Obama '08?

I can only speak for myself:

Hope for a better future for our country and the world.
Hope that the hard problems will at least be confronted, even if they can't be solved (like pollution and climate change, health care, taxes, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Darfur, etc...).
Hope for real leadership in government.
Hope for change from the status quo in the federal government.

FreeDuck wrote:

I can only speak for myself:

Hope for a better future for our country and the world.
Hope that the hard problems will at least be confronted, even if they can't be solved (like pollution and climate change, health care, taxes, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Darfur, etc...).
Hope for real leadership in government.
Hope for change from the status quo in the federal government.

My guess is the hard problems will now become ignored, like terrorists, border security, etc., and expect higher taxes, universal health care and more government intrusion into everything that freedom loving people don't want, and pressure on the Israelis to give their country back to the Arabs. If you call that hope, then you obviously will love it.

okie wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

I can only speak for myself:

Hope for a better future for our country and the world.
Hope that the hard problems will at least be confronted, even if they can't be solved (like pollution and climate change, health care, taxes, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Darfur, etc...).
Hope for real leadership in government.
Hope for change from the status quo in the federal government.

My guess is the hard problems will now become ignored, like terrorists, border security, etc., and expect higher taxes, universal health care and more government intrusion into everything that freedom loving people don't want, and pressure on the Israelis to give their country back to the Arabs. If you call that hope, then you obviously will love it.

You'll notice I said that I have hope that the problems will be addressed but that I abstained from prejudging the outcome. That was on purpose. I don't suppose I know the best solution to those hard problems. From what I've seen of Obama, he doesn't think he does either, but he appears willing to try to figure it out and is able to look past the typical partisan arguments for or against everything under the sun.

As for votes, there are still almost 2 years before the next presidential election. The only way I'll even have the opportunity to vote for him is if he wins the Democratic primary or runs as a third party or independent candidate. So I'll make up my mind at that time. I'm curious how you, okie, could have made up your mind already, unless you are a party-line kind of guy.

It all depends on what you think the most important problems are, and we surely disagree.

And the political buzzword, "hope" is merely what it is, a buzzword that has little real world applicable meaning except to promote the candidate.

Finn,
Your point about Tony Blair is well taken. One need only see him on the floor of the House of Commons once to admire his skill. I think he could take Clinton (Bill) and Obama on at once in debate, and frankly, with relative ease. And when he was done doing so; I think they could switch sides and he'd beat them up again. IMO, he's the benchmark of greatness for thinking on your feet… and that would be demonstrated regardless of content. But, he never did or will have the clout that the leader of the world's only superpower has. Nor was the good will brought about by the tragedy of 9-11 his to squander. Do you really think we'd be in the exact same position were he our President?

It's not so surprising that you seem to have this idea that all the stars must align for the Expected One to appear: The Mahdi must be charasmatic, eloquent, and an excellent extemporaneous speaker, he must be striving for the the most exalted position within the greatest power of man on earth, and he must do so at a time when the world yearns for his presence. Unfortunately, these stars have not all aligned for Obama, and it wasn't the lesser post of UK PM that inexorably brought to failure Tony Blair's eloquence and charisma.

Blair, despite his eloquence and charisma, is not beloved either in his homeland or in the rest of the world. Do you believe that given more power he would be?

Eloquence is a sign of intellect. We will never see an eloquent moron. We will, however, see, an eloquent bastard. Charisma is a powerful tool for a leader. We will rarely see a powerful leader without charisma, but we will frequently see dangerous leaders with charisma.

Experience is not everything, but it is more than eloquence, and charisma is an exposive trait that can serve or destroy. If all one can demonstrate is eloquence and charisma, then I say, be very very careful.

No, I don't think Hillary or Al Gore could handle either Giuliani or McCain in a debate….though I think each Choir would walk away believing their guy won. Laugh if you must, but I predict Obama would (will?) overshadow any Republican I'm familiar with and even leave some Right-leaner's wondering about him. The independents are what really matter, and if you doubt the importance of selling your product to an undecided… then you're just being stubborn.

And the late, extremely charismatic, Rudolph Nureyev, in a a media setting would have overshadowed just about every politician in America. Should we have sought to annoint him as out leader? Your fixation on popularity doesn't invoke laughter, but rather concern.

If you were arguing for Obama from a cynical position, I would have less concern. Indeed, Obama's glamour is such that he could conceivably turn the heads of enough voters in America to become president. Would this prove he was the right man for the job?

