Glib-Free or Die

[unc70]

Over the last few days, I have been re-examining why I have become increasingly annoyed by Obama, have found his speeches uninspiring, and have increasingly seen him and his supporters as naive and grossly unaware of history. While I prefer Edwards, I have tried to view all our candidates positively, seeing their many strengths but not ignoring their weaknesses.

After watching Obama speak last night and after reading too many articles and watching too many pundits, it finally hit me. Obama and his followers appear clueless about what really happened before about 1992. Many of his supporters are young and I would not expect them to understand just how much things have changed since the 1950's and 1960's; even many of their parents are too young! Obama should know better.

The final straw for me was hearing the fawning articles describing Obama as the first Black/AA to win a primary and to be a serious contender for the nomination and then hearing Obama's speak about how "they" said we couldn't do "this", were setting our sights too high. Bullshit!

In 1988, Jesse Jackson was certainly a serious candidate, winning a number of primaries, becoming the front-runner, and eventually finishing second overall. (I, a white Southern male, voted for him in the primary.) Jackson's speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention is one of the best ever; the one in 1984 when he finished a distant third is also excellent. Everyone at DU and in the MSM needs to hear that speech before they comment again on Obama.

Jackson was not even the first black to run or to earn delegates; Shirley Chisholm of NY ran in 1972 and was also the first woman to run. So Obama's win is "historic" as the first black to win the Iowa caucus and its overwhelmingly white electorate.

So who were "they"? Since his Iowa victory speech is largely identical to the one he gave after winning against Alan Keyes, I can only conclude that "they" might be the "they" often mentioned by various RW pundits. This is supported by Obama's frequent use of RW talking points to attack his opponents, to frame the debate (e.g. Social Security), and to provide convenient straw men.

I dislike the way Obama talks unity and inclusion to independents and Repubs while he is dissing Baby Boomers, playing upon homophobia, being "anti-war" while he foresees continuing combat operations under his presidency, continuing funding for the war, and refusing to hold anyone accountable now or if he were to be elected as President.

[cynthia]

1. I, too, hear too many RW talking points in his speeches.

It screams Republican-lite, and I'm not buying it.

[mitchtv]

2. well, you just better change your thinking

HE can do no wrong

[cali]

3. it's true people are ignorant of history when they don't know about

Jackson or Chisholm, but I disagree that his supporters are any more ignorant on the whole than any others. I support him, and I have two Masters in... history. My son, a political science major supports him, and so do a lot of other folks who are aware of the past.

I find his speeches quite good, if not the masterpieces that some are making them out to be. Furthermore, I think Obama is someone who will talk softly and carry a big stick. And the nonsense that he parrots right wing talking points is pure bullshit which I hear almost exclusively from sour grapes Edwards supporters.

And yes, this is historic. Neither Jackson or Chisholm ever had a chance to win the nomination, let alone the Presidency.

Obama has a very good chance. Edwards? Not so much.