www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]


« The end of blogging | Main | The influence game »

Michelle Obama's speech

26 Aug 2008 03:53 am

Michelle Obama did her part and closed a somewhat purposeless first day of the Democratic convention on a positive note. She came over as strong and assured, yet approachable and not at all threatening or angry--those last two were the notes, of course, that the campaign was most anxious to avoid. Her story was touching, and their marriage reflects well on her husband. Yes, one thought, she is a remarkable woman and he did well. Also, she dealt deftly with a couple of awkward issues: of course she loves America; and words can barely do justice to her regard for Hillary Clinton. It was good stuff, well delivered.

My spirits sagged, and even then only a little, at just two points. It's starting to annoy me that Barack keeps telling us how he turned down Wall Street for a career in "public service". By this he means politics. Just how great a sacrifice is that? The kind of ambition that gets you into the Senate and maybe the White House is not exactly renouncing the world and all its temptations, is it? And now here we have Michelle doing the same thing. She gave up lawyering, she says, and chose "public service"--the kind that leads in due course to a 300k-plus salary. I've no problem with it. I just don't want to keep being asked to admire the sacrifice.

The other dispiriting thing was the stuff with the girls at the end. They are cute, and the traditions of American politics must be observed, no doubt, but it makes me uncomfortable to see children used as political props. One ought to feel much the same way, I suppose, about spouses. At a couple of points in this campaign, when Michelle has come in for criticism, Barack said, "leave her out of this." At those times I remember thinking, he's right: the country is not electing her. Maybe, in fact, it is: in any event, you can't have it both ways.

A little earlier, the ailing Ted Kennedy greatly moved the audience with a most dignified address--a speech that was all about the country and Obama, and not at all about him. And yet, as I say, the first day seemed somewhat drifting and unfocused. With three days still to go, it is too soon to complain of complacency. But the Democratic campaign is in trouble. So far, you would not know it from the mood in Denver.

Comments (58)

I really got the impression from Michelle Obama's speech that it was somewhat the "same old, same old" overly romantic stuff aobut B. Obama as if he had come flying in as some mysterious spirited one who was going to save us all with his background of his sacrifices of a career. Basically, why would he have been on Wall Street anyway if his studies had to do with law and social work? And his youngest daughter caught on to his mistake of saying incorrectly where he was speaking from. First he said he was in St. Louis, then it was Kansas City - both cities are a state apart. As a died in the wool Democrat, and a woman, I am very disappointed in how overly scripted, and play acted her speech was, no individual enthusiasm, and only bantering along about how much she gave up her exclusive career to raise kids and sart a big project connecting the poor community with the Chicago University. Why was that not mentioned before? Isn't she on the board of directors at some big hospital for a nice littel sum of almost a half million a year? Totally confused, I am.

The point of emphasizing exchanging a corporate career for one working with community groups, nonprofits, universities (which can be financially rewarding), and holding elective office is that all of these are valid, honorable ways of serving the common good and serving the country. Military service is not the only way. That's a contrast to McCain and, actually, its the way most Americans serve their country. Every dad who volunteers to coach a soccer team, and every mom who volunteers to coach a soccer team, is serving the common good. Barack Obama would be making a lot more money as a Wall Street lawyer today if he had stayed there. Michelle Robinson would be making a lot more money today as a partner in a big Chicago law firm today if she had stayed there.

Clive, you're really a sad person. It's really sad that you would spend your entire post, save for the first paragraph, on what was wrong with Michelle's speech. And children as props? What are you smoking? Whether Obama wins or loses, this was Michelle's biggest moment and somehow sharing it with her girls was posturing? How cynical do you have to be, dude? Where is your post concerning how McCain has prostituted his POW status for political gain? Where is your post on how he has made his "service" to country a cultish theme? There were over 40 law firms lined up to sign the first African American editor of the HLR, but Barack chose to practice civil rights law. Impugn his motives if you must, but just in terms of pecuniary dividends, it was a sacrifice. I'm disappointed in how much of a sourpuss you are.

What was your greatest achievement? Did you not want to share it with those who matter the most to you? How would you have felt if people had interpreted it as posturing? This is a blog, we read this because we think you can avoid the clutter and utter nonsense that passes for commentary. If you think doing the same thing is the way to go, why are we here?

I too, get annoyed at people like the Obamas lauding themselves for 'government service.' A politician (or aspiring one) is a very calculating animal, and no doubt Mr. Obama knew that community organizing would play better with his prospective base than a financial services job. Interesting that in his professional career, a time that includes being a college professor, he managed to write not one, but two books about...himself. That doesn't seem like the act of a selfless person, but one interested in setting the stage for his career. Obviously, lots of politicians do the same thing, but it just points to Obama as someone keenly interested in politics - not self-sacrifice - from the very start.

