« Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …
Hillary’s Tall Tales at Tuzla - Is this the end? »



Obama’s Success: Voters Finally, Truly, Mad As Hell…

March 23rd, 2008
By MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN


How can one account for Barack Obama’s truly astonishing success in reaching for the American presidency?

It isn’t his speechifying. He’s an excellent speaker, but Jesse Jackson in his time was better. It’s not his personal story, which though in many ways inspiring, can’t match the heroic realism of John McCain’s. It’s not his stands on issues that are not noticeably different from Hillary’s. Nor is it the populist edge that has creeped into his campaign in recent months. John Edwards was way out front in this respect.

No, it all comes down to that one word that appears in bold letters on all his literature and just over his left shoulder at every speaking engagement. Change. And the change hinted at here is not the kind of change this country has seen several times in recent decades. Not like, for example, the change when Republicans took control of Congress after 40 years of Democratic majorities, or when an undistinguished actor cemented the union of media and politics when Ronald Reagan won the White House.

This change is something far more basic, far more fundamental, than a mere shift in political sentiment. It represents the full fruition of what was predicted in the movie “Network.” The arrival of the time when not just a few Americans, nor even one or two large groups of Americans are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. But a time when the majority of the country is that mad, that determined not to take it for one more election cycle, that it is willing to reach for a very visible symbol of its frustrations and anger.

€ Americans are mad as hell about health care they are straining to afford.

€ Mad as hell about inflation that is only under control when government officials don’t bother counting the costs of basics whose price is rising at an unseemly rate.

€ Mad as hell about a foreign policy concocted by think-tank ideologues, for-profit contractors, and Washington special-interest groups.

€ Mad as hell about financial markets now so flagrantly-rigged that even the overwhelmed wizard behind the curtain who is doing the rigging no longer bothers to hide his shaky hand.

€ Mad as hell about working longer and harder than anyone else on the planet and still seeing their standard of living slide while Wall Street bunglers walk away from their failures with astronomical rewards.

€ Mad as hell that their religions, their core faiths, have been hijacked and manipulated by Beltway hucksters to retain their own political power.

€ Mad as hell that the infrastructure they depend on in their daily lives is slowly rotting away while huge sums are wasted trying to nation-build a country with which we have no historical or kinship relationship.

€ Mad as hell about spending on a vastly-overblown military that seems unable to put down gangs of fanatical yahoos.

€ Mad as hell that the guy who killed 3,000 of our people on 9/11 is still tweaking us on TV seven years after the crime.

€ Mad as hell that our natural environment is being trashed in frightening ways we have trouble even understanding but know in our gut are horrible.

€ Mad as hell that we have to borrow from foreigners to keep our government financially afloat and give them control of large pieces of our economy in payment.

So along comes a guy who not only talks change, but is so different from our usual leadership stereotypes that we think, maybe, just maybe, he will actually do something radically different when it comes to the things that are making us mad as hell.

You would have to have one very angry, one very ticked-off electorate, to even consider giving someone like this a shot at the Oval Office. Obama isn’t just a sop to unity or an instrument to narrow this country’s racial divide. He’s a cry from the nation’s heart for something dramatically new, fairer, more sane and sensible.

If he loses the nomination or the November election the winner had better understand this cry and its implications. Or things in these climes are going to get a lot more nasty in the very near future.



This entry was posted on Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Change, Barry Goldwater, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 13 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Yes, Americans (especially Democrats) are mad as hell at each other. Sen. Obama's campaign is destroying the Democratic Party.
    • ^
    • v
    Holly - HOW is Obama destroying the Democratic party? You've made some very intelligent posts in the past so you are obviously capable of developing informed opinions - SHARE THEM! But if you would rather not, please stop what can only be described as throwing a hissy fit every time Obama's name is mentioned - it is tiresome and as a poster here you drag down the reputation of this site with every such comment.
    • ^
    • v
    This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your
    email message has been redirected to a "suspect email" folder for
    Holly R. In order for your message to be moved to her Inbox, she must add your
    email address to a list of allowed senders. She cannot do this until you send
    her a message.

    https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry, no hissy fits here. Sen. Obama is grossly unqualified, does not belong in the presidential race and cannot win in November. His supporters seem to be victims of a mass delusion.
    • ^
    • v
    Yes, Americans want change and Obama can bring that change more than Hillary or McCain. HIllary and McCain, while they have their own strengths, have been around Washington DC for the last couple of decades and have more political enemies than Obama.

