Barack Obama’s Smart Speech “A More Perfect Union”: Did It Reveal Him to Be Too Intellectual to Be President?
By way of disclaimer, I do not have a favored candidate in the 2008 Democratic nomination contest. But I do appreciate the new (or perhaps simply long-forgotten) and higher levels to which Senator Barack Obama is taking political discourse. His historic speech on race this week, for example, was as smart as they come.There was a time in this country when political debate was actually rather sophisticated, but that was long ago (for as mass media grew, the level of debate went down). Only time will tell, however, if Obama’s powerful speech was also politically smart.
Obama Speech Was Frank, Direct, and Intelligent - But Was It Pitched to Too Advanced an Audience?
With his speech addressing race in America, Obama has done something that few politicians are willing to do: speak with compelling intellectual honesty. Rather than fuzzy-up difficult and troubling questions about race, he confronted them directly. Rather than avoiding issues that are typically ignored, he brought them forward for public discussion. Most strikingly, he did this with nuance, great tact, and conspicuous intelligence.
Many commentators were struck by the level of erudition Senator Obama employed in his speech. For example, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman asked, “Did the blockheads understand it?” Not wanting to sound elitist, Howard quickly added that of course, everyone is a bit of a blockhead. I do not know if everyone understood the speech or not, but I do know that it is a pleasure to have a candidate running for the highest office in the land who is not only not trying to pretend to be dumb and inarticulate but rather willingly showing he is, in fact, smart as hell.
Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech was not unlike his insightful and somewhat erudite books - Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope - with one large exception: Relatively few people will read Obama’s books but many have been (or may be) exposed to his historic speech.
Computers have made it rather simple to determine the intelligence or grade level of a speech by measuring it with the Flesch-Kincaid test, which is found on the Tools/Options menu of Microsoft Word. This widely-employed measurement device determines the degree of difficulty of the written (and spoken) word.
Enterprising linguists and others have applied the test to a wide variety of material. For instance, the folks at youDictionary have tested the inaugural addresses of presidents. They discovered that no president since Woodrow Wilson has come close to delivering speeches pitched at a 12th grade level. Bush II’s first inaugural address was at a 7.5 grade level, which ranked him near Eisenhower’s second address (7.5), Nixon’s first (7.6), LBJ’s only (7.0), and FDR’s fourth (8.1). Clinton’s two addresses, by contrast, scored at the 9th grade level (9.4 and 8.8 respectively).
I tested Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech and it scores at a 10.5 grade level, which by current standards is in the stratosphere. But maybe he was being too smart to win the presidency.
Republicans Have Dumbed Down the Presidency
Hillary Clinton - who is every bit Obama’s intellectual equal - is increasingly running against his eloquence, and claiming that eloquence is all he has and that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief and solve real-world problems. During and since the Ohio and Texas primaries, I’ve noticed that Senator Clinton has been showing less and less of her own conspicuous wonkiness and brain-power, a strategy that seems to be working to her advantage.
Senator Clinton’s new populism has not become anti-intellectual (yet), but she surely knows that her husband hid his intelligence during his presidential campaigns, playing up his good ole boy roots rather than his Yale/Oxford credentials. Savvy Democrats understand they cannot win the White House by appearing smarter than their GOP opponent.
This is not a cynical observation, but rather a factual one. Republicans have spent the past half century dumbing-down the American presidency, for it has helped them win the White House Colleen Shogan, wearing her political scientist hat, has assembled epigrammatic case studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the anti-intellectualism of Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
For example, when Dwight Eisenhower ran against Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (in 1952 and 1956), Eisenhower ignored the fact that he had been first in his class at West Point and president of Columbia University. Meanwhile, his surrogates portrayed Stevenson as an “egghead” intellectual, which was untrue but easy to do given Stevenson’s remarkably eloquent speaking style. (In fact, Stevenson had flunked out of Harvard Law School, although he later graduated from Northwestern Law School.) In office, too, Eisenhower governed with a “hidden hand,” continuing to hide his intelligence.
Reagan was seen as an “amiable dunce,” and history is still not sure if his Alzheimer’s condition took hold well before he left office. Yet his collected letters demonstrate more thoughtfulness and policy savvy, at least earlier in his life, than many suspected. George Bush reminded Yale students when visiting his alma mater that “to the C students - I say, you, too, can be President of the United States.” In contrast, rival John Kerry’s campaign (mistakenly it now seems) had taken pains to portray him as highly intelligent - yet Kerry’s Yale grades were just as weak as Bush’s. The putative GOP nominee for 2008, John McCain, follows in the Republican tradition of anti-intellectualism, as the fifth man from the bottom of his Naval Academy graduating class.
Increasingly, conservatives seek to characterize liberals as latte-drinking, white-wine sipping, Volvo-driving, intellectual elitists with whom no real American would want to spend time, for they are too smug and superior to truly understand others outside their circle. Conservatives may appreciate intelligence but not intellectuals and their kind, and as the Republican Party has become more conservative, its anti-intellectualism has become more pronounced. The reason: It wins elections.
Hopefully Obama Will Not Shift His Strategy toward Playing Dumb
Senator Obama’s smart speech on race is true to his campaign theme of “change,” for he is departing from the contemporary, Republican-created norm of Forrest Gump presidential politics. Do Americans really want the dumbest candidate answering the phone at three o’clock in the morning? Of course not.
While the correlation between Presidents’ successfully leading the nation and their intelligence cannot be easily measured, University of California psychologist Dean Keith Simonton has examined this question in his study “Presidential IQ, Openness, Intellectual Brilliance, and Leadership: Estimates and Correlations for 42 U.S. Chief Executives” (partially available online).
Using complex statistical and analytical tools, Professor Simonton has estimated the IQs of all our presidents. For example, for the last sixteen presidents he estimated (and I have rounded his figures) the following IQs: Wilson (155), Harding (140), Coolidge (142), Hoover (142), F. Roosevelt (151), Truman (140), Eisenhower (145), Kennedy (160), L. Johnson (141), Nixon (143), Ford (140), Carter (157), Reagan (142), G. H. W. Bush (143), Clinton (159), and G. W. Bush (139). With the exception of LBJ, the Democrats have provided the country with much higher wattage than the Republicans. But clearly, none of these men are stupid.
