Obama as the parade leader

Email Print posted by pmdtrans 01/26/2008 09:24:33 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

As Cenk said during the SC primary coverage, Lincoln didn't campaign on ending slavery.  Roosevelt didn't campaign on the New Deal. 

What made both of these presidents great was that, once in office, they responded to the people and the needs of the country.

My biggest concern isn't who's promising the biggest change while they're campaigning, but who I think might be most responsive and open to what the people of this country need once they get into office.

I don't expect a candidate to have all the answers on the campaign trail.  There's always a learning curve for a new president, and there will always be missteps and mistakes.  What we need is someone who learns from those mistakes in a positive way.

I know we'd all like a leader we can all get behind who will give us everything we want.  The reality is that politicians look for a parade to get in front of, and it's up to us to create that parade for them to lead.  That's just how it works.

As I'm making my choice between the Democratic candidates, what I'm looking for is the person who's most willing to listen. All our candidates are promising change, because they all understand that's what we need.  My concern is who will be responsive to the degree of change that we're all asking for.  Right now, I'm leaning towards Obama for that. 

< South Carolina Results--GAVEL TIME! | Where is the PODCAST of South Carolina coverage??? >
 Display:
Obama as the parade leader | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
same game, different name (none / 0)
by that same token, you also spelled out an advertisement for edwards.

by mathcore on 01/26/2008 10:38:46 PM EST

True (none / 0)
Which is why I'm an Edwards supporter first. But, I'm also a realist, and it's going to come down to Obama or Clinton.

by pmdtrans on 01/26/2008 11:09:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama could be great (none / 0)

I think the key with an Obama presidency is to get enough real progressives into congress that when he "reaches out" to work with them they pull him to the left.  In that situation, which is actually a very good possibility after November, we could do really well AND have a president who gives awesome speeches all the time.

And no matter how much Obama has turned me off with his rhetoric about change and (when they're not completely vague and generalized) policies that are way more right-wing than I'm comfortable with, he's still pretty clearly a better choice than Hillary Clinton.  Though I'm sure she'd do a reasonable job as president.

Obama's speech tonight gave me a little hope because he's starting to look a little bit angry and there seems to be some fight there when he gets riled.

Of course, if Hillary takes a detour from her campaign to go fight this telecom immunity bullshit on Monday I'll change my mind faster than Mitt Romney at a waffle house. 

by ynp7 on 01/26/2008 11:25:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama (none / 0)
Obama is down and out in Florida though. He's going to have to really work to catch up to Miss Clinton.

by acroso on 01/27/2008 06:25:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Nice to think so but that's a MAJOR gamble (none / 0)
And to me it sucks hugely that we are forced to consider such a gamble. IMHO our 2 party system is broken. We need some recourse when they screw up in such disastrous ways as with torture, FISA, war funding, Roberts, Alito, Mukasey, and many more. Calling and emailing are fine but they haven't prevented any of these pathetic failures.

by toosinbeymen on 01/26/2008 10:40:14 PM EST

Of course it's a gamble (none / 0)

But it's what we have until we figure out how to change it.

 

by pmdtrans on 01/26/2008 11:19:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Roberts, Scalito (none / 0)
Roberts and Scalito broke against tax payers last week. A major disappointment.

by acroso on 01/26/2008 11:24:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
get your ass back on the topic of this thread (none / 0)
They are a major disappointment period. I hope the new D  president gets a chance to replace them. Now back to the topic of the thread.

by Chinese Democracy on 01/27/2008 12:32:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
how would that work? (none / 0)
Unless they both have undisclosed heart conditions or something we are very likely going to go through at least 3 more presidents before someone gets to replace those guys.

by ynp7 on 01/27/2008 01:04:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
JP Stevens voodoo doll (none / 0)
If one of the liberal relics on the Court dies in 2008, look for Bush to nominate John Cornyn of Texas. He was the Texas Attorney General and the former Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
 
The tradition of Senatorial Courtesy dictates that Cornyn would receive a fair hearing, an up-or-down vote, and reasonable consideration on behalf of his fellow Senators.

by KenTX on 01/27/2008 02:01:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why do you hate America? (none / 0)

Seriously, "liberal relics"?!?  How can you even use the word "relic" to describe people when your guys want to take us back to the stone age?

Just admit that you hate America and get on the next plane out. 

by ynp7 on 01/27/2008 02:53:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Cornyn (none / 0)
I don't trust John Cornyn. Edith Jones, Karen Williams, Estrada...Republicans should be using a tride and true list of people who they know will overturn all the warren court's decisions.

by acroso on 01/27/2008 06:23:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
incrementalism (none / 0)
You far right guys just don't get it. Replacing JP Stevens or Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg with John Cornyn would be a big win. It would guarantee conservative victories in the Court for a very long time.

Focus on the point. John Cornyn could be confirmed, even though the environment is highly contentious, and Bush is a lame duck. Far right judges would never be confirmed in 2008. All Democrats have to do is stall until we elect a new president.

by KenTX on 01/27/2008 02:27:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Imbecilism (none / 0)

Why oh why are you trying to have a discussion with Liacroso. Did your dog die unexpectedly or something?


 


by MRFred on 01/27/2008 05:43:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
acroso's voting history (none / 0)
1992: H Ross Perot

1996: Pat Buchanon

2000: Pat Buchanon

2008: Ron Paul

The reason I engage him is to draw contrast between Republicans and kooks.

by KenTX on 01/27/2008 06:52:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok so (none / 0)

you talk to acroso as a fellow Republican.  Which kooks in particular are you trying point out? Limbaugh? Coulter? Savage? Malkin? Bennett? Cheney...

by MRFred on 01/27/2008 08:13:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama as the parade leader | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: