<p>No, but I gave them to my daughter for Christmas - she has read them…</p>
<p>LTS, your observations about wanting to know and hear more about what Obama thinks and says is exactly his own approach. When I see him, I see a man who is intellectually curious, intrigued by problems and various types of solutions and a sincere listener. He is not threatened by those who don’t share his viewpoint and he is not afraid to say what he believes is the truth to an audience not predisposed to hear it. I see a man engaging his brain. It is so very, very refreshing.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a matter of style but rather of perspective. Obama works for change by listening and building consensus and helping people aspire to the greater good. His entire candidacy is so improbable, he says it all the time. It’s just an unlikely situation. This fact allows him to work outside the box, creatively, to be free to take risks. I think Clinton perhaps is less inclined to believe that consensus can work, and I get the sense sometimes from her that she has already figured out what needs to be done and so listening is a perfunctory step before implementing the plan. That comes across in her style. (And I think that part of her might remind you of certain doctors, no? Shudder.)</p>
<p>momof2inca- I see what you mean that we think the same way. I agree with your post#46.</p>
<p>I agree as well. For example, he is openly, directly critical of some/many of the actions of the current adminstration. But the way he articulates his point of view makes me very curious to want to understand, and to hear more. Comparatively, Hillary - at least in my perception - descends to personal attacks and snide remarks. I find that appalling, especially considering that our troops are engaged. And it makes me not want to hear even one more word that comes out of her mouth. But Obama can make the exact same point(s), and do so in a manner that is intriguing, stimulating, inviting of productive dialog even if it’s opposing dialog. When I hear him speaking I go running to the TV, turn up the volume, let’s hear this…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve probably heard this before, and I’m sure there are some who do not agree with this, but reading his books provided me an insight to what informs him, and what moves him to engage people they way he does… it has been very successful in his earlier community organizing career, before he attended law school. </p>
<p>I know there are also skeptics out there regarding this issue, but the most important thing to remember when he wrote the books is that he had no intention at the time of running for president. I honestly think his own rise to fame in such a short time has surprised him, too. I’m not saying that he never had any political aspirations, but I’m sure he had no idea things would move this fast, this quickly. On the other hand, when I read Hillary’s book, Living History, it felt politically motivated. Again, these differences speak to the styles of communication and engagement between the two, that I suspect you are experiencing.</p>
<p>Of the Obama books, Dreams from My Father, is the one I felt most engaged with. I’m actually now reading it again for a second time (read it the first time a year and a half ago, before he announced his candidacy), and am deliberately looking for any indications that he had presidential aspirations ten years ago, and haven’t seen any.</p>
<p>One difference is that he wrote his own books and Hillary’s was ghost written (though I read that she had to redo much of it–hence the lack of acknowledgment of the ghost writer). I’ve also read that Obama’s speechwriter tries hard to follow Obama’s own rhetorical style and calls it both exciting and challenging to write for someone who is such a good writer.</p>
<p>I hear he can feed the sick, clothe the hungry, and heal the naked. ;)</p>
<p>Nope, he’s saying “yes, WE can” meaning you and me and everybody working together to make it happen.</p>
<p>I don’t believe I will always agree with Obama, but I know I will always be interested in hearing his reasoning, and I think that he will listen to all sides.</p>
<p>It appears that more women gave to Obama than to HRC. Upon thinking about it, I think his style of trying to build consensus is considered more “feminine” than the “I’m in charge” style that HRC espouses; perhaps she was always that way, perhaps she honed her skills in the partisan battles of the 90s. </p>
<p>I just had a pep talk with a colleague who will have to introduce a major proposal in my absence. “Canvass everybody; get as many people on board ahead of the vote as possible.” Someone who did not do so had his proposal shot down before it got to a vote because word leaked out and people not only opposed it on substance but also on procedural grounds.</p>
<p>Re: Obama’s working as a community organizer:</p>
<p>I’d like to see more attention paid to this choice. I have not seen any stories in the press that explain just what he walked away from to do this work. He was holding the golden ticket in the legal world. There is no way to overstate how highly the entire profession venerates Supreme Court clerks for the rest of their lives. He could have done ANYTHING – he was guaranteed to make a lot of money if he wanted it; he was guaranteed a cushy and prestigious academic appointment if he wanted it; he was guaranteed a fancy post in the Justice Department if he wanted it. But he said, “No thanks,” and walked away from all of it to take a job that paid peanuts, carried no prestige, and didn’t even offer much security or a great lifestyle.</p>
<p>The only possible explanation is that he cared about that job. He REALLY cared. We’re talking about I-was-put-on-this-earth-to-do-this-work dedication. What more could you ask for in a public servant?</p>
<p>If I remember correctly from his first book he worked for 6 months on Wall St and quit to become a community organizer. So yes, he walked away from the golden ticket of law and the golden ticket of finance to work with the poor on the South Side of Chicago.</p>
<p>**Obama projected to win Georgia.</p>