What Clive describes is what I find annoying about the current Democratic Party. Yet I found Mrs. O's speech very well delivered. She's definitely an accomplished, smart, and respectable lady on her own merits.

What bugs me is the implications in her speech: "Community" and public service are good, but work for private enterprise does not imply such grandeur. There's no glory in working for Da Man, his profit margins, or his shareholders.

The current Democratic Party is working to reverse its pragmatic Clintonian centrism to return to the head-in-the-clouds idealism of the urban, academic left. In that paradigm, you can mandate whatever you want as a public servant as long as it's for the supposed common good of the community. If you work for private enterprise, you must also work for your labor union, as such an institution always has the interests of the common man at heart.

If only the Democrats weren't so allergic to free markets. They're too suspicious of individuals pursuing their own individual interests in private interactions.

MarkG, excellent insight and description of the what's wrong with Obamba's spiel. The O's are all about community service, ONCE they are all settled into the Rezko financed million dollar house, lol.

Democrats...continue to just sweep that under the carpet... but realize O's a phony just like all the rest.

I found the speech to be mechanical...she tried making it look impassioned but it looked cardboard. She hit emotional buttons. That's easy to do.
I don't care abut how they fell in love It's got nothing to do with electing a president.
Yes, the ending was embarrassing. The kids were used as a prop. To hand over the microphone and ask , "How do you think your mommy did?"
What's she going to say..."Mommy sucked"?
It showed poor judgment.

I didn't buy it. There was no substance nor one mentioend of any specifics as to how they are going to do what they say they want to do: save America, and by default the world.

UNBELIEVABLE.

For weeks all I've heard is how strange the Obamas are, how exotic, how different, how the country doesn't really know them -- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And now, when Michele seeks to introduce them to a national audience - OMG!!! What are they doing?!!! Why aren't they attacking the Republicans?!! Why aren't they attacking John McCain?!! Aaaaaaahhhhhh!

If everyone but the Obama team are such experts, then WHY DIDN'T THEIR CANDIDATES WIN THE PRIMARY?

Enough already. Shut the hell up and let the Senator from Illinois do his thing.

I hate hearing claims to personal sacrifice in the name of service. True, soldiers, police, and fire fighters are hurt or killed on the job, but so are taxi drivers and hookers.

And anyway, what's the sacrifice of going into politics? In the minds of most people, politician is just another four-letter word.

I don't blame Obama for going into politics, nor do I blame McCain. But to claim either one of them did so for you and me is as lame as claiming Keifer Sutherland or Madonna went into acting out of a desire to serve.

Let's agree that politics is a valid career choice but it's not especially laudable. A democracy needs politicians, and when voting we should choose the candidate we like best. But let's not take it to the next level and say they're doing us a patriotic service by running for office.

Its pretty easy leaving a tough entry level job at a major law firm to hitch a ride with your husband's rising star. The University of Chicago Hospitals created a do-nothing, previously unnecessary "community liaison" vice presidency position especially for Mrs. Obama when her husband got elected senator. And paid her $300,000 (And they promise to reduce the cost of healthcare?). That's not a sacrifice, that's simony.

The gigs Mrs. Obama "worked"-- sitting on boards, community this or that-- are created by non-profits to seat relatives of politicians to keep the flow of government money flowing. The Obamas are a typically corrupt political family in this regard.

This is not to say that Mrs. Obama didn't do what little work there was with diligence, sincerity and intelligence. Its just that she never would have been offered those jobs if her husband's hand wasn't on the spigot.

Going into politics can and should be laudable. If it is not, in some cases, then that only points to things we - citizens - need to repair. The desire to make government work for people, the desire to create a healthier community, the desire to solve problems - This is equal to Kiefer and Madonna?

It must be a tremendous challenge to decide how much to involve children in the stages of politics. I will say this: I think it can be incredibly empowering to little girls (and boys) to bear witness to their mother speaking to an arena.

Anyone who thinks that first day was purposeless has a deficiency of emotional intelligence.

Boy, these are all real smart comments so I'm a little embarrassed to share my "simple man" take on things but all I could think was --

Between the likes of Ted Kennedy who's really always been a burlesque of, you know, the real Kennedy and some grotesquery like Dick Cheney at the other end of the spectrum, is there a political party for normal people in this country?

