Obama is more than just a politician. In the debate yesterday, he told us that he was going to fix the Mexican economy, so that they wouldn't need to export immigrants to the US, preferring to stay there. Somehow he is going to do this by repealing NAFTA and not trading with Mexico (until they meet our big union contributor labor and environmental standards) ¡Viva Obama! ¡Cambio en cual podemos creer!

I'm telling you, that anecdote he tells about he and Michelle paying "more for student loans than their mortgage" - it gets me right here It's hard out here for a couple of Ivy-League educated attorneys!

All that aside, I have to vote for him 'cause he gets his car washed at the same place as I do.

Perhaps because politics isn't about entertainment...? I more or less agree with you though.

One or two posters on the forum have described as arrogant (or words to that effect) the notion that Obama supporters are incapable of comprehending the substance of his planned policies. Perhaps it is, but from my point of view, any one who goes to extreme lengths of loyalty to a candidate in the eternal, two-party American election system, is suffering from delusion if they believe their candidate is actually going to bring about change. Looking back at American political history of the last one hundred or so years, I can't see any president who ever did this. What I see is an ongoing political system which harps on about freedom and democracy but in actuality only maintains an ongoing status quo. I'll be very surprised if Barack Obama, if elected, manages to break this pattern. I anticipate either reality will bite the Obamaphiles some where during Barack Obama's first term in office, or poor Barack will encounter his own grassy knoll...




Depends on who they are. There are various degree's of scepticism directed at the USA from Europe. A lot of people are simply anti American because they've been programmed to be that way by decades of left wing agitprop. Other people however, like myself, are either neutral or pro American, and yet still recognize the inherent problems of the American electoral system. Essentially, the real problem I have with Barack Obama's supporters stems from the observation that Barack Obama, for all the talk of change, is still just another democrat politician. Sure there are some subtle differences in political perspective between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but these do not count for anything in an election which pits one man against a second for the job of President. Where then is the party politcs? the conflict of multiple points of view? Where is the compromises and middle ground? Its accepted wisdom amongst Americans that the election process deals with these issues along the way, but I don't see it. Your election resembles a popularity competion with the president being voted into power by the lowest common denominator rather by broad support for political policies. GW Bush for example, like Tony Blair, was put into power by a minority of the American population.


Its different.

Does that have any bearing on what I said? Every country deals with its problems in its own way. What works in Denmark probably wouldn't work in the USA at all because different countries have different cultures.


I've heard that expression and I think its got a grain of truth in it, but lets be honest. More Americans didn't bother to vote than actually voted for GW Bush. The real winner of the last presidential election was apathy.




Politicians are products of the society which produce them, so Barack Obama is not the catalyst for a (possible) change, but rather its herald.

Contrary to your belief, I think politicians have unmatched ability to affect change in culture, usually despite themselves. Politics is an inherently conservative artform -- politicians, by virtue of having to win elections, can't break nearly as many social taboos as artists and musicians. But when a taboo, or a social norm is broken in politics, that is often the final word on the matter.

Is Obama going to come in and “change” anything in Congress? Hell no. Imaging him telling Congressmen their supporters are not important to him – esp. Dems – lobbies like labor, farm, teachers unions. It’s a joke – he would get laughed at and it will be business as usual in Congress only now the “left” agenda will be where the money is spent since he is the candidate of that wing. Will this be good for “America” or just some of America?
moif is right. He speaks well but, like JFK, he is unlikely, if elected, to effect and real “change” except to implement the agenda of the Teddy K crowd – god help us!

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

Mania is a chronic inflammation of the human condition. Obama is simply better at making it feel good. The media at most just put one and one together.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

People may already know Obama will not be able to change the way Washington is run, but chances are, they suspect no one can. If politicians lie, then people are beginning to realize, a good delivery counts. People have gotten tired of the "Dumb and Dumber" performances credited to the White House of late, - a sniggering sitcom paired with the usual humorless obfuscations and hustles. Christ, can't anyone fake sincerity well any more? People now demand professionalism with their lies, they want change. Turn the channel please or pass the remote. Standing tall above the ticking clock and the drab ping pong of point and counterpoint, Obama turns up the volume on what motivates human aspiration, inspiration.

Is he lying or just naive? If he is lying, then at least they won't be cringing listening to him. If naive, then people will like him even more because he will suffer in proxy for them and give a better voice to the outrage, - even if he can't do anything about it.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

Not a chance. Romney's theory that staying in the Republican fight detracted from a presidential run would be true only if it were contentious, where the point of debate is simply to draw blood, not to lead through inspiration. Obama deflects critcism mostly without injuring, and no other candidate can really embody that spirit well. Even Hillary seems thrown off, and her campaign is suffering because she realized the change too late. Obama really is change in that respect. He has been capitalizing on that appeal, pulling apathetic voters tired of the cat fights back to the voting booth, and converting other voters from their chosen candidate. McCain will only fade to the background in the interim, because many people are noticing the difference in the Democratic debate, and watching them for the simple reason it is not about mutual destruction, despite Hillary's difficulty with humility and humor. People like watching competition that is about win-win. The Republican candidates have not yet grasped that concept.

Obama, more than anything represents a repudiation of the neo-con polices, along with the grass roots campaign of Ron Paul, well, regardless of whatever else is said about this election- Obama's election, if it happens, will be a watershed moment in the last 100 years of American politics- he would represent the end of the "glass ceiling" for all Americans that are not white.

It is damn hard to argue that the "white man is bringin' ya down" when the man is NOT white.

No, I don't think Obama will wave a wand and end racism- but damned if he won't change the tone a bit!

No, I don't think he will single handedly end the corporate takeover of America- but he make the price a bit higher, and we might even get some lube to go with our screwing over.

No, I don't think he will stop the religious right from thier attempt at a creeping theocracy- but he might make them focus on thier own damn sins for a minute.

It is not his policies that I fear or anticipate- it is the change in direction his very presence will represent- his very election is a complete change.

