Obama '08?

You had a legitimate enough complaint, Soz. You've admired Obama every bit as much as Snood... and Snood's conceded to the ugly side of what's feasible as much as you. The only real difference is you haven't much voiced the distaste doing so leaves in your mouth as much as Snood, presumably because it's obvious enough with you that you need not voice it. I'd wager Snood will be by soon to concur.

Pity you're taking such a narrow approach, because I was kinda looking forward to your reaction to my semi-joking McCain/Obama Ticket.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Nimh, you think snood's comment that "Its like you are really just talking about a quantifiable commodity, and not a man," was fair?

I dont think I ever said anything about that?

I was reacting to where you wrote, "This thread is about feasiblity." I was agreeing with Snood where he answered, "Well I don't know that the subject matter of the thread had been all that narrowly well defined, until just now."

But I understand that what you meant to say was, well, thats what I want to talk about, anyway - and just because I want to talk about that here, doesnt mean I dont appreciate the man/topic in other ways as well. That makes sense.

But my other point was, as well, that by focusing too much on feasibility, one risks overlooking the one commodity a person has to bring to the sale that is able to overturn (almost) all others: personality. Studying feasbility, basically, I guess what I want to say is, can map the possible pitfalls and possible advantages, but it can only go so far in predicting what will actually happen. That in fact, it might overlook the most important thing by its concentration on all the other important things.

Just look at Edwards. He never even got to stumble over the pitfalls that were mapped out for him (too lawyery etc), because he turned out to fail exactly on the score that the feasibility mappers had identified as his plus: winning over the audience's emotions in a live, debate setting. Instead, he sounded like a robot. Can work the other way round too - feasibility mappers would have cancelled Clinton from the list if they'd known about the adultery and stuff - but being who he was, he managed to even turn his confession on that to his advantage.

So yeah, apart from candidates who are just truly out there like Sharpton or Kucinich, I think perhaps, post-Kerry, one should just vote for who one thinks is the right guy, and take a gamble on that? I mean, I personally dont think America is ready to elect a black president, but Id love to see a major party try, and who knows.

0 Replies

I've said a few things since then, nimh. (And before then, I said "completely agreed about personality.") (Which, by the way, I've also said myself a few times in a few ways... can get cites if you'd like.)

The only part I disagree with there is that no, I don't want the Democrats to nominate someone who is plain unelectable, not in 2008, not with this group of potential opponents. I think there is a lot to be said for taking a chance, as long as it's a somewhat reasonable chance. I think (at this point, anyway) I've decided that Obama is somewhat reasonable, except for that minor detail of the fact that he's maintaining he has no intention of running... ;-)

O'Bill, (and everyone), the thread doesn't need to be that narrowly defined, no. We'd talked about that ticket somewhere, I forget if it was here or elsewhere -- the first time it came up, I was like WOW!! I have serious reservations about McCain, though, so while I love the bipartisan and powerhouse aspects to it, it would seriously temper my enthusiasm for an Obama ticket if McCain were on it, I think.

If it were the only way to get Obama into the White House...? Hmmm. Maybe, if Obama was in the presidential slot.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I've said a few things since then, nimh.

A few things since what, since "This thread is about feasiblity"? Which was the thing I commented in disagreement about? I am now completely lost on what your issue with my post was.

0 Replies

This one, in particular:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1945241#1945241

In sum:

I was indignant that snood seemed to be saying I didn't appreciate who Obama is as a man. That's what I was reacting to -- that's where feasibility came from. What I was saying, with feasibility, is that if I haven't said a lot about who Obama is as a person, it's because I started this thread specifically to talk about feasibility.

But then I realized I HAD talked about him as a person, too.

And I also realized that while I didn't like that implication, the central idea -- that I was talking about him as a commodity -- was not so different from my idea of feasibility. (See link above.) So I stepped back from the indignation.

The issue I had with your posts is that you seemed to glide right over what I thought was unfair to hone in on the fact that I apparently only wanted to talk about the feasibility -- which is not true.

This:

Quote:

This thread is about feasiblity. So that's where the discussion lies. I already know that I think the man is a fine human being.

