Personally, Jesse, I don't want a Leader, and I don't want to be a follower. I'll be satisfied with having a decent president. Leadership talk rubs me the wrong way.
So we can safely assume you like Obama?
OK, the theory and the interpretation of it sounds nice enough. But whoever gets in is going to have to manage a hell of an economic disaster and will have to repair possibly our worst foreign policy ever set in place.
And, just out of curiosity, has G.W. Bush ever done any leading, managing or working? What kind of verbiage would indicate shirking?
Nope.
You can't safely assume I like anyone.
A week ago people were saying I must like Hillary.
Now people think I must like Obama.
Frankly I'm shocked no one has said I must like Edwards. *laughs*
I haven't said who I like. That's by design.
I will support whomever my party nominates and work with everything I have to get her or him elected.
Other than that.... GO TEAM GO.
Strong leadership is the ONLY way to truly deal with the hell of an economic disaster that is coming down the pipe..at least so it's dealt with correctly so it never happens again.
(Also, to avoid the other potential result of an economic disaster..something none of us wants to think about...)
The status quo is not sustainable. The firestorm needs to happen. Might as well be this year.
Oh and by the way. Obama isn't my ideal president...but these are special circumstances IMO.
If I recall correctly, Obama declared he would not run for President when he ran for the Senate.
I seem to have lost any faith I had in the future of the US. If I could leave the US, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm just worn out from this circus that plays out every day, run by big money and fueled by lies.
The only leadership I've seen lately was Dodd on the FISA bill.
Obama is not perfect...hell nobody is. I LIKE what Edwards is saying A LOT. But I could never really understand why he didn't gain traction.
Now I do.
I think in my life I often operate as a manger and not a leader. Always If this happen then this will happen...but it's always predicated on the if.
I've always been amazed at folk who seem to get it done as if it were ordained to be.
And other time s I've been a worker...asking permission if you will..selling my competence.
I see now that Declaration is the way to go and I also see that that's why Obama's message is resonating with all kinds of people even though it's coming from the mouth of a Black man.
howard dean used to say, if you want a president that you agree with 100% of the time you better run for office.
no one is going to be perfect, and whoever gets this job is going to have one hell of a mess to deal with-- and for that they will need all our help.
The only leadership I've seen lately was Dodd on the FISA bill.
If you look at this brief news conference of Dodd on the steps of the capitol in Des Moines on December 20, as he calls upon the other Presidential candidates to haul their asses back to DC in January when the Senate resumes to stand with him to fight to block the FISA bill from passing, even though, technically speaking, he's making a provocation, a kind of a request, it isn't actually a request.
It's a stand. Dodd is saying, "This is who I am. This is what I'm doing. This is what counts. This is what matters. If you have any fucking balls, you'll be there. If you don't, fuck you and now everyone knows what matters and what doesn't matter to you, you political hacks."
It's a pure declarative statement.
When I teach classes on listening, first I teach the distinctions -- Declaration, Request/Promise, Assertion/Assessment. These are the five core distinctions in language.
Then, once those are deeply buried in your biology, I teach you to learn to listen them irrespective of what people are saying. Thus even if someone uses the "correct" words, "I request you do x by time y" if they lack sincerity, e.g.: "bring me a glass of water please, you slimy pig-dog", or fail to deal with the background considerations, e.g.: they bring you a water hose instead of a water glass, when you asked for some water... then you learn that it's a failed request.
It ain't the words, it's the music.
Dodd is speaking with power. He is leading. It's all declarations in its heart, even though some of the words are request words.
Dodd could make it MUCH more powerful if he changed some of the words so all the words were declarative words, and thus matched the spirit of what he is saying.
Again, I will vote for Obama in November if the Dems nominate him, but this talk of "leadership" makes my skin crawl.
"Leader" is just English for "Fuehrer".
I agree with Dan Leo. I don't WANT a leader. The government of a democracy is supposed to SERVE the people, not lead them.
I want competent, conscientious public servants.
As Mr. Dylan said, "Don't follow leaders/Watch the parking meters". 
I have to agree with Jesse here, and I think it is an excellent theory explaining why I find myself drawn to Obama as the best nominee, as opposed to
Edwards and Hillary, both of whom I like a lot and both of whom would be light-years better than any Republican. To be a great President requires intangible talents, unique and somewhat esoteric, in addition to basic organizational skills. Republicans selling CEO Presidents running the country "like a business" have been dismal failures, and we continue to pay the price for it.
By the way, slightly off topic, but am I the only one who finds it somewhat odd that the general concensus in the media and in the punditocracy is to classify Obama as "African American" even though he is half white? It's the Tiger Woods argument all over again, and exposes the country's confusion about race and the overwhelming urge to put someone in the "proper" racial category. I think that this is one of the old-school conventions that Obama supporters, (especially the younger ones) would like to see fade into history.
I admit that I am unusual. I distrust emotions, and I must try, and sometimes I fail, to stop myself from despising the majority of the human species from relying so much on them.
Jesse may be correct about what it will take to brainwash the herd into moving in the right direction.
IBW, I've seen whinging on another list recently that Obama's not really "African-American," because he's not descended from slaves (and thus, ostensibly, didn't share the whole cultural experience of Africans in America). There seems to be an underlying assumption here that "African" in this context is necessarily synonymous with "slave" -- as opposed to simply "someone whose ancestors came from Africa."
If I were African (or African-American), I'd find this implication incredibly offensive. I thought the whole point of moving to the AA label in the first place was to put black Americans on the same neutral-language footing as Asian-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Native Americans. This kind of spurious bitching just negates that whole attempt.
This was a great post, Jesse. I'll probably add an update to my last Orcinus post pointing to it. It answered a question that's nagged me my whole life, which is why I hit trigger buttons for specific types of people. Some people seem to get their hackles up on sight when they meet me -- and this was an important piece of the puzzle.
It's because I'm 1) a working/lower-middle class 2) woman who often speaks in a direct and declarative way. Part of this is simple Scots-Irish cussedness: Borderers have always annoyed their betters by their insistence on natural rights; I come from a thousand years of people who will look you in the eye and tell it to you straight, and would die before they'd bow their heads or knees to anyone. And another part of it is just who I am: I'm smart and independent, I have strong opinions, and thus I'm prone use declarative "leader" language a lot of the time.
