Attention Obama Supporters- Real Question About Campaign
Submitted by Cate on March 3, 2008 - 5:32pm.
I have heard several Obama speeches and read from Obama supporters. Here is our very own James Mitchem...
James said:
"There are degrees of security and insecurity, right now I am willing to risk a little insecurity because I think that right now we need a president who engages with the American public to get things done. That is the whole premise of the Obama campaign, you might find it unappealing, even scary, but in my opinion we need a President who can motivate people."
I am curious about this notion of engaging the American people to get things done. What does this look like? How is he suggesting the people change the government exactly? What are the people going to do?
This is curious to me because we have congress-people and senators who "represent us" and introduce legislation. Is Barack suggesting the "people" write and call their representatives to push the President Obama agenda? If that is what he is asking/motivating the people to do, then why haven't I ever heard him say this?
Note: I am all for progressive change and people empowerment. I've protested No-Nukes with Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt, marched on Washington with 100,00 people for gay rights, tried to get General Wes elected in 2004, wrote to my congress people about certain votes. One thing I have learned is that it takes a lot of energy, time, and passion to keep hammering at representatives and rally around a cause. And that's just ONE cause.
How does Barack Obama suggest I change the country or the U.S. Government besides voting for him? Please be specific in your answer.
Pledged Delegates as of 03.03.08: Obama leads Clinton by 155-162, depending on who is doing the counting.
Composite of polls for Ohio and Texas, show neither Clinton nor Obama in a commanding position. Most results are within margin of error. Meaning: Neither candidate will make substantial pledged delegate gains on 03.04.08
After 03.04.08 voting (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont), remaining available pledged delegates: 611.
It is estimated that Clinton would need to win 62% or more of remaining pledged delegates. The only state that has happened is her home state of Arkansas.
If, (on 03.04.08) Clinton does not win Ohio AND Texas by double-digits at the high-end, it becomes nearly impossible to overcome the math. Even with spin.
Talk about Pennsylvania on 04.22.08 is a bit premature. Wyoming caucuses are on 03.08.08, and the Mississippi primary is on 03.11.08
But then, you didn't mean for it to be, did you?
You can write it off to "spin" but I think it's a very good question. And I am convinced Obama supporters don't have an answer. Probably because Obama doesn't have an answer. He has a formula that is winning him primaries. It's not meant to govern by.
In "Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett, everyone waits for Godot, who never arrives.
In the case of Tony Rezko, today, "U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve quickly read from the (witness) list, which appeared to lack any political bombshells."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rezko/2008/03/rezko_witness_list_includes_ho.html
idea of God? Or is that too obvious?
The most obvious interpretation of Godot is that he is God.
I don't know. Is that the similarity you meant, Gordon?
Do I win the prize?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Nick, you win the prize, based on originality of response and the insertion of humour. Congratulations!
You can double your winnings by answering the following:
After the pledged delegates are determined, based on today's primary elections, who will be to Hillary Clinton, what Senators Goldwater, Scott, Eastland, and Mansfield, along with House leaders O'Neill and Rhodes were to Richard Nixon?
Hint: It is an event that took place on August 9, 1974
...urged Nixon to resign, but I don't know about thoe other guys.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
no one.
Because there is no parallel.
However, I suspect you are hoping for a different answer, so I'm in. I'll call with my entire winnings from the previous hand that you so kindly awarded to me, and you can lay down your cards before the results are in.
Then, if you can prove a parallel, I will pronounce you the winner.
Otherwise, ta da, I take the second round.
Deal?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
As a grad student in French, I was told that Beckett, an Irishman whose native language was English, wrote in French to discipline his writing. He was afraid that his wild imagination would run away with him, so, not being a native French speaker, he wrote in French so that his writing wouldn't be so wild. He didn't have all the linguistic tools in French that he did in English.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
One of the reasons I didn't go into exile from the CCN is because every so often there is a discussion afar from the often vitrolic political commentary.
Soon enough, there will be more time to discuss the arts, literature, and music.
Have you seen Beckett's "Happy Days?"
It centers around the bleakness of human existence.
Beckett was friends with many once semi-secret Irish nationalists. Although he was not a native Irish speaker, he is thought to have some sympathy for the movement to revive the long suppressed language. However, as he himself was not an Irish nationalist, per se, nor a nationalist of any kind, for that matter, and because he had so many British friends as well, he chose to write in French - thereby avoiding even the appearance of favoring either side.
That wild imagination of his came through nonetheless.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
that this is a typical Republican ploy. Change
the subject when embarrassing questions are
brought up. But then I often think Obama
has shown more respect for Republicans than for
Democrats.
Hillary Clinton ran a Republican style "fear" ad against the front-running Democratic candidate for president of the United States.