Was taken as an edict about what everyone should talk about, when I said it in terms of, I'm not emphasizing the fact that he's a fine human being because I've already established that to my own satisfaction, and I started the thread to talk about feasibility.

However, I then modified/ clarified that pretty quickly.

Quote:

Of course we can talk about who he is, it's pertinent.

and

Quote:

It's not about what other people can or can't talk about.

If it needs to be said more plainly:

Do please talk about who he is as a person. Do please talk about anything related to Democratic race for presidential nominee, 2008.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

The issue I had with your posts is that you seemed to glide right over what I thought was unfair to hone in on the fact that I apparently only wanted to talk about the feasibility -- which is not true.

This:

Quote:
This thread is about feasiblity. So that's where the discussion lies. I already know that I think the man is a fine human being.

Was taken as an edict about what everyone should talk about, when I said it in terms of, I'm not emphasizing the fact that he's a fine human being because I've already established that to my own satisfaction, and I started the thread to talk about feasibility.

However, I then modified/ clarified that pretty quickly.

Quote:
Of course we can talk about who he is, it's pertinent.

and

Quote:
It's not about what other people can or can't talk about.

OK, lookit, I think you need to look at the sequencing of the posts again, because now you're just being unfair.

When I wrote that I agreed with Snood that it seemed "odd to now narrow it down to not just Obama, but even specifically the feasibility of Obama", you had not posted the additional above posts yet. You hadnt written the second one yet, and the first one appeared while I was writing. So I dont see what the problem with that post of mine was, in that respect.

You responded to it with a rhetorical question that seemed to me to have no bearing on what I'd written: "Nimh, you think snood's comment that "Its like you are really just talking about a quantifiable commodity, and not a man," was fair?"

So I responded by noting that I hadnt said anything about that at all, pointing out that all I had reacted to from you, in that previous post, was where you had written, "This thread is about feasiblity." In the very same post, however - next paragraph - I did actually acknowledge, that by then you had clarified that particular point already ("But I understand that what you meant to say was [etc]").

So, I dunno. Yes, I took your original "this thread is about fesaibility" thing as a bit of an edict, just like Snood and O'Bill did, and I responded to that. <shrugs> When you came back to me, I repeated that all I'd reacted to was that "edict", but added that by then I had already understood that you didn't mean it like that.

So yeah, I dont see what the bug is, but you've seemed very prickly ever since that thread with Boomer and Duck, so I'm guessing it might go back to that.

0 Replies

Eh?

No.

My last post was responding to you asking what I meant by "I've said a few things since then, nimh." I told you.

<shrug>

I'm not saying that my "this thread is about feasibility" thing wasn't taken as an edict -- I'm saying it WAS, even if it wasn't meant as such. And that I then clarified. And pointed to the clarifications. Laughing

Sorry, this is has just gone into some dimension of self-referential silliness.

On to Obama stuff.

0 Replies

Here's another "Run, Obama, Run!" article, it's interesting:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051205&s=lizza120605

Not really new points, but his layout of inexperience (now) vs. staleness (later) is nicely done.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Question: One of the writers made the point that Warner is against gay marriage, for the death penalty, and for parental notification in abortion; that "President Bush won two national elections not by appealing to the other party, but by appealing to the base."

I go back and forth on that one. I want someone electable, and that likely (well, part of what I'm trying to figure out here, re: Obama) would mean not someone who's completely to the left, a Feingold or Kucinich*, but I don't want the focus-group milquetoast.

Sorry for being blunt, but I think you're about to paralyze yourself with meta-ness: "What should I think that Republican swing voters think that we Democrats think when we nomitate ...?" A few more turns of this, and your brain will encounter a general protection fault, then crash. Have you considered going back to square one instead? From all that I read in this thread, it seems clear that Osama feels like the right choice to you. You like him as a person, you like his political program, you like everything about him -- except what others, perhaps, might think of him. What else do you need to know to decide what you're going to do come election season? Write him an e-mail. Tell him you'd be thrilled to see him run, if that's what you'd be. Set up an advocacy website. You can't make the Democratic Party's choices, but it seems clear that you've made a pretty definite choice for yourself.

Just trust your choice, trust your instincts, and go for it already!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Write him an e-mail.

