Obama: My presidency would unleash a 'transformation'

[TeamJordan23]

Obama: My presidency would unleash a 'transformation'
By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- He would surely make history. But would Sen. Barack Obama's election as America's first black president transform the nation? Obama says yes.

"The day I'm inaugurated, the country looks at itself differently. And don't underestimate that power. Don't underestimate that transformation," Obama told the crowd Friday at the National Urban League convention in St. Louis, Missouri.

The Democrat from Illinois was answering a question about the racial polarization in America. Obama said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."

The Democratic presidential hopeful also said that action, rather than high-minded discussions, is the way to end racial inequality.

Obama said "if we're doing the right thing and making sure that our young people are going to school, that they're getting good jobs, that they're starting businesses, that they're living in thriving neighborhoods and communities, that will do more to lessen racial tension, division and conflict than any set of roundtables and blue ribbon commissions are going to do."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/27/obama.black.votes/

[Politicub]

1. "And don't underestimate that power. Don't underestimate that transformation"

Preceded by, "The day I'm inaugurated, the country looks at itself differently."

Well said! I love listening to Obama speak.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Someone said recently that many Europeans love Obama and say this very thing.

[Colobo]

3. The World Needs Obama.

[David Dunham]

4. Obama's a suck up to the hedge fund guys who raise his big money

Obama's inexperience is beginning to show now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Yes, he would improve our foreign relations

However, the notion that simply because of his skin color he is going to "transform" the racial situation in this country is lame. We all know what would have been the response if HRC said a similar thing using her gender to sell herself...

[Like It Is]

15. Are you joking?

The best Foreign Relations Candidate is undoubtedly Joe Biden.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Where did I say he was the best on foreign relations?

All I said was he would improve foreign relations. Obama would be a good president in foreign affairs. Where I disagree with him on a few things and his general "Let's unite with the Republicans and sing kumbyua" strategy is domestically.

[Like It Is]

35. Anyone would be better on Foreign Relations than Bush!

And Condosleeza isn't any help.

[sandnsea]

5. Transforming

What a masterful way of putting it. He knows the importance of changing to a new generation of unity and equality, and he knows America's place in that change as well.

This is from his college speech yesterday:

"Whether it's terrorism or climate change, global AIDS or the spread of weapons of mass destruction, America cannot meet the threats of this new century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. It's time for America to show the world that we're still the last, best hope of Earth. It's time for America to lead again, and we need a new generation of leadership to make that happen."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/26/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_20.php

[Truth2Tell]

10. the last, best hope of Earth.

Get over it.

The last, best hope of Earth would be for America to elect a president who understands that America needs to stop arrogantly asserting that we are the last, best hope of Earth.

[calteacherguy]

17. The ideals of America are the best hope. I think that is what was meant. nt

[Truth2Tell]

20. We have no monopoly on hopeful ideals

or even a legitimate claim to them these days.

Or maybe you mean the "mythical" ideals of America.

I stand by what I said: We need to get over ourselves.

[calteacherguy]

38. Yes, we do need to get over ourselves.

And ideas are not mythical...they are ideas. Certainly we have no monopoly on ideas and ideals, but we have some good ones...equality, liberty, equal opportunity, the pursuit of happiness, etc.

[sandnsea]

19. America has led the world to a better place

Freedom to write your own destiny does work better than having your life designated from birth to school to job to housing to the very food you're allowed to eat. The idea of "America" is the best idea since Christ. And if one doesn't believe in God or Christ, well then America is the best hope of Earth. No western country would be able to provide for their people in the fashion they do if American freedom and entrepreneurship hadn't come first. We've lost our way since Reagan, for certain, but with the right President we could be that beacon on a hill again, and I don't know why any caring person wouldn't want us to be.

[Truth2Tell]

21. You're scaring me

"No western country would be able to provide for their people in the fashion they do if American freedom and entrepreneurship hadn't come first."

:wtf: are you talking about?

"I don't know why any caring person wouldn't want us to be."

Well, sandnsea, please meet the rest of the humans on Earth - humans meet sandnsea. sandnsea wants to know why you wouldn't want him to be your savior - like Christ before. Anyone?

[sandnsea]

22. You explain it

You explain why western nations are prosperous and nations that define the peasants' life aren't.

:shrug:

If going from a feudal society to a free society isn't the best idea since Christ, I don't know what is.

