<p>“He had to touch the secret fears and ambivalent longings of the American heart, divine and speak to the desires of a swiftly changing nation — his message grounded on his own intuition of some vague and spreading desire for national renewal.”</p>
<p>How absolutely, and profoundly deja vous.</p>
<p>The man who advices Obama is a nut job. People don’t go and listen to a nut job day in and day out unless you subscribe to some of his beliefs.</p>
<p>Robert Dallek’s assessment of Kennedy is spot on, in my opinion. JFK did make some disastrous policy decisions: The Bay of Pigs invasion, the involvement in Vietnam, the confrontation with Kruschev which showed how green he was. But he also left a lasting legacy in Civil Rights legislation, in the Peace Corps and in the involvement of young people in service more generally. Obama’s “Yes, we can” is another way of saying “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” As I’ve said before, the “We” is important.</p>
<p>Two quick things:</p>
<p>–Re John Legend (who’s featured prominently in this video - see, for instance, at around :50, where he sings a line about ML King), since this is CC it might interest some folks to know that he’s a Penn grad.</p>
<p><a href=“Penn: Page not found”>Penn: Page not found;
<p>–Re Barack Obama and his academic background, not only is he a Harvard Law School graduate; he’s also been a law school professor, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, where he apparently could have had a permanent position if he’d wanted to follow that path.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng[/url]”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Advises. Perhaps you could be a little less obscure, Simba? Who and what are you referring to? Link?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought so, too, Poetsheart. But regarding the 1960 “vague” desire for renewal, Rich continues a few paragraphs later:</p>
<p>“For all the Barack Obama-J. F. K. comparisons, whether legitimate or over-the-top, what has often been forgotten is that Mr. Obamas weaknesses resemble Kennedys at least as much as his strengths. But to compensate for those shortcomings, he gets an extra benefit that J. F. K. lacked in 1960. Theres nothing vague about the publics desire for national renewal in 2008, with a reviled incumbent in the White House and only 19 percent of the population finding the country on the right track, according to the last Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll. America is screaming for change.”</p>
<p>And these two paragraphs deftly summarize why I place my hope and vote for change with Obama:</p>
<p>"Theres a third possibility, of course: A poetically gifted president might be able to bring about change without relying on fistfighting as his primary modus operandi. Mr. Obama argues that if he can bring some Republicans along, he can achieve changes larger than the microinitiatives that have been a hallmark of Clintonism. He also suggests, in his most explicit policy invocation of J. F. K., that he can enlist the young en masse in a push for change by ramping up national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.</p>
<p>His critics argue back that he is a naïve wuss who will give away the store. They have mocked him for offering to hold health-care negotiations so transparent (and presumably feckless) that they can be broadcast on C-Span. Obama supporters point out that Mrs. Clintons behind-closed-doors 1993 health-care task force was a fiasco."</p>
<p>Bottom line for me:
<p>I’m not seeing Clinton’s ability or desire to do these things, though if she is our nominee I will certainly vote for her and hope for the best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She means the pastor at Obama’s church.</p>
<p>That’s right, Simba. Keep grasping at those straws;)</p>
<p>No doubt Obama has managed to get people (old and young alike) involved in and excited about this election. That’s certainly a feat in itself. He has also managed to convince us that we can get involved in our government, how our government is run, and we can make a difference. Call me jaded, but I honestly don’t think that will ever happen, except on a very local level-- which, in turn-- might ultimately impact our state and federal governments. However, that he has inspired people to get involved, whether locally or globally, whether through the government or public service, is certainly very impressive. If he can sustain that, including getting young people out to vote in the general election, it would be quite something. </p>
<p>My natural inclination is to be suspect of anyone or anything that’s suddenly so popular (for lack of a better word), where the masses are so enamored and seem to be following in droves. That always makes me want to go in the opposite direction. I find it a little scary and, well, suspect. So, I’m taking my time making any decision. Again, no rush since I have until May.</p>
<p>Janieblue:</p>
