Expat:

I was not suggesting that words have NO power or importance, or that the choice of one’s words in a particular situation (especially foreign policy) do not have importance and consequences.  I was only saying that words, per se, do not ACCOMPLISH things, though they can provide an “impetus” for accomplishing things.

I was merely challenging MA’s proposition that the phrases he provided were in some way “catalytic.”  Some were, some weren’t.  But in none of the cases he provided did the “words” of the political figures give a clear and positive indication of who they were or what they would or would not accomplish.

Peace.

The choice of words is critical in the world of foreign diplomacy and everyday life.  Saying adversary instead of enemy; saying you will talk anytime anyplace instead of threats.  These are not signs of weakness; they are signs of intelligence and a willingness to apply that intelligence.  It should be obvious to the whole world by now we have vast military powers; but this obviously doesnÂ’t always work.  The present president has always chosen his words carefully so there is no mistake about his intentions; which is why we are where we are.  The choice of words, carefully chosen, is precisely how we communicate.  So, we have been in constant war for 7 years now and what have we accomplished:  A hell of a lot of dead people and a ruined, broken country beyond our ability to fix.  I for one will take dialogue any time.

Words, no matter how flowery or dramatic, don’t solve crises: action does.  JFK said “Ich bin ein Berliner,” yet gave us the Bay of Pigs and escalated the growing “war” in Vietnam.  Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” and gave us voodoonomic, Iran-Contra, another arms war, and nearly bankrupted out own country as he tried to bankrupt Russia.  MLK said, “I have a dream,” but was not a politician, and this was Hillary’s point (though it was “spun” negatively by Obama’s people): that no matter how much grasstoors organizing and movement momentum there may be, NO president is FORCED to sign any particular legislation, or make any particular change; i.e., that it was necessary for LBJ to sign the two Acts in order for them to become law and fulfill the movement led by MLK and others.  This takes NOTHING away from that movement, nor in any way diminishes those involved.  It is a simple fact of politics.

This is one reason why I am not swayed by Obama’s admittedly powerful and inspirational rhetoric: because at the end of the day, it is JUST rhetoric, unless and until actions are taken to substantiate that rhetoric.  And he may well intend such actions.  But in the meantime, I am not impressed by “empty” words, no matter how inspiring.

Peace.

We still have several months to see how HRC and Obama debate issues.

I have always advocated term limits and believe that polititians like diapers should be changed often and for the same reason. 

For me, Obama not being an entrenched politician with baggage is a plus.

There’s an old saying [that I just made up] that goes something like so: Any individual that accepts living with another individual, who has betrayed their trust and lied under oath, just for the sole purpose of qualifying to run for President can only be considered to be a liar and one not worthy of trust.

Unfortunately in this instance it is not a question of “a veteran” versus a “visionary” its an issue of demanding from the American voter to vote for an individual of high principles and integrity that reflects the trust every American puts his x on.

In this context this veteran can only go with the one who is not.

J.S.:

Yikes!  Was that a compliment to me?  Better not let Cyrena see that!  LOL.

Seriously, though, you make a very good point when you say, “I cannot think of a better senior Democratic senator than HRC…and thatÂ’s partly because the negatives that are mostly her husbandÂ’s fault have no traction there.  They most certainly will on the road to, and in, the White House.”

That has definitely been on my mind lately.  And though I think there aer enough “positives” on her side to balance that out, it is admittedly worrisome.

Still, I disagree that it is any less true for Obama that “nothing but the presidency will do.”  After all, he did not even finish a single term in the Senate.  Even setting aside the fact that he promised his constituents that he would NOT do this (which, for me, speaks to his honesty and character as well), is it really enough for a president to have “charisma” and “inspire” people?

To suggest that the presidency is a “figurehead” position (like the monarchy) seems strangely inapt.  After all, even Bush - who is perhaps more of a figurehead than most presidents given Cheney’s shadow control - has done an awful lot to damage the country through signing statements, etc.

It is because I do NOT see the presidency as a figurehead position that I believe that age, experience, time served on Congress, etc. are CRITICAL aspects of the job.

This is why, had Hillary and Obama started the campaign off differently, the Clinton-Obama ticket would have been spectacular: it would have given Hillary the chance to show that she DOES know what she’s doing and WOULD use efforts to make things better for PEOPLE (and not just corporations); it would have given Obama the position which is more of a “figurehead” one, but in which he could truly shine, as well as gaining valuable experience; and it would have assured Obama the presidency in eight years.  Given this (and despite what the Hillary-bashers here believe), this would have given us 16 years of comparatively “progressive” leadership in which to undo the damage Bush has done, and truly start on the road toward, if not already effect, “change.”

Peace.

Ted Kennedy and other family members are supporting Obama for the right reasons.

Even so, a challenge facing Obama (and all of us) is the fact that his dad was black and Obama is so-called “mixed-race.”

