A thousand words

I've often found myself struggling to explain to friends why I jumped to easily onto the Obama bandwagon after being a maxed-out Edwards supporter. Sure I can come up with the talking points given enough time, but when I saw this picture in a Daily Kos diary, it pretty much said it all for me.


We are a nation founded on greed and exploitation. We annihilated the Native American culture even as we stole their land, and our first hundred years as a country were fueled by slavery. Iraq is just another in a long line of misguided attempts to claim and control what is not ours.

My friends in Kenya are wild about the possibility that Barack Obama could be president. They see a future in his leadership that simply cannot be gotten any other way. My friends in Carrboro who run a daycare center see the same thing. I don't pretend to understand exactly what they feel, but who cares about that. Their excitement and sense of hope is palpable and contagious. We cannot miss this opportunity.

Barack Obama has the potential to change our world for the better, working both within our borders and across them. John McCain cannot do that. Neither can Hillary Clinton. It is no contest.



We've got lot of hope invested in that image.

I hope we see it again and again.

It is a contest...

Sorry, all the pretty pictures in the world won't change my vote...

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but remember half the party disagrees...

Capt, you are beautiful in your commitment.

You know I disagree with you on your chosen candidate, but I admire how you support her. I hope that if what seems inevitable to me happens - that Obama becomes the nominee - you will be able to support him.

What is it about Clinton that you find compelling?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Still, it's a hell of a picture

I respect your committment, captsfufp.

I also understand that a lot of Hillary supporters are frustrated by the idea that it is the emotion behind an ideal Obama represents rather than the substance Clinton offers that has caused so many people to support Obama. I have a lot of sympathy with that perspective and I did have a struggle deciding between the two of them.

It is unlikely that we will ever find a man or woman who can measure up to the ideals we project into the image s/he fosters as a candidate or a leader, but I am not going to deny that this opportunity to see this particular image -- this particular hope -- advance as it has thus far truly thrills me.

Yep, but we all know what we DON'T want

and that is this ...

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." - Harry Truman

"They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum Then they charged the people a dollar 'n a half just to see 'em. Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Kenya and Obama are interesting

I spent four months last year studying in Nairobi, specifically studying the election. I left two weeks before the election and all of its horrendous happenings began. It's still amazing to me that in a nation divided by ethnicity, was so united around Barack Obama.

Obama is Luo. His grandmother still lives in Kisumu in the heart of Luoland. Yet, Kikuyu, Luhya, and Kisii alike were all exicted and elated at the fact that this man could be president of the most powerful nation in the world.

It's interesting to see how this on man seems to overcome all the racial divides Kenyans have been raised with.

What's even better

is the beer!

Kenya has a beer named Senator. When Obama visited in 2006, they renamed it Obama for his visit. Talk about international support!

It's so reaffirming that your friends are saying the same thing. I wonder sometimes if my white, Western views colored my opinion of the ethnic issues in Kenya.

No Preference

I was one of the few (about 1.5%) who voted "No Preference" in the NC primary. I like that choice of words rather than "None of the Above" since the latter implies one doesn't like EITHER (or any, as the case may be) of the candidates whereas the former leaves open the possibility that one LIKES BOTH. And I do like both of them. And I think that both have strengths and both have weaknesses, both as campaigners and potential Presidents. The problem I have with Obama is that he really was and, in many ways, still is an unknown quantity. This allows his opponents to define him as something I certainly don't think he is, but that many voters seem to at least suspect he may be. I know that is a problem with every candidate, certainly this happened to Kerry too and Obama so far has shown he is better than Kerry at responding to it. And certainly no candidate will be able to convince everyone that he is not what his opponent claim he is. But at least we knew Clinton, warts and all and it would have been more difficult for her opponents to define her rather than for her to do it herslf. Having said that, however, I do blame her (or at least her campaign) for not doing so well enough early on and by the time she did, it was too late because Obama was too far ahead.

I remember back in 2004 when Obama was running for the Democratic nomination for Senate and I was singing his praises to family members in IL. I certainly saw him as a potential President some day, but I figured after a couple terms in the Senate, where he could make a record and become known for something or things, such as universal heatlh care, a new foreign policy, whatever. Yet he barely hit the Senate before he was running for President. I certainly wouldn't argue that his running was not legitimate, it certainly was. But it was too soon. I'm one who doesn't believe one bit that he got where he is because he is black (or biracial, which is more accurate) but because of his message for "change" and his exceptional ability to communicate and yes, to inspire (although I think inspiration is overrated, vis a vis competance). But change to what? I think everyone agrees the process is broken but the danger of embracing "change" for change sake is that you may get something worse. But the voters have spoken and he will be our nominee and I accept the decision of my fellow party members and will back him enthusiastically because, despite his faults, he is miles ahead of McCain.

I hope, should he become President, he concentrates on the big issues, specifically entitlements, health care (which is really part of entitlements), immigration and foreign policy. I hope he can craft a trade policy that recognizes that we need free trade to grow our economy while balancing the needs of workers and the environment with legitimate needs of business. I hope he can balance our need for immigrant workers with current labor market needs and come up with a plan that reasonably secures our borders with a conditional amnesty for some already here. I hope he will appoint judges that come from neither ideological extreme and appoints moderate Republicans, such as Chuck Hagel, to cabinet and subcabinet positions. Of course, he has to get there first and I for one will do all I can here in Orange Co. to help him and rest of the Democratic ticket win in NC.

Although I voted for Obama in the primary,

I agree with much of what you expressed here.

My hope is that his Presidency will be a healing experience for the country. I think his success will depend on drawing from the very deep field of excellent people who will step up to be a vital part of his cabinet and giving them the support to start fixing the scorched Earth trail the Republicans have left behind them.

I hope too that his first actions in office will address the country's energy policy because so many other problems depend on it. Although I think it was Hillary Clinton I heard talk about this in terms of an Apollo style program, she was exactly right. We need to take it on in such a serious fashion.

ps- I consider leaving Iraq ASAP a big part of a serious energy policy.

Progressive Democrats of North Carolina

Not more accurate

I'm one who doesn't believe one bit that he got where he is because he is black (or biracial, which is more accurate)

It isn't more accurate. The concept of "race" is unscientific, and has little to do with some pure "breed" of people and much more to do -- especially in this country -- with a cultural concept and one's appearance. It is just as accurate to call Obama black as it is to call most people of African ancestry black.

What irritates me about people who think they're being somehow politically correct or worse, "accurate," by referring to Obama as "half-black" is that such terminology suggests there is some sort of legitimately scientific system associated with how anyone actually identifies him or herself as black or white. It is grotesquely consistent with the old classifications of people as mulatto, quadroon, etc . . . .

It's not a rational scientific concept. It's a culture construct based largely on appearance, the appearance being based on what genetic traits were passed on by the parents.

What we call race is just clusters of genetic traits. We use the term to refer to groups who share certain of those clusters, but for god's sake, people, recognize it for what it is and don't kid yourself that you're somehow being precise by deciding what proportion of a given "race" is properly attributed to anyone.

I said MORE accurate

I agree that it is unscientific and that culture matters more, but Obama was raised by his white grandparents and in white (or at least not black) areas of the world, including Hawaii. He is as white as he is black, which in the great scheme of things is neither here nor there, but it is what happened.

I hear ya

But it ain't "more accurate."