The fervor of the Obama supporters during his victory speech was quite amazing.

I like Obama. But when I hear fantastic rhetoric with little policy, I react negatively. It's very difficult for me to respond the way you do to Obama's speeches. I recognize him as a great speaker, but it is ideas that excite me.

Paul Krugman fills me with much more hope than does Obama, and Krugman, like many of my academic colleagues, is no orator.

Thank you, Ezra.

I think your comments on Obama's speech are spot-on. It's like seeing a great band that you know will amaze and yet, despite the lack of surprise you are still amazed by the performance. I was impressed and had to keep reminding myself that Obama is still a politician, no matter how great his rhetoric is.

As a fellow wonk, it goes against my nature to suggest that the policy points might not matter so much. However, if we are to get bold changes in health care and other things, might it be more important to have a leader that inspires, elevates and unites? Even if the Clinton and Edwards plans are better on paper, it would seem a victorious Obama would have more of a mandate for change. The details will ultimately get hammered out in Congress anyway. But maybe we need the inspiration of Obama to get there.

I had to step out so I missed some of the speeches, but I saw Huckabee's and Obama's. A good reason why they each won is that they are the best speakers among the candidates in their party.

Huckabee is very much at ease talking to a crowd. His years of being a minister were good training, no doubt. He has a sense of humor. On TV, he comes across as if he's speaking to you directly. It's not a surprise he's doing well. He just may get the nomination.

Obama is in another world. We have not had a speaker like him since the sixties, with King and the Kennedys. I'm an Edwards supporter and plan to vote for JRE, but I don't know if anybody will stop Obama. He senses he's got it, there's something happening that's not your run-of-the-mill politics.

As skeptical as I am about some of Obama's policy proposals, not to mention his tendency to triangulate, I have to admit he's a gifted politician with a vision of a united United States that is very powerful.

He's on his way to being the next president. Though we know things can happen.

Umbrelladoc:

As I thought about it more, this particular speech probably isn't a place where policy is to be set out. I'm pretty sensitive to all the other speeches that were about coming together and not much else. But, sure, so long as the coming together talk is for general consumption, and when he gets elected he rolls back all the damage Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush did, I'll be thrilled.

Not to take anything away from Obama, but I've noticed that any decent speaker who challenges me makes me feel like I'm listening to JFK. I saw Bill Clinton speak a year ago, and afterwards I felt like I'd just experienced Pentacost. (And I'm no Clinton fan.) I think there's more withdrawal than we realize vis a' vis a smart leader who will challenge us in speeches to better America and the world.

Wow, Obama! Compare his speech to any of the other people -- even to Huckebee, easily the Republicans' best candidate -- and Obama knocked them over. He was on a totally different plane. It was the Obama of the 2004 Convention.

I felt I was seeing our future president at that point. I was really carried away.

I gotta say, I really don't see what's so appealing about Obama's speeches. They do absolutely nothing for me. They just sound like platitudes.

That said, it seems like they get everybody else pretty excited, so I appreciate Obama's potential appeal. I just don't see it, personally.

Please spare us the b.s., Ezra.

Obama is no Mario Cuomo or Barbara Jordan. You know, REAL orators.

He's a nothing, a media creation who managed to con a lot of kids to think there is something there that isn't there at all, who will get beat for the nomination, thank God.

“We are choosing hope over fear, we are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America,"
For an 82% increase in participants on the Democratic side of the Iowa Caucus that is what we wanted to hear. That is why we have so strongly endorsed Barack Obama to the rest of the country. Real change is what America wants and hope, not hope from sitting on the side lines but hope earned from calloused hands, as Obama said is what we need. I'm thinkin' Obama can deliver!

I think your explanation of Obama's gift was just as elevating as the speeches themselves.

i think obama's speech this evening was a rare and brilliant moment in american politics. i believe it was a truly historic moment.
i also feel that there is a transcendant quality about barak obama. in some way, he transcends race and politics.
as it is said of the lotus, it grows in the mud, but it is not of the mud. there is something of this quality in obama.
i found his speech this evening as inspiring and stirring as the inaugural speech of kennedy.
not because of rhetoric,passion or delivery, but because of a chosenness for this moment.

Ezra, you are wise beyond your years.

You nail it.

But one thing...

Am I the only one who has noticed that Ezra's last couple posts mirror Obama's rhythm and style? Were you inspired, Ezra? The result sure is beautiful writing.

I truly feel sorry for those who do not see Obama as a gifted speaker. It's like not being able to appreciate a Monet painting: "Why the blurry view of the Cathedral?"

When Obama says that in the best America, "our destiny is not made for us, but by us," he has distilled the essence of America's liberal and progressive traditions in a tight epigrammatic phrase. No American politician in the sentient life of those of us under 50 comes close to Obama in rhetorical gifts. And it's not just the words on paper: it's the appropriateness of the words for the moment. That speech was like a lesson on how to accept a victory in a battle and keep moving on because there is not a single battle but a war. He simply took everyone to school. It was like watching some good high school tennis players play a set, and then seeing McEnroe and Borg play a set.

Edwards' speeches, in contrast to Obama's, are pure bombast: Grade A bombast but bombast nonetheless. They are agitprop. The unconvinced are left on the outside. Obama is the kind of speaker who his Republican detractors will shake their heads at after he delivers his State of the Union speech or his appeal to enact health care reform and say to themselves, "He's full of crap on the substance, but the public is going to give us hell if we don't submit." That's what Reagan did to Democrats. Obama will do it to Republicans. I'm sure Hillary, Bill, Wolfson, and Penn were sh*tting bricks when they watched him tonight, because they know he's got what Ezra is describing.

I know many on this blog call people like me Obamavangelists, as if we are on some sort of artificial high, but I'm a skeptic and perhaps even a cynic by nature, and I really think I'm seeing the real deal in Obama. And some pretty hardened veterans who were sentient when Bobby Kennedy was around see the same thing as some of us (relatively) younger ones. See the endorsements of Ted Sorensen and Harris Wofford.

i also feel that there is a transcendant quality about barak obama. in some way, he transcends race and politics.

I absolutely agree. The contrast with Edwards is that his emphasis upon people who've been shat upon in life is the opposite of transcendent.

I wonder if that maps into the generational gap. On the one hand, it's easier to be inspired if you're ankle-deep in life's mud. On the other, in that situation, perhaps you want to be able to look up and not down.

Young people -- gawd, as a thirtysomething I feel beyond that -- can feel both vulnerable and bulletproof in quick succession.

If you're mid-30s, you're thinking about how to afford kids and mortgages and looking after your parents, if they're still alive. You feel mortal. And the inclination of blog-commenters towards Edwards seems born out of that sense of mortality, whereas Obama seems to avoid confronting it face on.

But that taps into an American tradition, and invokes the shade of Emerson -- rather than Mark Twain.

Fine writing, Ezra.

I think you mean to say that Obama's finest speeches embiggen the soul.

Will oratory count for as much today as it did in the days of King and the Kennedys?
Like them, Obama speaks in a very gradual crescendo, taking some time to hit his stride. (A good example of this slow windup is King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Hardly anybody remembers the first five minutes.)
Will today's media, supposedly reflecting today's shorter attention spans, accommodate this speaking style? When Obama is sound-bitten, the cumulative impact of his oratory is lost, and he sounds like he's mouthing platitudes.
Huckabee's more conversational style, and his frequent recourse to humor, seem more attuned to the current media environment. He also gives good sound bites, which tend to soften his reactionary views.
So in this campaign's two best speakers, we have this paradox: The candidate of the future speaks in cadences of the past, while the most regressive candidate sounds more contemporary.

So, at the end of the night, you realized that Edwards is toast and it was time to make favor with the O-Man? Well, prudent, but not terribly convincing after some of your earlier posts. But never mind, the Church of Obama will welcome even the repentant sinner! As for the sour Clintonites, better abandon that sinking old barge while you still can. Ain't no point clinging to that ship of fools!

