Obamarama

Obama killed in Virginia, carrying an overwhelming majority of the black vote, but also splitting the white vote right down the middle. I'm watching his speech now, and it's inspiring. But it's also saddening, because deep down, I don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc. I wish he wouldn't tell me things that I can't possibly believe--and moreover that I can't really understand anyone believing. He might be the best president; he might even make Washington work a little better, though I kind of doubt it. But he isn't going to transform American politics in the utopian way his speech implies. No one who has dried out behind the ears could reasonably believe that he has this power. So why is he saying he does?

Hillary, meanwhile, looks kind of sad and tired. A few weeks ago, I remember commenters remarking upon how fresh and vigorous Clinton looked, while Obama seemed to be wilting; now those roles are definitely reversed. Apparently, being the front-runner agrees with one.

Comments

know hope, Megan

Posted by tg | February 12, 2008 9:58 PM

you need to stop drying your ears.

Posted by eli | February 12, 2008 10:01 PM

I am a Republican. I have had inklings of voting for Obama. But I am also a small business owner.

Obama seems like a good enough guy. I had thought I'd much rather have him than
Hillary.

Completely honest question here:

I've read in his stances
that he's in favor of making the minimum wage a "living wage" such that people
can pay bills and raise a family on it. If you assume that means making a the
minimum wage equal to, say, $25,000 a year...near the poverty line...that
equates to about $13.00 an hour...effectively doubling the minimum wage.

As a small business owner that employs a lot of kids at a rate ranging from
$7/hr to $10/hr, this would impact me. Most of these kids are late teens, early
twenties, high school dropouts. They play LOTS of video games and smoke LOTS of
pot. Generation Y is what their called.

We are just making ends meet because we have a lot of debt on the business that
we pay off (about $8,500 a month between three small restaurants). If the minimum wage
doubles, it could put us out of business.

One option for me would be to raise prices on our food...and all other similar
small business would have to raise the prices of their goods in a similar manner
to maintain margins. This would drive inflation through the roof...netting bad
stuff for the economy. The kids could by more video games and pot, i guess.

Also, if my employees (or Panera Bread, or CVS, or your corner coffee
store, etc.) are making $13 an hour, what will the employees who work in
manufacturing and make $16 an hour think? They'll now want $20 because they are admittedly
more skilled than minimum wage workers.

So the question: am I missing something when I read about his stances? How
does this do anything but crush the small business owner? Or any retail
operation?

Posted by SmallBusinessOwner | February 12, 2008 10:07 PM

I think that the last 50 years of America being split conservative/liberal is over. I think the two parties will change over the next decade and politics will be fought along a libertarian/authoritarian axis. Obama is not a Cato Libertarian, but I think he marks the pivot.

The Republicans have been more liberal than the Democrats on economics. They will attack Obama as a "liberal." It won't be effective because the electorate sees no difference between the parties on economic issues. And if you are going to spend trillions on gov't, it might as well work.

I think the authoritarians on the left and right will move to the Republicans, and the Libertarians will join the social libertarians in the Democratic party. Again, might take 12 years or so. I know Libertarians here think they could never be Democrats, but come on. Today in the senate, not one Republican voted to stop the government from spying on American to American communication (that must have been what the telcos were guilty of aiding).

Posted by Patrick | February 12, 2008 10:13 PM

I think you're wrong, Megan. It's not so much about whether he's going to pass law in the first 100 days of his administration that fundamentally changes American politics. Of course he's not going to do that— I'd say he is more direct about admitting that than Hillary is.

But the things he is promising are not pie-in-the-sky. He's not going to, like, make lobbyists illegal; but he will try to expose more of the process to the light by televising more Congressional proceedings, making earmarks and budget details more easily searchable; and generally make it easier for Americans to know what's going on in their government. In the end I think he's talking about a change of tone more than anything else. If he's elected, and he does a good enough job, then the person who comes after him will have to follow his lead. He's promising to set a new tone, and I for one am absolutely breathless at the thought of how much we all need that.

Basically: it's OK to believe, Megan. (I'm a big fan of your blog, btw.)

Posted by Jason Pontius | February 12, 2008 10:20 PM

I understand your response, and am partly inclined to it myself. Yet, there is an equal urge to embrace the admittedly vague and ambiguous promise of Obama that even as it somehow eludes precise definition is tremendously resonant and decisive. "Change" is a clumsy slogan, a political catchphrase (if a devastatingly effective one), and I am not convinced by Obama's rhetoric alone (though it is beautiful). What I find most bracing is the effect on others, on the apathetic or disenfranchised, on typically disinterested youth, and though certainly it may all prove ephemeral,I feel obliged to test it a bit longer and, forgive me for saying it, hope despite myself.

Posted by Brett | February 12, 2008 10:41 PM

He's saying this stuff because otherwise rational people are willing to vote for him because he says it. They're daring to hope. I know some otherwise intelligent people (not many) who think it all signifies something. But then most of the other smart people I know are even farther off the rails than that.

Personally, I'm daring to hope Rose MacGowan will start returning my calls. I'm also daring to hope Obama's nothing more destructive than another cynical liar, rather than the kind of genuinely dangerous fool who could say that stuff and actually believe it.

Posted by McNamara | February 12, 2008 11:02 PM

Who knows? Maybe Obama holds the electorate in as much contempt as Senators Clinton and McCain, but is just more skilled at hiding it.

Jason, Presidents don't get to decide to hold more televised Congressional hearings, nor do they have much sway over budget transparency, other than to veto budgets whch are deemed too opaque. Obama is a blank screen upon which people project their hopes and dreams. There is no possible way to have any idea at all regarding how good a President he will be, not that this is a particularly harsh criticism. The job is far too unique to really have a handle on how well just about anyone will perform in the office. Eisenhower is the only one in the post WWII era I can think of that one could have had some degree of confidence in his ability to handle the demands of the office; the bureaucratic and political skill needed to manage an absolutely huge multinational military operation in Western Europe and Africa gave strong indication that he was up to the task, but I wouldn't recommend another World War as a training exercise.