The only thing missing from Hillary's "ringing phone" ad was wolves (used by the Republicans in 2004) terrifying the little kids.
I am really surprised no one can answer these questions. Obama has rallied millions around him on these very ideas that the people can change the government. I want to know HOW??? (besides voting for him)
Sheesh. I even gave a suggestion for what he might mean.
If I were motivating so many people I would give them concrete ways to make a difference. I wouldn't hesitate to say HOW they can get involved.
Jeez. Even Wes gives us concrete ways to promote change. He lets us know about important bills, petitions, and organizations that are working for vets.
The only responses you've gotten from Obama supporters are pathetically clumsy attempts to change the subject. Perhaps there really is no there there. :(
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
...that my support of Obama was based on hope.
I like your signature line. Samantha Power is one smart woman!
Maybe he means the people can change the government by making speeches? "Words matter." Or maybe by praising Republicans really often? Or possibly by repeating the mantra, "Yes, we can!" over and over?
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080301
I'm like you, Cate. I have no idea what he means. I am disappointed that no Obama supporter has clued us in.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
radical concept that WE ARE the government. It is a call to action, if you like to think of it that way, for all of us to be more engaged in what is happening. Not just to vote, but to stay informed, participate where we think we will make a difference and to hold our elected officials responsible.
Currently he uses his motivational skills to get people out of the house campaigning for him. I can only think that if he wins the nomination, we will see another "call to action." What that would look like or be for; I can't visualize. I do believe his goal may be to get us to look beyond our own backyards and self-interests to what is good for all of us.
We understand those calls here -- supporting homeless veterans, wounded veterans, veteran candidates. We come together here to answer these calls; it's what we do best.
Not sure if this is what you were looking for and it is sad that none of the Obama supporters were able or willing to answer.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
Saying pretty much the same thing. She wants to be held accountable. She is for a more open and transparent government. I heard her say tonight in her town hall meeting in Texas that one of the first things she would do as President would be to bring our Constitution out of Cold storage and warm it up. Hillary is also for our veterans both young and old. The ones we have fighting for us and now and even the ones from the Vietnam era and before. Sounds a lot like some of the things that Wes said when he was running in 04.
Hillary Clinton has been saying these things, but I think the emphasis is on what she wants to do for us. Obama supporters might say he is asking them to do it for themselves. How realistic is that? I don't know...
It's kind of like the quote "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime."
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
But all he has asked for so far is for people to campaign for him.
You know, the man is a US Senator. He could be asking us to do things now. He doesn't have to wait until he's president.
And before he decided to run for president, what did he ask people to do? I know he was a community organizer at one point, but that was a job. What did he ask of his constituents while in the IL legislature?
Sorry, but it seems to me that the "we" thing is just a rhetorical gimmick.
When Wes Clark talks about how it's the soldiers that win the wars, not the generals, he knows damn well that the generals have a job to do too. He wouldn't ask the soldiers to do what they don't have the power or authority to do, and he wouldn't ask them to do anything without providing the direction they need. That's what leaders do.
"believing" in changes that have been so vaguely or (as in the cases of health care and certain new foreign policies) stupidly and naively proposed.
Thanks for the positive try though. I would make one too if I could think of another one. But I think you exhausted the whole reality with that one thing - namely for everyone to be more engaged.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark still could be the national security candidate.
Thank you PAfor Clark for the first real, well-thought out reply.
I guess I don't feel like I am the government. I feel like I'm a citizen of a country. I have gotten much more involved because of Wes Clark, but he has been very specific about what I can do. I think most Clarkies know how to get involved.
It seems like Barack is missing a great opportunity to get lots of people taking action (besides voting and campaigning for him). I would love to hear him talk about how I can influence change in the US government. Some of the things you mentioned. People need to feel empowered, but they also need concrete steps to take.
We can only HOPE that there is another plan to take us forward if he is elected.
And from the Iowa JJ dinner: "“And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”
I like that idea. I think you are right that Obama is missing a bigger opportunity, but perhaps he thinks it is inappropriate to put this into real practice while he is campaigning? I often wonder if the real reason he is running now is that he went to Washington to work on change and found everything so entrenched he felt there needed to be a national "movement" to demand it - that's just a theory.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
Okay if by radical you mean "enshrined."
Hope ain't a trademark. Change is a constant. Nor is the American Dream.
Wes has been calling for people to be involved for years. Every politician & most civic & cultural leaders actively call for it, whether they are leading Campfire Girls or troops.
Your life, your word, your sacred honor & if not your fortune, at least a little Act Blue :)
What is with the history starts with Obama? I don't get it. Look at someone like Granny D, or Ralph Nader. Decades, and decades & long, storied history- we really are standing on the shoulders of giants. And not just Ronald Reagan.