Let’s hope that Senator Obama continues to be willing to publicly perform at his intelligence level. Perhaps he will trust voters to realize that the key criterion to serve in the highest office should not be which candidate is the person with whom you would most enjoy having a beer. To the contrary, presidents should not be encouraging C students to continue to earn Cs so they can become president. Presidents should be telling all Americans that we can do better - which is one of the core points in Obama’s message.
Anti-intellectual Republican presidents have led this nation into a new age of unreason, as former Vice President Al Gore argued in The Assault on Reason (2007) and more recently, Susan Jacoby has reported in The Age of Unreason (2008). As Senator Obama campaigns, he can truly change America by simply refusing to play dumb. That strategy, if Obama continues it, may turn out to be not only courageous but also wise, for it is very possible that, after so many years, Americans are tired of having their innate intelligence insulted by their presidential candidates.
John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
© 2008 FindLaw.com
Folks figgered smarty-pants intellektuals was the ones bein’ all sneaky and makin’ life harder and harder for regular workin’ Joes. Only reason GWB had a chance against those smarty-pants intellektuals the Demz put forth. So. Folks got to try life under a figgerhead who don’t come across as no smarty-pants intellektual. Think folks actually like that any better, now that they had a chance to take it for a test drive? Maybe. Except, of course, for the smarty-pants intellektuals.
I refuse to believe George W. Bush has an IQ of 139, at least until I read his ocrresponence and classified memos.
Let’s face it. Learning for its own sake gets little respect in this country, whereas everyone loves money. Obama is doomed. Maybe he should gone the Clinton route: “Hey, I had to go to those Wright sermons because the man’s a family friend, but I did not listen. Many times my mind was elsewhere.” It would have been a beautiful response because no one could check its accuracy, and only offended Wright’s followers, who are unlikely to vote for McCain in the fall.
Only reason GWB’s speech was aimed so high was because it was written by people having brains.
Used to be only women who weren’t supposed to be too intellegent - so they’d be more appealing to men. Now there’s someone out there who wants all of us to be dumb. Even in stupid movies nothing is left for the imagination. THEY DON’T WANT US THINKING! WE’RE THINKING HERE, AND IF THEY FIND OUT THEY’RE GOING TO LOBOTOMIZE US!
“Too Intellectual to Be President?” I hope not. We need someone who is discerning and really capable of taking on the domestic and global challenges of the 21st century.
A side note: Interesting tidbit about Shrub’s inaugural speeches being at the 7th grade level. I never would have thunk it. I thought he spoke more at the 3rd grade level!
It seems that Barack Obama’s bold mention of the:
“real culprits” … “a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed.” got the attention the most corrupt and powerful captains of the establishment.
They don’t want their boat to be rocked, so like Rush Limbaugh - they’re working to turn the American people towards Hilary. She’s safe, she won’t rock their boat. She’s all for the status quo.
Obama can see that the status quo is deeply flawed and he’s not afraid to say so. Obama is our only hope. If they give it to Hilary - I’ll be exploring my options for a better/saner country to live and work in. I pity the fools who are supporting Hilary and McCain. They mean well, but the wool has been pulled over their eyes. It is truly a battle between the forces of light, love and truth, and those of darkness, fear, and deception.
———-
So, how many million republican supporters of John McCain have voted for Hilary to keep the man of color out of the race??!! That is a travesty of justice.
*****
“Only the grand scale and technocratic impersonality of the crimes conceived and directed by the [U.S.] ruling elite acting under cover of state authority distinguish them from garden variety killers.” Darrell Hamamoto
*****
“Americans cannot escape a certain responsibility for what is done in our name around the world. In a democracy, even one as corrupted as ours, ultimate authority rests with the people. We empower the government with our votes, finance it with our taxes, bolster it with our silent acquiescence. If we are passive in the face of America’s official actions overseas, we in effect endorse them.”
Mark Hertzgaard
*****
“Media criticism does exist in America. But by and large, it is not citizen-based criticism designed to make media a better source of information in a democracy. Instead, it is a cynical manipulation of the discourse designed to silence even the mildest dissent from the conservative, militantly pro-corporate dogma that has come to pass for news in an era when “reporters” brag about the size of their American-flag lapel pins.”
Robert McChesney and John Nichols
*****
Anti “intellectual” arguments are, of course, fear based. Quite simply, people are afraid of those who are more intelligent, especially the people on earth.
Simonton’s IQ figures are very suspect. They would imply that every president since Woodrow Wilson would, at minimum, score 2 standard deviations above the population mean or better, or, in other words, all these men would be, at minimum, in the top 2% of the American population in measures of intelligence. A majority would be over 3 standard deviations above the mean or in the top 0.5% of the population.
Nonsense. Junk science. I surprised Mr. Dean used such bogus figures.
My guess is that intelligence per se is not a liability in electoral politics, but the air of superiority that may accompany it is (maybe that’s what people mean by ‘intellectualism’?).
Obama’s speech showed intelligence, as well as other virtues (e.g., courage). I don’t think that he came out as snooty, or that he ever does when he campaigns or participates in debates. His superior intelligence should therefore not work against him. On the other hand, it may help in counteracting subconscious racist feelings that regard blacks as having a lesser intellect. In this case the intelligence factor might work in Obama’s favor.
Regarding the ranking of presidential speeches, I would have loved to see that kind of analysis applied to the president’s answers in press conferences, meaning real ones, where the questions do not just come from planted journalists.
I think Simonton is nuts. I remember reporters saying of President Reagan that he had a limited grasp of complex issues. I remember when Reagan was governor of California and he wasn’t hiding intelligence, there wasn’t any. I remember when Reagan was a presidential candidate, Bill Moyers asked him a question framed in a compound sentence. His answer was “I don’t know what you’re saying but I do know this” and went into a stump speech riff that had his undereducated supporters delighted for he was one of them. They despised talk that went over their heads, making them feel dumb. Clinton may have “hidden” his intelligence, but I was certainly aware that he was smart. And not just because he was a Rhodes scholar. Obama may be in trouble if the proletariat feel they’ve been talked down to, although I didn’t get that sense from his speech.
kathyodat
We all seem to agree that Simonton’s estimates of presidential IQ’s are suspect. GW Bush supposedly has an IQ of 139, placing him one point below genius? Yeah, right. Is our children learning?