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 11:15 PM

If you listen to him closely, Obama doesnt' say "he's" going to change things in Washington, he says "we" are. If he can brings new people into the political process to vote and then win the Presidency by ten point margin (which in this day and age would be considered a huge mandate), he's then going to ask the American people to stay engaged in the process (Hillary on the other hand would start shooing everyone back to work or shopping or whatever. I can hear it now "Nothing more to see here, get back to your lives, let me take care of everything"). He's going to call on the American people to pay attention to what is going on in Congress, he's going to ask them to tune in to the open, televised forum he's planning on to work on healthcare reform. He's going to challenge Americans to volunteer and stay engaged. Real change can happen when there is pressure from the top and the grassroots. He's going to ask the grassroots to keep pushing and growing.

Posted by Denise | February 12, 2008 11:19 PM

Our political parties and major corporations have become so powerful that even fairly intelligent people have a tough time figuring out what is happening in "their" political process. Obama's winning insight is that it is possible to get popular support behind a movement to involve people more directly in their government and to make that government live up to its rhetoric.

Even if all he is able to accomplish is highlighting instances in which the government continues to fail in this regard, and in which party hacks and lobbyists exercise too much influence, he will be doing more than any President in my lifetime (since Ford) to restore credibility to the Presidency.

In addition, I believe he will exercise good and relatively conservative (in the real sense of the word), but not isolationist, judgment in foreign policy. These two traits alone make him leaps and bounds better than both other candidates in this race, whose judgment on policy generally is hampered by their sincere belief they owe various interest groups political debts, and vice-versa.

Posted by T.K. | February 12, 2008 11:27 PM

SmallBusinessOwner

I don't think you need to be worried about what an Obama administration would mean to you. He strikes me as a pragmatic guy.

For one thing, "living wage" would have to be debated and determined, and whatever was decided would, I suspect, fall well short of $13/hr. Tax credits could be given to certain small businesses to offset the burden, or businesses that employee x number of employees could be exempt. Restaurants in my state currently are not required to pay the same minimum wage as everyone else for their wait staff, as tips are considered part of their income.

Iow, there are possiblities and potential remedies that could be explored. It's in no one's interest to put small businesses out of business.

Obama has also called for the Earned Income Tax Credit to be tripled. This, in effect, could be thought of as increasing a "living wage" as only the working poor are eligible for it.

I think his sensibilities in this area are influenced from his community organizing days among the poor. He understands the problem and knows that unless we are ok with a permanent underclass of the poverty stricken and all that entails, we have to do something.

I work as a tax preparer in a relatively rural area in a state very hard hit by globalization -- Michigan. It's not uncommon to see two-earner parents raising kids on less than $15,000 or even less than $10,000 in some cases. Hard luck stories abound. Car breaks down, can't get to work one day - you're fired. A farm hand with a wife and kids breaks his leg - no income. And no savings. Not on his income. And of course, neither can the farmer afford to pay him more.

There's plenty of people who employ people who are not getting rich themselves -- as you know. Yet, these are essential services that these low wage earners are performing.

Not everyone is capable of higher education. Some jobs are always going to be "low skilled" and/or low paid. Consider child care workers, for instance. Some of the lowest paid around, because workers can't afford to pay more themselves FOR child care. And they can't afford to not work themselves either. Or nurses aides doing some of the most thankless and yet necessary work around, caring for the elderly and infirm in nursing homes -- $18,000 to $23,000/year in this area.

I think Obama's heart is in the right place but he will be prevented from accomplishing much of what he might like to by Congress, and by the lack of will of US. If elected, maybe he would succeed in indexing the minimum wage to inflation, or increasing the EITC, or giving tax cuts to the elderly. Stuff like that to a limited degree. I really don't see him being "anti-business" in general, because that would be just stupid. And stupid he's not.

Just my opinion!

Posted by JL | February 12, 2008 11:30 PM

what, exactly, is he supposed to do? aim for some rhetoric that's totally inspiring yet also totally realistic about what's possible? does such a thing exist? he could just promote liberal policies and totally give up on inspiring people except by virtue of his personal identity -- but then we'd literally have 2 Hillary Clintons in the race.

As Pontius says, his speeches are not pure fabulism. See the part about how he says real change is really hard. See the part about having lost political battles, lost good legislation, because there wasn't a political will, a mandate for change. I think Obama would tell you that the rhetoric has got to be as soaring as it can be and still have the right effect, i.e. to motivate support, to build political will. but he's not promising to turn K Street into a string of cute boutique shops and bookstores. he's saying enough is enough with regard to pessimism, though. why not make what room we can for good-yet-vague ideas like commonality of purpose, unity, change, hope? And look what makes up his litany of things that are "what hope is": the American Revolution; Western expansion; the abolition of slavery; womens' suffrage; the end of the Depression and the victory in WWII; the Civil Rights movement...

not one of those things was a perfect, pie-in-the-sky achievement. all were completed in flawed fashion. if you will, all are projects which ended with a "to be continued..." But that doesn't mean they weren't seriously transformational for this nation. Obama is challenging his supporters to view the troubles confronting this country as troubles of that magnitude.

what troubles does he list? international terrorism. crumbling family structures. global environmental collapse. a wealth / poverty gap of proportions unseen in a century. and the social balkinization that has prevented sustained political unity in addressing even one (let alone all) of these challenges.

he's saying these are not just technocratic problems, things we need the right economic model (sorry!!) and the right technology for, and we'll be fine. he's saying these are direct challenges to our national identity, and we'd better address them as such.

and he's saying we ought to look at the magnitude of the challenges, and the history of this country in dealing with large challenges, and feel hopeful, not doomed.

i don't know what else to say. Except this, to smallbusinessguy: nobody's getting a $14/hr min. wage through Congress. don't worry. it's bad economics and if Obama doesn't know it then he will before it's time to know it. but he might be good enough to pass something else that has more of the benefit of a living wage, but that's more efficient...

Posted by yeah yeah | February 12, 2008 11:33 PM

There are only so many endorsements you can get from powerful establishment politicians and the rich and famous before you're no longer a credible agent of change (for all but the most gullible).
Obama passed that number some time ago.

Posted by michael farris | February 12, 2008 11:41 PM

Megan, it would be easier to believe that Obama would change things in Washington if he'd changed things anywhere else first.

But realistically, what has Obama accomplished?

What has he even attempted to accomplish?

I think everyone is ready for some serious shakeups in politics, but I think there are a lot of cheap dates out there in the voting pool who can be had for the price of a pretty speech. That is sadder than anything, really.

