What is Obama going to change?

This is a serious question. I keep hearing "change" and "hope" but I want to know what is he actually going to change?

into a newt.




:evilgrin:

their democracy.

Our 8 candidates, and certainly Barack Obama, have brought new Democrats to states' registration rolls and have activated the notion of voting, of participating, for giving a damn.

We've outpolled the Pukes somethin' fierce so far.

I mean, it's all great and well to be excited about something, but what is it that is making people this excited?

evening in Madison was in single-digits, with a bit of wind thrown in just for kicks.

Some 20,000 people showed up to hear him.

It is certainly possible that you could assemble 20,000 vacuous morons on a frigid evening who have no idea in hell what they're there for, but it is my very best guess that they were there for good reasons. One likes to be generous in guessing others' motivation, but I don't think these 20,000 needed any bolstering. My impression is that these are likely registered voters, overwhelmingly pro-Obama, very likely independent progressives or liberal Democrats, very likely well-informed and astute citizens & voters, and they would not have shown up on a night like that if they did not feel meaningfully inspired to do so.

When I go to a movie, I don't just walk in to one. I try to see who's in it, who did the script and soundtrack, and maybe catch a review or two. You could say that that is an act of "mere entertainment," but a Louis Malle or a Robert Altman or an Ang Lee might object to that assessment.

I am mid-way or so through THE AUDACITY OF HOPE, Obama's excellent book. If you haven't read it, pick it up at a used book site on the web and see for yourself why someone like Obama attracts capacity audiences on prohibitively cold nights.

I remember you when....you were an Edwards man, like I still am. I respect you greatly, but in reading back your response above, you GAVE NO ANSWERS TO IRIS, ONLY EMPTY REMARKS.

You see, there is nothing there, there. What is there is just the purposely BLANK SCREEN of rhetoric, for which people project their own meaning. Why do you think so much goes in the unanswerable category when people at these rallies are pressed for content.

This is truly sad.....

I was beginning to think I was just crazy.

I asked Iris to read the man's book before she underestimates his strengths.

I believe she'll find it an especially concise and peersuasive tome.

Sorry Crusoe, here is where we part company. I don't have to read a book to know a candidate. What you are suggesting is ludicrous, or have you lost so much perspective, you can't see it?

Read a memoir, which has already been assailed for exaggeration and untruths in order to understand a campaign? Did yoiu have to do that with John Edwards, Crusoe? Did you have to read a book or go to a link to know the man or what he spoke for??

Well...??????

You get to vote for the candidate of your choice.

I get to vote for the candidate of my choice.

That ought to be pretty clear in U.S. electoral politics.

Our first choice candidate is not going to be the next president.

I don't seriously believe you think people who've chosen another candidate have lost their perspective, because that would be inaccuarte on its face and it would make you something of a programmatic mudslinger in the bargain.

This is the level of discourse you now follow Crusoe? You insult me because I question the use of illogical considerations for supporting a candidate? Would you ever have asked somone to read an Edwards book, so that they could better understand him?

Do you see, I raised a valid point because you weren't able to answer Iris? If not, then we agree to disagree. You have found your candidate and that is good for you. However, I don't think Iris is buying and neither am I.

In fact, your responses only serve to focus the spotlight on the strange crankiness that accompanies Obama supporters, rendered strange by the so-called audacity of hope and its message of unity. Why so cranky when pressed for answers regarding content or platform? Hmm?

Senator Clinton.

And indeed she may go on to win the nomination.

Yeah, 'weasel' is the word I wanted, but changed it so as not to disturb your cleric's sensibilities.

Passages from the sacred texts which emphasize quiet contemplation are ones I know you hold very close to your heart, ClericJohn.

run afoul of a man of the cloth.

No sense gambling away the afterlife on a DU post!

supporters among the lot of us. I'm somehow not surprised that you and your nastiness have migrated to Clinton.

