The Expectation Of Change

November 23, 2008

Driving throughout the largely liberal Los Angeles area, everything from Barack Obama bumper stickers to tee-shirts suggest what has rarely been suggested before in such a large volume: mass change –accompanied by a single date: January 20th. 

Of the many emotions this provokes from me as a self-proclaimed liberal and Obama supporter, satisfaction and rejoice are overshadowed by disappointment in the form of political rhetoric and greed. To me Barack Obama is a new kind of politician — eloquent and prolific in the limelight — but as shown in his campaign, strategically and politically brilliant. He has somehow transformed and captured the majority of the United States and brought it to one voice and one meaning, hope. 

But within this word, a sanctuary of hope that delivered to millions of Americans an image of the “American dream,” a utopia of economic prosperity and governmental perfection, only a handful of Obama supporters see hope in the practical sense, only they see hope attached to patience. 

Obama Campaigns I, myself too young to lay my respective punch-hole in the ballot box for another two elections, acknowledge that in fact I have not been captivated by Barack Obama because of his mantra of hope, nor have seen him as the leader that millions of Americans do.

But I support him in the way that I have never supported one single idea or campaign in my life. He, in my humble opinion, was the best candidate running for President — carrying the necessary policies to help the United States of America prosper and thrive. 

But in no way do I link the date January 20, 2009 to economic wealth and political prosper. Obama is simply a liberal politician who is in fact the right leader for this country that beckons political guidence and leadership. 

But in the same way the better life that seems so close away from all Americans will not be handed over by Obama on January 21. And in the end, America will see a political disappointment that this nation perhaps have never seen before. They will have to be patient and forgiving to a president Barack Obama, while they let him politically dig out the country from the deep hole it has been forced into.

Advertisements

As the news piles in that Senator Hillary Clinton is planning to accept the position of Secretary of State, the blogosphere and press alike are divided in the simple question: “why.”

Why was a Secretary Clinton chosen? The UK’s guardian calls it a reach to a former enemy, but I personally disagree, mainly being the simple reason of importance. A position this high can not merely be given for a photo op and PR, especially in the position we are in now.

I’ll leave this brief and open it up to the commenters.

On A Lighter Note…

September 29, 2008

I thought I’d take a small break tonight from the debates and put up a hilarious video made when Hillary Clinton was thought to win president (back when…) I did not make the video and yes, I do know that the author of the youtube mix is an Obama supporter and partisan. 

Enjoy: Mission Bosnia: Click Here 

On another note — I wrote a guest movie review on Involuntary Fury’s blog of “Eagle Eye” here.

At last night’s day two of the Democratic Convention, with millions of eyes watching, Senator Hillary Clinton delivered the speech destined to come — her complete and sincere backing of Barack Obama. Saving her from stealing die-hard delegates and once again making herself known as “running against” Obama, Clinton’s speech made it very bold and clear from the start that she was for Obama. 

But what really made the speech stand out was the fact that it went straight to the point. Clinton and her team knew her role and didn’t overshoot it, which proved my expectations wrong. She shot right to the point after a very short (and rather disappointing) introduction by her daughter with the repetition speech strategy that both she and Obama share, addressing the overall point of: “I speak to you as a mother, a senator, an American, and a supporter of Barack Obama.” 

The long awaited speech was both executed perfectly, but also added its own dose of fun as well (the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits remark) that even got Obama to laugh. So for what purpose did this speech really pose? It was a mere reminder of Obama’s Thursday speech that gets more important by the hour.

Senator Barack Obama’s pick for Vice Presidency has been a rare case — swaying everyone’s opinion from your teenage daughter to the head of the New York times. And in a presidential race that is one for the history books from the candidates to the voters, what better time to keep the suspense high? So I guess the questions are who and why — but now its “when?”

Obama has left the country guessing left and right, but this time — the press has nowhere to go. Obama has been in a dark room with six top advisers, which means two things: a well thought out final decision — and no leaks. Although many news segments and articles have been written about possible choices, they have no possible leads and no one to get information to. So in the end, even with their top politics men analyzing anything everything and anything that could be going on in that room, they really don’t have a clue about who Obama will actually pick. It could be anyone from Vladimir Putin to Rihanna, as Paris Hilton put it. 

So with that said, who Obama does pick is not only a very important decision for his long term campaign, but will make a huge point to the public and sadly, race will be a factor. Obama’s best reception publicly as far as race, however, will probably a white male. As Hillary Clinton best put it during one of the primary debates: “there’s me {in other words a woman}, there’s Obama {in other words a black man} and then there’s John.” Referring here to John Edwards, her point was that with Obama and her breaking racial and gender barriers, John Edwards just looked like a stereotypical politician — a rich white male. And at this time in America, that’s what it can come down to — what race or sex you are as opposed to your actual political policies. 