My belief - and it's only what I think - is that it is the messenger and not the message in this case. We've heard this type of talk before. There is something about Obama; he's been able to sell the message where others failed.
I personally think Wes Clark was saying the same things in 2004.
Maybe Obama has come to the national stage at just the right time for this message to be taken up as a rallying cry. If he had emerged from Illinois during his first campaign for a house seat, we may never have heard more from him.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
No doubt he is a gifted person. However, I've been suspecting for awhile that a lot of this is rather less spontaneous & rather more methodological than it appears. These articles demonstrate how, and a little about why.
The Agitator
Barack Obama's unlikely political education
by Ryan Lizza Post date: 03.09.07
January 08, 2008
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
There were more people involved in the effort
to stop the Iraq war before, during and just
after the Congressional elections of '06 than
I've ever seen in my life. And I'm OLD. A
massive effort was put forth by numerous
individuals and groups supporting candidates,
generating petitions, writing LTEs, and
pontificating on TV. The polls showed how
unpopular the war and Bush were. That effort
did change the Congress, but it didn't stop the
war. Why? Because no elected Washington
politician (including Sen. Obama) was willing
to lead. To take hold of the subject and fight
to get the war stopped. Hillary was right.
It took legislation pushed relentlessly by LBJ
to achieve the passage of civil rights
legislation. MLK and other activists were
unbelievably brave and tenacious, but if
any idea is to become law, one or more
of those dreaded politicians has to fight
for it.
There have been many causes that thousands of people have rallied around and nothing changed. This Iraq invasion being the latest. I felt totally helpless watching that event unfold. I can't say there were many politicians who listened to the people at that time.
I wonder how either of these candidates would respond to a massive protest over some issue.
What I'd really like to hear is how the next prez is going to keep the lines of communication open with the public. And how is she or he going to maintain communication with us?
We know I am not an Obama supporter, but I have read and heard a lot of his stuff and I think I may have a partial answer to your excellent question.
I saw a good amount of him asking for Americans to be willing to "sacrifice" in the future. A sort of steeling them for how hard it's going to be to undo the damage done - economically and all. I think - only because he has mentioned and forewarned about this quite a bit- I think that part of this 'moving people to action' thing might be moving them more as a unit, as a country, a community... to recognize collectively that we can no longer just go "shopping" while the country goes down the drain. That it will take more efforts at more work, and more sacrifice of luxury time and items from all of us to get it to the next level.
And I think (lots of "I think"s here!) that his followers believe only he - of the current dems - can actually lead people en masse to become a part of that American sacrifice. Not unlike the WWII time frame.
And that someone like Clinton would risk dividing the electorate too much.
Now mind you- I don't agree with these theories but I think it may be part of what they mean when they talk about his leadership qualities to engage and move people. I don't think it means to write congress or protest the war. Really.
I was talking in Chicago to some middle aged very sophisticated, worldy, and educated people I was with -- and there were 3 Obama supporters amongst them. I asked very non threateningly what their reasons for supporting him were, one at a time, and just listened. I said nothing, just nodded and acknowledged their answers.
I got "He makes me feel so good about things. Like I haven't felt before"
"He inspires me." (I did ask "to do what?" and she replied that she might consider working for his campaign was very non-committal about it)
I then asked which issues were key for them, and what his stances were that sold them on those issues.
Across the board I got nothing.
One guy said "I'm not an issues guy. I go by the gut"
So there you have my very small survey.
But I will say these people were in artistic professions and tend to view and interpret most things by their intuitive skills... even though they are all really very intelligent, they operate from instinct.
Otherwise.... this was all purely guesswork on my part and I'm prepared to be corrected by a real Obama supporter if wrong! :)
You are correct, as far as I am concerned.
Incidentally, Hillary's unfavorables have now reached forty-four percent.
That's 44% IN NEW YORK STATE.
It's important to know that today.
"...We cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important." Wes Clark
Sorry I took so long to reply, I was defending peak oil on another thread so I was somewhat distracted to say the least.
To answer your question, this has little to do with pressuring legislators on issues, though we may end up having to do that if they are road blocks to change.
Getting the people involved in the process has to do with community involvement, as a legislator Obama has had a moderately good career for a first term Senator but it's clearly nothing to write home about.
I'm more impressed with his back ground as a community organizer, he knows how to get people involved and get things done from the ground level. He was doing that as recently as the 90s, he hasn't forgotten his roots.
I think that his proposal of college tutition in exchange for national service of some kind is one concrete example of the grass roots change Obama is all about. I think that he will get people more involved with their communities and with groups like the peace crops, homeless shelters even the military.
