I like the cut of your rhetoric. :)

(Reply) (Thread)

Brilliant political commentary, Ferrett.

N.

(Reply) (Thread)

Heh, point.

Still, those links aren't giving me as much detail as I'd like. I'm sure it's not just "Step 1: Collect Underpants..." over there but there are certainly days when it FEELS like it.

(Reply) (Thread)

ah, the horde of obama-hypnotized people. Wonks regularly get defeated by inspirational speakers today. Bush defeated Gore. Bush was of course an inspirational speaker because he was too stupid to be anything else. Another good mark for Bush was his stupidity. We don't trust smart presidents, those smart people, they could be thinking things that we stupid sheep don't even have the capacity to understand. Good old MLK, he never told us things that were complicated. Obama is good too. He'll destroy that Hillary wonk, like Ike Ike I like Ike destroyed Adlai Stevenson back in 1952. Wonks usually eat dirt. I'm sure that your reponses will be full of Obama lovers. And the great thing about loving obama is that you don't have to tell people you like his health care plan. Because he's not a wonk. Just throw up your lands and go, "WE CAN DO IT!" Do what? Who cares! BAMA BAMA BAMA.

In the past, the establishment put their foot down on preacher types and hired wonks to be president. You know like that monkey trial guy, William Jennings Bryant. Back in 1896, Bryant looked likely to win the presidency, so the entire east coast banded together, and got behind William McKinley, pouring all their money into branding Bryant as a kook, they called him an anarchist, and luckily for the nation it worked. The wonk defeated the inspirational speaker.

1896 was a long time ago. And ever since television, and the breakdown of the power of mainstream media, wonks have been having their asses handed to them. It's over. The wonks have lost. MLK types will win. William Jennings Bryant types, Bush #1, Ronald Reagan, and Huckabee. The Republican has thrown Huckabee under the bus so many times that he has tire tracks on his back, and still he keeps coming back.

I can't wait until we elect a creationist. We'll deserve it.

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

Obama lets us believe whatever we want to believe. And he will win.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

IMO, Clinton was the biggest wonk we ever had - the man could pull numbers out of his ass, I swear it - but he could also give one hell of a speech. What do you think?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Interesting. You always make me think.

I wonder, though, two things - I'm not arguing for either point, I am genuinely curious:

1. I wonder if he's giving the inspiration now - heck, it's working, don't change what works - and then waiting for if/when he gets the nomination to lay out policy. Using his acceptance speech as a bit of both to make the transition.

2. I wonder if he does get the nom, and if he does roll out more policy talk, whether he will be able to balance the two styles, vis-a-vis your reference to Kennedy above. Because, let's face it - this country needs some effing inspiration, and I'd be so disheartened if he lost that goosebumps thing.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

I was thinking along these lines. Lay out the finer policy points for the people that REALLY wanna know of the web during primary sesason, and then mobilize the party base with the details once the nomination is sewn up at the convention (or whenever).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Cute, but really off the mark.

1) MLK wasn't running for President, he was trying to create change in one area of public policy, and that was in the realm of equality. Equality is essentially touchy-feely at its base, and even then, the "I Have a Dream" speech is filled with much more than just platitudes, but actual calls for policy changes with civil rights, and personal changes regarding discrimination.

2) The Gettysburg Address certainly wasn't a barnburner.

The JFK thing is MUCH more apt, because JFK was largely a do-nothing as well, and Obama's been channeling him more than anything else. When you're a good lookin' dude facing Richard Nixon and need some voter fraud to get into office, though, it doesn't matter much, right?

Obama's tactic is going to fail because the country is actually facing real issues that Obama's delegating to the second tier. He's, prior to the last week, avoiding talking specifics on the campaign trail and instructing volunteers to avoid policy. It's all part of the plan to cultivate a largely underinformed electoral base using platitudes, and it's working in frightening ways that anyone who supports him should be wary of.

