Obama's victory speech

Hope apart from policy specifics could lead to capitalism, communism, fascism. You're right, and it saddens me.

I haven't checked out the news, just came straight here, but I'm not surprised she hasn't conceded. I suspect she and her counselors are thinking about their next step. Fight on, hoping the superdelegates come around? Fight on, hoping something worse than Pfleger comes up before the convention (liek crack cocaine stories)? Accept a VP slot (which I doubt Obama would offer)? Or work behind the scenes to subvert Obama and prep for 2012? She ain't going away until she is six feet under (again, observing, NOT wishing anything bad on her, God forbid), and even then, like the ancients with Nero, I'll have my doubts.

It's possible to criticize Obama's spectacular speech, which as David Gergen said echoed MLK and Abraham Lincolh, but it's just impossible to thrill to McCain's hopelessly flat attempt to beat him to the punch.

"We're not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. Work in America is a source of pride, self-reliance, and self-identity. But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs..that's not change we can believe in!"

CNN: "We're going to break away from Senator McCain, because we have a major, major projection..."

Honestly, take a look at it (on YouTube). Have you ever seen a cheesier laugh? A phonier smile?

Texas Monthly Magazine June 2008 says that Snow's BBQ in Lexington, TX (only open on Saturdays, and then only from 8 till noon) is the d*mn best BBQ in Texas, bar none:

The brisket was sitting on their kitchen counter like a gold bar from Fort Knox. I put a bite in my mouth and closed my eyes. Good God almighty! Even six hours off the pit, it was perfect. Smoke permeated every morsel; the texture was pure velvet. On a scale of one to five, it was a seven—no, a ten!

texasmonthly.com/2008-06-01/feature5.php

Now, THAT I can believe in. As for Obama's promises: Where's the beef?

The trouble with today's political covergae is no one is covering the Clintons as metaphor -- which Bill and Hill most certainly are.

Hillary IS America. Hillary IS her generation.

This does not bode well for the future.

Favog, that was brilliant!

I'd sum it up this way:

"We hate you, Hillary. We really, really hate you." (a' la Sally Field.)

FBC,

When all you are is who you hate...you ain't much.

Rod is right that there is always a bull market for hope.

But there is also always a hope market for bull.

Scott R.: it's called flippancy.

Look it up in the dictionary.

fbc

Meet the new next best well-spoken young demaogogue, same as the old one. Bill Clinton is pissed because this upstart, who has enough skeletons spilling out of his closets to staff most town cememteries, lifted the "agent for change" nonsense straight from his 1992 camapign, another exercise in telling the people what they wanted to hear rather than the truth(and that doesn't mean then or now the Rs were telling the truth either). The Clintons cannot today bitch that Obama stole their playbook; it would be too rich for anyone.

What I find scary; the Clintons were above all pragmatists, while Obama ia still a true believer. Alinsky and his ideals are well out of Hillary's rear view, but he's still firmly in Obama's backseat. When the choice was power with welfare reform and Eisenhower-type fiscal management or fighting for leftist dogma, the Clintons weren't going to man those barricades and ramparts of the class struggle. Obama knows nothing else.

The DLC wing of the Dem party is dead.

Obama is a Marxist; a personable and well-spoken one in small doses, but a collectivist Marxist nonetheless. His explanation about "fairness" and capital gains during the debates was a rare slip to the true inner workings.

As a conservative, this country could live with the muddle of either Mccain or Clinton(who practically would be little different as POTUS).We really know very little about Obama,but the little we do know should give us all great pause. We couldn't have had Reagan without Carter. Question becomes would the damage of Obama like Carter be enough to have conservatism reconstitute itself, or just too great for this country to bear?

Pets.com. I had forgotten. Brilliant!

Well, gee, which is it?

Is Obama a cynical marketer of bull, or a scary 'true believer' of Marxism?

Or could he possibly just be a regular old Democratic candidate who supports the usual platform and happens to have a decent ability at oratory?

Geez, if we can survive 8 years of GW Bush, I think we can handle anything Obama could possibly have in mind.

I think this is a great lesson for those who don't believe oratorical skills matter. Can you say "nukular power", President Bush? In other words, it doesn't matter so much what you say as how beautiful your language sounds. Of course, there's always the morning after...

Of course... I meant a sweaty, creepy looking Nixon... I mean, what t he he** is a sweart!? LOL

Karen Brown,

I don't know if your question was in response to my earlier post or not, but, anyway, here goes.

I don't see the two forms of Obama-bull as mutually exclusive.

