Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLike Will Smith, who in the new film I Am Legend wakes up to find himself the last man alive in a world of zombies, am I now the only person left on the planet who finds Barack Obama a little bit dull? Every time I listen to him, I start off thinking I'm about to wet my pants, but a minute-and-a-half later find my mind wandering, asking itself things like: 'What does "the challenge of hope" mean?'Yet I turn and look around and everyone is shouting and screaming. Obama chants: 'Something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it' and there's a collective swoon from grown pundits and hardened reporters, all of them tearing off their shirts and pleading for Obama to sign their chests with indelible marker pen. Will Smith woke up to a world of zombies: in my personal nightmare, everyone around me has an overactive thyroid.
So why does Obama, billed by everyone as a cross between Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, but without the terrible looks of either, just leave me puzzled? Maybe it's because his is a rhetoric that soars and takes flight, but alights nowhere. It declares that together we can do anything, but doesn't mention any of the things we can do. It's a perpetual tickle in the nose that never turns into a sneeze. Trying to make sense of what he's saying is like trying to wrap mist.
But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'
Speeches full of hot air ...
Maybe Obama is so successful because he's the supreme master of what American politics excels in: high-flown language that denotes as little as possible. America is curious in that it is the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, it's a doing country, but its politicians rarely spend time on the stump specifying what precisely they will do in case it makes them lose votes. Instead, they settle on emotive, intangible phraseology, such as Hillary Clinton's recent 'I intend to be the President who puts your futures first', uttered in New Hampshire.
I listened to all the victory speeches of the winning candidates last week and it was impossible to spot any difference in the message. Mike Huckabee said: 'This election is not about me, it's about we', while Clinton came up with the variant: 'You want this election to be about you.'
Thus both of them appealed to voters who believed strongly that elections should be about types of people. This is a theme Clinton developed when she said: 'I believe in what we can do together', a brave message this, since there was always the risk she could alienate people who don't believe in what a lot of people can do together. It may well be that the people who do believe in what people can do together came out in droves at the last minute to vote for her, hence her remarkable comeback. Similarly, John McCain's pledge that as President he would 'make in our time another, better world than the one we inherited' might have won over a lot of voters who were dead against making another, worse world than the one they inherited.
... and empty promises
This abandonment of specifics is the opposite of how politics is articulated in Britain. Here, politicians have less power, less international influence and are at the mercy of the markets and even the weather, so they try covering this up with language that is all about pledging and specific target-setting - anything, in fact, that sounds like action.
'We intend to provide a chair, which, over the next five-year period, will guarantee stability for anyone who sat on it.' 'We will introduce the most sweeping measures yet to ensure that all four chair legs are of exactly the same length and we will measure every leg on the chair twice a year and place those results in national chair-leg database.' 'We will stop other people coming over to use the chair before us.'
American politicians take time out from their busy lives to makes speeches that sound empty; British politicians fill the emptiness of their lives with words that make them sound busy. The chair, by the way, was made in China.
--Armando Iannucci
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
65 Comments so far
Show AllAmen. As a professional speech writer I am dismayed by how much people swoon over Barack's appearance and style. Andrew Sullivan's famous "endorsement" in Atlantic Monthly was essentially about his face. David Geffen and Oprah focus on his rhetorical abilty to inspire. I know how easy it is to craft a phrase that induces frisson in an audience hungry for a message. But I also know it is at the end of the day, a craft and in no way assures that the speaker can or will do anything promised or expected. My work is for corporate execs, and their speeches are meant to "inspire" an audience through the next sales cycle or model year. They are intended to provide as much "truth" as needed to make the speaker credible and motivating ... and that's all. These skills are especially desirable when that executive, or his company, have nothing particularly motivating or hopeful to say.
So Obama "delights" people who forget that he isn't really saying anything ... and makes them hopeful in hopeless circumstances. Does this appeal spring from our thırst for an alternative to the rambling malapropisms that have been amusing us for years?
Paul B and bg1, I agree with you that a ticket with Hillary or Barack at the top of it is a very hard sell to crossover Republicans. It pushes the popular vote way too close to the 50/50 range, that is very easy to overcome with electronic voting machines, ballot problems, voter caging and dirty tricks. As the polls show, a ticket with Edwards at the top, would yield a much more comfortable margin for error.
EDWARDS '08
bg1: I believe you are correct.