There is absolutely NO excuse for the personal attack you just launched on Crusoe, none. He wasn't talking to you, he was being civil and engaging in discourse with an OP who obviously wanted nothing but to flamebait and entrap. Yet you inserted yourself in a most uncivil and obnoxious way. This is what Hillary inspires in people and also, evidently, the kind of people she attracts.

I hope someday you find the happiness that is obviously lacking in your life, John.

Have you read it, or are you just nibbling at the cement?

It left me empty, frankly. It felt at times calculating and insincere, like a campaign ad in the form of a book. I thought it was simplistic and even vague sometimes. He did make some good points, but overall, I wasn't really impressed.

to start if you haven't been drawn to investigating Obama, yet.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Agree with you, zidzi. That website gets it done.

I see nothing there that inspires the kind of devotion to him that his followers have. It's no different than any other political website I've seen - carefully saying things about "issues" but not really anything controversial or even all that original.

of savior.

Read the book.

I'll join you in a forum on its contents when we're both done reading it and ready to chat.

PM me and we'll set it up.

Hardly anyone will give this question any real consideration - only snide comments.

Frankly, I don't have time to read his book. To be perfectly honest, I intend to vote for him in the general election if he is the Democratic nominee, but I'd really like to feel good about it.

politics.

Good luck finding a race anywhere where that isn't so.

Very frankly, people enthusiastic about Clinton or Obama or anyone else doesn't owe you an explanation of their choice.

Happy trails.

I'm just wondering why in the HELL his supporters are so certain that he is "the one" to the point of hysteria in some cases.

read John Nichols in THE NATION, Frank Rich in the NEW YORK TIMES, and dozens of other columnists.

They've been all over this story from last year this time.

If you want some insight into Obama's appeal, those aren't bad places to begin.

"changes" and how he will effect them. OMG, we are seriously f**ked.

states and will likely choose one or the other of our frontrunners.

I hope you'll be able to gather yourself together enough to honor their collective choice.

I swear I thought it was just me.

propoganda..Obama's not a savior..per se. He's a presidential candidate whose history shows he can implement progress in our government..take this 8 year nightmare that our country has been through and turn it around to begin the healing we so badly need. The US's priorites won't be feeding the military complex machine, destroying our environment, ignoring the infrastructure..ect, ect, ect.

Just sayin'.

Just from a stupid thread on a pretty ridiculous discussion board?


What part of "lately" do you not understand?

trend.

You're really good.

and you don't have time to read the book.

So your OP question rings a bit hollow.

You see, it's being suggested that you might be able to self-answer your question with a little reading on the subject.

Nor did I say I did not read Obama's website. But I will admit I almost didn't when the first time I found it I was asked to provide my zip code and email address to "learn more."

May your miles be merry.

You know I'm right.

he'd have far fewer votes and therefore much less credit.

If we had, we could insure that the same thing doesn't happen to our nominee. What has Obama done to change the way we vote and to get rid of electronic voting machines.

For that matter, I'm not sure what, if anything, Hillary has done. Especially interesting, since we believe it affected him adversely, what has John Edwards done during the last four years to eliminate electronic voting machines and central tabulators?

You appear to have missed Edwards' campaign suspension announcement.

part in increasing Democratic registration this election cycle.

Those numbers have been impressive. You appear not to have noticed, or perhaps not to very much mind.

But against Republican campaigns, those are vital stats.

As I indicated initially.

Pro Reagan homophobic Republicans and kids who don't know history love Obama. That speaks volumes.

...

There are several issues that he can work for "change" on, and be successful. A change in our foreign policy would be tops I hope. With the economy, and health care close behind.

From what I can see, healthcare is not really a priority for him. How will he change the economy?

ready for "on day one"?

Obama will appoint sane justices to the SCOTUS.

Obama will send a message to the world that we are open minded and reasonable people.

Additionally, do you think Hillary Clinton will appoint insane justices to the SCOTUS? Of course she'll be ready on day one. She knows everything to do first hand. You can't escape that experience on her part, and a lot of people, pug or dem, recognize this, even though they don't want to admit it.

the only criteria I'd have to vote for McCain. He's got plenty.