This can be very annoying to people who 1) think they outclass me by virtue of family, education, or gender; 2) think they're the leader on the scene at the moment; or 3) don't want to ratify my dominance for some other reason. I score VERY high in leadership and command skills on personality tests. I expect to be listened to, and will call reality as I see it. That's a great thing in a blogger -- which is why I love my job -- but annoying in a manager and downright threatening in a worker.
I realized, reading this, that I've spent a lot of the last 20 years learning, in the name of Being Nice, to learn the more polite and moderate language of management. I can do it, but it sucks. And occasionally (for the sake of my own sanity), I'll step out of the role and mock the phony blandness of that language, which again tends to offend and surprise people. I hadn't noticed that this was, at its core, a class issue; but yeah, I can see all that going on now.
Now that you've pointed it out, it'll be easier to shift gears and consciously choose to speak more appropriately for whatever setting I'm in. Thanks again for a very useful insight.
FDR, Martin Luther King, even some cult leaders have the quality. They were able to move mountains not by managing, but by inspiring people to a goal and a vision. You can attract people who are better at the details of how something gets done in the first place, and get them to work overtime.
The Democratic mistrust of inspiration is not because we are a more rational party, but because we have had 30 years of not coming to terms with some horrific losses of leaders. Our party was like the widow who never took off the black until Howard Dean came along and made our hearts stir again with both eloquence and humanity.
RC -
GWB bullshits.
He lies. This causes people to distrust him. When I finally get around to completing my article on trust, this will get very clear. (LM did some really wonderful art work for the post. I'd say the post is currently about 80% complete. But it's so important, including personally to me, I want it to be just.so. So everyone gets to wait. Sorry.)
The bottom line on Bush is, he's a lying sack of shit.
IBW (and others) -
Genuine leadership has nothing to do with brainwashing. This is purely your -- pardon me -- bullshit interpretation, coming from your negative outlook on life.
It doesn't fly here.
Every leader in every enterprise, from politics to bridge club, from the founders of the United States to someone starting a small company...
All make declarations.
It is in these declarations where something new comes into existence.
Marriages, courts, umpires, venture capital, are some of the institutions built up either to make declarations, or to take advantage of declarations people have already made.
It you struggle with this for a while, you should be able to work through the examples I gave, which are fairly self-evident.
Can't say I agree. They are all asking for - requesting - our votes. All three of them speak well (Obama best of all) but that doesn't have a lot to do with what kind of president each would be.
I also don't agree with the distinctions you draw between executives, managers & workers. Those are job titles that people can get regardless of their approach to leadership (or capacity to lead).
But if Obama can make things true by saying them, I guess he doesn't want us out of Iraq yet.
Even the writers of the Gospel understood this:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood."
-- John 1:1
We are meant to take this very, very literally. Human history began when we began to speak. Events occur, as Jesse says, when we declare them. By our word, new things move out of the realm of the darkness and into the light.
John, who wrote frequently and forcefully about the power of truth, put it to us straight: In the word lies the light of men. Nothing exists until we proclaim our intention that it be so.
Marek (and anyone else holding this position) -
It doesn't have anything to do with someone's job title.
It has to do with the person's accountability in an enterprise.
Executives are people in a company with accountability and authority to declare the fundamental direction of a company.
Managers are people who take the declared direction of a company, and make requests of workers, in order to implement that vision.
Workers make promises to managers inside a particular domain of competence.
That is how companies operate. All companies, everywhere. It includes the government. The military. Non-profits. And for profits. This is how it works.
Furthermore, the language I specified -- Declarations, Requests, Promises, is specific to each level. Period. I am an expert in what I'm talking about. This is something I have literally over a quarter-century of study in, at the feet of some of the greatest minds in the field whom have lived.
Of all the subjects I know at any level, this is one of the two I can claim genuine expert level understanding. Moving on...
In some companies -- one person companies for example -- obviously these accountabilities live in one person. But as companies get larger, they break out as I've described.
Why Obama is being successful right now -- I say -- is because he is speaking declaratively. He is declaring the direction of the nation.
Edwards is making requests.
Clinton is making promises.
I consider it very likely that Obama will win if Edwards and Clinton fail to shift their linguistic style. He is leading. They are not. Period, the end.
People will respond to him like a moth to the flame, and they won't know why. People will leave Edwards... not as fast. They will RUN from Clinton to Obama, now that Obama has managed to make the jump to a full on Declarative style. The difference is so striking, people will abandon Hillary's past-based style almost recklessly.
Count me as sceptical. We'll find out in time, but how many shining knights have portions of the American public anointed, only to be disappointed?
Rock stars usually have an appointment with reality at some time or other.
Steady hand at the tiller might be more useful.
I'm not saying it isn't possible for Hillary to pull it off.
I'm saying it's massively harder for her because she's talking against herself.
I emphasize I have NOT said whom I am in favor of. Really. I haven't.
I'm really torn about this.
On the one hand, I'm really pleased about what Obama represents - and he represents the media and the voters accepting without qualm that someone who represents a very different America than the thousand year reign of the neoconservatives we were being told two or three years ago was a foregone conclusion.
I'm thrilled that new primary voters are joining the process. I think it's terrific that someone who is labelled as the progressive candidate is the frontrunner.
The problem is that I don't think he is the most progressive candidate, and he's done a number of things in the past few years to make me feel that way.
He strikes me as a fellow who has a very definite well-thought-out game plan, and it could easily be that the reason he's tacked to the right since he's been in Washington is that he's decided that the best chance to get real change is to make the nominal Democrats in the "center" who are standing in the way of a progressive agenda feel as if he's not a threat. There's a case to be made for that, if that's the case he's making. If we've learned anything from Bill Clinton's early-on experiences with the greybacks, it's that what's best for America will go by the wayside if they feel they're not given proper deference.
That said, on bankruptcy, and on two of the worst Supreme Court nominations in history, he was on the wrong side (although after he made his case for the free ride he voted the right way, after it was too late).
I really don't want all those dewy new idealistic voters to have their hearts broken. We're going to need them.
"Nothing exists until we proclaim our intention that it be so"?---Mrs. R
Uh, the natural universe and many, many other living species in that universe existed LONG before human beings existed.
If Mrs. R means that literally, she's getting dangerously close to that anonymous Chimperial staffer who said "We create our own reality". Some of Jesse's comments strike me as approaching that state of mind, as well. I actually hope I AM misunderstanding both of them. The reality-based community can't afford to lose members.
