The Obama Delusion

Samuelson's argument is correct, but only from a specific vantage point.

Obama is running to be a leader, not a legislator. I don't expect most campaign promises to be fully implemented. I expect a leader to set a course, and then respond to conditions presented to them while president. Legislation comes about from the process of providing leadership.

And in my mind, what is unspoken, is that the change our country would experience under an Obama presidency is that of having a Black American president and all the many and sundry ramifications of that fact that will ripple through our country and through the world.

My sixties views are well and alive! I still have that yourthful optimism and belief that things can get better, that we don't have to accept the status quo and that we can truly change the way we do business in this country. Barack Obama has inspired me and brought back the hope that doing the right thing, even if it is different and not politically correct, is what needs to be done. Barack has my vote and my confidence. I do believe that we can do better and that he is the man to lead us in accomplishing that goal!

It is absurd to require that a candidate be electable and that they appeal to both sides of the isle while at the same time demand that they be utterly radical and independent. Samuelson appears to praise Clinton and McCain for being more of the same, while attacking Obama for not crucifying his political future by being like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I have news for everyone...THIS COUNTRY WON"T VOTE FOR THAT. We aren't ready to hear the whole truth or to make the tough choices. We don't want to pay taxes, or for the war, or for health care, or for anything else. But we sure as hell WANT IT ALL. Obama isn't the next Messiah...but he is a change. He's got broad appeal and is expressing a vision for the future that does take us at least half a step beyond where we are currently. He's not the ideal flag bearer for the extreme fringe of either party but he isn't 4 more years of Bush or Clinton for that matter. I'm sick to death of us flaying leaders for not being perfect only to use that as an excuse to then install an even more flawed replacement. Obama isn't all that...but he's a heck of a lot better than either of the alternatives.

I disagree that there's a huge gap, or any gap at all, between Obama's rhetoric and his substantive views. Perhaps it's a sign of the times, but the fact is that it takes a huge and motivated effort these days to make even modest progress in the political arena. There is nothing in Obama's speeches to suggest that he disagrees with the substantive democratic agenda in mind-shattering ways, nor does there need to be. The criticism is of the way the process is functioning. We'd like to see it function with less of the "definitional" acrimony that has so marked the Clinton I.5 and II years and the W. Bush years--the sort of "well, if you're FOR this, and you're a democrat, and I'm a republican, then I must be wholly and totally AGAINST it." Relationships 101 will tell you that little things mean a lot, and that working to find common ground yields better results on the consensus-building front than going at your "opponent" with all guns firing. This is what Ronald Reagan understood so well. It may not seem like such a big point, but if it allows the pendulum to swing back in even a modestly progressive direction, that will be sufficiently earth-shattering for me. The point is that our politics is plagued by a kind of polarizing dysfunction that blinds us to the many shared goals we have as Americans. It may be a reflection of Hillary Clinton's own dysfunctional personal relationships that she is not able to understand this.

I feel you are a man from the past and do not want to face the reality of change that is inevitable in this century. John mcain is a great American hero but he is past his prime now and there is need for this country to have a generational change and think of the future that is void of hiding behind experience to do the usual stuff that will get the country no were.
And besides whats has the wisdom of solomon the wisest man in the bible got to do with the age of Methusella 900 yrs .The point is there will never be another Obama again and he is the future so i you need to deal with it and prepare for the change of the generation.
Geoge W . Bush had no experience a but was brought by the Neo-con to make money for them by going to war in Iraq and now Mcain wants to continue the failed policies and borrowing money from china and leaving generation yet unborn to bear this burden of repaying this debt.
Finally, i believe wisdom is more important than experince and thats whats important here. There is nothing that the Bush family and the Clinton family know that others don't know.

How dumb do politicians think we are? They claim they will give lower income groups a tax cut. BUT they don't tell us that they will collect that same amount of money to pay for our FREE?? universal health care. Come on, folks, nothing from the government is free. Money doen't grow on trees. It comes from somebody's sweat and blood.

How much was this editor paid for this article. If he were convince that Obama war real the first time and now he dont think so. I think he has some problem upstairs, unstable I guess.

What exactly are the advantages of Clinton and McCain being supposedly "known quantities" anyway?
Are we so terrified of change that we are willing to return the reigns of the country to Clinton, who will plunge us into another 4-8 years of partisan warfare and gridlock, or McCain, who is perfectly happy to keep us mired in Iraq for the next century to assuage his Vietnam ghosts? There are many arguments that can be made in favor of Obama based on the real results Obama has already garnered in the Illinois and U.S. Senates, but since were arguing the benefits of "known quantities" here, if this is the best we can expect, even a leap faith seems the better option.