[Truth2Tell]

23. sigh.. because Western nations have

exploited the "peasant" nations to get here? :shrug:

Besides, we're talking about Amurka, not all Western nations as the great savior, right?

Not to mention that standards other than material prosperity may be useful to apply. And not to mention that we don't have much credibility in the area of moral leadership - and I don't just mean since Reagan.

[sandnsea]

24. In part

Yes, western economies exploit natural resources and people. But feudalism did before that as well, and much worse than western capitalism. You can look at immigration trends, and generally when immigration increases to this country, the home country also benefits as money and ideas are exchanged. America does lead and can be beneficial to people. It hasn't been, for a long time. But it can be, the promise is always there. Some folks may like socialism better, but I don't believe pure socialism would be as effective as even the dog eat dog capitalism that we have now. We need a President who is going to do more than a tweak here and there, but it can be done and the world can be improved if we do it.

[Truth2Tell]

25. I'm not criticizing capitalism

although I could. My concern is with imperialism and hubris. All of these hopes for mankind that we share need not be foisted on the world by America. I submit that they could be more readily achieved if America adopted a strategic position as one humble nation among a community of many. I submit that WE would not only find ourselves more secure as a result, but that the rest of humanity would find its way to a better place as well - without the great America behind the wheel. After all, they really do have the same hopes and dreams - the same ideals. And no one asked us to drive.

[sandnsea]

26. There's strength in humble leadership

I dont think humility and strong leadership are mutually exclusive, in fact the only kind of successful leadership IS humble. And, the reality is, somebody will lead. Who do you want it to be?

[Truth2Tell]

27. If you mean lead by example

then sure, lets lead the way to a peaceful, humble, generous world.

But lets be straight up honest here. That's not what Mr. Obama is talking about. Nor are the other top contenders for the imperial throne.

What he and the others are doing is tossing red meat to the believers in the elite bi-partisan foreign policy consensus of post WWII America. It's code, if you will, for maintaining our military-industrial superiority, our economic dominance and our ability to project force anywhere and anytime. You see there are important people - including many everyday American voters - who must be assured that this is where he stands.

If he actually means to lead by providing an example of honest-to-goodness humility, restraint, and cooperation in our affairs with the world - well, yes, that would be a REAL transformation. But I think we all know better.

[sandnsea]

28. Of course it is

Have a little faith in humankind.

"Within the confines of these walls and the boundaries of this city, it becomes very easy to play small-ball politics. Somewhere between the partisan deadlock and the twenty-four hour news cycles, the contrived talking points and the focus on the sensational over the substantive, issues of war and poverty, hopelessness and lawlessness become problems to be managed, not crises to be solved. They become fodder for the Sunday show scrum, not places to find genuine consensus and compromise. And so, at some point, we stop reaching for the possible and resign ourselves to that which is most probable.

This is what happens in Washington.

And yet, as this goes on, somewhere another child goes hungry in a neighborhood just blocks away from one where a family is too full to eat another bite. Somewhere another hurricane survivor still searches for a home to return to or a school for her daughter. Somewhere another twelve-year-old is gunned down by an assailant who used to be his kindergarten playmate, and another parent loses their child on the streets of Tikrit.

But somewhere, there have also always been people who believe that this isn't the way it was supposed to be, that things should be different in America. People who believe that, while evil and suffering will always exist, this is a country that has been fueled by small miracles and boundless dreams, a place where we're not afraid to face down the greatest challenges in pursuit of the greater good; a place where, against all odds, we overcome."

http://www.barackobama.com/2005/11/16/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_7.php

[Truth2Tell]

29. Right, sure, all that...

but if need be, we'll bomb Iran. After all, someone needs to lead the world.

[sandnsea]

30. "direct engagement"

"sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons"

[Truth2Tell]

31. Sorry, that doesn't jibe

with humble and peaceful foreign policy leadership.

"tough sanctions" = aggression by us. Nothing humble about that - just a continuation of the same old suicidal arrogant Imperialism.

[sandnsea]

32. Sure it does

You don't have to be beligerent with people when you decide your ethics precludes you from doing business with them. Just like not doing business with Walmart. People make those kinds of decisions all the time.

[Truth2Tell]

33. faulty comparison

choosing not to do business with Walmart is different than mandating that no one else do business with Walmart.