His pick also shows to the more educated Americans what kind of policies he likes and what kind of politician he enjoys working with. He/she pick will show people who he thinks is a true leader and what he thinks his Vice President (lets call him/her “x”) has strengths and weaknesses. And that’s one of the reasons that picking Hilary Clinton would be complete suicide. In the rare case that Obama does pick Clinton as his running mate, he will get pounded by the press and the public. Why? Although Clinton shares many of the same opinions as Obama, she has not only fiercely attacked Obama throughout her campaign and decided to not completely disable her campaign after losing, she has attempted (and mostly failed) to cut Obama down in any possible way, and that mostly doesn’t involve politics. 

So who does this leave as the perfect running mate. In my case, John Edwards — but it would take more than just a flawless PR stunt to get his personal problems out of the way. And although what he did was horrible, I think he would be the perfect “x” for Obama — a publicly nice, white male that doubles as a great politician. Plus, he hasn’t gotten on anyone’s nerves yet. But since he is most definitely done (in the rare occasion he comes back it will be years), Obama is digging deep into his list of possible running mates, and the world will keep guessing.

So with no clues, the last thing to guess would be from a tactical point of view. During John F. Kennedy’s campaign, he chose (under great controversy) Lyndon Johnson, who wasn’t exactly his biggest fan or vice versa. One of the bigger reasons of choosing him was because JFK was not very popular in the South — and in the end — Johnson was. Obama could use this tactic for his advantage in his long struggle to steal some (bright) red states. Although it probably wouldn’t be in Obama’s best interest to shoot for Mike Gravel as VP, it would be almost monumental for the general elections to find someone with good connections to the midwest, preferably Ohio, who as we know literately picks the eventual president. So who has connections there? Well, there’s Ted Strickland…and not much else. As far as Ohio their aren’t many people over in the first door on the left, and Ted Strickland as governor is the best bet for Obama there.

But no news of anything in that category has popped up, we really have no leads in any direction. And with the democratic convention coming up, all we can guess all we want but — unless some sort of leak or lead surfaces — we’ll just have to wait and see. 

pacer521

Jack Cafferty wrote a rather controversial post on CNN today, citing that Hillary Clinton has already taken over the democratic convention with all her scheduled introductions, prime-time addresses, and intro videos hyped up by her political team, which was been at a campaign stand-still until recently after months of negotiation with Obama. She has not, however, dropped out of the race — which left many Hilary fans (who aren’t exactly politically keen) baffled in the forums. Now Cafferty is a pretty controversial guy with what he says on the air — and the web — but this one may be the most outrageous political post he has published in a while. And as crazy as it sounds — he has a point. 

Call me insane, but I still think Clinton has a chance in getting the sole democratic seat in the thrill ride of the national election — and her elaborate schedule in the convention doesn’t hurt. What does hurt her campaign is the roller coaster she put her supporters through — at first claiming she will be “holding on ’till the end,” then hopping on Obama’s bandwagon, encouraging her supporters to vote for him, and now putting her name onto the ballot at the Democratic Convention.

Let’s face it, during the primaries, Clinton had many of her devoted fans jump onto the Obama chu-chu train for good, which was one of the reasons for her eventual defeat. She now has presented another chance for her delegates and super-delegates to fall for her convention “trap” — consisting of her daughter Chelsea introducing her followed by a move intro produced by the same people that made Bill’s “The Man From Hope” in ’92 — all leading up to her crucial last speech before the curtains close and the decisions start. 

Another thing that Hillary can use for her last hurrah is the fact that she has Obama at a standstill. He doesn’t want a dirty convention, and for good reason. A quiet and quickly executed convention would fair well for Obama, who as the projected winner (and for me the obvious one despite the above) needs to confirm to his voters, the independents, and John McCain that the fighting has ceased (at least the public stuff) on the democrat side. So because of this, Obama is staying very conserved and naturally, weak whenever Clinton goes on one of her rants. He knows if he fights back or even presents his side he will be open to attack from anyone and everyone who isn’t in his campaign. An expert put this very well, saying that the Clintons have “got Obama hostage and are exacting their ransom” with every demand that she presents. 

So what do I think? Hillary is hurting Obama — and the democratic party as well — by interfering with a convention she knows she can’t win, but will give her a chance. This chance, though, will draw votes away from Obama as well as hurt the democrat’s reputation and open up a hole that the Republics can successfully shoot through. This is something of a last hope for the Clinton side which doubles as a classic show of arrogance on her part. And it won’t fare well for the good old left wing, which needs a boost to beat McCain anyway. 

pacer521