    If we truly want to break out of our current ways, Obama is the best chance at doing so. Now I'm not saying he's a saint or a saviour, he's not. But he does offer the best chance of bringing in change.

    I'm not sure how anyone who attracts dems, independents, repubs and others in larger numbers than Hillary can be accused of tearing the Dem. Party apart. Obama has the lead in popular vote and delegates.

    Hillary, on the other hand is losing but chooses to stay in the race, hoping she can win. She might, she's not out yet. But she has a lot further to go than Obama. Because Hillary is staying in the race, the Dems are seen as petty, bickering and fractious. Many voters are turned off by the Dems. right now and the only other alternative is McCain, who is making presidential type trips around the world bolstering his image. Hillary, being in last place, needs to drop out so the Dems can get on with business. I see no reason why the front-runner (Obama) should drop out. Now if he were last, like Hillary, then I would think he should give it up.
    • ^
    • v
    "Sen. Obama is grossly unqualified, does not belong in the presidential race and cannot win in November. His supporters seem to be victims of a mass delusion."

    Maybe I've missed it, but you've stated these same arguments numerous times without providing any evidence. The experience argument has been discussed to death - he has more legislative experience than Clinton, more Washington experience than her husband had, and enough real-world experience that many of the Democratic super-delegates are comfortable supporting him, although she obviously has twenty years more experience in politics than he does. I don't know what you mean by "does not belong in the race". As to "cannot win in November", he has lower unfavorable ratings than Clinton, and you can pick and choose your polls to show who stacks up better against McCain. The "mass delusion" argument is another I don't understand - the implication seems to be that his supporters don't have the judgment to make a decision about who should be President, which you'll need to need to explain more fully given that millions of people are supporting him.

    Again, your past postings have shown that you can make reasoned and insightful arguments, but in the case of the current Democratic race I am absolutely mystified by the fact that you attack Obama in 1-2 sentences every time he is mentioned here without providing any debatable arguments. This site is unique in providing intelligent arguments from people who often disagree with one another, and I would appreciate more insight into the pro-Clinton argument; Jill does a good job of making the case, and I would like to see you doing the same.
    • ^
    • v
    The reason I think that Obama is qualified is that he is uncommonly persuasive. As he has begun to do with Race discussions he can do with Energy independence, Health care, environmental protection, ethics reform and other controversial issues that require elevating the public discussion above our differences to what we have in common. He has a unique skill and talent to make progress possible.
    It will also help if the Democrats get a 60 seat majority in the Senate ;-)
    • ^
    • v
    Sorry Holly, I am not a victim or subject to mass delusion. Among other things, I'm an Atheist. I've studied many religions, especially Christianity, and find them all lacking in a reality based understanding of the species homo sapiens. I have drawn truth from all of the major religions and many others - especially the native Americans and European pagans, who preceded the Roman indoctrination into a belief system Christ never taught. My beliefs and moral code are very much based on the consistent accounts of what he did teach. Your dismissive, disrespectful comment includes far more experienced and intelligent individuals than myself.

    Meanwhile, I have spent 50+ years aware of and following the racial, political, economic, foreign policy and millitary activities of this country. Over the past 4 years I have been reading as many books on our history and current situation as I could make time and energy to do - at the near disintegration of my house, finances and health.