But it's more than that, it's turning off the lights, turning down the thermostat, car pooling, walking or biking to work, not letting ones childern grow up with video games instead of parents. I think that Obama is running on that notion, that the only ones who can be an effective vehicle for change are we the people of the United States of America. Government can help point us in the right direction and give us a little helping hand along the way, but it is up to us to make the most of the oppertunities given to us.
As JFK famously once said: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
That embodies the hope of every Obama supporter that I have met, that we the people, with the right president at the helm we can get our country back on course to a good future for our childern. FDR set the ground work for recovery from the great depression, but we the people stepped up and worked when given the chance. In WW2 Americans went without in the name of the war effort, we sacraficed and struggled but in the end we endured and ultimately prevailed.
The next president has to be willing to ask people to give to their country, government has very little left to give. We simply cannot give away $4,000 tax credits for students and ask for nothing in return. Some may compare Obama's plan to indentured servitude, but I firmly beleive that people should help their government if they want help from their government.
But that's just me speaking as candidly as I can as an Obama supporter, that is the lens we view things through.
...why doesn't he SAY those things? The same applies to the things said about community leadership in the original post in this thread.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I knew I could count on Obama Clarkies to articulate the vision of their candidate, but Stan nails it when he asks why Obama doesn't SAY the things you guys are saying. I guess he is leaving his message nebulous enough so that people can interpret their OWN meaning. Interesting.
BTW-I didn't want this to be an Obama bashing thread. I was sincerely curious about specific actions the "people" are expected to take under an Obama presidency.
because he's a bit of a blank slate & people continuously project their own dreams, hope, wishes & prayers onto him & like Ronald Reagan & Tony Blair, he's pretty teflony.
is of great concern to me. It's not Obama's doing, necessarily, but this could result in huge disillusionment and alienation from his supporters. I've seen this happen - firsthand - with other leaders, whether priests, bishops, vice presidents and CEOs.
The minute projections collide with reality, the person feels betrayed. This doesn't apply to Obama supporters who have actually done research and *chosen* their candidate (like James and many other CCN Obama supporters), but it definitely applies to those who have "fallen in love" with his personality and charisma.
"So we're going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year, but, students, you're going to have to give back something in return. You're going to have to participate in community service. You're going to have to work in a homeless shelter, or a veteran's home, or an underserved school, or join the Peace Corps.
We will invest in you, you will invest in America, and together we will carry America forward into this next century,”
He does say those things, all the time, and no offense intended but if you watched a Barack Obama victory rally in it's entirety you probably would know that. There are so many important things that he says that do not get any play in the debates or in the sound bites of the corporate media. If I were basing my judgment of Obama just by what is said in the debates and around the blogosphere and in media sound bites I'd probably be a Hillary Clinton supporter also.
come up with these figures, I often wonder where they get them from. At some schools 4 grand doesn't put a dent in tuition; others, it pays the whole deal. I would tend to guess that he says this largely to student audiences, other adult groups might pause and ask where is this $4000 coming from? The idea of public service, advocated by almost every dem politician, is a good one, but except for the Peace Corps, one that's really never taken hold on a massive scale. Public service would be more "enforceable" if the alternative was the draft. I've always thought a year of mandatory public service right after high school would be of great benefit to both the kids and the country.
"...We cannot lead by example unless we are sustained by good leadership. Nothing is more important." Wes Clark
We could debate the merits from now until Denver and we'd be no closer to agreement. I just wanted to point out the factual innaccuracy of Stan saying that Obama doesn't talk about these things, because the fact is whether you agree with him on the merits or not, Obama does talk about it.
This was a good solid example of what he is asking people to do. Other candidates have proposed a similar plan for college tuition and public service. Great idea. Hillary talks about "forgiving" a student debt over time if the student goes into public service like teaching. Another good idea.
My sense is that Barack is trying to apply community organizing principles to the entire nation. I'm not sure if that is relevant to the position of Commander and Chief of the US. Am I missing the connection?
"My sense is that Barack is trying to apply community organizing principles to the entire nation. I'm not sure if that is relevant to the position of Commander and Chief of the US. Am I missing the connection?"
I think he is, that is the whole notion of his campaign, from his policy proposal to his speeches he is clearly pinning his plans on the active rather than passive support of the American people. It may not have been relevant per say in the recent past, but the last several Presidents have had a top down Administraitive style of governance.
But in the past it has, JFK and FDR are two examples of Democratic presidents who really pushed the civic responcibilty role of the citizenry. From the New Deal to the creation of the Peace Corps it has been part of what we Democrats have done best. So I think it is entirely relevant to apply community organizing principles to national policy.