The crux of the problem is that the largest bloc is still the Boomers and political casuals who will be perennially swayed by fluff. Furthermore, very few people with a shred of substance coursing through their veins would descend to the level it takes to get elected in this country, or sell out principle to the highest bidder.
Ahh, just when I thought Commondreams had slipped forever into the confused morass of self-righteous opinioneering, they bounce back with an article that captures my feelings exactly, just like the old days. Thanks CD. Obama will be a great President in another 12 years or so. Hot air and naive young voters won't give him the Whitehouse this time.
Vaudree - your post was way too long. I just scrolled right past it.
Actually, Kucinich does outline his courses of action... in his House Bills.
But I am not a lawyer, and I would like a clear, concise description of these bills on K's website.
If only a mainstream approved candidate had the positions that Dennis Kucinich has, then we could cast a meaningful vote. Except that then he or she would not be an acceptable candidate. As long as we need the elite's permission to vote for a candidate, we will never fully utilize democracy. The media has convinced us that a vote cast on position and principle is a wasted vote. That mind manipulation has eviscerated democracy and turned it into a pathetic distraction from the fact that we have no control over our own destiny. We could do incredible things with democracy if we knew how to use it properly. If we did, Kucinich would already have it wrapped.
Totally silly and irrelevant observation: obama seems happy and hillary doesn't
The biggest reason I became a Kucinich supporter in 04 (besides agreeing with him) was because he said what he believed in clear, consise language. In the debates this time around he had to sum up his whole campaign in the few seconds MSM decided to give him (and I thought he did that extremely well).
I know a lot of what he wants to can be paid for by reducing DoD/DHS spending, and repealing tax cuts and closing loopholes... and that would be a trillion times better start but it wont cover all (I think Gravel has said better in this respect). I assume that if he were actually elected then it would be on a wave of popular support which would 'motivate' congress to action... but he seems to be missing (on his website at least) the nuts and bolts of exactly how the change will come about.
Though, this campaign could use some how-to's it is first about motivating people to your cause, especially in such an 'open' election.
This is where Edwards comes to my mind- he says specifics, and not just goals but on action.
And let's not discount Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, they may have horrendous social plans, but they do have a radical tax plan: the National Sales Tax (like Gravel). Not that I am in line with them (still thinking) but that might be a topic to motivate the majority of the population (especially republicans) to consider real reform and real issues (just like in the Reagan Revolution- of course those same republicans feel betrayed because they realize they were sold platitudes for power)
Another hack refusing to recognize something inherently great about Barack Obama. No, he isn't the most progressive. That's Kucinich, and look how far that's getting him. On the contrary, he's the most aggressive, using his youth and energy as his selling points. If we're ever to change the neo-conservative nightmare in this country, the first thing the nation needs is the ability to fundamentally change the operational capacity of Washington. That's why you hear "a different kind of politics" uttered each time Barack speaks. It's the most important issue. One where corporate interests hold equal weight among the voice of the citizen/consumer. If you're looking to be inspired, attend a rally; that's where candidates attract attention. If you're looking to be informed (ahem), attend a debate. Obama is quite direct in addressing answerable questions. His Iraq policy is not terribly specific. Why? Who knows what Iraq will be like one year from now, when our next leader takes oath. NOTHING is certain in that country, so would it behoove an honest leader to make claims that can't translate to guaranteed policy? No. If you want to be numbed with intrigue, witness Obama speak at a foreign policy symposium. There's a reason he's winning so many endorsements and winning so much respect. He's much more than hot air, he's ahead of his time.
"What on Climate?
What on Education?
What on Poverty?
What on the Prison-Industrial Complex?
What on increased (=fair) Taxation of the Wealthy?
What on the WAR that that tax money is pumped into??????????????"
I can easily answer those, and with great-Accuracy -- and the same-damn-Answers applies to all of these 'front-runners' (so can you, if you stop to 'think on it').
[Here's a clue -- note the printing of your name on your cheque-or-Mortgage, and then examine the line you Sign-upon using a decent magnifying-glass. What do you 'see'-there? Why, do you thimk?]
{click my Name}
I appreciate all the comments & the links mentioned by the cyber-progressives on this site(I learn more from reading comments than the articles)
Edwards- I appreciate his populist speeches & feel he is sincere(son of a mill worker!) despite being a millionare & his votes in the Senate(why did he give up his seat to the Repubs!)