Obama claims to be a post-partisan, post-ideological uniter-not-a-divider -- a claim which is bull.

In fact, he is as, as you say, a doctrinaire left-liberal -- a stance which also is bull, albeit in a different way.

I can't see honest Americans voting in large numbers for Obama. Liberals and College kids yeah, but mothers and fathers of children that they don't think are punishment, no way.

It's a bull market for ... you know ...

Actually, Arthur, it wasn't toward you.

But no, there is a contradiction. He can't be pure ideals that have no actual plan of action (which would result in a presidency in which nothing was done) and someone who will end up leading us into some kind of Marxist government (which would require quite a lot of things be done).

That, of course, not dealing at all with the fact that being a Liberal or a Democrat is no more Marxist than being a Conservative or a Republican makes one a fascist or a.. (well, I'll be nicer and not use the most obvious example, and dip into more personal history) Falangist.

True hope can only be found in God and in a person's family and local community. Obama's lofty speeches illustrate how far away his ideology is from the crunchy con mindset.

To take a praxeological tack in navigating the stormy waters:
the signal-to-noise ratio of our culture is wayfully inadequate. Our new economy's focus on data mining technology could improve social transparency if more folks in public and private life adopted the ideas of Edward Tufte's(*) classic "Beautiful Evidence" than those we teach our kids in from elementary school onwards in computing lab: Bill Gates' Office Suite is a producer of "noise" not "signal."

Read how "perceptions" of babies' survivability at birth were changed by the adoption of the Apgar score at | perceptualedge.com/blog/ | and once perceptions changed more babies survived... would that we could apply this wisdom in utero!

____
see Wikipedia for details. Moderated forum at

www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1

contains more detailed discussions: including fonts designed for expressing data more densely than mere numbers. And in case you think the brain can't make sense of more than the letters you are reading in the words I type here, consider this 2002 example of Google's praxis | www.edwardtufte.com / bboard / images / 000084-91.jpg | on Mondrian's birthday.

Sorry, Karen Brown -- it's been a long day.

The sixth line in my post above should read:

"For him [Obama] *to claim* -- as he does -- that his convictions do entail all that [post-partisanship and a new ideology that will bring us all together] is simply bull."

Steve,

When one chooses to live in a pig-pen, any mud (or other smelly substance) one gets on one's shoes is of one's own smearing.

Karen Brown: "If that makes him lack conviction, if it is stale wisdom, if it is Marxist, or any number of insulting terms and comparisons, well, he is joined by at least half the country."

Karen,

The election is five months away. That's a long time for the "at least half the country" that CURRENTLY supports Obama to get to know him better. The Obama they perceive now will be different than the one they perceive in November.

And yeah. The primaries are mostly over except for the convention 'dog and pony' shows, and Veep choices.

So, guess what, y'all are actually going to have to talk about YOUR candidate some now.

Karen Brown,

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

"We haven't even scratched the surface as to who Barack Obama really is. Maybe BO prefers it that way."

He declared in May of 2007. I've never heard that any portion of his personal information is any more out of reach or inaccessible than any other candidates. Perhaps if you can tell us how Obama is preventing you from 'scratching the surface' to any extent that any political candidate's surface has been scratched?

"That may explain his slow response and apparent reluctance to engage in the 10 town hall meetings that have been proposed by Senator McCain."

Geez, he's not even TECHNICALLY the candidate yet. The primary isn't officially over yet. (Come to think of it, even McCain isn't officially the candidate yet.) They both accept the nomination at their respective conventions. Sheesh, give him a second to breathe, why don't you, before doing a round of 10 town meetings. Given that Obama has suggested a series of debates, himself, I don't think that there's much in the way of reluctance to meet with McCain. I can understand if he did, given the fireball of an orator that McCain is. *grin*

"There'd be no adoring crowds. BO wouldn't be able to depend on the teleprompter to read speeches written by Ted Sorenson and other Kennedy hacks. He'd actually have to take questions unfiltered by the adoring media elites. No soaring and empty rhetoric. Just sharing his expertise and revealing his deep well of knowledge and decades of experience in tackling the problems facing a country threatened by powerful economic competitors (namely China and India) and those who would enjoy nothing more than terrorizing our people."

And so would 'Can't tell the difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis' McCain. No pandering, might have to face tough questions, and have his potty mouth in front of a microphone for everyone to hear.

I'm looking forward to it.

"What's BO afraid of? Why not share a platform with McCain in these 10 town hall meetings?"

Has he turned it down, or has he simply not accepted yet in the ONE DAY since reaching the official number of delegates to get the nomination?

"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.