Did anyone see the little clip of Chris Matthews over at the Obama site? The clip was mainly of Gene Robinson praising the speech, but there was a lead in by Chris Matthews where he looked a little stunned and could only say "I thought that was a really good speech."

Anyone who can leave Matthews speechless has earned my vote!

Very nice post, Ezra. You capture a lot of what I thought was so powerful about the speech: as a description of his campaign platform, there wasn't much there, but what was there was the power to inspire. You can tell this guy got his start as a community organizer.

The speech is, like everything, available on Youtube.

I'm a skeptic and perhaps even a cynic by nature, and I really think I'm seeing the real deal in Obama

Don't get carried away. There is no "real deal."

I wept.

"

The fervor of the Obama supporters during his victory speech was quite amazing.

I like Obama. But when I hear fantastic rhetoric with little policy, I react negatively. It's very difficult for me to respond the way you do to Obama's speeches. I recognize him as a great speaker, but it is ideas that excite me.

Paul Krugman fills me with much more hope than does Obama, and Krugman, like many of my academic colleagues, is no orator.

Posted by: MD | January 3, 2008 11:51 PM"

Policy papers don't win elections. Kerry had plenty of decent policies he outlined on a number of issues, yet he still lost because he couldn't gain the public's trust. We policy dorks don't drive elections. If that was true, Kucinich would probably have come in second or third. Americans want to believe in America again after the Bush years - and even the Clinton years. You win elections by appealing to that. Politics and elections are not a college seminar on health care.

You can win elections with speeches like that.

But more importantly, you can lead a nation with speeches like that. It is much, much harder to fight a man with what feels like the entire nation behind him.

Let the word go out that the torch has passed to a new generation?

At the risk of being a skunk at the garden party, one thing that concerns me with regard to Obama as a speaker is that he seems to be quite uneven. Sometimes you get grand flights of oratory that work, and sometimes you get a really boring college seminar that has you checking your watch and wondering when you'll get to wrap it up with the inevitable "fired up/ready to go" anecdote. The problem is even more apparent in his debate performance. I take comfort in the thought that almost all the Republicans are so bad as to be almost neglible opponents, but I do worry at times that Obama is far from a consistent performer.

Entrance poll notes:

- This was a generational win. Obama got 57% of the under 30 vote. That's an astonishing figure. To put it into perspective, it means Obama came in third among over the entire over 30 electorate and still won the caucuses comfortably.

- Clinton won the rural vote. There was a quote a few days ago from Edwards' rural coordinator, Mudcat Saunders, about how Team Clinton's organization was incredibly formidable in rural areas. I guess he wasn't lying. Edwards won the suburban vote. Obama won the urban vote by a big margin.

- Edwards won those who decided between 7 and 4 days ago, but tied Obama for those who decided in the final 3 days, which mirrors what I'd been figuring.

- Edwards won those who'd caucused before, but Obama obviously swamped him on new caucus-goers. Mirrors the CW.

- Obama came in third among married voters, but cleaned up among singles.

- Edwards won the second choice vote easily, despite the Richardson deal.

- Clinton beat Obama almost 3 to 1 among senior citizens, another example of just how much of a generational election this was.

- Edwards came in first among conservative Dems and third among very liberal Dems, which indicates how identity politics trumped ideology for this electorate.

- The union vote was narrowly bunched, with Edwards third, which is amazing.

- Edwards won those most concerned about electability, which at least shows that this electorate wasn't completely clueless.

- There was only one question referencing foreign policy, but it seemed to indicate that the less you cared about foreign policy, the more likely you were to vote for Edwards.

On to New Hampshire and Nevada.

I hope the Democrats are not headed over a cliff with a "prarie fire" candidate who burns out when it is too late to do anything about it.

I was watching Obama on C-span, speaking at Coralville a day or two before the caucus and he did something that really sort of convinced me that he had the "stuff". This sounds kind of stupid.

He touts recent Zogby polls showing him beating every single Republican. He spits out, rapid-fire, "I beat Mitt, I beat Rudy, I beat John, I beat Mike, I beat em' all!" Then someone in the audience yells something and since Obama always feeds off his crowd he says, "Yeah, I'll beat Keyes too. Who else they got? Hunter?"

The point is: Obama style of politicking doesn't, to me at least, lend itself to easy swiftboating. Because what has Obama done with every single attack Clinton's used? He turns them all into laugh lines for his stump speeches. Cocaine and muslim e-mails and Kindergate--every last one of these ends up feeding the Obama monstrosity rather than weakening it.

It's ingenious. Funny-parries, I guess you can call them.

Another thing that struck me is he described in much greater detail his oft-debate "theory of change". He said, "I've learned that if you know in your bones what you stand for, you can afford to sit across the table and talk to people. And by the way, you don't do it because you expect drug companies to roll over or oil companies to magically decide 'fossil fuels are bad, let's build solar panels.'" Obama goes on to say he want to peel off Republicans outside of Washington and create "an army for change."

And I think that's just what is needed. Nobody is going to get anything done without an Army for Change. John Edwards won't. Hillary won't. Obama won't. So It seems like Obama is the only one correctly diagnosing the problem: the American people are apathetic. The powers that be take advantage of apathy. The only way to beat them is to end the apathy and build yourself an army. That's why Obama supporters call it a "movement for change". Without the movement, nothing happens.

"I hope the Democrats are not headed over a cliff with a "prarie fire" candidate who burns out when it is too late to do anything about it."

That's why Howard Dean helped set up a nice 4 state "off-broadway" show before we have to get serious on 2/5.

Susan Nunes: I am sorry your candidate got third and isn't inspiring. She sure can recite a mean laundry list of policies though. It takes a village of consultants to write something like that.

Susan Nunes: I am sorry your candidate got third and isn't inspiring. She sure can recite a mean laundry list of policies though. It takes a village of consultants to write something like that.

Two things: First. Great post Abe. Your last paragraph is a nice short distillation of the case for Obama, in contrast to Edwards.

Second. Dean did not set up the four state "off broadway" show, Clintonistas insisted on it.

Among other reactions this morning, how odd is the lede of Nagourney's piece on Obama: "Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation’s first African-American president...."

Actually, Adam, I don't think that's what he's trying to do at all.

"Second. Dean did not set up the four state "off broadway" show, Clintonistas insisted on it."

You've simply got your facts wrong.

The Clintonistas were definitely present at the meetings, but they interestingly didn't get their way much of the time.

They were virulently opposed to SC, for example, but got rolled by the rest of the DNC.

> I truly feel sorry for those
> who do not see Obama as a
> gifted speaker. It's like not
> being able to appreciate a
> Monet painting: "Why the
> blurry view of the Cathedral?"

Working in the corporate environment (and the community organizational environment for that matter) over many years I have come to believe that great motivational speakers are incredibly dangerous. They are generally trying to sell you a bill of goods and they either have an underlying goal which is against your best interest (bad) or have no goal at all behind the pretty suit and moving voice (which can be worse).

Cranky

A well-spoken trimmer, but still a trimmer.

Our generation's JFK.

Monet? Really? Is that the metaphor you want?

Please excuse us skeptics for our tragic inability to appreciate middle-brow, simple-n-soothing, overexposed art that now finds its natural habitat on dorm room walls.

I'll refrain from drawing the Obama campaign comparison that suggests itself.

"Let the word go out that the torch has passed...?"

Let's hope Obama is aware of the need for a VP or chief of staff who could work the system the way LBJ did for JFK. Uplift and "the nation behind him" can peter out in 3am markup sessions. Think Carter: made us feel better about ourselves, but kept getting rolled on the Hill.