I have read his policies- eh- only about 1/4 will happen most likely- even with a totally friendly congress. If anything- democrats have learned to listen to thier regional constituency. This "I don't lead by listening to polls" crap- in other words- the republicans have been making hay as "hey, the will of the people doesn't matter"- Still over 65% of the US want the US out of Iraq, yet it is "courageous" to not listen to his country men? What kind of bull feathers is that? They don't have to listen to the will of the people now? Listening to the wishes of his countrymen is a weakness?

Ya, Obama represents the opposite of that for sure.

Sure, and as I've acknowledged, in today's age, Obama probably could've launched his campaign without the media. But let's assume this campaign was fifty years ago. Without being the media darling, would Obama be anywhere? Remove race from the perspective of fifty years in the past and just think about the technology. Media spins things more than we give them credit, and I believe Obama wouldn't have a rock star status without them.

No, Moif is wrong and so are you.

I don't know if presidential candidate Obama will "change" anything in congress. Too soon. But you know who did come in and "change" something in congress? Ronald Reagan. Before he was even elected, candidate Reagan "changed" a whole lot in congress. He got millions of everyday americans to look at their livlihoods in a new way, including probably a lot of people on AD. If Reagan hadn't run for office, I'm guessing Aquilla might not be on Americasdebate.com. If it wasn't for Reagan, we might still live in a society where the union was sacrosanct, and people wore sweaters to save on heating bills.

Now the culture was ready for Reagan... people were fed up with Jimmy Carter and the american condition circa 1970. But it took Ronald Reagan to form their frustrations into a compelling world view that continues to shape the way Americans think about their society. I give Ronald Reagan oodles of credit for that, even if I disagree with his world view.

The morose idea that presidents are merely products of a culture and don't have any sway upon it is unteneable. It flies in the face of 200 years of American history.

There are some presidents who are mostly technocrats, guys like Al Gore and George H. W. Bush whose impact on America is largely from behind closed doors. But there are leaders like Reagan, and JFK, and maybe Obama who change culture. They reform the way we look at society. Like I said, Americans look at 'welfare queens' differently because of Newt Gingrich. They think of foreign service differently because of JFK. We think of slavery differently because of Abraham Lincoln. This is a silly debate for you guys to prop up. Yes, any president who gets elected with face an entrecnhed status quo that he or she will have to meet halfway. But they don't call it the bully pulpit for nothing. Speeches can and have shaped the way Americans think of themselves and their society. How is that even a point worth arguing against?

Sure thing, Ted. And Dubya, your boy, has been the soul of frugality, right? That's why he's busted the budget, exploded the deficit, waged war on two fronts AND cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, created a new entitlement program and a huge new bureaucracy in the Department of Homeland Security. Actually, I feel sorry for Obama or whomever the next POTUS is who will have to spend the next four years cleaning up the massive mess Bush leaves behind.



I'm starting to see a trend here with all this "most liberal" and "extremely liberal" jive. How does Obama respond to these charges of being a (gasp!) liberal?

AUSTIN, Texas -- In the shadow of the state capitol that provided the United States with one of the most conservative presidents in recent history, Obama last night railed against the charge that being "liberal" was a bad thing.

"Oh, he's liberal,"� he said. "He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home."

Continuing on his riff: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should do something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!" link




If I didn't know better Moif, I'd say you just implied Barack Obama is going to be assassinated.

As one of the aforementioned two posters in this forum that described as arrogant the notion that Obama supporters are incapable of comprehending the substance of his policies, I'll see your claim that we are suffering from "delusions" and raise you that as a non-American, non-Black, and non-voter, while you're entitled to your opinion, it has to be weighed against the fact that you are really speaking about something you are far removed from and has no direct impact upon.

As such, I take your opinion that Obama supporters are "suffering from delusion" as interesting, but as removed from reality as it is, fundamentally wrong.

If your point of view is you don't think any president has actually brought about change, then you might want to clean your lens. I can think of three presidents who brought about massive change in America. Whether for good or bad is purely subjective.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt brought about change against incredible opposition with The New Deal.
• Lyndon B. Johnson brought about change with the establishment of The Great Society.
• Ronald Reagan brought about change with The Reagan Revolution which deemphasized big government in favor of individual effort and less regulation and restriction of business capitalism.

I don't know if Barack Obama has any major policy initiatives planned that would bring about a similar shift in the political landscape. With the degree of partisan polarization between the two parties, it will be difficult for ANY Chief Executive to move their agenda forward.

You're welcome to sit there from the comfort of distance, Moif, and look down at those of us who are actually looking forward to casting a vote FOR a candidate instead of AGAINST the other. I know it's a novel concept. I know it's easy to look down your nose and sneer at what you can't possibly understand.

It's okay. Barack Obama is used to it too.

Obama acknowledged the criticism of the enthusiasm that's risen in recent weeks. "And ya know what? Well they make fun of you all too by the way,"� Obama said. "They make fun of you guys. They say, 'All these people who are following Obama they're delusional. They just like pretty words, they don't really understand what's going on.' Lets get real."�

Thank goodness we have indefatigable cynics like you Moif to tut-tut the hopeless dreamers and lotus eaters. Proving yet again the truth in the quote, "A cynic is just a man who found out when he was about ten that there wasn't any Santa Claus, and he's still upset."

Agreed, except thats not something Barack Obama did, its something America might do.


Can you actually describe this point beyond your metaphor, because this is at the crux of the matter as I see it? What exactly is the lube being offered that constitutes a 'change'. How can Barack Obama actually change that corporate America (a.k.a. the industrial military complex) in a way that keeps him alive?



Well, I see now that we have two very different criteria for change then. If change is characterized by something as mundane as how the money flows about within the country, then yes, Reagan and a whole bunch of other American politicians have exacted a lot of change.

When I hear Barack Obama's campaign speeches and listen to the reports in the media, I get the impression that Obama and his supporters are speaking of change on a whole different level. If Barack Obama is merely going to enact some changes in how Americans look at their livelihoods, then I know for a fact that Barack Obama is not going to change anything because Ronald Reagan certainly didn't change the USA. Reagan, like all his predecessors was 'business as usual'. Massive military spending. Projection of US Military forces to retain global hegemony, uncheckd corporate expansion and the systematic exploitation of cheap/slave labour in the third world to ensure cheap commodities and luxuries in the USA.