<p>His defining experience is as a community organizer, so this is the level of involvement he would hope people would get involved in. And that was to a large extent what happened to the young men and women who were inspired by Kennedy. Some, of course, were inspired to get involved in politics–as was Bill Clinton. But so many more joined the Peace Corps or got involved at a grass-root level.</p>
<p>Thanks, marite. I’m aware of that, both Obama’s experience and JFK’s inspiration. (I’m probably older than you are, so I remember all that quite well!) ;)</p>
<p>Some of Obama’s comments, though, suggest that we can all somehow be directly involved in our government and change the way things work. While I certainly think we can all make a difference, either locally or globally, to actually change-- or even get involved meaningfully-- in our government (even at a local level) is not as easy as he makes it sound. Nevertheless, as I said before, to successfully motivate people to get involved is a feat in itself. Certainly, I applaud him for that.</p>
<p>“That’s right, Simba. Keep grasping at those straws”</p>
<p>keep wishing. You haven’t seen anything to come his way from his newly found ‘friends’ (Drudge, Hannity and Republicans) should he become the nominee. Have you checked the poems written in blogospace, and he is not even a nominee?</p>
<p>Janieblue:</p>
<p>I live in an area where the politicos would often prefer that the citizenry was less involved! In fact, prospective superintendents and principals have expressed surprise at the level of involvement. I have in fact taken part in the selection of teachers at every grade level, principals and superintendent. </p>
<p>In fact, this morning, I was thinking of Obama/Clinton in relation to two principals we’ve had in the past. Principal 1 came in full of reformist zeal, wanting to close the achievement gap. She would brook no opposition. She knew that she would get opposition, so she imposed her new policies without any consultation with teachers, parents, of students, on Day One (at meetings the previous summer, she had given no detail about her reforms, just that she contemplated some). Alas, she needed the collaboration of teachers to implement her vision, and she had not sought buy-in from them. Students got turned off when she changed something they were attached to without consulting the student council or even announcing it. It was trivial but it set the tone for future relations with the students. Parents got concerned about her pursuit of equity at the expense of excellence (she got rid of honors classes) and left the district in droves. Principal 1 worked extremely hard, and had some great ideas. But she worked on her own. Eventually, she threw in the towel, and at the last possible moment, so the district had to scramble to find a replacement in time for the new school year.
She was replaced by Principal 2 who had little experience running a high school and started work only two weeks before classes began. I was not in her corner; I confess my heart sank when I found out she did not know the difference between various math programs. But she turned out to be a quick learner and she sought the collaboration of teachers, parents, and students. She made it clear she wanted both equity and excellence, re-instated honors classes and introduced even bolder reforms than Principal 1. But she did it after a year-long process of consultation and training with teachers and the teachers union, many, many meetings with parents and students. And these reforms, I hear, have been a resounding success (teachers who did not get on board resigned).
Does this ring a bell?</p>
<p>marite: with due respect, running a country is lot different than running a school.</p>
<p>Running a country involves working with so many POLITICIANS with different beliefs, constituencies (it took 30 years to raise the fuel standards) and over inflated egos (Kennedy clan endorsed Obama because they felt Hillary snubbed JFK legacy, Hussein invaded Kuwait not because Kuwait was stealing his oil, but the Amir of Kuwait called Iraqi women $10 whores).</p>
<p>So yes the inspirational speeches work on masses, but they have zero effect on politicians. It is also a wishful thinking that all the PACs will just roll over and play dead (influence peddling is a multi billion dollar industry).</p>
<p>We elected a guy who could be our beer buddy and look what that got us. Now we want a guy who gives us great motivational speeches?</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>I do realize that running a country is different from running a school. Please give me some credit for intelligence, will ya? I was referring to style. Principal 1 reminded me irresistibly of Hillary as she pushed her stealth health care reform plan.<br>
“We elected?” Don’t know about you, but I did not elect him.<br>
Obama does more than give inspirational speeches. I was around when he was elected to the Harvard Law review. I remember the quake it caused, especially at the HLS as it was then, riven with discord, profs not speaking to each other, torpedoing each other’s favored candidates so that one year, none of four candidates up for consideration made it through. Obama managed to get along with others and to get things done. Same thing in Illinois.</p>
