Heard Obama's speech today. Here's my money, my clothes

[burythehatchet]

please fit me with a size L robe. Where do I sign up for the cult?

:shrug:

I understand nowwwwwwww......

:)

He's going to be a great leader.

[Birthmark]

1. I don't want a leader.

I want someone to run the Executive Branch of the US government.

[burythehatchet]

3. I suppose you ought to brace for a disappointing 8 years.

[Birthmark]

10. Are you kidding?

It's been a depressing four decades on that score, my friend. :)

[anigbrowl]

21. Hint: it's you

If you haven't found someone you can feel positive about in 40 years, maybe you ought to reassess your expectations.

[Birthmark]

27. That's one interpretation.

Another is that most Americans have bought a bill of goods by people who are *VERY* good at selling. ;)

Now, how do we decide which interpretation is correct?

[boricua79]

49. you can't change everything

Trust me, I nurse the same cynicism and disdain for the mass idiocy that passes for general political culture in this country. But, within the confines of American politics, Obama's not a bad politician.

[Birthmark]

55. But a politician he remains.

I'm done with politicians. I have henceforth adopted Douglas Adams' idea that anyone who WANTS to be President should under no circumstances be allowed to become President.

Oddly, there's a shot for that this year...if there is a brokered convention.

[boricua79]

86. but that's the reality of any leader

take a look at any leader in history. In order to secure power and/or maintain it, they've needed to adopt all types of positions to appease different types of groups. I daresay that this is the only way to be able to run an effective campaign in a mass democracy. In theocracies, you can use force and military power to get your away. In a dictatorship, you can use military repression to get your way. In a democracy, you don't have those powers, so you must resort to chameleon style politics to make as much people happy as possible (so that they will vote for you).

I really don't hold it against him or any other candidate (Hillary included). However, as candidates go, even within the confines of having to say certain things to get elected, Obama's been able to keep a certain respectability and integrity, and I respect that. I respect that he's endured this hard campaign and still maintained that higher ground. That shows political skill and maturity, and that's why I'm voting for him.

[Birthmark]

92. Again, that's why we don't need a leader.

The idea was that we'd be self-governing. The President was there largely to enforce the laws that Congress made --with our consent.

Having a "leader" for President is a repudiation to that idea. And, imo, a repudiation of the entire notion of self-governance.

[Political Heretic]

101. George Washington was a leader.

:shrug:

[Birthmark]

102. Yes, he was.

And there is nothing wrong with that. However, he was an outstanding manager and had just about every positive personal trait that one can imagine for that time. But he wasn't elected just for his "leadership" abilities.

[boricua79]

110. well, not in our political system

we are a representative democracy...some would even say we're not a democracy, but a republic.

We elect someone who will represent the general will of the American people at this time, and the general will of the American people at this time is change...change to domestic-centric policies and less warlike foreign policy. The president, therefore, has to LEAD on those changes. He has to direct the Executive Branch to get working on that and he has to inspire the nation to work toward those changes.

Having a leader who inspires doesn't eliminate our duty and opportunity to be active in our democracy, locally, regionally, and nationally.

I'm inspired by Obama and want him as a leader, but that doesn't mean I suspend my critical thinking or participation in the democracy.

[Birthmark]

113. Why do the people whose will...

...is "change" have to be inspired to work towards those changes? Are they forgetful? Lazy? It just doesn't seem to make sense.

[TheDonkey]

6. I want a leader. I want someone who will help Americans stand up and transform this nation

A trained monkey could run the executive branch, sorry but I want MORE

[Birthmark]

13. A trained monkey

Yes. That is somewhat correct. And that's as it should be for a self-governing people.

IMO, those who want "leaders" are simply willing to sign over their personal responsibility for government to someone that they perceive as a "leader." I don't mind the hard work of being a citizen myself. </self-righteousness>

[Arugula Latte]

17. The GOP knew Bush was a trained monkey,

but they didn't realize he was a feces flinger, as well.

[Birthmark]

24. He wasn't trained

That's the problem. He had no familiarity with the Constitution, life as most of us know it, or the consequences of his actions. He'd been shielded from all of them his whole life --either by alcohol or those who could benefit. I have little to no doubt that YOU are better trained and infinitely more able to be President --in a way consistent with the Constitution-- than that buffoon EVER could have.

