He's a nice boy, like that Abraham Lincoln fella...
I've been watching the media and their love of Obama the past few days and I'm a bit confused. I think I might have gotten caught up in the Obama wave had they not made a connection between him and Lincoln. He's not had a chance to do anything in office yet, where are we getting this Lincoln stuff from? Because Lincoln was a uniter not a divider and he sought to heal the union during a time of civil war?
But you see, that makes sense for Lincoln because - Hello - Civil War. The country is divided and blowing each other up. That's bad. Wanting to stop that is understandable.
Obama is in a different position. The country, though admittedly polarized, is not at war with itself. Why would you want to work with the people that are taking the country down the primrose path of destruction? How does that constitute change? Don't you want to go down a different path? The Democrates have been working together with the Republicans and compromising for the entirity of the Bush Presidency (either by accepting their lockout status or by backing down once they got the numbers) Has it worked? No. No it hasn't. The whole point of having more than one party, is that there are political differences that are addressed. Not seeing eye to eye and debating the issues is GOOD! Checks and balances, remember those?
The candidates are still afraid of losing votes by standing out. What I see with Obama is that he is gaining votes through voice inflection. He's charasmatic as all hell and sounds damn good. But what is he saying outside of "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!" which quite frankly is no different than shouting "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" or "Experience! Experience! Experience!" Great. What change do you have in mind. I agree we need change. Can you please talk about it now?
Peteris sent me the two articles below, which I now pass along to you. In case you don't make it to the end of the first article, the chair was made in China...
Barack Obama - I'm sure we've seen him somewhere before
Armando Iannucci
Sunday January 13, 2008
(On Obama's rhetoric) But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'
Tipsy on Bipartisanship
Obama, Bloomberg, and the press get drunk on compromise, cooperation, and civility.
By Jack Shafer
But you see, that makes sense for Lincoln because - Hello - Civil War. The country is divided and blowing each other up. That's bad. Wanting to stop that is understandable.
Obama is in a different position. The country, though admittedly polarized, is not at war with itself. Why would you want to work with the people that are taking the country down the primrose path of destruction? How does that constitute change? Don't you want to go down a different path? The Democrates have been working together with the Republicans and compromising for the entirity of the Bush Presidency (either by accepting their lockout status or by backing down once they got the numbers) Has it worked? No. No it hasn't. The whole point of having more than one party, is that there are political differences that are addressed. Not seeing eye to eye and debating the issues is GOOD! Checks and balances, remember those?
The candidates are still afraid of losing votes by standing out. What I see with Obama is that he is gaining votes through voice inflection. He's charasmatic as all hell and sounds damn good. But what is he saying outside of "CHANGE! CHANGE! CHANGE!" which quite frankly is no different than shouting "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" or "Experience! Experience! Experience!" Great. What change do you have in mind. I agree we need change. Can you please talk about it now?
Peteris sent me the two articles below, which I now pass along to you. In case you don't make it to the end of the first article, the chair was made in China...
Barack Obama - I'm sure we've seen him somewhere before
Armando Iannucci
Sunday January 13, 2008
(On Obama's rhetoric) But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'
Tipsy on Bipartisanship
Obama, Bloomberg, and the press get drunk on compromise, cooperation, and civility.
By Jack Shafer