Posted by Ness | February 12, 2008 11:44 PM

I agree that Obama is a blank slate on which people impose their expectations. I've been following the race relatively closely and I find both Clinton and Obama speak in vague platitudes. They speak a lot about what's wrong with the country, but give only vague ideas of how they propose to fix the country. They know their facts quite well, in most cases, and usually have some plan on paper for how they will address things, but those plans are more position than policy papers. (I don't really blame them, by the way - I have close ties to opposition politicians in a developing Asian country and all I see them mouth are platitudes about what they'll fix. They can be very specific on what's wrong, but very vague on how to address these issues beyond the most obvious things like cutting down on corruption.)

I thought the comments here quite illuminating - they seem to attribute ideas and proposals to Obama which I can't recall him suggesting. These things jive with what he's been saying, so potentially he could be supportive of them, but I don't know if you can call them ideas of Obama's.

Switching gears, I think Patrick is quite right - I believe moderate libertarians will slowly move to the Democrats. The Democrats are still relatively pro-market compared to politicians in other countries, and as a moderate libertarian, I am not that uncomfortable being their bedfellows, even though I find their nonsense about the minimum wage and school vouchers rather reprehensible. The Republicans used to be pro-market, but they've increasingly moved towards unwarranted government intervention in the economy, and unwarranted government intervention in the personal lives of Americans. I would probably be more comfortable being a Rockefeller Republican than a Democrat, but the days of Rockefeller Republicanism are long gone.

Posted by johnleemk | February 12, 2008 11:56 PM

What has Obama accomplished? How about ethics reform in both the U.S. Senate and Illinois State Senate. How about getting the capital punishment law passed unanimously in Illinois after "nobody wanted to touch it."

Do any of you actually read about Obama's accomplishments or do you simply buy into the Clinton talking points?

Posted by Eric N. | February 12, 2008 11:58 PM

It's the triumph of magical thinking. "If only Obama were president, oil prices would be lower..." "If only Obama were president, inequality would end, and globalization would be reversed..." "If only Obama were president, then we'd all get along..." If the folks who buy this weren't so damn well-educated, I'd feel sorry for them.

Posted by Thomas | February 13, 2008 12:28 AM

You're right. The moon is too far to get to. Discrimination is too entrenched to insist that people be hired or served without regard to race. Poor helpless us. Listening to some fool who thinks we can work together towards worthy goals.

Posted by Gisela | February 13, 2008 12:31 AM

Everybody remember how effective Washington outsider and change candidate Jimmy Carter was as president?

Well, at least he didn't almost start a nuclear war or make a game of destabilizing countries through assassination like the inspiring young Jack Kennedy.

Maybe he'll follow the path of a previous low-experience candidate pledging to change the tone in Washington — the current incumbent.

Posted by Oildrilling Lunatic | February 13, 2008 12:36 AM

Gisela, when someone misdiagnoses the problem in an obvious way, it's pretty clear he isn't going to be part of the solution.

Posted by Thomas | February 13, 2008 12:51 AM

Something worth crying over:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/patti-solis-doyle

Posted by Gisela | February 13, 2008 1:20 AM

I endorse Obama because of two words: Soft Power.

Despite all the problems we currently have in our country and i know we have a lot domestically, i believe the soft power we have lost during this current administration is the most pressing. As someone who lived in Australia for about a year and experienced discrimination because i was an American, i know the destructiveness this administration has done to our standing in the world. Even the citizens of our closest allies have abandoned us. I peronally believe Barack Obama restores our credibility. I may be wrong, i hope i'm right, but outside of Sullivan i very rarely hear this being mentioned. And it is his ability to speak which drives me to this conclusion.

Posted by joe c | February 13, 2008 1:48 AM

What Obamacrats giddy about his speeches don't realize is that a President Obama would be less like the Obama you see on the stump and more like the Obama you've seen in the debates. Obama may be a blank slate onto which you can project your hopes, but the United States isn't a blank slate. The next President will have to work within a small space, constrained by expensive obligations abroad, an expanding deficit, and rapidly expanding entitlement costs.

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 2:21 AM

I think part of the appeal of Obama is the newness factor and the expectation of something different.

And yet, you have about as much information about policy from Obama as any other candidate (via his website and elsewhere).

Strengths:
Basically each candidate attempts to play to their strength. Hillary knows she is not the "reach out and touch you with my words and voice" type of person, especially as evidenced by her speech tonight in Texas, where elevating her voice to a shrill intensity was meant to fire people up, but often lapsed people into silence.

Her strength is the detail of her vision and the playing up of her experience in the Senate, the White House, the governor's office, and work before.

Obama has plans of his own, but knows his strength is in his ability to attract people with his personality and voice. He knows he can stand up there and spout detailed policy (which, makes people sleepy AND gives ammo to your opponents), OR he can touch people in their heart, hoping the mind follows. In theory, those listening and moved, will then dig further to see how his views vary from Hillary's, or even McCain's.

The ongoing rhetoric seems to be that Obama is evasive and not articulating a vision. Hillary herself has taken shots at his rhetorical abilities. But there is not a candidate running where you can't find their websites, interviews, writings, and thoughts on nearly every major policy issue of the day. And with two of the major issues, Iraq and healthcare, it's pretty clear where he and the others stand.

Race:
Of course I like Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania's assessment that Obama can't win in PA because of white racism. By way of saying that Obama has no shot, the less than brilliant Rendell is effectively saying that Hillary will win via the racist vote. I think I would be annoyed if a Pennsylvanian.

It's interesting how Team Clinton keeps reminding us about the racial difficulties Obama must surmount, and despite a fair amount of evidence to the contrary. Only Hillary can talk about the "proud black Louisiana folks" supporting Obama, while at the same moment being clobbered 70 to 30 in majority white states.

(And yes, to some degree it's racial that blacks support Obama, because, well, that's what nearly every ethnic group has done in the past... supported people they most identified with.

When your best option is Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (as Democrats), a black person might get kind of enthused that, "Wow, for the first time in..four years, wait, a decade, wait, in 50 years, no, wait, in 100 years, uh, actually, 200 years, no, 300 years, oh, oops, EVER" a person of your race has a shot at leading the nation. In this particular case, Obama and Hillary are not so far apart in viewpoints, and yet, Obama is a more likeable person, less manipulative, and less annoying, so, why not?

