what a candidate is proposing for their potential presidency.
I think the continued complaints that Obama doesn't have any actual plans for change are unfounded. He discusses his platform points pretty clearly and his website and campaign material will tell you exactly where he stands on each issue.
So your argument would be that you still don't see the "change"? Well to begin with, almost anything would be change at this point. Policy-wise, he promotes a change in foreign policy, a change in healthcare policy, a change in privacy, a change in the approach to the constitution, etc.
His positions aren't really that different from Hillary's, but if you have to choose between two things that do the same thing, wouldn't you want the one that makes you feel good about your country and gets you excited about politics.
Just because Hillary goes on stage and belabors each point doesn't mean that she has a more informed point of view, it just means she is boring as hell.
"His positions aren't really that different from Hillary's, but if you have to choose between two things that do the same thing, wouldn't you want the one that makes you feel good about your country and gets you excited about politics."
In general, maybe.
But I would prefer candidates do less cheerleading and tell more hard truths: How withdrawing from Iraq will be a slog no matter who's in charge, how our federal budget faces collapse within a generation because of spending-and-tax programs that have nothing to do with the Iraq War, how our infrastructure is faililng, etc.
So far, the closest guy to do that was McCain in Michigan, talking to autoworkers. Though I doubt I will vote GOP this year, as they have done too much to fuck up the USA in the last 8 years, it would be nice if the Dems could stop kissing asses in Ohio, for instance, and stop talking as though NAFTA will be repealed, or that $30/hour blue-collar jobs are coming back to Youngstown.
Wow Obama looks like the savoir in that campaign ad with the light shining behind him.He must be the chosen one. What we need is a crook co politican running the country. things are going so well here in crook co. we should expand our way of doing buisness. Nationalized health care just like cook co hospitals, hiring run just like crook co. the country needs change but it doesnt need crook co influences. Maybe Daley Stroger and Blago can advise the chosen one on how to run goverment.
fed up: you sound retarded and bitter.
matilda: Yeah, truth works SO WELL generally in getting politicians elected, which is why Obama has to resort to non-truth truths like "Hope" and "Change".
Well, Spav, that's our fault, isn't it? We prefer to hear the bullshit even when we know it's bullshit. And we love to judge leaders on how well they deliver the bullshit we know is bullshit, all the while ignoring the vital issues.
We all deserve the shitty country we live in right now.
Go see Man of the Year, or that Chris Rock movie, or fucking Bulworth.
Obama has to GENERALIZE because he is the figurehead of a party mafe up entirely of disenfranchised out-groups. Yeah, lets tell the truth to a variety of groups, all with differenct interests. Let's tell "labor" the truth, and "hollywood" the truth. Who wins? Answer: WE ALL LOSE.
Change=good.
Repealing NAFTA=somewhere someone is more pissed off than the one person that was appeased by that "truth"
Obama "wants" whatever his pollsters have reported Democratic voters want. He's ironically running the most cynical campaign of the bunch.
I've touted it here before, but I don't think I can do it enough -- Beachwood Reporter's Obamathon is a thorough and revealing summation of the smoke and mirrors of the Obama "revolution".
to each his/her own, matilda. cause i think there's something to be said for 'i genuinely like this person and i like that they make me feel inspired and hopeful and charged up.'
i hear hillary speak and i just feel grated upon. i hear barack speak and i literally get goosebumps and tears in my eyes. maybe i just love a great orator, but there's something about him that just says: president!
Hope and Change aren't necessarily bullshit. They are inspirational terms used in Obama's speeches. So, we shouldn't elect him because he knows how to write a good speech? I would say a huge part of a president's job is his ability to be charismatic and likable.
If Obama can inspire confidence and hope in American's, then whose to say he won't be able to bring the same charisma to foreign negotiations and international affairs.
Hell, I would much rather have a president who tries to inspire confidence through inspirational terms than one who just delivers lies.
Whenever someone keeps repeating their own "sly" little joke (Fed Up's "Crook Co.", Spook's "O'bama", Rush Limabugh's "Dumborcats", "Taxachussets", etc...) it always comes off lame and uncreative. It's not that I don't agree with the central premise of the joke, I just think you can totally drive shit into the ground and come off like a retard.
Also tired? This whole Democratic primary crap. I can't wait for it to be over. Damn, they need to wrap this up soon and start spending money on the General election now.
