'Yes We Can' - But Should We?
Obama's campaign themes of "Yes We Can" and "Hope" - isn't that kind of saying we're a country of losers? I mean, of course "we can" - we're the United States of friggin' America, for goshsakes. We don't need "hope" - we are hope. Now I certainly don't consider myself a "winner" - not by a long shot. And we should try to make life better for the losers - but a national movement centered around losers isn't exactly a build-on-your-strengths approach to the future. If we're going to mobilize the nation, don't we want to mobilize it around the people who actually accomplish things and produce value? I'm not trying to be cynical - I'm really trying to understand what this whole Obama thing is about (assuming it's more than just the appeal that goes with a good looking guy with a resonant voice who speaks intelligently if vapidly - if that's all it is, then I dig).
posted by ziel | 2/05/2008 11:50:00 PM
12 Comments:
As far as Obama is concerned, I think what Joe Biden was getting at is true - that Obama is impressive because he's a "clean, articulate black man", which, lets face it, is somewhat unusual. But he's basically just an empty suit, though one who probably means well.
But I would have to say America is a "loser nation" at this point. Our government is basically a Banana Republic, that must borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from poor countries each year to balance its books. We have a public infrasructure that is badly decayed, with failing schools and crumbling bridges and highways. A balance of trade that is positively Third World. And we're a supposed "Superpower" that can't invade much smaller, weaker nations without getting dragged down into a protracted and ultimately (probably) unsuccessful militaty campaign.
That does not sound like a "winner" of a nation to me.
Yes, I agree Bush has turned us into a nation that, if not actually a "loser" nation, is most certainly on a downward trajectory.
But Obama's campaign doesn't appear to be directed at people who would actually care about America's power, nor to those who could do anything about it. Yes, there are many rich and successful people who support Obama because he's sending a message of change, but what is the part of the message that actually turns this around? I suspect it's simply that he would most likely pull our soldiers out of the mideast, which is good, but is there anything more?
Obama is probably the best in terms of bringing the strategic and financial misadventure in the Middle East to an end.
He, and more likely his entourage, may be the worst in terms of ethnically balkanizing the country along goverment handouts and special set-asides. I'm not sure there is any evidence of this in his dozen years or so as an IL state congressman or US Senator, but his black nationalist church and obsession with race in his first autobiography are unsettling.
Clinton/Obama v McCain
What is a conservative to do
Limbaugh says Clinton. I think self serving because it is good for ratings.
Obama has less baggage than them both.
Wasn't Reagan always talking about hope. "Morning in America"
Wasn't Reagan always talking about hope. "Morning in America"
I may be looking to deep into this, but the clear message of Reagan's "Morning in America" was "those of you who work for a living, when you wake up tomorrow I'll be taking less money from you to give to the deadbeats" while Obama's "Yes We Can" seems to be "Yes we can take your money and fund all of our pet projects."
But the Republicans are all about funding pet projects, too.
I have plenty of reservations about Obama, but looking at the candidates, Obama is the best. McCain brings together the worst of both parties. Clinton promises another 4-8 years of seedy corruption. With Obama you have someone offering something of a clean sweep from the past two decades. Given his inexperience, his liberality will be largely constrained by GOP and moderate Dem opposition.
"Derek Copold said...
looking at the candidates, Obama is the best. "
He's the best at sounding like a preacher, like the former activist that he is. His rant is geared towards the inner city. He needs to elected Pres of Project Hope- not the US. He is well spoken- i mean sounds gooood. He's not the guy though.
The idea that he just appeals to the ghetto is flat wrong. Most of his supporters are affluent whites. Yes, many are from the latte-sipping crowd, but a lot are just middle-class.
To return to ziel's original question: Obama's biggest appeal is that he isn't a Bush or a Clinton, or someone tied up with them, like McCain.
"Yes we can" is an Oprah-esque self-empowerment slogan, with a lot of cultural (and racial) resentment built into it. Where I live, it's often paired with "Si se puede" on signs.
Green Mamba - thanks - as I suspected.
Derek - there are some potentially positive developments with an Obama - and if he succeeds in convincing the dispossessed that things are cool (without actually doing any actual real damage) I couldn't complain.
dano said; "Obama has less baggage than them both."
No resume = no baggage.
very well spoken empty suit. He should be an announcer or TV anchor- what a voice.
I'm not crazy about Obama's voice. It sounds a little dry and forced, like he's trying to make up for a lack of natural resonance. It's a lot better than Hillary's braying nasal tones, I'll give you that. McCain, he sounds like a weasily and aggressive old coot, which is why people like him I guess.
Post a Comment
<< Home