Obama may indeed be a blank slate, and hopefully, that will leave him open to wise cancel.

Posted by Finn | February 13, 2008 2:32 AM

Ooops typo... that would be:

If Obama is a blank slate, hopefully that will leave him open to wise council", not cancel.

Hope my slip was not an omen.

(Then again, I am a Huckabee supporter, so, take all of this with a grain of salt).

Posted by Finn | February 13, 2008 2:37 AM

An Obama-McCain matchup would be quintessentially American. You'd have one candidate preying on people's willingness to believe that positive change will happen in Washington running against another preying on people's willingness to believe positive change will happen in Baghdad.

The reality is that no matter who inherits the White House, it's a pretty good bet that we'll still have budget deficits five years from now, health care costs will still be rising much faster than income levels, and Iraq will still be a failed state. Plus who knows what unforeseen crises will develop as well.

My general sense is that what the Democrats offer is flawed but it's much better than the alternative Republican option where our government engages in massive domestic spending and imperial domination abroad, all the while cutting taxes. I am going to go out on a limb and say hoping that style of governance is sustainable is more delusional (and much more dangerous) than soaking up all of Obama's sweet little lies.

Posted by Michael | February 13, 2008 3:29 AM

How dare you question hope!!!! You would have been one of the people who said Dr. King couldn't do it either!!!

You are officially kicked out of the cult.

Posted by Michelle | February 13, 2008 3:33 AM

Megan - Stop writing after 9:00 PM..the cynicism starts creeping in. I think the inspirational leadership is exactly what is needed in this country. A technocrat triangulating on 3 votes in Congress is not how you achieve any significant change or inspire the country to sacrifice a dime for any significant goal. The world is wondering whether we'll have a leader worth looking to as a moral authority and Sen Clinton is not that leader.

What Obama would restore is something far more important than a set of flimsy policy proposals.

McCain would do some of that as well which is why I'm excited about a McCain-Obama match-up. It will raise the level of debate across the political board.

I can't resist commenting on Finn's comment which outlines why Obama is a great candidate but, in a p.s. indicates he'll vote for a candidate that doesn't believe in evolution (apparently he has no respect for any scientific endeavor). Sorry Finn, you now have zero credibility on any issue.

Posted by Michael W | February 13, 2008 6:47 AM

Megan, I am a consultant who has visited about 15 so-called developing countries over the past five years. There are two that stand out for taking the big steps. They are the ones that have said -- forgive me -- "Yes We Can." They are Vietnam and, more recently (and more democratically and responsibly), Rwanda. In the face of violent and destructive recent histories, both countries have opted for -- and achieved -- actual, meaningful, across-the-board change.

I want to tell you about Rwanda. Can you imagine, nearly 1 million people there were murdered in a shattering, nonsensical genocide less than 15 years ago? Starting from less than nothing, the country decided to meet the challenges of so-called international best practices in economics and government. Today, to a startling degree, Rwandans from all walks of life say (and I did ask), "We like our government." With only limited grumbling, they come together once a month to pick up trash. There is an emerging master plan for the Kigali -- so that people don't continue to build on wetlands or create the type of building chaos that you find in other African cities -- and, as further evidence of its commitment to preserving the environment, the country has banned polythene bags. In addition, Rwanda is building on what it has to offer to the world, including some of the richest coffee and tea and other tradable agricultural products, such as flowers. It strenuously protects the precious and rare mountain gorillas that live there. And Rwanda, unlike Vietnam, is technically a democracy -- at least, if you ask most people, it harbors almost no official corruption.

The country has a long, long way to go. Poverty and lack of education run deep. It is terribly hard to be a woman there, because of the persistence of deep-seeded expectations that women are solely responsible for maintaining the home front, including the enormously challenging management of water. And whether the tensions that broke into genocide in 1994 could re-emerge is not something I am in a position to detect. During my recent visit, I found it nearly impossible to distinguish between Tutsi and Hutu (not all Tutsis meet the stereotype of being tall and thin -- whether a person had been raised elsewhere or speaks English was the most reliable determinant of tribal membership),although this is not a dividing line that has been forgotten within.

Nonetheless, Rwanda is a place that, through the leadership of one strong, thoughtful and very savvy figure -- Paul Kagame -- has risen to the challenge of hope. (All that remains for him to do is prove his commitment to democracy by standing for election, when the time comes again, under free and fair conditions -- a challenge unmet by his neighbor in Kenya.)

My point is, "Yes We Can" can be more than a slogan. With clear goals, and the right leader, it can be something more like marching orders.

Posted by Louise | February 13, 2008 7:01 AM

I don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc.

That should go without saying. To abolish a First Amendment right requires passing another amendment; the President has no place in that process.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | February 13, 2008 7:43 AM

You're obviously not cynical enough. He's a politician. He says it because it will get votes, not because he believes it.

Posted by Randomscrub | February 13, 2008 8:11 AM

Maybe after he gets the nomination some one will wake up and notice that he is a COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS Politician!!!!! For those of you who are not up on your political geography this is CHICAGO! There is no equal anywhere in this country including Philadelphia for bi-partisan corruption.

One of the reasons Obama never really says anything in his speeches is that they will be compared to his record in Illinois. He was a machine placeholder with good speaking skills.

Posted by David Moelling | February 13, 2008 8:18 AM

Obama is a hard core left-liberal from Chicago. Forgive me if I am skeptical of the nature of the change that will come from him.

I often use the issue of gun rights as a useful proxy to see where a candidate stands in the context of our republic's tradition of a limited government of free citizens who are charge of their own destiny. Read this and see what Obama thinks of you, the free citizen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.[86] He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[87] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.[88] Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1.[89] Illinois allows lawmakers to abstain from issues by voting present instead of yes or no.

Obama was also a board member[90] of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[91] While in the US Senate, Obama has voted against legislation protecting firearm manufacturers from liability.[92]. Obama did vote in favor of the 2006 Vitter Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of lawful firearms during an emergency or major disaster, which passed 84-16.[93]

He is rated F by the National Rifle Association.[94] The NRA describes the recipient of its F grade as a "true enemy of gun owners’ rights."[95]

Posted by Kevin P. | February 13, 2008 8:53 AM

If Obama wins, he's going to bring with him a Democratic majority in both houses. Which means that when he decides to change how Washington operates, he's going to be taking on mostly Congressional Democrats. Somehow I don't think he's going to do this to any serious extent.

