An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Rational Minds and Obama
H/t Andrew Sullivan for drawing attention to this video segment, above; it’s well worth your time. And personally, I think the young man featured in this segment has a shot at running for and winning the Presidency some day.
On the larger questions — Is Obama nothing more than empty rhetoric? Are his supporters slightly unhinged? — check out Sullivan’s take on the subject, preceding this video. Money line: “… the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is.”
I trust Democrats in the remaining primary and caucus states are considering these points, especially if they want to win the White House later this year.
12 Responses to “Rational Minds and Obama”
Obama's not going to win the Presidency for the Democratic Party – only Hillary Clinton can do that.
Hillary's not going to win the Presidency for the Democratic Party – only Obama can do that. Bumper sticker comments are essentially worthless – agree?
[...] via The Moderate Voice. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Great video, Pete! I might have to lift it over to my blog too.
And I have to disagree with Holly. While I can't say that Obama would win the Presidency, I really think Hillary will polarize the electorate in a general election worse than we've ever seen before… and would lose. I'm not sure we (the USA) can withstand a deepening of the wedge.
I would also recommend Lawrence Lessig's pro-Obama video as well. It's about 20 minutes long but a quite compelling and rational argument for the Obama candidacy.
Where in God's name does Mike (the interviewer) get the idea that you can get an effective Blue Cross policy for $160 a month? Not in this universe you can't. For a more realistic take on health insurance costs look at this post from Angry Bear.
If you want to see unhinged supporters read some online posts by Ron Paul supporters. Really. I haven't seen any Obama supporters approach the cult believer level of many of Paul's supporters.
And what's the thing with the “empty rhetoric” accusations? Isn't properly applied rhetoric the greatest weapon a popular President can have? Hasn't that been forgotten given what we've had for the last 7 years? The Bush presidency has consistently been a case where uninspired rhetoric has served purely political purposes, either misleading the public or never being followed up by action to match the speech. If Obama becomes President and uses his oratorical skills to lead and really works hard to make actions match what he tells us then the difference between him and our current president will be like night and day and it is entirely likely that he would be a two term president that will have made a difference to the United States.
Could have been done on Delmar, Pete. You know where.
“Is Obama nothing more than empty rhetoric?”
Little more at this time. He's got a Web site with some details but not enough. Neither has Clinton or McCain, though. In his (and their) defense, though, part of it is understandable — every detail and every word is subject to attack. Don't lawyers tell their clients first and most importantly of all, as a rule, to say nothing or as little as possible?
Obama does represent change — not of Democratic and liberal goals, but of the chance to change who may be in power. Fewer fixtures in DC and “retreads” that find their way into successive Dem and GOP administrations (the problem is not only in Congress!) is a good thing.
“Are his supporters slightly unhinged?”
Yes, though that's a poor choice of words (as is obviously true about nearly all of the Ron Paul supporters). Obama is the candidate this year that is a personality cult figure. (With Paul it's varying-vagueness libertarianism and some hysterical anti-war “but we're not rad-libs” nonsense — Paul is just the person offering it to the supporters; with Obama, the fans are true groupies, calling him the next JFK or Lincoln, etc. at times). Most of his supporters are expecting or assuming too much. What's of interest is to what extent this is also due (though many Obama people may not consciously realize it, or more often, don't want to admit it) that Clinton is so offensive as well polarizing that she bothers many libs and Dems as well as the rest of us. (We have experience and that can temper our offense taken, but we know what we're getting if she were to be elected, and it's not good.)
Pete, thanks- great!
“Obama's not going to win the Presidency for the Democratic Party”
Against McCain? With many lib-Dems in the nuttier anti-war circle, and with a media ready to turn lib-and-Dem-friendly McCain into Bush, Continued, War And Imperial Overreach Forever [tm]? An advocate for “change” against a Washington fixture? This, while non-lib support for McCain is weak and quite imperiled?
Many if not most people believe McCain has the best chance against Clinton because Clinton's negatives are so large (whille Obama has little if any).
And, while many non-libs dissatisfied with McCain have indicated they may, or even will, vote for Obama, many Obama fans and other libs have said they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is chosen over Obama. I suspect that attitude may be boosted if Obama comes into the convention ahead on delegates and the supers nearly all vote for Clinton, or the party tries to force Florida and Michigan people in without holding new elections with Obama as well as Clinton on the ballot.
A co-contributor of mine at Why We Worry has a new post analyzing Obama as the harbinger of change. He criticizes Obama for his silence about the Palestinians, his health care plan, his plans to expand the military and so on.
Ultimately, I agree with him. Obama is not going to bring drastic change to the White House, but I still think he'd be a better president than Clinton. Her husband's presidency has already shown that she won't bring the type of sweeping change we need.
Don't expect not only too much, but what's alien and alienating. “Sweeping change” or “drastic change” in the form of radical behavior or stances by the federal government or monstrous new entitlements or interventions by Washington are not what Americans want. Obama is preferable to Clinton because Clinton's been proven harmful in the past and Obama at least can reduce the chances of Bloated Business As Usual by people in Washington that have been in various Dem and GOP administrations far too often and for far too long. (With Congress, term limits or re-election bans are decades overdue.)