?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Eroticdreambattle [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Obama [Jan. 8th, 2008|10:41 am]
Tony Grist
I suspect- being very cold and rational about it- that Hillary is the better bet- the one with the experience and the background and the policies- but it's hard not to find Obama exciting. He 's smart, impassioned, unspun, untainted- and he makes people feel good about themselves. When was the last time American politics threw up a candidate like this? Bill Clinton? No, not really. I reckon you have to go back as far as Bobby Kennedy.

We've been through a really dreary, depressing time and here, suddenly- appearing out of nowhere like Joan of Arc-  is this brilliant young man- and he's drawing crowds like no politician in recent history has been able to draw them- not just of the faithful but of the unaligned and traditionally antagonistic.   He may not go all the way- and if he does he'll disappoint us- but every society needs these "bliss was it in that dawn to be alive" moments. They're not about substance but about hope and the revival of national myth. America had become old and brutish- the country of Dick Cheyney and Donald Rumsfeld- and that's how not she likes to think of herself. (It's not how her traditional allies like to think of her either.) Thanks to Obama in the last couple of weeks we've caught a glimpse of a better, rootsier America- energetic, pioneering, idealistic and- above all else- young.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: suemars
2008-01-08 12:47 pm (UTC)
i like obama also, hes got my vote so far. i really don't care for hilary, just something about her...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 01:50 pm (UTC)
Hillary has been around too long. She's deeply implicated in the "culture wars" of the past 20 years- and a very divisive figure.

She also represents the sort of dynastic politics- where a person gets the job because of who their relations are- which the Bushes have exploited and made so repellent.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arielstarshadow
2008-01-08 01:04 pm (UTC)
Here's the thing about our "Presidents" - the smart ones surround themselves with experts, so that they don't have to be an expert on everything.

Frankly, we need more not-so-much-politicians in office. The career politicians are all corrupt to some degree, and it's just one of the reasons our country is going into the toilet.

That's not to say that Clinton would be a horrible President - far from it. Just that really, we need less politicians and more people who really want to make a difference (and no matter what garbage they are spouting, most politicians want to keep the status quo).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: karenkay
2008-01-08 02:07 pm (UTC)
"the smart ones surround themselves with experts, so that they don't have to be an expert on everything."

This has been George Bush's tactic. I don't think it's worked all that well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: dakegra
2008-01-08 01:37 pm (UTC)
I'm excited about the prospect of Obama for President. Young, intelligent, seems like he actually cares about stuff.

Basically, all the things George W. isn't.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 03:16 pm (UTC)
Electing Obama president would be the most fantastic public relations exercise.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: halfmoon_mollie
2008-01-08 01:44 pm (UTC)
He IS exciting. I saw and heard his speech at the Democratic Convention during the Kerry/Edwards debacle. He was electrifying! But I don't know about untainted. At his very best, Bill Clinton is mesmerizing. It is helping his wife's campaign because HE is a people person and she's not so much. For the last few years, I had thought perhaps she was the right person for the job - but just because she is a woman, doesn't mean that she is. Ron Paul (the Republican candidate who is setting all kinds of money raising records) scares me to death. If the attack in September of 2001 did nothing else, it scared this country. I see the fundamentalist 'backlash' as a direct result of that.

Of course, we know NOW that it was mostly John Kennedy's fault this country got involved in Viet Nam, he turned out not to be quite as golden as everyone thought he was.

I'm watching, and paying attention. I'm not declaring myself as a supporter of anyone as yet. I'm sick of the petty nyah nyah nyah, yes you did, no I didn't. And you're right, he probably will disappoint us. But he managed to polarize the young people in Iowa, and get out the vote. That in itself is AMAZING.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arielstarshadow
2008-01-08 01:55 pm (UTC)
Mike Huckabee is extremely frightening as well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: pondhopper
2008-01-08 02:33 pm (UTC)
I'm refraining from forming any firm opinion or choice as yet. I like Hillary. I like Obama. Unless both disappoint in some major way right now I think either has good and bad to offer. Inspirational is nice, of course, as is charisma. But what it comes down to is who will best serve and fulfill their campaign promises to the best of their abilities. So I watch and wait for now. I think Feb. 5 will be the decisive date, our "super Tuesday" with primaries galore.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 03:26 pm (UTC)
I agree. It's far too early to call the result. A great deal can happen over the next few months.

And isn't there the posibility that Bloomberg may run as an Independent?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: solar_diablo
2008-01-08 02:55 pm (UTC)
I seem to be one of the few Americans out there who is suspicious of Obama. To me, he feels like a paper tiger, a feel-good media construct. Having Oprah stump for him hasn't endeared him to me at all in that regard. If he secures the Democratic nomination (and at this point it seems very likely he will), I will have to do some serious research into his background and political platform.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 03:32 pm (UTC)
It's always right to be suspicious of politicians.