But that's not my only criteria.

I don't dislike Hillary. But I'm not voting for her based on her talking points.

I prefer to give the next generation an opportunity to try to fix the mess. Maybe I just think it's time for some new material.

running the world. In fact, the five and a half years he spent in captivity have probably left him with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. He is probably a very dangerous man, but, he knows how to shoot a gun, so pugs will vote for him.

BO is an unknown when it comes to his positions. He is so vague I don't understand how people can put the future of our country in the unknown. This isn't president of the Country Club it's the President of the US. Don't give it away for an unknown, vague entity. It just really scares me. Why in the world would anyone want someone with little or no experience in this field?

MUCH worse.

the winning answer! Congrats, K!

I await answers for both of these valid questions.

succinct about it, too. His "I Have a Dream" speech was clear and unbelievably moving, and he certainly elucidated what changes he wanted made. Don't compare Obama to Martin Luther King. I lived in Birmingham in the fifties and sixties. I know whereof I speak.

and made them decide they could no longer be friends with us. Why did that happen, exactly, sniffa? I'd still like to know why you decided you could no longer be friends with us. We sincerely liked you and Bi-Baby. :wtf:

and working his way up. He's into 'we' instead of 'me'. I like that.

and can he be specific about what he's going to change on the grass roots level? Especially considering he'll be making decisions on a federal level?

some that reflect what I wrote. And I meant if we're lucky enough for him to be our nominee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4635235

I'm really not trying to be difficult, but I rarely see anyone defend him with an actual policy he wants to implement. It's all "hope" and "change."

To be honest, I've waffled between Clinton and Obama but lately I'm really uncomfortable with the "hope" and "change" mantra.

his policies.
Did you read the comments on that thread, not just the OP? He has handled a massive ground game that is helping him win. He must have some good advisers, and good ideas of his own.
Do you want his records while working in Chicago or as a senator? It's all here on DU, if you really want to learn, do some searches.

Honestly, there's been tons of info posted.

then how come no one here can articulate them?

are weary. Have you done the same. Have you read Hillary's autobiography, for instance? Have you read her issues and ideas on her websites?

Or, are we the only ones who have to read because we haven't been sprinkled with the magic glitter.

He has not handled a massive ground game. I believe the man that's done that is Axlerod (?) and evidently he's been running Obama ever since he won his first election in the Illinois senate. I really don't know enough about Axlerod to vote for him for Pres. I have read, and read, and read. For instance:

I read not too long along that Obama's precinct captains were telling all of the little people going out and knocking on doors, to not get into issues, but to tell the people they meet how they came to Obama. Sorta like how you "come to Jesus", you know?

I have read his Illinois senate record, and his US Senate record. I still don't know what he plans to change and how he will effect this. I honestly don't believe he does either, or it wouldn't be a secret

", to not get into issues, but to tell the people they meet how they came to Obama. Sorta like how you "come to Jesus", you know?"

and couldn't care less about knowing the facts, so I refuse to waste my time with you.
If you sincerely care, have at it. The facts are at your fingertips.

with a white glove. Pistols at dawn?

NT

You're the reason we keep asking what changes he intends to make. I know for a fact, that Hillary Clinton has no intentions of doing anything alone. She, of all people, knows that "It Takes a Village". Your answer is sad, and unbelievably naive.

It's difficult to take seriously a poster who poses the question you do, as if you have no idea.

How about this as a start: He believes a presidential candidate should produce his or her tax returns to the voters, to reveal conflicts of interests and connections. Hillary doesn't. She's like Bush, and doesn't favor transparency.

How about not starting stupid wars?

How about not bathing in money from lobbyists, like Hillary?

Do you need more?

nominee of a party for the presidency. Surely, you all know that, don't you. This is a red herring. Also, she probably hasn't even filed them yet, or, rather, her accountant hasn't. You can disclose them if you like, you just aren't required to do so.