How is he going to bring more transparency to Congress? Is he going to persuade Congressmen to come foward with all the pork they're stuffing into their districts?

If there's legislation he wants Congress to pass, is he going to inform us that it passed because Reid and Palosi got Republicans to switch their votes with riders for more pork in their districts, and Democrats to do the same by threatening them with less pork and primary challenges? Is he going to tell us that there were actually 12 Democrats who favored the bill but that they voted against it so that they can cover their asses back home in their conservative district?

When it comes time to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, is he going to nominate a moderate, or a liberal that Republicans are going to hate? Is he going to tell us he nominated someone because they agree with his litmus tests, or just sprout vague generalities about how his nominee is qualified and will uphold the law, blah blah blah?

Posted by Hei Lun Chan | February 13, 2008 9:33 AM

Will Allen said it best- people are projecting their hopes (and ill-defined hopes at that) onto Obama.

Anyone who seriously believes there is more than a miniscule difference in the preferred policies of Obama and Hillary Clinton is quite delusional and/or seriously misinformed.

Obama's brilliance as a politician is that he actively encourages and manipulates these projections. Compared to Clinton, he is a messiah, whereas she simply looks like a run-of-the-mill political hack- and we have thousands and thousands of those.

All in all, I consider Obama to be a complete fraud, far more so than Clinton. It is quite troubling to see people like Megan McArdle even toying with the idea of believing what he says.

Posted by Yancey Ward | February 13, 2008 9:59 AM

Louise, you'll have to excuse if I find the prospect of what are supposed to be 300 million free people receiving "marching orders" from the "right leader", to be something that I intend to fight tooth and nail.

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 10:12 AM

Kevin, while I'm with you on the 2nd Amendment in general, I don't see how you overlook the authoritarian tendencies of the current Republican party. Are you saying you don't mind the fact the President can designate you a terrorist with no burden of proof, whisk you off to Guantanemo, torture you, and leave you there indefinitely without a trial as long as you can get a shot off at the SWAT team when they come to get you?

There are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, yes the republicans are the best on #2, but the democrats are best on the other nine. I don't even see much talk out of the Dems on #2 since Gore lost West Virginia.

Posted by Patrick | February 13, 2008 10:42 AM

I've been reading this, trying to figure out people's love for Obama. And I can't past the feeling that 'there is no there there'. Where is Obama's substance? Clearly, he gives a great speech and is inspiring. But when he says 'Yes we can', I wonder 'how?' and see no answers. Demagoguery is not going to clean up Washington.

I'm also genuinely befuddled that people can think of him in any was as a moderate or centrist. He is a hard core leftist. Given his plans for what would be the largest tax raise in history, and his sponsorship of bills that would enact government specified wage controls (other than minimum wage) across a panoply of private industry - how does one square that with the concept of 'moderate' or 'centrist'?

If you like the idea of the government determining private industry pay rates based on their own criteria and not the free market, that's fine. Just say so.

I'm not trying to argue against Obama here, I think he's a genuinely inspiring figure. I am genuinely nonplussed when people say he's a moderate of any kind. Can someone please explain what it is about Obama's views on actual policy that gets them excited? What are Obama's concrete and plausible ideas that are thrilling?

Posted by RMH | February 13, 2008 11:05 AM

Patrick, given the Democratic position on political speech, the War on Drugs, the legitimate use of eminent domain, commerce clause interpretation, etc., I'd say that it is a gross misstatement to claim that the Democrats are better on the other nine. Democrats believe it is allowable for Congress to pass a law which regulates the content of political speech made at certain times prior to an election. Democrats believe that seizure of private property absent a conviction in a court of law is allowable. Democrats believe that a person traveling on a public road can be stopped and searched without probable cause. Democrats believe that all human activity falls under the heading of interstate commerce, thus essentially claiming that there is no human activity that Congress cannot regulate, thus essentially saying that the 10th Amendment does not exist. Democrats believe that taking land from citizen A, in order to give it to citizen B, so more tax revenue can be generated, is a legitimate taking. How did you come to your conclusion?

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 11:15 AM

I think the point of Obama's campaign is not that he can singlehandedly transform Washington politics. In fact, he takes pains to point out that what he is calling a "movement" is about the people who are supporting it, not himself.

By that I take him to mean that the kinds of systemic issues that we need to tackle as a country in the next decade or so -- climate change, health care, etc. -- aren't really susceptible to being addressed by a Rovian 50%+1 solution, but rather need a new coalition that is not based on the currently dug in "sides" in Washington. What he's saying is that we need a broader, more inclusive coalition to create the kind of pressure needed to achieve compromises and broader buy-in to solve these issues. As long as it is 50%+1 as a coalition strategy, the absolute best that can be hoped for in terms of policy is incremental gains here and there --- and I think what he is saying is that incrementalism is going to result in a failure to address these issues.

So far from being a utopian idea of a completely new kind of politics, what Obama is actually trying to do is to forge a new coalition as a base of support for the kinds of changes we need to make -- changes that aren't enabled by a 50%+1 coalition. In this, the contrast with Clinton is clear -- her approach is incrementalist, triangulating and remarkably close to a Rovian "approach" to politics, simply with a different "50%" base. What Obama is saying is that a new coalition base is needed -- a broader one -- to get the kinds of things done that we need done in the coming years.

The last politician to try for such a "resetting" of a political coalition was Reagan in 1980 -- and Obama, in a very real way, is a kind of reverse Reagan. Clinton isn't anything at all like that, and this is the main difference between the two.

Posted by Brendan | February 13, 2008 11:21 AM

I agree with Will Allen. While I have no fondness for the Republican party in its current state, on balance, I doubt that Democrats are the party of civil liberties. If you are gay or want an abortion, then perhaps the Democrats are the party for you. If you are just an ordinary citizen wanting to be left alone in a free country, not so much.

Posted by Kevin P. | February 13, 2008 11:35 AM

Obama's reality won't match his rhetoric, but picking a president is kind of like getting married. You know it might end up bad, or maybe not everything you hoped, but you sure do get worked up for the wedding. People understand this. Compare this with the voters' view of Hillary, which is kind of like being asked to marry your mother-in-law.

Posted by Helter | February 13, 2008 11:37 AM

Careful, Megan. Silly cynical thinking will kill ya faster than tobacco. It's a self-reinforcing spiritual trap that leads one straight to existential hell.