    If that sounds at least neurotic, if not downright crazy, it's because I am one of the Americans who has been mad as hell about what America, religion, multinational corporations and the millitary-industrial-congressional-financial-undercover intelligence complex have done to the world. Not just to my life and the lives of my children, to the lives of billions of humans world wide.

    Michael notes the tip of the iceberg here without going far into what is below it. Forty years ago, as a young adolescent in the mid 60's, it was apparent to me that in my lifetime, the world would face a time when drastic change would be inevitable for man and nature to survive. That the movement would be fought by the haves and the religious fundamentalists of all the major religions. especially Judaeo-Christian.
    The number of Americans who realize we are at a huge crossroad in human history is growing daily. Who realize that our history of tweaking the status quo to make changes won't cut it this time. That no leader has ever, or will ever, make those changes without a mass movement of We the People.

    Obama is not merely an excellent speaker, he does not merely invite us to the table; he insists that we begin a dialogue. Our problem stems, as a lot of recent information about how the mind works and how we communicate has revealed, from relying on adversarial forms of communication. A discussion is based on arguing the pros and cons of only two ideas. More may be there, but only because the differences between them are negligible.

    Many of us realize that the changes we must make to bring our country,
    and the world, into sustainable societies; must be transformational. Or they will fail. The difference between the kind of changes Hillary is going to work for, possibly even achieving, and stay-the-course policies of McCain; will not be sufficient to significantly mitigate the tragedies that the 'perfect storm' of crises that face us will create for all of humanity. The best they will be able to do is try to put out the fires.

    We have to face what is causing the fires, and change our stupid contributions to functional repair and rebuilding of our culture and society.

    50 years from now, the world will look very different from what it does today.

    The question is: for better or worse?
    • ^
    • v
    Ginny- thanks for the thoughts. The world is undergoing great changes now and as you said, we can't continue with our current stay-the-course policies. Obama isn't perfect but he will be able to mitigate the effects of corporate interests in the government and have government work for the people.
    • ^
    • v
    The two worst presidents we've had are Buchanan and Hoover. They were followed by candidates that people took a chance on. Not the establishment figure or the most experienced but, the guy who seemed like a long shot.
    After Buchanan, the country did not elect the 3 famous names in politics that were running but, a one term congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln.
    After Hoover, the country did not pick the democrats big name and party establishment favorite, Al Smith. They went with a one term gov. from NY who spent years battling polio and could not independently walk, FDR.
    How is it so odd that suffering the worst in our history, Bush, the people would do what they always have. Trust their instincts and not go with the marque name or establishment favorite but, again, pick the unknown and seemingly less experienced one, another gentleman from Illinois, Barack Obama.
    • ^
    • v
    StockBoySF,

    There is no perfect candidate. Obama has made the call to We the People throughout his campaign. And insists on keeping us involved after the election. As we should be and must be.

    vwcat. Really interesting connection of the dots. I had been thinking that things have gotten bad enough, more would be willing to take a risk. Not surprising, it has been done before. Hopefully we will repeat the past this time.
    • ^
    • v
    Nice post Michael. While passionate, it once again shows the thinking of the farther left of the mainstream counterparts.

    So were all mad. How is Obama going to solve all these things? What is his plan?
    • ^
    • v
    Well, if he gets the Oval Office, politicians are going to have to sit up and take notice. You keep doing the things you are doing and you might find yourself out of a job. The GOP needs a trip to the woodshed for giving us Bush, and Clinton is quite literally a throwback to a previous president. We are tired of talk radio, FOX, 10 second soundbites on HUGE topics, pollsters, and our leaders switching topics instead of answering the questions put to them. Obama represents these things whether he wants to or not. He's working that tide to his advantage and if he betrays those who supported him now by not following thru he will be crucified so badly Dubya will feel bad for him.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Spitzer’s Fall and America’s Archaic Laws About Sex …
Hillary’s Tall Tales at Tuzla - Is this the end? »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.