E-mail
Print
Obama mania
More than hope and potential needed for a good candidate
By Amanda Moucha
His speeches are full of broad, open-ended political rhetoric that means, as I said, nothing. The Obama campaign is too often about how wonderful the Obama campaign really is.
It seems everywhere I turn people are rallying behind Obama. Fox News even labeled Obama as “the greatest orator since Cicero.” A witty hyperbole to be sure. Up on stage, he’s got one thing going for him, and that’s charisma.
Obama talks about hope, about change, about “we as Americans,” about unity and about a brighter future for everyone. Best of all, or so he says, he’s going to make America a better place, and people are just eating out of the palm of his hand.
Our generation, in particular, is buying into the Obama hype like no other. There’s something novel about a candidate who rips on Washington and its lobbyists, admits to doing marijuana and cocaine when he was younger and wants to avoid the inevitable conflicts that exists in any democracy.
And don’t forget, having your average middle-class white college student supporting a black candidate like Obama helps to alleviate any white guilt you may have. It’s as good as the “I have a black friend so obviously I’m anti-racist” defense that allows people to idly stand by and never deal with the complicated issue of race relations in America.
But there is a problem with all this, and it’s a problem we conservatives have noticed for a long time.
Obama is running his campaign on entire nothingness. His speeches are full of broad, open-ended political rhetoric that means, as I said, nothing. The Obama campaign is too often about how wonderful the Obama campaign really is. In other words, “Obama Fever.”
Yes, all his speeches sound very nice, but don’t be fooled and fall for a candidate simply because of his intentionally vague political phrases. Don’t just believe him when he makes “hope” out to be the miracle word that will cure the nation. It takes more than hope and potential to be a good president.
Obama’s campaign has also incessantly called for “Change” in order to solve all our problems. Change will help the poor and middle class while punishing the oil companies and upper class.
Change will end political corruption and allow everyone to get top-tier healthcare. Change will form a blissful utopia where every child receives an Ivy League education and every worker can count on his job being there for eternity. Change, don’t you see? Change will solve everything.
So tell me, Obama, how do you plan to implement change?
At the end of the day he is still a politician, and politicians tell people what they want to hear.
This is a warning to all the Obama supporters out there who are jumping on the bandwagon for reasons as simple as “He’s a good speaker” or “He’s not just another politician.”
To run the most powerful country in the world, it takes more than a good stump speech. It takes more than a well-run campaign that recognizes the public distaste for politicians and attempts to paint its candidate as a different kind of politician. It takes experience. It takes political savvy, and it takes the ability to make hard decisions.
Obama has hardly proven himself thus far in this regard. At a time when we need strong leadership as much as ever, I fear the country would be taking a great risk putting such an unproven man in office.
Obama is not ready to be president of the United States, and speech after speech about hope and change will fail to convince me otherwise.
As a pragmatist and a conservative, it's going to take a lot more than that to earn my vote. To be the next great president of the United States, it's going to take solid positions on tough issues.
It's going to take someone who recognizes that politics is about power, not fluffy words, hope and vague intangibles.
Bottom line? I haven't caught the fever.
> Comments
Johanan on Sep 08, 2008 at 10:36 AM:
He doesn't want to reveal his substance because substantively he is a closet radical and shouldn't be anywhere near political power.
Chris Walker on Sep 08, 2008 at 04:07 PM:
Glad to see you are still writing, Amanda :) However, and you should see this coming, I have to disagree with you, strongly even. Obama's speeches -- his stump speeches to the people who are supporting him already -- may seem vague, but in speeches when he's speaking to people that may be on the fence -- like, for instance, the DNC acceptance speech -- he's been very clear on where he stands, from his tax policy (which will give back three times as much for middle class families as McCain's policy) to his plans on health care to his foreign policy.
Additionally, his website is full of information regarding his policy stances. His speeches, in my mind, are not vague at all -- ask me anytime where he stands on a particular issue, and I can give you an answer. :)
_ on Sep 08, 2008 at 10:54 PM:
"As...a conservative...it's going to take a lot to earn my vote."
