I agree with Obama's comments about the Baby Boom Generation

and how most Americans want to move beyond the cultural wars. He's not disrespecting the great battles fought, just acknowledging it's time to approach the battles in a way appropriate for the 21st Century.

I could elaborate, but that's it in a nutshell. I think people saying he's "throwing the baby boomer's under the bus" are missing the whole point. He's not saying that at all. He's just saying it's time to turn the page, as JFK once inspired the nation.

I'm 40, for the record.

I know there was 'OUTRAGE' here, but can't figure out why.

and I thought he was spot on...

I just wish he'd get off the Social Security in crisis BS.

Edwards still has my vote.

besides that.

And I think Obama has a fresh approach to many issues.

He's not just 'biting the hand,' he's 'spitting in the face'.

It's like saying it's time to replace burgers with something else.

In that, Obama's just acknowledging the reality of the situation. Those who are attacking are just trying to make political hay with the usual spin.

Hoyer, et al. See how well that works.

:thumbsup:

that would offend me. If the boomer birth range is from 1946-1964, then I'm one of them, sadly. I really think the boomer generation will be the most detested in history.

He said absolutely nothing. Hillary is fighting the same wars since the 60 and he has something different. WHAT ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Faith and progresive ideals have become exclusionary as a result of the historical culture wars. He's not excluding people, whether they are religious or not. He wants to promote progressive values in red states and blue states, everywhere. It goes back to his community service work in Chicago and the historical roots of his church, the Black church.

The McClurkin controversy has been a speedbump in this process, but the goal is to energize the liberal, progressive elements of communities of faith, whether they be Christian, Buddist, Muslim, or whatever. He really is seeking to change hearts and minds through a tranformation of how we see ourselves as Americans.

And, in an international context I have no doubt Obama would be quicker to talk with our adversaries before going to war. Engaging with those he disagrees is his modus operandi...domestically and internationally.

In foreign policy, he's not hung up on the conventional thinking of the past. His stance on opening up Cuba is a good example. He has vision and he's willing to take political risks for his vision.

Beautifully stated.

He can not be all things to all people all of the time -- no one can do that but his ability to cross many lines in order to blend a new America makes sense.

I may not agree with each and every move he makes but I see clearly where he is headed.

He has a World View, a fresh way of looking at most issues.

Of course he has a "business as usual" in some areas but that's politics!

Would he dismantle the American Empire?

Would he get private heath insurance companies out of medicine?

Would he end the failed drug war?

I haven't really heard much except that he's talking about change.

In what way?

That's the only change I can figure.

What's the way to approach the battles of the culture war that are appropriate for the 21st century, vs. whatever baby boomers are doing? Or what's turning the page, in practical terms? If there's something more that he's written or said about this, I'd like to give it a fair hearing.

That while civil rights are still an important cause today, because times have changed, our tactics have changed somewhat, too. It doesn't mean that the cause is no longer important - but we must, in many respect, go about things differently to adjust with the changing times.

For example, in the 60s and part of the 70s, marching and protests were an elemental part of most civil rights activity. This wasn't because we were looking for opportunities to spend time in crowds, but because it was the only way to get our voices heard, since we were not represented in or listened to by most elements of the power structure. That has changed somewhat. While we're nowhere near where we need to be, we do have more influence than before. Not only do we have representatives in Congress and in the boardrooms (not enough by a longshot, but some of us have slipped through the door), we also have influence with others who may not look like us.

I think that's what Obama is talking about - he's not belittling, denigrating or dismissing what baby boomers have accomplished - he's simply saying that we must adjust our way of doing things to comport with the changing times.

Didn't he say something about them 'fighting the same battles' leftover from the 60s, 'sex, drugs, rock and roll, Vietnam?'

I think his point was that he could unite the country better, or work with the other party in DC better (?). But I don't know what that means in practical terms, as far as being president; and I'm not sure it fits with what you're saying.

Those are tactics that have been important to every social movement in human history. Conventional history books leave out that pesky fact that collective sacrifice; imprisonment, injury, and death is what has driven every advance in social and economic justice.

There has been no change in tactics; there is, quite frankly, no tactic. And there is no changing times. It is how it always has been. Human beings struggling for social and economic justice with the oligarchy pushing back. Throughout human history, the only times that human beings have won against the oligarchy is to join collectively to wage a credible threat to their order.

Obama may think that he is merely criticizing tactics but when he characterizes people once did and those who continue to put their life and livelihood on the line to advance the human condition as a "Tom Hayden Democrats", then, quite frankly, he is the enemy of progress.

Faith and progresive ideals have become exclusionary as a result of the historical culture wars. He's not excluding people, whether they are religious or not. He wants to promote progressive values in red states and blue states, everywhere. It goes back to his community service work in Chicago and the historical roots of his church, the Black church.