Right on. Carter threatened the status quo. Regan re-established it.


Thats your opinion. I disagree, and here's why:


1907 -- Honduras.
1910 -- Nicaragua.
1911 -- Honduras.
1911 -- China.
1912 -- Honduras.
1912 -- Panama.
1912 -- Cuba.
1912 -- China.
1912 -- Turkey.
1912-25 -- Nicaragua.
1912-41 -- China.
1913 -- Mexico.
1914 -- Haiti.
1914 -- Dominican Republic.
1914-17 -- Mexico.
1915-34 -- Haiti.
1916 -- China.
1916-24 -- Dominican Republic.
1917 -- China.
1917-18 -- World War I.
1917-22 -- Cuba.
1918-19 -- Mexico.
1918-20 -- Panama.
1918-20 -- Soviet Union.
1919 -- Dalmatia (Croatia).
1919 -- Turkey.
1919 -- Honduras.
1920 -- China.
1920 -- Guatemala.
1920-22 -- Russia (Siberia).
1921 -- Panama - Costa Rica.
1922 -- Turkey.
1922-23 -- China.
1924 -- Honduras.
1924 -- China.
1925 -- China.
1925 -- Honduras.
1925 -- Panama.
1926-33 -- Nicaragua.
1926 -- China.
1927 -- China.
1932 -- China.
1933 -- Cuba.
1934 -- China.
1940 -- Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, - Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana.
1941 -- Greenland.
1941 -- Netherlands (Dutch Guiana).
1941 -- Iceland.
1941 -- North Atlantic/Germany.
1941-45 -- World War II .
1945 -- China.
1945-49 Occupation of part of Germany.
1945-55 Occupation of part of Austria.
1945-46 Occupation of part of Italy.
1945-52 Occupation of Japan.
1945-46 Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines in preparation for independence.
1945-49 Occupation of South Korea and defeat of a leftist insurgency.
1946 -- Trieste (Italy).
1945-47 China.
1948 -- Palestine.
1948 -- Berlin Airlift.
1948-49 -- China.
1950-53 -- Korean War.
Dwight D Eisenhower
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan).
1954-55 -- China.
1955-64 -- Vietnam.
1956 -- Egypt.
1958 -- Lebanon.
1959-60 -- The Caribbean.
1962 -- Thailand.
1962 -- Cuban Missile Crisis.
1962-75 -- Laos.
1964 -- Congo (Zaire).
1959-75 -- Vietnam War.
1965 -- Dominican Republic.
1967 -- Congo (Zaire).
1968 -- Laos & Cambodia.
1970 -- Cambodia.
1973 -- Operation Nickel Grass/Isreal.
1974 -- Cyprus.
1975 -- Cambodia.
1976 -- Lebanon.
1976 -- Korea.
1978 -- Zaire (Congo).
1980 -- Operation Eagle Claw/Iran.
Ronald Reagan
1981 -- El Salvador.
1981 --Libya.
1982 -- Sinai.
1982 -- Lebanon.
1982-1983 -- Lebanon.
1983 -- Egypt.
1983 -- Grenada.
1983-89 -- Honduras.
1983 -- Chad.
1984 -- Persian Gulf.
1985 -- Italy.
1986 -- Libya.
1986 -- Libya.
1986 -- Bolivia.
1987-88 -- Persian Gulf.
1987-88 -- Operation Earnest Will/Persian Gulf
1987-88 -- Operation Prime Chance/Persian Gulf
1988 -- Operation Praying Mantis/Persian Gulf
1988 -- Operation Golden Pheasant/Honduras
1988 -- USS Vincennes shoot down of Iran Air Flight 655
1988 -- Panama.
1989 -- Libya.
1989 -- Panama.
1989 -- Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru.
1989 -- Philippines.
1989-90 -- Operation Just Cause /Panama.
1990 -- Liberia.
1990 -- Saudi Arabia.
1991 -- Iraq.
1991 -- Zaire.
1991-96 -- Operation Provide Comfort/Iraq
1992 -- Sierra Leone.
1992 -- Kuwait.
1992-2003 -- Iraq.
1992-95 -- Somalia.
1993-Present -- Bosnia-Herzegovina.
1993 -- Macedonia.
1993-95 -- Haiti.
1994 -- Macedonia.
1995 -- Operation Deliberate Force/Bosnia.
1996 -- Liberia.
1996 -- Central African Republic.
1997 -- Albania.
1997 -- Congo and Gabon.
1997 -- Sierra Leone.
1997 -- Cambodia.
1998 -- Operation Desert Fox/Iraq
1998 -- Guinea-Bissau.
1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania.
1998 -- Operation Infinite Reach/Afghanistan and Sudan.
1998 -- Liberia.
1999 - 2001 East Timor.
1999 -- Serbia.
2000 -- Sierra Leone.
2000 -- Yemen.
2000 -- East Timor.
2001 -- Afghanistan.
2002 -- Yemen.
2002 -- Philippines.
2002 -- Cote d'Ivoire.
2002 -- Philippines.
2003 -- Iraq.
2003 -- Liberia.
2003 -- Georgia and Djibouti.
2004 -- 2004 Haïti.
2004 -- "War on Terrorism": US "anti-terror" related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.
2006 -- Pakistan.
2006 -- Lebanon.
2007 -- Somalia.

Reagan changed nothing.

Its an interesting list and one which can of course be interpreted in many ways, but what I think cannot be ignored is how the USA has gradually become more and more dependent on its military to ensure its 'vital interests' and how that military has gradually come to need an ever larger military budget in order to function. The US military budget is the largest single expenditure of funds in history and the impact of that vast expenditure, and the amount of infrastructure it has created, far outweighs the inmpact of any mere politician. Eisenhower, finding himself incapable of acting against it, famously warned against the Industrial Military complex in his farewell speech to the American people but it seems his warning fell on ears indifferent to the magnitude of what he was saying.

