Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

'Yes, We Can' -- The Magic Behind Obama's Message

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted January 8, 2008.


Unlike other candidates who say what they will do for you, Obama says "Yes, we can" and pledges to work together.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steven Rosenfeld

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.

Have you seen Obama lately? Or heard him speak? Or listened carefully? I was one of the nine million Americans who saw Saturday's debates on ABC-TV. I was with a friend who facilitates meetings as a management consultant and we immediately saw and heard why Obama is different from the rest of the Democratic (and Republican) pack.

Basically, the other candidates are all saying, "I will do this," "I will do that," "I will be there in this way for you," as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president. Indeed, most of the horserace coverage from this and other debates is on the points scored by the candidates as they joust on this wavelength.

Obama, on the other hand, is not emphasizing the "I" pronoun. He is all about we and you. "We can do this." "We can do that." "If we come together, we can achieve ..." The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive. Obama is asking people to join him, implying that he will listen, hear them and include them in solutions that rely on the best in them and in society, not the worst.

The "I will" versus "We can" stance is not a minor distinction.

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton and Obama even debated this point on ABC.

"Words are not actions," Clinton said, "and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality."

A few minutes later, Obama responded.

"The truth is actually words do inspire," he said. "Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver healthcare reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, 'Yes, we can.' And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers."

Obama's campaign can be summed up in the power of three words, "Yes, we can."

The candidates who engage in first-person boasts or the pundits who nit-pick the issues and attenuate the horserace do not appreciate this distinction. Have you noticed how often in recent days pundits have written that Obama is different, special and unique in American politics? But they cannot say why.

"This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on Jan. 5. "Shake hands with tomorrow. It's here."

Obama's campaign may be a phenomenon, but it is not a mystique. Nor it is not unique.

George Lakoff, who has written many books on political communication, psychology and how both parties frame and win elections, said Obama's use of "we" and "you" -- and his gift for making people feel good and that they are being heard -- makes all the difference.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: obama, election 2008, message

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ask Senator Obama
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 8, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why did you vote for the NeoCon Bankruptcy Bill?

His answer should be very telling as it was, and is, indefensible. Money just doesn't talk- it screams. Watch you wallet, he's a DLC-type in all new clothes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: C-Dawg Blake
» what does change mean?? Posted by: particle61
» RE: what does change mean?? Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: no problem... Posted by: particle61
» Blah, blah, bla Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: davescott
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: newtype_alpha
» Blah, blah, blah Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Ask Senator Obama Posted by: peacefullaim
Campaigning and governing are two different beasts.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 8, 2008 1:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody knows that. And why would anyone want to elect a person who is only a good campaigner? When elections are treated as beauty contests, which Americans invented and cannot get out of our system, then we have talent shows and swim suit competitions.

But beauty queens don't govern. They don't have the power to go to war and to decide who lives and who dies.

Yes, it is true that American voters have become so accustomed to salesmen that a good pitch nails us everytime. The comparison of Obama with Reagan, offered here as a positive lesson, turns me off.

Reagan broke the law when in office bordering on impeachable offenses far beyond Clinton. But his phoniness was so practiced, being the complete actor he was, we all got duped. If that is what Obama has to offer, no "we" and "you" will move this nation forward. We need someone who can govern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time to ask Obama some questions
Posted by: bodo on Jan 8, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The polls make it look like Obama is on course to bitchslap Hillary in the NH primary. If this happens, Hillary’s campaign will go into freefall, and she’ll have to go into full-time character assasination mode. Should be interesting.

America doesn’t want a neo-con Repulican as President. This means that if Hillary is TKOed in the New Hampshire primary, then Obama, (or possibly Edwards) will most likely be the next President of the USA.

So before his campaign momentum builds to unstopable force levels, I would suggest that NOW is the time for non-comatose Americans to start asking him the relevant questions.