The McClurkin controversy has been a speedbump in this process, but the goal is to energize the liberal elements of communities of faith, whether they be Christian, Buddist, Muslim, or whatever. He really is seeking to change hearts and minds through a tranformation of how we see ourselves as Americans.

And, in an international context I have no doubt Obama would be quicker to talk with our adversaries before going to war. Engaging with those he disagrees is his modus operandi...domestically and internationally.

In foreign policy, he's not hung up on the conventional thinking of the past. His stance on opening up Cuba is a good example. He has vision and he's willing to take political risks for his vision.

If he thinks the Clintons aren't friendly to the "faith community," why not just say that?

You mentioned he'd be quicker to talk to adversaries before going to war, but I think one of his criticisms of boomers is that Vietnam caused them to resist wars.

Also Cuba -- how does being a boomer vs. non-boomer affect policy toward Cuba? And if there's a difference, why not just state the difference without making it about generations?

It is ridiculous to take the position that the left rejected faith. It is a right wing driven piece of crap that too many on this board except without question.

Martin Luther King, Jr., - man of faith
Malcom X, man of faith
Father Daniel Berrigan - man of faith
Fannie Lou Hamer - woman of faith
William Lloyd Garrison - man of faith

The left historically, have embraced it's progressive leaders whose spirituality was the impetus for the social activism. The left does not reject religion. What is being rejected is fundamentalism. And the right has taken this rejection of fundamentalism and catapulted the propaganda, the outright lie, that we have rejected religion altogether. They've managed to equate religion with repulican, and in the process negated the spirituality the drove our civil rights heroes.

And we buy into this crap by inviting bigots like McClurkin. We don't need bigots like McClurkin to energize liberal elements of communities of faith when we have real live liberal spiritual leaders who won't reject our GLBT brothers and sisters for political gain.

i`m in favor of a profound change in the course of this nation...but will he deliver? the devil is in the details.

It picks at a scab that stays kinda wet all the time.

No matter what he meant, the result has been a shitstorm that didn't need to happen.

I would rather have a leader who says what he means even if it is unpopular(with the resulting anger by some) then somebody who is afraid to speak his mind at the risk of offending somebody

Albeit where MY nosy neighbors are concerned, 39 y.o. has been the best ten years of my life. ;)

:hi:

i'm rapidly moving from not impressed to considering him the enemy. leave the goddamn baby boomers alone you freaking jerk! tell us about the military actions you're not suspicious of you freaking jerk. how can anyone possibly be impressed with this man?

still trying to teach the lessons of the sixties that the nation, and obama, haven't learned, like the freaking government is as corrupt as sin and has been for a long long time. either you're cleaning it up or you're part of the corruption.

The Way Appropriate for the 20th Century is the Way it Always Has Been...with strength, determination, and devotion to principle.

The idea that there is some new angle on these age-old problems is nonsense.

and we can't stay stuck in the arguments of the past. We've got to get busy changing things, there's too many problems for people to constantly demand their own way or no way.

The Culture Wars are the "wars" that the RWers are waging. Newt Grinrich, Rush Limpbaughs, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, etc. have been waging this "war" for a very very long time.

I can't think of any liberal or progressive that is part of this "war" only the ultra conservatives are waging this battle.
I have never heard a liberal or progressive even mention fighting in this battle. We never bring it up.

Somehow I always imagine all those ultra conservatives during college trying to hit on the hippy chicks only to get turned down. So now they are bitter and taking it out on the whole movement.


And if the "Boomer's" are from '46-'64 then hate to break it to Obama, but he falls into that category.

You're right. Divisions have been delineated by the right wing. They continue to promote the differences in values between Americans, highlighting them at every chance possible. Just watch Fox News and you see it happening: the religious vs. the secular; San Franciso vs middle America are two of the "Culture Wars" that Fox News escalates among its viewers on a regular basis.

What does that mean?

Essentially it means write off everything we're still fighting for:
Racial equality
Gender equality
Sexual equality
Worker's rights
Veteran's rights
Disabled persons' rights
Reproductive freedoms
Religious freedoms
Political freedoms

And I'm absolutely certain, far more that I am unable to pull up on short notice. Those are the battles of the culture war, Calteacherguy. Which one do we retreat from first?

specifically the bold part:

and how most Americans want to move beyond the cultural wars. He's not disrespecting the great battles fought, just acknowledging it's time to approach the battles in a way appropriate for the 21st Century.

I see nothing about retreating in his post

What is "a way appropriate for the 21st century"? And how, exactly, are all the baby boomers getting it wrong? The ones that are actually still trying seem to be doing pretty well to me, and the oens that aren't aren't going to get off their asses, 21st century or no.

And when the first statement made is "put the culture wars behind us" you really can't try to append that to mean something else.

Human rights, all.