Rather than the stupid presidential debates, I would like to see the candidates campaign as contestants on Jeopardy. Maybe George Bush could appear on children’s day - and he would still be a loser.
Really, I think most Americans have only a child’s awareness of their surroundings. I remember well how I viewed the world as a third or fourth grader, and I think that this is the intellectual level of Bush and his followers. Seventh grade? I was bashful and afraid to give my opinion then, but I had an opinion, and it was far better informed than Bush’s or most Americans’.
This country must be educated, by force if necessary, to survive much longer. Personally, I think it will likely take an invasion by a conquering army.
I refuse to believe that Georgy Porgy has an intellect anywhere near what is indicated. Maybe the standard to use in his case are the failed businesses he has had. In that instance he did it all by himself!
The speeches he has given have been written for him with word he can’t even pronounce! Give me a break!
Well, I’m smart as hell myself, as are most of my family and friends. We are sick and tired of this good ol’ boy crap. Let’s dumb the people down, then they can’t see what we’re doing against their wishes and behind their backs. I hope our time has come.
I’ve always enjoyed Dean’s columns but this one startled me. The focus is misguided and presumes people in the United States actually determine U.S. elections. The more proper question would be is Obama too intellectual for corporate interests?
This country is too depoliticized (by that, I mean the people are too far separated from policy making) to even bother distinguishing ourselves as conservatives or liberals.
I consider it slightly repulsive to ponder whether people understood Obama’s speech or not. There is a qualitative difference between opening up a dictionary to look up the word ‘endemic’ (which I had to do) and comprehending a speech.
Although there needs to be a serious discussion about the dumbing down of our country, I don’t think evaluating presidential speeches as reflective of the electorate is the way to do it. It evades the structural motives that rig elections and systematically defund educational programs nationally. The ‘dumbing down’ is forced upon us.
I would encourage Dean to read “Voices of a People’s History of the United States”. What was the context and environment in which these speeches were given? It’s almost futilely evident to point out that a speech does not involve the same linguistics as a discussion between two people. When delivering a speech, you can use big, dictionary-opening words and not lose your audience if the context in which those words are placed is clear enough.
The issue of intellect is really irrelevant. People, as a whole, do not accept leaders because of their intellect, erudition, or capability for rational discourse. People endorse leadership that speaks to the emotions and values that they can identify with.
This is why the Rev. Wright controversy has been so damaging to Senator Obama’s connection with many white people. Rev Wright was speaking to feelings and values that are often shared within the black community but which are totally foreign to the experience of most whites. Whether one wants to call it “racist,” prejudiced, or whatever, this whole business has made the Senator from Illinois seem much more foreign to many white people, and has strained and perhaps broken whatever the tentative identifications he had developed with them.
His valiant attempt to bridge again the worlds of white and of black in his speech was thoughtful, reasonable, and decent. Still, I do not believe that the complicated divisions and passions of race in American life can, at least at this moment in history, be surmounted by appeals to reason and insight. I may be wrong. I suppose what happens next with Sen Obama’s candidacy will decide whether I am or not.
I don’t know. I read Obama’s speech the other day. And to me it was typical Obama. It sounded good. It did talk about some of the problems we have in our society today. But, as usual, it was lacking any sort of vision as to exactly what he would do to correct it.
I guess Bill Clinton ruined me on this sort of stuff. He could go give a wonderful sounding speech on race relations. Every presidential election season he’d come to Atlanta for MLK day and give such a speech. You’d listen to it and feel inspired and think what a wonderful speech.
Then of course he got on a plane and left and did nothing about it. It was all just happy talk. It sounded great. And it meant nothing.
So, Bill Clinton taught me to look for hard and solid details and proposals. Ok, we still have problems in race relations. I’ve lived in the middle of major urban cities for the last 25 years so that’s not exactly news to me. But, what exactly will Mr. Obama actually do to address this is elected. His speech is very silent about that.
A few weeks ago I was reading FDR’s campaign speeches from 1932 when he was running for President and promising the New Deal. The difference is striking. He was explicitedly laying out a program that he would follow if elected. And doing this gave him the mandate for his ‘first hundred days’. The fact that he’d been so straight forward about his proposals during the campaign meant that he was able to put them into effect quickly. There was no argument that his election win meant that people supported the policies he’d clearly spelled out BEFORE the election.
What is Obama’s mandate going to be? Since he doesn’t ever say specifically what he’ll do if elected, there will be nothing that he can point to and say clearly that ‘the American people elected me to do this’.
PS …what does any of this article or the comments have to do with Obama’s intelligence? What the entire discussion above is actually about the intelligence of the speech writer who actually wrote this speech. What Mr. Obama did was ‘deliver’ it. Surely by now Mr. Bush has clearly shown that any fool can ‘deliver’ a speech.
Professor Simonton’s “estimation” of IQ’s should have been left out of any objective article.
I have done my own estimation and I would give George Junior a 100 on a good day.
Clinton may be as smart as Obama but she is far from wise. A big difference is their understanding of power: Clinton uses her intelligence to gain and maintain it as an end in and of itself. Look at her record. All her decisoins are based on her perception of where she stands in relation to power - how to use it, yes, but also how not to lose it. In that, she and Bill are indeed geniuses. Obama has an intellectual’s appreciation for what power can achieve. He understands the consitution and how, as a tool for justice, it is stil the best hope we have for better world. His drive is to enhance the power that is inherent within the system to effect change, because he knows he can do it.
In the end, though, we are who we elect. If Obama fails to make it the Whitehouse, it will not just be our loss but our fault as well for not having the courage to take ourselves to the next level of serious civic engagemnt and discourse.
Anti-intellectualism is a form of self-loathing; we hate it when smart people say smart things about who we are because we are so hoeplessly stupid and provincial.
Clinton’s genius is that she understands that all too well.
Before George Bush was first “elected”, I was listening to a talk show on the radio. A woman called in to this particular show. She said she liked Bush because he was similar to her. She was excited that a “common man” who didn’t seem overly smart was running for president. She instinctively trusted a man like that over someone who appeared more intelligent. There was some sort of bonding going on there that had nothing to do with what the candidate actually stood for.
If Obama happens to get the nomination there is the real danger that every time he corrects McCain’s misstatements and lack of understanding of events, people like this woman will affectionately bond even more closely with McCain, as he is them and they are him.