Obama- I appreciate his progressive positions (from his website) but not his actions since being a Senator..(perhaps his 'let's work with the Repubs' stems from his time in Illinois when the State Repubs were the majority?)
Clinton-I WILL NOT vote for a former corporate lawyer as the Democrat nominee (& may vote Green if she is nominated)
Folks, there is only ONE candidat who DESERVES your vote if you take their WORDS and ACTIONS(VOTES)as a Congressman in account...Rep.Dennis Kucinich has CONSISTENTLY supported progressive causes in WORDS & DEEDS (Hell, he gets my vote for trying to IMPEACH Cheney alone!) If all the true progressives in the U.S. voted for KUCINICH he may not win but he would have quite a few delegates to bargain with!
btw the MAIN Issue in US Politics is to get the damn money out of elections!(Public financed elections)
Tell your friends in Michigan to vote for Dennis(only 3 candidates on the ballot..no delegates but he would get free PR)...And VOTE KUCINICH!!!
Hooray, a voter who actually thinks, researches and ponders the issues. How very refreshing, and how sadly very rare. Thank you, Armando Ianucci, for such a rare and unusual insight.
I would blame the media, obsessed with selling advertising, which turns everything into sound bytes and stupidity. But it is ultimately the fault of the electorate which falls so easily into brain dead parroting of such infantile political views. If we were a bit more demanding, a bit more ready to actually think things through, then candidates would be forced to actually say things rather than use polling data to come up with passionate sounding but meaningless bullshit, just like Obama, just like Clinton, just like Romney, just like Guliani, just like Huckabee, yuch!
I have seen the enemy, it is us.
Clinton is nothing more than a moderate Republican.
Obama is the same thing as Clinton with a better speaking style.
Kucinich is the only one worth voting for but since he ain't got a chance I support Edwards.
But Edwards won't even be on the ballot by the time my state comes up in the cycle.
Once again the media have picked the candidates.
And once again the status quo monied interests win out.
Work for IRV Kucinich, first Edwards second, Obama third.
It's true. Platitudes such as "the challenge of hope" resonate as vapid, meaningless, even demeaning...
I think it's unfair to say Obama is full of hot air.
He's actually full of helium.
Well what has he said in his speeches about what he stands for and what he will change when he gets to be President. I am told its on his website, why doesn't he reiterate these things instead of blowing hot air? All that stuff on his website can disappear in a flash. Has he promised to obey and defend the constitution? The silence is deafening. Mind you the rest of the mob of office seekers are not any better.
No one sounds like a nation builder.
I think Armando saved the best for last, the very last, as the final sentence was -
"The chair, by the way, was made in China."
I thought that the article was a witty insight into the political media cicus, and it didn't just bash Obama, it went after Hillary too. The problem is, Hillary just can't say "nothing", with the same flare, enthusiasm and audience envolvement, that Barack can say "nothing". Is that grammatically correct? Oh well, I did the best I could.
The real problem is that the candidates should be addressing the issues at every opportunity in the primary, if for no other reason than to educate the voters. Hillary and Barack have no excuse for not speaking to the issues, as they both have huge ad budgets and they're getting plenty of exposure in the corporate MSM, as opposed to Edwards, Kucinich and the other progressives who are suffering from a media black-out.
If one of these people saying "nothing", to avoid alienating possible voters, actually gets the nomination, they will be attacked ruthlessly in the general election by the opposition and the corporate media about these issues that they have never spoken about.
If speaking about these issues causes them to be swift-boated, let it happen now, not when all the chips are on the table. Let the American sheeple hear them speak the words on the nightly news and on the Sunday talk shows. Promise them a better tomorrow, and then share your vision of it with them. That would make for an even better speech. If they won't say it, they probably won't do it. If they will say it, and repeat it, they should feel an obligation to at least try to do it.
Let them all be tested under fire on the issues now, not after we have nominated them based on how their empty rhetoric makes us feel, or their gender, or their skin color. Get some dialogue started on our problems and how to solve them now!
EDWARDS '08
I'm waiting to feel the power of the Obama electricity. Errr
mebbe it just lightsup liddle brains.
Why exactly did the author single out Obama as the guy who is short on substance? We have been forced to endure the rhetorical lullabies of almost every politician for decades. Ron Paul is by far the most direct, specific and candid candidate; he is rewarded with less than 10% of the vote. Apart from him, there is not much difference in percentage of rhetoric spewed.