And then Michelle Obama started talking and she seemed like a breath of normalcy to me.

I like her.

He turned down Wall Street out of undegrad. He worked for nearly nothing as a community organizer in Chicago before later on going to law school. He entered law school with an eye on a political career. His work as a community organizer out of undergrad seemed to be more about finding a purpose in life.

Blah blah blah blah.
Why is this even a topic of conversation?
All of these points are standard topics for a party convention speech.
What's so horrible about trying to make your career path seem slightly more noble than it actually is?
Isn't that pretty much mandatory?

What's all this busting on the performing arts? Creating entertainment that people enjoy is also a valid career choice. Most people who do it successfully, like most entrepreneurs, make normal livings from it. A few become stinking rich, but why is that a problem if people like their work?

Blah blah blah blah.
Why is this even a topic of conversation?
All of these points are standard topics for a party convention speech.
What's so horrible about trying to make your career path seem slightly more noble than it actually is?
Isn't that pretty much mandatory?

I wanted to buy her speach, but didn't. There were parts that were inspired. Overall I would give it a strong B+ grade.

Somehow, I miss the intrigue of the old time conventions, the ones where there was much less control, and thus more potential uncertainty. It would be nice to have a convention where issues could be hammered out--real issues, not just scripted ones. Issues where petty self interest could be revealede to those on the inside. I miss the convention where you didn't have to put on a happy face for the public, where back room deals could be made. A convention where you didn't know who the winner would be as you were going into it.

Oh well, I am both naive and overly nostalgic..


There's something lost here, just as there's something gained.

Sometimes when I read crap like the observations by Crook and his fellow sycophants I feel like I live on a planet populated by conspiracy theorists. Nothing goes according to plan. Events may be scripted, but all of television is, so understanding reality always helps; and, of course, scripts may go awry, e.g., Obama's scripted live reaction where he had no clue whether he was in st. louis, kansas city, or in new jersey where the moon landings actually took place.

Adin

ps. i'll follow this up with absolute proof that jfk's assasination was not a conspiracy.

It is fascinating to read (or hear) comments that impugn Obama's decision to become a community activist because "no doubt Mr. Obama knew that community organizing would play better with his prospective base than a financial services job."

Wait a minute...which base was that? When Obama became a community organizer, and yes did not take a demanding, but highly rewarding position at a law firm (from a financial standpoint) he could not have had an idea that he would be atop the democratic ticket today. He may have hoped for it, but how many others got involved in politics with the hopes of one-day being president only to fall far short? If the proverbial ball bounced a different way at any time over the past 15 years, he could still be a law professor or a state senator.

On a side, for folks like the first commentor, who I presume is a Hillary supporter based on her comment, there's no doubt that the way the campaign turned out is disappointing. Lets face it, it honks when your horse doesn't win (myself and Edwards guy...yikes). But, Sen. Clinton's campaign failed because she didn't run it well, not because Obama trashed her. A candidate's best test leading up to becoming president is actually the campaign. While generating support from millions of people, and erasing any doubt that a woman could be a viable presidential candidate today...not just in the future, Sen. Clinton ran a bad strategic campaign, burned through millions of dollars on nothing and found her true voice way too late.

Oh yeah, and I liked the speech too.

YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

I think the Obamas are nice people, but I'm sick and tired of the BS. There is no substance or plans when I hear either of them speak...'We need to do A,B,C, and D. We need to sacrifice this and that'...none of that. It's this southern baptist drawl that is used to raise and inspire people for 'change'. Real leaders wouldn't be giving us this political rhetoric, they'd be lecturing the citizens on where we've screwed up and outlaying a plan in great detail where we need to fix things and what the pros and cons would be. That would be a true 'change' candidate. Barrack Obama is the same old politician that we've seen for years and years, and that's fine...but don't try to tell me this is some new way.

I think the Obamas are nice people, but I'm sick and tired of the BS. There is no substance or plans when I hear either of them speak...'We need to do A,B,C, and D. We need to sacrifice this and that'...none of that. It's this southern baptist drawl that is used to raise and inspire people for 'change'. Real leaders wouldn't be giving us this political rhetoric, they'd be lecturing the citizens on where we've screwed up and outlaying a plan in great detail where we need to fix things and what the pros and cons would be. That would be a true 'change' candidate. Barrack Obama is the same old politician that we've seen for years and years, and that's fine...but don't try to tell me this is some new way.