There should no longer be any acknowledgement by Obama supporters of this line of "argument." He has made his positions known and his call for change clear.

Head out of the sand, dear Iris. This kind of thread was dated two months ago. Good luck to your candidate. She will need it.

And the MORE I pay attention, the more disturbed I get by the lack of substance coming out of that campaign.

If you think that's paying attention after Barack at the GM plant this past week, bless you.

You're a partisan. That's fine. But that line of "lack of substance" is fading fast, and for you to say you are getting "more disturbed" - when you obviously made up your mind some time ago - just doesn't wash. Pretty familiar here, though.

Guess we will know more in the next three weeks. But your line of argument is growing stale. Come up with some new talking points.

I was honestly just sitting here wondering how so many people can be behind someone over "change" and "hope" and hardly ever make an argument against the other candidate that includes how that change is going to happen.

and now there's Pakistan. (See further down the thread).

it would fall harmlessly at your cognitively dissonant door, no matter how compelling a fact or truth. You would just deny it, so why bother.

You are all "true believers"....

Endquote.

Peace be with you.

:evilgrin:

They say this has been answered before ad nauseum, yet none of us have seen anything but platitudes and nonsense.

It's so tiresome.

I've pretty much proven my point to myself by putting myself out there by asking the question here. Fortunately, the worst personal attack against me has been only that I obviously don't "read much" which is truly laughable, but still very few real answers.

:shrug:

n/t

1980 Reagan (Bush),
1984 Reagan (Bush),
1988 Bush,
1992 Clinton,
1996 Clinton,
2000 Bush,
2004 Bush.

:hi:

It needs improvement anyway, it's just way too, well...secular...

The whole "faith" thing rings hollow for me. And sets a precedent that I hoped never to see in this party.

So we can fuck up a whole nuther country. No, no. It's good. Halliburton can win some no-bid contracts and make a shitload of cash that will eventually trickle down to you. No really, it will. See, they'll buy fancy dinners with the money. And the waiters will make more tips. And they and their boyfriends will give their nieces and nephews more spending money for Slurpees, and the sales tax from those Slurpees will go to pay for more cops in your neighborhood, which you will totally need because when all these vets come home there's going to be an astronomical rise in mentally ill vets sleeping on the sidewalk, and the cops are going to need the tax money to buy more tasers so they can shock the vets into submission and this will DEFINITELY benefit you, because if the cops are busy practicing their newly learned Gitmo/Abu Ghraib methods on homeless vets, then they'll leave you and your family alone.

But hey, we need to find Bin Laden so let's get right over there stat.

As far as the Slurpees references, I leave you to your stream of consciousness (or unconsciousness, as the case may be).

Yes... millions of regular real people reside along with a few members of Al Qaeda-- who also reside in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and (or so we've been told) in pretty much every country in the whole wide world. So perhaps we should, oh, I don't know--.unilaterally strike the whole world? I'm sure the disaster capitalists appreciate your concern.

Or maybe we shouldn't fall for this shit again. We don't need to send 100,000 troops to Pakistan. Many people don't even know why we have troops in Afghanistan anymore, considering the fantastic job we've done rounding up innocent taxi drivers and goat herders and sending them off to Gitmo.

Maybe we should listen to the ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, a lovely little man with gold-rimmed glasses who was quietly horrified when he discovered that the UK and the US are using Uzbeks to round up innocent people and forcing these people to sign confessions, to say that they "know" fabricated terrorists (people the US wants? people the Uzbekis want to harm? arbitrary people to puff up the lists? who knows...) in nations around the world they've never set foot in because they're nothing but poor farmers. Don't believe me? Here ya go: http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Samarkand-Craig-Murray/dp/1845961943/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203306719&sr=8-5

Even if a pre-emptive strike took out every member of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, would it do much more than radicalize the remaining Al-Qaeda? Would another group emerge? Al-Nexta? We are not fighting an enemy; we're fighting a concept. Instead of using a bigger army, maybe fighting with better concepts would do the trick. We don't need 4000 martyrs. We need to help stabilize their democracy.

call as to which wars should be entered into and which millions of real regular people should die.