Clearly, there are no shortage of counter arguments to that position, but that is what we Obama supporters beleive and I think that there are historical precedents to say that it can be effective.
By the way, thank you for the honest and sincere questions, it is appreciated.
Yes - we - can.
Hillary proposes to do that much - no strings attached, because she understands that we need a well educated population in order to remain competitive in the world economy.
That may sound like a lot to you, James; but it won't even pay tuition at most state schools.
Obama's counter-proposal to subsidize each student at $4,000/year in return for them being obligated to work in public service jobs is neither more generous, nor more affordable than Hillary's slightly lower offer with no strings attached. That's because few of those public sector jobs that Obama wants students to perform for that extra $500/year add as much value to our economy as do most higher paying jobs in the private sector.
FYI, Hillary also says that she would like to set up a program where the Federal government would forgive loans in return for public service. She hasn't said how high those loans would be, but there are many college students who currently borrow far more than $4,000 per year. So, Hillary is really offering the better and more generous solution.
For the record, I never compared O!s plan to indentured servitude, but I did use the shorthand term "slave wages" to describe my take on that measly extra $500/year that he is offering with rather big strings attached. When I compare it to Hillary's better offer, O!s offer is certainly not 'the kind of change I can believe in.'
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Maybe some of us beleive that there should be strings attached. I don't think it was meant as a permenant thing, more along the lines of serving a certain set amount of time in return for help from the government, it's not a lifetime commitment as I understand it.
I think that it's high time that we start asking what we can do for our country instead of asking our country for more and more. Nothing comes for free, the question is whether we are going to finally wise up and make sacrafices for the country we all love instead of demanding America keep giving.
You might think no one in their right mind would vote for a candidate who would ask them to sacrafice when they have the option of a candidate who would give them a free ride such as the one Hillary is offering. But I think millions of Barack Obama voters would disagree.
We need a President who will tell us what we need to hear instead of what we want to hear. America cannot afford a free ride, it is fair to ask government for a helping hand, but it is unfair to turn around and say it is somehow unfair for government to ask US for help. America needs her citizens to stand up sacrafice for their country at this vital moment in history, Barack Obama recognizes that, I do not know if Hillary Clinton does.
for Americans to sacrifice for the common good. That's a long-standing fundamental precept of the Democratic Party. If you're a Democrat and don't know that, then I guess the leadership of the party is doing a rotten job of revealing our fundamental principles.
It's just that O!s education proposal is really pathetically inadequate to the real need. If he really wants to attract more than the usual suspects to public service, he should be offering a virtually free college education.
I've been over this ground before rather recently. Maybe you should read my comments at http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14809#comment-285082
There are quite a few on just this topic.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Then why doesn't she favor full payment system in exchange for service, she doesn't, she supports a $3,500 free ride.
I can't speak for other states, but here in Virginia $4,000 a year plus the pre existing pell grant system will cover costs at a 2 year college and go a very long way at a 4 year college.
If I read your comment correctly, unless Hillary supports Obama's full payment program she is not in favor of sacrifice?
That's an inspired bit of framing (a la George Lakoff, who appears to have vanished from the scene lately):
1) If Hillary is in favor of Obama's plan, she can be accused of changing her plan to be closer to his or as being indistiguishable from him (NOT that you're doing this, but others - certainly the media - will)
2) If Hillary keeps her own plan, she can be labeled as "not in favor of sacrifice." The argument then devolves into whose plan is better and more sacrifical and less on the actual components of each plan and which is more fiscally responsible and better for the common good.
Americans can sacrifice in a huge number of ways - through conservation of energy, doing public service or volunteer work, donating unwanted or unneeded goods, "paying it forward," or any number of ways.
Incidentally, in case anyone cares, this whole semantical "framing" thing has a very, very strong history with the religous evangelical tradition.
in exchange for public service. That's very close to what you are saying she doesn't support. Give it some thought.
In addition, she also supports the no strings attached $3,500 subsidy for higher ed.
It's both-and. Not either-or.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Strings... Seriously, there are plenty of strings already- lots of sticks & very few carrots. Services being cut almost universally & the failure to take another serious attempt at universal health care. You have any idea of the R&D we subsidize?
You want strings? I want services for my tax dollars. I got your strings right here.
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Mar 2008 at 10:00:23 PM GMT is:
$9,370,127,803,953.20
The estimated population of the United States is 303,562,774 so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,867.18.
will only get bigger if we keep asking government to give and give and we do not give back to government. It's a two way street, if we ask for help from government it is our duty to give back to government. We in the working class are going to get tax cuts if Obama or Clinton are president, and you will get your services, the question is what we the people do for government in return.