Think of it in marketing terms - a direct mailing is a success if 2% of people respond. The Obama people know full well that most of the people they touch aren't going to "learn more" at a website, and they're hoping to ride that wave to the White House. It's a vile, but interesting, tactic. And he will fail if the media actually gets off their asses and starts questioning him, and he will fail if McCain hammers this fact home. I just don't have a lot of faith that either of those things will happen.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Obama's tactic is going to fail because the country is actually facing real issues that Obama's delegating to the second tier. He's, prior to the last week, avoiding talking specifics on the campaign trail and instructing volunteers to avoid policy. It's all part of the plan to cultivate a largely underinformed electoral base using platitudes, and it's working in frightening ways that anyone who supports him should be wary of.

Your paragraph doesn't follow from your topic sentence. I can see that as your argument for why you'd like Obama to fail, but you provide no warrant for the notion that the media, the voting public or the Democratic machine will "wake up" and start becoming policy literate in the next 8 months.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Most of the U.S. has gotten politically stupider since the advent of TV. Why think when you can watch and pick the most appealing candidate? I don't know what Obama looks like, or Clinton, really. I do listen to the radio. He has that melodious preacher voice. She is sometimes shrill. I didn't base my choice on any of that.

I automatically distrust the melody of the speech. As I filter out the shrillness. Then I filter out the urgency of the moment.

So far, Clinton has shown more of her policy aims than Obama has. He is young enough to run in four or eight years, when he's not so wet behind the ears. Hillary has Bill behind her. The world's not getting any simpler. Since Edwards bowed out, and I'm a disillusioned old fart atheist, I am immune to Obama's charm. Too bad so many other U.S.ers aren't. But enough of them fell for shrub, too. I'm getting out my Eeyore T-shirt.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

You know, this is really how I feel, too. About 12 months ago there is no way you would have convinced me that, again, I would have to make a choice on election day between two candidates that I would find distasteful.

Yet here we are, and the new frontrunners are McCain and Obama. It's February and I already feel screwed over by our political system.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

And then you have McCain attacking Obama on a foreign policy statement that he made that the GOVERNMENT JUST DID.

I'm not expecting grand policy statements out of Obama just yet. People should demand it, and I fully expect to get it within the next months after Hillary received the knockout punch in three weeks.

The country needs a Democrat in the White House, if only to try and rebalance the Judiciary. As someone who doesn't have all his civil rights, that is primary to me.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

The country needs a Democrat in the White House, if only to try and rebalance the Judiciary. As someone who doesn't have all his civil rights, that is primary to me.

Just so you know, folks who can't read a document sitting right in front of them probably aren't going to do much for your civil rights.

I'm assuming you're talking gay marriage or something similar - I expect a strict constructionist to get that rolling long before anyone else.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

This is your best post in a while. I'm linking this.

(Reply) (Thread)

We disagreed over this either two or four years ago. It all kind of blends together.

I say: People care about a campaign's policies.
You say: No they don't.
I say: Yes they do.
You say: Not they don't.

I guess this time I'm pretty tired off the bat. Whatever - all the candidates that are left are, well...pretty much the same. And they all suck.

At least I'm not a conservative republican. Then I'd really be pissed off this year.

(Reply) (Thread)

I guess this time I'm pretty tired off the bat. Whatever - all the candidates that are left are, well...pretty much the same.

So with all of that evidence, have you come to understand my way of thinking yet?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

But cynicism as a strategy really sucks, too.

(Reply) (Thread)

That is, unfortunately, my feeling, too. And I have a friend who is black who told me that she feels it's all pretty words, and doesn't believe a word of what Obama has to say.

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

#14? ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

Preach on, brother man!

(Reply) (Thread)

See, I just don't think that "being inspirational" is a reason to make someone president. I don't think King would necessarily have made a good president either.

But I especially don't find it persuasive that other people find someone inspirational. If Obama hasn't inspired me, why does the fact that you're keen on him mean that I should vote for him?

(Reply) (Thread) (Expand)

Absolutely not. If you don't find his words compelling, then "other people do" is clearly not a reason to vote for someone...

Unless you believe (as some do) that the next President is going to have to call upon the nation to make some serious (and uncomfortable) changes, in which case you want an orator at the helm. Hillary, I doubt, could inspire anyone to change their ways. A good speaker might find the right way to sell a policy that's good, but isn't easy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Exactly.

(Reply) (Thread)

yesterday Obama blew his nose during a speach. And the audience appplauded. What a great man.