Really? So you're not already in the McCain/Palin camp?
Please.
McCain is an awful candidate. The Republicans had several better options, and they know it. And Palin? Really? One year as governor of the 47th most populated state and a few as mayor of 8,000? Oh, and she is out of her mind crazy.
This editorial has no substance. The Republicans are not Christians or conservatives; they merely exploit those camps.
Attacking Obama (for all his faults) doesn't erase the fact that your party has driven this country into the ground.
Nor does it erase that you supported the people who trained and funded bin Laden and Hussein.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Sep 08, 2008 at 11:10 PM:
To the nameless coward posting as "_"
Funny how you attack the author of this column and not the substance of the arguments presented. Funny how you apparently lump those with conservative ideology into the Republican party. Funny, and a little ironic how you're the one calling someone else crazy.
My point? Funny, yet uselessly meaningless post. Congrats on...well...I'm sure there's something you could conceivably be congratulated for. Your lack of contribution to substantive conversation regarding this column is not one of those things, however.
Johanan Raatz on Sep 09, 2008 at 12:41 PM:
McCain is an awful candidate. The Republicans had several better options, and they know it.
How so? He seems fairly reasonable to me. Obama on the other hand is mostly puff and hidden radicalism. As a right-leaning moderate McCain has gone along way to securing my vote as I believe he has with many other moderates.
"And Palin? Really? One year as governor of the 47th most populated state and a few as mayor of 8,000?"
Look she has had more executive experience than both Obama and Biden and if we are going to criticize her for inexperience I would like to mention that Obama is just as inexperienced (only he never had any executive experience).
"Oh, and she is out of her mind crazy."
What evidence do you have of this? Besides looking at Obama he supports infanticide and is friends with an unrepentant terrorist so wouldn't claims of craziness here be like the pot calling the kettle black?
"Attacking Obama (for all his faults) doesn't erase the fact that your party has driven this country into the ground."
If you are talking about the dollar. That was devaluing do to longterm economic trends that were set in motion long before Bush came to office.
Greg on Sep 09, 2008 at 01:13 PM:
Obama is talking about change, Mccain is talking about change. You know why everyone is talking about change? Not because they are going to change Washington, but because the polls say that voters want change.
Let me boil this down for you. Bush has 25% approval rating. Polls show that voters want change. Obama's campaign knows this and decides to run of the policy of "change". Brilliant. Not because change is really needed, but because if he talks about change he is talking about what voters want. Even more brilliant is the Mccain camp that realized that "change" is working for Obama and decide to steal it from him.
If you truley belive in changing Washington, shrinking government, cutting taxes, ending the war, repealing the Patriot Act, legalizing gay marriage, legalizing weed then you should vote for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:04 PM:
"If you truley belive in changing Washington, shrinking government, cutting taxes, ending the war, repealing the Patriot Act, legalizing gay marriage,"
But I thought all of those things were "change" in the last couple of years.
"Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr."
I don't know Bob Barr is a little too kooky for me.
Greg on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:51 PM:
I don't understand your comment. They are indead change. The point is, do you really believe that either the reps or the dems are going to make any serious change any time soon? Have they ever? What can you name that anyone in the federal government have done lately to benefit America?
"Kooky"
The only thing that is kooky is falling for the ugly lies that come out of the candidates mouths. You can stick up for Obama or you can stick up for Mccain, but the truth of the matter is that they all have good points and bad points but given the partisanship you're never going to get anywhere. We need real change, and that, my friend, isn't the type of change Obama or Mccain are talking about.
The change that is needed is regarding the fundemental way we look at government. We need to get back to the roots of our country and that is the Libertarian ideals.
Ok, for those that think Libertarianism is "Kooky" (because you don't know any better), here's a simplistic way to think about it.
Conservative economic policy coupled with Liberal social policy.
Liberals don't know shit about economics and conservatives are all dicks. How can you go wrong with taking the best parts of each and putting them together. Who ever said that small government economic policy had to go with religious family values? And who ever said that big government socialist economic policy had to go with tolorent equality. Its like for years we took the best parts of ideology, split them up and have been fucking door knobs ever since.