Count me as a #3, Mrs. R, but don't think it's a particular antipathy to you. I take little, if any, interest in ratifying ANYONE'S dominance. It's not #2, because I've never seen myself as a leader, and not #1, because I'm as proletarian as you, and quite Anglo-Celtic to boot--the latter might go a long way toward explaining my reluctance to ratify anyone's dominance.
As I noted on another thread, this world has taught me to save my hopes and dreams for the next one, if there be a next one. Our natural universe is a fascinating thing to study, but I don't think well of it as a place to live.
As the old song says, this world is not my home.
Either my home lies in the next world, or I don't have a home, never had one, and never will have one.
Brilliant, JW.
@ Mrs Robinson |
LOL. okay maybe i classified myself all wrong...
ALL the problems you mentioned are ALL the problems I have with people except I'm 1. Black @. Femal and 3. Poor
So they really have NO CLUE about how I can be so self-assured and secure in myself, my opinions and my place in the world.
It's also why sometimes I don't get the job even though the interview went well. People who like to icro-manage or have complete control of their workers worry they can't do that with me and won't hire me.
I know the type when I see it and if they are the only ones making the decision on the job it's likely I won't get it. It always sort of crack me up...I know how to be a worker..even if I don't like it.
@ Mike..you're an idiot. Sorr but you are.
Race is really simple in this country...you are what you look.
Obama looks Black he is Black
Same for Tiger, Alicia Keys and Lenny Kravitz.
If you Look White...you are White - Rashida Jones (the Office), Mariah Carey and Jennifer Beales.
If you look Mixed white people (and Black people) afford you a special status between the two.
Like all the white people who fawn over my child because they think she's mixed even though she's not.
Oh and Bi-racial babies didn't become bi-racial until white women started having them regularly. Prior to that they were Black.
Obama is a Black man.
Period.
Jesse,
I guess I don't understand what you're saying then, despite the italics and absolute declarations. Maybe it's too expert for me. But I'll re-read the post a few times to see what I can make of it.
"Our party was like the widow who never took off the black until Howard Dean came along and made our hearts stir again with both eloquence and humanity."
Well said, Carol. Couldn't agree more.
And I share juia's concerns about Obama. I recall so many of us having similar reactions to Bill Clinton in 1992 and having our hearts stomped on in short order. I sure hope that doesn't happen if Obama is the nominee and wins. Put the pattern looks somewhat similar to me in terms of his voting records and his advisers and some of his rhetoric.
Another thing that bothers me somewhat -- Obama gives a fantastic speech but in debates and interviews he talks like a policy wonk crossed with a professor crossed with John Kerry. He just doesn't come across as strong and clear and to the point. It's incredibly frustrating -- expecially when compared to John Edwards who can do both pretty well, imho. He's always on message and very good at conveying his points clearly. Obama really needs to learn that skill asap.
All this said this Edwards supporter will obviously back Obama if he's the nominee. And I'm thrilled all the young peeps are voting -- that is so inspiring to me -- more inspiring than Obama's win, frankly.
Jesse:
I agree with you entirely. I was trying to get a handle on the distinctions between the campaigns and you captured it exactly.
If you don't mind an off-color anecdote I'll explain the moment I knew this election was over--and for the reason you cite. I was watching the Orange Bowl at a friend's house in Houston during the Iowa Caucuses and sitting there with us was my friend's 80+ year old grandfather who pops by from time to time to watch games on a big screen TV. This old guy is your typical old weatherbeaten West Texan who served in the Marines in WW-II and spent most of his life working on oil rigs. He hasn't voted for a Dem since LBJ and is about as politically incorrect as they come.
As the evening wore on we flipped over to CNN to see the election results and caught part of Obama's speech. When Obama came on my friend's old grandfather seemed to wake up and spoke the first words I heard him speak that evening:
"ye-ep....[nods] this time I think I'll be votin for that 'nigra' Obama...he's the only one who makes any sense....ye-ep"
When a young black man from Chicago starts winning over crusty old white Republicans from West Texas this thing is over. And it's not because of his platform or experience or partisanship. It's because he is inspirational and he makes people feel good about the future. Americans are the most naturally optimistic people on the planet. That's what they respond to.
Marek -
If you're really having trouble getting it, feel free to email me with your questions.
I can't promise to get back to you tonight as my arm is about to give out, but I will get back to you, so don't hesitate to write. I want to make sure you get it, so you have a fair shot at agreeing or disagreeing. *grins*
Jesse--thanks much. You've captured exactly what is going on.
(Interesting sidelight--at one regional Toastmaster shindig we had a direct comparison of the difference in rhetoric and body movement between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole when accepting their relative nominations. Given how good a speaker Bill is, I'm surprised Hillary isn't better.)
Obama himself is meaningless in comparison to the movement that's being created. It's the match thrown on the pool of oil.
If it was Edwards to do it, I'd support him. If it was Clinton, I'd support her.
Hell, if it was LIEBERMAN, I'd support him. No, really. (No chance in hell, but still)
But that's the way it is. The status quo is no longer sustainable. The national squabble over which direction..not just how to get there like most nations, but over what the basic goals are...that needs to end and soon.
And the debate, in a democracy can only truly end in one direction, which is why it usually does. It's why America is the lone industrial nation without a comprehensive health care plan of some sort...there's not even a PLAN, it's just a mess.
The obstructionism of the conservative movement must stop. Period. Conservative beliefs are fine, but they must sign on to the same line that states that the goal is to create a better life for all, and not just the fat cats.
JJ, honestly, I think some of it does come from an attitude of "I don't have anything -- but I own my own soul, and I have my dignity. And you can't take that away from me without my consent -- which I will not give, to you or anyone else."
"We wuz pore but we wuz proud" is a statement of pride that's been common to underclass Americans of all races. It's the first spark that allows us to step up and make things better for ourselves. It's what keeps us from being peasants, who have no pride and no hope.
And it pisses the hell out of people who think they outrank us. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The only exceptions are people who've pulled themselves up a rung or two, and have some respect for the journey. Those who were born on top simply have no idea what we have to be proud of, and are threatened that we appear to be claiming something they think we have no right to.
Bull shit on the post, and your reply(s).
Obama makes promises. He makes speeches.
That aint' enuff, eveh. It's just punditry.
Gimme the candidate with some meat.
Edwards. Heart and soul.
Peddle the mental mastrubation elsewhere, Doc.
Yer just lookin for blog hits, and I guess, you got mine.
