Obama

[poliphilo]

I suspect- being very cold and rational about it- that Hillary is the better bet- the one with the experience and the background and the policies- but it's hard not to find Obama exciting. He 's smart, impassioned, unspun, untainted- and he makes people feel good about themselves. When was the last time American politics threw up a candidate like this? Bill Clinton? No, not really. I reckon you have to go back as far as Bobby Kennedy.

We've been through a really dreary, depressing time and here, suddenly- appearing out of nowhere like Joan of Arc-  is this brilliant young man- and he's drawing crowds like no politician in recent history has been able to draw them- not just of the faithful but of the unaligned and traditionally antagonistic.   He may not go all the way- and if he does he'll disappoint us- but every society needs these "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive" moments. They're not about substance but about hope and the revival of national myth. America had become old and brutish- the country of Dick Cheyney and Donald Rumsfeld- and that's how not she likes to think of herself. (It's not how her traditional allies like to think of her either.) Thanks to Obama in the last couple of weeks we've caught a glimpse of a better, rootsier America- energetic, pioneering, idealistic and- above all else- young.

Comments

[suemars.livejournal.com]

i like obama also, hes got my vote so far. i really don't care for hilary, just something about her...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Hillary has been around too long. She's deeply implicated in the "culture wars" of the past 20 years- and a very divisive figure.

She also represents the sort of dynastic politics- where a person gets the job because of who their relations are- which the Bushes have exploited and made so repellent.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Here's the thing about our "Presidents" - the smart ones surround themselves with experts, so that they don't have to be an expert on everything.

Frankly, we need more not-so-much-politicians in office. The career politicians are all corrupt to some degree, and it's just one of the reasons our country is going into the toilet.

That's not to say that Clinton would be a horrible President - far from it. Just that really, we need less politicians and more people who really want to make a difference (and no matter what garbage they are spouting, most politicians want to keep the status quo).

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

"the smart ones surround themselves with experts, so that they don't have to be an expert on everything."

This has been George Bush's tactic. I don't think it's worked all that well.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I'd have to disagree with that - Bush surrounded himself with corrupt cronies who have proven time and again they have no clue what they're doing.

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

God knows I'm reluctant to be put in the position of defending The Shrublet, but the people he has surrounded himself with were people who had, for the most part, prior experience in those jobs. The corrupt cronies were political appointees--not in the inner circle.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The American president is also a national figurehead- a symbolic figure- and the last person who really filled that role adequately was Ronald Reagan.

[dakegra.livejournal.com]

I'm excited about the prospect of Obama for President. Young, intelligent, seems like he actually cares about stuff.

Basically, all the things George W. isn't.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Electing Obama president would be the most fantastic public relations exercise.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

He IS exciting. I saw and heard his speech at the Democratic Convention during the Kerry/Edwards debacle. He was electrifying! But I don't know about untainted. At his very best, Bill Clinton is mesmerizing. It is helping his wife's campaign because HE is a people person and she's not so much. For the last few years, I had thought perhaps she was the right person for the job - but just because she is a woman, doesn't mean that she is. Ron Paul (the Republican candidate who is setting all kinds of money raising records) scares me to death. If the attack in September of 2001 did nothing else, it scared this country. I see the fundamentalist 'backlash' as a direct result of that.

Of course, we know NOW that it was mostly John Kennedy's fault this country got involved in Viet Nam, he turned out not to be quite as golden as everyone thought he was.

I'm watching, and paying attention. I'm not declaring myself as a supporter of anyone as yet. I'm sick of the petty nyah nyah nyah, yes you did, no I didn't. And you're right, he probably will disappoint us. But he managed to polarize the young people in Iowa, and get out the vote. That in itself is AMAZING.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Mike Huckabee is extremely frightening as well.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

Yes, but he's got Chuck Norris on his side. Which I don't find the least bit funny!

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

Agree. And scariest of all, the moment that incredibly stupid Huckabee-Norris commercial came out (November, I think), Huckabee's ratings skyrocketed. Maybe this kind of dumb mob mentality is what the founding fathers were afraid of, creating the electoral college to save American democracy from itself.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

The first thing I thought when I saw that ad?

"Looks like Huckabee has his Oprah."

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

If nothing else Obama is good for democracy. It's great to see so many people- young and old- turning out to vote.

I think Hillary is shop-soiled. She belongs to a not very edifying past. Also she's terribly divisive. I'd love to see a woman become president- but not this one.