Personally, I would most like to know the answers to the following:

1. Would you, Mr. Obama, as President, consider using the power of the pardon to pardon any Bush administration officials convicted under your Presidency, a la Gerald Ford?
2. Would you actively oppose a second investigation into 9-11?
3. Would you work to repeal the Military Comissions Act?
4. Please explain your support for the PATRIOT Act
5. Explain the term “State’s secrets”

Those are the questions I would most like answered, because the bare minimum we need from a new President is an undoing of the most serious damages wrought by the Bush administration, and jail time for any officials who are convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors. Anything short of that, and the Bush legacy will stand. Which means that even if a President like Obama doesn’t do anything rash, he’ll still leave us with a nation on the brink of dictatorship when he leaves office. This is my biggest fear about Obama; not that he’ll be a tyrannt, but that he won’t shut the door on tyranny that G.W. Bush has pried wide open. So let’s ask him.

-bacchus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» His tax policy Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Time to ask Obama some questions Posted by: peacefullaim
He Can Do It
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jan 8, 2008 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you remember the song from the 1960s, The Impossible Dream?

This is my quest,
to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless,
no matter how far
To fight for the right,
without question or pause
To be willing to march into hell
for a Heavenly cause
And I know if I only be true
to this glorious quest
Than my heart will lie peaceful and calm
when I'm laid to my rest

It was originally sung by the late Richard Kiley in the Broadway musical Man of La Mancha. It was a beautiful little tune that no one even remembers anymore - so jaded has our culture become. It was also the unofficial theme song of Robert F. Kennedy's ill-fated 1968 presidential campaign.

It might very well be the theme of Barack Obama's candidacy. This is not to imply that his dream of calling the White House "home" is an impossible dream, it's just that, given this country's sad history with respect to race, he does have somewhat of an uphill battle.

More than anyone else running today, his campaign may indeed be called a "glorious quest". God keep him safe.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NT
Making History In Iowa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He Can Do It-Not Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: militaryhater
» RE: He Can Do It--BUNK! Posted by: izquerdista
» RE: He Can Do It Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Yes, But
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Jan 8, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice talk is great and all, but what is going to happen when the swiftboaters attack? Demos are better off with someone who is a really tough SOB, and will fight back vigorously.

Politics is not a walk through the garden. Look at the last couple elections and the way Gore and Kerry got torn to shreds. Running for president these days is more like being in a knife fight against a gang of street thugs. If he wins the nomination, I hope Obama is a lot tougher than he seems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop attacking Michael Moore Posted by: PeaceLove
OBAMA for FASCIST CORPORATE CRIME
Posted by: LookOut on Jan 8, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.”

Profound? I think not.

Let me rephrase for some connection to reality with 3 simple words: Fascist Corporate Power .

Obama is the latest strawman for criminal blood money empire with its endless, bogus protection racket “war on terror” that he supports (voting record) without reservation to the tune of dead Americans, mass genocide at Iraqi and a shredded Bill of Rights / constitution.

Of course he talks about “change” and wraps himself in the flag as all politicians have done since before ancient Rome. And of course this CFR performer is anything but an outsider to the status quo.

Whoever buys this act has zero knowledge of history outside what a monopoly MSM and cooked “education” establishment has drilled into them.

The “I we and you” and “Yes we can” leads nowhere but the politics of deception. It is merely about the latest pump-up and rah-rah brainwash campaign for the already gullible.

In sum, all politicians since JFK have been wholly owned actors for a fiat machine that betrays human life at the cost of doing monopoly business. A business that has no connection to free markets and even less with democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He's For Real
Posted by: Joecheck on Jan 8, 2008 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rosenfeld and Lakeoff are right in their analysis of Barack Obama's communication strength. I am an older white guy from Hyde Park in Chicago and met Obama in 1996 at the start of his political officeholding days. He is a left liberal, scores well on the usual liberal ratings. But he is not perfect. He is honest and the same way all the time.
This is not an act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No - He's Not "For Real"... Posted by: LookOut
Interesting analysis
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 8, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that the "we" approach is one of many things that sets Obama apart from candidates with more substance, stronger ideological positions, etc.

Kucinich is a perfect example. He may hold a lot of positions I agree with, but he is so full of himself that I can't stand to watch him sometimes.

Obama's charisma comes across even better in interviews and debates than in his glittering speeches. He has a way of sounding clear and decisive, yet easygoing and humble. And he's great at dodging questions without looking like he's dodging them.