COMarc, I read that Obamna was up until 3am Sunday night writing that speech himself.
kathyodat
If Obama had presented a “plan of action,” the speech would have been twice as long, and Americans just don’t have that kind of attention span. I don’t think it is necessary for a politician, or for anyone, to have a packaged solution for every problem that they identify. The very fact that he pulled back the curtain on the issues that have been festering for so many decades is a giant step forward.
I just simply cannot believe that George W. Bush has an IQ of 139. That’s far above the average, and that type of intellect does not normally indicate a C student - even at an Ivy League school. His demeanor is absolutely moronic, his face vacuous, and his ability to express himself without extensive notes almost non-existent.
Anyone who grew up with the economic and educational advantages of Bush should, with an IQ of 139, be erudite, intellectually curious, informed about geography and current events, and have at least a minimal command of grammar. I don’t care how true it is that Bush is trying to appear “dumb” to appeal to the unwashed masses. Unless he is an incredible actor, that idiotic expression he wears does not mask a great mind.
IQ isnt a good indicator of intelligence. It ignores emotional intelligence–Bush the frog exploder would flunk that.
A more interesting study was the one done on Bush that suggested he was something of a sociopath. He couldnt even criticize himself.
“Fool me once shame on you, fool me– you, cant get fooled again.”
I don’t believe that it matters whether Bush’s IQ is 89 or 139. What has most contributed to his disaster as a president, is his lifelong pattern of disregarding, disrespecting and trampling on every opportunity (and there have been many) that have come his way. When one is born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but continuously casts it aside, one is truly flawed. (some would say “foolish” or “stupid”) Bush seems to be the antithesis of the old phrase “to whom much is given, much is required”.
This selfish and ignorant “little man” has made a “mess” of our country both at home and abroad.
I, for one, would heartily welcome a president with an intelligence that is developed, integrity that is unquestionable, along with the courage, strength, and wisdom to do that which is required and needed by the people of our country.
I truly hope that the PEOPLE come to this conclusion next November!
“Stupid and Proud of It.” That is America’s slogan. We used to value intellect. Now we only understand brute force. I guess this means we’ll get the president we deserve . . . John McCain.
Of course the MSM is now covering the blip about Obama referring to his granny as a “typical white person.” That and Michelle’s comment about finally being proud to be an American is all the mind-dead public will take to the voting booth.
hey America..( including my America, Canada)
look at the crap that passes as entertainment in America today
look at the crap spewed out on the newspapers in America
look at the crap on the ”big screen” that passes as entertainment in America
and we wonder why we are where we are today
turn off the TV don’t buy ”news” papers , do not go to the ”movies”
then maybe the not so common ”common sense” will prevail
in this day and age there is / are so many other ways to get to the truth you don’t need the MSM and ”Movies” to get the truth.
One of the things that Fascists hate are intellecuals.
I don’t think it’s a matter of intellect, per se, but a matter of honestly facing up to a problem and finding an actual solution, as opposed to hiding behind comforting but false platitudes. Obama’s speech shows that he has that ability, but it’s that kind of open-mindedness and willingness to talk frankly about our nation’s problems that will probably turn many voters off. People want candidates who will pat them on the head, tuck them in and reasssure them that the United States is the best country in the world and we’ve never done anything wrong, certainly nothing that would lead us to be attacked by “evildoers.” We can continue to waste all of the natural resources we want, run up as much debt as we care to and nothing will ever happen to us because, well, we’re America and God loves us, amen.
Richardson’s endorsement speech is almost as inspiring as Obama’s Philadelphia speech. This is huge. Check it out:
http://jazz-from-hell.blogspot.com/2008/03/richardson-says-viva-obama.html
Kathyodat, if you haven’t seen it yet, you will love it.
Obama is a history denier.
When he criticizes his preacher who has accurately characterized U.S. behavior since its inception, he loses any credibility as being an honest person, honest with our history.
How can a guy who refuses to face reality confront it as president?
Dr. King pointed out in 1967 that the U.S. was the greatest purveyor of violence on this planet. We still are. Any doubters are assigned many articles about how we’ve destroyed Iraq in just five years.
So, for a man like Obama to start complaining because Rev. Wright is criticizing America, just shows that he is actually NOT intellectual. He’s spinning the same phony tale as the David Brooks, Robert Novaks, Tucker Carlsons, John McCains, Pat Robertsons, David Broders and Brian Williams of American political cutlure who wrongly assert that America is somehow special.
To have a man running for president who denies many of our faults, only goes to show you that he is just the same old, same old.
Ain’t nothing gonna change under Barack Obama…except the color of the President’s skin.
Obama is the President I want to see in difficult and delicate international negotiations!
I find the title of this article tiresome and pretentious. The answer is “No.”
I agree, Richardson’s speech was very good. Was anyone else thinking of Obama- Richardson? Wouldn’t
that tick off the Clintons?.
In the good ol’ USA, Homer Simpson would beat Albert Einstein for prez.
How many of the analyzed speeches were written by the candidates/presidents themselves? One? (Jack Kennedy?)
If Americans come to the conclusion that Obama is smarter than their Uncle Joe he will be rejected. Americans don’t like intelligent people for President. Americans want someone who thinks like they do but looks better. Also, they want their President to be a killer. Someone has to do the dirty work for them, that’s what Presidents are for. That person is John McCain.
The spacious skies are polluted. The amber waves of grain are on stolen land. The purple mountains will be beheaded for coal mining. The fruit trees belong to corporations that has raped other countries for their fruit trees. God does not exist and hasn’t blessed anyone. The good has been crowned not with brotherhood but with a black hood. The seas are losing their shine as dead areas of ocean expand due to algal overgrowth. America the beautiful? I don’t think so.
Bernice: Obama wrote the “Race” speech himself.
A dapper and distinguished looking hit man with an average mind is the perfect choice for President for the American electorate .
This is very sad, but explains why Hillary has been sounding like a longshoreman when talking to crowds in Ohio and Pa. I noticed her droppin’ the g’s off the ends of her words and havin’ a new kinda swagger. If she’s stooping to this dumbing down tactic, it is even one more reason I have not to like her.
I know my sister voted for Obama because she’s a registered dem, but says she is going to vote for McCain in November. I just hope that the huge numbers of votes Obama is getting are not from people who have as dumb a political strategy as my sister tho.