[Arugula Latte]

32. I guess I was thinking "trained" in the sense that he'd do the big corporations' bidding

I have no illusion the GOP ever gave a flying monkey poop about protecting our Constitution.

[Birthmark]

35. I'm sure they care about *their* version...

...of OUR Constitution.

[Whisp]

28. ghandi said something like:

my people are going in this direction, as I am their leader, I must follow.

[THUNDER HANDS]

12. why not, this country hasn't had a real leader since JFK.

[Birthmark]

14. How'd that work out?

[Bicoastal]

20. Wow, I didn't think any person on this board would go there...

...but you did.

Congrats.

[THUNDER HANDS]

22. saved us from being in a nuclear war with Russia

so I'd say it worked out well.

[Birthmark]

30. You are telling yourself partial stories

Nikita Khrushchev deserves at least 50% credit for that, doesn't he? I mean, Kennedy brought the whole thing to a head, creating the possibility of nuclear war. (Khrushchev was also 50% responsible for the possibility, too.) Nikita Khrushchev decided the missiles weren't worth the risk and backed down. Kennedy reacted wisely.

[goodgd_yall]

40. There's better reasons than that (which is questionable, really)

I actually don't think Kennedy met his potential because of his assassination. But it did seem a time of hope and energy. He had people that greatly admired him and though he could do no wrong.

[VotesForWomen]

64. a lot of us don't get into idol worship; i couldn't care less about JFK. nt

[jakem]

18. Run the executive branch?!

come on. even fucking bush can 'run' the executive branch.

America needs a leader. One that understands they are allowed the presidency FOR the people-

[Birthmark]

31. You think Bush is running the EB?

Can you give some examples?

[jakem]

36. bush 'runs' it by sitting on his ass half-time.

my point being, it does not need someone to 'run' the branch-

it needs someone to lead.

[Birthmark]

48. Well, if you meant the EB needs someone to lead...

...then I fail to see how that is substantively different from what I said --that we need someone to run the EB.

However, since I am not a member of the Executive Branch, I am in no need of the leadership of any President. I think that that concept is central to a self-governing nation.

[Cha]

45. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

That's worked so well.

[DefenseLawyer]

53. You mean a "competent manager"

like Michael Dukakis?

[Birthmark]

56. Yup. That's exactly what I mean.

Proud to have voted for him.

[DefenseLawyer]

80. Maybe my memory is faulty

but he was never President was he? Oh no that's right, he got crushed in the general election by the "wimp". I'm glad you were proud though, cause that's really what's important. Not winning the election, no that is secondary as long as we are proud of our candidate.

[Birthmark]

82. Your last sentence is correct.

Winning is immaterial to being correct. Willingness to be incorrect just to gain power is indicative that the power, rather than being correct, is what is important. I reject that wholeheartedly.

[DefenseLawyer]

85. That might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard

You obviously either fail to grasp or simply choose to reject the entire purpose of the electoral process: which is to actually elect the people that actually make laws and govern the country. What the hell good is being "correct" if it leaves you entirely out of the process and puts in power those whose policies you most oppose? I'm not sure why you are even interested in the election at all if you don't think winning the election is the goal.

[Birthmark]

93. I suggest that "dumbness" is in your superficial analysis.

Think it through and try again.

Party A is correct on the issues but bad at campaigning.

Party B is wrong on the issues but very good at campaigning.

Therefore, Party B is elected.

Then what happens?

[DefenseLawyer]

100. I suggest you don't understand politics

You are missing a step. There is the primary, where we sort out who is the best candidate, sort of your Party A Party B scenario, THEN we have the actually rodeo where we meet Party C, the rightwing corporate nazi known at the Republican nominee. It is thinking like yours, which rejects Party B (the actual electable Democrat)in favor of Party A because he is "correct" on the issues (but unelectable), that lets the nazi win the election. So it is fine that you are "proud" of your support of Michael Dukakis, but you have to take responsibility for putting a nazi in the white house.