Today, after a hundred years or more of this set of affairs, the USA spends more on 'defence' than all the other NATO countries, China and the Russian Federation combined.

And this is the reality which Barack Obama is going to change?




You are truly lost in the wilderness if you think a speech can change the current status quo. Abraham Lincoln lived in a very different age, and for all the change you say he brought about regarding slavery, how many years has it been since he made his speeches? ...and how many black presidents have you had since then?

As I said earlier. Cultures change, but they change slowly, gradually, by and of their own accord. Abraham Lincoln didn't change anything. He merely expressed a growing sentiment in his time, one which wouldn't make any real head way for decades until after his death. He was a symptom of change, not a catalyst. Politicians don't and can't change anything. The world changes despite politicians.

Barack Obama is no different. As Cruising Ram points out, the mere fact that he can run with such popularity is an encouraging example of a watershed moment in American politics, but its not because of Barack Obama himself. He didn't create this change. Its been an ongoing fact of life since before he was even born. He is merely a symbol of change. A change that is also happening all over the western world, for better or worse, and by no one persons volition.

If he is elected, Obama will not bring about any great change. The vast military economy cannot simply be stopped without severe damage to the American economy and American society. The change has to come from American society itself, and recent history shows us what American society thinks byhaving voted GW Bush into power, twice, in order to maintain the status quo.

Change is coming though. There is no doubt about that. The USA cannot continue to pay its ever growing military budget and once America's military infrastructure begins to fail, so also will the cheap prices that American society rests upon. I predict a new depression will hit America in the decades to come.





I think its a distinct possibility in a country where Presidents have been assassinated in the past. Having said that though, I beleive my prior example will unfold, Barack Obama will find reality is lot different from conjecture. Its one thing to be against war when your not in power, but looking back over the history of the twentieth century, I don't see any US presidents who were able to break the mold. Barack Obama might be the one who finally does, but I'm not holding my breath in anticipation. I see nothing in Obama that heralds a change beyond his skin colour. He is simply yet another Democrat.


Well in point of fact NT this thread is not about Barack Obama, but rather the total enthusiasm of his supporters, and any one can have their say on that matter. Also, you don't have to be American, black or elligible to vote to voice an opinion. Such is the beauty of free speech.

I was in the UK when Tony Blair got elected. I remember the hysterical support he had on the background of a long and unpopular conservative rule and I see the parrellels clearly (perhaps because I'm not sitting in the midst of your Obama high?). Blair and Nu Labour were swept into power on the basis of change. His supporters made the exact same arguments that you and the Barack Obama crowd are making today.

Even after he was elected the enthusiasm continued. It never wained in the first years when Blair and his spin doctors said one thing and did another. The great disillusionment only really came when Tony Blair sent the troops into Iraq and there was no hiding the fact that Tony Blair, for all the hype, was just another Labour Prime Minister. No different from his predecessors.

As I said already, I see direct parallels with Obama and Blair. Either reality will bite the Obamaphiles some where during Barack Obama's first term in office, or Barack Obama will try to change the USA and likely will be assassinated just as JFK was.


I'm sorry NT, but whilst your proudly sitting on the inside and congratulating yourselves on these so called changes, the rest of the world notes that no matter what happens within the American political landscape, America always stays the same. Huge vested interests dominate the world with American agenda's and we're supposed to be happy because the next president might be a woman or black? I think not.

There has never been an American president who changed the USA. There have merely been a few social programmes which made life a bit easier for some of you Americans and which were always paid for by people in third world countries.


Is he indeed? Well, thats good for him I guess.

Trouble is, I'm not sneering at Barack Obama, nor even you. I pity you for the poor choices you have, your heads-or-tails political system and the corrupt lobby system of politics which renders your elections useless. You might like to confuse pity with sneers NT, and thats your free choice, but don't confuse yourself and think you understand the USA better simply because you live in it. Your understanding is that of a man living within a system. Mine is that of a man living without it. Neither of us has a monopoly of wisdom. The difference between us appears to be you don't understand this.


...you think I don't have hopeless dreams too?


edited to add DrewYorkTimes name to the quote tags

leder:

In the sense that the appeal is largely emotional, it's very Hitleresque.

As for his lack of substance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primar...t_both_way.html

If one can't defend one's principles and one's vote, then what use have we for you?

The man is otherwise anti-Christ and anti-life. Voted "present" for:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92.../920SB1093.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92.../920SB1095.html

Apparently, the man finds infanticide to be an acceptable practice. He's worthless.

Funny- you call the crowds "hitler-esque" after we have a real genocidal maniac with delusions of world global hegemony and domination and that is TRULY fascist- and you are okay with that guy- amazing.

We have had debates over whether the calls of "nazi-lite" are reality based against GW, because, frankly- his followers much more resemble your "hitler-esque" type remarks- including GWs means of staying in power (you know, lie alot about how "furiners" are threatening the "motherland") and even the paralells in the reductions of civil liberties, done in the same sneaky manner that Hitler was able to pull it off "you must give up your civil liberties if you want to be safe"- sound familiar?

No, Obama doesn't even come close to "hitler-esque"- the one that is in power today is "hitler-esque" - difference is, he is so incompetant that even his brown shrts are starting to disown him.

Of course- coming from a crazy anti-abortiobn platform that is so familiar to me, having seen it all my life in my own family- with all the relgious dogma underpinnings, perhaps "taliban-esque" would more correctly be your views, correct?

I am very happy we have the option of abortion in our country- because goverment interference in this area is TRULY "hitler-esque".


Heck the vehemence of the GW supporters against Obama tells me I am on the right track- considering he has a tough job to fill, following the worst president in US history- bar none.

1) Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenom?

Considering what an underdog he was at the begining, with Hillary all but crowned THE nominee- no, I think what we see, to my own chagrin, is someone that is truly different than the samesamesamesame we have been seeing for the last 27 years. He is a phenom, not because of the media- rather, the other way around- he is a phenom, and the media can't help but cover it's growth- it is just too newsworthy.