(Reply) (Thread)

It seems like Obama is both Inspirational AND has policies.

In fact, one of his very early campaigns (not the presidential one) was sunk partially because he was *too* academic sounding and didn't reach out to the common man. Now he is doing the latter, but he does have policies, for those who wish to take the effort to download his policy book from his website.

Seems like a Catch-22. If he talk policy, he doesn't inspire people and they don't vote for him.

If he talks in an inspirational manner, he is accused of having no policies, even though they are on his website.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've had people accuse me blindly of choosing Obama because of his TV presence. Heh. I get 2 channels right now and one is the WB -- the other is PBS.

I go in search of my news and I read it from all kinds of sources -- I also watch debates online and *gasp* draw my own conclusions. I even ventured to the candidates websites and Obama has the best one by far. He outlines his policy ideas and as you mentioned he has a download of his policies.

I think he's done a really good job of fusing both approaches into one. He touches on the basics of his policies while inspiring, motivating and even acknowledging his adversaries' talents. Suave. Really. That's why Hillary is struggling. She doesn't understand anything but old-school politics and fighting against someone who always has a positive response and truly understands both meanings of turn the other cheek is beyond her comprehension. It's like fighting your own shadow. He's trying to build a bridge she's trying to be the Troll.

Now tell me who will be better at globally-applied diplomacy? ;-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To me, it comes down to one statement:

Your policy means dick if you don't have the power to enforce it.

Which is why I believe Hillary Clinton's policy has no bearing on this election. Because if she loses the Dem primary, she doesn't have the power to enforce it. But if she wins the Dem primary, Republicans and independents will come out in droves to make sure she doesn't win the presidency (because of the whole dynasty thing), and she doesn't have the power to enforce it.

In the latter case, the Democrats are then left in the lurch, without the power to enforce most of their policies.

In the former, there is a good chance Obama will win the Presidency, as John McCain's name alone won't bring Republicans and independents to the polls. Which then gives the Democrats the power to enforce not only their policies, but Obama's (and if she's really, really nice, a few of Hillary's, too.)

From the past 8 years' experience, I prefer Democratic policies over any Republicans'. Even a so-called "moderate" like McCain (the fact that he's anything but is the subject for another time.)

That is why I'm backing Barack Obama. The flower in his tone and the inspiration in his words is merely a bonus.

(Reply) (Thread)

I've been telling my hubby this very same thing regarding why Obama would win the presidential election and why Hillary and McCain wouldn't.

Very succinct. Thanks!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I said something along these lines just a couple of days ago on a political blog where they were complaining about Obama not talking about his 'plans and policies'. But I like your version much, much better. I'm linking!

(Reply) (Thread)

I hope you're getting comments, because I really think you should see this. :)

(Reply) (Thread)

And who could forget Churchill's immortal speech where he bravely outlined a seventeen-point plan for winning the war instead of copping out and promising "blood, toil, tears, and sweat."

(Reply) (Thread)

Oh, and yours truly was quoted in the national media:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/19/wisconsin/

(Reply) (Thread)

I've read Hillary's website and her policies. I've heard her speak.

I've read Obama's website and his policies. I've heard him speak.

Hillary just sounds like more of the same to me.

Obama will be the first candidate I have voted for that I actually believe in. For the first time in my voting career, I will be voting for something other than "the lesser of two evils".

Obama gives me hope. This is why I vote for him.

(Reply) (Thread)

I feel the same exact way. I really liked Obama when I started to hear him speak more, and went out and looked up what his positions and records on different issues were. I discovered that they were the same or fully compatible, right down the line.

That, combined with the charisma and likeability he has, plus his ability to cross the isle to compromise and get stuff done, is just breathtaking to me. It makes me very hopeful for what good he could do if actually elected, and his polling results and momentum give me good hope of him winning the nomination, and even the general election.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Very well said. Thanks for that.

I do think that in this day and age: "that we have listed on our official headquarters" translates really nicely into "that we have listed on our official website".

(Reply) (Thread)

Ignore a politicians plan, vote for the person who is fast thinking and can strong arm congress into action to adapt to changing circumstances.

(Reply) (Thread)