Also, Kevin:
"I might still vote Green"
Thanks for the Iraq War, hippy (Punch to the neck)
Of course you can vote for somone based on whatever you feel are the most important qualities. And leadership certainly involves making other people want to get behind you and sacrifice.
But wouldn't it be nice to have candidates actually talk about, say, how they will fix the looming failings of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?
Or what, exactly, they might do with infrastructure?
I'd rather hear meaty talk about these issues than feel-good crap lifted, it seems, from Oprah.
Plum:
What about saying things like "webinar" and "honest to blog". Is that OK.
But also, I agree with you which is why I am asking.
And I think voting Green should be kind of a don't ask, don't tell situation. I don't care that you do it, but I don't want to hear most liberals get so fucking pissed off about it. "Unsafe at any Speed!"
Spav:
Are those digs at Diablo Cody?
And look, the two party system sucks and everything. But what does a Green party really do anyway? Splinter a coalition of the liberal left and middle? The democrats play a delicate balancing act every two years as is, and if they do it right (re: Not like John Kerry), they should win the vast majority of the time. Throw the Green Party in there, and it does nothing but help the Republicans get whatever they want.
I think I've posted this before, but if Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.
I don't trust Hillary any farther than I can throw her. She spun a cheating husband into a sweet gig as senator of a state she's not from. And this notion that she's vastly more experienced than Obama is ridiculous -- what is this, experience through osmosis?
@plumbum: This "blame Nader for 2000" thing is crap. If anyone bothered to do the math, there were eight presidential candidates who received more votes than the margin of victory (537) in Florida.
But wouldn't it be nice to have candidates actually talk about, say, how they will fix the looming failings of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid?
Here's the conclusion that I've come to -- I simply don't think that it's possible for a candidate to have all the answers before the election. What means more to me is this -- who do I think will be more likely to assemble the right people together to work together to come to the right conclusions to our problems? Obama shows me that he is that person. Hillary will put lobbyists first, Obama clearly won't.
Yes they were digs at Diablo Cody.
Third parties open a dialogue about issues that the "mainstream" candidates won't tell the "truth" about. I like Nader.
Slap: I see your point.
But I also think we need leaders to talk more often about these things, if only to make citizens think about issues that are below the radar.
For all the interest in this election, and considering how vital this election likely will turn out to be for our nation, I find that the vast majority of issues being talked about are relatively trivial (yes, we will leave Iraq--tell me how in detail, not substance-free and likely meaningless predictions of when), or even misleading (NAFTA is unlikely to go away or even be significantly amended).
I would just like to say:
Rome didn't crumble in 4 years, or 8 years. I don't think it really matters.
Hillary will put lobbyists first, Obama clearly won't.
Right, because Obama clearly shuns lobbyist support...
Please, fact check your chosen candidates, people. If you still coming away wanting to vote for them, fine, but at least you're fully informed. Obama's biggest asset is his winning smile and personality, that causes people to take the whoppers he tells at face value. I don't know if that's a trait to be exalted in a world leader.
@Prescott Carlson: So you don't think the refusal to accept lobbyist money isn't a huge deal? When one candidate is unapologetic in her support for lobbyists and the other refuses to accept their campaign contributions, I think my statement still stands on its merit. The notion that an Obama administration could completely cut lobbyists off is naive, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same clout. Forgive me for having a little faith in a candidate that took the step of refusing their money to try to prove that.
And if you think that there's a candidate out there without skeletons in their closet, or stances you think are retarded, or alliances with people you find unsavory, you're fooling yourself.
@Slap:
I hate Nader. I don't care what you say, he just sends me into a blind rage. (See also: Stroger, Todd) So anyway I can find to lace into him, I'm taking it. I'm a pretty moderate Democrat. So far in the middle, I tend to see eye to eye with Republicans on issues like gun control and nuclear power. So Nader essentially embodies every smug, "I know better than you", sniff-your-own-farts stereotype that I hate about the Far left. He just needs dreadlocks and a hacky sack to make me hate him more.
But your point about how a president doesn't really know what he's in for was dead on. And it was probably the best reason I've ever heard stated for voting for Obama... I just trust the guy for some reason. Ditto McCain. Hillary? Not so much.