[Birthmark]

103. I suggest that you are dodging.

Let's take it logically, one step at a time. Answer my question. Then we can bring in complications.

[DefenseLawyer]

107. It seems to me that if Party A is unelectable

it doesn't matter how right he is on the issues, as he will never be in office to actually govern. I would suggest that your Party A Party B scenario is flawed, as it is rarely a choice in the primary between a candidate that you agree with 100% and a candidate you agree with 0%, more like one you agree with 90% and one you agree with say 60%. There will undoubtedly be a Republican nominee that you agree with 5%, hell maybe even 1% or 0%. What you espouse is that it is noble to support the unelectable candidate on principle. I say what you are really doing in ultimately choosing the republican over the guy you agree with 60% of the time, and I see nothing noble about that. "You play to win the game." - Herm Edwards, 2002.

[Birthmark]

112. Sorry for the delay.

I am shocked to say that I was actually in bed sick yesterday. Don't remember the last time that that happened.

Okay, we've got a couple of things going here. I'll deal with them in the order in which you brought them up.

First, you are conflating party with person. A given person may indeed be unelectable for any number of reasons. However, that is not true of a party. It's entirely possible that at some point in America's future that a Nazi Party or a Communist Party could become electable. A party's electability is situational.

Your point about agreeing with a particular candidate some percentage of the time is, of course, correct --as far as it goes. The current problem is that the Democrats have moved so far to the right over the past 20 years or so that for many voters elections become a contest between those we agree with maybe 30% of the time and the Republicans, with whom we might agree with 10% of the time. (Add to that, the current crop of Congressional Democrats seem prone to caving in.)

To many of us, that just isn't a very large difference. And it's even worse in this primary. The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minuscule, rhetoric aside. And the difference between either of them and McCain isn't nearly as large as it should be. Whether the difference is great enough to merit voting for them is a personal decision. Some will decide that the Democrats "winning" this particular election isn't as important as sending the message to the Democrats, "Move to the left."

But aside from all that, and getting back toward where this discussion began, the one thing we haven't discussed is the quality of the candidates. George Washington was brought up earlier. As I noted, Washington was a high-quality person. He wasn't on the take. He didn't serve the interests of just a few. (That's not to say that he didn't have opinions.) He was of the highest integrity. THAT is the kind of leadership that is always appreciated and respected.

Compare that to the pack of honey-tongued liars currently infesting our Government. Their brand of "leadership" seems to be "I have all the answers. Give me the power, NOW!" That's not leadership that can be respected widely. It will appeal to their partisans, but those partisans will always be followers rather than fully self-governing citizens.

[VotesForWomen]

63. Hear, hear. nt

[Renew Deal]

87. Then Hillary is your person

No leadership.

[burythehatchet]

95. .

oh snap

[Birthmark]

104. Must be, eh?

Cause if I ain't for Obama, I'm against him. Where have I heard something like that before...

[Political Heretic]

99. lol... well there's some new spin.

It takes a leader to run the executive branch of government.

[Birthmark]

105. Oh, well.

You asserted it. Therefore, it must be true.

You'll pardon me if I think your assertion is insufficient, won't you? Thanks.

[GalleryGod]

111. "F" in American Government 101...sadly, turn in your Blue Book

and go see the Academic Dean for a "withdrawal card".
:silly: :crazy: :puke:

[Yael]

2. Did you go to one of the town halls?

[burythehatchet]

7. No, POTUS 08 on XM broadcast it this afternoon on the drive home.

I think a lot of people have forgotten what a leader looks like.

[Yael]

9. This is the first speech you have been able to listen to?

:wow:

[burythehatchet]

19. No, of course not. But I was thinking of you when I heard this one because

it had a very populist tone. He is appealing to us JEDi.

[Yael]

38. Oh -- gotcha. Sirota noted the same thing today here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4576895

Of course, I thought it was awesome, but then again, I am one of those partial to the populist message!

[meow mix]

4. welcome bro =) its gonna be great... history is turning to our side.

lol cool post
wish i coulda seen unfortunatly california still thinks its too good for obama.