She was trying to establish that she and Obama are like the rest of us but we don't really care - we want to know what they're going to do. If we want to talk about community service I certainly respect McCain's brand of service much more - he joined the Navy based on family tradition not political ambition and I believe his spirit of service will carry through to his presidency. Michelle and Barac are just typical political hacks trying to grab power and make a buck.

I turned on the television expecting to be inspired. I watched the crowd moved to tears as Michelle spoke and I was confused. I was listening to the same speech and I was bored. She needed an editor, it was too long, too repetitious. The words may have come right from her heart but the presentation appeared produced.

It only got worse. After the speech the kids were up on stage talking to their dad who was a talking head in a box talking from Kansas. He looked like the Wizard of Oz. That is absolutely the wrong image when going against a candidate that presents himself as the only candidate with real substance.o

McCain gave a better show in the Rick Warren debate. Barack had more substance, understood the grayness of issues and was more thoughtful. He also gave a second rate performance.

So, what is it with this batch of Democrats? Get real, get motivated or you will only look like an candy Easter bunny candidate, pretty on the outside but nothing inside. Get it together before it is President McCain time.

Most of you people are a bunch of sad, ultra- conservative Psycos. Give me a brake! Can you find anything positive to say about anyone?

Ray, not in this election I can't. Mccain and Obama are basically the same candidates with the same policies. Obama wants to do a surge in Afganistan is dumb, and he wants to do health care, which is dumb. Both are going to cost a lot of money and not focus on our main objective which is energy. Mccain thinks that the biggest threat to our country is islamic fundamentalism... so its not like the other side offers a feasible alternative. So, Ray, I am sad and I'm sorry there isn't much positive to say about our politicians.

Ray, not in this election I can't. Mccain and Obama are basically the same candidates with the same policies. Obama wants to do a surge in Afganistan is dumb, and he wants to do health care, which is dumb. Both are going to cost a lot of money and not focus on our main objective which is energy. Mccain thinks that the biggest threat to our country is islamic fundamentalism... so its not like the other side offers a feasible alternative. So, Ray, I am sad and I'm sorry there isn't much positive to say about our politicians.

Matt,
Oh you of little faith you really aren't paying attention to McCain are you? Maybe that is because you're use to this country being ran by people who think that American white, rich, males are better than everyone else...Bush+McCain=Bigger Recession! Also I truly don't know where you get off thinking that America's screwed up system that doesn't allow MILLIONS of people with the same HUMAN RIGHTS! Affordable health care should not be offered to only a select few. Remember, the average American today is 1 paycheck from homeless! You need to open your eyes and take a strole to the real world.
Obama 08'!!!

Matt,
Oh you of little faith you really aren't paying attention to McCain are you? Maybe that is because you're use to this country being ran by people who think that American white, rich, males are better than everyone else...Bush+McCain=Bigger Recession! Also I truly don't know where you get off thinking that America's screwed up system that doesn't allow MILLIONS of people with the same HUMAN RIGHTS! Affordable health care should not be offered to only a select few. Remember, the average American today is 1 paycheck from homeless! You need to open your eyes and take a strole to the real world.
Obama 08'!!!

See, I am an average American and I know all about living pay check to pay check..I don't need to open my eyes some times I wish I could close them. The recession was not Bush's fault, it was the mortgage industry, not that Bush was any good, we're the problem you want to help too many people but don't understand that energy is the only way to help them.

See, I am an average American and I know all about living pay check to pay check..I don't need to open my eyes some times I wish I could close them. The recession was not Bush's fault, it was the mortgage industry, not that Bush was any good, we're the problem you want to help too many people but don't understand that energy is the only way to help them.

In spite of the fanatical Obama supporters illusion that disliking Barack and MIchele is blasphemy ... and that Michele's speech was so great ... Many Americans saw her speech as a masquerade. Both Barack and Michele think they can cover up their own history of anti-American racist remarks and associations simply by giving a few speeches to the contrary. Furthermore, it should be noted that in addition to Barack and Michelle choosing Jeremiah Wright as their mentor and spiritual advisor, for 20 years ... they also subjected their two young daughters to the racist anti-American likes of Wright, Farrakhan, Pfleiger, Moss, etc.. This also does not jive with the all American family image the Obama's are all of sudden trying so hard to portray for political gain.

Gina,

I'd take your comment seriously if you actually recounted some of Barack Obama's or Michelle Obama's 'racist remarks.'

I'd also suggest, before taking offense at Wright's remarks, that you think about what people could do with a youtube of your public and private life: or have you managed to live your life having given no offense?