Obama’s speech on race was intellectual, thoughtful, bold, truthful, and inspiring. Unfortunately most people won’t take time to read the full text of it and couldn’t understand it if they did read it - they will simply grab onto the sound bytes that the MSM and Geraldine Ferraro choose to promote. So a speech that will someday have the same significance as those made my Lincoln, JFK, and MLK will be lost on much of the American public due to their ignorance. How else can you explain the election of George Bush - twice.
The Republicans have been pool sharks lately: Play dumb up front, but then steal the elections via Rovian/Machiavelian manipulations….
this article and the following comments reveal politics for what it is these days - worse than useless, pointless and dying…
many are simply waiting for all these political types to suffer what they will suffer as the environment collapses so that we may continue without them working together on what matters - raising up our children and knocking down those dams.
Hillary Clinton may be Obama’s intellectual equal, but she is a couple of quantum leaps lower in emotional and moral intelligence. She’s petulant, petty, divisive, craven and opportunistic. Some of her policy ideas (or more likely those of her advisers) are good, but who can doubt that her tenure as president would be marked by partisan bickering, triangulation, gridlock and gamesmanship? And who can now doubt that Obama has the brains, the vision and the courage to reach across the divide, embrace the nuances and contradictions, see the big picture and draw people together? He’s clearly in a class by himself, and the voters should recognize it and not hand the victory to McCain by allowing her to snatch the nomination.
RE:COMarc March 21st, 2008 1:04 pm
What on earth do you think a President is?
What does one man do about race relations in a nation of multiple races and sensibilities?
What exactly would be “substantial” for one human being to do about prejudice and bias?
A President is a person who leads a nation by the priorities and principles they choose to personify.
If Barack Obama is no more than an eloquent speaker,
no more than one who inspires hope in a nation chest deep in economic and political discord,
no more than one person with the courage to put his life under the microscope of every self professed critic in the world,
Then he fulfills the best of what an American President can be - one person who believes that TOGETHER WITH the people of his nation, an effort can be made to pull our nation back into balance.
It is not the President’s place to tell us what or how to do that. It is the position of the President to lead by example. To inspire the people to once more take up the mantle of citizenship and do the best they can as a community.
President’s can do a great deal of harm by setting the wrong example - by taking the wrong stands on important - even life threatening issues, but it is the People who choose the way to go or not go by the sort of person they choose to believe in.
It is all too easy to speak of past errors and terrors as reasons not to believe - but I suggest to you, that there is no one answer to our nation’s problems and no one person who has all the answers. There is only one joined effort that is necessary and that is the hope, the effort, and the belief in a tomorrow that can be better than the state of things today.
As far as intelligence goes; People follow those they relate to. Sadly the dumbing down of our nation is more about the fear that is instilled by those who use fear to stay in power. I believe the majority of Americans are intelligent enough to understand that all the fearmongers aren’t helping. I also recognize that a lot of Americans are still afraid. I only hope we are more intelligent than we are afraid when we choose our next leader.
people can understand the speech very well!
Trouble is that CNN and MSNBC let alone Fox will not put his speeches on. Today a great speech given again in Portaland Oregon after the Bill Richardson endrosement- very excellent- everybody roared!! of course they understand- trouble is that they can only see it on C-Span!! Other chanels have Britaney Spears and the weather on along with police chaces– not that the pulbic wants it- the channels want it.
There is waterboarding and then there is TV boarding….
Bush indeed was the perfect front man for the corporate agenda, and he was smart abiding by what he was told to do. However, outside of that, anyone who refers to Africa as a nation raises a question in my mind. When Bush is not reciting a speech, one easily can tell that his knowledge and oratorical ability is sophmoric at best. If I am not mistaken, he was a “C” student when he was not making beer runs for the fraternities.
It seems as though all American Presidents are from Lake Wobegon.
Obama’s speech was abt reassuring his white voters that they were right all along; racism is really an issue of the pass. All that is left is some more subtle examples (like the nooses used to intimidate people? That is no doubt subtle. It was repulsive to watch Obama brown-nose his nose so eagerly to placate his white voters. Gross.
Dean sez: “Reagan was seen as an “amiable dunce” … (y)et his collected letters demonstrate more thoughtfulness and policy savvy, at least earlier in his life, than many suspected.
And later in his life he became a Republican.
Obama is no doubt smart enogh to be president but what is more important than IQ is character, and that will become apparent after he gets the job. Bush`s score must have been a misprint, probably 39 was correct, and Daddy got the 100 added. His character has obviously been missing since birth but it doesn`t take much to drink beer, kill people, and grab the money.
No matter who gets in, we will not know until later if they will do what they have promised as it will be a hard endeavor to set this country right again. Both of the Dems have said they will stop the occupation, put taxes back on the rich, take care of the health needs of all, and give everyone a chance. Our Repug has promised endless war or occupation, continued pampering of the rich contributors, more of everybody for themselves, and too bad if they cannot make it without some help. Now that is real character.
This article inadvertently lends unwarranted credibility to the anti-intellectual “decider in chief”. Whether deliberate or not, the dumbing down of the presidency encourages the dumbing down of the public, which merely opens opportunities for further public exploitation by parasitic elites. So to hell with the anti-intellectual elites. Snuff them, every chance you get, for the public benefit.
The worry is that if Obama fades now, and his demise is seen to be a result of that speech, then who will ever address the issue of race again in public?
He did something important, and he did it beautifully. From a European perspective Obama is by far the most promising candidate the US has had since the war. I hope he makes it.
Kathyodat, Anne Faith and others, I recall reading years ago, before the 2000 election, that Bush didn’t have that silly ‘Texas twang’ until he ran for governor. I have also read that he ‘practices faces’ in a mirror — serious, resolute, strong, etc. — which may explain why they often look odd to us. (There’s nothing funnier than Bush ‘trying’ to look serious — he resembles an 8-year-old waiting for the teacher to sit on the tack.) I believe it was Dr. Justin Frank who pegged him as a partial sociopath and said the reason he makes so many mistakes in his speeches has to do with him subconsciously trying to hide the fact he’s concealing his true identity and his guilt. For example, when talking about his suspicious Harken stock deal that made him millions while investors lost their shirts, he repeatedly said ‘malfeance’ instead of ‘malfeasance.’ He’s used the word ‘malfeasance’ before, so it’s not that he was unacquainted with it. Using a word that doesn’t exist covers his guilty subconscious — he may have committed ‘malfeasance’ in his sale of Harken stock, but he couldn’t have committed ‘malfeance’ since the word is meaningless. He is also reported to be dyslexic, so that would account for his mediocre grades and the fact that he doesn’t read newspapers.