Listen, all I'm saying is that if you are going to stick up for a candidate over another, you owe it to yourself to read about the only other major candidate. (No, Nader isn't a real candidate because he's only going to be on a few state's ballots) You'll be suprised how much you have in common with him.
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:17 PM:
"Ok, for those that think Libertarianism is "Kooky" (because you don't know any better), here's a simplistic way to think about it."
I'm not calling the ideology kooky just the candidate. I mean I agree with much of what libertarians have to say about economics I don't think they are kooks just the current batch of presidential candidates that have been coming from that ideology.
"We need real change, and that, my friend, isn't the type of change Obama or Mccain are talking about."
That depends on what you want to change.
"Who ever said that small government economic policy had to go with religious family values?"
Not me: http://uwmpost.com/article/52/27/3420-Cloning-Leviathan
In a disorderly and morally relativist society sometimes stronger modes of governance are needed to maintain moral order.
"And who ever said that big government socialist economic policy had to go with tolorent equality."
Rawls. You see the notion of "tolerant equality" as defined in the modern PC sort of way would not have arisen without socialism first arising. Social constructs like companies operating in the free market evolve and out compete each other through evolutionary forces. The only reason inferior social constructs can continue to exist to such a wide degree is because socialist philosophy allows them to exist off of the "social capital" produced by the more functional social constructs.
"Conservative economic policy coupled with Liberal social policy."
Well I don't particularly like current liberal social policy. Too far in the other direction is bad as well but the pendulum has swung way too far to the left when it comes to social issues. It needs to swing back at least to the center.
Chris Walker on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:27 PM:
Think about this...what would be more of a change? A candidate who has pledged to keep with the status quo on many issues? Or a candidate who will 1) create a health care plan that anyone can opt into, regardless of their history, that will be affordable and give coverage no matter what, 2) lower taxes on the middle class while giving a modest tax increase on the upper 1%, 3) engage in meaningful and responsible talks with those who may be at odds with American interests (not the same as appeasement, mind you), 4) keep jobs in America through tax incentives, and so forth. That's just what I can come up with on the spot, in thirty seconds.
What radical changes would Obama implement? Let's be honest, Johanan, radical to you is anything left of center. John McCain, in some respects, is radical to you ;)
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:32 PM:
"Let's be honest, Johanan, radical to you is anything left of center. John McCain, in some respects, is radical to you ;)"
No I wouldn't classify Hillary in the same category as Obama. There is liberal and then there is radical.
Chris Walker on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:44 PM:
Why not? Their policy positions were almost identical. In fact, the only difference in their health care plans was that Hillary's required you to opt into the state health care if you didn't have insurance already. So what makes Obama radical? Don't say that he's friends with Ayres; I want to know WHY Obama is radical himself (after all, I'm friends with you; does that make me radical? ;])
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:46 PM:
1) create a health care plan that anyone can opt into, regardless of their history, that will be affordable and give coverage no matter what, 2) lower taxes on the middle class while giving a modest tax increase on the upper 1%, 4) keep jobs in America through tax incentives, and so forth.
Those are liberal positions not radical positions however radicals will take these positions as well. Think of a right-wing moderate and a right-wing extremist both supporting free trade, the war, or opposing abortion.
"3) engage in meaningful and responsible talks with those who may be at odds with American interests (not the same as appeasement, mind you),"
That is not quite radical yet but is getting close. If you know about how diplomacy operates you'll discover that the talks of this kind can only mean appeasement when it means talking with people that have wildly different values that yours. People like Ahmadinejad only go into talks with westerners for the intent of either misdirecting them or making them bend to their goals.
What I mean by radical about Obama is his financial support of his communist cousin who is trying to overthrough Kenya, his support of infanticide, his global welfare program, his support of so-called "social justice" and his peculiar long-term associations with radicals. You can't say that you think the "right company" is "structural feminists and marxist professors" and not be at least partially radical yourself.