See, I am learning something from this thread after all!

NT

See Power of Nightmares on Youtube
BBC 4 producer did a documentary on Al Qaeda and found out it doesn't exist!
It's like the Turkish American Council Sibel Edmonds ran into and found out the FBI was running it, not stopping it.
It was run by top neocons.
Check out Sibel Edmonds.
Al-CIA-Duh, the CIA Arab Legion.
Ever wonder why they always attack US targets?
Qaddafi, Serbia, Iraq?

Bhaaaaaa! :scared:

He's gonna getcha! He's coming to getcha! Where's the tickle monster? Tickle monster's in Afghanistan! Tickle monster's in Iraq! Tickle monster's in Pakistan! Tickle monster's in America! In your closet! In your drinking water! Booga Booga! You're gonna get tickled! We need 100,000 more troops to deal with the TICKLE MONSTER! How we gonna get em? Ain't nobody wanna sign up for the mil-i-tary. We're gonna have to have a dra-aft. How else are we gonna get more troo-oops?



Well, at least we won't be in Iran. :shrug:

Maybe that's why he was buddies with Ayer of the Weather Underground all those years?
So the Rethugs can call him a terrorist in the General Election?

law professor, done in power point presentation, supported again by FACTS and logic. Why would I listen to that?? Sheesh.

(seriously, that was excellent !!! Thanks for linking to it)

1st choice was Gore
then Edwards
Closely followed Obama

you have me all figured out!

I'll have more time to look at it tomorrow - it's nearly 30 minutes long.

:hi: :)

What the hell does that even mean!!1!?

:shrug:

Sorry. In a mood...

seems we share a common view...

n/t

Someone is not getting the message. But maybe that's the whole point.

The man cannot be both liberal and conservative. It just doesn't compute. Why is it also considered a good thing by so many that the Republicans like him so much?

is divulging his liberal policies? I really want to know.

I've seen no one here mention a single issue - not education, not the environment, not the economy...

I can almost picture mccain with mule ears poking through his red-white-and-blue straw hat, pulling an elephant in a small wagon.

"Yah Mule!" (on edit corrected for the proper animal acceleration phrase)

both the domestic and international fronts, along comes McCain to piss it all away.

Otherwise, he'll be in the middle of something, and Bush will drop by the Oval Office unannounced and say, "Hey Brillo-Head, I'll jest be a minute. Gotta grab a bottle o' Jim Beam I hid in the filing cabinet. Oh, an' don't tell the ol' ball 'n' chain, OK? She'd have my nuts on toast."

To which Barack would reply, ":eyes:."

And today, there's THIS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4639753

Reading this thread in the light of day is stunning and saddening. Posters I have long respected offer all the same bromides. What the hell has happened to strong, fighting thinking Democrats?

I have asked these questions too. Believe me, I want to feel the magic, see the light. be a member of the club for change. But I open the door and see an empty room, full of shadows and shifting shapes.

I see no hope with Hillary. But I do see toughness, an understanding of the issues, and detailed plans to achieve change.

I am hoping for a brokered convention, looking for Al Gore to save us, along with the rest of the planet.

I fully intend to vote for the Democratic nominee come November. I'd just like to think I'm doing it for good reason.

Some have mentioned that DU has changed and I believe it has. When I first came here, a question like mine would have been answered with snippets of articles, links, rhetorical questions and I would have felt a lot differently this a.m. than I do today.

It's a sad day for me. I feel like we are just the flip side of Bushbot Republicans.

I'm at a loss to understand what is going on here.

Seriously, all candidates talk a lot and promise things. You can probably go blind reading the candidates position papers on their respective websites. I think they both have specific plans in several areas. If you really, really want specifics you should start there.