I'm not so sure about the comparison to Reagan. He was more of a father figure than a team leader. That distinction could hurt Obama in a general election, because Republicans appeal more to our religious and authoritarian tendencies, especially in Red states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: PJAW
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Interesting analysis Posted by: Lauren
» Vote for substance over style Posted by: GarrisonPayneLeonard38H
The Race Based Americon Idol Election
Posted by: KAEL on Jan 8, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You make the point that Obama's fans are being mesmerized by rhetoric. In a representative government, it should not be seen as a wrong move to use the word I. He will be in the Oval Office; we won't. I'm sure avoiding I will be convenient in two years when the failed idol will blame his problems on everyone but himself.

I feel like we're in a time warp and the US Presidency has just been staged as an episode of American Idol. To be terribly un-PC, do you think for a moment that America would be having this conversation if Clinton were African American and Obama not? Right minded but unthinking collective sympathy got us Israel, and now it will get us Obama.

The next generation has woken up. About time. They are sleep walking right now. The rest of us will come back to the conversation in four years when the fans and their idol have fully awakened to history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Save school or save lives?
Posted by: anothername on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wasn’t it the decade of the 1980's that was being called the “me” decade? This is the group of people under 30 who have been flocking to Obama, according to the media. Yes, make me feel good and happy.

On one of the threads yesterday I posted an observation late in the day. I looked at the entrance polls results from surveys conducted for the National Election Pool (e.g., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN). Republicans chose their candidates based on sharing the values (43%) and candidate saying what he believes (33%). Democrats choose their candidates based on desire for change (51%). Only 19% of Democrats cast their support based on whether the candidate cares about them. In other words, the Democrats don’t care whether the change is going to make their lives better; they just want some undefined change.

I was talking to a friend who is a senior citizen and she said Obama’s tactics come straight from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s been a while since I read the book and my copy is not yet unpacked from the last downward move, so I can’t add my own opinion to her observation. It is worth noting, however.

Obama is making very good use of his organizing talents. Organizing also includes the need to raise funds for projects, and Obama has done a good job of that, too. The problem with organizations, though, is with whom makes the decisions on what issues will be tackled and what positions will be taken. If the goal is to fix a pothole at an intersection, that is clear cut. But take a look at some of the national groups. The ACLU years ago supported the KKK’s right to have a march; the decision lost the group members and money, but the leaders stood by their decision. Where is an example of this type of character choice in Obama’s past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: anothername
» Mandating purchase of insurance Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Save school or save lives? Posted by: polyquat50
Profound message? Nonsense.
Posted by: davescott on Jan 8, 2008 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is a simple -- but profound -- reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination.." Well, I agree that it's simple: he's a young, atractive, articulate African-American, and many Dem primary voters find that combination appealing. Obama's "message" is often pablum. His promise to "end the politics of polarization" is right out of Bush's 2000 claim "I'm a uniter, not a divider" and it's about as convincing. The GOP has had leaders like Tom DeLay and Bush -- if you aren't polarized by these people, you've had a lobotomy. Obama's health care plan is inferior to those of Clintion and Edwards, both of whom have the courage to admit private insurance only works if coverage is mandatory. If Joe Biden had been delivering Obama's "profound" message, he'd still be in single digits in the polls. You overestimate American voters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» Hillary wants us to believe Posted by: bthespoon
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott
» RE: Profound message? Nonsense. Posted by: davescott
The Audacity of False Hope
Posted by: bthespoon on Jan 8, 2008 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please do not be fooled by silver-tongued rhetoric. If Obama or Hillary or any Republican wins the nomination we will not fix health care, we will not bring our troops home from Iraq, and we will stay the course on corporate control of our government's policies. I can get specific and detailed if anyone wants to read it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: Jigsaw65
» RE: The Audacity of False Hope Posted by: bthespoon
A Progressive Non-Obama Independent
Posted by: JohnOsborneNY on Jan 8, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why should we complete another 4 years of a `learn on the job' type with David Axelrod and his minions and have BEERs w/Obama? His logic and Obamarama’s repeat of change, change, change reminds me of the Soviet era promise of Gorbachev's policy of Perestroika or Glasnost baloney. He even claps for himself like a Soviet leader entering the walk-up area of Lenin’s mausoleum, honestly! Watch him do it anytime he enters a large crowd! It’s the same crap that GWB did 8-9 years ago with another 100 million and what did we get ... a moron, twin towers destroyed, 2 regional wars, a destroyed economy gutted by Chinese domination of `our markets' and a multi-trillion USD deficit. What is Barack, Oprah and the `Obama Girl's' ... including Mr. Axelrod going to do with that? What is the plan? Give us the specifics, right now - because I and other progressives want to know? Air, fluff and pseudo-Kennedy/King oratory won't pay the bills, repair health care, solve Iraq, get rid of the Neo-Cons for good? Making me feel good about the `Shining Beacon on the Hill America as One' is not reality and the Obama Camp knows it - I can't see the `Holy Grail Vision' but it sells well and Mr. Axelrod knows that (no details, just the fluff) - no doubt about it! If this is your `new version of a leader for 2009' ... then we might as well just let `Dubya' run for a 3rd term. Seriously - if your progressive ... wake up, smell the Java and look at the legislation that has been co-sponsored by Mr. Obama with GOP colleagues - you may be surprised to find he is more Republican-lite than any supporter would like to know or hear or admit. And no … I do not fit in with Hillary or Huckabee, but I also research the `historical record' instead of running off cliffs w/o knowing what or whom I am voting for!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

