Barack Obama’s Victory Speech: A Plea For A New Kind And Tone Of Politics
Yes, you can almost now taste a generational shift in American politics…but like most generational shifts the old generation is going to battle and resist it tooth and nail.
And it most assuredly did in South Carolina where former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton — called the “Billary” campaign by some — ran a conventional provoke-and-destroy 1990s-2007 kind of negative campaign against Senator Barack Obama. And, in the style of those campaigns, they denied they were doing just that. Many voters, pundits — and top Democrats — vigorously disagreed.
In the end, Obama won the South Carolina primary by a big margin. And in his victory speech below – his best televised speech yet — he makes the plea for change and warns followers that the systemic, attitudinal, and political stylistic change “will not come easy.” He argues there is massive cynicism that denies change is possible and perpetuates it, but those ideas “are not the America we believe in.”
Watch the speech. And realize: a speech does not a nomination make.
But there are clearly people in younger generations (and also disgusted people in their 50s, 60s and older) who want change. And there is now a movement…and a voice…clamoring for change that would put a premium on consensus, aggregating interests and forward-looking thinking. And — as you see in music, the arts, fashion, lifestyles — sooner or later the new ideas DO win out.
Part I:
Part II:
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Barack Obama’s Victory Speech: A Plea For A New Kind And Tone Of Politics”
To believe that a Chicago machine politician running on boiler plate Democratic Party positions can either create consensus or create change is very naive. Believing that a black politician who the MSM has put in a position of being beyond criticism can create a new way in politicis is laughable.
Before anyone gets to excited about Senator Obama, please explain how someone whose immigration policy proposals are almost identical to President Bush's proposal except for less border security and no fine can be seen as either developing consensus or creating change?
What the South Carolina primary has demonstrate is that the identify politics that has define campaigns between Democrats and Republicans has now spilled over into the Democratic Primary. America has seen the future of politics as the Republican Party collapses. The Democratic Primary will become the only relevant election and it will be defined by identity and special interest groups.
Obama = Bush!
And it's all because of identity politics!!
Since the MSM has placed him beyond criticism!!!
Oh dear. I'm all confused! I thought Obama = Reagan?
Seriously though — superdestroyer, have you read Obama's immigration position? Where are you getting the “no fines” from?
Ok, Senator Obama's position mentions fines for illegal aliens (even though he does not used the term). That makes his position almost identifcal to President Bush's proposal. so, where is the change. Also, how does he plan to develop consensus for a plan that most Americans do not support and do not want?
Once again, Senator is the same politics and the same positions dressed up in a new package so that elite whites can feel good about themselves.
If you look at how black activist have functioned in Chicago, consensus would not be a description. My guess is that Senator Obama will propose a defacto open borders program can call anyone who opposes it a racist and a bigot. Not exactly a real change in politics.
Yes, Obama's position is very much like the Senate plan that got stomped by the House. Maybe a nuance or two here and there are different, but not much. Since I favored that plan, that works for me — and obviously if the Senate plan didn't work for you, then neither will Obama's.
But sd, when you say,
…I hear “I don't care what he says. He's lying”. My guess (and you may have expressed this unequivocally elsewhere) is that short of a massive wall and many hundreds of thousands of buses loaded and headed south, there really isn't a plan — and very few presidential candidates — that would suit you.
? Where is the change? I think you've missed the point of Obama's message, sd. It's summed up, though, in the title of this blog post.
I fail to see the new kind of politics. Continuing on with government programs and policies that most people do not like is nothing new. Promising people a whole buffet line of entitlement is not new. P.laying the race card just like you did to force people to be quiet about immigration is not new.
Instead of trying to demonstrate that open borders and amnesty is good for the country, that is will not adversely impact cities, neighborhoods, or schools, that immigration will not destroy business, alter the make up of cities, or lower wages.
Of course, a really change in politics would discuss the facts of policy changes. Yet, Senator Obama is definitely not doing that. He talks about himself and change and consensus. Yet, I see no real change and no real consensus. Consensus in Chicago politics is agreement with me or else. Senator Obama is definitely in that mode.
Of course, the real change in politics is the collapse of the Republican Party and the coming of the one party state. That is something that Senator Obama will feel at home with considering his political experience in Chicago.
SD, if you think I just played a race card, you've lost your mind. Which kind of puts this entire dialogue into context.
SD: 'To believe that a Chicago machine politician running on boiler plate Democratic Party positions can either create consensus or create change is very naive.'
A black pol as part of the Chicago machine. Yes, I'm sure he's a Daley boy. SD, take that inhaler again.
I think it's important to be clear of what we mean by change. Broadly speaking there are two types of change. The first would be policy changes, which will come about with any new administration (and even Bush made policy changes upon his second coming). The second type of change, which this post is about, I believe, is the tone and kind of politics, such as working together across party lines to accomplish objectives.
On the first type of change- the policy part, I don't think Obama will invade any oil-rich middle-eastern (or otherwise) countries and award no-bid contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars solely to his political supporters. That's just one example. Hillary, when she talks about change, only has this type of change in mind.
On the second point- change in tone- I don't think think Obama will inject religion into the race, turning neighbors against neighbors, to try to win an election (as Bush did in 2004 and as Billary is doing now, though not as blatantly, with race). I use religion as just one example. But the whole Bush presidency has been about “us versus them”. Hillary is clueless about this second type of change. When the country talks about change, this is what most people refer to. The Dem candidates positions may be the same or very similar, but it is the change of tone- which Hillary can't deliver in a million years- that most matters. I think both Hillary and Bush are very polarizing figures. I also feel that Obama has worked towards consensus. I have not seen one shred of evidence in Obama that is, “my way or the highway”. He started as a community organizer, without the benefit of family (or any other) connections in Chicago. In order for him to get anything done in that position would have required intelligence, flexibility and negotiations. The only people who are in a “my way or the highway” position are those who have tons of money (enough that they don't have to work) and tons of connections. Obama doesn't have those things. Both Bush and Clinton do.
Polimom and cosmoetica- right on!