Perhaps you've never had a personal experience of exceptional leadership. Leadership works by inspiring that little god-seed within each of us to be just a bit better. All those little bits add up, and great things happen.

Cynicism is not a sign of intelligence. It is not a sign of superior life experience. It is a sign of spiritual drought.

-- stan

Posted by Stanley Krute | February 13, 2008 11:37 AM

Hi Kevin P.

You wrote:

> If you are just an ordinary citizen wanting to > be left alone in a free country, not so much.

Incorrect. An Obama presidency would not push the Congress to violate the 4th Amendment and the FISA laws by data-mining all email and telephone traffic, as this administration has done w/ our current craven set of reps. The GOPpers are ALL for it; the only resistance, albeit not enough and thus futile under the fear-driven remnants of the Rove autocracy, is from the Dems. And Hillary dodged the vote y'day, in classic Billary mode.

-- stan

Posted by Stanley Krute | February 13, 2008 11:47 AM

Stan:
you wrote: "Cynicism is not a sign of intelligence. It is not a sign of superior life experience. It is a sign of spiritual drought."

which, in this context, I take to mean: stop doubting Obama, just believe. This is something I've heard from many Obama supporters. Is that an accurate statement of your position, or can you clarify it?

Posted by RMH | February 13, 2008 11:51 AM

he might even make Washington work a little better, though I kind of doubt it.

Anyone who isn't Bush could do that. Anyone who values competence over blind loyalty could do more than that.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 11:52 AM

"If you are just an ordinary citizen wanting to be left alone in a free country, not so much."

The Republicans want to not just search you, but take you away to a secret prison and torture you. The SCOTUS has already ruled that police officers are allowed to stop and search people on the street. This is mainly so when they question them, they know that the person doesn't have a weapon. SCOTUS has also maintained that the standard of proof is much lower when needing to search a person or car versus a house. Lastly, I live in a fairly Republican area of the country and we have eminent domain problems as well. Areas are labeled as "blighted" by the city and forced to sell to private developers. A conservative SCOTUS has also held up this use as well.

Posted by JordanT | February 13, 2008 12:00 PM

"I don't believe that Obama is going to change Washington, eliminate lobbying, etc. "

Obviously, he is not going to eliminate lobbying, but the mere fact of his election will significantly undermine the power of lobbyists.

Lobbyists do not exercise power through magic rituals. They use money. Ten thousand to the senator's campaign fund, and you get breakfast with a senator. Spend 100K and you get to write a bill regulating your industry. Obama raised $1Million a day in January without tapping lobbyists. He empirically demonstrated independence from lobbyists is possible.

Senators and Representitives will have a harder time emulating Obama, but they are subject to a different effect. Al Wynn (D-MD,4th) lost his primary Tuesday. He lost because he was a lobbyist lapdog. He was essentially put on a populist hit-list and his opponent was flooded with small money. Lobbyists now at least need to fear backlash.

Admittedly, this is not Obama's doing. He is a symptom, not a cause. Making it part of his campaign is clever of him though.

Posted by Njorl | February 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Stanley, lemme know when Obama say that it is illegitimate for government to take property from citizen A, and give it to citizen B, because B promises to generate more tax revenue with it. Lemme know when Obama says it is illigitimate for Congress to regulate the content and timing of political speech. Lemme know when Obama says that seizing the property of individuals, absent a conviction in a court of law, in waging a War on Drugs, or War on Prostituion, or War on Drunk Driving, or any other so called War, is an abusive exercise of the state. Lemme know when Obama says that, no, all human activity does not fall under the heading of interstate commerce, so there are laws that Congress cannot pass.

Frankly, I'd trade a non-disingenuous reading of the Commerce Clause for giving up the right to not have my phone calls and e-mail data-mined. I can work around the knowledge that an intrusive state is reserving the power to data mine my phone calls and e-mails. I can't work around the knowledge that the Congress of the United States and the President reserve the power to define all of my behavior as being encompassed under the heading of interstate commerce, thus giving them them the power to regulate all of my behavior.

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM

channelling yeah yeah above, to answer megan's and other's sentiments-cum-questions: it seems to me not that obama's message is pure fantasy, but that our body politic has grown so perversely cynical that even incremental change is considered pure fantasy. (i, for one, support obama in part because i am just so tired of only viewing things in gradations of negatvity.) that, if anything, is his core message -- it's not that our entire system of government can be altered overnight (the 'what'); it's that the method of engaging in that struggle can be affected for the better (the 'how').

it is fascinating to watch non-supporters voice the 'fantasy' trope of false hope when so many supporters see only reality, but reality tinged with can-do positivism. so, it is not a question of false or true hope that you may or may not believe in. it is, however, a question of whether you choose to defray the enormous cost of cynicism and division with hard work on scales large and small, global and local.

it is fair and fine to be skeptical, but to cave to cynicism is to prove out obama's position.

well, that's just my opinion. ; )

Posted by michael | February 13, 2008 12:08 PM

Tell ya' what, as just one example, will remove a great deal of cynicism about Obama for me, Michael; when he is willing to give a speech in Iowa where he plainly states that ethanol subsidies are a travesty for taxpayers, food consumers, and the environment, and only benefit a tiny, tiny, slice of middle class and affluent citizens, at everyone else's expense. When I instead hear him supposrt ethanol subsidies, why, goodness, my poor depraved cynical self somehow concludes that Obama is willing to buy votes with lies and other people's money as much as any other hack. Golly, why would that be?

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Will Allen: you mean like going to Detroit and telling auto manufacturers that they need to start meeting stricter fuel-efficiency standards?
Would that be an example that might remove a great deal of your cynicism?

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/07/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_12.php

Posted by twc | February 13, 2008 12:37 PM

He lost because he was a lobbyist lapdog. He was essentially put on a populist hit-list and his opponent was flooded with small money.

Yippee! Our lobbyist groups beat their lobbyist groups! It's a new dawn for America!

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | February 13, 2008 12:41 PM

To the extent that I feel I know anything about Obama, he seems like a decent guy. I don't agree on what I can infer of his policies, but the fact is that his policies are supported by a large number of people, and if that viewpoint is to carry the next election, I'd prefer that viewpoint be represented by a decent guy.