[JuniperLea]

5. I must have consumed mass quantities of the antidote...

Cuz I just don't get it. I really don't. Unless it's the preacher thing... he reminds me of a preacher from my youth. I have an aversion to such things now. The hypocrisy is just too much.

[burythehatchet]

15. I can try and explain my perspective

There are times in history, when a nations is functioning well and is evolving in a positive manner. At those times beaurocratic excellence is paramount. Conversely, when the whole nation is one big mess, the fundamental terms of governance have to be changed. Pulling levers and pushing different buttons is no longer a viable option. The people who understand that best? Our youth. Obama is a vessel into which people are projecting their hopes. That defines leadership. There are pleanty of qualified people who can push the right buttons. I trust Obama to set policy.

[JuniperLea]

29. "Obama is a vessel into which people are projecting their hopes"

That is scary. Really. I'm sorry, I still don't get it. The more people try to explain it to me, the more it reminds me of my Fundy aunt who believes Bush has our best interests at heart, but can't really explain why. And when I question her, I get anger. When I try to remind her that Jesus taught love and peace, she gets even more angry. I see the exact same deal going down here on DU daily.

[burythehatchet]

33. Well, the good thing is that you will be plesantly surprised. The bad thing

is you'll have to admit to your grandkids that you didn't vote for him for his first term. :)

By the way, the "vessel" comment, in order to maybe explain it a little differently, is sort of related to empathy. He and his supporters share a mutual empathy. He empowers them emotionally. If only I had a leader like that when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's ....

[JuniperLea]

47. I think you hit on something...

I don't need anyone to empower me emotionally. I am too empathetic, if anything. Seriously. I suffer physical pain and mental anguish on behalf of others I'm so empathetic. Emotions can fool you. Emotions should not be counted on when there is so much at stake.

What I need is someone who empowers me intellectually. Someone who tells me how they are going to use their intelligence to make the right decisions. Someone who gets down to brass tacks and tells me step by step what exactly they are going to do. Someone who doesn't dumb down the message. Someone who doesn't toy with my emotions;)

We may have to remember this conversation, burythehatchet, for a couple of reasons. First, it's been so nice! We disagree about Obama, and yet we've been so civil and kind to each other. That is note worthy. Secondly, it may be that I tell my grandchildren: "Don't blame me! I voted for Edwards the day before he threw in the towel!"

I'll support the dem nominee, whomever that turns out to be, only because the alternative is so horrific!

[Birthmark]

54. Think of it as a form of laziness...

...or a lack of assertiveness. "Obama is a vessel into which people are projecting their hopes" is just another way of saying that such people's self-image, self-confidence, or ambition is so low that they are willing to gamble on someone else's goodness to achieve what they themselves will not or can not accomplish.

Why anyone would gamble with so much at stake on a politician escapes me.

[JuniperLea]

58. That harsh reality did cross my mind...

It's disturbing.

I've known a lot of very, very intelligent people in my life. Many with whom I'd trust my life, or the lives of my children. So brilliant that their thoughts astounded me and I've never forgotten them or their words. Many of these people have personalities that hold others at a distance... you'd never find people voting for them to be anything! No charisma, no charm, no "emotional" support of any kind. Yet they are the kind of people WE NEED IN OUR WHITE HOUSE!

This has become a popularity contest not unlike the choosing of homecoming queens. I am not exaggerating here. It's scary as all freaking hell.

[Birthmark]

61. I agree with that entire post.

...except for the scary part. It doesn't scare me anymore. I've come to accept it as part of a more or less natural cycle. The reality is that Americans are no longer a self-governing people. The 2000 election is proof positive of that, imo. I don't think that I was ever as shocked and dismayed by anything in my life as I was when the US Supreme Court ordered the vote counting to stop.

I don't know where exactly we are going, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to get substantially worse before it gets better...if it gets better. Obama is just another symptom.

[burythehatchet]

62. So you eqaute a 5-4 supreme court decision with the decision of millions of

voters who feel completely energized? I don't follow.

[JuniperLea]

68. Being emotionally charged does not guarantee...

Correct thought and good judgment. It's the emotional aspect that lends credence to thoughts of personality cult. Personality and charm are no guarantee of sound thought. Likewise, emotionally charged masses are no guarantee of sound judgment in a leader. This isn't a beauty contest. It's not a football game or a tractor pull, but we're seeing the same emotional pissing matches you find with all these events. Scary as hell, I'm serious.