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

Eisenhower sent the first "advisors" into Vietnam in 1954 after the French cut out. Our country could not bear to see another country turn red at that time, and in a fair election, Ho Chi Minh would have become the president of a united Vietnam.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

I know you're right historically.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

I'm refraining from forming any firm opinion or choice as yet. I like Hillary. I like Obama. Unless both disappoint in some major way right now I think either has good and bad to offer. Inspirational is nice, of course, as is charisma. But what it comes down to is who will best serve and fulfill their campaign promises to the best of their abilities. So I watch and wait for now. I think Feb. 5 will be the decisive date, our "super Tuesday" with primaries galore.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree. It's far too early to call the result. A great deal can happen over the next few months.

And isn't there the posibility that Bloomberg may run as an Independent?

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

Bloomberg may run and he certainly has the funds to do so but he's a democrat turned republican and that puts me off a good bit. Independents don't do very well in US politics but I suppose if he wants to make a statement he is entitled. I really have to do more research on the guy to know what he's all about but at first glance I'm not inclined to trust him.

[sculptruth.livejournal.com]

I lived under Bloomberg's administration in NY after 9/11 and post Guiliani and he did a bang-up job on that city. (especially since we were all double scarred from the events and a corrupt mayor).
The truth is, he switched the ticket because he wanted to appeal to fiscally conservative big business that essentially runs New York which in itself, is a business more than it is a city. He's a very socially liberal person. He also funded his own campaign almost entirely out of his own pocket. He did the dirty work that noone was going to be popular for, and he did it well. I approved of the choices he made, even though they weren't popular ones because they were necessary ones. I hope your research comes up positively.

I'm liberal as hell. I also resent the fact that the media is supporting only two of the Democratic candidates when we have at least two more viable runners-- Kucinich and Edwards. I will vote for either of those two in the Primaries, and only vote for Obama or Hillary if I have to in the general election. Electrifying and experienced does not the perfect candidate make.

But I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.

Incidentally, I heard a rumour that if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican ticket, he'll run as an Independent as well.

This is the most interesting, frightening, and invigorating race in my voting history.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

Thank you for an insider's view. Being an expat in Europe for so long I try to follow US politics and policy, vote etc. but am often lacking sharper perspectives no matter how well informed I try to be.

Liberal as hell describes me, also.
:)
And I so agree with your final statement. It will be an entertaining year to put it mildly.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I seem to be one of the few Americans out there who is suspicious of Obama. To me, he feels like a paper tiger, a feel-good media construct. Having Oprah stump for him hasn't endeared him to me at all in that regard. If he secures the Democratic nomination (and at this point it seems very likely he will), I will have to do some serious research into his background and political platform.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

It's always right to be suspicious of politicians.

The present vibe around Obama reminds me of the vibe around Blair when he won the '97 election. That was a glorious victory for youth and progress- which very, very quickly turned sour.

[aerodrome1.livejournal.com]

Alas--- Obama looks far too much like Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films. The American people will not vote for a man who murdered his own brother to get the One Ring.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I don't know. His eyes are a lot smaller.

[margaretarts.livejournal.com]

I'm all for Obama right now, but I'm watching everyone carefully. Not watching for simple human missteps which the media loves to exploit and rerun for prime time, but watching what the candidates seem to be really saying inside. Notice how every time H Clinton says, "It's all about America, I care about what Americans feel," she shakes her head side to side, as if to say, "I can't believe I'm saying this stupid stuff." Whereas Obama seems to be the real deal, does believe in what he's saying; I just wonder why he, a brilliant young man with so much promise, wants to enter such a rat's nest as the presidential palace. I could imagine him getting elected and, 8 years later, he leaves the White House, possibly embittered, with gray hairs already sprouting, not having been able to push through reforms dear to his heart, seeing that "we the people" really do not rule this nation, only a few people do. Why does Obama really want to be president now, when so much is crumbling -- is it really to change the course of America or for some other reason? But I do agree with you, it would be a perfect time for hope and revival. So much is riding on this election.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't want the job in a million years.

But power, fame, constant attention, a place in the history books, the assurance that people will be discussing your character and achievements for the forseeable future, possibly forever- that's quite a prize.

email

[(Anonymous)]

just a reminder that I've just replied to your last one....