Best,

Carrington

Seanne, NRS, and the other cynics don't know what they're talking about. Michelle Obama didn't forsake corporate law for that plum job at the U of C. (That came a decade later.) She forsook corporate law to run a startup community service organization here in Chicago: Public Allies. I know because my three of my close friends worked for Public Allies, meaning that they worked with her, side by side with hugely interesting and intelligent and motivated working class kids who wanted to make real change in their neighborhood--the same kind of neighborhood Michelle grew up in. And, I'm guessing, most of the doubters here know only from their televisions or glossy magazines written by coddled schmucks from Brahmin Boston or the Beltway. They didn't change the world, obviously, but they changed lives and left the world a slightly better place. Why don't you so-called journalists do some research and real reporting instead of spouting out your blowholes before you taxi back to your hotel?

last night michelle obama's apeech was so on point but the only issue the media could say is why didn't michelle obama attack john mccain (what a joke). you know i'm really sick and tired of hearing 'we don't know obama and what's he's about', did we know bush, clinton or any other president, no! . the media at the democratic convention are engaged like thy are promoting a world premere fight . simple people like me pay check to paycheck ,already know who we are voting for! YES WE CAN

Public service on the South Side of Chicago? If the Obama's were so concerned with that community they should be there now, it's one of the most needy communities in this country, although somehow I doubt B.O. would give up his political career for 'public service' at this point.

Whether they are a sacrafice or not we need to treat certain professions like they are a nobel calling. Medicine and politics are among them. This helps to attract the sorts of people who should be practicing them. When one goes in to public service there is certainly no gaurontee that you will end up president. so at the very least you are risking much.

Obama's comments about turning down Wall Street refer to his decision to go work as a community organizer. Mr. Crook here is conflating "public service" with "politics" and attributing it to the Obamas, but he is incorrect. There is a big difference between Wall Street and community organizing on the south side of Chicago. And there often is a big difference between politicians who move from Wall Street to politics and politicians who move from community organizing to politics. The decision often indicates different priorities, and the experience often develops different skills, sensibilities, and styles.

Let's have a little balance! It's starting to annoy you that the Obamas mention going into public service instead of Wall Street? Than it stands to reason that you are apoplectic that John McCain is answering every question his asked by stating that he was a POW, right? Why no healthcare for every American? I was a POW! Why did you commit adultery and leave your wife? I was a POW! How many houses do you have? I was a POW! Did you cheat at the Saddleback Forum? I was a POW! Why do you like ABBA? I was a POW! Why is Obama a traitor and an elitist? I was a POW!

We may be somewhat off the mark in thinking that personal sacrifice of the kind that the Obama's are making is purely in terms of dollars and cents. What about the sacrifice of their privacy and security ?

I cannot imagine what it must be like to come down to breakfast to find a couple of gunned-up minders sitting in your kitchen. Never to be able to pop into the car to go down the shops. For the children to be under the constant watch of not just a responsible adult but by a heavy with a walkie talkie and an automatic.

I believe that there have been threats against them for over two years already - and the two parents will have to be under this sort of surveillance for the rest of their lives.

We are inclined to think of all sacrifice in financial terms - but the total loss of your privacy and living in constant danger costs far more dearly.

Democrats aren't "allergic" to the free market, we just don't worship at its feet like Republicans. Ronald Regan made a calculated effort to cut the legs out of public service. Under his administration public service jobs lost significant ground in private sector pay parity. Government jobs also lost the respect and prestige they used to have. Suddenly you worked for the government because you were not smart enough to get a "real" job. Then under Bush, government jobs became a form of currency to reward supporters- competent or not. 25 years of that formula has weakened the effectiveness of organizations like FEMA and the DOJ. Yes, Obama did alright for himself after going into community organizing. But that path is far more difficult and less consistent than taking a wall street job. He was able to go from community organizer to state senator to US senator to presidential candidate. Not a predictable career track!
And why all the Republican hate for the Obama's money? Yes, he made a lot of money writing his own books and his wife made lots of money (287 thousand a year, not half a million!) helping the University of Chicago hospitals open community clinics. What, Republicans now hate people who earn their own money. The only money that counts is what you get from inheritance, like Cindy's?

I realize that Clive must feel enormous pressure to attempt to fill this space with original -- or at least original-ish -- observations, but this expression of resentment at "being asked to admire the sacrifice" that Obama made in his choice of post-law-school career paths is moronic and small-minded, even when necessary allowances are made.

