Obama's victory speech

"For the record, I am *not* a conservative.

I consider myself a *progressive.*

The progress I would like to see is a further realization of Christian ideals in historical time."

I'm sure there are ways to use both terms in ways that would work for any political paradigm. But for ease of usage, and so others understand what is being referenced, I tend to use them with their more common definitions.

And where do non-Christians fit in your desire to politically enact Christian ideals?

"In other words, what I would like to see is further construction work done on what G. K. Chesterton called "the unfinished temple""

I'm looking at a political campaign that elects the leader of a nation that includes people that would probably not be included in your temple.

"The novelty or the staleness of Obama's ideas is irrelevant to *me,* as I am not part of the market demographic for what he is trying to sell."

The 'market demographic' for both candidates, I would suggest, is the American electorate. You may not buy, or like the product, that all voters are the 'target market' for this campaign.

"But the staleness of those ideas should be relevant to those who may consider buying into them on the basis of a novelty that they cannot claim."

Change doesn't always imply new. Change implies 'different'. You can change back, for instance. But you are not claiming that Obama isn't proposing something different from what is happening now, are you? If he is, even if it isn't something entirely novel, it is still 'change'.

"Obama's platform doesn't offer "change." It offers more of the left-liberal dogma that has been on offer for the past 40 years or more and which provides not rational basis for "hope.""

Again, it is a change, even if it is all you said it is, because that's not what's on offer NOW. We've had 8 years of a conservative Executive, and 12 years of a Conservative Congress. So, you can subtract that from the 40. (Indeed, you did. That '40' usually entails from Roosevelt to Reagan. You really need to update your numbers...)

"Doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result is -- as the saying goes -- the essence of insanity."

Since that isn't what's been happening for the last 8 years or so, it is hardly doing the 'same thing over and over'. And you are hardly saying the last 40 YEARS (which, if your numbers are right, are from 1968 to the present) were all apparently the exact same thing over and over? That would include the administration of 3 Republican Presidents, and at least 12 years of a Republican congress.

"Granted, it could be argued that what Obama represents is an ideal that -- to paraphrase Chesterton -- "has not been tried and found wanting, but found difficult and left untried.""

Can't they all? Not a huge Chesterton fan, though. He, like Lewis, have a tendency to sound, after a while, like 'The Sphinx' from Mystery Men with the same verbal twist played over and over again.

"I know a lot of people would like to believe that Obama's ascension to the presidency would be the advent of the Age of Aquarius that was supposedly around the corner till Robert F. Kennedy died."

And I know a lot of people want to dismiss a political competitor for, ironically, actually having people be a bit enthusiastic about him. Sorry that people aren't holding their nose while voting for him, as I've heard about McCain over and over. We'll do our best to 'curb our enthusiasm'.

But no. I don't think anyone has thought (or used) the 'Age of Aquarius' idea in a few decades. Indeed, it postdates JFK himself by about a good 5 years. (Not a lot of hippies around in 1963, when he died. Heck, the Beatles hadn't even made it to the US yet.)

"In some sense, it wouldn't be bad for Obama to win, because the mess he will most likely make of things will discredit that belief and finally end the 1960's for good."

What the heck does Obama have to do with the 60's, when he was only barely born then. McCain has more to do with 60's flashbacks and obsessing with the old themes than Obama does.

"With George W. Bush's failures in the last eight years having similarly ended the 80's, perhaps we could then begin to *cook* once more, instead of microwaving stale goulash again and again."

Oh, Bush was a whole new variety of failure. Reagan, for all his flaws, wouldn't have been as bad as Bush even on his worst day.

People can be individuals and manage to fail, or succeed all with their own thoughts and philosophies and political opinions. Not everything ties directly to a past decade.

Yeah, progressive.

"You've clearly had too much coffee.

Non-Christians fit into my scheme of things in the same way that non-Obamians fit into yours."

Last I checked, he's a Christian. There's nos uch things as an 'Obamian'. Again, if cheering at a rally means a person espouses a new religion, than people change religions with every election season.

And that's no answer. He didn't say he was going to try and enact a certain faith's 'ideals'. That requires some kind of specific legislation, which will cover people who are NOT of that faith.

"If non-Christians are "excluded" from my scheme of things, then I -- as a non-Obamian -- am just as much excluded from yours."

I'm an atheist. This includes as far as Obama goes. I consider him a decent politician, and agree with many of his policies. I could say the same about Clinton, and even, to a lesser extent, one or two of McCain's.