The idea of sanctions against Iran is not to individually exercise a moral prerogative - it's to pressure Iran to behave as the U.S. wants them to behave. And the notion that we have some right to do that is what so many of the humans in the rest of the world rightfully find offensive.

And believe me - Obama has made perfectly clear, just like the others, that he also believes the Amurkun prerogative extends to backstopping those sanctions with the threat of force. It's the same old "policeman of he world" mentality. Or more appropriately, vigilante of the world. Or thug of the world - if you doubt the benevolence of our motives - which most do.

[sandnsea]

34. Countries participate or not

As they see fit, particularly western countries. Europe berates the US, yet they don't want Iran to have nuclear capacity either. The truth is, most of the world does not want countries like Iran to have nuclear capacity. Yes they are being pressured to behave in a certain way, just like you pressure various corporations in behaving the way you think they should for the benefit of the planet. Does boycotting a particular product or corporation make you a thug or an anarchist? Then why does seeking a change in current political situations automatically make the US a thug?

If you believe in a government that directs your life, right down to the food you can eat, then that's your choice. But those who disagree are not being thugs when they object to it, and tell people in other countries that there's a better way.

And, by the way, I presume you don't object to the term America-hater, correct? That's an honest curiosity because your post is one of the more vicious that I've ever seen.

[Truth2Tell]

36. I love America

But of course I'm sure you know that. But way to go with the George Bush talking points. If someone disagrees with the conventional wisdom on foreign policy call him or her an "America hater." The reason I advocate for peace and reason in world affairs is because I want my country to remain intact for my children.

As for the rest of your response - when I mentioned forcing others to participate in an embargo, I meant Americans and American companies. You missed my point.

And my last point (since you devolved into name calling I'll finish here) - do you really believe anything short of an all out war with Iran will prevent them from eventually acquiring nukes? Would you have, or did you, advocate for such extreme measures to prevent Israel, Pakistan or India from acquiring nukes? Do you think America - undoubtedly the most aggressive nation on Earth in the last 50 years - has some special right to maintain a massive nuclear arsenal?

I mean really, why do you want wars? Do you work for Halliburton?

[sandnsea]

37. Who called for all out war?

Why do you jump to that conclusion? Did you not support the sanctions on South Africa? Sometimes sanctions work. Yes, when you benefit from the protections and assets of a country, you somestimes have to participate in implementing the policies that gave them to you.

The US has indicated willingness to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. That's one reason it is deemed responsible enough to have them, until the world is disarmed. Yes there are elements of our country that are agressive and exploitive. There is no perfection. But that doesn't mean the majority of people feel that way and it's hateful to use the kind of language you do to smear the majority for the actions of the minority.

You don't like to be called an America-hater, just because you express antagonistic and hostile views. Yet you have no problem labeling other people who express views that vary from yours. How is that reasonable and intelligent?

,

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. So I should vote for Obama because white Edwards will not produce the same magical effect?

As a minority I would love a transformation of the racial situation in America. So this means I better vote for Obama, instead of that white John Edwards because his election will not magically "transform" the racial situation like Obama would by virtue of his skin color. :eyes:

Imagine if HRC said her gender would lead to a "transformation" of society's view of gender issues..

[Colobo]

8. Obama's success will be a historic moment for America and the world

You are underestimating the symbolic significance of Obama's candidacy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Yes, as would a H. Clinton election or a Richardson victory

What I resent--as a minority supporting a white candidate--is the subtext of what Obama is saying...

Katz, you know if HRC said a similar thing she would be vilified at DU for playing the gender card to win votes.

[Colobo]

11. Well, I understand the symbolic significance of HRC and Richardson's candidacy

and they are more than allowed to express it. It's true.

[killbotfactory]

12. If you are going to take every bit of self-promotion by the candidates

as an insult, how will you come out of the primary process without hating everyone?

[calteacherguy]

16. No, you should take a multitude of factors into account and make your best judgment.

There is no doubt that the first non-white president will change Americans' perceptions of themselves and the world's perception of America.

That is not trivial.

[Jim Sagle]

13. Eh.

:boring:

[calteacherguy]

14. This sounds like a thread I started a couple of weeks ago.

He's right. I'm not sure if as the candidate though he should be saying it so explicitly....it seems rather self-serving, and not based on the earned merits of the candidate. Might be best left to spokespeople in this case.

I wonder if campaigns read the stuff we put here.