<p>Without this becoming a pro/anti Obama thread I want to know if you think he can <em>really</em> change things are run in Washington. I support McCain but if Obama really could bring about such change I’d vote for him in a second. With the <em>checks</em> on the President though and a divided congress I think it’d be hard to do. I guess this question is more about whether any 1 man can change Washington. Do you think it’s possible?</p>
<p>For better or worse, FDR did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>In short… no</p>
<p>I don’t think that Obama alone can do anything. I believe he can continue to inspire and encourage the American people to engage in the political process in this country, not just in an election year, but everyday, understanding that this is OUR country, even if we are poor, or middle class, or members of a minority. He can inspire us to learn about the process of government, and become fully invested in its workings, knowing that it is we who are the bedrock of this nation, that it is we, ordinary citizens, who are the ones who keep the lamp of values that define that “shining city on a hill”, that we can, as a nation, still embody those values if we make up our minds to do so, that we can require our government to embody those ideals also. Obama can inspire the spirit of service and self-sacrifice. He can inspire us (and most especially our young people) to embrace our own power as ordinary citizens to affect change—NOT change merely for the sake of change—but change for the better, long term change for the greater good.</p>
<p>The ordinary citizen often feels hopeless in this country because we feel that our voice cannot be heard, that the rich and powerful hold all the cards. But, revolutionary change almost always comes about when common people realize that the power of numbers, galvanized behind a high ideal, can evince a flourishing renaissance. </p>
<p>We are tired of feeling jaded. We are tired of fearing in our heart of hearts that American’s best days are behind us. We are tired of government acting solely in the interest of those rich enough, and powerful enough, and self-serving enough to use it as their personal playground. We want our country back, plain and simple. </p>
<p>Barack Obama makes people believe that maybe—just maybe, we can get it back, that America can, with a great deal of hard work, once again, be a country whose government is ** by** the people and ** for** the people.</p>
<p>I don’t think he can all by himself. That’s where we come in. :)</p>
<p>I agree. He never says “yes I can” he says “yes we can”. His power comes and will come (or go) with public support.</p>
<p>^ In addition, any President will surround themselves with advisors/ strategists. No man or woman will ever “manage” the country as a single individual. It seems that Obama has aligned himself with some competent campaign advisors so far. ;)</p>
<p>There are really two questions here: “Can he do it?” and “Do we want the change that he is promoting?” Since my answer to the second one is no, my answer to the first one is, I hope not.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that “we” want to do “it” because if “we” wanted to do something it could have been done a long time ago. I don’t understand what “we” can do? Less is better, less government, less everything. Simplify. Small, communities, neighborhoods, families, individuals. I think big government is disastrous. So if it is to get rid of big government: go for it. I am all for “it.” But can “we” do that? How in the world can “we” extricate ourselves from what “we” have created at this point?</p>
<p>Obama used to use mostly “I” and “me” until his speech writers/strategists made him switch to “you” and “we” cause they thought he’d get more traction with that approach. He is a carefully packaged product created by David Axelrod, who also advised Deval Patrick, which is why their (Obama/Patrick) speeches are almost identical.</p>
<p>Axelrod also advised John Edwards during his 2004 presidential nominee bid, and I heard Elizabeth Edwards on the radio yesterday complaining about Obama stealing her husband’s stuff. Blame Axelrod, blame Obama, just don’t fall for the idea that he really cares about “us”.</p>
<p>The problem with the Clinton campaign is that they have no consistency in the “packaging”. They have no consistency in the campaign management. One would have to wonder if a candidate can’t even manage campaign staff, how could they possibly manage the White house?</p>
<p>The Clinton strategists have tried to package her as “experienced”, the “solution maker”, and the one “ready for day one”. It seems that none of those slogans are working for them. The new strategy is to go negative. That seems to be back-firing as well.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that all candidates are “packaged” by their paid handlers. Some have better staff than others.</p>
<p>Hillary IS the experienced solution maker who is ready for day one. The masses just aren’t responding to that package the way they are to the rock star personality and the Beatle mania gatherings. Obama’s is a cult of personality. Hillary is management, which isn’t sexy to a lot of people. She would and could manage the White House just fine.</p>
<p>I don’t think the presidency is about managing the White House. That’s the job of a Chief of Staff. It is about leading the American people. Leading is different from managing.</p>
<p>Some people are better than others at bringing people together. I think a president who had this trait could improve the way government functions. I think Obama has this trait, so I am hopeful. But Bush also claimed to have this trait, as I recall.</p>
<p>The President, if she knows enough about how the White House and Capitol hill work, which Hillary does, can know how to manage the national government. The intricacies of the Hill as someone posted elsewhere are complex and convoluted and not easily influenced by the masses of the American people. If public sentiment alone could affect major policy we would be out of Iraq by now. There are lots of things W has done that aren’t popular but he has gotten them through by knowing how to manipulate the process with his people. I’ve been trying to read up on who the “people” behind Hillary and Obama are, and so far I like her people better than his people. McCain’s people scare me.</p>
<p>In my opinion, a good leader is not only a strong motivator, but is also required to be a good manager.</p>
<p>I personally haven’t seen Hillary excel in either category.</p>
<p>I will concede that Hillary does seem to have more experience in the scandal category. She was involved with scandals in the White House, and personal and personnel scandals and drama on the campaign trail. These scandals have not only involved her family, but have also involved professional staff that she has managed, including White house staff and campaign staff.</p>
<p>"Some people are better than others at bringing people together. I think a president who had this trait could improve the way government functions. I think Obama has this trait, so I am hopeful. "</p>
<p>Based on what evidence are you hopeful? Because he “says” he wants to eliminate red states and blue states? As Hillary would say, talk is cheap. What has he done that would give any indication that he is willing to meet in the middle on anything? One doesn’t get the score as being the most liberal person in the Senate by being bi-partisan or willing to meet in the middle. When the Senate was about to implode with the judicial nominations and a meeting in the middle was required, where was Obama? Sitting out in far-left field. Likewise on just about all other votes, he has shown no indication of being anything that he claims that he is. He appears to be just a bunch of empty rhetoric played in such a fine, pied-piper way that he has mesmerized a flock of groupies to swoon at everything he says.</p>
<p>^^^ Well said FF. You’ve had some good posts lately!</p>
<p>Just saw a ticker on the news describing how a crowd of 17,000 broke into applause when Obama wiped his nose! </p>
<p>It’s really getting pathetic!</p>
<p>I believe that Obama is a great speaker and has even better speech writers. If he wins, it will be based primarily on hope and trust. The people will “Hope” that he can do what he says and will put their “Trust” in that hope. I don’t think he can make the change his speech writers are telling him to say.</p>
<p>If he wins it will have virtually no impact on my life. Even if he loses it will have no impact.</p>