Concerns About Obama's Inspiring Speeches

[Yogi]

Because ideological conformity and "proving a point" is exactly what being a leftist is about. Not hard to see where "kulakization" et al came from on the Left. Started with a prick like you with an axe to grind.

If the Democrats, as what passes for a left-wing organization comes into power, they should pass left-wing bills. It's really NOT a hard concept to grasp. I don't know about you, but I'd like to get out of Iraq some time in the future, and if the troop withdrawal needs to be shoved down the redneck's throats, I won't shed a tear.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Well, I guess it wasn't obvious enough when I posted earlier, understandable as it was sort of buried in the middle of my post:

I concede that my view that the dems should mimic the actions of the GOP is a really really bad idea. I'm reminded once again of the blind, reactive nature of closed minds.

[HemlockGrey]

I think the real concern about Obama's speeches is that they don't actually mean anything. I'm an Obama supporter because I don't think he'll abuse executive power, but this interview is a perfect example of the sort of thing that worries me.

Although, that's something, just to take that specific goal, that's something that people have been trying for years and have had only incremental success. Can you name one concrete thing you can do that other candidates would not do to move things forward?

Well, it is going to require the American people, enlisting them in putting pressure on Congress to make it happen. This is part of the point that I've been trying to make, Steve. There's no shortage of plans out there. There's no shortage of policy papers. This is not a technical problem. It's a problem of politics. It's a problem of getting a big enough coalition of people who are organized, inspired, mobilized and will then put pressure on those who are elected — in combination with a president who is able to lead — in order to get it done. There are no magic solutions here. And the problems that we face, whether it's climate change, or health care, or making college more affordable, or dealing with our foreign policy is less a problem of, you know, getting the perfectly calibrated policy. It has to do with are we able to get people to work in the same direction, and that's what I can do.

He's been running pretty heavily on fluff and fairly low on substantive policy. Hillary, for all her "annointed queen" attitude, has at least included substantive policy plans in her campaigning, whereas Obama is pretty much all about "hope" and "change", and while that sounds nice, if boundless optimism has a solid track record I'd be booking a vacation to the tranquil resort town of Basra. This is a major weakness for Obama, both currently and in the general election.

[Adrian Laguna]

He's been running pretty heavily on fluff and fairly low on substantive policy.

I am concerned about that too. As this article points out, Obama is of the "anti-politics" political tradition in the Democratic party. This would be the same tradition that gave us Jimmy Carter. In fact, Obama's fluffy campaign is reminiscent of Carter's, who basically ran on his trustworthiness. Meanwhile, Clinton is a pragmatist, of the same mold as FDR and Lyndon Johnson. I think Obama will be capable of being pragmatic when he needs to be, but he'll be a pretty ineffective president is he's not.

[Tiriol]

He's been running pretty heavily on fluff and fairly low on substantive policy.

I am concerned about that too. As this article points out, Obama is of the "anti-politics" political tradition in the Democratic party. This would be the same tradition that gave us Jimmy Carter. In fact, Obama's fluffy campaign is reminiscent of Carter's, who basically ran on his trustworthiness. Meanwhile, Clinton is a pragmatist, of the same mold as FDR and Lyndon Johnson. I think Obama will be capable of being pragmatic when he needs to be, but he'll be a pretty ineffective president is he's not.

At this point, even if he is having a vacation for all of his Presidency, he would still be a good choice after Bush Administration. At least he wouldn't find energy to abuse the executive powers.

Shame, really, if Obama doesn't win. I actually find him intelligent and likeable. However, many, MANY people here have the gloomy opinion that he will never be President because a sizeable chunk of the US population abhors the idea of a black President. I don't know how well Hillary Clinton would do, though - there could very well be much Right Wing opposition to her election (and you'd end up with a Republican President once more).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because ideological conformity and "proving a point" is exactly what being a leftist is about. Not hard to see where "kulakization" et al came from on the Left. Started with a prick like you with an axe to grind.

If the Democrats, as what passes for a left-wing organization comes into power, they should pass left-wing bills. It's really NOT a hard concept to grasp. I don't know about you, but I'd like to get out of Iraq some time in the future, and if the troop withdrawal needs to be shoved down the redneck's throats, I won't shed a tear.

That does not require the nuclear option, open partisanship, and election-fixing; what you say the right needs when it needs "a dose of its own medicine."

[Darth Wong]

I think the biggest importance of an Obama win (if it should happen) is not so much bound up in the characteristics of the man himself as it is tied to what it means. it would represent proof that you don't have to pander to the rednecks in order to win elections. You can elect a man who's black, who doesn't go through all the military-worship motions of saluting the flag as if he's a recruit, who doesn't wear his patriotism on his sleeve as a decorative symbol, who doesn't wank American military power as the solution to all the world's problems.

IF he wins. If he doesn't win, then the opposite message is sent: you need to continue pandering to the rednecks. You need to salute the flag as if you're a soldier, because otherwise people think you're a traitor. You need to wear your stupid little flag pin. You need to extoll the virtues of American military interventionism.