That is a fundamental guiding principle of the Obama campaign, that we cannot take away from government without giving something back, some have painted Obama as Republican like because of that position, but I just think back to the horrible things people said about Wes being a "closet Republican". Personal responcibility IS a Democratic value, and taking from government without giving back to government plays right into the "tax and spend" rhetoric of the Republicans.
I get it, for you, the sun rises & falls with everything O! - ONLY Saint Obama cares about transparency. ONLY The Fresh Prince of Petulance cares about "personal responsibility." In fact, geeze, he must have introduced that very concept into the English language. Truly, a miracle! It's simply absurd to even continue a conversation with a premise that is so outlandishly off the wallishly off the mark.
This is getting WAY tiresome, okay? Research a bit, say starting with welfare reform in the 90s. Perhaps mediate on the meaning of being pro-choice.
Maybe, maybe listening to WKCs "Real State of the Union" address from a few years ago or his marvelous Johns Hopkins speech would go some way towards illuminating a few things for you in a way that nothing I could possibly say might.
Obama to my ear pretty much panders to "Why are we whispering?" Republicans all the live long day. If that's how you like to roll, then please, by all means, roll.
Making public service a "sacrifice." Public service offers it own reward, and therefore isn't necessarily a sacrifice.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
From an article/chapter he wrote in 1988 on community organizing - Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City
In theory, community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership — and not one or two charismatic leaders — can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions.
This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education campaigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues — jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to community needs. Equally important, it enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively — the prerequisites of any successful self-help initiative.
An example of this type of organizing on a different scale might be Paul Reickhoff's IAVA. From an e-mail this week IAVA Storms the Hill:
Last week in Washington, IAVA Member Veterans from across the country made remarkable progress towards our goal of getting a modern GI Bill passed in 2008. There are now 127 co-sponsors of the legislation in the House and Senate, with more signing on every day. The week was busy, but extremely productive.
. . .
Ray Kimball, also a Founding Member, said, "My favorite experience was watching other vets realize just how much they could bring to the table in helping members and staffers understand the importance of these issues."
It seems like the work in community organizing required listening and learning what was important to people and then guiding and facilitating their efforts to pull together and get something done. It required knowing how to encourage people with different skills and temperments and how to provide mechanisms to help channel and focus their efforts. And helping them to "own" the projects they worked on.
Just some thoughts. . .
carol4clark
General Wes Clark * * * * 4 Stars Over Texas
These articles are hard hitting in all the right ways, and people who support Obama may enjoy these although it demystifies him & takes away some of the romance, it is rather more interesting analysis than what we typically see, except we never "typically see" anything but a carefully handled "impression."
The Agitator by Ryan Lizza Post date: 03.09.07 In 1985, Barack Obama traveled halfway across the country to take a job that he didn't fully understand. But, while he knew little about his new vocation--community organizer--it still had a romantic ring, at least to his 24-year-old ears. With his old classmates from Columbia, he had talked frequently about political change. Now, he was moving to Chicago to put that talk into action. His 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, recounts his idealistic effusions: "Change won't come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. That's what I'll do. I'll organize black folks. At the grass roots. For change." His excitement wasn't rooted merely in youthful enthusiasm but also in the psychology of a vagabond. By 1985, Obama had already lived in Hawaii, where he was born and raised by his white mother and grandparents; Indonesia, where he lived briefly as a child; Los Angeles, where he started college; and New York, where he finished it. After these itinerant years, he would finally be able to insinuate himself into a community--and not just any community, but, as he later put it, "the capital of the African American community in the country." Every strain of black political thought seemed to converge in Chicago in the 1980s. It was the intellectual center of black nationalism, the base both for Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns and for Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. Moreover, on the eve of Obama's arrival, Harold Washington had overthrown Richard J. Daley's white ethnic machine to become the city's first black mayor. It was, in short, an ideal place for an identity-starved Kenyan Kansan to immerse himself in a more typical black American experience. Not long after Obama arrived, he sat down for a cup of coffee in Hyde Park with a fellow organizer named Mike Kruglik. Obama's work focused on helping poor blacks on Chicago's South Side fight the city for things like job banks and asbestos removal. His teachers were schooled in a style of organizing devised by Saul Alinsky, the radical University of Chicagotrained social scientist. At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of "agitation"--making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to "rub raw the sores of discontent." On this particular evening, Kruglik was debriefing Obama about his work when a panhandler approached. Instead of ignoring the man, Obama confronted him. "Now, young man, is that really what you want be about?" Obama demanded. "I mean, come on, don't you want to be better than that? Let's get yourself together." Kruglik remembers this episode as an example of why, in ten years of training organizers, Obama was the best student he ever had. He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better. More than 20 years later, Obama presents himself as a post-partisan consensus builder, not a rabble-rouser, and certainly not a disciple of Alinsky, who disdained electoral politics and titled his organizing manifesto Rules for Radicals. On the stump, Obama makes a pitch for "common-sense, practical, nonideological solutions." And, although he's anchored to a center-left worldview, he gives the impression of being above the ideological fray--a fresh face who is a generation removed from the polarizing turmoil of the 1960s. The mirror he holds up is invariably flattering--reflecting back a tolerant, forward-looking electorate ready to unite around his consensus-minded brand of politics. Indeed, if there has been a knock on Obama's campaign