But I'm a cheap and easy rise, I post on ALL the blogs when people are lame and mostly poking for responses. *G*
JJ
Obama is a black man
Period
In your opinion...
Mike the Idiot
To clarify: JJ said:
"Race is really simple in this country...you are what you look."
I agree, that's the way it is.
Don't you wish it were different?
Tiger does:
http://www.texnews.com/tiger/
pri...ride042197.html
At this juncture the country needs a transformative leader to take us forward into the challenges of the 21st Century.
I believe 2008 will be a watershed election on the scale of 1860 or 1932.
We need a Lincoln, a FDR, a JFK. Being a good manager or a hard worker isn't enough at this point. The nation is hungry for leadership.
Now mind you I like Edwards a lot and I've given him a bunch of money. But as Jessie points out, unless he DECLARES and starts using the language of a LEADER his campaign is over.
I can live with President Obama, in fact I think he may very well be the tonic this nation and this party need.
"Tonic"? Uh, isn't that another word for "snake oil"?
Hey, Jesse, thank you for this mo' betta meta.
I think there's something essential to your descriptions.
In the humble opinion of this wholly unrepentant Deaniac, I think a movement is what's needed. We're way beyond the need for competence, now. Servant-leaders who inspire are the way to go.
Well if Obama is doing so great because of the "vision thing" I can't say he's actually spelled out that vision in concrete terms, or at least in terms that define exactly what the change is all about. Because as far as I can see his foreign policy isn't much different than the one we have now. Other than making the military industrial complex even bigger yet, or promising not to start any more "dumb" wars ( just the "smart" ones I guess). So far all he's done is breath new life into American exceptionalism, but I suppose that what the vision is all about - just ask PT Barnum, or Smedley Butler for that matter.
Not that your theory is without merit, pretty elegant as a matter of fact.
If people have questions for obama, , as I do, if there are positions he has held that we disagree with, then we should question him on it - or anyone else we are considering for a job like president.
If they stumble on the answers, fuck 'em - they're done.
If they step up and take a stand, or hit it out of the park, good on 'em. But - we don't take our eyes off 'em for a second.
man some of you havne't paid anya attention to obamam...or are too tied up in heor worship of your own horse that you can't see whatas going on. IBW there are too types of leaders...
I spent years in the boy scouts in my youth...many years. and rose rather prominatly, had a number of national offices, commite chairs and all that. whent through plenty of leadership traing and you relise there are to types of leaders...teh type bush wants to be, they issue orders, force respect and compliance lord there position over every one else (facist tpyes basicly). and then there are the good leaders. they type that lead holisticly, you fallow them because you wnat to fallow not because you where forced. They inspier you to greatness, allow every one to acheve their potential. I have been around that type of leader, it is amazing. you fallow his directives not because you have to, not because you are orderd to. but because its the right thing to do.
The best leaders are not dictators, they are servants, they assist every one else in reachign greatness, in acheving the shared goal. Look at obamas history, he cut his teeth on the streets as a community organizer doing exactly this...hell look at the obama champaing, its not about him, its about raising every one up.
I learend early on how too spot good leaders and how to spot the dictators that needed mocked, i was a regional vice cheif, and national commite chair on three different commites manly because i also relized early on tha I am not a leader but a manager (i can take the vison and impalment it, skills needed for a number two, not a number one). this is why I truly hope we get a obama/edwards ticket, we need great leadership and great managemtn right now in this nation, that team would allow both ofthem to excell at what they do allowign the rest of us acheive greatness.
I appreciate your post...I have pretty much alwayd fallen more into the leader category myself - it's more an issue of self-awareness than anything else, I suspect.
I also think that Edward's problems stem overwhelmingly not from how he frames his message, but from the fact that NOBODY CAN HEAR his message due to the near-total media blackout on him. The American public is mostly uninterested in all of this - we blog readers are the exception, not the rule. If they don't hear someone's name mentioned a million times a day, if they aren't TOLD time and time again that so and so is the "front runner" they just simply fall off their radar screen. Hillary and Obama have both gotten MORE than their fair share of the press leading into primary season - the 1st Woman vs. 1st black meme is easy for the press to hang onto (and personally, I think the news media knows that Edwards will call bullsh*t on their cheerleading and likely do something that may hurt their corporate master's bottom lines...hence, total blackout. This all feels sort of like form over function to me, and it worries me. I would really prefer to wind up with a winner, rather than the candidate that the Right has carefully selected for their ability to be destroyed in the national election by whatever creature they wind up running...
That said, I will heartily support ANY of them in the general!
I do hav an advantage, living in Il and living in Obamas old district, I have seen a lot more of him then most of you. Understand that in my late 20's never having step into a voteing booth or regesterign ot vote in my life he got me to the voteing booth, hell he got me to vote in a primary...at the tiem I was a guy who thaught voteing was irrelivant as we would onyl get to vote on lesser of evil types (hillery).
my wife, also never having voted, registed for the first time, voted and volenteered.
On the night of the congresional elcetions we where haveing dinner with some friends and their parents, they are all very levle of conservative....they all voted for obama. My friend, a nixon was god type of republican stated that we where lookign at our next president..he has sense switched parties and is volenteering on obamas campaign in kentucky.....let that sink in. The man has changed the game...this is the first leader...true empower his people type of leader thsi nation has seen in decades...no more fear, no more trying to deenergize voters. see that is how politions won in the old way, they tried to keep people away from the polls, if that was still teh game hillary would be president. Obama changed the game.
Thanks for the reply about GWB, Jesse. My point was that there may be a fine line between lies and visions.
As a self employed one man operation for almost my entire life my ideas are somewhat different than the construct you offer, although I find no fault with your essay or your ideas.
I just don't think all that highly of the construct we are obviously living under that requires these declarations to come from the "leader". I'd like there to be far more chiefs and far fewer indians if you will pardon a perhaps non PC phrase.
All the same, perhaps you might steer the intellectually curious amongst us to some seminal works on the net that
flesh out the theories you are expounding.
I realize that the leader-manager-worker concepts are very nice, quite neat and orderly and perhaps they explain some dynamics.
However, in the world I live in {quasi third world Caribbean -- more prone to threats, corruption and manipulated ignorance as motivations} I hardly recognize the roles as viable.
And may I posit that US politics is quite a bit more like "Don't Stop the Carnival" and "Candide" than it is like any sort of hierachical thesis.
Just look at the bizarre means we have haphazardly created to have the field run the gauntlet from intention to realization on the path to the Presidency and you must admit the entire game is based upon madness, not management theory.