As someone who, like Obama, had to take out enormous student loans in order to go to law school, and who chose a "non-traditional" career path after graduating from a well-regarded law school -- i.e., a path other than a fairly easy one straight into a job with a tony corporate law firm -- I can attest that it takes some nerve, and considerable ability to tolerate massive uncertainties, to do so. It is not as if, by choosing to work in a small civil-rights firm and then running for a seat in the state legislature is a sure-fire means of attaining job security, let alone fame and riches. At a minimum, this move was quite a gamble (and please let it be remembered that -- as Hillary and countless other examples show -- practicing corporate law is in no way incompatible with a subsequent career in politics; indeed, that is the most traditional path to political offica there is).

Clive can only sneer at this gamble because it happened to have paid off. Obama got elected to the state senate, distinguished himself there, secured a part-time gig as a lecturer at one of the nation's most prestigious law schools, made it to the U.S. Senate, and wrote two books that made him enough money to put away his student loans and live comfortably. If, at the time that Obama left law school, you had asked me to place bets on whether he would have been able to make a decent living, let alone become a national political phenomenon, given his career choices, I would not have put money on it. Indeed, given that he had the option of heading off to clerk for the Supreme Court and taking his pick of highly prestigious and remunerative jobs, I might have called him a idiot.

If you want to be "original" and contrarian, fine. But try to do so in a way that is not transparently foolish.

I look forward to similar nitpicking when the Republicans meet next week.

I have been a lawyer practicing in a relatively large (60-80 lawyers), big city law firm for over 25 years. For as long as I can remember, we have been hearing about the dearth of women and minorities at the partner level in such places. Books, articles, professional publications, bar association studies, etc., etc. In my own experience, my firm has had no more than 2 or 3 full-time women equity partners (i.e., "real" partners) at any one time, and no minority partners of any kind, unless you count Chinese-American as "minority". Given those circumstances, would it not have been a better thing for Michelle Obama to have forsaken her professional life in so-called "public service" (I'm never quite sure what that means) and to have continued to advance what appeared to be a promising career as a high-flying, handsomely-compensated corporate lawyer in a big Chicago law firm? I am not talking about her decision to stay at home to care for her children - which is a thoroughly admirable thing. That's a separate issue. (Most large law firms, if truth be told, are so absolutely hungry for high-caliber women and minority attorneys capable of functioning at the partner level that they will bend over backwards to make accommodations for part-time "mother's hours" work schedules and the like. I know mine has.) I am talking instead about her choice of career. Look, for Michelle Obama to have walked away from corporate law to go into "public service" may have been a perfectly defensible personal choice for her. But please spare me the self-righteous spin about it. In the long run, Ms. Obama would more likely have advanced the cause of women - and minority women in particular - had she taken advantage of her opportunity to climb the corporate ladder that was hers for the climbing. That's where her presence and her success could have made a real difference. Unless the Michelle Obama's of this world jump at those chances, the dearth of minority women at the upper reaches of corporate America will continue.

Matt,

Just because political speeches don't contain specific proposals doesn't mean the candidate does not have them. (Most voters don't want a governance lesson in their speeches, even if you do.) However, you are welcome to visit the Obama website to see more specific plans than most presidential candidates offer. You can also visit various forums online that discuss specifically the likely consequences of his tax plan, healthcare plan, energy plan, and broader economic philosophy (with the last two inextricably tied together), etc. So if these details are what you think are lacking, my advice is to start surfing.

Your claim that there's no difference between the candidates is as absurd as those who said the same thing in 2000. You may disagree with Obama's actual energy initiatives or McCain's much vaguer and vacillating one, but both candidates recognize the centrality of the issue.

As for not blaming Republicans for the recession, IMO the combination of supply-side tax policy plus deregulation plus outsized deficit spending contributed significantly to the economic challenges we face. McCain vows (perhaps futilely w/ a dem congress) to continue in this vein (his deficit plan is not taken seriously by economists). Some may think deadlock is the best we can do right now, but I believe that bolder measures are necessary to get us on the right track.

The mortgage crisis represents only one aspect of our problems. Deregulation in the financial industry (especially the repeal of glass-steagall, which McCain and his economic advisor Phil Graham (and many Dems) fought for) is a direct cause of that meltdown. For Obama's position, in an clear-minded presentation on the subject, see his speech to Wall Streeters (with specific policies outlined!) during the primary. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBNsq

When Obama talks about the economy, I get the feeling that he has some understanding of the main factors involved (though I don't agree with all his conclusions). I don't get the same feeling from McCain, who, for example, invariably responds to questions about cutting spending with an answer that talks about cutting pork out of the budget--a worthy goal but utterly negligible (and therefore irrelevant) when discussing deficit reduction.