I would have to agree with DAB up there. This author is as lacking in political insight as he is in literary talent.
Thank you! So I'm not as crazy as some people look at me like I am when I can't muster enthusiasm for Obama. He seems pretty much the reality TV candaite to me. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's no better or worse than the rest of the Democrats.
I think the frenzy around Obama has more to do with how messed up our country is, not that he is some actual champion of anything, other than "change" of course.
Personally I feel the most qualified candidate dropped out from lack of support. If Edwards can manage to get the nomination Bill Richardson would be the best choice for veep.
A lot of people I respect think quite highly of Mr. Obama, but try as I may I am not able to get past the uneasy feeling of being deceived I get when I hear him speak, and his overall record smacks of centrist triangulation.
Then there is the reality pointed out by FrederickJohnson January 13th, 2008 5:08 pm. I travel a lot and meet lots of just plain folk. Obama's Muslim heritage makes him unelectable in the general election, in either spot.
He's a good man, he's still learning, he's an idealist, and naive about global situations.
A John Edwards/Barak Obama ticket would be very good. If we don't elect John Edwards to the presidency, we are in big trouble, ___ far worse than now.
"Every time I listen to him, I start off thinking I'm about to wet my pants"
Every time I listen to him I get the urge to check my wallet and my watch. He reminds me of a slick salesman, offering me whole lot of nothing wrapped up in a pretty package. Just another centrist as far as I can tell, nothing new here!
People, stop looking at Obama's website and look instead at his record. He has voted twice to fund the war ('05, '06) and didn't find his "conscience" until he and Hillary snuck in to the Senate Chamber at the 11th hour in the vote for the funding extension last year. Neither would commit to a position on the bill beforehand because they were too busy examining the polling data, I suspect. If his convictions were firm (and consistent), he would have replied accordingly the MANY times he was asked how he would vote even the day of the vote. Also consider that Senator Obama waited a full year before even mentioning the war on the floor of the Senate and then he only called for limiting the scope of the war, not bringing it to a quick and complete end. Look at the advisors he has picked, especially on foreign policy, HAWKS everywhere (Zbigniew Brzezinski??). Look at his campaign contributions from business groups. He's a friend to AIPAC (read: no real Middle East peace). Can we stop fooling ourselves that he will be doing anything but business as usual if elected? Please look at actions not words and promises when selecting a candidate to support.
Britain is a very white place as I saw it, No wonder the writer doesn't respect Obama. [Half of Scotland wants to secede too but the writer doesn't want to talk about our former colonizer's disintegrating empire]. Illinois where I live elected Obama Senator with 70% of the vote which is unheard of. Illinois is a big state and Obama is very popular here. Obama may not win this time but he'll be a major force in US politics for decades to come. Oh and he's taken positions on a lot of issues, check his website. Obama is a prominent member of the largest United Church of Christ congregation in Northern Illinois, I really wish people would stop the lies about his religion. People who lie about his religion are simply unprincipled.
Obama has been beautifully characterized by Alexander
Cockburn's description "Senator Slither". But I found your comment about trying to grasp him like wrapping a mist very
funny. Unfortunately we have to many Demopubs who are so like zombies that these elections invariably degenerate into popularity contests. It seems style trumps substance
every time, PHOOEY, I'll probably sit this one out, encourage others to do the same and juin the ranks of the
largest contingency,i.e.the non-voter.
This race is whether hope will win out over cynicism and lazyness.
Any of you who do not know what Obama has done or will do ought to look up his website or read his books.
We are fortunate to have a man with real good judgement about war and peace- that is why all the educated go for Obama and the support for Hillary is from blue collar people who do not read and want a good job - of course they could be getting it from obama who really organized instead of hillary who tried to do health reform and backed off because it was politically risky.
tenarcadia: Perhaps it is the citizen's duty to the country to spend hours online or in the library trying to avoid the media's glare so they could descern for themselves who truly is the best candidate.
It's easy to know who truly is the best candidate. We only need to know that voting third party progressives helps to promote and defend the public interests from capitalist assaults.
Detriment of Iowa & New Hamshire Carnivals
Again, the over hyped carnivals in Iowa and NH have eliminated our most valuable candidates, even with less than 2 % of the national population. This underscores the vital needs for reforms in our presidential selection processes, which are now more evident than ever.