in these early days, it's that it may be a bit too idealistic for the realities of a presidential race. With his lofty rhetoric and careful positioning as above politics, Obama in some ways recalls Bill Bradley, another candidate of moral purity--and one whose unwillingness to engage in the rough-and-tumble of modern politics ultimately proved his undoing. Yet Obama connects his past as a Chicago organizer to his presidential bid with surprising ease. Last month, during his first visit to South Carolina since his campaign announcement, we discussed his community-organizing days. He sat at the head of a long table inside a dimly lit hotel conference room in Columbia and ate a chocolate energy bar. When I began to suggest links between his organizing work then and his current campaign, he interrupted: "I think there is. I don't think you need to strain for it." He was at home talking Alinskian jargon about "agitation," which he defined as "challenging people to scrape away habit," and he fondly recalled organizing workshops where he learned the concept of "being predisposed to other people's power." Publicly, as well, Obama has made his organizing days central to his political identity. When he announced his candidacy for president last month, he said the "best education" he ever had was not his undergraduate years at Occidental and Columbia or even his time at Harvard Law School, but rather the four years he spent in the mid-'80s learning the science of community organizing in Chicago. The night after Obama's announcement speech, he made a similar point on "60 Minutes" as he led Steve Kroft around the old neighborhood. Obama's self-conception as an organizer isn't just a campaign gimmick. Organizing remained central to Obama long after his stint on the South Side. In the 13 years between Obama's return to Chicago from law school and his Senate campaign, he was deeply involved with the city's constellation of community-organizing groups. He wrote about the subject. He attended organizing seminars. He served on the boards of foundations that support community organizing. He taught Alinsky's concepts and methods in workshops. When he first ran for office in 1996, he pledged to bring the spirit of community organizing to his job in the state Senate. And, after he was elected to the U.S. Senate, his wife, Michelle, told a reporter, "Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He's a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change." Recalling her remark in 2005, Obama wrote, "I take that observation as a compliment." By defining himself as a "community organizer" above all else, Obama is linking himself to America's radical democratic tradition and presenting himself as an heir to a particular political style and methodology that, at least superficially, contrasts sharply with the candidate Obama has become. Community organizers see themselves as disciples of Thomas Paine and the colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor. Historically, they have revered the tactics of the labor militants of the 1930s, and they became famous in the '60s for the political theater championed by Alinsky, illustrated most memorably by his threat of a "fart-in" at a Rochester, New York, opera house to bring attention to the Kodak company's refusal to hire blacks. Needless to say, this doesn't sound much like the placid politician who wrote The Audacity of Hope. And it raises questions about Obama's authentic political identity that require traveling back to the years when community organizing gave him the best education of his life. Obama had spent the previous year on a fruitless quest. He worked briefly for a Ralph Nader outfit in Harlem teaching college kids about recycling and then on a losing assemblyman's race in Brooklyn. But he longed for an experience that connected him to the civil rights era. "In the sit-ins, the marches, the jailhouse songs," he wrote in Dreams, "I saw the African-American community becoming more than just the place where you'd been born or the house where you'd been raised. Through organizing, through shared sacrifice, membership had been earned." Obama wanted to join the club. ---------- and this one is also compelling: January 08, 2008 ...These personal qualities are not the sole reason he is where he is, and I suspect the wily Mrs. Clinton knows this full well. I suspect it must bother her that Obama also appears to have mastered the playbook used by her own political teacher, the legendary amoral guru of left wing activism, Saul Alinksy. Hillary has met not only her match in Alinsky tactics, she has met the master of bloodless socialist revolution, in my opinion. Obama's Alinsky Lessons Barack Obama had just graduated from Columbia and was looking for a job. Some white leftists were looking for someone who could recruit in a black neighborhood in the south side of Chicago. Obama answered a help-wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago. Obama was 24 years old, unmarried, very accustomed to a vagabond existence, and according to his memoir, searching for a genuine African-American community. Both the CCRC and the DCP were built on the Alinsky model of community agitation, wherein paid organizers learned how to "rub raw the sores of discontent," in Alinsky's words. One of Obama's early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who had this to say to an Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama: "He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better." The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve, and to make such an almighty stink that the dastardly governments and corporations will see imminent "self-interest" in granting whatever it is that will cause the harassment to cease. In these methods, euphemistically labeled "community organizing," Obama had a four-year education, which he often says was the best education he ever got anywhere. Is it any wonder, then, that Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu is making mincemeat of the woman who merely interviewed Alinsky, wrote about him, and spent the next 30 years in corporate law and in the lap of taxpayer-funded luxury in government mansions? Alinsky considered himself a realist above all, the ultimate pragmatist. As a confirmed atheist, Alinsky believed that the here and now is all there is, and therefore had no qualms about assorted versions of morality in the pursuit of worldly power. He didn't coddle his radical acolytes or encourage their bourgeois distinctions between good and evil when it came to transferring power from the Haves to the Have Nots. Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services. When Obama first undertook his agitating work in Chicago's South Side poor neighborhoods, he was un-churched. Yet his office was in a Church and most of the folks he needed to agitate and organize were Church people -- pastors and congregants -- who took their churches and their church-going very seriously. So, this became a problem for the young agnostic, who had been exposed to very little religion in his life. Again and again, he was asked by pastors and church ladies, "Where do you go to Church, young man?" It was a question he dodged for a while, but finally he relented and joined a church...