If Edwards had used a sexist to host a fundraiser, or Hillary a racist, they'd have been roundly pilloried. But Obama has ex-gay and proud homophobe Donnie McClurkin host his SC fundraiser (to win over the black church vote there, we're told), and it's okay. That's not "change", that's "same old, same old."

Great oration is not great leadership. Homophobia seems the last bigotry still acceptable in the Democratic party. Shame.

For all you Obamaites out there, once you're done praying, of course.

Wow, Susan Nunes... there's a blast from the past. I haven't seen her appear in any blog comments since she was bitching about how much she hated Howard Dean.

In any case-- I'm with Cranky: inspiring speakers are deserving of immediate and unrelenting skepticism. It's actually one reason I took so long to warm to Edwards.

For those of you who doubt Obama's progressiveness:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

the forces of Good made an appearamce last night.
G-d bless you and protect you, barak.
you will be carrying the hopes of so many on your shoulders now.

I don't see Obama as fighting for the type of changes we desperately need, and have needed for at least 30 years of the Reaganite lunacy (and longer even), and I think Edwards would.

But on a huuuuuuuge plus side, Obama's on no particular crusade like the DLC brigades were in the 1990's to destroy the crazy fringe loony ultra liberals and become the Nu Republicans.

(Even given that his advisers are mainly Clintonites who probably still harbor that crusade in their hearts.)

And so if we get off our collective liberal / progressive a**es and actually push for real policies, I don't see Obama opposing us, maybe even supporting it.

But we aren't electing a god, so, the system is still going to do what it does, which is favor the rich and powerful and oppose reforms of that.

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate.

Interesting. I've long said every Obama speech sounds like an inaugural address, long on platitudes, and as such leave me cold. I understand others feel differently, but I question how well his style will play over the long haul.

"But on a huuuuuuuge plus side, Obama's on no particular crusade like the DLC brigades were in the 1990's to destroy the crazy fringe loony ultra liberals and become the Nu Republicans."

Yup. Obama is Carter '76, not Clinton '92.

we aren't electing a god

Don't tell the Obama supporters that - they seem to be under a different impression.

Some of the talking heads last night said Obama had been struggling with his voice lately. Whatever it was, I haven't had goosebumps like that since watching Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech for the first time.
This guy has it. RFK had it.

For all Obama supporters, just ride this out. Ain't no stopping us now.

Some of the talking heads last night said Obama had been struggling with his voice lately. Whatever it was, I haven't had goosebumps like that since watching Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech for the first time.

This guy has it. RFK had it.

For all Obama supporters, just ride this out. Ain't no stopping us now.

Posted by: Mike H.

Yeah, but that's the point. I like Obama, a lot. I like Edwards' current policies and rhetoric a bit more, but Obama appears to have done something hugely significant, new, and impressive with turnout in Iowa, particularly among the young.

And maybe you're right: maybe Obama has one of those really transcendant aspects about him. Sometimes it appears that way to me.

But even if it's RFK or whoever that gets elected, Obama or Edwards is NOT going to fix our problems for us.

There is an upper class dominated political, ideological, and institutional system whether it's a landslide for Obama or not.

The forces that fight against decent change will NOT cease fighting for their selfish goals just because President Edwards or President Obama have a "mandate" or look at them funny or bring them to the table or whatever.

Am I wrong here? Are people expecting Obama to single-handedly "magic away" the giant resistance of the system?

Admittedly he might start off with more sway in Congress because the conservative Democratic Congressional leadership already sees any decent change as a Bolshevik threat to head off, and seem positively hostile to John Edwards.

FDR's changes followed massive, massive civil resistance, strikes, instability, etc., and were even advised to him by 'think tanks' sponsored by that day's super-wealthy.

If we want anything more than tepid progress -- which is certainly a million times better than Bush Jr. / Reagan II plummeting directly into hell -- it will be still upon our shoulders, even after the inauguration of 2009 and the new Congress.

Who would O's pick for VP be? Jenna Bush? He is full of platitudes -- not that they don't sound "inclusive" and "harmonizing" -- just naive and scripted. He would make a great community organizer but a lousy progressive leader of a very divided and selfish nation. Too smooth, not tough enough to fight for principles that matter to real progressives.

I think Marcus has it right. Inspiration and hope are fundamentally pretty vague terms and also not what we need. We need good policy. His policy is OK. In my opinion its slightly better than Clinton and slightly worse than Edwards, but rhetorically the man has staked out the least amount of defined territory for anyone in the race which means that holding him accountable to his mandates if he were elected would be more difficult. Frankly, I don't trust any of the candidates (even my guy Edwards) to pursue the progressive policies they've committed themselves to unless they have put themselves in a position where they could easily be held accountable.

Obama may be a great speaker, but eloquence doesn't create strong policy. I suppose it can help persuade people in the public, which matters, but I think Edwards is an equally persuasive speaker and he has clearly staked out a more progressive territory in his rhetoric.

"Yup. Obama is Carter '76, not Clinton '92.

Posted by: Petey | January 4, 2008 10:39 AM

we aren't electing a god

Don't tell the Obama supporters that - they seem to be under a different impression.

Posted by: Jason C. | January 4, 2008 10:44 AM"

I love that these two comments ended up on top of each other. Petey has become notorious in the liberal blogsphere for his ability to drop Edwards-worship into any thread, no matter how a-political.

It also does strike me as a borrowing from Rove's playback to say that the guy who can give a good speech and inspire people, both inside his party (at the caucus, self-identified liberal Democrats went to Obama while self-identified conservative Democrats went to Edwards) and outside his party, which is even more significant considering that the cross-overs skipped of Clinton, who is ideologically closer to them, to support Obama.

From The Gospel According to Ezra, chapter 2:

And there were Democrats living out in the cornfields nearby, posting comments at Huffington Post at night. An angel of the DailyKos appeared to them, and the glory of the Oprah shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the state of Iowa a Savior has been born to you; he is Barak the Obamessiah. This will be a sign to you: You will see a mostly-caucasian guy who everyone calls "black," and he will speak in meaningless platitudes and feel-good generalities.

Suddenly a great company of blog commenters appeared with the angel, praising Ezra Klein and saying,"Glory to the Obamessiah in the highest,and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests,and screw Chimpy McHalliburton"

Gave you felt compelled to join any cults Ezra? Those so easily swayed by empty rhetoric are frightening. Actions count more than words. He is so far only a media created artifice without any true tests. Heck, he even has ducked most votes that are controversial or may have caused him difficulty. I am not sure but I am not ready to buy into the pseudo tent revival atmosphere espoused here.

Good thing it's not, ya know, a cult mentality.

Ease up on the biblical references there Ez. That was ridiculous.

Are you really that soft-headed, Ezra? Obama's doesn't orate so much as reel off one egregious cliché after another.

We need to move forward, not backwards! Upward not forward! And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Looks to me like Jonah Goldberg has a whole bunch of new material for the second edition of Liberal Fascism. Thanks Ez!

Silly me! I thought Obama was running for President, not running for Jesus.

"They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence..."

Are you insane?

Are you insane?

Of course he isn't. He's merely describing the Rapture. Because he voices loud hosannahs to the Obamessiah, Ezra has been swept up to Paradise. You, "Dubious," cannot fathom that, as you have been Left Behind.

"They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence..."

"Are you insane?"

Looking for a speechwriting gig, more like.

obama actually does bring a messianic message, using the spirit of goodness, instead of godliness.
at the least, i think he is a bodhisattvha.
their work on earth is to live in accordance with the six perfections:
generosity
ethics
patience
effort
concentration
wisdom
what we must all strive to do.

Some of you seem to be under the impression that the swing voters of the USA can be swayed by policy points. Grow up. It will be the music that gets 'em, and Obama blows a hot horn.

obama actually does bring a messianic message, using the spirit of goodness, instead of godliness.
at the least, i think he is a bodhisattvha.

