You know, I remember in 1968 that some people kept saying that

[hedgehog]

Bobby was all flash and no substance. You either get it or you don't, but if you don't understand that politics comes from the heart as well as the head and must have poetry as well as position papers, you're only half alive.

[Gman]

1. Those were the Eugene McCarthy people, the anti-war candidate

kinda like the Kucinich people today.

[no name no slogan]

2. Nice dig, even if it's not accurate

EVERYBODY was saying that about Bobby-- not just McCarthey's people. He only had a couple years experience as a Senator, and his only other political job as as JFK's Attorney General.

[sandnsea]

5. Everybody???

No, not everybody. :eyes:

[no name no slogan]

7. Yes, damn near

Bobby was the only real threat to Humphrey. McCarthy didn't have nearly the appeal or charisma as Bobby did. He was also a lousy campaigner, and a fairly reluctant candidate too.

Bobby not only appealed to the people by also the party apparatus. He could get the support of the anti-war activists as well as the Richard Daleys and the George Meanys. Bobby was not competing with McCarthy as much as he was with Humphrey. Not to say that McCarthy wasn't a threat-- he was, but his appeal was not nearly as broad as Bobby's.

[ellisonz]

3. Spot on.

[Cameron27]

4. Bobby was the establishment,

he grew up in a political family, worked as a prosecutor for Joe McCarthy (?) and was the AG for his brother, all before he became the senator from NY. He had substance and a long history to back up his rhetoric.

[sandnsea]

6. Obama is a Harvard law school graduate

community organizer, civil rights lawyer, implemented ethics and death penalty and health care reforms in Illinois, joined Sen Lugar on nonproliferation legislation, implemented the first web site to track congressional pork, and had the courage to call Iraq a dumb war, which is even more than Dean or Gore did at the time.

Substance.

[Cameron27]

8. I didn't mean to imply that he doesn't

but I just don't know how he's all that different than Clinton, or any other Democrat who might be elected. He's got just about the same voting record, and his platform issues aren't significantly different either. Why is he the singular agent of change and hope any more than any other Democrat. I just don't see it

[sandnsea]

15. You believe in the Clintons

I don't. One example. There's an article floating around from afterdowningstreet. In it, it quotes Obama as saying Clinton was right that welfare as it existed was structured wrong. True enough. That does not mean the way it was changed was 100% correct. So at the time, Obama made sure there was a study implemented that would track specific individuals to see how welfare reform was affecting them. That is now the largest study in Illinois and one which much of the information about welfare reform failings has come from. He gets it. Over and over. It's the details that matter. I don't think he even proposed a personal tax credit to help people pay for health insurance because he knows that's a joke. He has proposed a check-off on tax returns to automatically apply for college grants and loans. He knows the little things that keep low income working people trapped. I don't think the Clintons ever really got it. Most of what they implemented hasn't really helped working people.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

21. I'm white in rural America

and yours is an ugly post, and not the first you've made today. I'm sure there are plenty of white children in Illinois that saw the doctor today because of his work. I went to school on the same money that Barack Obama went to school on, (if he got assistance, I don't even know that) I wish I'd been able to finish. You need an attitude adjustment in a hurry.

[NoBorders]

20. Many people find him more inspiring than Clinton

If as you imply they are similar, people will support the person they find more emotionally inspiring.

[Samantha]

11. Gore specifically (and publicly) said prior to the attack on Iraq

that if we invaded this country, we would be doing the same thing to Iraq that we went after Saddam Hussein for doing during the First Gulf War -- invading the borders of a sovereign nation. Perhaps he did not literally use the word "dumb" but his remarks clearly defined his abhorrence of such an act.

[sandnsea]

14. "dumb war" is quite clear

Dean and Gore were never as clear as Obama.

[Samantha]

23. It is "clear" but is not a powerful enough statement to express

the outrageous hubris of committing an illegal, immoral act of aggression, the aftermath of which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens, not to mention the loss of life of U.S. soldiers. It's a "dumbed"-down word for a morally outrageous breach. So "dumb" is just too low-motor of an expression to frame what many have called the historically most egregious act of aggression ever perpetrated by the U.S. Government in our history. Many regard it as unquestionably the biggest mistake of our foreign policy ever perpetrated.

I know our disagreement is just a difference of semantics, but I cannot agree with you that Obama, much as I like the man, framed the outrageous of this war with the proper perspective Al Gore did prior to the inception of the attack. I guess we will just have to disagree on this issue.

[sandnsea]

25. Perhaps you should use his words to make your point

I suspect you haven't read the entire speech.

[hedgehog]

16. LOL - Old Joe Kennedy would have loved to hear you say that his family was

the Establishment!

[Cameron27]

22. Old Joe Kennedy was a heavy weight in

the Boston Democratic Party, as was Rose's father.

[NCarolinawoman]

24. He was his brother's closest adviser during the Cuban missile crises.

He also was a Navy Vet. No need for Bobby to shore up his National security credentials.

[stillcool]

9. To each his own....

but isn't it great to appreciate language? To understand when someone says a series of words that manage to liftup their spirits and give hope? I don't know, but I feel like I'm celebrating being a human being when I witness the excitement and hope evident in the not paid to play crowds that Obama draws.

[Cameron27]

10. I think that could be dangerous,

unless behind all that excitement and hope is something that will lead to a successful executive who's able to get his policies passed through Congress. I'm tired of rhetoric, and I don't want reconciliation with the republicans.

[stillcool]

12. yeah...very worriesome...

All those ordinary Americans, being turned on by someone who can deliver a message and have it inspire....I'm sure the Democratic Congress will continue to do it's best at helping the executive get it's policies passed through Congress...so what does it matter? Live a little...experience some excitement..and then worry.

[Cameron27]

13. I'll be honest,

it's not that I'm not impressed with Obama's ability to move a crowd, but I'm afraid that he won't fight as hard for the things I want, the way Clinton will. He's coming across as too vague, and too conciliatory at this point. I don't dislike him in the way that I dislike Edwards, and I don't think he's a phony. I'm actually hoping that my worries are misplaced. We'll see. :-)

[stillcool]

17. It's kind of weird...

I believe they are all equally good candidates..and they all have their defects. I was never a fill in the blank supporter, but the more people single him out for derision, the more I find it necessary to defend. I wonder if that sentiment adds more heat to the fire that his speeches inspire.

[Cameron27]

18. lol

that's how why I started to support Clinton. Too much asinine hatred and too much hypocrisy. I agree, they're all good candidates, but I'm in need of affordable health insurance among other things, so I'm looking at the candidates' tenaciousness and ability to get things done. Lofty rhetoric and inspiration don't move me, although like I said, I'm open to having my opinion of Obama changed.