There is a difference. The facts and positions are available to you. Decide who you trust more and vote for them.

First, get it straight: Obama DID leave behind huge lawfirms to work the streets of Chicago for years as an organizer. If you want to call that "politics", be my guest. It just makes you look stupid.

Additionally, thing only thing McCain has sacrificed in the last 35 years is his crippled ex wife and his kids. And why? Because he wanted to bone a rich blond girl 25 years younger than him.

Oh but wait! I forgot. He was POW for 5.5 years. That makes it all okay.

Obama did not turn down Wall Street for politics -- he went into politics years later. First he was a community organizer and civil rights lawyer.

More importantly, Wall Street represents a lot of what is wrong with America today. Profits over people -- companies have obligations to their stockholders, but also to the public and to the employees of the company. Wall Street only recognizes the interests of stockholders; it has begrudgingly accepted the interests of the public and the employees only to extent regulatory laws -- that they fought tooth and nail -- have forced their corporate constituency to do so.

When it comes to workers, the Wall Street moguls would sacrifice them for profits in a heartbeat. People like Carl Icahn, and countless other corporate raiders and liquidators were admired on Wall Street, when they have all but destroyed Main Street. And Wall Street has supported and facilitated the efforts of (formerly) U.S.-based multinational companies to ship jobs overseas, with substandard labor, substandard environmental standards, tax avoidance and corruption. And Wall Street calls that "free trade" and says it's the most important economic issue there is.

Sorry, Wall Street is mostly immoral, and Obama's decision to forsake a 6-figure starting salary (and capitulation to the dark side) is laudable, and rightfully should be applauded.

Hey, Clive, I keep wanting to read you, 'cause Andrew cites you once and a while and you can wield such deft rhetoric. However,when I do,I find punditry reaching for points to make when there's no there, there. Obama said 'lay off my wife' in terms of scurrilous attacks and you claim that he's wanting it both ways to include her prominently in the convention. Come on, you are really scratching to find something undermining. And your telescoped version of the arc of their careers to discredit the value of choosing public service rather than high-paying law firm jobs seems a willful misrepresentation of actual chronological facts. This is seeming more and more like participation in the recitation of Republican talking points which is a flagrant misuse of your position, seems to me. I remember Bush, but more particularly Cheney defending the administration's heavy reliance on industry insiders in the cabinet, assuring us that they were doing public service at great sacrifice of their private sector payrolls. I wonder if you would mention it, were Obama to be the beneficiary of his wife's inheritance. You do seem quite familiar with having it both ways.

On Wall Street, 300K/year is chump change.

//She gave up lawyering, she says, and chose "public service"--the kind that leads in due course to a 300k-plus salary. I've no problem with it. I just don't want to keep being asked to admire the sacrifice.//

Sir, with all due respect, that is all about you and not her.

The majority of her detractors think she has an agenda. She tried to dispel those notions. Whether she succeeded or not is subject to discussion, but please leave your inner demons, insecurities, and shortcomings out of it.

We are projecting so much of ourselves onto these two (three, really) candidates. And then we wonder why we get the government we deserve.

I'm starting to think that it isn't Washington but Main Street that needs fixing.

You are one pathetic Crook.

Bab23,
I have looked at plans from both candidates, but I these guys are still politicians. The house is largely responsible for the problems, and dems voted for the war in iraq...obama as a senator has voted for funding for it almost every time, so what is he talking about he's against it...and he wants to do a surge in afghanistan, I fail to see promise on the opposite side where I've seen failure on the republican side. The argument of de regulation or regulation like sarbanes oxly or I guess and things of that nature have nothing to do with the economic problems...its our people with lack of long term planning in credit and what is feasible. That's just as much our fault as a people for buying what we can't afford as the government's for promoting housing and bad lending practices. Both politicians want to get people back in houses. people can't afford these houses, obama wants to give a tax break to people like me in the middle class...we don't need a tax break we need to learn how to save and not spend everything. What you're seeing is democracy is unable to handle what's coming down the pipe. There's a cap on democracy, it happened to Rome, and its going to happen to us soon.
Matt

Matt,

I merely tried to show where I think some of your assumptions were unwarranted. I did not attempt to prove that Obama was not a politician, did not adopt politically expedient positions, or will be a great president. I pointed out areas that convince me that he and his stated policies represent a better option for our country than does McCain. You may well be right that democracy is ultimately doomed to fail (wouldn't surprise me a bit), but when I look at history, I see progress (and setbacks), which often arise from circumstances but occasionally come about due to leadership (good and bad and goodbad). Presidential elections can sometimes make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, but they inevitably make a huge difference in the lives of our citizens. (Ask the military families.)