The US Democracy is going through a very bad stretch here and simple declarations, while much better than grammatically deficient lies, are no magic wand.
Your theory does stand up in the area of voter mentality, however. And if Mr. Obama has been sharp enough to figure out the game then I trust he is also ready to more than competently fill the office.
After all, GWB should be an extremely easy act to follow.
In my opinion, we need to hark back to the Jeffersonian idea that our government must fear us, the people who put them into office. Right now the government thinks it can fuck with us any time it chooses; so it's time to change that.
We elect leaders, managers, and layabouts, but what we're really doing is electing an EMPLOYEE. Whoever squats in the Oval Office for 4 years is a public servant. We hired him, and he or she or it needs to be constantly reminded that "we put you here; we can take your ass out."
Speaking of the government fucking with us, is it only me who divines something odd about this?
http://whaven33884.blogspot.com/...kin-
anyone.html
Great post Jesse.
Bull shit on the post, and your reply(s).
Peddle the mental mastrubation elsewhere, Doc.
larue -
I like you, and you're a good friend of GNB, which is why I can say something tough to you (which I notice you never seem to have trouble saying to me. *laughs*)
A hell of a lot of what you simply don't understand or blow off, is none the less true.
Some of it even makes a difference.
Brilliant!
EXACTLY!
You have analyzed the hellouta this one, Jesse, Thank you.
It makes so much sense.
I'm glad someone at Firedoglake linked to this post. Interesting take on "What to make of Obama?" I wonder what Jesse's explanation makes of this aspect of Obama: the vagueness, which bothers many, is part of what draws people in. He leaves enough unsaid so that you, the listener, have to fill in the blanks, and once you do, you're engaged in a process - of what exactly, I don't know. Changing political discourse? Creating the Obama of your dreams? Or investing in the success of a particluar candidate? At any rate, I agree with moonglum: he changed the game.
Great post jwe. What a photograph,
the first thing that came to mind
was to think thats what the dynamic duo look like when they are not wearing capes. For the moment, Obama is Batman. More seriously I am wondering whether that pose is telegraphing the message that should either be the nominee, he will chose the other for veep.
Periwinkle Spark Plug: watch edwards Iowa speach, and understand that he and obama havne't attacked each other much...edwards really harped on how this was a win for change didn't he.
that was a reather knwoign smerk he had before his speach...he know somethign we don't know kinda look....
Jesse, this is a great post. You've found a way of putting into words the differences among our top 3 candidates.
I like your quotes from the Declaration of Independence. I would like to build on that by offering some words from our Constitution, which is after all our governing document. They are the familiar (or are they?) words from the Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
These words are poetry, and Obama is the first political leader in years who can give these goals contemporary meaning. Bill Clinton showed that he could do this when he presented himself as the man from Hope and spoke of a New Covenant. Then he forgot his own images, let Hillary get bogged down in the details of health care, and gave into his own personal desires and got caught.
Republicans have completely abandoned any pretense of leadership on these great Constitutional goals -- except, of course, providing for the common defense, which under George W. Bush has degenerated into the assertion that we can wage wars of aggression and conduct interrogations based on torture at the whim of a "Decider."
Republicans abandoned any possibility of national leadership when they adopted the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, that "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." Reagan thereby threw out the whole point of the Constitution, which was designed to create a strong national government after the multiple failures under the weak central government established by the Articles of Confederation.
The authors of the Constitution knew that a successful nation required a strong government in order to accomplish the purposes they so eloquently set forth. They were, of course, scared of such a powerful government. Their solution (something else I thought was well understood): a government of separate institutions sharing powers and thus able to check and balance each other, along with a Bill of Rights to protect individuals and groups.
What an irony that the party which claims to see government as the problem has, under George W. Bush, revealed itself as an authoritarian party devoted to creating a Big-Brother government headed by a "unitary executive" able to interfere in our most personal decisions and monitor our every move and transaction.
So, in the current political environment, only a Democrat can address the goals set by our Constitution, and Barack Obama is the Democrat who can do that far, far better than any politician on the scene today.
one thing I don't get is why every one is talkign about florida beign a sure hillary win. sure there are some transplanted new yorkers there but she splits that with guliani. flip through florida cable channles. you will notice WGN on the list at cahnnal 9 (same channle as chiacgo) that is a local chicago station, it carries the cubs and local news. (im sure new york as something similar). the cable providers had so much demand that they had to carre it, tried to get rid of WGN in the 80's, got so many phoen calls that it was back at 9 in a day. At least in teh tampa area more old people where watchign teh chicago news then the florida news....that should tell you somehting
Seems some people are confusing the style of Obama's campaign for the content. As was rightfully noted these folks all require careful scrutiny.
Obama seems to be riding high because of his style, Edwards seems to attract people more closely attentive to content. The idea that they would make a good team is precisely in alignment with Doc's analysis.
hey I would be happy with obama or edwards as our nominee as long as it isn't hillary. but lookign at hsi style, i think edwards is best suited to be veep. hes an attack dog, he needs to be in a position where he can do the dirty work.
Obama's pulled ahead on the strength of his leadership vibe, I get you there, Doc Wendell. But I want to hear his inner wonk now -- let him bring a big box of brass tacks to the proceedings.
Let's remember Jimmy Carter in '76: a fresh face who spoke for a new way of doing things to an utterly demoralized USA; Carter's religiosity was sincere & unapologetic like Obama's & he too offered a new chapter in our moribund dialog on race (unlike northern liberals Carter could speak of his own personal debt to the civil rights movement). He was sometimes derided for practicing Feel Good Politics as well -- I remember a Pat Oliphant cartoon of the time that portrayed Carter as a gigantic toothy grin with reporters trying to find something, anything, behind it.
In office he was -- to use your frame -- a piss-poor manager & totally flat-footed when it came to the troubles that came his way.
Now Obama gets the "dreamspeak" of America better than anyone else up there, I just want to hear some passion about actual policy before I get to the polls on Super Tuesday. So far the best news in that regard was a piece describing how Team Obama actually functions: not over-consulted, not easy to panic & fast on their feet when things get rough. Can they get Manager Obama out front now (cuz that's the friggin job!) and will the press bother to notice?
Can they get Manager Obama out front now (cuz that's the friggin job!
infodog -
No, it isn't.
RR whom I hated as President, was in many respects, a good President when you move past the specifics of his politics.