But whoever gets into the Presidency will not just be able to wave a magic wand and make it all happen. The Pres gets legislation into Congress (aka the sausage factory) and works the process. Obama's been a legislator (state and fed) for some time so he's not exactly unaware of how the process works. Neither is Hillary, of course, whose seen the process from both the White House as well as a Senator. That's the mundane reality...legislation slogging through Congress.

In the meantime of course Presidents also set the tone of their presidencies: yeah, it's the vision thing, but more concretely it's their priorities, what they work for, who they work with, who they listen to, the appointments they make and how they run the government. It is, after all the Executive Office.

For example, Bush did a lot of damage to regulatory oversight. Regulations don't go through Congress and so sometimes get little noticed. Will the new Dem Pres get to work undoing that damage and facing down the interests Bush served? Will the new Pres renounce the "unitary executive" and all its works?

And as much as Congress has given Bush pretty much a free ride, I doubt a even majority Dem Congress (currently a tenuous majority in the Senate) will just fall in line with everything a Dem President proposes. To get something through Congress, there will be smoozing, arm twisting, deal making and compromise. That's the reality. Hard work and slogging.

That's one thing he's already changed. So, when they say change, that's what they want "change" they want to see. Mark my words, when the truth comes out later, many Democrats are going to be embarrassed they played a part in crowning this man the candidate for our party in '08. He is a Republican. Nothing is going to change but progressives will no longer have a party. That's the only change that is happening. Thanks for nothing BO supporters.

You could have learned something by reading a little during the hours you spent trolling this board with your fake concern.

I've got 9006 posts and have been here since 2002, so I'm not exactly "trolling" here.

Been voting dem since 1980

That is all.

Seems to be the #1 thing.

Because we all know this new world is all about cut and paste.

can answer your question. many of them don't know anything about obama or what he stands for, besides the "hope and change" thing. one of my friends, a long-time union organizer, caught the "bam" after hearing him speak, and even she, a supposedly astute political observer, cannot tell me what the "hope and change" would look like.
someone mentioned that obama's vagueness gives people the opportunity to project whatever that want onto him and his candidacy, and i have to agree with that assessment. see andrew sullivan's atlantic article for a really extreme (and bizarre) example of projected magical thinking.
i cannot help but remember the last charismatic candidate who won on vague slogans and promises of "hope"...one ronald reagan.
i do believe obama would be a far better president than reagan...without a doubt. but honestly, i don't think he would win the election, if nominated. i have my doubts about clinton winning too.

It was interesting.

i almost feel sorry for obama, with "supporters" like sullivan. imagine the outrage if he can't deliver the magic...

I mean, what do all these people think he's going to do that is "change"? So far, no one has given me an answer that makes sense. And I can't help but think these are the same kind of people who jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon and slowly, slowly trickled off the "I support President Bush" bandwagon. I really hate to think this is the way our country is going to continue to pick leaders.

remember how quickly that disappeared when his veneer of the sane and honest one in an administration full of rabid warmongers wore off? at least he had the decency to jump ship, however, he's a perfect example of the messiah complex gone bad. likewise with mccain...i also recall a time when he was considering a viable democratic candidate here.

dismissal of history as relevant to current reality, lack of critical thinking, additcion to msm soundbite "now is all" culture, memes as truth, savior mentality, etc. all of that = doomed to repeated the same mistakes over and over again.

Health care.

Economy.

If you're actually interested in answers, you can check out his website.

Why does it always have to be a quip, a smart-ass response, or an insult to the asker or to Clinton?

But we don't think you're serious when you want an answer.

You'll notice you just moved the goal posts. Which tells me you weren't asking the question seriously to begin with.

They're covered in Clinton dung.

Post started at 6:41 pm Sunday.
Last post at 9:46 am today

You could have read the book, the website and viewed Lessig's video that was suggested to you at the beginning of this thread.

Oh, well.

except for 'look at his website' (which also doesn't mention anything that sounds substantively different from Clinton's policies). No big "change" is outlined on his site.

The "change" is Obama, himself. The ultimate in grandiosity.