Barack Obama's unlikely political education
year after graduating from Columbia, Obama spotted an intriguing help-wanted ad in The New York Times. The Calumet Community Religious Conference (ccrc), a group that aimed to convert the black churches of Chicago's South Side into agents of social change, was looking for a community organizer to run the group's inner-city arm, the Developing Communities Project (DCP). Obama soon arranged to meet in New York with the organizer heading up the job search.
Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu
Obama Not Starry-Eyed Like His Followers
Obama-mania and cult of self-esteem
By ABRAHAM KATSMAN
The Jerusalem Post"Obama's rhetorical flourishes never involve policy choices or the big, bad, complex world outside the campaign rally. "In the face of change lies hope, and in the face of hope lies change." Brilliant! Dreams are restored! We're all 14 again! Just close our eyes and hope a perfect future into existence.
Problems with the genocidal Iranian neighborhood bully? Simple, we'll use our seventh-grade conflict resolution methods on Ahmedinijad. Those pesky student loans and subprime mortgages we took out? No worries, Obama will make someone else pay for them. Israeli-Arab conflicts and daily missile barrages on civilian populations? No problem, everyone just come together -Obama's very presence will melt hardened hearts and pacify Hamas and Hizbullah. There. Problems solved. No need to think about all that anymore.
Now, let's focus again on us, brimming anew with all the virtue and youthful innocence and self-love in which we were immersed in our school years, as newly bestowed by Obama's incantations. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" What about actually defining a political course to follow, or weighing the specific national security implications of competing approaches to the Middle East and Islamic terror? How irrelevant to our feelings. How yesterday. How... Republican. We'd much rather just "believe in ourselves to do the things we believe we can do!" We are the future. We can do anything. This feels great. Self-esteem rocks.
One gets the distinct impression that these Obama supporters really couldn't care less what policies he advocates. How many of them can explain how his prescription for Iraq differs from Hillary Clinton's? Or how his fiscal policy differs from John McCain's? Would it matter to these supporters if each of those policies were the opposite? Would they even notice?
Which brings us to the question of sustainability - will the movement last? It certainly could. By bolstering voters' sense of self-satisfaction, Obama has unleashed a wave of heady feelings of unity, purpose, and enthusiasm - but all for the man who makes them feel this way, not for any particular policies. No one, after all, is fainting at the thought of Obama's position on health insurance."
"The mark of leadership is not to standup when everybody is standing, but rather to actually stand up when no one else is standing" - Pulitzer Prize winning author Samantha Power, introducing Gen Clark
One gets the distinct impression that these Obama supporters really couldn't care less what policies he advocates. How many of them can explain how his prescription for Iraq differs from Hillary Clinton's? Or how his fiscal policy differs from John McCain's? Would it matter to these supporters if each of those policies were the opposite? Would they even notice?
I respect many of the Clarkies that have carefully chosen Obama as their candidate and I think most of this thread demonstrates a productive dialogue.
Thank you for sharing your perspectives. It has helped me understand more of what supporters are interpreting regarding " we are the government" and "government from the bottom up".
As a certified idealist I can see how these themes would resonate.
But...having been involved in politics over the years I have had to balance idealism with realism. It's not a cynical stance, just practical.
To push the Obama agenda on our reps, wouldn't we have to know what the agenda consists of? I can see writing my rep to encourage hope, change, and unity.
Oh...I forgot the new politics, too.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!