He inspired the country. He set the direction of the nation. He pointed "this way" and "this way" we went.
That "this way" was horseshit... well, that's an entirely different conversation.
But as President, he did his job. He even selected competent people around him, to implement his vision. You can't argue, that RR had competent people around him to turn what he wanted done, into practical politics and legislation. THAT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING HE DID, has nothing to do with my analysis.
He was a good President, in terms of being a leader. I just hate where he led us.
Bush 43 on the other hand, is the worst President this country has ever had. He started out with less than half of the country voting for him, moving down towards 30% in popularity. Then he got a terrific bump in popularity with 9-11 and used it to lie the country into a war with Iraq, and took everyone over the edge into his obsessions.
He has bankrupted the country, looted the country, and destroyed our moral integrity. The people around him are all liars and cowards. None of them have managed to take Bush's vision and be successful at it. We have lost the war, the economy is shit, the ecology is destroyed.
One could argue Bush's entire Presidency has been to raise oil prices and transfer money to the mega-rich while looting what was left of the United States. If so, he has been successful. But in the terms of what he claimed to be doing, he has failed.
Obama does not have to manage jack shit. In fact, if like Carter, he gets into managing, he will fail. He needs to stay OUT of managing, and stay up at leading. Not to say he shouldn't know what the hell is going on. He should. But that isn't his job. His job is to lead, to set forth the vision, and to make the calls between competing visions. Then let his managers work out the implementations.
Ronald Reagan may be the foremost reason I do NOT trust "leaders" or the emotions they inspire. I saw too many of my fellow citizens abandon reason and follow that grinning bullshitter.
Oh, wait, there's the crazy Austrian with the dorky mustache, too.
Any time someone tries to appeal to my emotions, I assume that's because he can't make a rational case for his position, and/or he is trying to con me.
Obama speaks in dreams, wishes and political platitudes. Immaturity is the foundation of his speeches. Any experienced parent will readily recognize the fantastical immaturity behind Obama's wishful speeches. Clinton & Edwards are experienced in the brutality of life & political life. America needs an battle tested leader not an inexperienced dreamer.
The view from next door:
I'm in Canada & watching all of this with more-than-academic interest. I keep hearing over & over that Edwards would likely be the better man for the job, but that Obama's style trumps his substance - & that America needs to feel good about itself again.
What am I hoping for from your next President?
Integrity that won't "reach out" to people whose activities include using the Magna Carta for toilet paper, using deceit to go to war, & instituting torture & concentration-camps as official policy ... unless one of those hands is holding handcuffs.
A degree of backbone sufficient to REVERSE every one of the proto-fascist laws put in place by the current Administration, even if it makes some ignorant folks think they're "soft on terrorism" ... & the ability to both perceive & respond to the simple reality that America's government is now actively despised by much of the rest of the world, not out of envy or spite, but because its self-inflicted decline now seriously threatens the rest of us, & its self-appointed role as the world's Judge Dredd is both dangerous & irresponsible. In 1983 that attitude came within literal minutes of ending human civilization. In 2008 it can very quickly rob us of the miraculous opportunity Gorbachev gave humanity when he defused the Cold War. Iran in 2008 appears to me more & more like Serbia in 1914 - & I've heard NOTHING lucid about this from any Democratic candidate.
Am I the only one noticing that the model being applied to the Democratic front-runners here is a CORPORATE model, not a civic one? Instituting that same model as the predicate of politics was the heart of the Reagan/Thatcher movement, & seemed quite sensible to a lot of people in the early 1980s, even some who differed with their radical ideology. It was an integral aspect of the results that movement spawned: a Pentagon making 3500$ toilet-seats, a Secret Team running a vicious proxy army, & the nearly apocalyptic extension & ramping-up of the Cold War. By the end of GHW Bush's presidency, people had been conditioned to see such psychotic monkey-wrenching as "Business As Usual" & the gutting of the social safety net as "good for business" - even though government is NOT a business.
Find something in the core thesis of this essay that you can imagine Reagan or Thatcher disagreeing with ... the governing of a state is NOT the same as the running of a company. Confusing the two usually leads to states where votes have no value, not to companies where policy is voted on. But once you start to think your nation should be run like a business, the damage has already begun - before you change a single law.
That shift of thought-pattern, by the way, was the fundamental goal of the original Neo-Con project in the 1970s.
Looks to me like they won.
Pretty offensive to workers.
Leadership is actually my minor right now, and this has given me a lot to think about. Up until reading this I didn't really view anyone in electoral politics as exhibiting the traits of transforming leadership. However, you have rightly pointed out how Obama uses charismatic leadership, which is related.
Bill Clinton said he wanted to be transforming, only to later be blasted by the man who coined the term. Maybe, however, we do have real change on the horizon.
I don't normally post and run on sites I'm unfamiliar with but I had to respond.
Leadership is about declarations? I was waiting for the satire to kick in but it never happened.
Let's take, for example, your climatic analogy that in the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America it says,"we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Classic.
Yes, beautiful declaration. What they really meant was "all men are created equal... as long as you own land and are neither black, Native American or a female" ... in other words BS. (thanks to George Carlin for that wisdom).
Thus, the problem with your argument. If you look for leaders who make declarations you are duped into believing somehow that words speak louder than actions. You hear a wonderfully fluffy speech by some honey-tongued orator and you are immediately swept off your feet. Do you care if he follows through on those declarations? No because you have been sedated by the words such as Unite! and Change! and Prosperity! - unconcerned if any of them ring true.
Yes you are right about Obama being a person who can make these declarations. He can say all the right things and not follow through. He can talk about "ending the war" and "health care" yet his track record in the senate is littered by votes of "present" or "did not vote". So, by your argument, Obama would constitute a great leader since it only matters if he can talk a good game.
No, give me a leader whose declarations are matched by the actions that follow them.
If we refrain from thinking of government in corporate terms, perhaps we can dissuade corporate hacks from running for office as a means to pad their resume?
Jesse, first time I've read you and this is transcendent writing. As I go through life I am continually shocked whenever I read someone that makes it obvious how much smarter they are than am I.
You'd think by now I'd be used to it, but it continues to shock.
All I can say is wow. How on earth do you have such insight.
Excellent analysis!
Here's what I take away from it:
1) Just because a person is a leader, doesn't guarantee they will be a good president.
2) A person can't be an effective president unless they are a leader.
3) The voting public recognizes a leader when they see one.
