« What Now, Hillary? | womanofacertainage's Blog | FISA and Spitzer; Connecting the Dots »

Are We Ready For Change?


At some point, in every rally, Barack asks his supporters that important question. 

"Are you ready for change?"

Judging by the comments I am reading on the blogosphere, it doesn't look like we are ready to change anything at all.

Here is a typical comment you can read on almost any thread over at Huffingtonpost...
<blockquote>i support barack obama. that said, this constant cowering down to the clintons (like not sticking up for ms. powers by saying something like... these people are calling me things and attacking me left and right.. so stop whineing) is starting to make even me feel weak.
i hate what the clintons are doing to this process, the "kitchen sink" crap. but what is starting to bother me more is the fact that obama is not even trying to deflect these constant body blows.
i understand the concept of trying to rise above it, but, there is a difference in rising above it and appearing weak.
my wife and i are staunch supporters, however, if mr. obama can't stand up and knock these clintons in thier place, given all the ammunition availalbe to do so, how is he going to handle the hardest job in the world?
i'm just saying...</blockquote>

Barack Obama is being tested alright.  We are seeing if he can be goaded into getting distracted from a fight he has in the bag to engage in a fight he cannot win.  What is at stake here is whether the illusion of strength will be allowed to usurp strength itself.  For all of the Clinton campaign's sophistry cannot change the basic facts as of today.  She is losing.

So far, Obama is showing himself to be everything I want in a Commander-in-Chief.  He is slow to anger.  He is calm in a storm of controversy.  He doesn't over react to other people's foolishness.  He doesn't fly off the handle like Hillary Clinton or John McCain.  So far, so good.  If only we had someone like that in the White House on 9/11.  But we had George Bush.  Basically, he is behaving just as he should behave if he takes his own rhetoric seriously.

He is ready for change.  He embodies change.  So, do we think his silence in the face of attacks is a result of strength and confidence?  or is it a sign of weakness. 

Is Hillary Clinton right?

Would we rather have a fighter? 

or

Are we ready for change?

22 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
Barack Obama is being tested alright. We are seeing if he can be goaded into getting distracted from a fight he has in the bag to engage in a fight he cannot win. What is at stake here is whether the illusion of strength will be allowed to usurp strength itself.

DEAD ON!

user-pic

It's like the parable of Solomon faced with 2 women claiming the same child. The woman who was willing to have the child killed rather than give up her claim proved herself not to be the real mother. If the superdelegates have a legitimate purpose, it is to recognize the illegitimacy of a candidate who is willing to destroy the value of the nomination rather than see it go to someone else.

I see the same Solomon story. I see it as the Democratic Party be cut in half by Obama supporters.
The only candidate who's supporters have been really mean to me as I cruise Democratic web sites are the Obama supporters and that , coupled with the fact that he attacked the New Deal and Great Society Democrats, who produced the greatest domestic policies this country has ever seen have made me dislike him.
But I don't hate him! I don't attack his supporters or insult his appearance or his family!
Obama supporters do this regularly to anyone or anything who doesn't believe as they do!
The party is being ripped in half and I don't know if it will recover.

user-pic

The only non-anecdotal substance I see there is this quote: "he attacked the New Deal and Great Society Democrats." Can you provide a link for that?

Note that I'm not discouraging you from using your personal experience with Obama supporters in your decision. Just pointing out that others have dissimilar or even opposite experiences.

user-pic

A strange perspective, the opposite of my experience coming over from the Edwards' camp. Clinton folks signed on early with a well-funded, well-connected, "inevitable" candidate, one who could afford to take the high road. When Obama surged and Clinton followed advice to "go negative or go home," her supporters were faced with a dilemma. No one can be proud of the tactics she's used, intended to race-bait and mislead. I know a number of people who have switched over to Obama as a result, but less informed, more easily misled voters have replaced them. I didn't expect this from Clinton, and empathize with Obama advisor Powers' frustration with Clinton's willingness to deceive. Supporters who have stayed take the "broken cup" approach in defense, arguing e.g. both that her people did not broaden and darken Obama's face in ads and that it was okay that they did that. Womanofacertainage is a stellar example of why people like myself have gravitated to the Obama candidacy.

