How are vacuous buzzwords like "change" and "hope" to be implemented?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Recent presidential campaigns have revealed the jaw-dropping stupidity of the American people.

Have any of them, not to mention their liberal pundit mouthpieces, even given a moments thought to how vacuous buzzwords like "change" and "hope" are to be implemented?

I am in the software industry and can only imagine the reaction of customers if we proposed implementing their requirements in terms of "change" and "hope". Umh... yes, we're going to 'change' some things and 'hope' that it will work.

So how in the world can such terminology be taken seriously in the infinitely more complex domain of governing a country not to mention the influence it has over the rest of the world?

Yes, Obama has economic and health care plans. But how many Americans even know what they are much less analyzed in any detail if they are viable given how the system really works. Probably not many, and it's because the same Americans who obediently consume whatever the messages on radio and TV tell them to can't get past the buzzwords.

Came across this comment at Alternet. Seems apropos.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/77193/

And this:

There is nothing wrong at all in the hopes we have that Obama’s rhetoric speaks to. The problem lies in what Herbert Marcuse called “repressive desublimation — a hope, a need, that has been buried and denied by an oppressive system, is allowed some room to breathe, then co-opted and redirected back into a form that ultimately reinforces the oppressive system that denied and suppressed out hopes and needs in the first place. That’s what Obama represents.

- Juan Santos

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. Getting Bush out of office will be change. Any Democrat will be change.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Ahhh, another superior commentator telling us how jaw-dropping stupid...

...we all are.

~yawn~

NGU.

[roguevalley]

30. let me see if my memory helps me here ... ah. The same way

that John F. Kennedy got the same words implemented in 1961. Check the books. Its been done.

[incapsulated]

3. Oh, my

There is nothing wrong at all in the hopes we have that Obama’s rhetoric speaks to. The problem lies in what Herbert Marcuse called “repressive desublimation — a hope, a need, that has been buried and denied by an oppressive system, is allowed some room to breathe, then co-opted and redirected back into a form that ultimately reinforces the oppressive system that denied and suppressed out hopes and needs in the first place. That’s what Obama represents.

- Juan Santos

Is there a link to this?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

8. Came across it here

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/326/

Superb essay and superb website courtesy of Carolyn Baker.

[incapsulated]

21. Thank you! n/t

[melody]

4. Idiocy - as if the ideas of "solutions" and "real answers to real problems" wouldn't also be coopted

This is just a disingenuous attack on Obama.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

10. Not at all

I'm interested in the concrete not the abstract. To date no one has presented much beyond chimerical notions and I assure you I've read a couple hundred pages of information on Obama (probably more) at this point with much of that his own words.

This is not an attack at all and to suggest it is muddies the water from the original question. In good faith I want to hear something beyond the platitudes. His speeches throughout the campaign season have been void of much substance you must agree. Do you have any detailed information on how he plans to help the homeless for example?

[melody]

13. a dishonest use of "solutions" would be just as chimerical

We can't look into their heads to see what they're thinking. Perhaps Obama's "hope" is more grounded to him
than Clinton's use of "solutions". She may view them entirely as empty platitudes. Words are not locked into
single interpretations; their definitions are relative to the person speaking them. An honest person speaking
of hope can be thinking as concretely as a dishonest person speaking of concrete concepts.

I respect Hillary and I like the Clintons (any Democrat in a storm), but I don't trust them to follow up on
their "solutions" any more than I trust Barack to honor "hope". They're ALL campaign slogans. To suggest
otherwise is to be purposively and falsely guileless to the purpose of advancing some disingenuous platform.

[tabatha]

5. By leadership that is not beholden to special interests.

That is why it is important for someone, who is not obliged to pay back past favors, to be elected.
Also, someone who know what needs to be changed.
And for those who can hope that someone will actually do it - to vote for someone who makes those distinctions.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

7. How does that work

when special interests are the primary source of both his and Hillary's funding? Look into it.

[jackson_dem]

18. He has proven how beholden he is to special interests. One word: Exelon

[Orwellian_Ghost]

31. Two more words

Goldman Sachs

[tekisui]

6. He is an inspiring figure. He brings many into the political process for the first time.

He will help establish a New Majority in the House and Senate, where the nitty-gritties of change will happen.

[BooScout]

9. He and they 'hope' they can come up with something.....

eventually............until then.........just feel the love.:sarcasm:

[ClassWarrior]

14. It's an opportunity for US to come up with something. See post #12 below.

Unless we're content to just let politicians lead us.

NGU.

[jackson_dem]

19. Obama is a politician. His "movement" is about him. Yes HE can

[ClassWarrior]

22. Well, if that's true, WE CAN change that, according to the good professor...

...cited in #12 below.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

27. So you believe that all politicians are only out for themselves?

No wonder you're a Clinton defender.

NGU.

[thoughtcrime1984]

25. No we can't! How dare you!

- The Hillary campaign

[respublicus]

11. they are used to pull the wool and hide the reactionary. Obamania is an NED-style dupe-a-mob coup.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4184

[ClassWarrior]

12. History shows that "hope" and "change" can be vehicles for Progressive action...

CUNY Professor Frances Fox Piven on Democracy Now! last week:

You know, in 1932, FDR didn’t run with a good program; he ran with the same program the Democrats had run with in 1924 and 1928, and that wasn’t a good program. But nevertheless, his rhetoric encouraged people who were suffering as a result of the Depression—working people, the unemployed—and helped to fuel the movements, which then forced FDR to support initiatives which he otherwise would not have supported, including the right to organize...

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/6/super_tuesday_roundtable_with_bill_fletcher

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

17. .

[Jane Austin]

15. By leadership that doesn't automatically head

to the back rooms to make deals before any policy is decided on.

For me, if Obama hadn't said anything other than that he would put his healthcare deliberations on C-SPAN for every American to watch, he'd still have my vote.

What a contrast to HRC's secretive healthcare task-force of the nineties.

[C_U_L8R]

16. We've seen seven years of hopelessness and changelessness

So I imagine it will be exactly the opposite.

And it's going to be GREAT : - )))))

[LWolf]

20. When the only hope and the only change

is to see a "D" in the WH, you don't have to worry your little head over what they actually DO during their time there.

They don't have to DO anything differently. Just their revered presence will be enough for most.

[Freida5]

23. With BO you can only hope for some change

[thoughtcrime1984]

24. The change starts with us

transparency in gov't is something that Sen. is a big proponent of. This would make politicians much more accountable to the constituency PROVIDED that we use this transparency as a tool to judge our legislators. An informed, involved electorate would in theory put those most willing to represent us fairly and truly in office. It is a start towards getting what we want as the unwashed masses.

[Jamastiene]

26. My main HOPE is that more Democrats will wake up

before it is too late to CHANGE their minds about voting with Republicans. In many of theses primaries, Republicans are being allowed in to CHANGE the outcome in favor of Obama because they are scared of running against Hillary. I think an awful lot of Democratic Obama supporters are going to wake up to find that same crossover support from Republicans gone in the fall when they do not vote for Obama in the general election.

[readmoreoften]

28. Jaw-dropping stupidity. That about sums it up. /nt

[Yael]

29. This doesn't take into account the mind boggling sweep of congress thats about to happen