My candidate dropped out in Iowa so I don't have a dog in the fight. I think the top 3 candidates have great platforms but Obama is also a natural leader.
I've read the books "Emotional intelligence" and "Social Intelligence" by Daniel Goleman, and they really resonated with me. Until I read them, I had been baffled by my odd ability to inspire others to achieve common goals... LOTS of folks, all at one time. I can talk to a crowd of 700 strangers in an auditorium and make them all cry at the same time, followed by hearty belly-laughs two minutes later. I've created many, many organizations (charity fund-raisers and clubs, mostly), and hosted hundreds of massive parties where NOBODY ever causes problems - Everybody is on the same wavelength.
I can walk into a crowded room of strangers and tell within ten seconds what the "vibe" of the room is, and who are the leaders in the group. It's not a skill that can be trained, ever. I can talk to eighty strangers and come away with 78 e-mail addresses.
To some of the cynical folks here, my words probably don't make sense to their way of thinking. But, there are actual brain-structures that aid intuitive assessment of crowds that some folks (maybe one in 10,000) have in larger-than-normal quantities, and I'm one of the rare ones. I think Obama is, too.
Unfortunately, every time we Progressives get a charismatic leader in a position to inspire change, they get assassinated with bullets (Kennedy), or with endless attacks (Bill Clinton). We need to protect and forgive our leaders, even when we are told terrible things about them. We need their inspiring words more than we need their perfection. If we wait for a perfect leader, we will wait FOREVER.
Excellent analysis and discussion. Let us hope that whoever gets elected can do the job. It is one think to identify traits and another to put it into practice.
We really need to be inspired as a people and that starts by being involved. Let's
keep the dialog going and see where this campaign takes us. It is still a long way from finishing and many things will happen along the way to change the way we think.
One think is for sure we really need a good leader to face the problems we have and will have in the next few years. Everyone is watching to see if the inspirations that we have had in long history can again come to the forefront to make a difference.
Brilliant analysis. Too bad even the left wants to argue rather than hear this wonderful analysis. You've nailed exactly what I thought but didn't have the ability to say.
....But none of this means anything if our election system is still hopelessly fubar. What are we going to do about that?
Obama likes nukes and their money.
Edwards likes Wall St. and their money.
The only thing I like about Clinton is her foul mouth.
Sigh.....poor America.
Excellent analysis and discussion. Let us hope that whoever gets elected can do the job. It is one think to identify traits and another to put it into practice.
We really need to be inspired as a people and that starts by being involved. Let's
keep the dialog going and see where this campaign takes us. It is still a long way from finishing and many things will happen along the way to change the way we think.
One thing for sure is we really need a good leader to face the problems we have and will have in the next few years. Everyone is watching to see if the inspirations that we have had in long history can again come to the forefront to make a difference.
IBW -- you've made your point. About half a zillion times and I've been patient and patient and I'm no longer patient. Unless you have something new to say, shut up in this thread.
Everyone -
I have to go pick up my daughter who is trapped in a snow storm.
I will try and comment later tonight for some of you, but may not get to it till tomorrow. Please be patient.
Congrats, Jesse! A great analysis that's making rounds in the blogosphere. More of the same, pls!
"I have to go pick up my daughter."
May you both return safely.
Talk all you want to about "style." I am sick of it. I look at past performance and experience and stands on issues. I also look at hidden agendas that are exposed by men like Obama when they betray parts of their base. That is why I supported Dodd, and mow I like Clinton best.
Kathy: as an experienced parent I call bullshit on your post. not neing jaded, not being a cynical power graber is not the same as immiturity.
candideinnc: just because something happend outside of the east coast dson't mean it didn't happen. SO what is the hidden agenda you feel is exposed?
We've seen this before here in Illinois. There's a reason he took a majority of the primary votes in the Senate race over the party-endorsed State Comptroller, who by all accounts is quite good at his job and is likely the best elected state official we have.
Jesse,
I skimmed through your post for some sourcing of this framework you're applying to the candidates. I didn't see it.
Perhaps I missed it.
Could you language some credit where credit is due?
Thanks.
JC
I've worked in plenty of corporations run by executives who filled plenty of All Hands company meetings with lots of wonderful declarations. About 20% of the declarations ever came to pass. About 90% of the executives went on to get fat compensation packages.
So comparing Obama to the executive makes a lot of sense to me. But sadly it reinforces my misgivings about him. Hope isn't a plan.
About the Declaration of Independence:
It's one of the great documents of human history. (I re-read it every 4th of July just to get a little misty eyed.)
But the inspiring introduction is followed by a long list of very specific complaints against the British. Which I guess was written by the project manager
And I haven't found anything in it about hope or "Change we can believe in".
It is absolutely clear that you are one of Obama's little bitches. Last I checked the LEFT WINGERS are the workers. This piece of yours is so pathetic and skewed I'd not be surprised if Lickspittle Chris Matthews used it as an opening monologue. This piece of shit being linked from Crooks and Liars makes me sick. I'm through with that site.
Well, it seems I'm "one of Obama's little bitches."
And his grammar is wrong. Tisk tisk.
I'm genuinely amused by people who fail to understand what I'm saying, so instead they attack me, the content, the site, or whomever sent them over. Truly cracks me up.
JC -- google: wiki speech act theory
That will give you something to start with. It's a good question, probably the best so far. *smiles*
I'm really wiped out folks. Have to take a nap. Will try and get to everyone else later this morning. There's stuff in the comments I really want to talk to and people I want to speak to; just have to rest. Sorry.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker: obama cut his teath as a community organizer, empowering people to fight for there rights in chicagos houseign projects. His leadership is about riseing others to greatness nto demandiong their obediance...big differance.
I'm so glad the field was whittled to three and then to one prior to the first vote cast in any primary. Way to go Big Media! Whew! in early 2007 I was afraid I'd have to learn something about 8 dem candidates and 6 or so GOP candidates Remember? First time in YEARS there was no incumbent. But, thankfully, no one had to do anything ....My new bumper sticker/ Corporate Media: We choose the nominee so you don't have to.
Anyone see the connection with this "Declaration" theory and the New Age self-help book "The Secret" endorsed by Oprah? The main idea of "The Secret" is that people need only visualize what they want in order to get it.
Not that I buy into it, but the author, Rhonda Byrne, says she stumbled on what she calls The Secret after her father died, and her daughter gave her a copy of "The Science of Getting Rich," a book written in 1910 by Wallace D. Wattles.
