@Theaetetus,
Aedes wrote:Not even close. Obama's mandate is one that people will evaluate over 1-2 presidential terms, or at minimum by the time of the midterm elections. Bush's mandate after 9/11 was a matter of hours, days, and weeks -- impose security and intelligence measures, then form an international coalition and a response. No one had a problem with all flights being grounded, Manhattan being completely closed off, etc. Obama's only urgent mandate is to fix the economy, which is something that everyone knows is far beyond quick fixes. His other mandates, like fixing our international standing and calming down our destructive political climate are not urgent and everyone knows they will take time.
I don't mean that he has a just mandate to fix something, I mean that he has practically a mandate from the American people because he is so popular right now. When Bush's approval rating was sky high, he could do anything because it was not politically feasible to oppose him. Obama has that same thing going right now. He isn't supported for his views, he is supported because he has worked his supporters into a fervor. This leaves him able to bring out an agenda under the veil of hope and causes those who resist it to be labeled as opposed to change.
The same thing went with Bush and patriotism.
Then you aren't very familiar with the way people choose their political alliances in this country.
Democrats have already swept under the rug Obama's calls for a civilian paramilitary force as well funded as the military, and his appointment of a man who has called for compulsory civil service for 18-25 year olds as his chief of staff. They don't care about his militaristic posturing against Iran. They don't care that he has been largely complicit in securing Fannie Mae as one of those businesses that cannot fail no matter how corrupt and inept they are.
He is quite plainly not much of a change, and he is obviously not a really good solution, but people are mesmerized by him.
Quote: You're desperately trying to twist my viewpoint into yours, but it's not working. Bush had an approval rating under 30% before Obama ever declared his candidacy. Fear of a third Bush term was a common theme used by the Obama campaign, but it was unnecessary -- the country was independently trying to expunge itself of the Bush era.
Obama wasn't running against Bush, he was running against McCain, and prior to the election McCain had the reputation as an unconventional conservative.
Quote: One can also be selective about what one says and when one says it while still being truthful. It's called self-discipline.
I'm not talking about being polite here. I am talking about avoiding the truth when it is politically expedient.
Quote:Not familiar enough to have prevented you from saying the following:
How do you reconcile your stated familiarity with the speech with that clearly incorrect assessment of its contents?
I watched the speech on youtube after he made it and I read the transcript after you provided a link to it. Where does he do anything other than say "Wright made wrong statements, but they must be understood in terms of racial conflict"?
They were not racially motivated, in fact they praised a white political figure in one instance. Wrights comments could have come from any political observer, not just a black man who was raised in a time of oppression.
Does he make any statement about the current state of affairs concerning what is wrong, what is right, and what we should do? As far as I can tell he simply says we need to work together and change things. Every politician in history has made such assertions.
As with everything it seems from him, this speech was an eloquent, but vacuous, message of hope and change.
Quote: I'm afraid I no longer have any idea what kind of point you're trying to make. I don't know what people may or may not dispute. But I can tell you that few other major politicians ever in the history of this country would ever have delivered a speech of that sort. It's easy to dismiss and condemn. It's not easy to explain.
Few other politicians
could have made that speech. No major white politician would dare touch racial issues and there hasn't been a black politician of his stature.
My point, though, is that he said absolutely nothing but made it sound good. Blacks have been oppressed and there is residual damage to the black community? You don't say! Whites are somewhat justified in being angered if a black person gets a job because of his race? You don't say!
What should we do about it, Mr. Obama? That is the question. His answer seemed to be "we should all come together and elect me".
Quote: Furthermore, you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge that he might have actually meant what he said in that speech.
No, I'm just saying that it is not hard to mean what he said.
It was nothing new and nothing that most people don't already believe.
It was a speech that was immensely hard to dispute.
Next time he can deliver a speech and say that our capitalist system has resulted in a great wealth gap, but full scale socialism is not the answer. That will ruffle some feathers.
Quote:All these things you think he should have said may actually differ from his views. Furthermore, he waged a campaign in which he was fully able to criticize his own country's actions and policies without using inflammatory language like "we have engaged in state terrorism".
I'm sorry, but can you point out even a sugar-coated statement where he calls out American foreign policy for its immorality or the American justice system for its endemic racism?
Just for the record, what major changes has Obama proposed? What is his major shift in direction from Bush Jr?