A bodhiwhatnow?

Note to self: do not go near the computer while high.

So you guys are meeting the GOPs "Huckabee is John the Baptist" and raising them one "Obama is the Lamb of God".

"The triumph of the word over flesh" , indeed!

Yes, Mario Cuomo was a similarly inspiring orator. However, his actual accomplishments were much less than inspiring (I actually can't think of any right now). Bill Clinton was such a good speaker my friend wrote a book about how Clinton used his speeches to transform America - however, that was in ways most of us would like to reverse. Hell, HITLER was a great speaker (screw Goodwin's law).

What I want out of my President is not a great speech, I want him/her to implement policies I agree with (ending the war, preserving Social security, single payer health care), and in that respect Obama seems like he may be far short of ideal. So before you start saying your hosannahs, remember you are not voting for a personal savior, you are voting someone to do a job.

I love that these two comments ended up on top of each other. Petey has become notorious in the liberal blogsphere for his ability to drop Edwards-worship into any thread, no matter how a-political.

It's true that some Edwards supporters sometimes bleed into the kind of hero-worship often associated with Obama. It's not a good idea in either case. I will say that Edwards supporters seem to be more inspired by what he stands for (i.e., the actual policies), while Obama-ites seem mostly inspired by Obama himself.

FDR's changes followed massive, massive civil resistance, strikes, instability, etc., and were even advised to him by 'think tanks' sponsored by that day's super-wealthy.

I think this is an enormously important lesson. FDR has achieved a near-heroic status among liberals nowadays, but while I'm grateful for the New Deal, I've always seen it as a largely defensive maneuver. At the time, the upper class seemed to realize that the system they had created and benefited from was in grave danger. Some of them, like Prescott Bush, thought the answer was fascism. Others, like FDR, decided to capitulate a little to the working class, to essentially stop the bleeding and appease the poor enough to make full-on revolution seem unnecessarily risky.

If anyone out there thinks Obama is some kind of political messiah, they are going to be sorely disappointed. People have been comparing him to RFK, but RFK, had he lived and triumphed in 1968, would have ended up being a huge disappointment. It's just the way it is.

Fundamentally, Obama will be a defender of the status quo. With luck, good and important reforms will occur. Health care reform is nothing to sneeze at. But the essence of American politics will remain the same.

Hey Ezra, you need some paper towels or something?

Glory to Obama in the Highest! Peace on Earth as we surrender to Iran! And Execute Chimpyhaliburtonrepublithugs because, as everyone knows, they are bitter people who call people names, those sons of Hitler who like raping democracy!

I weep when I hear Obama speak! It's like the rapture, the 2nd Coming and having sex all at the same time!

Praise be to the man who communed with the, err, not divine, since God doesn't exist.... we'll get back to you on that.

Obama is better than Christ!

Isn't that the message I'm reading here?

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

"He is not the Word made flesh..."

Good to know.

Er, Ezra? The Huckabee circlejerk is in the other ballroom, mkay?

Jack writes of Ezra

You nail it.

Er, "nail" it is just a really unfortunate locution when you're commenting on a post that compares a political candidate to Christ. Eh?

NOTE Unless this is ironic. Irony is spreading like herpes these days.

All the peeps in the cynic wing of the Democratic Party represent, yo!

Its not as if we're looking for someone to inspire the nation or anything, we're just looking for another warm body with a D after their name to fill the Oval Office. After all, that strategy worked out well for Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, didn't it?

Its a shame.. Your presented with a pol thats had votes and stances on issues that people on this blog normally agree with, you add that hes an excellent speaker and everyone panics.

It is sad that people cant appreciate the value of a good orator, and I feel sad for those people. Yes Ive been in the corporate world and heard those stuffed shirt speakers as well.

The difference is here your supposed to put some thought into it, and join your hopes for the future with the evidence of his record and the words in his speaches. ..not any one of those things.

In the cororate world your just supposed to listen and accept. ..and yes they are paid to be there, and are selling you the bill of goods that admin would have you believe. ..that guy has no record that you can verify, has no stance on policies, or stake in the continued well being of the company after he leaves. ..it is a different thing.

Truly for a president being an inspiring leader really IS his job. It isnt really to create policy, that in general is the job of congress. Presidents can lead, can inspire, can influence, and can veto. ..but they dont write the laws. (yes executive orders mess this up a bit.)

As we've seen they can certainly mess things up if they want, as bush has. I can see no evidence that Obama has any stances that are as openly hateful and negative as the Bush administration. ..and theres plenty of evidence to say that he has a vision that can help this country domestically and help restore some of our luster internationally as well.

..if anything Edwards = Carter, not Obama. and its not just the southern thing either.. its the peacemaker, help for the poor, populism, etc.

Its not as if we're looking for someone to inspire the nation or anything, we're just looking for another warm body with a D after their name to fill the Oval Office. After all, that strategy worked out well for Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, didn't it?

Are those the only two options?

Truly for a president being an inspiring leader really IS his job.

I think this is where I fundamentally disagree with Obama people. I don't want the president to be a leader; I want him to be a servant.

if anything Edwards = Carter, not Obama. and its not just the southern thing either.. its the peacemaker, help for the poor, populism, etc.

Obama-ites have begun to be very open about their disdain for those who advocate on behalf of the poor. Strange - I thought the official line was that Obama was just as much of a progressive as Edwards. Now, apparently, it's that Edwards represents the rabble, and therefore we should shun him.

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

If you were any sort of human other than one who gets paid for blathering inane punditry I'd be sure that you were Borating us here in order to be able to showcase the dimwits who "Right On!" what amounts to laughable nonsense in their golem-headed quest to fit in somewhere - anywhere. But of course you are a kid who gets paid to use big words and sound smart so I'd guess that you have no plans to showcase all of the fools who heartily agree with what you (obviously don't believe because you actually are smart but) wrote.

And that's sad, because Ezra (by the way, I think we may have gone to Yeshiva together, you from Brooklyn? but anyway...) the truth of the matter is that inspired visionary talk can do all of what you wrote above and you happen to be blessed with the acumen to do it. But when you sell yourself out like a cheap prostitute to the flavor of the day, you lose a whole lot of credibility in people's eyes. what you wrote was so foolish as to require a brand new adjective to describe it, yet, for cheap cheap reasons, you said it and published it nonetheless - and now a strong voice for important progressive causes has been terribly compromised.

I hope that you regain your footing.

Zei gebenched,

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com

"I will say that Edwards supporters seem to be more inspired by what he stands for (i.e., the actual policies), while Obama-ites seem mostly inspired by Obama himself."

Yeah, I think that's the difference.

Also, MLK was a great orator, but he backed it up with some pretty gruelling protest, and that is what makes him great today.

I can't throw the feeling that Obama is self consciously a celebrity in the making. Idealist.org resume, run for office, publish 2 books (autobiogrpahical ones, no less!), and round it off with the Bill Clinton Show.

But, we live in small times and we're not at all up to the challenges we face. So.

I think Obama is going to be able to sell a bipartisan plan to privatize Social Security. He's got the rhetorical power to really sell it to people.

It's going to be interesting to watch.

He's really good at saying the word "present", too!

He does it a lot, that is, when he shows up for votes.

JoeCHI:

A present?

I love presents!

Will my present be a pony?

Jesus, this post should have come with an Andrew-Sullivan-level-fanboy alert.

With this sort of encomium, why is an election necessary? More seriously, how can any opponent be worthy of respect? For that matter, isn't the democratic process itself flawed in its failure to recognize such unqualified merit?

Careful - these are dangerous grounds you're treading.

So it is possible to give fellatio through the internet. Thanks for the pointers, Ezra.

Ezra, this was embarrassingly stupid.

Ezra, this was embarrassingly stupid.
Nah. Look at E-man's pic upper-right.
That's a man who can't be embarrassed.