"Something inside of me had me turn the pages one by one, and I can still remember my tears hitting the pages as I was reading it," the author says. "It gave me a glimpse of The Secret. It was like a flame inside of my heart. And with every day since, it's just become a raging fire of wanting to share all of this with the world."
Rereading Jessie's essay, it sounds like Oprah's given Barrack a copy of the book.
Jesse has provided thoughts and reflection on which each of us can develop his/her own in regard to that which is required and who can best fulfill it.
What point is there in getting upset? A dialog is needed, and there is no need to trashing anyone or thoughts If one needs to do that, stay away...
I know what leadership means!
Leadership means ponies for everybody!
I'm going to name my pony Ghandi!
David Addington says he's going to come over and show me what ahimsa really means!!!
I'm so excited!!!!!
Am I the only one noticing that the model being applied to the Democratic front-runners here is a CORPORATE model, not a civic one?
No, Jim, and Amen to your post.
CJ -
You really aren't paying attention, are you? Or do you just like, browse around the "internets" looking for sites you can contribute your oh-so-massive wisdom to?
Earlier, when I suggested to a regular who politely asked me where to find more of the underpinnings of what I was saying, that googling: wiki speech act theory would be a really good place to start,
did that completely miss you, right out in the open as it was, as you formulated your bogus "The Secret" new age bullshit theory?
Or did you just pull it out of your ass? And if so, was it difficult, what with your head in the way? Or did all of the shit coming out of your mouth, lube things up a bit?
An ENORMOUS amount of what you don't fucking understand, is true, dipwad. Lots of it even MATTERS!
Not that I'd expect a troll with his head stuck up his ass to understand even that much.
Oh... and the next thread of mine you troll in... at least... at the very least, spell my name right. It's "Jesse."
Done with you.
"Performatives."
Bingo, and big time.
And I sure wish there were a different set of performatives being actualized, if that is the word I want.
As for "firestorm," when something can't go on forever, it won't.
Downriver Gal and Jim -
No, you're missing the point.
Pay attention.
It has to do with speech styles.
I said it in terms of Executives, Managers and Workers from a corporate point of view to make it fast and simple to grasp, but it holds up just as easily in terms of
The President, SCOTUS (Declarations);
Senior Staff, Lobbyists, the Joint Chiefs and Senior Officers, senior civilians (Requests);
Congress, Staff, junior officers and enlisted, junior civilians (Promises)
It's still all about speech acts, who is making them, and what their essential speech act is.
Obama is most at home with declarations. Clinton is most at home with promises. Edwards with requests. The three of them live in different, separate domains.
To the candidates staff --
Their speech writers should be working from VERY different templates for them. If they had a template of specific performative words in each of these domains (I have such a list), they could radically increase the power of their candidates speeches. *grins*
In other words, Obama comes across as the usual bullshitting CEO? Sounds right to me. I guess I'm one of those "Washington insiders" who lives 3000 miles away and works for a living that snickers when he hears empty bullshit. Is he going to end the division by surrendering to the right?
Fellow members of the reality-based community, I fear we may be losing this blog.
too much exposure in the last few days...my thinks we have soem astroturfers postign as well.
This is some of the stupidest political analysis I've ever read in all of my 50 years living in this simplistic, tele-vision culture.
We should expect our President to be the equivalent of Winston Churchill: Dynamic Orator, superb manager, tireless worker.
Instead, we get this "saying a lot of nothing" business school type analysis that belongs in the fucking trash can.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker -
You're an idiot.
You refuse to do the reading. You say this is non-reality based, but you won't get off your dead bitchy ass and actually learn anything.
I warned you about this earlier.
Now Shut the hell up or I'm throwing you off my blog because you're too goddamn ignorant to be here. This blog is for people who don't sit around all day complaining about how life sucks.
Either google: wiki speech act theory and learn something, or SHUT UP. That is a formal warning. Your next post in this thread -- if any -- will either demonstrate that you've at least learned some damn thing about what I'm talking of, or you're GONE. I have no time for people who sit around and whine while refusing to learn.
None.
I am an expert in this field and while I am happy to put up with beginners, I will not tolerate willful ignorance. If you want to remain ignorant and are just going to be an asshole, go to a different thread. Otherwise I'll throw your ass so far away from this blog you'll never come back, I promise. I don't give a DAMN how long you've been a regular.
Everyone else, I'm stepping out for a while to a doctor's appointment. I'll pick this up late this afternoon, early evening.
Mr. Wendell. By the logic of your 4:28 comments, Hitler was the best leader ever and any despot that took his country down the drain was also great a leader.
Your "leader" analysis is the worst horseshit I've read anywhere in quite a while. [Thanks for your use of a little crudity. Otherwise, I would have tried to use a politer term rather than what immediately came to mind.
And "your declaration" that Obama -- "creates a future of an America in which all of us together will take on the troubles we know in our heart are coming and repair the damages which have occurred. Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama's speaking makes it so" -- followed by -- "people in his campaign are starting to be able to communicate Obama's vision" -- and -- "people who just hear or see him or are touched by his presence. It's a movement, on fire with a shared common vision [which by virtue of its own} "firestorm" [changes]
"everything" -- is pure fantasy.
If what you said were actually true, we would not have to even elect a new President. Everything would be changed by just enough weeks of Obama speeches.
And what exactly is the future that Obama is leading is too? Do you have any specifics? Has Obama offered us many?
In one of your later posts, you extol Reagan's leadership despite declaring that you disliked many of the things he actually did. Did you never realize that it was the results Reagan gave us rather than the "feelings" [which a great many never shared]that really effected and had a lasting result on this country and that his Presidency was not good for this country.
And what is the "vision" that Obama's campaign is communicating to us. His main message, as his wife always stresses, is that he is different.
This is not "Let's Make A Deal." I want to know something about what's behind the doors before I choose.
If mere leadership is going to change everything, what new "troubles" are we going to have. I want some one who is going to fix the troubles that we have now. I think anyone who can do that will be able to deal with the future ones.
And regardless of who becomes President, even the worst of that lousy bunch of Republicans, its just as true that "all of us together will take on the [new] troubles," even those you say "we know in our heart are coming."
And if we all know them, and I assume you include Obama, why doesn't he, or you, or those in his campaign who share his "vision" just tell us about a few.
Now would not be a bad time to start preparing for these troubles that we all know are coming. I don't have any idea what you are talkign about