I would probably support him if I thought there'd be a Republican Congress, but that seems highly unlikely. Divided government is the only way to fly.

Posted by SG | February 13, 2008 12:42 PM

@will allen, you're not going to hear an argument from me on the E85 front, except to note that his support had more to do with his home state agribusiness than iowa's votes.

that's neither here nor there, however, to my larger point of cynicism vis-a-vis the hope message.

Posted by michael | February 13, 2008 12:45 PM

twc, advocating for stricter fuel efficiency standards in Michigan does not carry the immediate effect of telling voters in Illinois and Iowa that you will be working to cut off their subsidies. Hell, I'd imagine there are substantial numbers of UAW members who understand that by building a more fuel efficient car, the products will be more attractive to some customers. Find me an ethanol subsidy recipient who will say, "I don't want the money."

Also, am I not correct in thinking that Obama was not really campaigning in Michigan, due to the primary date debate? It's a lot less risky to say something like that when you really aren't trying to win the state's primary anyways.

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

More to the point, twc, when I see Obama take the stance on ethanol subsidies which he did, I can choose one of two alternatives; he is either a towering moron, or he is purchacing votes with lies and other people's money, just like countless other hacks. Now, I think it is obvious that he is not a towering moron. Please explain why cynicism is not a perfectly rational response to viewing behavior such as this. The man demonstrates that he is willing put forth perfect nonsense, and questioning his motives is not warranted? Mind you, I'm not saying Obama is any worse than any other hack, but the notion of Obama exceptionalism seems rather ridiculous.

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 1:05 PM

JordanT:
Lastly, I live in a fairly Republican area of the country and we have eminent domain problems as well. Areas are labeled as "blighted" by the city and forced to sell to private developers. A conservative SCOTUS has also held up this use as well.

Kelo was decided by the four liberal justices and one swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, who is somewhat a conservative. Nice try, though: Yes, Kelo was the fault of the conservatives! What else do you think is the fault of conservatives and Republicans?

Moreover, Kelo is consistent with the desire of liberals and Democrats to give any and all levels of government more and more power over any and all aspects of human life. Some exceptions do apply: if you are a part of the favored groups of the moment (gays, abortion seekers, anti-religion advocates, suspected terrorists picked up in foreign countries), then do they have a Constitutional right for you! If you are just trying to live your life without government interference, then you are out of luck.

Please don't take my word for it - LOOK at Obama's record in the Illinois state legislature and in the US Senate. He will increase the power and burden of the government across the board.

Posted by Kevin P. | February 13, 2008 1:07 PM

Will, I've said that Obama is no Cato type Lib, but hardly anyone is anymore. The Commerce Clause issue is long past. The fact you think the NSA has legal jurisdiction over every piece of communication you send and receive, but worry about the Commerce Clause seems to me that you are missing the forest for the trees.

Obama is the first Presidential candidate to talk about decriminalizing marijuana. He will probably have to back off of that to get in. That is why I think he is a pivot, not a messiah. The War on Drugs is not going to end with one stroke of the pen, it will be an incremental fight. Liberarians have to look ahead and figure out which party has a better chance to ever end it. Those kinds of battles are why I think we are heading to a authoritarian vs. libertarian dynamic this century.

Maybe the repubs become the libertarians, but they had the Libs in their coalition and have spit on them and tossed them to the curb. In the West you are seeing libertarian Democrats winning elections. In the Northeast, we are long behind with authoritarian conservatives and authoritarian liberals. The Congressional elections in the midwest will be interesting this year.

Posted by Patrick | February 13, 2008 1:07 PM

Megan, if you can attract fish as well as you can get the Obamaniacs to pipe up, you could probably make more money in fishing than in journalism. As many of my fellow O-bambers no doubt said above - of course one man can't change Washington. It's going to take a movement or a village. I recognize full well that the task may be impossible, but we need to try.

What Obama is tryng to do is simple - provide a space for intelligent, constructive discussions between people of good will. Today, mindless recriminations flow fast and furious and take up all the oxygen. "The media" privileges this, not as a conspiracy, but rather because it's so much easier to harp on the meaningless meme or absolutist slogan du jour than to address issues in a constructive, nuanced, three-dimensional way. (This occurred to me last night when I was watching John King on CNN - he was saying that McCain would run in the general on national security, and was able to encapsulate McCain's national security message in one sentence - a sentence of which McCain would most likely approve. That made me think, could King do this for the Dems' positions? He probably couldn't, not just because it would be more than one sentence, but because if he went into sufficient depth, he'd sound more like a campaign spokesperson than a journalist.)

When I was growing up in the 60's, my diehard Republican parents were offended by the rantings of the John Birch Society - even Bill Buckley didn't want the Birchers to sully his movement. Today, however, the JBS worldview is predominant in the GOP - just look at the CPAC conference. If Obama really can raise the tone of our discourse, the JBS worldview will be marginalized, which will privilege constructive conservatives. That's probably why David Brooks likes him, even though he does not suport much of his agenda.

Posted by Geoff G | February 13, 2008 1:09 PM

Patrick, I consider myself a small-l libertarian and I certainly agree that libertarians should seek allies in both parties. I have voted for individual Democratic candidates and will continue to do so.

But Obama is NOT even close to being any kind of libertarian. He is a big government statist, like Hillary Clinton, and possibly worse because he is charismatic. I know that you consider NSA surveillance to be worse than the abuse of the commerce clause, but in reality, the latter is used to give the government far more control over everyday life than the NSA surveillance ever could. Power over the economic activities of Americans is much more powerful than any other kind of government power. Liberals understand this, which is why they unreservedly support the abuse of the commerce clause.

Posted by Kevin P. | February 13, 2008 1:15 PM

RMH:

You wrote, RE my comments on cynicism: "which, in this context, I take to mean: stop doubting Obama, just believe. This is something I've heard from many Obama supporters. Is that an accurate statement of your position, or can you clarify it?"

Inaccurate. My comment meant just what it said, no more, no less. Cynicism needs to be attacked whenever it reveals its rotten little seedhead.

I, too, in a 12-step-program confessional mode, am a hope-monger. A glass 90%-full-er. A cockeyed practical optimist. It's my blessing, and it works. We HMers are not naiive, not blank-eyed bliss-faced followers, not blind obedients. I look carefully at what folks say, what they do, and how their private and public personas match up. I've learned that when someone says, "You can't do that", you just say, silently or out loud, "Thank you for confirming my compass heading. Have a nice day." I've had the pleasure of seeing stuff happen that seemed impossible at certain points.

