Hope is not blind optimism.Hope is not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight.
Hope is that thing inside all of us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there is something greater inside all of us.
-Senator Barack Obama, Jan 4, 2007.
8 comments:
She offered her honor
I honored her offer
and all through the night
it was honor and offer
Crab - 2006
Boy, I have to admit, I’m starting to warm into this guy, Barak Obama.
“There has been a lot of talk in this campaign about the politics of hope,” Obama said in Iowa the other day. “But, understand this: the politics of hope doesn’t mean hoping that things come easy.”
Being a Conservative, I used to think the key issues facing the nation were national security, the economy, education, etc. But now I wonder if perhaps it isn’t “change” or “hope”. Now, don’t yawn... Sure, it’s hard to wrap your hands around something as ambiguous as change or hope, but he has a way of making it sound so appealing. So fresh.
Hillary Clinton may be running around New Hampshire on her “Ready For Change” tour, but that kind of superficial focus-group change is just the same-old-same-old change. “Change can’t just be a slogan,” says Senator Obama, who’s committed to a Democratic Party “that doesn’t just offer change as a slogan but real, meaningful change; change that America can believe in. That’s why I’m in this race, that’s why I’m running for the Presidency of the United States, to offer change that we can believe in,” says Obama.
Of course, any cynical hack politico can offer “Change” as a slogan, but Senator Obama’s offering “Change You Can Believe In” as a slogan. It’s on the side of his “Change You Can Believe In” campaign bus. “I don’t want to settle,” he declared in Bettendorf, Iowa, “for anything less than real change, fundamental change, change we need, change we can believe in.” Obama is a maverick. He’s reshaping the debate: he’s changing the way we think about change. Every election cycle, “change” is tossed about like a Frisbee but as Obama’s chief strategist, James Axelrod, told Politico, the Senator is arguing for “real and authentic change, not synthetic change”. He’s passionately opposed to “synthetic change.” If you’re looking for a synthetic-change candidate, sorry, he’s not your guy. Include him out. He’ll change his hair, he’ll change his tie, but he won’t change his fierce righteous opposition to synthetic change. In the stirring words that conclude his TV ad in New Hampshire: “This is Barack Obama. I approve this message to ask you to believe - not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I’m asking you to believe in yours.” I was so enthused I tore off my old “I’m Pro-Hope and I Vote” bumper sticker and replaced it with “I’m Pro-Change and I Believe”. Ask not what you can change for your country; ask what your country can change for you. “I am here,” Obama told the crowd at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, “because I feel a fierce urgency that the time for change is now.”
Real change (for those with an understanding of Webster’s) is a tough sell and I’d hate to be a skeptic and think his change is that very complacent kind of “change” we see every election season. He’s so young and fresh, like Booby and Jack (because I was on a first name basis w/ the dead Kennedys.) that I’m certain we can trust this career politician. Can’t we??
Nice post, Dave. It actually echoes what Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News that night of the Iowa caucus: Obama is making this election about the issues not petty partisanship. Limbaugh is relishing a debate solely on the issues.
I am too. I would take my guy over anyone else, Democrat or Republican. His speech after his victory in Iowa was an official acceptance of the torch from Jack, Bobby, and Dr King. I was seriously welling up when watching him.
I sense sarcasm from JustDave.
Either way, sarcastic or not, it was still a nice post.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my site, it is about the CresceNet, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . A hug.
I can’t get anything past you, Crab. It’s getting so the word “change” has practically no meaning. And it’s not just the Democrats destroying the meaning of words, but they’re particularly guilty of it. I find it most irritating because Democrats are in fact just the opposite; they’re the party of stagnation. Want change? On affirmative action, there can be no change; on abortion absolutism, there can be no change; on the Iraq war, there can be no change (they’ve been begging for defeat no matter what happens on the ground in Baghdad); on taxation there’s no change (just more of the same). Obama showed the slightest backbone and quietly floated the prospect that there might have to be just the tiniest change to social security to keep the wheels from coming off that entitlement bus, and immediately got clobbered by Democrat activists as a pathetic stooge for the heartless right. There is in fact no change at all…they only want more of the same - more entitlements, more regulation, and more incremental government annexation of healthcare. (And most of the Republican options aren't much better.)
And while I’m on today’s rant, let me just state for the record that the primary selection process in America is about as ridiculous as can be imagined. Why on earth 2 of the most non-diverse, non-representative states get to wield such power is beyond me. I like the idea of candidates being in the state long enough that you can quiz them at your local café. But by the time the process moves to most states, the candidates are a whirlwind tour and unless you’re lucky enough to be at the Podunk Café on the iron range at 7am on Tuesday or want to splurge on the $1,000 per plate luncheon on Wednesday, you’re out of luck. The best alternative I’ve heard to date was a lottery system where the order of primaries is rotated each election season and at least 4 states have primaries at a time.
The bottom line is that something will need to be done with Social Security in the next 2-3 years. During that time period, a very large number (millions and millions) of baby boomers will hit the age where they can start receiving SS benefits.
My dad, lifelong UAW member...voted democrat his whole life and still does to this day...worked on the factory floor of John Deere for 37 years, gives some credit to GWB for at least attempting to do something with SS. He isn't sure if privatization is the answer though.
Post a Comment