Solomon's choice is exactly the way to describe what faces the super delegates.

And HRC would rather the baby be cut in half that allowed to live.

Would we rather have a fighter?

As you are well, aware, Hillary is no fighter -- except one that would punch beneath the belt.

Hillary is the cheater -- her campaign, in assuming the role of entitlement, has decided she is above all rules. That's something antithetical to our constitution.

It remains to be seen whether the Dems are ready for change -- but if they aren't, I *will* change and seek alternatives, because I am ready for change.

user-pic

Not sure I agree 100%, yet a nice presentation of your case for Obama ... almost makes me hopeful again, maybe like singing a Beatles tune or taking some other positive action ...

user-pic

I hope that Obama doesn't stoop to her campaign's level. It's a tough dilemma - how to look strong and push back without adopting the kid of campaign that you've dismissed and deplored.

I think Hillary's exagerations of her foreign policy reume is a huge opening. Josh frontpaged the Chicago Tribune story on how thin her claims are and I just linked to a story from a British paper that debunks her N. Ireland peace claim:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/nobel-peace-prize-winner-hilla.php

Hitting her hard on these embellishments is fair game and is a great example of how she'll say anyhting at this point.

The boxing analogy fits here to: she's throwing wild punches because she's behind in the fight. She might land a few of those but she's going to expose herself pretty soon and take a hard hit as a result.

Change, get rid of G. W. Bush, fine. Change: Obama as PONTUS, hell no! Even Ms. Rice (Obama aide) “Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready,'’ Ms. Rice said. “They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.”
Obama is not ready, so TRUE.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/obama-aide-neither-candidate-ready-for-3-am-call/

user-pic

Yeah. We don't like it when people tell the truth.

Because neither one of them has been President. Neither one has had to answer the 3 a.m. phone call as President.

Granted - it's a dumb thing to say politically. But it's inarguably true.

Change!

But it won't be easy. The news media doesn't want change, because that doesn't sell. They want negative campaigning, conflict, and the most outrageous lies possible,... because that's what draws in their customers.

The Republicans don't want change, certainly. So anyone with Republican leanings will push Hillary's claims and Hillary's tactics. If they can push Obama into making a mistake, so much the better. But one way or another, they'll still hurt the Democrats. Hillary's tactics are the best thing to come along for the Republican Party all year.

And does the Democratic establishment want change? I doubt it. Not much of it, anyway. After all, if you're an incumbent, you don't want to rock the boat. You got where you are under the present system, so why change?

But I want change! Am I that outnumbered?

Well, I guess, by your measure, I am not ready for change either then. Yes, there is another way where we don't tear each other down and completely dismiss out of hand another person's arugments. But it's naive to believe that there is no fighting involved in this equation. You can fight without throwing punches below the belt.

I've given significantly to this campaign. But this is starting to concern me a bit. Have I completely misinterpreted this "new way forward?" I am not advocating pacifism and I trust he is not either. If I, who live, sleep and breathe Obama, am starting have doubts, what about the average Joe?

TaraV,

I so understand your misgivings. But the light is just starting to dawn for me. I think you and I and lots of other people are behaving like whipped dogs. After awhile the dog either starts to snarl and snap at the slightest thing or the dog grovels. That is how we progressives percieve ourselves. Like whipped dogs. Those of us with spines really want to take a bite out of Republicans and Republican tactics in this election.

Obama says he doesn't just want to stop the war, he wants to end the mindset that got us into the war. He is trying to take us in that direction right now, as we write to one another. He has made it clear that he is not pacifist. Sometimes you fight. But he is not in favor of dumb wars. I think he feels Clinton is trying to start a dumb war. And don't you think a circular firing squad in the Democratic Party is the definition of a dumb war? I do. Judging by the uprising she is provoking among democrats, a significant portion of the party agrees with Obama.

You ask, 'what about the average Joe.' So, I will tell you a story about the Texas primacaucus. As you know, the primary voters could vote early and early voting was heavy this year. But the caucus voters had to show up and stand in line to vote. Now we have just heard that Obama really won Texas. But why is that?