"John McCain, in some respects, is radical to you ;)"
Not really. Remember I was on what Malkin,Rush,Hannity and company might call the RINO side during the McCain/Romney rift. Remember the article I wrote asking for people to stop attacking McCain?
What I mean by radical about Obama i
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:47 PM:
Chris when I say I think Obama is more radical than the others I do mean it. I would be hard pressed to place most other democrats into a category with him. I'm not just saying this because he is to the left of me.
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 05:04 PM:
"So what makes Obama radical? Don't say that he's friends with Ayres; I want to know WHY Obama is radical himself (after all, I'm friends with you; does that make me radical? ;])"
Well yes I suppose I could be radical by the same card since I have friends who are communists. However many of the comments he has made suggest to me that their beliefs have either rubbed off on him or that he had those beliefs to some degree all along.
The mentor, Frank, he refers to in his book is actually Frank Marshall Davis an activist in CPUSA. There is a difference between having radicals as friends and having radicals as mentors. If it was just Reverend Wright or Just Bill Ayers it wouldn't bug me so much it's that these associations keep appearing much more so than the ordinary politician and the comments I have heard from him about these don't exactly put me at ease.
You may also want to check this out: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1282/is1660/ain28028560/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
(knowing how politicians work this wouldn't surprise me)
Chris Walker on Sep 09, 2008 at 05:15 PM:
"If you know about how diplomacy operates you'll discover that the talks of this kind can only mean appeasement when it means talking with people that have wildly different values that yours."
I don't know, these kind of talks seemed to work during the Cuban Missile crisis. Hell, we owe half the "peace" of the Cold War to talking with the Russians actively (the other half of the credit belongs to MAD). The SALT treaties seemed to be a good thing too, coming from talks with our biggest adversary at the time. Surely we can handle talking a nearly-third world country out of nuclear weaponry rather than bombing the crap-load out of them.
Regarding Obama's cousin Odinga, a good visit to snopes is in store for you: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
"Raila Odinga...has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama...However, no evidence has been offered to document that claim and the fact Odinga made such a claim only in the immediate aftermath of the disputed Dec. 2007 elections...suggests it was an opportunistic fiction."
"Spokesman [sic] for both Obama and Odinga deny that the former donated any money to the latter's campaign."
"I would be hard pressed to place most other democrats into a category with [Obama]."
I would be hard-pressed to find many Democrats who support funding for faith-based programs, a normally conservative position; yet Obama supports it. He is not, prior to what many believe, the most liberal senator in Congress.
Ryan Anderson on Sep 09, 2008 at 08:00 PM:
This editorial nailed the "voting blind" mentality of so many uninformed lemmings who support Obama.
They give the actual Obama supporters a worse name then they already have.
benjamin on Sep 09, 2008 at 09:12 PM:
"(No, Nader isn't a real candidate because he's only going to be on a few state's ballots)"
Forty-five states in only "a few" ballots???
Greg on Sep 10, 2008 at 08:05 AM:
Well actually as of today its 38 states ballots, still more than I originally thought.
Aaron Jeske on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM:
Nice article Amanda, couldn't agree with you more.
I love how some liberals (Not the smarter ones who have sided with McCain once they realized their only sensible candidate is nowhere to be found on the ticket) and their media are trying to bring Sarah Palin down by questioning her experience. Yet they seem to miss the fact that Palin is a VP candidate who has as much if not more experience than their presidential candidate.
If the dems were smart they would nominated Clinton for prez and Obama for VP, but instead they chose to drink the kool-aid.
Chris Walker on Sep 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM:
"I love how some liberals and their media are trying to bring Sarah Palin down by questioning her experience..."
No, we liberals are pointing out the hypocrisy that the Republican Party is employing through their pick of Sarah Palin. All we heard all year long was how Obama had no experience, he's inexperience, he's all talk, etc. but then McCain chooses a candidate who has less experience in governmental affairs than Obama, not to mention less education.
