What the hell do you think it mean when Teddy said the "Torch has been passed"?

[Perky]

What do you think Ethel meant when shes whispered in Obama's ear at Coretta's funeral?

What do you think the Selma Speech was all about?

THE SPEECH In 2004? The speech in Philadelphia? The SPeech in Denver? The speech in Grant Park?

Have you not read the The Audacity of Hope?

Barack Obama wants post-partisanship. He wants cross=partisanship, He sees the world through purple-colored glasses and the way he is going to bring the nation with him is through appointing competence and substance over ideology and partisanship.

"Change" doe not mean new people at every desk it means the right people, CHange does not mean liberalism; change means people trusting our leaders because they are smart and looking out for the interest of ALL AMERICANS and not just narrow demographic subsets

There are some appoints I like and some I don't like, but if you were expecting a truly progressive administration from top to bottom, you have not been listening. If you think this is about retribution or justice or returning hatred with hatred you have not been reading.

Look. There is an oft-used adage that american politics is a pendulum which every eight years or so swings to the other extreme. Barack Obama wants the pendulum to stop swinging altogether. He wants the place that it stops to be called the Democratic Party, and let that be the 60% party in this country. You do not get there without republicans, you do not get there by appointing ideologues.

Get over it! The Torch has been passed,

[Seen the light]

1. "change means people trusting our leaders because they are smart and looking out for the interest of

ALL AMERICANS"

:rofl:

I want you to reread what you wrote and tell me if that's not a little disturbing.

[Perky]

2. Given the last 8 years I think it a refreshing change,

[Two Americas]

18. it is?

We are being asked to do the same thing that the Bush administration demanded of their supporters.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Think about what a change that would be - to be able to have a significant amount of faith....

In both the intentions and the ability of our government.

[karynnj]

5. That's not what change means to me

that was status quo for the party of the President. Change would actually be criticizing in a Democrat what you would criticize in a Republican.

I also have come to hate three words "Get over it". They were used after Gore's win was stolen; it was used after Kerry lost a race that was not run on a level playing field. Then it was used by the Clinton people when they said she was inevitable.

I saw FEW say it to the Clinton people when she lost

Now, it is Clinton people assuming that Obama was a Clintonite in Kerry/Kennedy/Dean clothes. I think we need to see how Obama governs before you define him. Not to mention, if he runs an administration that has some of the ethical flaws of the Clinton years - I will take it as a patriotic duty to say he is wrong ON THAT, as I should have, but didn't in the 1990s.

[TahitiNut]

8. Lemmings looking for a cliff with a better view.

:rofl:

[Uzybone]

4. It would be nice

I'm not so much of a cynic that I do not believe that we will one day get the kind of leaders we deserve. Hopefully Obama is will be one of those kinds of leaders.

[maryf]

22. Sadly for me

Threads like this where the responsibility to be a part of the government via questioning and speaking out is happily relinquished and replaced with full blind trust and faith in the elected, merely deepens my cynicism...

[Odin2005]

6. Generation X is in the White House now. Get used to it.

The Era of Boomer Puritanical Insanity is coming to an end.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

10. Boomer Puritanical Insanity?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Odin2005]

12. Boomers, as a generation, tend towards ideological purity BS.

I'm sure you remember 1994 and how the right-wing side of the ideological puritanism took power when Boomer Pukes took control of Congress.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

13. Of course I remember 1994,but I also remember 1964.

Puritanical would hardly be the word to describe the Boomers IMHO.

[Odin2005]

14. Then I guess you didn't have 2 of them as your parents. ;-) n/t

:evilgrin:

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

15. Nope------but I did give birth to a couple of them.

I guess viewpoint is everything.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

16. Baby Boom was '46 - '64. Obama was born in '61.

[Odin2005]

20. The sociological Boom generation is somewhat different from the demographic boom

http://www.fourthturning.com/html/boom_generation.html

the sociological generation is birth years 1943-1960. Obama himself said he does not identify as a Boomer.

[maryf]

23. The Jones generation 54-65

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones Not Generation X either, those born to watch the carnage of Vietnam without the maturity to understand, myself included here...

[FrenchieCat]

7. I agree with your premise and humbly add to it......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7916579

[No Elephants]

9. That is NOT what change means. Change means a different way of doing things- bringing together

the best minds, not the most loyal ones. It means dong things intelligently, instead of half assed, thinking them through instead of acting first and regretting it.

Changes does NOT mean trusting your leaders to do the best for all Americans.

[Perky]

11. kicking for more myopic comments

[bread_and_roses]

17. Since when are the adult citizens of a functioning democracy supposed to "trust our leaders?"

That was the excuse of the Democrats, btw, for voting for the Iraq war and for the Patriot Act. We are supposed to question our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions.

[Two Americas]

19. flawed thinking

"Change" when the people reject the right wing does not mean "liberalism?"

What does it mean then?

"Change means people trusting our leaders because they are smart?"

That is the Bush approach to politics.

"...and looking out for the interest of ALL AMERICANS and not just narrow demographic subsets."

The 90% of the population working for a living is not "just a narrow demographic subset."

"If you think this is about retribution or justice or returning hatred with hatred you have not been reading."

It is not about justice? Since when is justice to be lumped in with "hatred" and "retribution?"

The pendulum has not been swinging. It has been stuck on the far right for 30 years. The people want it to swing now. I don't know how else to read the mandate they just delivered to the Democrats.

Sounds to me like the torch is about to be dropped or extinguished.

[kath]

21. Try reading this Glenn Greenwald piece: "Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/18/bipartisanship/

[Perky]

25. .

[wisteria]

24. They were caught up in a moment and possibly fooled. n/t

[Perky]

26. Oh Good grief!!!

When I said "Trust their leaders" I did not mean pied-piperism, I was using it to refer to how we all feel about the Bush Years. And I mean it this way... People want to trust leaders to govern smartly in their interest and not veer to far in one direction or another. That does not mean blind allegience or cultish adoration,

[Clio the Leo]

27. Thank you for the mention about the Selma speech...

..... I have not read/heard it before.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html

"I stood in front of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois; where Abraham Lincoln delivered his speech declaring, drawing in scripture, that a house divided against itself could not stand."

I realize that Lincoln was talking about a MUCH more grave issue, but the concept still holds true.

[Perky]

28. It was an extraordinary speech particularly given his audience,