2) What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

He represents change as much as Ron Paul represents change- it is a siesmic shift, and complete repudiation of all things conservative, a complete repudiation of all policies of the right for the last quarter century.

3) Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

I think McCain, if I am following the question correctly- is going to have an incredibly tough time with Obama's "cross over" popularity- look at it this way- Dayton Rocker voted for bush in the first election, and now will support Obama over McCain- that is a siesmic shift for a life-long republican- and DR represents the way life-long conservative republican voter feels about what the neo-cons have done to our country.

I was watching the news yesterday and NO candidate in the history of the US has garnered this much enthusiasm, this early in the race, before he is even nominated as the dem candidate- he is filling STADIUMS when #1 bands in the US aren't selling out those same stadiums. For once, we have a candidate that is bumping Britney Spears from the headlines, and people are ignoring "American Idol" to go see him in person.

Can McCain say the same?

I would like to point out two things

1) I have never seen, in my entire life, so many people, barely over 18, so incredibly informed as this new generation of voters- most kids just out of high school are more engaged and better informed than 90% of the baby boomers out there- I can not even believe thier level of sophistication of the issues- it amazes me- I had to see first hand the terrorism of Ronald Reagan before I connected the dots

2) Obama has essentially killed the apathy that has gripped American voters for the last 1/4 century.

McCain is toast I think.

Not my boy sir and I never said he was. What has that to do with what I said. He is left of even Teddy Kennedy for god sake. He will be a big tax and spend liberal – that’s clear as day. And as for change- the only “change” will be that the friends of the far left will pick up the spoils.

Tax and spend is a dead term now Ted- it is "borrow and spend" conservatives.

I will take an Obama or Hillary over a budget busting republican anyday. There has been no more irresponsibly fiscally group than so-called conservatives in our nations history,

Cries of "we can't afford it" ring hallow when there is a 1.6 trillion dollar boondoggle for big corporate interests going on under the lie of the "war on terrorism".

I doubt very much if I see one percent increase in taxes in the next 16 years, if it lasts that long, under dem rule, compared to the ruinous policies of the right for the last 28 years.

I am worried about the mess that is left for the next guy though- these promises may very well be impossible due to republican incompetance that started under Reagan- a real pity if the republicans have really ruined this country for good, if we can't dig ourselves out of the hole conservatives have created with thier horrible policies.

Funny, and here I thought you were the foreigner who always claimed how much he liked America. Maybe you do. It's just our presidents, political system and people you can't stand.



Another beauty of free speech is that you're afforded the luxury to discourse at length about subjects you know little about and affect you even less. Will Rogers said, "Everybody is ignorant. Only on different subjects." Your interpretation about the impact of Barack Obama on the 2008 American presidential elections provides the evidence of this.

If you can define how one can dissect the subject of "Obamamania" without discussing Obama himself, you're a better man than I (which I suspect you already believe is the case).



Are you hoping the latter will occur or the former?



Strange sentiments from someone who supposedly likes America. Not that I notice you provided any evidence to the contrary.




What you call "pity" seems a lot more like "contempt." Who understands America better? The person living in it looking out or the person on the outside looking in?

The difference between us is you have doubts and I have faith. You see things the way they are and say that's the way it always will be. I see things the way they are and say they don't have to be this way. You have nothing invested in this election or this country. I do, so yes, I DO think I have far more at stake in the future of America than you ever will.

You think you're telling me anything about America I don't know already? I didn't have to major in Political Science (which I did) to know how money buys elections and the interests of the powerful are always considered before those of the powerless. I know all about the dictators, tyrants and strongmen the good ol' USA has propped up, backed up or put into power. I hardly need some self-styled soothsayer from Denmark to give me a history lesson in truth, justice and The American Way.

I've been on the scene long enough to know where I was when JFK, RFK and MLK stopped a bullet. I'm not looking for any political figure no matter how charismatic and blessed with rhetorical eloquence to turn water into wine, walk on water or turn Sprite into champagne. My hope is a bit more modest. I'll settle for just believing that every now and then the good guys can win. All I want to do is feel positive about my president again.

I'm not the least bit confused, Moif. You are. Whether you believe that or not is your problem. There's not a damn thing you can tell me about living in America. And yes, it IS as simple as the fact that I live here and you don't. That's not chauvinism. That is simply a fact. Or do you think high speed connection and a search engine mean you know what it's like to live in America? I have forgotten more about America than you'll ever know.




I'm sure you do. But I don't think dreams are hopeless. Those who give up their dreams are hopeless. People said White people would never seriously support a Black man running for president and that America is hopelessly racist. Only a crazy dreamer could think otherwise.

How ya like me now?

Of course, one man's dream is another man's nightmare. Case in point:




One obvious effect of "Obamamania" is it has the ability to encourage the fanatics to drop their veneer of civility and revert to their natural knuckle-dragging true forms.

Barack Obama is "Hitleresque," "the Antichrist," "anti-life" and supports "infanticide."

Way to go, KHT. Didn't you forget to throw in that Obama is secretly a Muslim terrorist who wants to ground all the Jews up into kitty-litter and rape little White girls?

It's still early in 2008, but if ever has a "Best of" award for The Most Rabid, Crazed and Abominable Post, yours will be a strong contender. How pathetic it is to be so eaten up by hatred and fear of the unknown. Or maybe it's just a Black thing?

The only thing you had right in that despicable gibberish was the final sentence: "He's worthless."

Were you referring to yourself?

I am fairly positive with regards to America I think. That doesn't mean I don't recognise the fundamental problems America has and how these effect the rest of the planets population. I don't hate America, but nor do I love it. I'm not sure what this has to do with Barack Obama's supporters.


Odd since I haven't even written about the impact of Barack Obama on the 2008 American presidential elections. I have confined myself, as close as possible, to the talk of change from Obama's supporters and the extreme unlikelihood of Barack Obama actually being able to change the USA in any meaningful way should he be elected.


You may rest your suspicions for I have not given any thought to who is the 'better man'. By what criteria would one even begin to make such an assumption?