The two party system is a joke whats worse is the one party system in CROOK Co. and spav I am bitter but its probably better you just go through life ignorant and naive like a good liberal. vote democratic your precinct captain loves you.
Apparently, he also likes run-on sentences.
@Slap:
While I don't think it is fair to expect our candidates to be experts on every policy, I think it is important to note that it does take an intellectual heavyweight to be a successful President.
Kissinger said regarding higher office: "It consumes intellectual capital, it doesn't create it".
So you don't think the refusal to accept lobbyist money isn't a huge deal?
It *is* a huge deal. And Obama isn't doing it. Did you even glance at the story I linked? The Obama camp merely uses other avenues to get that money, while seemingly keeping their hands clean. Obama also gets plenty of dough from A-list influential people, a fact he likes to keep quiet because it hurts his "grass roots" image.
The notion that an Obama administration could completely cut lobbyists off is naive, but that doesn't mean they need to have the same clout.
Here's another example of how lobbyists supposedly don't have clout with Obama.
And if you think that there's a candidate out there without skeletons in their closet, or stances you think are retarded, or alliances with people you find unsavory, you're fooling yourself.
An Obama supporter telling me I'm fooling myself, interesting... see, that's just it -- I know there's no "perfect candidate", and I don't even fault Obama for his tactics, he's just playing the game he needs to to win the White House. Fine. People agree with his policy points. Fine. You just like him. Great. It's those that are voting for him strictly because they buy his bullshit of a "different kind of politics" is what's annoying to me. It's not as if overwhelming evidence to the contrary isn't out there for the average person to find and read. To just dismiss it all out of hand is intellectually dishonest.
These are the same people that thought the bluebirds would sing and our troops would be home if only the Dems ran Congress and Nancy Pelosi was in charge.
I know trying to wake up the Obama faithful is fruitless, like arguing with a Christian, but I'm just laying a historical track for my big I TOLD YOU SO in a couple of years.
@ Prescott:
Thanks for the condescension. I've found that anyone who strongly believes in something can be frustrating to talk to when you have an opposing belief. Such is life.
No one is claiming that Obama is "the chosen one" or has a completely spotless record. However, what Obama supporters believe is that he can change the tone in Washington, something that Hillary definitely cannot do (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama). He is also an extremely intelligent guy - people who say that he is all flash and no substance have obviously never visited his website and read his policy documents (oftentimes more detailed than Hillary's). He has just made a STYLISTIC decision to be inspiration on his STUMP speeches. However, he can be boring and professorial with the rest of them (from the above article):
"Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I’d just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over."
People who point to Bush in 2000 are missing the point - when Bush was running his first race, we KNEW he wasn't the brightest spark (remember Al Gore's sighing and eye rolling antics?). All the info on his competency (or lack thereof) were staring us in our collective faces. And yet he "won" by a hair - people wanted a "nice guy" after 8 years of Clinton antics.
Obama is FUNDAMENTALLY different. As I mentioned, there is no disputing his intelligence - if you don't want to take Columbia or Harvard Law's word for it (and he got in on his own steam, not because of Daddy's legacy, mind you), then look up his old speeches, listen to his debates, read his policies. He also says he wants to change the politics of Washington. And he generally practices what he preaches (of course, one must be cognizant of political realities) - you see that in his actions in the senate, but also his approach to the campaign. In fact, the article in the Boston Globe you link to states: "The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital." That is precisely the point.
Prescott, I know I will never convince you, so I shouldn't even try, but the evidence is out there for you to find! You talk about overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yet you link to Obamathon, with only one person - Steve Rhodes - authoring all the articles, and other articles that are less than convincing. That's just intellectual laziness.
You talk about overwhelming evidence to the contrary, yet you link to Obamathon, with only one person - Steve Rhodes - authoring all the articles, and other articles that are less than convincing. That's just intellectual laziness.
No, it's called efficiency. Saying Steve Rhodes "author[ed] all the articles" is misleading -- the pieces on Obamathon reference and link to numerous sources, they are far from opinion pieces. Much easier to use that as a jumping off point than to litter this comment thread with a list of links, no?
Interesting your only other comment on the network, Chewie, was another Obama post on Gothamist where you used similar wording and tone (and capitalization). So, just curious, what's your role with the campaign?
Oh, and oops.
I think it's probably worth noting at this point that I actually don't support any of the current 3 viable candidates...