Obama, hope .. and fightingEverybody loves Barack Obama today. That's good; he's generating tremendous hope and energy in the Democratic Party, he's got young people excited about politics, he's given Hillary Clinton a wallop ... and of course, of course, this country could do way worse than President Barack Obama.
His speech last night in Iowa was inspirational, full of the sort of stirring rhetoric that makes you want to drop everything and go to New Hampshire to knock on doors.
But I'm still a little nervous. Here's the line, the one we've heard over and over again:
"The time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that's been all about division and instead make it about addition - to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. ... We're choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America."
But see, I don't want to come together in grand unity with the religious right. I don't want to end my bitterness and anger toward Dick Cheney. I have nothing in common with Don Fisher. I think there are some real evil villains in this country, and I want a president who's willing to say that, and who wants to defeat them and consign them to the dustbin of history.
Can Obama get beyond his desire for consensus and be tough enough to go in and kick ass and take names? Cause that's what the next president has to do.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (4)
> Can Obama get beyond his desire for consensus and be tough enough to go in and kick ass and take names? Cause that's what the next president has to do.
Sorry Tim but you got it all wrong.
Sure, there are people you disagree with, no doubt with legitimate reasons. But democracy should be an informed discussion of issues, not a street fight in which you 'kick ass and take names'.
With some like Barak Obama, we can have intelligent discussions over the nation's issues, instead of the shouting matches we've been engaged in for the last fifteen years. But if people continually resort to demonizing their opponents, we'll never have an opportunity for a sensible debate. Instead we'll continue wasting time on trifling issues like Monica Lewinsky. And the cost of that lack of seriousness should have become apparent for these last seven years.
The voters in Iowa have decided that it's time for Americans to start thinking and acting like grown ups. I think we should all follow their lead.
Posted by jeff | January 4, 2008 04:24 PM
Tim,
You are contradicting yourself again. If you don't have much faith in national congress, how can you possibly have any faith in a President. And I quote:
"I think the future lies in American cities." -- Tim Redmond
Posted by expatriate | January 4, 2008 05:25 PM
What jeff and expatriate said. If you believe that the next president has "to kick ass and take names" at this point in our poisoned imperium, you really haven't been paying attention. The hope that Obama offers, and the fact that he's the ONLY major candidate who was against the Iraq Invasion from day one, is of primary importance.
He's obviously a well-tutored representative of the ruling class in this country, but like Bill Clinton, he actually has a few convictions and wants to move the world forward a little bit. We'll see, but really, don't be an ass.
Posted by sfmike | January 6, 2008 09:50 PM
Sure, I'd be worried too, but Obama has directly repudiated triangulation, third way politics in his remarks against Clintonism -- he is saying he won't sacrifice what's right for simply "winning."
The best example to quell your fears would be the Obama's Iowa speech highlighted on Nov. 12's MSNBC Hardball. (Mathews almost goes ga ga for Obama, and calls it perhaps his best speech.)
Obama means something quite different than compromise:
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&brand=&vid=9a567df4-37b7-406a-b282-7d4fe33398c9
Posted by Ravi G. | January 7, 2008 12:29 AM