That said, I agree that his IQ is probably nowhere near 139 — Bush, like Cheney and Rove, have a certain reptilian corporate ’street smarts’ that employs lying, cheating and distortion to get their way or save them from responsibility but doesn’t register on standard IQ test scores. Most Americans — most honest people, for that matter — have a hard time believing anyone could be that duplicitous and immoral, could look them straight in the eye and deceive them, especially someone who has risen to the highest office in the land. Of course, Bush, like most sociopaths, makes a fetish of appearing honest, which is a tip-off by itself since that’s something most people don’t need to rehearse. Those pathological ’street smarts,’ combined with his ‘dumb cowboy’ act and his willingness to unconscionably ‘catapult the propaganda,’ is why so many were fooled for so long.
COMarc (March 21st, 2008 1:04 pm) wrote: “I don’t know. I read Obama’s speech the other day. And to me it was typical Obama. It sounded good. It did talk about some of the problems we have in our society today. But, as usual, it was lacking any sort of vision as to exactly what he would do to correct it.”
COMarc, go to http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
I would also point out that Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address didn’t offer any specifics for ending the Civil War, because that was not its point; it was commemorating those who had died in the conflict. In a similar fashion, the point of Obama’s ‘Unity’ speech was not to give a wonky list of detailed policies, but rather to acknowledge the problems that provided the context of Rev. Wright’s incendiary words, and bring all of us together to solve these problems as Americans rather than members of a particular race or ethic group. It was meant to make people think beyond themselves and consider a different outlook on our racial divisions, and inspire us to heed the ‘better angels of our nature,’ and in that I think it succeeded admirably. I only wish he had quoted Bernard Baruch’s line (with apologies to Native-Americans), “We did not all come over on the same ship, but we are all in the same boat.”
Mairs (March 21st, 2008 1:11 pm) I bet that ‘Bushwoman’ is getting kicked out of her house these days as she scrambles to pay the bills from her no-pay Blue Vest job. I’ve met several people in the past few years who were taken in by ‘Dubya’ and would have swapped sudsy toasts with him at one time, but no more — the economic pain has been too great and prolonged, and Bush’s catastrophic foreign policy has made us a pariah in the world. It may have taken America time to wake up, but they are waking up and the GOP is going to pay a hard price for foisting President Junior and Deadeye Dick on us.
Formernadervoter (March 21st, 2008 4:19 pm) wrote (and Deran March 22nd, 2008 1:07 am) : “How can a guy who refuses to face reality confront it as president?’
Quoting from Obama’s ‘Unity’ speech: “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen — is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope — the audacity to hope — for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
“In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.
“In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”
Is that a man running from reality or trying to create a better one?
Dmia (March 21st, 2008 6:08 pm) wrote: “How else can you explain the election of George Bush — twice.”
First time, five members of the US Supreme Court, illegally canceling Florida’s mandated-by-law statewide recount which would have shown Al Gore the winner; second time, Ohio Bush supporter and Secretary of State Ken Blackwell intentionally obstructing the voting process and Diebold. To save on space here, I’ll just tell you to Google the 2000 and 2004 elections and look for articles by Bev Harris and Harvey Wasserman.
One benefit to Obama’s intellectualism; it will help erode some of the rascist mind-sets still prevalent in this country.
That’s right redneck. This black man is smarter than you could ever be. You were not illiterate, I’d say read it and weep.
Obama ‘08.
Progressives, wake up.
This from Paul Street today (why are you not reading this man’s every column?)
Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ
- Barbara Ehrenreich, March 2008 (http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/2008/03/hillarys-nasty.html)
It’s hard sometimes for me to understand how Obama is able to milk so much reaction out of speeches that are not only pedestrian, but which contain truly startling statements. The speech he made yesterday, for example: how can he manage to dedicate a whole address to the importance of overcoming racism, and in the middle of that talk not only essentially smear his pastor with the “Angry Black” stereotype, but also endorse the ongoing US policy of racism and injustice towards the Palestinians, and then somehow come out of the whole thing smelling like roses, sending hyperventilating progressives all over the country to their smelling salts, believing that they’ve heard the “greatest speech’ of modern times!”
- “epppie,” an e-mail correspondent, March 19, 2008
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16947
MaxheMust March 21st, 2008 11:35 am
“It is truly a battle between the forces of light, love and truth, and those of darkness, fear, and deception.”
Max,
Thank you. May the forces of light win this time!
LEE ANN G: You took the words/comments right out of my head! They must have given bush, jr “bonus” points for managing to get the oval office.
RSJ: Most eloquent post! Thank you for taking the time to spell out so many issues for various people and anonymous CD browsers.
Eisenhower actually ranked 61 out of 164 graduates in the class of 1915.
No wonder John Dean thinks Obama is so “intellectual”… according to his absurd Microsoft Word test, that measures rhetoric and ignores facts.
Perhaps we’re confusing intellect with intelligence. Does anyone really believe we can move forward as a people into the very uncertain future with the staggering challenges we’re facing without the most intelligent leadership we can identify from our midst? Are we not eating the results of unintelligent (ruthless, deluded) management on a daily basis? Perhaps we should all take a breather from the frenzy of punditry, then summon some common sense. I would submit that what we need is abundantly clear and quite obvious: intelligent and unifying leadership. There’s only one guy out there offering it.
Duh,, i wunt another retarded teddy bear, like good ol’ georgie porgie, for president.
don’t want no smartypants interferring with my tv watchin’ or my reading of the National Enquirer.
OMG, Look!!! CNN is doing a special on the whereabouts of Britney’s underwear!!! OMG!!!!
Time to look carefully at the word “intellectual”. Peel out the sophistry, pedantics and demagogy and one of the other chief problems with Western philosophy: intellectual masturbation designed to be disconnected from any sort of active/social behavior.
If you can do this, you can achieve a razor-sharp mind, a giant of intellect who might transform thought into action, criticism into tangible improvement, etc.