Campaigning should be limited to two months, with no such Iowa & NH events. This would allow candidates ample time to present their positions, with less opportunities for deceptive slander. Contributions should be limited to ~ $100. Television and newspaper coverage should be publically financed to allow viable candidates equal public access. Popular voting should replace the electoral college system, which was enacted because of the difficulties of counting all votes at that time. Paper ballots should be mandatory.
Presidents should be limited one six year term. This would eliminate their need to appease special interests for re-election, which was why this stipulation was included in the 1861 Confederate Constitution. A confidence vote after 22 months would provide voters the needed opportunity to amend their vote in special cases.
These are good points, but I'm still not convinced Obama really is vacuous; I think he's smart, a person of liberal instincts, capable of taking principled positions (as he did on the war at the outset, and against overwhelming public opinion), but wise enough not to take controversial positions so early on. Get elected, sell people on your progressive agenda, and then get the hard work done. Besides, what choices do we have? Edwards's ideas are often appealing, but to me he sounds like the high-rolling tort lawyer he is. I'm bothered by his early support for going to war when the case for it was so transparently fraudulent. And Hillary? The hawkish crypto-neocon? Clearly nobody on the Republican side has anything to offer.
I agree strongly with this editorial, what we are seeing happen is yet another mindless American electorate going for the smoke and mirrors. Time and time again, polititions have proven the candidate who has the 'most hopeful' message is the one who wins. The trick is easy, bunch of empty soundbites just as useless and vapid as the empty Republican ones. Fergedaboutit.
Veteran '66-68
Obama claims he wouldn't have voted to invade Iraq, yet he's voted with Hillary to continue funding the occupation. He's Hillary in black face, and Hillary is Bush in drag, so where does that leave you? Vote Edwards, the real (and viable) candidate of change. Check out their websites for positions on issues (since the MSM is only focused on style over substance).
I do not understand the characterizations of Obama as an empty suit, a campaign of oratory without specifics, and so on, as the author of this article and some other commenters see it.
I checked Obama's website, and there are specific policy proposals and positions. Such as:
-- close Guatanamo
-- restore habeus corpus
-- a universal affordable health care plan
-- negotiated nuclear arms reductions
-- middle class tax cut
-- raise the 97,000 ceiling on soc. sec. tax
-- eliminate federal income tax for seniors
earning under 50,000
-- ending the war in Iraq
And plenty more. These are all substantive. I was struck by how specific and straight-speaking the Obama website policy positions were compared to the Clinton website.
Granted, the rhetoric of Obama's campaign
is long on vision. Some criticize this, but step back and consider: first, that is how elections are won; and second, perhaps America needs a *REALLY* inspiring, visionary orator (who has substance underneath) for a change.
I don't mean any of this as negative toward Edwards, but it does look close to becoming a two-person race (though Edwards could well be the swing vote between Obama and Hillary).
Hedology: Re. President Iannucci. No, Tony Blair'll get there first.
Alas he's Berdish too so little chance of either.
Thank you Mr. Iannucci. I thought it was just me finding Obama's speeches boring and lacking substance -- just as Hillary's are -- nice words to make us all feel good. Both are corporate shills, have unconditional support for Israel, and are pro war and attacking Iran. In addition, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan.
EDWARDS 2008
Here are my favorite two Obama-the-Conservative-Militarist quotations:
"The Founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everybody is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank and an inherited social order…how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?" (Obama, The Audacity of Hope [New York, 2006, pp. 86-87)Â
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

www.barackobama.com/2007/08/ 01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
So equality is dangerous, individual freedom is anarchy, and it is a good thing to attack other nuclear-weapons-possessing nations in violation of international law. Some progressive.
Usually I'm glad to hear from the UK press, but this time we should just be glad most Americans will never see the article. It's snippy instead of useful. We have nothing whatever to gain from bashing Obama except an obligation to then reluctantly support Hillary, as though either we (or even the author) would like that better.
The "change" Obama CAN deliver every day of his presidency is flipping the veto (or threat of veto)
from against Democratic initiatives to against Republican initiatives, and appointing liberals or balanced moderates to the judiciary instead of all conservatives. That alone is HUGE change, if he never did another thing. And, he is wisely not talking about it in specifics, because if he did, the conservatives just might rise up (again) and beat him with the 30-second ads. Obama possibly can win on "vague" and ought to be permitted to if we can just help, rather than hurt, his chances with dumb-mouth criticism.