Apparently his margin of 54% -46% is likely to hold. And here is what my sister told me as she was standing in line to vote in the Texas caucus on Tuesday night. She was chatting with some other people in the line about who they voted for earlier in the day. They had voted early, for Hillary Clinton. But after hew increasingly negative attacks over the week before the election, they had come back to vote in the caucus for Obama.

Exactly.

There are some people among us who aren't just ready for change. They are adamant about it. And I say, more power to them.

womanofacertainage says:
"That is how we progressives percieve ourselves. Like whipped dogs"

Only Obama supporters think like this. I am progressive and I definitely don't think like this. Whining and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Talking about chnage. Hillary as President of the US is a change. Having a woman president after hundreds of years of white-man presidents is a change

GREAT POST(s), womanofacertainage!!! Well articulated and a fresh perspective.

user-pic

Brilliant! Womanofacertainage, you've said it so well in these postings!

There's an enormous difference, unrecognized by the MSM, between fighting and cheating. This is why Obama does so well in caucuses. Voters who are so unengaged as to be swayed by deceitful ads, darkened photos, and false claims that Clinton is vetted and ready are not the ones who are putting in the hours at caucuses, who are going to put in the time and effort to rebuild the Democratic Party from the ground up, and who are going to reshape national politics in November and beyond.

I've seen a sea-change in attitudes toward Clinton by informed voters over the past few weeks, appalled by her play to fear and ignorance.

I believe there is a time for warriors and a time for peacemakers. Obama is a peacemaker and this is what the US needs right now internationally. We need to rebuild bridges with our allies and be willing to speak with our enemies.

The warrior stance so far has not helped the US and I fear what more of this type of politics will eventually lead to.

It takes much more strength in the face of adversity to take the high road and bring each other up and together than to fight and tear each other down (we have seen it on the many TPM posts). Let us not underestimate the power of the peacemaker.

user-pic

Well, from reading all these many comments and many posts, it appears that despite all odds the dems are going to manage to lose this one. It should be soooooo easy, ANYONE should be able to beat 4 more years of bush/cheney policies! But the dems of all stripes are busy beating up on each other and it isn't looking good.
I thought initially that it was terrific that the party had such a big field of qualified candidates. I forgot that Americans are such idiots.
There are 2 dem candidates left standing now--and their policies and ideas are nearly identical. Neither of them is a liberal (oh, sorry, a "progressive"). Yet to read these posts, one would think it was like night and day between them! There is all this "I'll never vote for this one!" and "I'll never vote for that one!" It is ridiculous! Maybe if we are really lucky, it won't matter and all the Nader progressives are such a small part of the population that no one really cares about them. I hope that is it, because I do not want 4 more years of republican mischief.

"Stop the insanity" - Susan Powter

Ok. I hear the complains from the Obamamaniacs that Clinton is using negative tactics and attacking Barack Obama rather than just stating the facts. But I have to agree with a few people on this site that attacking Clinton supporters isn't any better than what you accuse Sen. Clinton of doing.

Let's face it, this isn't an easy process. Punches will fly. Teeth will get knocked out. We the people, not the establishment, have made this policy. We drool over CNN to see the latest jabs taken out on our candidate.

Now we carry it over to the internet. A place that was supposed to be the great equalizer is now dividing us because when one person attacks another, several more jump on the bandwagon!

For crying out loud let's just stop this fighting! Let's get back to the real nuts and bolts of this election cycle: to elect a democrat president!

Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful comments. To the Clinton supporters, I admit that I don't understand you at all. I did up until this week. But now that your candidate has left you holding the bag by endorsing John McCain, I just don't get it. Because all along, Clinton supporters have been saying, 'Oh right, like you're really going to vote for John McCain.' But now we know that Hillary thinks that is a valid vote to cast. She has left you high and dry yet you still defend her.

Obama has said and done some things we supporters consider to be mistakes. But there has never been a single day when he said anything to make anyone think he believes John McCain would be a better President than one of his democratic opponents. But, OK. You should follow your conscience and vote accordingly. I certainly will.

Leave a comment

womanofacertainage

user-pic

Following:
Followers:

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address