America’s chief cultural (and economic) problem is that it really doesn’t respect smart people. And managers see them largely as threats to be contained — rather than people to be put into leadership positions, capable of making organizational transformations.
Obama’s appeal transcends intellectuality. He is giving hope to those who for decades now have been hopeless. Like Gov. Richardson said - Obama is a once in a lifetime leader.
This is a battle between the forces of light, love and truth, and those of darkness, fear, and deception.
———————
Hilary Clinton seems to be about an inch or two away from being hysterical all the time. She’ll get well, after she quits fighting and begins supporting Obama. It’s not about winning or losing, it’s about doing the right thing.
It’s also useful to make a distinction between “intelligence” and “wisdom.”
First, there are many “kinds” of intelligence (from mathematical to artistic to social-empathic).
Second, there are plenty of assholes with PhD’s, and a great many wise beings (all around the world) who have not had the advantage of book learning and/or much formal schooling.
Correction to the above post - last week in Des Moines Dem convention, Edwards TOOK 15 delegates AWAY FROM OBAMA!
Beyond that, we must not confuse intellect with charisma. Obama gives a great and well written speech delivered with the usual charisma to gain the support of those that can be swayed with words without paying attention to the actions behind those words. Beyond the speech, Mr. Obama hasn’t done much of anything but support and get money from nuclear energy execs and other lobbyists, before the war was being voted on he supported it - of course he didnt vote for the war, he wasn’t in the senate at the time. Would he have done the popular thing at the time? One wonders.
There are too many things that he “said” he did or didn’t do that are actually coming out as actually happening opposite of what he said. This great country doesn’t need a parrot, puppet or a republican-democrat. We need a true Democrat..flawed perhaps, but not clearly offering charismatic deceiptful verbiage about everything. One that has the best interests of the country in mind - not his best interests. He needs to show what he’s done FOR the country.
Actions speak louder than words for many who see through charisma and want real change.
wow, i’ve never really checked out commondreams before, but i see that the kool-aid crowd is here too.
ok, bush’s iq. probably accurate. bush is dyslexic, most likely, which gives him his problem with speaking, reading. it’s not a big deal. what sux is he’s also blatantly disregarding our laws, siding with war-mongers, his lassiez-faire attitude. etc. whatever. the guys who ran enron were probably brilliant, too.
you know, i’m done with bush-bashing. the democratic party has bigger problems, folks, and it’s stuff like the bickering, hillary’s parsing, and obama’s over-intellectual speeches.
it’s not the dumbing down of the presidency, it’s that we’re not speaking to all the people in this country. did mlk sound dumb? no, but he also didn’t speak over everyone’s heads.
we need to stop complaining. we also need to stop lecturing. and no more acronyms. it’s not S-Chip, it’s Health Care for Working Families. it’s not a 10-point plan on fixing the environment, it’s Stewardship of our Land. instead of complaining that there’s a war on science, we should handle skepticism with Decisions based on Empirical Facts, over Falsehoods promoted by Special Interests. it’s not we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, it’s a Successful Strategy in Iraq, or a Responsible End to the War, and Safety and Honor for our Troops. when critiquing the religious right’s over-involvement in our government, it’s not separation of church and state, it’s Government is not in the business of spending the taxpayer’s dollars to evangelize for one particular branch of religion–our government is committed to nurturing the Fertile Soil upon which Good Seeds can be Sown.
change the language now, folks, or say hello to prez mccain.
le sigh…i miss john edwards…
Kenshin, I like your thinking/speaking/inspiration…
Afterall…What is in a word(s)?
…Only The eyes and ears that consider them.
It is time for us all to bring the best of ourselves into the mix.
In the Christian Religious Year, tomorrow, the first Sunday after equinox… is the day chosen to celebrate rebirth - What a gift it would be to the world if each American was reborn to the best of what each of us is…rather than the sum of our pain/fear/bias
IMAGINE - if we stopped waiting for someone else to “get it right” enough to “lead” us
If instead we just lead ourselves - by being what we SAY we believe in because the power of change depends on us all and intelligence is only one portion of the good we can bring to the table!
kenshin
sounds like you might like a career in the ministry of information…
First, it’s going take more than a good speech to bring me to an Obamagasm.
The hot topics of the presidential campaign are merely distractions, a magician’s sleight-of-hand. “Look! The lousy economy! Race Relations! The War in Iraq! Social Security!” So, hopefully, we’re distracted and don’t see the wad of money being handed to the magician/politician in exchange for lax labor laws, eviscerated environmental laws, ignoring human rights issues, etc. Yes, once-in-a-while, the sitting president and congress pass a law… just so they can say “look, we’re doing something!”, while not really doing anything at all.
Sure, I’ll vote for Obama if he’s the nominee. I’ll play the part of the good little sheep-like progressive, filling in the oval next to his name… but the whole time knowing that it’s an exercise in futility. As long as corporations wield the power that they do, and have the majority of politicians in their back pocket, it’s a hopeless exercise.
Your IQ rundown looks a bit phony to me, but never mind.
The real problem might be the dumb and venal sycophants the Republican presidents have surrounded themselves with. That cut too close to home for you?
In my day genius was defined as an IQ of 160, not 140. Those twenty points are pretty tough to come by.
There’s an anecdote on Clinton saying he was in a meeting with some complex issues under discussion, apparently not paying close attention. But it turned out he was; he asked some very good questions. Then someone noticed he had been doing the Double Crostics from the NY Times all the while. In ink, no less.
I have a sneaky hunch that he realized Monica was on a mission for the GOP dirty tricks department, and decided to confront them. And won. I’d love to ask him about that.
Lobbyists and PACs pretty much own Clinton, but Obama won’t take money from either of them.
Obama wants to talk to our enemies to try to make peace, while Hilary says that he can’t do that. Yes he can, and yes he will.
Support Barack Obama - if you want a better government, that will wage peace - instead of war, that will work for the people, rather than for the Lobbyists & PACs!
Obama’s speech didn’t go down well.
Not surprising.
Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”
Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_320_294.aspx
However results from a CBS poll says:
“Most voters following the events say they will make no difference in their vote. Seventy percent say the events will make no difference in their vote. Among those who said it would, 14 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama while an equal number said it makes them less likely to support him.”