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

I sincerely hope that nobody out there is lumping Hillary Clinton in with the "old folks network" and going for Obama simply because of his youth and his gift of gab. The media started on Hillary the day after her husband was elected to the presidency, and they have not let up since. The attacks on her candidacy are mostly sexist, gender-specific. After the twelve years of Reagan and Bush the First, Bill Clinton came along as a breath of fresh air (HE was the youngster THEN!), and cleaned up the economic mess left us as a Republican legacy. It took Bush the Second less than six months to wipe out the Clinton surplus and escalate the national debt and the deficit a la Reagan, and less than two years to get us into an unjustified war. And still, my people, the American people, voted Bush the Second a second term (Just like they did with Reagan). I really hope that the revisionists who have rewritten the history of the 1980's will not succeed in doing the same with Bush the Second's presidency.
Meanwhile, back to Hillary, and Obama. How about neither of these? How about Edwards, who at this point does not look as if he has the chance of the proverbial snowball?
For my money, I do not see a Republican sitting in the White House during the next eight years -- George Bush the Second settled that, but good. I am not that worried about this election, because I know there will be a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Which one is the question?
For me, I will not vote against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, because she is older, because of "dynasty" fear, or because of a personality issue. I will not vote for Obama because of his boyish appeal, his eloquence (Hitler was eloquent, too), his race, or his "first of his kind" approach. I will not vote against John Edwards because he got an expensive haircut, or because he "selfishly" kept on his campaign after his wife's cancer was pronounced incurable.
I am heartily sick of the media deciding for me what I will think and for whom I should vote. And so, I am looking at the record, at the platforms, and yes, at the person him-or-herself.
And now for my prediction: The Democratic slate will be Obama/Clinton OR Clinton/Obama, and they will win the general election! And that, my friends, is a whole lot better than anything the Republican party can offer.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The guy on the TV news has just said that Clinton is in danger of being "swept away by generational change". I don't have a problem with that. The past twenty odd years in American politics have been characterised by savagely divisive factionalism- and Hillary has been at the heart of that- more sinned against then sinning admittedly- but still part of an ugly scene which people are sick of and would like to see changed. In terms of ability she may well be the best of the candidates, but ability isn't what this election is going to be about.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

ability isn't what this election is going to be about.

One of the more astute observations about this election.

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

So much for being swept away by "generational change". Hillary has taken New Hampshire, and as I type Obama is making his concession speech. Of course there are many more primaries to go, and anything can happen. However, New Hampshire has boosted Hillary's numbers nationwide from probable loser of national election to probable winner. On to Michigan! New Hampshire voters are a majority of Independents, who only declare for a party when they go to the polls for a primary, and who have the right to switch back to Independent for the national election. What is really significant about this primary is that New Hampshire's Independents often lean toward the Republicans, but tonight, Hillary Clinton's 72,000+ votes outnumbered John McCain's 55,000, a significant Democrat victory.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yup, the pundits got it wrong. Which is really rather reassuring.

And good for the democratic process.

This is all set to be a really exciting race.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

Would Clinton accept a role as Vice President to Obama? I have a hard time seeing that.

[halfmoon-mollie.livejournal.com]

I'd like to point something out here, something I heard on the radio the other day but something I have been thinking myself.

We have

Obama
McCain
Huckabee
Paul
Guiliani

and...Hilary.

Now. I realize that there has been a Clinton in politics for a long time, but anyone with any sense knows which Clinton is running. Is it just because she's a woman?

Just food for thought.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

"Is it just because she's a woman?"

Yes I think it is.

On the other hand RFK was often referred to simply as Bobby- in order to distinguish him from his brother

[internet-sampo.livejournal.com]

I feel the same with that you do towards Obama, in spite of myself. Most americans get easily sucked into the "Washington outsider" trope (see Bill Clinton, George Bush). But that's given us a) the best Republican president in memory (Bill Clinton) and b) the best total failure president in memory (George Bush).
I read this op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem and I was floored by my own blindness to what was going on. Hillary really is the fresh perspective, the female perspective.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I take Steinem's point. I'd love to see a woman as president- I'm just not sure I want to see this particular woman.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm very skeptical about nearly all of the presidential candidates although I do like Kucinich. There's all this excitement about change, new policies etc that but at the end of the day the democrats are just as complicit in all of the bad stuff that has happened, for instance funding and agreeing to colonial war in Iraq at the expense of the lives of who knows how many innocents, and they seem to have done nothing of note to right or prevent so many of the wrongs that have occured since 9/11 - all the civil liberty erosion. They're pretty much all as bad as each other in my book. Sorry if this seems less than enthusiastic but I can't see America pulling itself out of the s**t any time soon - Tom F

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't disagree.

What Obama achieved in Iowa was a moment of uplift- which may be over now- a moment when- briefly- we caught a glimpse of another, better America. Yes, it was "such stuff as dreams are made on"- but dreams are important too.