I find it very easy to debate the unrealistic perspectives of Barack Obama's policies and those of his supporters without debating Barack Obama himself.


I am hoping for neither.




So, what do you think was the purpose of that list of American military events in my last post?

The purpose of that list was to demonstrate how America has not changed, contrary to the accepted wisdom postulated by yourself and DrewYorkTimes. That no matter how many presidents came and went over the last one hundred years, no matter how much better life become for Americans, the truth was, and is, that these 'improvements' only came about because American armed forces acted to ensure America's 'vital interests', that America is a house built on cheap foreign labour, the exploitation of natural resources and a deliberate imbalance of economy that keeps America at the top and two thirds of the planets population in poverty.

The fact that I can say this does not make me 'anti American', or 'down on Obama'. I readily admit that Europe, especially the EU with its Common Agricultural Policy, is guilty of the same thing. The list of military events for France and the UK is equally long and depressing.

I point out that the current status quo cannot simply be changed by a single, popular politicians coming along and making a speech and that those presidents whom you listed never in fact changed anything at all.


I would say neither. Each has their own unque perspective. Both can be right, or wrong without contradicting the other.


If that last sentance is truly so, then you betray your own ignorance as to the effects American domination has on the rest of this planet.

Yes. I am sceptical that Barack Obama will change America for the better. I am sceptical because I see no evidence that America itself is able or willing to change and Obama cannot bring you salvation if you are not willing to save yourselves.

You just want Obama to win because he appeals to your ego I think. He is 'black' (you've admitted this is a factor in your elation in other threads) and for you this represents a change in and of itself. I truly wonder if you would have such 'faith' if Barack Obama's name was Barry O'Bramen and he was an Irish Catholic. Perhaps you would, but as you say, I am a cynic and I do not beleive it would be so.


Your antipathy towards anything which does not suit your sensibilities indicates the opposite. In your posts I often see a fundamental indifference as to the reality of Americas effect on this planet which indicates to me that you are not willing to change, even though you speak of change. Judging from your posts I'm sure that you are educated as you say. I doubt it makes much difference to your political views however.


Which is probably why your so willing to ignore the truth of his impotence within the existing American political structure.

Oh, that sweet narcosis...


My views are subjective, as are yours. I am unimpressed by your apparent indigantion for you have not presented any credible arguments to answer mine. Instead of considering what exactly Barack Obama could do to change the USA in a meaningful way you prefer to rant about me, the obnoxious foreigner who dares to lecture you on what its like to be an American (something I have not done, as I neither know nor care what it means to be an American)


I like you just fine I suppose.


The thing about dreams is ...you can't eat them.

Sorry. Didn't read it.



That's your opinion. Mine is every great change starts with one person determined to make a difference.




I'm quite familiar with the effect of American hegemony. One of my favorite books is Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, which deals with the consequences of building a empire with global reach. I dispute your claim that it has a more negative effect on a Dane than a American.



As you said yourself previously, Barack Obama is a politician, not a minister. Salvation isn't his business. Solutions to some of America's problems are. Even if Obama falls short of the nomination or the presidency, he has already changed America for the better. The conventional wisdom that a "Black candidate" can only appeal to other Blacks and a smattering of guilt-ridden liberal Whites has been shattered forever. There will be other candidates of color and gender who will pick up where Obama and Hillary Clinton leave off should John McCain emerge triumphant in November. Some will be discouraged if Obama doesn't win while others will learn from his experience and go on to even greater success. This is not a fluke. This is not a one-shot deal.



If Barack Obama were White and his name were Barry O'Bramen your ego wouldn't be so offended and you wouldn't have as many doubts to his authenticity.

But he isn't White and he isn't named Barry O'Bramen and so you doubt.



Right. That must be why I've often included in my signature this quote from James Baldwin: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.



Truth? Truth is subjective and I reject yours.



Good thing I'm not trying to impress you then. Since you neither know nor care "What it means to be an American" why should I give any credence to your contention that Americans are stupid and choose our politicians like so much sugar water? I know what it means to be an American. I neither know nor care what it means to be a Dane. But then I'm not "the obnoxious foreigner" pontificating about subjects I admit I know nothing about.



Pessimists are the people who have no hope for themselves or for others. Pessimists are also people who think the human race is beneath their notice, that they're better than other human beings. ~ James Baldwin

No, Of course not. After all, that would be germane to the debate at hand, but your not interested in that are you? Your much more concerned with the fact that a non black, non America voter has dared to have an opinion about Barack Obama which runs counter to your own. Consequently your replies are all about me and not the actual topic.


All debate can be boiled down to 'That's your opinion. Mine is...'. I wonder then, if you can't be bothered to even read the arguments which run counter to your own, and (as I see below) you simply make up false arguments for your opponents, just what exactly is your purpose in posting here?


This is yet another a false reply. Just exactly where did I make such a claim nighttimer?


I have never disputed that, nor made any claims to the contrary. I wonder why you are arguing against points I have not made. I suspect it is because you cannot meet my actual arguments and therefore you must resort to making up arguments on my behalf so you can post your opinions.


Not true. Unlike you, I have never made any claim regarding the value of Barack Obama's skin tone. In point of fact my subjective opinion rests (as I have made abundently clear several times already) on the comparison of Barack Obama with Tony Blair.

In case you are unaware, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingodom, is 'white'.


Its too bad you can't take criticism from other people then.


Fair enough, but then why participate in a debate that you are not interested in it? Are you a troll?


I never said Americans are stupid. I've never claimed to be an expert on America either.
If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd have understood that.


So you've convinced yourself that since I do not share your opinions, I must be a pessimist who thinks he is 'better' than every one else. Congratulations. I think that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I believe James Baldwin also wrote: Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.

I agree entirely, and this has been my point all along this thread (which of course you'd know if you cared enough to read what I'd written). Simply voting in a new president, be they a woman, or a man is not going to change America. America will only change when Americans face up to the burden American hegemony puts on the rest of the world.


edited to add:

I just read DrewYorkTimes post in the Omaba Vs McCain thread and found this interesting article. Its interesting to me that a Nigerian shares a similar perspective to my own. In particular, this sentence caught my attention:

Rather than getting embroiled in any of the ongoing discussions here, some of which have become so intensely personal that I'd feel like I was interrupting something (I hope you guys are using condoms), I'm going to start afresh with my thoughts on the questions.