Out here in South Carolina, Obama is known by black voters as "Mr. Oreo Cookie" while most white voters still call him "Osama" or "Barack Hussein". While South Carolina has voted Republican for ages, don't expect the rest of this country to give Obama enough votes to win. He's allowed LIEberNAZI to FUCK him politically !
HEDOLOGY: Erudite posting. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Watching Obama curl those white-bread Iowa audiences around his finger with that soaring oratory put a lump in my throat; maybe -- sooner than we think -- the content of a candidate's character will trump his race in the voting booth. Speed the day!
But although this may almost be the time, Obama is not the man. Sadly, the economic powers that he is now beholden to would prevent him, if elected, from making any serious changes to benefit working families.
I'm beginning to despair that here on CD (which I think of as a refuge for educated progressives) the necessity of supporting Edwards is so weakly represented. The way the media works now, only a real surge in fund-raising will get him back on their radar screen. His policies are the ones with substance, and his intentions are the ones ordinary citizens need!
Obama's website has a reasonable amount of specifics as to policy details--I think characterizing him as an empty suit is a bit unfair. Mind you I think Edwards's positions are more thorough and more compelling, but this article's a bit harsh on Obama. The contrast with politics in the UK was interesting however, perhaps if our own journalists bothered to immerse themselves in the substance of policy and demanded candidates explain themselves in a greater level of specificity the candidates' behavior would change too.
Yes, Dab, Mr. Obama's speeches are electrifying. And yet, upon continued examination of his actual stances on particular issues, I'm trying to figure out why his supporters allow themselves to get carried away by his blatant manipulation of the better impulses of the electorate. Mr. Obama himself is gifted as a speaker, but he's a phony, warmongering double dealer, the latest product of Clintonist politics. It's unfortunate you can't trust what a careful examination of his actual record makes plain to his critics.
Armando Iannucci for President. With speeches like this, its a wonder he is not already elected. As well as winning competitions on the best oratory on the subject of a little piece of green putty I found under my arm one morning, candidates should also do a mime sketch on how they will conquer the big wide world, and continue to make the US of I strong and great. The best loud theatrical gestures and facial expressions meaning we are the greatest will earn the most points. In the Italian opera singing section marks will be deducted for gratuitous raucousness indicating severe strain of the vocal cords, but not here. It is all about theatre, tone of voice, body language and gesture, in order to induce unquestioning and ecstatic audience participation, who are going to win with the candidate, akin to a Pentacostal Christian service possessed of the Holy Spirit. Hitler used it to great effect on the German people with the Nazi political rallies, and may the most sincere performance acting with the most stamina win. The candidates do not want you mind, they want your BELIEF.
What a great piece! I loved it!!
The only thing Armando Iannucci may has forgotten is the fact that Americans like to vote for a candidate with whom they think they could go out for a beer.
Obama Obama
Oh baby when you talk like that
You make, the people go mad
So realize, you keep on
Spreading the lies of the lobby.
-Apologies to Shakira
That chair metaphor was just perfect! And so true!
RE: - Obama is Ross Perot.
Obama is Kim Campbell with better speaking skills.
RE: - John Edwards is far more progressive and fundamentally changes the forces we need to take on.
And more specific in his platform than the other two. Sometimes, though, I think he is baiting the moderator into asking him to clarify certain things so that he can gain more air time. Edwards only refers to "combat" troops in his speeches and about not getting involved in any more "combat" missions - sounds as if he is ready to turn America into a country of peacekeepers to me - but would still like a clarification.
noisefactor - before I look at the vote, I want to see transcripts of the debate which always precedes any vote - whether it be the UK, Australia, Canada or even the US.
There was an example of a bill which only allowed abortions to be performed in hospitals. If someone wanted to vote for it, I want to know if it was to protect patient safety, to aid the profits of private hospitals or to further limit access to abortion. The motivation behind voting a certain way is often as important as the vote itself - and often becomes moreso for omnibus bills.
It is not that I expect to read the whole transcript, I do know how to use the edit/find function on a computer!
There is a law in the maritimes which bans cosmetic pesticide use on lawns. However, the law also says that it is illegal for anyone to point out which lawn care products contained banned ingredients and still legal to sell those products. As you can see, the law officially bans cosmetic pesticide use, but contains measures designed to make the law completely ineffective.
