You can see some of his basic feelings come out in statements along the campaign trail. It is subtle... but he thinks America is unfair. When the reality is that America has a checkered past in this area. So does the rest of the world. But America is the leader in human rights... no question.
I am quite convinced Obama is hiding his true thoughts/positions on policy, race, "social justice", taxes, military, etc .
He is following a populist JFK reincarnation script designed to appear as a middle-of-the roader & win an election - & at the same time subtly using "race" as a wedge himself.
What does it mean when he says he is going to "bring people together" & "unify the country"? These seem to be his major campaign themes along with "change". One might naively think that means he's going to bring conservatives and liberals together (yeah right), but I tend to think it's code for a populist & civil rights agenda (& I suspect 92% of Afro-American Democrats in Mississippi do also.)
The President of the United States is supposed to be the president of all of us, not just the rich and powerful.
This is all fine and good. I don't really know what I think about all this yet, but I do think this whole Rev. Wright flap does give some reasonable pause about whether or not anyone who holds him high esteem (including Obama, apparently) for 20 years really *is* as much of a uniter as his campaign has portrayed him to be. Maybe he is, but I tend to think that this episode calls that into some question. The question is: How much of this rhetoric did Obama actually hear when he referred to Wright as an important spiritual advisor to him?For those who have been paying attention, Obama has not been running as a "black candidate". He has been running as a candidate who just happens to be black, reaching out to all people who want this country to move forward. I have never heard him once say "it's time we had a black man in the White House", where I have heard Clinton say many times "it's time we had a woman in the Whitehouse" or some variation on that theme. There is a very fundamental difference between these two approaches. One is inclusive and one divides us.
Nor should he/she be the President of the poor and weak.
I'm not sure I *completely* agree. I think "the rich" in our society have a lot more to lose in the sense that a complete breakdown of law and order would likely cost them a heck of a lot more than it would the poor. It ain't the rich who usually start revolutions.But I hope we can agree that the government is more important to the poor and weak.
I'm not sure I *completely* agree. I think "the rich" in our society have a lot more to lose in the sense that a complete breakdown of law and order would likely cost them a heck of a lot more than it would the poor. It ain't the rich who usually start revolutions.
I guess I'd say in some ways -- in terms of keeping civil order and enforcing property rights -- the rich benefit more from government, but in terms of helping the people sustain at least a minimally acceptable standard of living, it's much more important to the poor.
I also think that the old politics of grievance (no matter how legitimate) and group identity are not what we need today. I think as Obama's own words demonstrate, he believes the same thing. The President of the United States is supposed to be the president of all of us, not just the rich and powerful. We must look forward and work together - black, white, brown, red and yellow together. Old and young together. Rich and poor together.
Here, Obama makes the point himself, far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could.
YouTube - Obama in Plainfield, IN: 'We have to come together'
Chinaco:
A vote for president is always a leap of faith for the voter.
What evidence do you need? What things do you know about McCain or Clinton that you do not know about Obama and that might be critical to making a decision? To the extent I am able, I am willing to try to provide helpful information that might assuage any concerns you have.
I did not mean to imply that you couldn't find out on your own and I apologize if it sounded like that. Just trying to be helpful. Sounds like it is more an ideological difference.
more about individual responsibility, the importance of making good individual decisions, and working hard . . .
...more about individual responsibility, the importance of making good individual decisions and working hard . . . with government assuring the rules are fair, but not attempting to equalize outcomes.