Experience is only necessary, it seems for the Republicans, when it is to their advantage. George W. Bush had less experience than Barack Obama, but that doesn't seem to matter much. Barack Obama even has more experience than Abraham Lincoln.
Experience is one thing, but like being able to inspire the masses, it only goes so far. McCain's experience as a senator shows that he's going to continue many if not all of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
Obama has the experience necessary as well as the vision required to be president.
Johanan on Sep 14, 2008 at 07:32 PM:
"McCain's experience as a senator shows that he's going to continue many if not all of the failed policies of the Bush administration."
Well when most people talk about Bushes failed policies they mostly mean how the war was handled. Although Bush's low approval rating is a boon to Obama I seriously doubt it would be that low if we took the war out of the equation. Now McCain happens to have promoted the surge from the beginning. The thing that screwed the war up so far was Rumsfeld not wanting to put more troops in from the start. And that mistake cost Bush much of his approval ratings. So I don't think that we can say that McCain would have generated the same kind of antipathy were he president rather than Bush even if he kept his other policies the same or somewhat similar.
"Surely we can handle talking a nearly-third world country out of nuclear weaponry rather than bombing the crap-load out of them."
Well here's the trouble. The clock is ticking on Iran. They won't not have a nuke forever. Once they do have it it would allow them to promote much more terrorism. When we try to retaliate then they will just use their nuclear weapons as a trump card making us back down.
Now seeing whereas they are the No. 1 state sponsor of terror it isn't a surprise why they would want such a trump card. As such I don't think they can be argued out of it as easily. Now we don't have to bomb the crap out of them just their nuclear program. Or perhaps to solve the problem for good we could engineer a coup from the inside. We wouldn't have to turn Iran into a second Iraq or anything.
Cliff Cleland on Sep 14, 2008 at 09:39 PM:
According to an article titled “Warning For College Student Voters,” published in Insider Higher Ed’s Web site on September 3, 2008, there is an “exemption in the U.S. tax code allowing dependents to live away from home while attending school.” The article also states that in “calls to 10 top health insurance companies, none indicated that registering to vote at a college address would be grounds for dismissing students from coverage.” Furthermore, in 1979 the Supreme Court ruled that students have the right to register to vote at their college addresses. If you receive a similar threat or notice at your college, challenge it. If denied your rights, you could contact the local ACLU who filed a federal lawsuit against William and Mary in 2004 on behalf of two students denied the right to register locally. The school caved in and the case was dropped. In 2004, college students, like this year, were registering heavily for the Democratic candidate. Just before the 2004 election the Ohio Sec of State rejected thousands of applications for voter registration mailed in by college students who had downloaded them from the internet. He used an arcane provision to rule that they weren’t submitted on heavy enough paper. Bush won a close victory in Ohio. If we go back to the 2000 election in Florida we find that in the run-up to the election, a Texas firm with close connections to Karl Rove was hired by the Florida Sec of State to purge the voter rolls of voters who were felons. It seems that about 50,000 African- Americans who were not felons but whose names were the same or close to someone who had been a felon were purged from the voting rolls which they discovered on election day when they were denied their right to vote. African Americans were voting heavily against George Bush in 2000. Bush won Florida by less than 500 votes. Karl Rove was an adviser to both of those Sec’s of State. There is a lot of evidence that Karl Rove, chief Republican campaign strategist and dirty tricks guru was heavily involved in those acts of voter suppression on a grand scale and this one in Virginia looks suspiciously like his work.
Cliff Cleland Member DeKalb County Democrats Executive Board 518 S. 2nd Street DeKalb Illinois 60115 815 758 0566
Ya Think? on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:17 PM:
We are not electing a King. Anyone running for President can promise you the moon, the sun, the stars and a new car in every garage. The executive branch does not legislate. They can suggest, push and lobby for anything they want but whether or not they'll get it is up to the people representing you, the peons that put them there. If you seriously want any kind of change, then get the deadwood, career, lifelong, totally out of touch representatives in the House and Senate out of there. If we could sincerely find people who really wanted to represent people and not their own vested interests or those of the "party", there might be some hope, too. Enough said.