Let’s deal with it head on and discuss all angles. Take a look at the article ...

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”

AmericanChronicle.com
January 31, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50835

Ted Kennedy and other family members are supporting Obama for the right reasons.

Even so, a challenges facing Obama (and all of us) is the fact that his dad was black and Obama is so-called “mixed-race.”

Let’s deal with it head on and discuss all angles. Take a look at the article ...

“Mixed-ethnicity Americans face challenges”

AmericanChronicle.com
January 31, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/50835

I’ll give you the reaching across the aisle thing, Maani.  But being a well known Senator is not the same thing as being President.

Personally, i think she makes an excellent Senator.  I believe strongly that she could better serve her country and her party as a Senator rather than a president.  She would actually have more power to accomplish the things that are important to her.  But i also understand that her sights are set on the oval office and nothing less will do.

And no, i don’t think that the same could be said about Obama.  The Presidency is, to a certain degree, a figurehead position.  It suits a person with loads of charisma and the ability to inspire.  Being a senior Senator suits a policy person with connections, pull, and a real willingness to get his/her hands dirty.  Sens Byrd and Kennedy are getting up there.  Honestly, i cannot think of a better senior Democratic senator than HRC…and that’s partly because the negatives that are mostly her husband’s fault have no traction there.  They most certainly will on the road to, and in, the White House.

I’m not trying to convince you to support Obama, Maani, i respect your views and your decision.  Actually, HRC should probably be paying you because you do an excellent job of defending her against all comers.

His post-partisan empty rhetoric is anything but visionary.  He doesn’t represent a break from the status quo; his corporate ties won’t let him.  In fact, his domestic policies are the *least* progressive of the (formerly) top 3 Democratic contenders, with Edwards having been the most progressive and Clinton not far behind.

He doesn’t say what his values are, what he’ll fight for when push comes to shove and he doesn’t explain how he’ll get it—whatever it is he believes in—done.

His pattern is quite clear: appease the right and divide the left with right-wing frames and compromised policies.  No wonder he’s the type of “Democrat” the GOP just adores.

“The hope that some regard as tangible, others see as helium. The experience some believe is invaluable, others call old politics.”

This sums up alot of the debate that I have seen on LieDig for the past couple of months.  It is a brilliant assessment, yet, unfortunately, brings us no closer to a happy denouement.

Re Jackpine’s comments about “fighting Republicans” and “90s partisan politics,” it should be noted that Hillary has a reputation for “reaching across the aisle” and getting things done that was completely unexpected when she arrived in Congress; even many staunch Republicans have noted this.  And given that she has had four more years than Obama to develop and hone this ability, I think this gives her an edge, at least in this particular regard.

Peace.

“Tough but non-fatal love” is an excellent phrase.

While i understand the appeal of the “fight”, i find it disingenuous that the Clinton campaign could or would appeal to this rationale.  They stand for fighting the Republicans, not fighting for what’s right.  And while the Republicans are most often very wrong, simply fighting them does not mean that you’re fighting for what is right.

Moreover, that fight (the good fight) is not one that can be waged by politicians unless they are moved and informed by the masses fighting the good fight in the streets.  RFK could fight because the population at large was fighting.

I cannot help but feel that if Sen Clinton is the president, the fighting we’ll see will look more like 90’s partisan politics than the 60’s social movements that inspired RFK.

And as usual, G. Anderson sums it all up so very well.

Does that mean if we get angry enough, we can usher in a new world, one in which our politicians say what they mean, tell us the truth and do what they say they will do after their elected?

There are many unanswered questions about both Hillary and Obama. Ultimately those questions can only be answered after they become president.

Maybe, Hillary learned the wrong lessons when she was first lady. And maybe that’s what’s shaping her campaign now.

Although I would have preferred Edwards, my vote would have been torn between him and Obama. His withdrawal makes it easy for me.

While I think Hillary would be ok as president, I believe for too many she’s become a symbol rather than a real person, with very real deficits. Ones she’s managed to hide for the most part. That’s what makes me nervous about her.

In any event there’s always an element of risk in voting. One thing is for certain Hillary won’t be able to look tougher than Johan McCain on the War.

I really enjoyed reading this article. Ellen Goodman has quality political opinions. Much to her credit, she pinpointed exactly what this Democratic bickering is about. Head and heart.

It’s pretty apparent I’m an Obama supporter. I feel his inclusion politics would begin the healing process in America by bringing people together under one union. It seems Barack speaks to all partisanships better than Clinton does. He’s bold, fresh and has the best environmental record of any candidate.

Honestly, I don’t see how it would help to make Hillary the “angry candidate” as it didn’t serve John Edwards well when he was labeled as such. Moreover, I don’t see her has battle tested. The way HRC runs messages like “The Republicans won’t give up without a fight” wears thin in my mind. Such statements I construe to be scare tactics in alignment with terrorism rhetoric.