old white homeboy
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 8, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, listen. The Presidency is not the be-all and end all of the U.S. Government. At least the Founding Fathers and Mothers ( yes, Virginia, there are some women besides Hillary Rodham Clinton who have figured in the history of this country, but that is for another post ) understood this when they devised a rather good system of checks and balances.

It doesn't matter who you elect as President if you have an Old Boy and Girl Network in Congress which is sleeping in the missionary position under the Corporate American Rapists. ONLY a trial lawyer ( why is that a dirty word? Does your doctor treat you on a contingency fee basis? ) like Edwards can curb their appetites and enforce the plethora of anti-trust, consumer and civil rights laws ALREADY on the books. We don't have to pass another single law in my lifetime. All we have to do is enforce the ones we have. The likelihood of any President getting elected who can do this is about as big as a microdot containing no information whatsoever.

Wake up and smell the demise of the United States. We are the next Great Britain. We are the people our parents warned us about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Which statistics? Posted by: bthespoon
» Another old study Posted by: bthespoon
"We" and "Us" Rhetoric
Posted by: peacelf on Jan 8, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say whatever he wants, Obama represents the status quo of neoliberal politics: we'll see little in change in the politics of government by the corporation, for the corporation, of the corporation; little change in education as Obama wants to keep No Child Left Behind, the most nefarious education policy since Pinochet's standardized testing programs to indoctrinate young Chileans; no change in health insurance industries owning american health.

What will change is that a black man will be elected president if he wins. While a very important step in american politics, marking the end of white male dominance in the oval office, Obama still represents wealth and power. I'm not sure if the trade off is worth it.

peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: marteau
» RE: Hideous ... Posted by: gazooks
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: jjdoggie
» RE: Hiddenone Posted by: EncinoM
Congressman Kucinich warned us: The front-runners are more stylistic than substantive
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Jan 8, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The truth is actually words do inspire," Senator Obama said this past weekend. I agree, but words don't "transpire" -- they don't reveal the underlying motivation, or character, of a person. With all of this year's crop of potential presidential suitors, their previous administrative and/or legislative records, and resumes, should be the real litmus test of their values and intentions -- not what they say in canned and posed political rhetoric that's designed to appeal to basic human emotions and needs.

I, like many, don't want to be "sold". I don't need to be complimented and shored-up with allusions of inclusiveness and team-building. These are also the ploys that too many companies employ today in order to build a sense of belonging and teamwork among, generally, under-appreciated and underpaid workers. It's all a part of the "me too" masquerade that's a substitute for true solidarity and "ownership". I distain being patronized in order to fulfill the needs of the one patronizing me. I reject it, and shy away from it, yet unfortunately too may accept this selfish cajoling at face value.

