The Obama revolution

[jefferson_dem]

The Obama revolution

He is charismatic, confident and and is starting to change the face of American politics by reaching out across party lines to Democrats and Republicans. But can the Illinois senator, who is set to announce his presidential candidacy this week, go the distance? Paul Harris reports

Paul Harris
Sunday February 4, 2007

Observer

It was the first beauty parade of the Democratic campaign and every candidate had come to Washington's Hilton hotel in strength. They would all speak to the Democratic National Committee and hundreds of its activists in a bid to secure their vital support. Each candidate's team distributed placards to supporters, making sure they were waved at the right moments. Campaign tables decked in flags and banners were set up outside the cavernous conference hall. The faces of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and others beamed from posters. Badges were handed out. Thunderous pop music - chosen by the candidates themselves - greeted each one as they walked on stage and escorted them off as they left.

All except one.

Barack Obama had no placards. His campaign desk was sparse, undecorated and banner-free. He walked on to the stage with no music at all. He left the same way, with only the sound of thunderous applause filling his ears. The message was clear: Barack Obama does not need campaign gimmicks and he is not doing things the old-fashioned way. And it worked.

The Obama revolution is sweeping through the Democratic party. It has transformed the competition for the 2008 nomination, which had previously been seen as a race between Clinton and the rest. And no candidate has been rocked as much as Clinton, now struggling to readjust her tactics. 'He's the golden boy. He's a rock star of politics. That has changed the Democratic race,' said Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California Riverside.

But Obama clearly wants to change, not just his party but his country too. He wants to spread the Obama revolution out across America, to appeal in the manner of a John F Kennedy or Franklin D Roosevelt. 'Our fight is not with each other,' he said 'I would assert it is not even with the other party. It is cynicism that we fight against.' And Obama might just have brought optimism back to American politics.

Two months ago, at a New York fashion industry dinner attended by The Observer, Obama appeared. At that time he was still mulling his options. He discussed whether he had something to offer. On Friday at the DNC rally there was no sign of any hesitation. Instead there was a clear resolve to spread the Obama revolution throughout America. 'Decisions we make in the next decade will determine the futures of our children and our grandchildren,' he said. 'This is not a game. This is not a contest for the TV channels. This is a sober moment.'

<SNIP>

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329705367-119093,00.html

[Benhurst]

1. Obama has a lot of things going for his candidacy; but

reaching out to the fascists in the Republican party is not one of them.


A similar tactic was tried in the last century.



It was not successful.

[Morgana LaFey]

7. I could not agree more

I find it appalling and dangerous, frankly. I hope it's a combination of naivete and genuine (tho misguided) urge for peacemaking on his part, but it doesn't matter. It's damned dangerous. We've already been dragged past that magical "center" that USED to exist between left and right so far that the most of our elected Dems look like Eisenhower Republicans and some of them much worse (DINO's). We don't need no more stinkin' APPEASEMENT and COMPLICITY and SPINELESSNESS.

I predict, however, that his star will fade. He's too hot too soon. I predict the same for Hillary UNLESS she can absorb so much money that no one else can exist (e.g., get any campaign money). That would be a real shame.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks for posting, jeff! nt

[Skidmore]

3. Did you see Edwards this monring on MTP?

Did you see the portion of the program where Russert was asking Edwards about his vote on IWR and read Obama's statement about the war before * attacked Iraq? It was a stark contrast. I like Edwards and think he is a good man with an important message, but I like Obama more because I believe he will say what he thinks and do what he says. I believe he is working for change and does not have the baggage of either the Clinton years or the * years to drag him down.

I want an unfettered person in office and I want Obama there, either as THE candidate or the VP choice. I want him on the ticket.

[Clark2008]

4. Pffft...

Edwards changes his tune to suit his audience.

I don't trust him.

I like Obama, but as someone who just witnessed the Ford/Corker race up-close-and-personal, forgive me if I'm a bit pessimistic about Obama winning a national election.

[jefferson_dem]

5. You are right. While others were banging the drums of war, Obama demonstrated sound reason...

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

October 26, 2002

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. 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 armchair, 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. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

http://www.obama2010.us/2002/10/26/iraq_war.php

[Skidmore]

6. He was right on about this all the way down the line and on many

levels. I do not believe he is a "lightweight" at all. These were considered arguments and well articulated ones at that.