I must dispute you again, however, when you find an inconsistency between objecting to starting a war and the subsequent funding of a war that we have already begun.

But where we more fundamentally disagree, I think, is demonstrated by your comment "The argument of deregulation or regulation ... have nothing to do with the economic problems...its our people with lack of long term planning in credit and what is feasible."

This is exactly wrong, IMO. It is because it is human nature to make these irrational decisions that *some* regulation is necessary. The mortgage crisis was predictable and predicted and could not have spread across the financial sector if Glass-Steagall had been in place.

I was just responding to your post saying that politicians might say things but I should take a deeper look into Obama's actual plans...and I did and he has a number of different issues he wants to address and energy is one of the ones (that has the least typing under it), saying to me its not one of his priorities. You can't go in front of people every night and blast a war your against, and blame the other side for it, when you were elected to stop it and you actually can vote on the funding. Hillary has this problem much worse than obama, she voted for the initial war. Obama spoke against it, but when he got elected he's voted for funding and the dems were put in charge two years ago to stop the war. he doesn't hold the high ground to say we're tired of this war. Glass-Steagall is above my head, that has to do with investment and commercial to combine and the mortgages got written in as assetts...but you can't blame Bush for that, that got repealled under Clinton. And bottom line, everybody wants to live the American dream, people without high paying jobs were moving into these developments that didn't know how to do basic math and figure out loan and interest payments, plus property taxes which comes out to a year's worth on apartment rent. I think its much more than just one Act, because the trend started before the Act was repealled. The act didn't have restrictions on lending practices. Obama wasnt speaking out about the mortgage crisis before it happened. My whole point is neither of these parties stand for things that I find particularly important, because they are concerned on getting elected and only have an outlook of a couple years of hard work during a four year administration, and they let these dumb issues come to the forefront of the debate because that's what get's them elected and lets them win...that's what obama and mccain are concerned about, winning, not something else, and that's fine if in order to win they had to preach on intellectual plans and ideas that meet their harvard and naval academy education, but they talk about the stupid stuff, because that's what gets them elected.

I was just responding to your post saying that politicians might say things but I should take a deeper look into Obama's actual plans...and I did and he has a number of different issues he wants to address and energy is one of the ones (that has the least typing under it), saying to me its not one of his priorities. You can't go in front of people every night and blast a war your against, and blame the other side for it, when you were elected to stop it and you actually can vote on the funding. Hillary has this problem much worse than obama, she voted for the initial war. Obama spoke against it, but when he got elected he's voted for funding and the dems were put in charge two years ago to stop the war. he doesn't hold the high ground to say we're tired of this war. Glass-Steagall is above my head, that has to do with investment and commercial to combine and the mortgages got written in as assetts...but you can't blame Bush for that, that got repealled under Clinton. And bottom line, everybody wants to live the American dream, people without high paying jobs were moving into these developments that didn't know how to do basic math and figure out loan and interest payments, plus property taxes which comes out to a year's worth on apartment rent. I think its much more than just one Act, because the trend started before the Act was repealled. The act didn't have restrictions on lending practices. Obama wasnt speaking out about the mortgage crisis before it happened. My whole point is neither of these parties stand for things that I find particularly important, because they are concerned on getting elected and only have an outlook of a couple years of hard work during a four year administration, and they let these dumb issues come to the forefront of the debate because that's what get's them elected and lets them win...that's what obama and mccain are concerned about, winning, not something else, and that's fine if in order to win they had to preach on intellectual plans and ideas that meet their harvard and naval academy education, but they talk about the stupid stuff, because that's what gets them elected.

I guess you don't remember all the times gummint-hating Republican, um, gummint officials have sneeringly said stuff like "I can't afford to stay in the public sector anymore." And while you're at it check out Joe Biden's financials.

And--see yuh: Won't waste my time on dumbassery like this Clive Crook joint anymore!

I'm going to be pithy here, but since tiredness seems to be the overarching theme here, I'll share with you what I'm tired of hearing:

Noun ... verb ... P.O.W.

Maybe one of the Obamas should have taken a Wall Street job, if only so they'd understand that an economic program of higher taxes, more entitlement spending, and trade protectionism is bad news. Instead we have this ridiculous Robin Hood attitude that if you're making money you must be doing something wrong...therefore, we'll tax you to death to make sure you don't get too far ahead as a result of your hard work.

No thanks, guy.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.