Please, do yourself, and your fellow citizens, a favor. if you want to know the real story behind the style and affinity that so many people have been drawn to, research the Senator's record. The author cites the expertise of George Lakoff, who said Obama is one of the most honest people he has ever met -- a comment the author claims he's heard from others working on Obama's campaign. These people, I'm sure, are sincere and feel the truth of their convictions. But, why isn't the good Senator's voting record taken into account? Wouldn't that, also, be a criteria for determining his honesty? Also, why isn't Senator Obama's trail of campaign contributors signaling a red flag? It's a fact that he accepts almost as much corporate funding as Senator Clinton (and no, before you make any assumptions, I'm not making a pitch for her candidacy) and in some business sectors, more than any of the front-runners of the GOP. My question, and I ask this with all sincerity, why is this acceptable to most hard-and-fast supporters of Senator Obama?

Many of you who have read my comments over the past few months know that I'm an ardent opponent of corporatism and corporate-personhood. It is, in my opinion, not only the greatest threat to our democratic freedoms that we experience today, but is also the cause of most of the social ills that our legislators and government executives never seem to have the will to solve. Corporate-personhood is the disease; our social ills are only the symptoms.

As I mentioned in another article a few days ago during this Obama euphoria, it's a good thing Abraham Lincoln isn't running for president this year. I have read that he was a very poor orator, and had a high, unappealing, voice -- a far cry from the Madison Avenue presidency sought by most Americans today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Question!... Posted by: dover23
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Great Question!... Posted by: dover23
Never Mind
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 8, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never Mind

Never mind, for example, that Obama was recently hailed as a “Hamiltonian” believer in “limited government” and “free trade” by Republican New York Times columnist David Brooks, who praises Obama for having “a mentality formed by globalization, not the SDS.” Or that he had to be shamed off the “New Democrat Directory” of the corporate-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by the popular left black Internet magazine Black Commentator (Bruce Dixon, “Obama to Have Name Removed From DLC List,” Black Commentator, June 26, 2003).

Never mind that Obama (consistent with Brooks’s description of him) has lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party (David Sirota, “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” the Nation, June 26). Or that he lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Or that Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006). Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Never mind that Obama “dismissively” referred—in a “tone laced with contempt”—to the late progressive and populist U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone as “something of a gadfly.” Or that he chose the neoconservative Lieberman to be his “assigned” mentor in the U.S. Senate. Or that “he posted a long article on the liberal blog Daily Kos criticizing attacks against lawmakers who voted for right-wing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.” Or that he opposed an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Or that he told Time magazine’s Joe Klein last year that he’d never given any thought to Al Gore’s widely discussed proposal to link a “carbon tax” on fossil fuels to targeted tax relief for the nation’s millions of working poor (Joe Klein, “The Fresh Face,” Time, October 17, 2006).

Never mind that Obama voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations.

Never mind that Obama voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act. Or that he voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State. Or that he opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens. Or that he shamefully distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo. Or that he refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Never Mind Posted by: bbfmail
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: EdinIowa
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: primalscream
» RE: Never Mind Posted by: jmooney
The fly in the pronoun ointment
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Jan 8, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all very well for Sen. Obama to campaign on a "we can" platform. It's a great marketing idea. However, because the mechanics of government have become so detached from the interests of the electorate, the truth of the matter is that "we," in a practical sense, are altogether powerless--irrespective of which candidate we put in the Oval Office. We The People have, for quite some time, seen the interests of campaign financiers and lobbyists taking precedence over our own. And all the clever rhetoric in the world will not alter that sorry situation. Thus, Senator Obama's good intentions may float away with the champagne bubbles on election night as soon as he goes mano-a-mano with the self-interest of Congress. (Unless, of course, we're willing to tolerate another "unitary presidency." I believe we are not.)

Mr. Obama certainly has charisma; there's no doubt of that. And I'm quite sure he's sincere. But personally, I vastly prefer a John Edwards who promises to "fight for me" against the corporate oligarchy that has effectively purchased--and jettisoned--our democracy. Mr. Edwards seems to be the only candidate who is willing to acknowledge that fact, and might actually be able to do something about it.