I've never stated that Obama's skills "promise greatness" in a potential Presidency. My points were mostly about electability and you seem to be coming around on that point. I suspect he has you a little more shook up than you'd care to admit, because his politics are so nearly opposite yours AND he has a legitimate chance of winning.

I'm afraid I am unable to accept your current argument that you have only been arguing about his electability rather than his leadership. Are you denying that you have expressed a positive attitude towards his candidancy?

I am happy to admit that I am shook up about a Obama candidancy, because I see absolutely no reason to vote for him other than his charisma and eloquence (I am not a liberal, after all, and he is a liberal), and yet so many people do, and without rationale foundation. If we are ever going to elect a Savior, and I sincerely doubt we ever will, there is absolutely no reason to believe than it will be Obama.

I also think you overestimate the importance of experience every bit as much as you think I underestimate it. I have zero experience, yet am confident that with a competent Brain Trust I would make sound decisions. As absurd as it may sound, knowledge isn't everything. Jimmy Carter was arguably the smartest President in history, and his Presidency was in my opinion a disaster. Where do you suppose Reagan or Teddy Roosevelt would place on that scale?

Perhaps I do overestimate experience, but I doubt I do to the extent that you underestimate it, and perhaps you do not have a proper understanding of what I mean by the term.

Experience is not longevity. I have known a multitude of people who have evidenced a long history of employment but only the "experience" of their first year on the job.

Experience is learning. It is making mistakes and avoiding them. It is wisdom. Long term politicians do not all have experience. It is not coincidental that we find experience and wisdom among those who have spent many decades on earth. They are not the only ones with this quality, but there is nothing in Obama's history to suggest that he had compressed 60 to 70 years of life in 30 to 40.

My instinct that Obama is an honest man who would try to make decisions for the good of the country isn't a simple reflection of his charisma, looks, or winning smile. I can't define precisely where the instinct comes from, which is why I labeled it instinct. I can tell you that IMO Bill Clinton shares those same attributes, but I've always found him considerably less than honest and never thought for a moment he'd consider what's best for the country and never even considered giving him my vote… so it damn sure isn't that.

Has it really come to this that we are ready to elect someone simply because our instinct tells us he is honest and will try to make decisions for the good of the country? Not to be crude but we can also bet that a mental defective is honest and will try to do good. As much as I have no use for Bill Clinton, do you really think that he wasn't perfectly content with the notion that he was trying to make decisions for the good of the country? Surely there were moments when his powers of rationalization were taxed in this regard, but in the whole I am as certain that he believed that, in general, he was doing what was right for the country as I am certain that President Obama will allow personal political calculations to influence his judgment.

I voted for Jimmy Carter because he seemed to be a "good man" in a time when I was very cynical about politicians. I have never more regreted a vote. He was a horrible president.

The qualities of a good president are a complex stew that go far beyond simple attractive traits. Unfortunately it seems to be the attractive traits than get them elected.

finn

Perhaps in the future, circumstances will roll around such that I find your posts careful and thoughtful rather than what they've become. We'll talk then. I look forward to it.

snood wrote:

So what are you saying, Foxfyre? It's hard for me to follow. You don't think the right is trying to use the name, or you do, but all's fair because the left did it with Bush, or its much ado about nothing, or its actually the left that's attacking Obama, or...what?

I think its simple - you like the discussion about Obama's name or his ears, the same way I like discussions about Bush's acumen and mentality.

The rest is just a bunch of tap-dancing. Attacks are attacks. Partisanship is partisanship. Just be for real.

I think the right AND the left are using the name for media interest and nothing else at the moment. It's something to write about. And I think those who are trying to make it into something more than it is are doing Obama a huge disservice by making something that isn't a sensitive issue into one.

If you've seen the commercial, you will appreciate this:

Okie, I don't know how you can not know anything about what Obama is for and against, unless you are willfully trying to ignore it when he says it. Did you read from the link about foreign policy? Have you seen his website? Did you listen to any of his speech in New Hampshire?

I happen to have had my curiosity satisfied about whether he does anything but "talk good" by looking into what he believes. It ain't that hard to find.

Unless someone is already dead set on saying and thinking nothing but negative about him - those people probably don't care whether they agree with his beliefs or not - and they'll never try to find out.

In memory of J Brown, and in recognition of Finn's last series of posts here (the series which goes back about a year), let us henceforth refer to Finn as "the godfather of scroll".