We are BOTH 'non-Obamians', and I would think it would trivalize religion, itself, to equate it with 'being excited about something'. Makes the religious folk the equivalent of sports fans.

"In addition to the "hope" which Brother Superior appropriates, the cardinal Christian virtues include *charity* -- which extends to those who are not Christians at all, as well as to those who are unsuccessful Christians, which is to say that it extends to *everyone.*"

Since when has espousing a virtue mean one has exclusive claim? BOTH talk about change.

So, give me one instance when Obama claims to have the sole rights to either quality? If saying one appreciates that virtue, or is attempting to express it is the same as 'And nobody else has it', then NOBODY can talk about hope, change, charity, faith, or any other virtue.

"What comparable ground do Obamians have for "tolerating" or for not "excluding" those who do not wish to live in their own version of the unfinished temple?"

Well, first off, by not claiming to be building a temple. They are simply suggesting, and if elected, enacting policy measures. Most of which involve voluntary participation. Last I checked, most of the policies that he suggests are not mandated, nor forbidden. Only offered, and they are offered to all. You don't have to flash a party membership card to enroll at the VA, as a veteran who has above the current income guidelines, or to get lower prices on meds. Or to get the teaching scholarship in exchange for teaching in lower income and rural district schools.

"Do non-Obamians warrant charity at all?"

Think that they're going to ask who you voted for before letting your kid into early childhood enhancement and education programs?

"Or are they simply "bitter," simply "clinging" to "antipathy toward those who are not like them?""

You certainly don't sound like you're full of charity to those who support Obama. If you feel that's about you, well.. then maybe you should be less bitter.

"(Two things which, of course, can not be said of Obamians themselves)"

I'm not one, but what do they have to feel bitter about? He got the nomination. If he doesn't win, then what they think doesn't matter, does it?

"Can you name any political ideas Obama has that are *not* derived from the 1960's, broadly defined?"

Let's see.. I would have to hear how BROAD those ideas from the 60's are being defined. Sufficiently broad, and anyone could be said to support them. So, what policies does McCain support that are not derived from, say, Francisco Franco, broadly defined?

"Can you name any other politician so retrograde as still to think that The Weather Underground has something to say that anybody else needs to hear?"

Uhh.. the Weather Underground? Whoa, you do know this is 2008, right? What has he espoused that specifically references.. I'm guessing some group from the 60's? A search these days brings up a State Farm Insurance site. *laugh*

"And -- in keeping with that -- is there really any reason to think that Obama will not stand in just the same relation to Clinton that the latest Bush now stands in relation to Reagan?"

Is there any reason to think that McCain won't make Bush look like Reagan in comparison? More to the point, is there any reason to think he WILL?

"Aren't both cases of history repeating itself, the second time (contra Marx) as tragedy?"

Claiming he's a Marxist again? Yeah, all Democrats are commies, you know.

"Finally, can you name anything of which Obama's much-alleged eloquence consists other than verbal twisting of "change" and "hope," "hope" and "change," "change" and "hope," "hope" and "change,"
ad nauseum, ad infinitum?"

Let's see. The gradual removal of troops from Iraq over the first 15 months in office. The investment in clean, renewable energy. Programs to help transition into high tech and clean technology fields (which are now booming). Increase in funding for crumbling infrastucture, etc and so forth

Yeah, that's all 'change, hope, change hope.. and McCain is 'I've been to Iraq a dozen times, I won't surrender, and I'm not Bush'.

"These are mostly rhetorical questions, since I'm going out of town and won't have time to check for your reply for several days.

But think them over. The answers -- provided they're the right ones -- will do you good."

Thank you for saving me from myself, great mentor. *chuckle*

Knowing that there ARE answers, that aren't rhetorical, might do you some good. Apparently, what you know about Obama and his positions comes from pundits, and Conservative bloggers.

That 'kool aid' came from CNBC news.

Of course they need to discus details. They need when, and where, and how long.

Boy, using the Messiah paradigm, Obama could walk on water, and you'd talk about how he couldn't swim.

He answered it. Yes, there are details to discuss. What do you think, they're just going to pop up in some town somewhere saying. "Let's have a meetin'."?

And frankly, after the last 8 years, I'm glad to have someone who knows how to read.

Again, McCain has had his own share of verbal screw ups. Ones that are more common, more consistent, and involving far more important issues than how many states has he visited.

In the end, most of a President's communications are going to be through speeches, and speech writers than off the cuff casual meetings anyway. *shrug* I'm looking to hire a chief executive, not Mark Twain.