Good Christ.

I get the cynical resistance to persuasion. But Obama's speech simply was transcendent--and even better, it began to steal back a lot of the imagery that Ronald Reagan stole for Republicans in the 1980's. For God's sake, there were people unironically chanting "USA! USA!" at the Democratic winner.

This is a unique opportunity to re-brand liberal values as American values. Obama is QUITE good at doing that, in case you hadn't noticed.

You know, a lot of us liberals want our fucking flag back.

OMG, I am *so* excited about Barack. I got tingles just listening to his speech yeserday. They make jokes about us progressives sometimes, saying "kumbaya" and what not, but I really feel like singing kumbaya right this magical moment.

You know, a lot of us liberals want our fucking flag back.

Maybe so. But be honest. Most liberals are still busily wiping their asses with it.

And the rest of us are in no mood to sing Kum Ba Yah with you divisive ("we want our flag") twits.

My god this is like listening to a bunch of groupies on dope!

Ezra, were you high when you wrote this?

And to all the Obama cultists:

Isn't your puerile pseudo-religious nonsense disturbingly similar to the evangelicals' talk about how Bush was put on this earth by god to take on "Islamofascists"?

I thought you were all enlightened progressives who didn't fall for such nonsense.

Jacqueline, Obama is not Buddha or Bodhisattva. You are trivializing a great faith by applying these labels to a mere politician. And you are trivializing yourself by being so flippant with these labels!

ezra,

I like the speeches too. But what we need at this point is action not imagery.

"He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair."

Frankly this is offensive to me. This comparison is blasphemous even in the negative, precisely because it implies the positive.

And you hit on the thing that will ultimately kill this version of the Obama candidacy. Because you are too early in claiming victory over the color line.

Yeah he wins the under 35 crowd on the dems side in the mid west, but the the Southern Strategy is still alive and well, particularly in places like CA, FL, TX, and OH. Witness the implosion of Harold Ford in 2006.

He's sold himself to you, but has he sold himself to your mother? And the answer is no. The under 35s are part of the right trend, but they don't have the numbers to change the tide. 8 years from now it will be winnable outside the south, provided republicans haven't found a back door via anti-immigration back lash to re-attract the younger voters.

Your mother benefited from a women's suffrage movement that preceded the civil rights movement. And so will fall to the completion of the civil struggle of her era, a female presidency. When your generation arrives the later struggle of civil rights will have its shot at closure.

But now even with nice words you still lose. If there was some action behind those words, some confrontation of the powers of the US they might be enough to win even with fewer numbers, but right now he's all packaging, which you are helping to wrap.

"you are trivializing a great faith by applying these labels to a mere politician"

i dont think that obama is just a "mere politician."
we are all more than the sum of our parts.
i was speaking about him as a person, and not merely as a politician.
i dont believe that a person's essential nature is defined only by "what they do"...but by the way in which they conduct themselves, their manner in dealing with others and their beneficence.
it is my understanding that the term bodhisattva means,in broad definition, one who has achieved an advanced state of enlightenment through genuine compassion and sentience.
i believe that obama exhibits that quality.
whatever one might say of him, he has stayed on very high ground, which seems to be an almost impossible task in this arena, and at this time of ruthless unkindness.
imperfections notwithstanding, he has shown himself through his manner and conduct, to be a person of enlightenment by rising above the fray, instead of being dragged down into the mud and lowlands, where most "mere politicians" seem to be.
there was no flippancy intended in what i wrote.

sorry, if forgot to put my name on the comment above.

I don't know. When I listen to Obama, all I can think to myself if BS, BS, and more BS.

While being a gifted orator is a plus, it is not necessary. The country needs someone who can take a stand when it is needed. Obama has not demonstrated that in any way during this campaign. A moment's pressure and he is spouting the worst of Republican attack points against his opponents. He can do this only because the media has been very cooperative, but as President? I don't think he can.

He electrifies because he conjures compelling visions for the naive and the lazy. Daring to believe? Stand for change? - Can you imagine? That's all you need to do to change things. Daring to believe and standing for change. It's so magical!!

Nobody wants to listen to someone who will tell you that it takes work and determination. It takes ACTUAL competence. But woe to the person who questions the "daring to believe" and "standing for change" pablum as inadequate! You'll be labelled cynical by the naive mob!

You've been taken in by a gifted orator - that's all it is. Check his background, check his experience. There's nothing impressive there, at all.

Ralph is pretty much on spot. BS, and More BS. Obama is great rhetoric, with little (if any) substance.

As one commenter noted Hillary and Edwards health care plans "may be better on paper", that's because they are on paper. Obamas is still a bunch of fuzzy concepts. He's never really given the whole thing to avoid being beaten up on it.

I'll take substance over style any day. Obama is mostly style, and like most of Washington, and empty suit when it comes to substance.

Normally Ezra would claim such talk about a black man was coming from rascists speaking in code......

Can't wait to see Hillary's quiver of rascist code....

The YouTube video script almost writes itself:

"Ezra's got a man-crush on Obama..."

I mean, I'm going to vote for the guy, but to say that this feels "as if history has stopped flowing passively by" is a little silly, and only makes sense if your sense of political history only extends to the last ten years and the borders of the continental United States.

Frank Sinatra was a great singer of love songs, but you wouldn't want to marry him. Obama has been a senator and a state senator, and done nothing - and there is no reason that he will ever be able to anything, save stop smoking. As we, his neighbors in Hyde Park say, he couldn't even save the "Point."
On the other hand, he makes narcissists like Ezzie K fall in love with themselves all over again.

nice tongue bath. Dems will still lose in '08 (on account of you're still a bunch of weenies, sorry.)

To Reality Man: Actually Kerry's
healthcare policy on paper was not as clear and/or substantial as Howard Dean's.

Undoubtedly Obama can talk the talk,
(maybe is bodhisattva(no you're not high,

but can he walk the walk?

Ezra,

It is obvious you have never been in many Black Churches on sundays. Obama's skills are common place in Black religious circles.

Your commentary was a bit overkill and patronizing. I am excited as well it must be a racial thing for me to see white folks like you and others react this way makes me uneasy.

In this country sincere white folks are very rare in the Black community of course I doubt if you really appreciate that given your hue..

Jacqueline,

I take your comments that "he (Obama) has shown himself through his manner and conduct, to be a person of enlightenment by rising above the fray, instead of being dragged down into the mud and lowlands, where most "mere politicians" seem to be" and that "it is my understanding that the term bodhisattva means,in broad definition, one who has achieved an advanced state of enlightenment through genuine compassion and sentience."

Let us analyze this. You are claiming not that Obama is a politician with who you agree with, by whom you are inspired, and to whom you want to give your vote. You are seriously suggesting tha he is a man of enlightenment based on listening to may be a half-a-dozen speeeches.

Let me quote to you from a translation of "Dhammapada:, the great Buddhist scripture by Eknath Easwaran (I suggest you read this more carefully before you start throwing around these labels). Buddha literally means an awakened one. In the chapter with the same heading here goes:

"He is the conqueror who can nver be conquered, into whose conquest no other can enter. By what track can you reach him, the Buddha, the awakened one, free of all conditioning? How can you describe him in human language- the Buddha, the awakened one, free from the net of desires and the pollution of passions, free free from all conditioning?

Even the gods emulate those who are awakened. Established in meditation, they live in freedom, at peace."

In his book, Easwaran writes, "In early Buddhism,...,the word Bodhisattva referred solely to to that being who, before becoming Buddha, had vowed to become a Buddha over many lives in the distant past, and who finally attained nirvana in his life as Prince Siddhartha." In later Buddhism the word simply "came to mean anyone who vows to be reborn countless times, never to enter final nirvana untill the less sentient is rescued from samsara (worldly life)."