We also know that these polls are reflective of immediate responses and not necessarily predictive of future events. Of course, it is clear that this has hurt Obama. The question is: can the right keep him down or can he turn this around? The speech helped consolidate his base, which is the first step. The rest will be harder. The recent endorsement by Richardson may prove to be immensely helpful. Following the eventual defeat of Clinton, Richardson could then help Obama gain significant support amongst the Hispanic community. If Obama were to choose Richardson as VP he could attract many votes from this community. This community, in conjunction with his continued strong support amongst the African American community, the youth vote and college educated Democrats is a strong basis of a new majority in this country. Additionally, the right has already told us what they are going to do. Many of the attacks against Obama are now out there. If Obama can use the speech as a first step in a long battle against these attacks he can minimize much of the damage. The other and potentially most potent support will come from the failing economy. As we embark on the most significant downturn since WW2, the party in power is increasingly at risk. In particular since McCain has embraced much of the Bush “plan”. While I will admit that my musings are in part born out of hope, I do think that it is a game plan that can lead to victory. Also we need to keep in mind that much of Obama’s core support comes from groups that have the greatest potential for new registrations. We shall see how successful this is for Obama in Penn. where the number of newly registered Dems exceeds 150,000 (if I added correctly). This does not include much of the data from the last few weeks, when Obama has had 1,000s of people registering voters in PA. I do believe that the concentrated on colleges and the inner city. This could prove to have an impact. So while the immediate impact of Wright has clearly been problematic, I wouldn’t write Barack off just yet. However, if you are a McCain supporter, you can get complacent if you wish. If you support Clinton, I will welcome your support in the general when the time comes.
I am not an Obama supporter, but I saw most of that speech and it was not particularly “intellectual”. For Chrissakes, what is it about the U.S. anymore…if someone uses a word with more than 2 syllables or a grammatically correct, complete sentence they’re called an intellectual? The thing is, politically, he had to give something reasonable to counteract the Rev. Wright flap, and this speech served the purpose. If the “Reagan Democrat” and redneck voters are scared off from that speech being too much for their small minds, then the U.S. is in far worse shape than I thought.
After 8 years of George Walker Bush, any candidate might seem too intellectual to be President. The office has been dumbed down to the point of being intellectually suited to most primates.
Those IQ estimates look like pure fiction. First, not enough range. Second, likely bias to Democrats in the research. Third — too high.
Mean IQ is 100. The standard deviation is under 10. I believe it is 7. So, 140 is then more than 4 standard deviations above the mean — better than top one tenth of one percent.
Frankly, it is very hard to believe Bush 43 is in this area. There’s no shame in an IQ of — say — 115 or 120 for a President. Still well above average.
Nixon must have been close to Kennedy / Clinton. In research, you can’t just lowball men you don’t like.
Finally, Dean ends with a grammatical error:
“But clearly, none of these men are stupid.”
It should be : None of these men is stupid.
Kind of distracting given the subject matter.
^ All good points, mirf59.
I agree with Mairs above.
The political issues are too complex for most people to figure out for themselves. That’s why conservatives run on the simple “gut” issues: gun ownership, prayer in school, abortion, lower taxes, terrorist violence.
Most voters have only one question about a candidate, “Can I trust this guy?”.
That’s why the 2004 photo-op of GWB clearing brush on his ranch got way more mileage than Kerry’s windsurfing.
Kerry demonstrated much greater physical fitness, but it framed him as a member of the leisure class… not a friend of the working man.
If OHB can build trust, along with his reputation for clear-headed thinking then he can beat “weathervane” McCain.
Standing by Rev. Wright was a step in that direction. I think it demostrated boatloads of integrity.
The shrub must have cheated off of Bill Clinton on that IQ test.
I rarely speak to people who write here but it not whether Clinton can write or present her speeches better but how Hillary Clinton writes, or speaks to try and persuade the public that she is the one, the only one, that has a handle on the presidency and the experience in office that makes her campaign the one of choice.
Yes! Hillary has the experience to tell what truths she finds expedient to twist the minds of the voters, as the most experienced politicians do. We need only look at the most recent series of lies, if we want to see the tactics that she employs. The most obvious is the present lie to the public, the Bosnian bullet dodging episode, escorted to this event by her daughter on her arrival in a so called war zone. The pictures portray more than any words can.
Hillary does have the most experience, that is true, in lying to the public as most politicians do. I think when we talk of a new America, we are talking about ethics, truth, in public actions speech and also dealing with the reality of climate change and the necessary steps to rebuild the USA if that is still possible. I join in those efforts, if that is still an option? Obama is right when he says their is only a small window left to do this.
I believe that Obama has galvanized the youth. They are prepared to take America back. Those in Iraq are presently dying for the lies of Clinton and Bush and many in congress, those young people not in Iraq, will be dying for the inaction of America regarding climate pollution issues and the greed of the multinationals who wanted NAFTA and suborned the government with bribes and favors so they could to put their corporations where they could continue to pollute and hire slave labor to enhance profits.
Clinton, has proved herself a liar on national TV. She has twisted and used whatever is necessary to hoodwink the public and will continue this policy if she attains the nomination and the presidency. I hope that this is not possible because if she wins we all lose. I am one of the older Americans who want to see the America I once believed in when I was young. I thought than this country could help the rest of the world find a new place for humanity. I think this is possible with a change in the direction of the US and a new way for America to think about doing business; To be in collaboration with the world not as so-called leader but partner.
It is time to join the rest of the world and work for peace and global environmental and economic stability. Iran is the latest possible debacle in the neocon version of America. SO! It is time to sweep people like Cheney away and all those like him! I believe that the dialogue that takes place here is this polemic by people who truly see the future direction for the USA. I hope that others can see the light and support the party of youth and the future. This is not to say that Obama is perfect, this is only to say that he is the choice that has captured the youth. If elected he will grow into the office by the second term and has the intelligence to surround himself with good thinkers.
He will rise to the faith that we offer by our confidence in him or we all perish in any case. The time we have to make rapid changes is fast leaving. Our collective hope is a partnership of the people in government and with Obama. His claims are to change the environmental policy central to the future and tied to economics, truth, change, hope, and the rebuilding of America’s place in the family of nations. I applaud those ideals and all of us will have to work hard to help him do that. The time for the liars is past if we are to survive.
Spoof of the Obama speech:
http://www.airfarce.com/seasons/season15/080321h.wvx