<p>Illinois to Obama</p>
<p>Oklahoma to Clinton</p>
<p>Why do I get the feeling this is frightfully hopeless? It seems as if no matter how well Obama does in various primaries, the Clintons will be able to somehow do voodoo with the superdelegates and the states that at the moment aren’t supposed to count, and end up with the nomination no matter what…</p>
<p>Well, remember that Obama does very well in places where he can get into rooms with people and share his ideas. The 22-state blitz of the past week favored Clinton because she has all the name-recognition and people who barely pay attention to politics feel they “know” her and are comfortable voting for her over some “new” guy. He’s got 7 states set to vote on various days this weekend and next week, so he needs to get right back out there and talk to folks. Three of those states are caucus states, a format that he does extremely well in. He also raised $32 million in January, versus Clinton’s $13 million, so he has money to spend. And he’s got momentum. </p>
<p>I will be very angry though if Clinton somehow convinces the DNC to count the Florida delegates. That would be changing the rules at the end of the game. And obviously to her benefit.</p>
<p>LTS- I have the exact same feeling as you. Obama and Hillary will pretty much equally split up the “earned” delegates, just because of the rules of the game. </p>
<p>However, I suspect the superdelegates will put Hillary over the top. The reasons- more superdelegates are from the Northeast and “blue” states and the Clintons have more influence there. And she will launch a huge campaign to get the Florida and Michigan delegates “counted”. </p>
<p>So unfair but typical politics as usual.</p>
<p>If Hillary wins the nomination fair and square, I <em>might</em> consider voting for her.</p>
<p>If she steals the nomination using underhand tricks, I will <em>run</em> to McCain. I will donate to his campaign and vote for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I’m going to be voting for either Clinton or Obama-- just haven’t yet made up my mind yet, though at this point leaning more towards Obama-- I’d just like to comment on the above statement. While Obama’s books may be well-written and insightful, I think most of these folks know-- early on-- that running for president is in their future. I suspect every move they’ve made, if they’re smart, from day one (at least day one at college) is geared towards high government positions, including a presidential election.</p>
<p>Janie:</p>
<p>You’re probably right. In the case of Obama, I believe he decided to run earlier than he had expected for two reasons. The first was to capitalize on the name recognition he’d gained after the publication of his first book which was a bigger seller than anticipated. The second was the realization that if he did not run now, he would not be competitive until another 8 years. My take is that when he wrote Dreams of My Father, he was building a higher profile for himself but did not yet have a specific time in mind for running; or if he did, it would have been for 2012.</p>
<p>janieblue: I know what you mean, but what is incongruous with that assumption is the way in which he was so outspoken in opposition to the Iraq war. He was sticking his neck out when he did not need to. He was not in the Senate. He didn’t have to take a stand. But he did. Remember, the war was supported by huge majorities of the American people. We had just been attacked by terrorists. It was potentially suicidal for a politician to publicly oppose the war. The only politicians who were sticking their necks out were people such as Gore and Byrd who no longer had presidential ambitions. Something tells me this man may be different from the kind of politicians we have become accustomed to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Truth be told, to take a stand against the Iraq War was far easier for someone who was not, at the time, currently in the Senate. (I took a stand, too. I marched along with everybody else who was against it. I was definitely not alone.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, what I remember is hundreds of thousands of people all across our nation (and the world) who marched against starting this war. In fact, according to Wikipedia, these organized protests “were said to be the biggest global peace protests before a war actually started; the peace movement is compared with the movement caused by the Vietnam War.” Over 100,000 people took part in a protest in Washington. Many more than took place in cities across the nation. Huge protests took place in the UK. And in November of 2002, “demonstrations against the war at the end of the first European Social Forum in Florence, Italy” occurred. “According to the organizers, 1,000,000 people were in attendance. Local authorities put attendance at 500,000.” In January, 2003 "protests were held worldwide in opposition to a war in Iraq, including in Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Argentina, and the U.S., where Americans (more than 200,000) attended a rally. More took place all across the world that same month-- in Moscow, Paris, London, Dublin, Montreal, Cairo, Istanbul, Rotterdam, Toronto, Bonn . . . </p>
<p>You can check out Wikipedia, or just Google it, to read about all the protests that took place and where they took place, and the hundreds of thousands of people who marched against this invasion. Nobody, in my opinion, was “sticking his neck out” (in politics or no) to oppose this war. </p>
<p>In fact, this is the one problem I keep returning to with Hillary. John Edwards supported the war, which he later acknowledged as a mistake and apologized for it. Hillary never has, despite urging from Edwards to do so. And in that last debate, when she pointed out that she had no idea she was voting to allow Bush to start a war (?), Obama pointed out that the authorization she signed-- by its very title (something like "Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq)-- should have given her a clue-- sure gives me pause. Her clear dishonesty/slippery nature revealed there is a real problem for me.</p>