Is 'Obamamania' mostly a media creation or an actual political phenomenon?

It is an actual political phenomenon, fueled and at least partly created by the media. The last thing in the world that the corporate powers that be want (and, yeah, that includes the mainstream media) is a Democrat in the White House. So long as it looked like Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee, but an unelectable candidate, she was just fine. Once it started looking like she could actually win the election, the media had to shift its sites to a candidate that really was unelectable. Fortunately for them, such a candidate was waiting in the wings: Barack Obama. If the Democratic Party foolishly goes for Obama and if he wins the election, I'll be delighted. But I suspect he has about as much chance of winning a national election as Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul. That's what military industrial complex types are banking on - and why <i>they</i> so desperately want Obama to be the candidate.

That said, the Obama campaign really seems to have captured the imagination of a good number of sincere and serious-minded people, including numerous people here. And, at this stage, it is their faith that seems to be driving the movement - to the extent that Obama could come much closer to winning than the establishment may have imagined.

On the other hand, I'm troubled by a lot of the Obama supporters I meet face to face. Not one of them has been able to tell em the difference between Obama's health care plan and Hillary Clinton's. Not one. And they appear to be equally ignorant about every other position outlined at his web site. All they can tell me is to refer to his web site if I want to know what his positions are. I usually suggest that they might want to try that themselves. To these people, the support seems to be solely for Barack Obama himself, regardless of what his policies may be. They know that he, as an individual "gives them hope" and "stands for change". They're not as good on the "why" or "how". I know that doesn't apply to most people posting here, but it has already been recognized that we are not exactly typical voters.

And I'm afraid I have to agree with KivrotHaTaavah one at least one point, though it pains me to do so. When I see footage of Obama rallies, with all the "Fired Up! Ready To Go!" and "Yes We Can!" chanting (and now brandishing the iconic Obama posters by Shepard Fairey) , I keep looking around for Leni Riefenstahl with a camera. Frankly, they give me the creeps.

What is the sense, as well as the extent, in which Obama represents change?

Apart from the most superficial sense (Obama is not old and white, though he's unmistakably a man), I don't see the candidate as representing real change of any description. In terms of policy, he's virtually identical to the rest of the Democratic field (if somewhat more conservative than some) - and, where he differs, I tend prefer the positions of other candidates (on health care, for example). Who in the Democratic primary campaign didn't represent "change"?

Obama is ahead because he's spending more money than any other candidate - where's the change there? And the majority of his money isn't coming from "grassroots supporters" it's coming from corporate sponsors and special interest groups (of the $138 million raised, over half comes from corporations, lawyers and lobbyists) - where's the change there? The fact that the bulk of his corporate sponsors are financial institutions indicates that he'll be much more beholden to Wall Street than Main Street - where's the change there? And if anyone is looking for a change from ambitious career politicians with monstrous egos, they'd better start looking elsewhere.

Do you think that this incredible popularity during the nomination process could potentially backfire in a Presidential campaign (against the GOP contender)?

I don't see it backfiring, but I can see the purported groundswell losing steam before the convention, not to mention the election - we'll see if this level of enthusiasm can be sustained for another eight months. I still see Obama Girl's failure to vote as the defining moment of the Obama campaign. There is also the possibility, depending on how effective the Republican Noise Machine is after the primary season, that the old adage "The higher the steed, the greater the fall" might come into play. There are <i>already</i> people out there pushing for a grand jury to investigate Obama for federal crimes in relation to his dealings with Tony Rezko and, if the candidate turns out <i>not</i> to be as squeaky clean as he and his supporters are portraying him, quite a few innocents could be turned off by him as quickly as they've apparently been turned on.

I have nothing against people getting passionate about politics. I'm less impressed by people who get passionate about politicians. And that's what I'm seeing in Obama supporters.

I'm usually in tune with many of the pronouncements from The Wertz Generation, but on the subject of Barack Obama, I fear your well-attuned political radar is off-kilter.

With respect to KivrotHaTaavah's ravings and droolings equating Obama's rallies with Nazism and then you dogpiling on with the Leni "Triumph of the Will" Riefenstahl reference, I got one question m'man--what is UP with all these lame butt Nazi references??? Adolf Hitler is like so 1940's y'knowwhudimean?

If you wanted to strain for a metaphor you could have compared Obama's rallies to a extremely hopped-up high school pep rally before the Big Game between Lake Wakanapetka High and Our Lady of the Perpetual Chasity, but I guess that's not scary and malevolent enough. Hey, I know, let's play the "Sieg Heil" card. Yeah, that's ALWAYS, good for a giggle. It's over the top but nobody likes Nazis!

Over 40 percent of the population of the United States has grown up under the dominion of two families named Bush and Clinton. If people are showing up in huge numbers to hear a candidate speak during a freaking primary, maybe that is a testament to how much they crave a figure who gives them a sense of optimism and rekindled belief that something positive can come out politics. We've had enough on triangulation and preemptive war and presidents pretending to be compassionate conservative and feeling our pain.

Could it just be within the realm of possibility that after eight years of the feebleminded frat boy's smirking and painfully tortured jabberings that Americans are thrilled (perhaps overly so) over a man who is actually articulate?

Barack Obama isn't too good to be true. He's got his share of failings, shortcomings, character flaws and bad habits. Thank goodness we're only electing a President, not a Pope.

From Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.:

The chief executive's power does not derive solely from the authority vested in him by the Constitution. To the contrary, it derives also, and in some ways, more so, from his ability to rally the people, to inspire them in some great challenge or crusade.

We do not live--yet--in a dictatorship. Americans do not move because they are told to move; they move because they are inspired to. It is no accident that history's most successful presidents are the ones who were able to frame, with concision and grace, America's challenges and hopes, the ones who had greatest command over what Theodore Roosevelt famously called "the bully pulpit."