Are there any political leaders in the last two hundred years to whom we could apply this label? I can't think of many. May be a Gandhi, a Mother Teresa, perhaps a Nelson Mandela. I would be extrememly reluctant to apply these labels to even them.

My larger point is this. You and other Obama supporters like you are, with all due respect, being silly in talking about him in this manner and are frankly unfair to him because no mere mortal can fulfill all these expectations. You are going to be sorely disappointed.

On the political arena, he has been able to be above the fray so far because (a) here in Illinois he did not face any Republican opposition in any of his political races, and (b) has not faced any serious scrutiny from the National media. If you look at his history with Tony Rezko here in Chicago, it has all of the elements of greed, political backscratching, and questionable ethics. If you have seen the way he has abandoned his initial supporters as he ran for higher offices, I don't see a figure anyway near the myth surrounding him.

This is why Republicans win presidencies and we continue to lose them. They don't deify their political leaders at least not when they are seeking office. They are hard headed, pragmatic, and tough when they put them through their primaries. We Democrats buy into this "walks on water messianic" shtick, easily fall prey for lofty rhetoric, and get disappointed when the rest of the country doesn't agree with us in the general election. The problems this country faces are hard problems with serious ideological disagreements on solutions. One cannot wave a magic wand and while lofty rhetoric is nice, your opponents are not going to give in (especially when billions of dollars in resources are involved) just because of inspiring rhetoric.

Congratulations to Barack Obama on his win in Iowa. He does make exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is doing this. I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States.

srk

thank you for taking the time to offer so much explanation. i really appreciate it and think it creates a real dialogue.
as you know, the word "bodhisattva" evolves throughout the different historical stages of buddhism.
for instance, in the pali jataka tales, the term was used to illustrate the buddha-to-be's good qualities...it is thought that the original meaning was one commited to enlightenment, exhibiting characteristics of patience, generosity and compassion.
the word bodhisattva originally meant something like a being who is well on his way to becoming a buddha.
it has been quite a while since i looked at my copy of the dhammapada, but i will now.
even in the stories of siddhartha, it took many chapters of worldly experience to become perfected.
and so, i should have said, that on the basis of how obama conducts himself, i think he is bodhisattva-like.
and i dont agree with you, in that i think there are many people in the world to whom that term can apply.
i have met many people with such good hearts, high neshamas and elevated spirits, that i believe they will not leave this world til the last soul is saved.
i believe that these people are all around us, in the guise of children, emergency room nurses,kind strangers and yes, even in the words and actions of a mere politician who can uplift disillusioned people with a message of inclusiveness and inspiration...at a time when there is little of that on the horizon.
i dont believe that one has to be a mother theresa or a mahatma ghandhi to have a bodhissatva spirit...we all know humble and longsuffering people who have spirits that are as bright as suns.
and i happen to see the bodhissatva spirit in barak obama...and i feel uplifted and inspired by it.
it animates me and draws me back into the land of yes. i always see kindnesses and transformations as small miracles, so that is what i express in my posts.
thank you. i really appreciated the dialogue.

Edwards and Clinton supporters can be forgiven for attacking those who praise Obama's oratorical skills.

Otherwise, they might be reminded of 2002-2003 when their candidates were using their inferior oratorical skills to hype the Iraq War

If you think Ezra creaming his chinos is an inappropriate response to any oratory, no matter whose, that's attacking Obama's oratorical skillz?

Ezra's post was ludicrously over the top. Of course, it's possible that for some of the Schwärmerei on these threads, nothing could possibly be over the top. Sheesh.

This is parody, right?

i happen to see the bodhissatva spirit in barak obama...

I want a President, for pity's sake, not a spiritual leader. Obama would make a fine president, just like HRC or JRE would.

Good God.

Dammit, just had a great post comparing this atrocious fluff to how Mary McGrory fellated Colin Powell after his UN speech but the submission software ate it.
Ezra, get a hold of yourself, for God's sake.

Jesus, dude. I'm guessing that when a first date goes well, you don't wait two days to call.

So the dude can talk, that's great. But y'know what's truly inspiring? Not milling around, waiting to see how the numbers shake out before you cast your vote on war funding or domestic surveillance.

I know we modeled our democracy on the ancient Greeks' template, but enough with the pedestals already.

Can government do the work of God (Charity)?

What I have read and understood from the Bible is that God and Jesus wants us to help each other by using our own time, treasure and talent and to give from our hearts ("Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7). Nowhere have I found anything along the lines of "Go out and institute huge bureaucracies that will take money from some people at the point of a sword and give that money to other people as a politician sees fit."

Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions. They wrote nothing into the Constitution of any type of government "aid" to help the poor, children or anyone else on purpose. They wanted a very limited government for good reason. Limited government is the best way to ensure that freedom will be preserved. The Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, who lived during the time of the American Revolution and writing of the US Constitution, summed these views:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.

From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years.

These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

There are many interesting questions if citizens rely on government to do "God's Work."

If a government takes a portion of a man's wages and does good with it, has the man also done good? If a government takes away a portion of a woman's property and does evil with it, has the woman also done evil? When a rich man pays more in taxes than a poor person, is he more Godly? If the government then does evil, is he more to blame? A woman works for the government and uses other people's tax money and does "God Work" with it, is this government woman now a good/Godly woman? If I legally try to avoid paying taxes, does that not make me an "Ungodly" man?

Today, the US government (federal, state and local) takes nearly 50% of a middle-class person's paycheck after all taxes are factored in (income taxes, Social Security, sales tax, real estate taxes, gas tax, death taxes, phone taxes, highway tolls, sad etc.). Uncle Sam will spend more money in just this year (2004) than it spent combined between 1787 and 1900 - even after adjusting for inflation. I cringe at those numbers. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing like the tax-consuming monster that we have as a government today. I also think of all the good work that could have be done if people were allowed to keep more of their own money and give it to organizations/people that they believe in their heart are doing God's work. Maybe it comes down to trust. Will people do the right thing with their own money or must a government take a huge chunk of it to do the "right things?"

Except government rarely does anything right except for those tasks that were explicitly outlined in the Constitution as the Founding Father intended. I could cite many examples (such as where would you rather put $10,000 in retirement money - in Social Security or in your own 401k plan?) but the plight of black America illustrates this failure beyond comparison.

In 1965, the US government was going to wipe out poverty by the "Great Society" programs, in which to date over 3.5 trillion dollars has been spent. These federal programs were designed to "help families and children" or "buy votes" depending on your political viewpoint.

At the beginning of the 1960's, the black out of wedlock birth rate was 22%. In the late 1975 it reached 49% and shot up to 65% in 1989. In some of the largest urban centers of the nation the rate of illegitimacy among blacks today exceeds 80% and averages 69% nationwide. As late as the 1970's there was still a social stigma attached to a woman who was pregnant outside marriage. Now, government programs have substituted for the father and for black moral leadership. The black family and culture has collapsed (and white families are not that far behind).

Illegitimacy leads directly to poverty, crime and social problems. Out of wedlock children are four times more likely to be poor. They are much more likely to live in high crime areas with no hope of escape. In turn, they are forced to attend dangerous and poor-performing government schools, which directly leads to another generation of poverty.

Traditional black areas of Harlem, Englewood and West Philadelphia in the 1950s were safe working class neighborhoods (even though "poor" by material measures). Women were unafraid to walk at night and children played unmolested in the streets and parks. Today, these are some of the worst crime plagued areas of our nation. Work that was once dignified is now shunned. Welfare does not require recipients to do anything in exchange for their benefits. Many rules actually discourage work or provide benefits that reduce the incentive to find work.

The black abortion rate today is nearly 40%. Pregnancies among black women are twice as likely to end in abortion as pregnancies among white and Hispanic women.

The "Great Society" programs all had good intentions. Unfortunately, their real world results are that they have replaced the traditional/Christian models of family/work with that of what a government bureaucrat thinks it should be.