[Katherine Brengle]

11. Oh no you didn't just use the "a" word...

:freak:

[Skidmore]

12. It took me a minute to figure out what you meant..

....errr, well-spoken, then?

What is that smiley of yours doing?

[Katherine Brengle]

17. I believe it is eating poo...

it's been one of my faves for a long time lol.

And I was just messing with you :D.

[Imagevision]

14. Obama voted against the Iraq war, however he voted FOR the funding...so

Kucinich was the only one who voted against both the war and the funding, but, Obama is strong on leadership abilities, I would vote for him in a heartbeat!!

[Morgana LaFey]

8. I hate to tell you this but

You are wrong about Obama.

Oh, it's not that he can't be principled, it's that he , like all politicians I assume, chooses when to be principled, and does so with his political fortune uppermost in mind. Not at all unlike Edwards is turning out to be. Again.

A while back when Hillary & Company (Rahm, Begala, probably Carville) piled on Dean publicly for NO good reason other than that they wanted him out at DNC (for their own power-grubbing reasons), Obama joined right in. There was absolutely no reason for him to join in other than political opportunism and in fact, as a very junior Senator, I thought it was terribly inappropriate for him to publicly criticise someone with Dean's record of success in public service. It was quite ugly, and for no good reason other than, I presume, to ingratiate himself to Hillary. Bah!

There've been other self-serving things, but this was a big one for me.

Recently he put in a bill to exempt tithing from bankruptcy proceedings. What the hell was that about? With all that's wrong with the new bankruptcy bill, he focuses on THAT to fix? Puhleeze. That's just embarrassing.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Obama was right about Dean just as he was right about this misguided war.

This is what Dean said:
“The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much they all behave the same and they all look the same, and they all, it’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

And this is how Obama responded:
“As somebody who is a Christian myself, I don’t like it when people use religion to divide, whether that is Republican or Democrat … I think in terms of his role as party spokesman, probably needs to be a little more careful and I suspect that is a message he is going to be getting from a number of us.”

In my view, Obama was right to speak out and i agree with his position, in terms of both principle and politics. It also highlights how his message of inclusion is "personal" and not some carefully scripted campaign meme. By the way, Obama was not the only one to offer their retort to Dean. Edwards, Pelosi, Biden and other loyal Dems were also critical. http://photodude.com/article/2690/parting-the-parties

Obama voted against the Bankruptcy Bill. I guess, according to you, he didn't use the *entirely* correct rationale in casting his "nay" vote? Ok...

[Morgana LaFey]

10. That's not the incident I'm talking about

However, IMO he needs to take another look at what Dean said, and meant. If he thinks HE's included in that White Christian Pary, he's dead wrong, altho they're always glad to have tokens to hold up to other blacks -- and whites -- as evidence that there's no racism in this country.

And if he thinks that his "inclusiveness" will change a damn thing about the GOP he's dead wrong there too. Fascism needs to be fought, not appeased and coddled and enabled, and that includes Christo-Fascism as well.

[jefferson_dem]

15. I agree, on principle, with most of that. The racist, theocon-neocon bastards can fuck off...

and i would never support taking a single step in their wretched direction. Same with the Repuke Party as an organization. On the other hand, there are some whites who are also religious (maybe even so-called "christian evangelical" types) who we should not *necessarily* write off on that basis alone. Dean's comments were not helpful at least and downright offensive at worst. I think that's what Obama was referring to. It's really very simple --- like an extension of Dean's very own "50 state strategy" ... only as applied to individuals rather than states.

[Imagevision]

16. Wrong about Obama? - nah! - 21 months before the election,

[madville]

13. The only thing that turns me off about the guy

The only turnoff I have with Obama is his long anti-gun history. Firearms are a hobby of mine so I don't want to see anymore restrictions on top of the thousands of firearm laws that don't get enforced already. Of course Clinton and Edwards haven't seen an anti-gun bill they won't vote for either so about the only pro-gun Democrat will be Richardson. Other than that Obama is fresh and exciting and will make the primary process more interesting.

[The Straight Story]

18. He just needs to come clean on the issue and better articulate it for us

:)

Seriously though, I don't think any candidate will fit the bill 100%, we can work him over on the gun thing.