[burythehatchet]

72. In hindsight, one need look no further than how he has run his campaign

If the contest was between management efficiency, this was a fairly evident outcome.

[JuniperLea]

73. Yet all this has nothing to do with how well he can run a country...

Not a thing. Nothing to do with the brass tacks of what he plans to do. They ways and means have been completely neglected in this primary, by both Clinton and Obama.

[burythehatchet]

75. we'll just have to agree to disagree . Thanks n/t

[JuniperLea]

77. Ok

:hi:

[Birthmark]

76. As I recall Bush ran a pretty good campaign, too.

Campaigning is obviously no indication of success as President.

[burythehatchet]

81. He ran a lousy campaign and stole the election.

[Birthmark]

83. A lousy campaign? Then how'd the vote get...

...close enough to steal?

[burythehatchet]

94. We would both be speculating if we were to estimate how big a theft it actually was. nt

[Birthmark]

96. Or if there was any theft at all, apparently.

The USSC intervention was unConstitutional, imv. It was also absolutely unnecessary since the Republican FL State Legislature was prepared to pick FL's Electors.

Bush won. I don't like it. Politically speaking, I can't think of much that I've liked less. But looking for vote theft (in the absence of substantive evidence) when such a theft wouldn't have mattered anyway seems less than productive to me.

[burythehatchet]

97. If you've read the summary report that Conyers wrote you know there's plenty

of documented evidence of tampering, suppression and theft. But there's a forum for that and I don't care to rehash that debate. The record is as complete as I need to convince me.

[Birthmark]

106. Such things occur in most, if not all, elections.

All that matters for the purposes of this discussion is if such actions change the result of the election. I am aware of no such evidence. If you have some evidence that says the irregularities were sufficient to change the result of the 2000 election, I'm all ears. Just link me to it. Thanks.

[Birthmark]

69. Equate? Where did I do that?

I did say that they are both symptoms. However, not all symptoms are equivalent or equal.

[JuniperLea]

65. I agree completely...

We are witnessing a dog and pony show of the highest order... smoke, mirrors, wizards, and dare I say, trolls. Lemmings, sheeple, and moths to the flame. The emotions stirred in this are unbelievably strong. Inspiration and such have no real place here right now. What we are seeing is people fighting with their own shadows, spewing meaningless emotionally charged rhetoric, and so much righteous indignation when confronted with solid thought processes.

Have you seen the film, "Idiocracy". Not high cinema, but the message is spot on.

[Birthmark]

74. Haven't seen "Idiocracy"

I'll put it on my list.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Abraham Lincoln actually destroyed America. That's a bit preliminary, but it seems to be where I'm heading. The destruction of States' Rights might be the beginning of the end for representative government in the US. The 17th Amendment (allowing direct election of Senators) was the completion of that process. It removed one more safeguard against the passion of the masses that some of the Founders were worried about.

As I said, that's preliminary. I only really started thinking about it a couple of months ago, so no doubt further research and thinking will at least alter and possibly overturn that conclusion. But I think it's sound thus far.

(NOTE: The Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad ruling did America no favors, either.)

[ProgressIn2008]

89. Yes, that one is a bit scary to me too -- I'll pass on the vessel

Faith in the leader, the vessel into which we pour the hopes of the nation, isn't very conducive to checks on power, either. Anyone who gets into office should have their feet held to the fire on a daily basis, not exist as a hope projector in the movie theater of national politics.

[ginnyinWI]

84. very well stated.

We are in that kind of a mess now, and we are feeling rather lost and hopeless. We don't know what's become of the America we used to be. That's why we need a leader who can inspire us, and can pull us together again.

Maybe that's what's been wrong with Hillary's campaign. She is much more of a "button-pusher" hands-on micro-manager type. Her followers tout her abilities. But when she tries to inspire, all it sounds like is someone raising their voice and saying the same thing louder so people will finally "believe".