I could make an excellent argument that if the US government had hired former grand wizards of the KKK to run the "Great Society" programs, and if they had worked every day from 1965 to today without rest, they could have hardly have done better in destroying black America than the "Works of God" that the government has done or is trying to do.

I have visited many countries in which the government "guarantees" that everyone has a job, a place to live, education, health care and cradle to grave "government help" for all children and families. It all sounds great except that the people in these countries are/were miserable. They wanted to escape but were forced by their governments, at the end of a gun, to stay. The "worker's paradises" of socialist and communist counties are chilling reminders of letting governments do "God's Work."

The Bible clearly states that we are to help those in need. The question is "Who should help those in need?" I firmly believe that scripture and the historical evidence strongly support that individuals, private organizations and churches should be the ones doing the heavy lifting. Government help should be the last resort. "Charity," enforced by the government, is not charity, it is extortion. "Charity," delivered by the government, is not charity, it is a bribe which corrupts both the giver and the receiver.

Very Sincerely,

Mark W

mark
who should help those in need?

i am not a student of government or economics, so i cannot based my thoughts on a scholarly understanding.
therefore, this may not be the answer you are looking for.
but it would seem to me that it is the responsibility of the government (the safekeepers in a society) to ensure the health and well being of those who cannot take care of themselves in the society.
i agree that individuals, churches and private organizations should take on a commitment to help also...but individuals choose who they wish to help.
churches often take care of only their own and private organizations have vested interests and their funding and donations ebb and flow.
i think that the chosen overseers of any community must put nets in place to care for those who cannot take care of themselves.
isnt that the measure of a humane society?
you also say that family structure and culture is collapsing in our society, and you point to the government as the cause of this.
i think there are many reasons for the collapse that have nothing at all to do with government....
dislocations within communities, increased mobility, isolation, lack of education and sense of hope, the omnipresence of advertising and the media increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots and mostly, i think one of the greatest problems is the replacement of material values and artifice over spiritual ( not saying religious) values and the loss of connection with nature and moving into an artificial world where we are separated from nature and vital connections with seasons, sky and beauty.i think that this is one of the greatest spiritual dislocations and is a direct cause for many of the ills in society.
i would not trust individuals or churches to take on sole caretaking for others in need. the judgemental and cruel nature that emerges, the ruthless unkindnesses that emerge must only disappoint G-d.
you need only look at the hearts of many people to know that they cannot be trusted to care for the weakest among us.
you need only look at some of the huge ministries on television and their leaders, riding in private jets with multiple homes and dripping in diamonds, to know that they are not creating ministries in the image of Christ, with a towel and basin, gently washing the feet of lepor or the harlot, or clothing the poor. they are clubbing them in alleys.
therefore, it seems to me that the overseers of our society must step in to care for the weak and the needy.
if the breadth or limitations need to be increased or reduced, that is another matter, but the responsibility is there, nonetheless.

when i wrote above about the poor being clubbed in alleys..i meant by individuals. recent stories of homeless people being brutalized by groups of young people, just as some reckless people threw rocks and switches at a magnificent tiger in its altered and impoverished habitat.
again, i say that i would not trust the safekeeping of the weakest to individuals in our society.
not because we have been corrupted by government, but because our loss of connection with nature and through that, the sacredness of life, is slowly being wrung out of our hearts and culture.

"Our Founding Fathers were Christian and very pious men. They founded this country under strong Judeo-Christian tenets and reflected on their religious beliefs on all their decisions."

That's not true, which makes you either ignorant or a liar. If the former, look up the word "deist" sometime.

The preceding history lesson brought to you by the Defense of Slaveholders Foundation.

Thank you Ezra. Acropolis Review has an interesting take on the overlap of Ron Paul and Obama's messages of hope.

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/ron-paul-obama-and-hope-in-presidential.html

Do we have to wait until after he's nominated to see Obama heal the sick and raise the dead?

Corner Stone writes:

Ezra, get a hold of yourself, for God's sake.

Thanks, I'll be here all week!

Puh-leeze. His speeches never say anything specific(except about being against lobbyists - see below). He piles platitudes on top of cliches and mixes in some transparent MLK timing (keep the dream alive). He sounds good - but either listen carefully to what he says or read the text. The emperor has no clothes. Re: lobbyists - I've met him several times (nice enough fellow to shake hands with and chat for 30 seconds). Each time was at the large annual meeting of .... an important lobby of which I am a member. AND - when he speaks out against lobbyists, does anyone really think that this will include such as the teacher's union, municipal worker's union, trial lawyers? He is riding Bush loathing and America's post-Jim Crow love affair with "safe Black men" (remember when Colin Powell was # 1 in polls for Prez before he even declared a party). Shame on us if we fall for such frothy amateurishness. His statement about "true patriotism being an open discussion of the issues" is, I think, indicative of his thinking about America and its place in the world (fuzzy and "internationalistic").
Yech!!!!

Obama, the Big Con. Hold on to yur wallets!

Mr. Klein, thank you. In just a few short, well-written paragraphs that strike me as being your true feelings and impressions on hearing candidate Obama speak, you've incited a real and lively debate on the challenges any Democratic contender will face. Remember when Jimmy Carter was advised to stick to "style over substance" and also how the media flap over that advice presaged the public relations disasters that would plague the most thoughtful, intelligent, insightful president of his century? The Reagan Republicans understand how effective a well-spoken figurehead can be, while staffers and grunts take care of all the real work. The concept even apparently works when the front-man is a bumbling, ill-spoken dolt. When will my fellow Democrats understand and embrace this model?

Ye gods, Klein! You're kidding right? This is parody of the likes of, say, Peggy Noonan as she slobbered over her beloved "Gipper." I need to scrub my ears after reading this gushing mess...

Hey, Ezra, you dropped your Trapper Keeper! I can tell it's yours because it has "Mrs. Ezra Obama" scribbled all over it.

"You know, a lot of us liberals want our fucking flag back."

Well, they're easy enough to make. Anything in a solid white will do.

I agree that Obama is inspiring.

I firmly believe, however, that the reason he is "surging" is because of his judgement and policies.

The difference between Obama and Hillary, is that Obama's experience and judgement survive scrutiny when Hillary attacks it. Hillary just doesn't "cut the mustard" as a change candidate.

The truth is, Obama has more years in office than Hillary, and more relevant experience (of his own not his spouse's).

Hillary just doesn't have the experience when you really look into it.

So Hillary loses all the arguments. She can't claim experience, or change.

Go to www.barackobama.com and you'll see what i mean. Obama has been right about Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, and actually does have more experience than Hillary would like you to believe.

This sort of moonstruck, quasi-religious gushing about Obama is unsettling. When you are doing this about ANY politician, you aren't thinking clearly. You folks are in for a huge let-down. No politician, no human, could live up to these expectations.

Klein has a history of spasmodically orgasming over his political idols. Idolatry is embarrassing, dude. Get a grip.

"Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire."

Great line. Too bad you didn't think about it any more before you went into adoration and worship.

Obama's finest speeches... elevate.

This is such a spoogetastic verbal blow-job (now look again at the lead photo). If Obama actually wins the nomination, will the entire NPR class don hospital gowns and wander the streets openly masturbating?

Re: New Hampshire

"Where's your Obamessiah now, Ezra?"

Much like Obama's address advocating a "change" he does not elaborate on, this piece of writing seems to be generated out of fluff and empty rhetoric. In short... it means nothing. Does anyone find it even vaguely amusing that the word America hates the most, "change," has become the buzzword of this election? What is change? Gay rights? That's change. A woman president? That's change. Socialized medicine? That's change. But what America loves more than what it hates is fancy meaningless rhetoric-- so I guess, my man, you have done well here.

Interesting. I thought Saint.... er.... Barack Obama's Iowa victory speech was one of the most banal speeches I've ever heard.