:-) I've been working on it for the past few days. :-) I'll post a version here if you guys are curious.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Write him an e-mail.

:-) I've been working on it for the past few days. :-) I'll post a version here if you guys are curious.

I thought this might happen one day. Laughing

And actually, yes, I'm curious.

EDIT: I wrote my last post before I had caught up to the end of the thread. In particular, I had written it before I read this:

Sozobe wrote:

I've researched Obama thoroughly, and so far pretty much everything I see, I like -- the man, the ideas, the politician, everything. I would be absolutely thrilled to have him be the next president of the United States. I am very ready to put a great deal of effort into making that happen...

Your view was obvious even without that, though more recent posters might notice the four words "I like -- the man [...]"

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Write him an e-mail.

:-) I've been working on it for the past few days. :-) I'll post a version here if you guys are curious.

Definitely I am... might do something similar myself.

0 Replies

Oh, just saw the edit. (That you're curious.)

This is just a draft... I'm not sure how much I want to get in there about reasons, because as I say in it, it's not like he doesn't know these things.

I've taken it a few different directions so far, this is where it is now:

Dear Senator Obama, Hello, my name is [sozobe]. I lived in Chicago during your Senate run there, and was tremendously impressed by both your ideas and your ability to convey them clearly and passionately. I am a lifelong Democrat who has watched with dismay as the Democratic party has floundered in the years since Bill Clinton left office. I worked for John Kerry's campaign, and will likely work for whomever is the Democratic nominee in 2008. As a bit of a political junkie, I have been thinking about WHO I would like to work for in 2008. There is, I'm afraid, one person who stands head and shoulders above the rest. You. I was 21 in when Clinton made his first run for the presidency, and so thrilled to be able to vote for the first time for someone who was so energizing, so inspiring. I'd been an activist through the Reagan years, was used to thinking of government as corrupt and cynical, and it was so amazing to see Clinton succeed; it instilled so much optimism in who we were as a country and what we can achieve. Nobody who is in the running for President in 2008 sparks anywhere near that kind of optimism in me, save one. You. I understand that there are reasons that you wouldn't want to run, inexperience being a large one. However, I think that inexperience can be on your side in 2008, because among the people I talk to, there is a major sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo, a desire for a fresh start, something new. A desire for someone who hasn't had as much of a chance to be corrupted by a system that many people think is corrupting, who still has the energy and the fire in the belly. Now, I know that none of this is new to you. I'm just speaking as a regular citizen who is deeply concerned about this country and who would be willing to work her tail off to ensure that one person becomes president in 2008 You. Sincerely, [sozobe], M.Ed

I'm probably going to put more in the section between the second "You" and "Now, I know you understand..." I especially want to get something in there about how much I appreciate the work he's doing re: education.

It's a start, tho.

0 Replies

Very good, Soz. Gave me some ideas, as well.

0 Replies

Hey, maybe I should start an A2K petition...

Actually, I really might link to this thread in the email!

He has a blog and everything... he MIGHT show up...

Shocked

Omigodthatwouldbesocool...

0 Replies

Thanks for the feedback, snood.

0 Replies

soz, An A2K petition sounds like an excellent idea; it won't hurt to get him name recognition with a2kers plus some background info on Obama that can be shared in and out of a2k.

0 Replies

Good work, Sozobe!

You may want to weave in a discreet reference to specific experiences you made as an activist, showing that you actually know your way around the nuts and bolts of campaigning. If you show him you're competent, it's more persuasive than telling. It also adds to the image of competence that balances the groupie side of your letter.

0 Replies

It is kinda groupie-ish, isn't it? :-P

Good point.

I wanted it to be short and hoped the Reagan-era activist stuff indicated some of that, but in context it also shows that I was a teenager at the time, so something more concrete would be better.

Plus I can work in the deaf aspect there, an extra little hook.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

It is kinda groupie-ish, isn't it? :-P

No problem -- I bet he gets enough polished form letters from wannabe analysts already, so it can't hurt to send him prose that's authentically you. And your grammatical, spell-checked English already sets you apart from the kind of groupies you don't want to be confused with. When I said "good work", I meant it.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know