Obama on Healthcare:
Unlike the Edwards plan and the Clinton plan which omit one major indeterminate cost- the fact that they provide no monetary figures for the cost of mandating insurance- the Obama plan focues on affordability instead of issuing a mandate.
As Obama says, "Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.
What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?
Mandatory Health Insurance in Massachusetts
"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.
Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html
"Of all the new rules passed in Congress's recent ethics overhauls, the most sweeping is a barely debated provision in a Senate bill passed Thursday night that could alter one of the most time-honored campaign fund-raising practices in Washington.
Rushing to complete its promised reform bill, the Senate adopted a measure that, for the first time, would require registered lobbyists to disclose not only the limited money they can donate to candidates personally but also the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they raise from clients and friends and deliver as sheaves of checks — a tradition known as bundling."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us/politics/20ethics.html
"Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who was tapped by leaders to oversee ethics overhaul, said the legislation would "ensure that committees aren't slipping in earmarks in the dead of night."
After overcoming resistance inside his own party, Mr. Obama pushed for a provision requiring, for the first time, disclosure by lobbyists who bundle political contributions of more than $15,000 in six months.
"My argument was that it was worth it for us to try to be aggressive on this front, particularly since we were just coming into power," Mr. Obama said, adding that he wished the rules could be enforced by an outside group. "I do think that the public would have more confidence in the process if we had an independent enforcement mechanism."
The legislation is designed to limit the social interaction between lobbyists and lawmakers, making it more difficult for them to get together at sporting events, parties at national political conventions and other social activities.
The bill also deprives former members of Congress who now work as lobbyists of some of the privileges that critics say give them an advantage in pushing legislation. The measure revokes floor privileges to former lawmakers who are lobbying, and denies them access to the House and Senate gyms, other exercise facilities and members-only parking.
Also tucked into the 107-page measure are several Senate procedural changes intended to curb a practice that has become more common in recent years: adding surprise, last-minute provisions to bills."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/washington/03lobby.html
"That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27....
Ianucci,
you have an obligation to do your own research- just like in school.
Judge Him By His Laws"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR200801...
"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR200702...
"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm
Nader2000: there's a good argument to be made that the politicians who refuse to address issues in their speeches are the lazy ones--or the cowardly ones, hoping that facility with words will cover their emptiness. We deserve better!!! And I don't mean just of Obama, but of all of them. We deserve specifics and courage of anyone who thinks he or she has a right to run our country and much of the world.
Obama is Ross Perot. Pretend to be an alternative to the two parties, while actually positioning yourself right in the middle of them. The Corporate Media will call you bipartisan like its a good thing. Appeals to people who only read a little about politics and wish they would just shut up. Meanwhile, the country moves ever rightward, because you dont balance a right-wing see saw by sitting moderately right of center.
Agreed, Kucinich and Ron Paul... the only candidates talking specifics.
The speech to which I refer is here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obamas_Iraq_Speech
"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne."
It is good to see the enthusiasm of the crowds and Obama does know how to charm an audience with a message that we want to get along and include. I feel like I'm listening to JFK discuss America in the era of Civil Rights but with the hindsight of the great struggle that followed concerning Vietnam, racial politics and the Imperial presidency. This change Obama speaks about will take American where and whom will it benefit? America is still reticent to look to Vietnam and the racial struggle by prefering to use terms as the racial card and the losing of Vietnam. We should be looking at how much we have changed since "68 and does a Black man feel the same now as he did in '68. When Dr. KIng was murdered this discussion ended and now it may be the time to debate what it means to be a Black man and women in America.
noisefactor wrote:
"Obama came out against the war before it was popular."
You mean like this remark in his democratic convention keynote address in 2004?
"When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they are going,... and to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace and earn the respect of the world."
So, it sounds like he's only against the war because it wasn't prosecuted with even more troops and greater ferocity.
Then he also said:
"Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated."
"John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure."
So he also ascibes to the so-called "war on terror" and also seems to be a Vietnam-revisionist Speaking with approval of Kerry's murderous marauding, and documented murder of many innocents, in the Mekong Delta.
These are hardly antiwar stances.
Obama is a mirage candidate. People see what they want to see because he taps into their emotions with his potent oversimplifications.