I suggest we tone down the dewy-eyed idealism just a tad; at least until we hear exactly how Obama plans to use "us" as soldiers to fight The Good Fight. Meanwhile, Mr. Edwards continues to appear the "Practical Pig" of the Three Little Front-Runners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is he all mouth or can he sting like a bee?
Posted by: rac on Jan 8, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama’s language may get him the one-on-one with the Republican contenda, but once in office, he may prove him to be too conciliatory and too inclusive. He may not be the agent of change many of us hope he is. Edwards is more experienced fighting corporations. His instincts and experience make him the better choice to put in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OBAMA
Posted by: jjdoggie on Jan 8, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A cynical bunch. After the article, which I agree with, I scroll down to the comments, ..... and what a cynical bunch of naysayers you are!
I am 63, and have lived through segregation in Montgomery, SEEN Rosa Parks cause the year-long bus boycott and change Montgomery. I came of age in the time of Vietnam, the worst part of it, Tet. I was in college in Maryland when King gave his great speech in D.C. I worked for womens' rights in the 70's. Raised two daughters who are strong and caring. Built houses for Katrina survivors. Lobbied and petitioned and marched against this atrocious war, vigiled against the Texas death penalty. I have lived in the best economy, and now, one of the worst.
It does not matter if I am white or black, gay or straight. I am for tolerance and equality.
I have SEEN what can be done when people CARE.
OBAMA FEELS it. He knows what can be done, and like Robert Kennedy, he knows that people can be inspired to JOIN him in the quest for the true American and global dream.
I only fear for his life. I do not know if this racist country will allow him to run and serve. He has the guts to put his dreams and plans in the fore for us. I intend to fight for him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then you fight for my death Posted by: bthespoon
» I'm sick Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: OBAMA-No We Can't Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: OBAMA Posted by: bbfmail
» hey old dude Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Don't blame us for Bush Posted by: bthespoon
Dont Be Surprised
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont be surprised when, after getting elected, Obama is unable to accomplish anything. He wont stop the devaluation of your dollar. He likely wont even discuss it. Nor will he discuss how much money was stolen from social security to have that balanced budget that wont even be balanced anyway. Nor will he discuss the number of years, or months, that social security will be solvent. Nor will he address the fact that ethanol production raises food prices beyond whatever cost savings might be realized at the pump. Nor will he discuss the AQ Khan / Pakistan story with much honesty. Nor will he pledge to pardon Sibel Edmonds if she tells her entire story. Nor will he call you a moron for not knowing who is AQ Khan or Sibel Edmonds! He damn well should, if he was an honest politician!

He may come and take your guns though! And if you're really lucky, he'll come and confiscate your gold, just like FDR did. Oh, that's right, you dont have any gold... no need to worry about that then eh? Just exactly what DO you have left? Housing bubble, credit crunch, negative savings rate, peak oil, trade deficit, currency devaluation, >1% autism rates, horrible test scores, no education, no future, no ability to discern, no ability to tell truth from lie. I really hope your vote for Obama makes you FEEL GOOD! But you are living in a dreamland if you actually think he's gonna DO anything.

Dont be surprised if you get screwed by electing this guy if you dont do any research, dont think for yourself, and dont study history. Dont forget they paraded this guy around 4 years ago. They've been grooming him. Hillary = Obama. If you're following the campaign then you must keep in mind that the differences between the two are like the difference between the salt content in two pieces of dog poo... If you forget that fact then you may as well just spend your time chasing around Paris Hilton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» wtf is a closet ron paul troll? Posted by: Iconoclast421
Vote Edwards..Why is the mainstream media ignoring him????
Posted by: MeridaLady on Jan 8, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is the only serious candidate that is not in anyone's pocket. Go to his website and read his speeches and his issues.

He tells it like it is, points fingers, and cites other politicians bad policies.

No Neocon money and they hate him!!!!!

Why do you think, although he came in second in Iowa, he's being ignored????????

I even read an article where he was labeled paranoid for stating he will illiminate the lobbyists from power in Washington.

He's the only candidate that will and can change the lobbyist control after winning the election in November and get rid of the unconstitutional Bushy reforms.

The changes that Edwards is proposing is everything, most of here, are so outraged about.

Please get real here and vote for Edwards. He can not only win against Neocons but will actually give the country back to the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's early, why are we inaugurating anyone?
Posted by: PJAW on Jan 8, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Obama would be better than the simian creature that currently occupies the White House, but he clearly is not our best option (based on his voting record). The MSM and their corporate masters desperately want to give one of their chosen few the appearance of being destined to be the next president. They would be tickled to have anyone from the Republican camp, but they know the American people are almost certainly going Democratic this time around. So what are their options? Simple, select those who are leas