My comment was just about Megan's clearly-stated cynical take on events. I have met a lifetime's worth of folks who believe that to be non-cynical is a mark of naiivete, mental slowth, delusion, et al. The glass-half-to-completely-empty folks. They are generally not happy people, trapped in a prison of their own experiential filtration choice. There's a reason Hubert Humphrey, in his best and earliest years, was known as "the happy warrior". That term fits Mr. Obama as well. It does not fit Ms. Clinton. And the power of it is seen at the rallies and the polls.

-- stan

Posted by Stanley Krute | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM

Patrick, please show me where I said anything like that about the NSA, I said I'd trade having my electronic communication datamined if in return I could get an honest reading of the Commerce Clause, for a very rational reason: If I really want to avoid the NSA's practices, I can, whereas I have no ability, short of armed rebellion, to to avoid a Congress and President who claim the right to regulate every aspect of my behavior. That's Obama's and the Democrats' position. Now, tell me once again, why one would prefer Democrats in regards to protecting liberty?

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 1:21 PM

I am 44 years old, a political junkie and someone who covered politics professionally for about 5
years. So I'm pretty dry behind the ears. And I absolutely believe Obama can change our politics
-- not by magically solving Iraq, eliminating lobbyists, or driving sweeping policy changes, but in another way.

In 1968, Kevin Phillips wrote in "The Emerging Republican Majority" that "the secret to politics is knowing who hates who." An awful approach, but it has worked for a long time now. Both parties have honed their ability to attack, to divide and to stir up rage among their own partisans. Congress is deeply polarized; cable TV and talk radio are filled with professional screamers,
haters and spinners.

A lot of Obama's appeal is that he genuinely rejects that approach, and calls on us to reject it too. He speaks to the best in us instead of the worst. He dares us to be less cynical about our government. And after the last few decades, that alone feels like Utopia to some of us.

Posted by Charles | February 13, 2008 1:33 PM

"But he isn't going to transform American politics in the utopian way his speech implies. No one who has dried out behind the ears could reasonably believe that he has this power. So why is he saying he does?"

Obama's talents, as well as his background as an organizer, clearly give him an uncommon ability to inspire people and make them believe that they have the power to change their own circumstances. His message to americans is not that he has the power to change the way the country's politics are conducted but that they as voters do.

While our politics may not become "utopian" they can certainly improve. We live in a representative democracy and I think Washington can change in meaningful ways if enough people insist on it. Getting enough voters to believe and participate in this change is the first requirement for making it possible.

Posted by Jason C | February 13, 2008 1:46 PM

stan:
what is the difference between rational doubt and cynicism? When I say: "I don't believe that Obama can reform Washington to the degree that his campaign rhetoric promises", why does that make me a cynic and not someone with simple rational doubts?

Patrick: as I mentioned in my first post - I am truly nonplussed when someone professes that a) they are a libertarian and b) Obama's views comport with theirs.

Perhaps those two statements are not contradictory, but, as far as I can tell, Obama's economic ideas are about as leftist/liberal/socialist pick your moniker as they get in our country's politics. Again, I'm not looking to argue about this, I'm looking for someone to show me where Obama's policy ideas comport with libertarian ideas.

legalizing marijuana is one, apparently. Where else does Obama show libertarian traits - in particular, where else that he has a shot at results (you yourself admit that legalizing marijuana is DOA at this time)?

Posted by RMH | February 13, 2008 1:49 PM

They must really be confident of winning: dissent has stopped being patriotic and gone back to being divisive.

Posted by Paul Zrimsek | February 13, 2008 1:51 PM

Paul wins the thread.

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 1:56 PM

We must move forward together! The future, that's where we're headed, and we must build a bridge to it! You deserve the future, and together we will work to bringing it here. We must work for change, work to eliminate bad things, and to promote good things. Coming together, we can accomplish anything! I call on all to put aside their differences, and support me in bringing change.

Whaddya think? Inspirational enough, or too substantive?

Posted by Occam's Beard | February 13, 2008 1:59 PM

Okay, it's a tie.....

Posted by Will Allen | February 13, 2008 2:07 PM

I think that it's better to choose Presidents on character than on issues, because no one knows what issues may arise during their term.

Having said that, it's important to hear their views on current issues to obtain a measure of their character, and how they think. Intellectual pablum of the type parodied/satirized above provides zero insight into character or thought processes (unless one infers that the speaker is cynically manipulating his audience, or just too stupid to realize the content-free nature of his speech).

Posted by Occam's Beard | February 13, 2008 2:17 PM

I wish he wouldn't tell me things that I can't possibly believe--

Megan, we've all suffered to some degree from this illness...a belief that things can't actually get any better.

That's why they call it hope. As he says, not because it's easy to change, but because you must believe and be willing to work for change.

Dare to hope.

Or as Eleanor Roosevelt, another great visionary, said: "You must do the thing you cannot do."

That thing, now, right here in the middle of this historical movement, is to reclaim our country from venality and make it greater than it ever was to be an American.

Posted by Jim Lawrence | February 13, 2008 2:47 PM

Take a look at John McCain's speech from last night, which made much the same point. Obama seems to be feeding into the messianic cult growing around him. If I’m right about that, his adherents will prove difficult to persuade by reasoned argument. They seem to really give to Obama’s promises the same sort of religious assent that I, as a Catholic, am supposed to give to Church teachings that seem hard to swallow (like the Assumption of Mary).

For a useful compare and contrast, take a look at Reagan's version of yes we can.

Posted by Steve Bainbridge | February 13, 2008 2:57 PM

Good one, Jim. That's even better than mine. I'd forgotten the "reclaim our country" bit, and also the "make it greater than it ever was to be American."

How about we join forces?

We must come together to move forward to reclaim our country and make it greater than it ever was to be American, by working for change, by daring to hope, by combating bad things and striving for good ones. Join with me to put aside our petty differences and work for a brighter tomorrow. We must do it for the children!

Damn that's good.

Posted by Occam's Beard | February 13, 2008 3:03 PM

Too much of this election has been about kicking women down (again). That's why I'd find it hard -- at this point -- to support Obama if he wo