He is not change; he is the status quo. It is amazing that he has fooled so many progressives.
John Edwards is far more progressive and fundamentally changes the forces we need to take on.
I think the author's claim is very valid, but the bigger picture is that NO ONE (except Dennis Kucinich & Ron Paul, but we ignore them) is saying anything the least bit specific. They point out the problems, but present few solutions. And when they do present solutions, the media ignores it. THAT'S the big problem. I shouldn't have to go digging through campaign web sites or read entire biographies to find out what a candidate stands for, and we all know that the vast majority of the electorate never will! Isn't this why we have news? So that we can be informed about the candidates policies?!? I'm tired of the popularity contest, and I'm furious that the media has already decided to just ignore the candidates it doesn't like.
What a lazy, self-indulgent little scritch. The writer complains that Obama's rhetoric does not "alight anywhere," i.e. does not seem to spell out what his agenda will be.
But the writer does not seem to have made any effort at all to find out what Obama's actual agenda may be, either by looking into his background, reading his books, or reading through his recent speeches and campaign position statements.
American politics is all about keeping your seat. The more middle of the road you are the more likely you will be elected again. Our political whores know to pimp themselves.
Hoa binh
The writer articulated my feelings about Sen. Obama exactly. I too find my mind wandering, filling up with questions as I listen to his
"dare to hope, dare to dream" rhetoric. It is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Hillary is the been-there, done-that candidate. The only one who is saying anything at all substantial (and even he could be way more specific) is John Edwards. Of course, he is continuing to be marginalized and ignored by the tv pundits who are salivating to make this a two-person race, splitting the Democratic Party by both race and gender.
I am disgusted with the lot of them. I will vote for John Edwards.
Obama came out against the war before it was popular. He's not all things to all people, it's true, but while Hillary and Edwards were voting to authorize this mess, Obama was delivering speeches about how it was a really bad idea. Now you're criticizing him for trying to appeal to the confused, centrist electorate? The charisma that Obama brings to the table is what Kerry and Gore lacked. He is able to seem real to the voters whereas in recent elections Bush won because, somehow, he seemed more real to many people. I'm getting tired of seeing people bash Obama. Sure, his policy positions aren't radical, but who would expect a nation that entertains the idea of a Giuliani or Romney presidency to embrace socialist positions?
I want issues. Issues. Tired as heck of the personality horse-race.
What on Climate?
What on Education?
What on Poverty?
What on the Prison-Industrial Complex?
What on increased (=fair) Taxation of the Wealthy?
What on the WAR that that tax money is pumped into??????????????
What does the Democratic Party say on these?
What does the Republican Party say on these?
What is friggin' wrong with the media?
Oh, the Military-Industrial complex now owns much of this through mergers and good-'ol boy networks.
After reading this poorly constructed and ill conceived article, I am not surprised that the writer has issues with Obamas electrifying speeches.
I hope this mediocre writer will one day be able to captivate the imagination and attention of people as Obama has been doing. He will however need to put in a lot of very hard work.
I am not surprised that Armando Iannucci has issues with Obama's speeches either.
He also captured perfectly the difference between how Obama speaks about chairs and the way Canadian and British politicians speak about chairs.
I am also not surprised that it takes a lot of work to produce "electrifying speeches" completely devoid of issues.
The article was not about whether you can find what Obama stands for on various issues if you look meticulously through the net, it was only about why he so adamantly refrains from including many of the said issues into his speeches.
Armando Iannucci's chair metaphor ranks right up there with Rick Mercer's "Doris" petition as an example of well crafted political satire.
Now, Nader2000, when you say agenda, do you mean the writer's own agenda or Obama's? If you're arguing that the writer has failed to outline his "agenda," I think that it's rather explicit: write an article condeming dandelion-fluff politics, and I would argue that he has executed this quite well.
Now, if you mean Obama's agenda, as I assume that you do, I think you are missing the point. Not that I'm advocating spoon-feeding, but it is the media's job, and I would think the candidate's job, to make all of the his or her positions are clear and consice, rather than sputtering out strings of abstrations hoping to pander to the nations collective pathos.
Perhaps it is the citizen's duty to the country to spend hours online or in the library trying to avoid the media's glare so they could descern for themselves who truly is the best candidate. But, these citizens also have duties to their jobs, duties to their families. Honestly, if the media isn't there to tell us the truth about things, why is it even there?