<p>Maria Shriver has endorsed Obama. Apart from the split in the Kennedy clan this represents, this is sign that the Rep/Dem divide is well and alive in the Shriver/Schwarzeneger household!</p>
<p>marite: Thank you for the analogy. I do think people have different styles of effecting change. Again, I appreciate that Obama has successfully motivated people to get involved in this election process, and hopefully beyond the election. That’s pretty powerful and very impressive. </p>
<p>I’ll be voting for a Democrat, that’s for sure, and since I supported Edwards and worked for his campaign, I’ll now be looking at both Clinton and Obama more carefully as the months roll on. One thing is certain, though; I won’t let the hype or the media make that decision for me.</p>
<p>marite, How does Obama getting things done at Harvard (OR Illinois) translate into getting things done in DC? There are more special interest groups in Washington than Illinois, most of them working to oppose each other. How is he going to limit the special interest groups to make sure that the necessary bills needed to move the country forward is passed.</p>
<p>Look, I’m not Obama’s spokesman. I don’t answer on his behalf.<br>
I know that:
–On health reform, I think his plan is more realistic. Read today’s Boston Globe and see how expensive our plan is because the state grossly underestimated the number of uninsured. Which translates into a tax hike for all of us. And that is after Romney (yes, Romney) managed to get everybody on board, including the insurance companies, HMOs, small businesses.
–On Iraq, I agreed with his original position, and I agreed that once the war was on, it was unthinkable not to support the troops.
On many other issues, his position and that of Clinton are quite similar. Which is why the issue of character and temperament looms so large.
Both Clinton and Obama have touted their ability to work in a bipartisan fashion. I believe in their claim. But added to this, Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. Bill is both asset and enormous liability. Aside from his personal flaws is the Constitutional issue. To whom would he be answerable? On Obama’s side, his ability to inspire is a plus. I read that he has a fairly conservative temperament to go with his liberal policies. I think it’s probably right. This conservative temperament is why when he says “change begins with you” as the latest ad proclaims, he does not just mean “change begins when you go to vote.” It really means YOU are the agents of change. Not just the president after s/he has been sworn in and closes the door of the Oval Office to confront a stack of problems. This came out clearly when he has on several occasions, told African-American audiences that the achievement gap cannot be closed without a change in the families and communities. So I don’t see a messianic dimension to his oratory (and I’ve studied messianic movements).
As for special interest groups, I don’t see that he would have a harder time than any other candidate. I do think that being able to mobilize public opinion behind a particular plan can neutralize opposition or at least provide a useful counterweight.</p>
<p>marite, thanks for your explanation.</p>
<p>I have read the two health reforms, and I think Hillary’s plan makes an attempt to cover everyone, but I am not sure how the mandates to sign up are going to work, but we can learn from other countries that have had to institute this program. I used to live in a country that has universal health care, and everyone seemed to pay into the program. </p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton comes with baggage” I think this is because we know everything about Hillary. We don’t know a lot about Barack, so between the two Hillary might not look favorable right now. </p>
<p>I also believe that change starts with the individual. If you really want to make your life better, it is possible to find the help you will need to make it happen. </p>
<p>“This came out clearly when he has on several occasions, told African-American audiences that the achievement gap cannot be closed without a change in the families and communities.”</p>
<p>It is easier to tell people to change than to get them to change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just got back from the rally at UCLA. What a fun day and a real surprise and treat to see Maria break from Arnold! Michelle Obama is an incredible speaker in her own right. Not as poetic but genuine, incredibly intelligent and fierce. Oh, Stevie Wonder wandered by and they pulled him on stage… and Oprah was starting to look a lot more comfortable in front of a political crowd. Still read from notes, but it was smoother than what I’ve seen on TV.</p>
<p>The best part for me was just scanning the audience… talk about diverse. Wow. To our immediate right, Asian-Americans. Behind us and in front African-Americans. In front further down, Hispanics and a little old white couple. To our left, a young man, college age who looked hippie chic in tie-die. A young couple with a toddler in front. I’m estimating around 8-9,000 people. </p>
<p>Maria got the loudest cheers, I think because it was such a surprise.</p>