The present vibe around Obama reminds me of the vibe around Blair when he won the '97 election. That was a glorious victory for youth and progress- which very, very quickly turned sour.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: aerodrome1
2008-01-08 03:21 pm (UTC)
Alas--- Obama looks far too much like Gollum in the "Lord of the Rings" films. The American people will not vote for a man who murdered his own brother to get the One Ring.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 03:35 pm (UTC)
I don't know. His eyes are a lot smaller.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: margaretarts
2008-01-08 04:08 pm (UTC)
I'm all for Obama right now, but I'm watching everyone carefully. Not watching for simple human missteps which the media loves to exploit and rerun for prime time, but watching what the candidates seem to be really saying inside. Notice how every time H Clinton says, "It's all about America, I care about what Americans feel," she shakes her head side to side, as if to say, "I can't believe I'm saying this stupid stuff." Whereas Obama seems to be the real deal, does believe in what he's saying; I just wonder why he, a brilliant young man with so much promise, wants to enter such a rat's nest as the presidential palace. I could imagine him getting elected and, 8 years later, he leaves the White House, possibly embittered, with gray hairs already sprouting, not having been able to push through reforms dear to his heart, seeing that "we the people" really do not rule this nation, only a few people do. Why does Obama really want to be president now, when so much is crumbling -- is it really to change the course of America or for some other reason? But I do agree with you, it would be a perfect time for hope and revival. So much is riding on this election.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 06:58 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't want the job in a million years.

But power, fame, constant attention, a place in the history books, the assurance that people will be discussing your character and achievements for the forseeable future, possibly forever- that's quite a prize.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2008-01-08 04:19 pm (UTC)

email

just a reminder that I've just replied to your last one....
(Reply) (Thread)
From: msjann65
2008-01-08 05:59 pm (UTC)
I sincerely hope that nobody out there is lumping Hillary Clinton in with the "old folks network" and going for Obama simply because of his youth and his gift of gab. The media started on Hillary the day after her husband was elected to the presidency, and they have not let up since. The attacks on her candidacy are mostly sexist, gender-specific. After the twelve years of Reagan and Bush the First, Bill Clinton came along as a breath of fresh air (HE was the youngster THEN!), and cleaned up the economic mess left us as a Republican legacy. It took Bush the Second less than six months to wipe out the Clinton surplus and escalate the national debt and the deficit a la Reagan, and less than two years to get us into an unjustified war. And still, my people, the American people, voted Bush the Second a second term (Just like they did with Reagan). I really hope that the revisionists who have rewritten the history of the 1980's will not succeed in doing the same with Bush the Second's presidency.
Meanwhile, back to Hillary, and Obama. How about neither of these? How about Edwards, who at this point does not look as if he has the chance of the proverbial snowball?
For my money, I do not see a Republican sitting in the White House during the next eight years -- George Bush the Second settled that, but good. I am not that worried about this election, because I know there will be a Democrat in the White House in January 2009. Which one is the question?
For me, I will not vote against Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, because she is older, because of "dynasty" fear, or because of a personality issue. I will not vote for Obama because of his boyish appeal, his eloquence (Hitler was eloquent, too), his race, or his "first of his kind" approach. I will not vote against John Edwards because he got an expensive haircut, or because he "selfishly" kept on his campaign after his wife's cancer was pronounced incurable.
I am heartily sick of the media deciding for me what I will think and for whom I should vote. And so, I am looking at the record, at the platforms, and yes, at the person him-or-herself.
And now for my prediction: The Democratic slate will be Obama/Clinton OR Clinton/Obama, and they will win the general election! And that, my friends, is a whole lot better than anything the Republican party can offer.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 06:53 pm (UTC)
The guy on the TV news has just said that Clinton is in danger of being "swept away by generational change". I don't have a problem with that. The past twenty odd years in American politics have been characterised by savagely divisive factionalism- and Hillary has been at the heart of that- more sinned against then sinning admittedly- but still part of an ugly scene which people are sick of and would like to see changed. In terms of ability she may well be the best of the candidates, but ability isn't what this election is going to be about.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: halfmoon_mollie
2008-01-08 06:18 pm (UTC)
I'd like to point something out here, something I heard on the radio the other day but something I have been thinking myself.

We have

Obama
McCain
Huckabee
Paul
Guiliani

and...Hilary.

Now. I realize that there has been a Clinton in politics for a long time, but anyone with any sense knows which Clinton is running. Is it just because she's a woman?

Just food for thought.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-08 06:39 pm (UTC)
"Is it just because she's a woman?"

Yes I think it is.

On the other hand RFK was often referred to simply as Bobby- in order to distinguish him from his brother
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: internet_sampo
2008-01-08 10:56 pm (UTC)
I feel the same with that you do towards Obama, in spite of myself. Most americans get easily sucked into the "Washington outsider" trope (see Bill Clinton, George Bush). But that's given us a) the best Republican president in memory (Bill Clinton) and b) the best total failure president in memory (George Bush).
I read this op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem and I was floored by my own blindness to what was going on. Hillary really is the fresh perspective, the female perspective.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-09 10:13 am (UTC)
I take Steinem's point. I'd love to see a woman as president- I'm just not sure I want to see this particular woman.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2008-01-10 12:17 pm (UTC)
I'm very skeptical about nearly all of the presidential candidates although I do like Kucinich. There's all this excitement about change, new policies etc that but at the end of the day the democrats are just as complicit in all of the bad stuff that has happened, for instance funding and agreeing to colonial war in Iraq at the expense of the lives of who knows how many innocents, and they seem to have done nothing of note to right or prevent so many of the wrongs that have occured since 9/11 - all the civil liberty erosion. They're pretty much all as bad as each other in my book. Sorry if this seems less than enthusiastic but I can't see America pulling itself out of the s**t any time soon - Tom F
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2008-01-10 03:41 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree.

What Obama achieved in Iowa was a moment of uplift- which may be over now- a moment when- briefly- we caught a glimpse of another, better America. Yes, it was "such stuff as dreams are made on"- but dreams are important too.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)