Think Ronald Reagan saying government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem. Think Franklin Roosevelt declaring that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Think Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg vowing a new birth of freedom.

Now, try to remember anything Millard Fillmore ever uttered. A hundred years from now, will anyone still be saying, "I'm the decider?"

What some of us don't understand is that Obama is not running a campaign; he is rallying a movement. After seven years of what may go down as the worst presidency ever, after the grime of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, after dreary years of internecine sniping where ideological purity has routinely trumped national interest, Americans want something else. Something higher. link

Some of us are old enough to remember how the eloquence of a John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and yes, even a Ronald Reagan, were derided as nothing more than empty platitudes. You don't have to agree with the messengers or even their message, but Holy Guacamole Batman, can't you just be happy for a minute that a population usually narcotized on a overdose of PlayStation and reality TV is actually paying attention to friggin' politics

I am a supporter of Barack Obama and I am unapologetically so. I really don't feel like I'm part of a cult. There's nothing evangelical about it either. It's not even a movement for me. I'm a little too old and a lot too cynical to lead, follow or be part of any movement.

As I've said before, I happen to be voting FOR somebody instead of AGAINST somebody and I can't remember the last time I did that. I'm sorry Wertz, if you find Obama just another well-tailored empty suit. I understand the difference between getting passionate about politics and not politicians. Unfortunately, trying to separate out the politicians from the politics is like trying to separate five-star cuisine from the talented chef that prepares it.

The meteoric rise of Barack Obama may include a similar fall. However, there's a difference between glib cynicism and straight out playa-hatin' and this thread has become a outlet for the latter.

What flava of Hater-Aid are you drinking, Wertz?

The American Conservative Union, on its scale of 1-100, with 100 being most conservative, rated Obama an 8 and Hillary an 8 for 2006 (The 2007 results are not yet posted). McCain got a 65, although his colleague from Arizona rated a 92. The two Senators from my state of Georgia were rated 96.

You can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#IL

I'm going to have to part ways with almost all of my conservative brethren and say you guys are a disgrace.

Why can't any of you see that Obama is the only candidate out there who genuinely cares about people.

I can't believe I actually saw references to Hitler and his followers in this thread in comparison to Obama.

OK who guessed Sleeper's password and has taken over the account?

There were 13 Senators who scored lower than Obama and Clinton. Guess he must have stepped up his game in 2007.

My conclusion is Barack Obama is not a conservative. What's yours?

Why?

Isn't that sort of mass manipulation leading to hysterical euphoria pretty normal in American politics these days?

Some one mark this date down! I find myself in agreement with NT. Obama is NOT a conservative. He's not a centrist either and I think that's going to cause him some problems running against John McCain. McCain's base is in the center and as long as he keeps it that way by not running around as he did for awhile telling everyone what a conservative he is, McCain will be fine. That kind of marginalizes Obama on the left and I just don't know that he can win the general election that way. I'm looking forward to the campaign because I think there are going to be some pretty stark differences between McCain and Obama, and hopefully both with stick to the issues at hand.

As far as this "Obamamania" thing is concerned, it's not uncommon in American politics for people to be enthused about their candidate. As NT stated in so many words, he was happy to be able to vote FOR someone as opposed to against someone. I know the feeling and it's a healthy thing and a good thing for the country. Hopefully there will be a good debate between McCain and Obama on the issues. I think if that happens, McCain can win. And, from my perspective, that's a good thing. ( I suspect NT and I are now back to disagreeing)


Aquilla

You clearly put too much faith in my political radar. I don't believe that Obama has a chance of winning the national election - and I'm guessing our radars are giving very different readings here.


I'm describing a personal reaction to the behavior of Obama supporters - and, while I find the near religious fervor of sports fans frightening, you're right: chanting mobs at political rallies are scarier and more malevolent. I don't care who the personality is, I find the "madness of crowds", as Charles Mackay described it, devoted to political figures deeply troubling. A pep rally in a high school gym isn't quite the same thing.

It should go without saying that the politics of Adolph Hitler are vastly different than the politics of Barack Obama and it's perhaps unfortunate that we don't have more "friendly" comparisons. I doubt that rallies supporting Chairman Mao or Eva Peron or Francisco Franco would be any more acceptable. If you can do better than the Lake Wakanapetka Otters, let me know. So far as I've heard, the Otters aren't hoping to become a head of state.


I don't see people turning up to hear the candidate, I see is people turning up to chant "Fired Up! Ready to Go!" and "Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!" every time they are cued to do so. Now, I haven't been to any Obama rallies, so maybe the reality is different than what the Obama campaign keeps posting on YouTube. If people are listening and responding with genuine and spontaneous enthusiasm, that would be somewhat different. But I see nothing spontaneous in these clips and broadcasts. I see hopped up adults, not teenage Otters fans, behaving like Pavlov's dogs. That, to me, is not liberating, it's slavish devotion to one individual. Leonard Pitts is right - Obama is rallying a movement. But what's the movement? As most Obama supporters can't tell me his position on much of anything, it's a movement that is clearly based on one personality - and not his policies.


I can understand growing weary of seeing the same names on the nightly news - but should that be a determining factor? I'm definitely with you on the Bush dynasty. But what was wrong with the Clinton years (this is for you, specifically, should you be moved to respond - I'm not trying to open this out to another Clinton-bashing thread). Is there such a thing as competence fatigue?


What're you - channeling Joe Biden now? But what's wrong with articulate women? For that matter, what was so inarticulate about Edwards or Biden or Richardson or Dodd? If all we're looking for is someone that can put two words together, the world is full of people more capable than George W. Bush.


Sure - but Obama is promoting himself as being "different", the candidate of "change" - changing how things are done in Washington, reaching across the aisle, instilling a spirit of cooperation, restoring dignity to the White House - in fact, almost word for word, everything that George W. Bush ran on in 2000 (some of us are old enough to remember his eloquence, as well). The point is that a lot of people think they're supporting someone who's too good to be true. And I dread to think what will happen if the scales fall from their eyes before the election, should he be the nominee.