Thanks for the article. It's sad to me that democrats aren't picking the democratic nominee -- that GOP crossovers are actually mucking with the Democratic nominating process. Even more disturbing is the fact when I examine Obama's agenda I actually see more Ron Paul than I see anything else. I don't see the progressive agenda I'd hoped for, or the one I'll get if Hillary Clinton is our nominee. And, lastly, I don't see how a freshman senator with zero armed services and foreign policy experience, one who is prone to saying he'll bomb Pakistan, I don't see how he gets elected during a time of war.

Hillary has been scrutinized for decades, Obama not at all. He would have been a great candidate 8 or 12 years from now, but he isn't ready. Hillary is ready. She backs up her policies with depth o f knowledge, brilliance, ability to listen, and proven legislative and advocacy success. A president can accomplish nothing without congress, and she has respect and admiration from both parties. She is not as charasmatic, but if you deep a little deeper you see she is genuine and qualified. Let's pause for a moment and decide if we want to chose substance over style.

It is absurd to require that a candidate be electable and that they appeal to both sides of the isle while at the same time demand that they be utterly radical and independent. Samuelson appears to praise Clinton and McCain for being more of the same, while attacking Obama for not crucifying his political future by being like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. I have news for everyone...THIS COUNTRY WON"T VOTE FOR THAT. We aren't ready to hear the whole truth or to make the tough choices. We don't want to pay taxes, or for the war, or for health care, or for anything else. But we sure as hell WANT IT ALL. Obama isn't the next Messiah...but he is a change. He's got broad appeal and is expressing a vision for the future that does take us at least half a step beyond where we are currently. He's not the ideal flag bearer for the extreme fringe of either party but he isn't 4 more years of Bush or Clinton for that matter. I'm sick to death of us flaying leaders for not being perfect only to use that as an excuse to then install an even more flawed replacement. Obama isn't all that...but he's a heck of a lot better than either of the alternatives.

Finally, a major news magazine has the courage to say it.
The fiction of Mr. Obama's oratory is compounded by the inability of any one to question the logic behind it. Would his 'reaching across' the aisles politics have prevented Mr. Bush from invading Iraq? How about his 'new style' politics forcing Mr. Bush to withdraw? Mr. Obama's ability to unite the nation is contigent upon only one promise--that he has to be the President. Well, that seems to be the same promise that Mr. Bush made 8 years ago.
In business, marketing is something we do to sell a product to consumers that they don't need, and then make them feel good about it. From that stand-point, Mr. Obama is an excellent marketer.

Get to know Obama a little better: http://www.obamatruth.org/

Finally a voice of reason! I like his style as much as the next person but i continue to ask what is he promising? Not much that i can tell an certainly not anything earth shaking that would make siginifcant change. I worry he will have no political backing to move even these modest proposals along. i think Ms. clinton has more political clout and can get the job done more effectively than Obama.

Wow. It's interesting that Samuelson makes Obama's campaign about race. Obama has been very careful to never do this. As a white male, Obama's refusal to do this has impressed me. How Samuelson concludes that "repudiating racism" or "becoming the first African-American president" is somehow a "cornerstone" of Obama's campaign simply baffles me. This campaign has never been about race or gender, but who will be the best president. After reading the first few paragraphs of the article, I disregarded the article as at best a misguided attempt to discredit Obama, and at worse, the writings of someone who has an issue with a president of color.

Samuelson throws out the same unimaginative criticisms, that we hear over and over from the various political commentators who seem to get their information straight from the Clinton campaign: that Obama is all rehetoric. This is false; he has clear positions on every issue. In fact, Samuelson criticised Obama for one of his positions! Maybe Samuelson just doesn't like Obama's positions; that's fine. But to claim that he is simply a "captivating stage presence defined by his powerful rhetoric" is false and simply lifting a page out of the Clinton playbook. (Plagiarism?)

Finally, Samuelson claims that Obama, who has on many occasions taken unpopular political stances (e.g., not voting to authorize the war in Iraq, as opposed to Sen. Clinton, telling Detroit automakers - in Detroit - that they need to reduce emissions), is engaging in false rhetoric when he claims that sometimes you have to tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear. Maybe he should speak with Hillary Clinton about this, as she perfected that tactic quite a while ago. Her sudden opposition to NAFTA is one example.

This is not the kind of article I'd expect to find in Newsweek.