"The tens of thousands of new voters Obama brought to the polls tonight..."

Iowa caucus results:

Democrats Vote %
Obama 940 38
Edwards 744 30 Clinton 737 29
Richardson 53 2
Biden 23 1
Uncommitted 3 0
Dodd 1 0
Gravel 0 0 Kucinich 0 0
Other 0 0

Thank you, Ezra, for not being afraid of being elevated. Obama is an uncommon politician, and I hope Democrats are able to recognize it.

Democrats are going to get owned if they nominate Obama. He's never had a tough race in his life, and is too liberal. Hillary is pretty liberal too but comes off as tougher because of her Iraq votes and her general persona(shrew). Nobody seriously thinks she would've invaded Iraq if she was president, so in most swing voters minds she'll have her cake and eat it too...which is why she voted the way she did in the first place.

If Obama is nominated his liberal positions will be a huge letdown to people that assume he has identical beliefs to them just because they really like to hear him talk. A few mean ads on 70/30 issues that he can't triangulate on will obliterate him. An ad that shows him whining about the surge and points out that Washington DC has a higher murder rate than Fallujah these days will probably not help him either.

I think you're talking about religion here and not politics. I think what you're describing here is speaking in tongues and you are involved not in political analysis but tent revival histrionics.

Is this the same Obama who voted for Iraq War funding every time, supported and voted for Condoleeza Rice, voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, chose Joe Lieberman as his mentor, supports and fawns over AIPAC, says we must increase the largest military in the world in both numbers and finances, has a litany of advisers who embody the DC status quo and spouts off about "CHANGE."

Is this the guy you're talking about?

What a maverick huh? Voted with Hillary 94% of the time and 100% of the time on all the major issues.

You people are delusional and exhibit zero critical thinking skills. This happens in cults.

A vote for Obama is to realize his dreams, not yours. He has cleverly capitalize on idealism to make you feel empowered to achieve his end of having his name etched in history. Don't forget, he's half-white. He may be a moving speaker but inspiration comes from within yourself. Let's face the perspiration and have the ideas not words. Notice that he copies ideas from Hillary. He's a step behind her. She's the solid trendsetter and trailblazer.

Aren't you embarrassed to talk this way about a politician who you admit says very little policy-wise? Look at the glowing comments to this pot too: "Obama is from a different world."

You've been sucked into a void where reason has been kicked out in favor of an emotionally driven faith.

It is funny to see the so-called secular leftists embracing religion so fervently. It pretty much blows a hole in Bill O'Reilly's thesis - the secular left was never secular.

Obama...surely THIS is 'The triumph of the Will'.
Lili Riefenstahl, call your office!

I certainly don't think the perceived "valedictory" from the powerful and headstrong Senator Clinton is a good bye at all. I feel she was being real, as opposed to her crocodile tear moment, and showing a soft, compassionate side of her nature -- an honest self-revelatory moment, in which she may have been looking for a little sympathy, but was not throwing in the towel. Though Senator Obama said he was honored at the start of the debate, I felt Sen. Clinton's stating that it was a true honor to share the stage with him was heartfelt. Though I feel she's sharper than Obama in a debate setting -- better on her feet; a better debater; has better instant recall; is much better with numbers; APPEARS better rehearsed; does not get flummoxed as easily; and has a better healthcare plan, she cannot get in front of this thundering, inspirational Obama Train; led by the rock star who Takes You Higher and whose oratory and cadence PBS compares with Homer, MLK, JFK, and Reagan. I feel sorry for what her husband has put her through, and yes I feel her words, but I look at her voting record -- which once added up to that of the U.S. Democratic senator who voted more on the Republican side than any other Dem. I look at her Iran vote, again acquiescing to Pres. Bush, and especially her Iraq vote, with the full force of her privy committee intelligence and information (and in which she never bothered to read the NIE), which promulgated the internationally illegal incursion into Iraq. Though I read the book she had out at the time, and knew of her desire to have healthcare delivered to the needy, I can't forget how irate I felt at smug-faced Bill appointing her to head his health care task force, so that she, un-elected by us, and at the preclusion of even Democratic elected congresspeople (as Obama said last night), shut herself behind doors, and tried to force policy, with the net result of killing health care for sixteen years. This was so ignominious that of course the bitter Republican conservative hate machine got revved up, joined by Dems. And of course, publications like the WSJ would look into her financial holdings (with short-selling and hedge fund investments against the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies) which were tantamount to violations of ethics and conflict of interest. Of course, even though the dollar amount was not great, people would look into fishy land deals in Arkansas and anything else involving those pillars and bastions of ethics and fairness, her Rose Law firm mentors and associates (who, by the way, were in charge of her hedge fund investments, thus exonerating her, so she claimed. Though I think Sen. Obama tends to jump on the Defense bandwagon a bit too much; and his voting record, like Mr. Edwards', doesn't comport with his current rhetoric, he's linked into the campaign financing gravy train; he, like most of the other Dem candidates, have no clue, or are revealing it, how health care costs will be reeled in; though he said of paramount interest in the Mid East was Israel, I'm still voting for him. I think he and Clinton can be great allies, even if she is not asked to be the Vice President. Since she's around 60, had her voting record been a little less conservative, the scenario had been set for eight years of Clinton and eight years of Obama, taking us to 2024. So if President-elect Obama cannot with expertise and compassion juggle the dozen or more hand grenades being passed off to him by Pres. Bush, the Rove machine has for a long time been tooling up for 2012, so watch out -- a heavy hammer going to fall.

Ezra Klein deserves to have his poetic license pulled for writing this drivel, and he needs to apologize to real journalists for trying to pass this bullshit off as the reflections of a rational mind.

Barack Obama’s dream is—Bring about real change, change that we can believe in. His passion for change is the pillar of his Personal Brand. Parts of his speeches: “America is a land of big dreamers and big hopes. It is this hope that has sustained us through revolution and civil war, depression and world war, a struggle for civil and social rights and the brink of nuclear crisis. And it is because our dreamers dreamed that we have emerged from each challenge more united, more prosperous, and more admired than before…….The true test of the American ideal is whether we’re able to recognize our failings and then rise together to meet the challenges of our time. Whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history, or whether we act to shape them. Whether chance of birth or circumstance decides life’s big winners and losers, or whether we build a community where, at the very least, everyone has a chance to work hard, get ahead, and reach their dreams….Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek…. I don’t want to settle for anything less than real change, fundamental change - change we need - change that we can believe in. It’s change that I’ve been fighting for over two decades ago. Because those dreams - American dreams - are worth fighting for”.

Like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, and Mikhail Gorbachev, Barack Obama is a man of peace, passion, integrity, vision, and love who is fighting against oppression and political corruption. Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy.
Remember this:

--------------------------
no dream + no hope + no self-knowledge + no mindset change + no integrity + no passion + no trust + no love = NO SUSTAINABLE CHANGE
--------------------------

Also Remember this:
------------------------------
Dream it, hope it, believe it, fix it in your mind, visualize it, accept it, respond to it with love, passion, and integrity, give your peak performance to it and you will achieve it
-----------------------------
.. >>read more at http://rampersad.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/46/

Go here to see the light:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/02/obamboozled_did.html

I think obama is going to win this time...

BTW, can someone tell me the names of all those corrupt Bush appointees several of you keep referring to? I remember Republicans Abramoff and Cunningham, but they were not Bush appointees.

Well, let's let time run it's course here...remember time wounds ALL HEELS!!! mr. b hussein o would be @ the top of the HEEL list =)

Obama has already won that battle

Thanks for you post,It's useful to me

share this as a good topic

good place for you and you will

I think your comments on Obama's speech are spot-on.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

The details will ultimately get hammered out in Congress anyway. But maybe we need the inspiration of Obama to get there.