[silverweb]

8. Which speech?

The one from Wisconsin last night? That was one of his best ever. And yes... he will be a great leader!

Welcome to Team Obama! Are you fired up?

(Give the correct "secret" response, and you're an official "cult" member. :D)

GObama! _The "Yes We Can" Song_

[burythehatchet]

25. haha

:rofl:

[Faygo Kid]

11. Consider yourself signed up. We're short on size L, though so you have to wait.

Until you get the robe, you can't be official.

But it's worth the wait. They look just spiffy, for those of us who have the patience.

Mine's red, but here is a family of Obama supporters modeling other colors.

[silverweb]

34. Hey, I want one!

May I please order the one in the middle, except in royal blue or forest green?

[Faygo Kid]

90. We should have more in about three parsecs

Until then, have a heart instead.

Live long and prosper.

[silverweb]

98. Thank you!

In the meantime, Nanu nanu! Oh, wait... that's the wrong one. :D

Live long and prosper, faygokid!

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. It's people like you that create the need for commercials..

[burythehatchet]

23. I don't know what you mean. I hope it was a wonderful compliment

:)

[Bicoastal]

41. I think he means you're an idiot sheeple, or some such.

Not exactly sure either, but when someone says "It's people like you," the meaning is almost always unconscionably rude.

I think I shall finally put this person on Ignore. Everyone enjoy his retort, 'cuz I won't be able to see it. :)

[burythehatchet]

44. The really cool thing about being in the cult is that whereas I might have become

angry with the poster, I now just quietly chant my mantra. :rofl:

[Cha]

51. It's already on

Ignore for me..so I'm sure it wasn't nice.

[ellisonz]

26. Would you like grape or fruit punch Kool-Aid?

I prefer the grape;)

[jmg257]

37. Typical Obama supporter know-it-all..EVERYONE knows fruit punch is better!

Cheers!
:beer:

[burythehatchet]

39. Grape, no doubt! No straw.

[sniffa]

43. The Hope flavored Kool-Aid is the only flavor we're allowed

but it's the tastiest one. :9

[ellisonz]

66. What is this Hope flavoring you speak of?

My 100% objective and open-minded research tell me it's an empty flavor, but I'm sure as hell not tasting it.

:+

[Cha]

42. Please read my sig line! :-)

"The Cult Meme was also used against Howard Dean. It’s the attempt by the Force of Inertia to stop progress. It’s Cynicism trying to validate itself by keeping things static." CS

In other news..YOu Lucky Dawg!! }( :P

[burythehatchet]

46. nice.

:thumbsup: I think Obama aced them on that attempted smear as well.

[Armstead]

91. Great Phrase and true

If a Clinton hypes up the crowd, it's love and popularity.

If an Obama or a Dean or some other newcomer does it, they are engaged in dangerous mind-melding.

In other words, it's okay to be enthusiastic about the status quo....But mention change and you're brainwashed.

[Coexist]

50. I got my Obama-trancie from Gopsux,

he/she said its okay to spread the love - have at it.

[burythehatchet]

59. Simon Bar Sinister

:rofl:

[Coexist]

88. it makes ya' drone, 'yes we can... yes we can'

!!!!!!

[XemaSab]

52. Excellent.

If you go downstairs, robes are on the left, and the barbershop/tattoo parlor is on the right. You'll get your head shaved and your mark of teh beast there. :D

Welcome aboard! :D

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

109. Thanks for the info

I was wondering where the new tattoo parlor is...

[cooolandrew]

57. Once people actually give him a listen they get it. He is an outstanding president in waiting.

[cooolandrew]

60. My robe is very fetching.

[theaxe7]

67. Honestly, I feel like Marge Simpson

When my entire family and town are now working in the Movementarian ranch, worshipping The Leader.

my town and family being the democratic party and obama being the leader of course.

[sniffa]

70. Welcome back

:hi:

[babylonsister]

71. What a nice post to read, even though

I don't consider myself to be part of a cult. I do think Sen. Obama will be a sterling leader, 100% better than what we now are suffering through.

[TalkAgain]

78. Right on

[Hill_YesWeWill]

79. lol yay! nt

[Skip Intro]

108. he will not lead me. nt