My theory all along, his shtick worked, theirs didn't.

Interesting. Sara at Orcinus had a post on this last week. The "leader versus manager" bit, that is.

The reason that Edwards can't get a message out as a leader, is because the media doesn't want to project him as a leader. The MSM is after the big advertising bucks from the bigger fundraisers. I'm sending Edwards$200.00 dollars tomorrow. How about some of doing the same. If you can't send as much as I plan to, send what you can afford.

Obama is leading because the true Democrats like Kucinich, and to a lesser extent Edwards, are being marginalized by the media. Kucinich is the candidate that truly represents our positions. Why aren't more people getting behind him?

Kucinich 08

Yes.

Hillary's strong suit is children's rights and as far as I am concerned her only accountable experience (former Little Rocker here). Secretary of HEW, but her ego will not allow it, being for the country and all.

As others here have nominated, John will do a fine job restoring the Constitution as Attorney General.

The analysis is incontrovertible, Obama is the leader for '08.

Gee, I thought the fact that he was the middle of the road consiliator - Republican and lobbing lover?

The choice of the rich and powerful everywhere???

Hey I saw he was ahead on the TV - It must be true, no??

...what I really want to know, and cannot yet tell, is what Obama will do when he discovers that those on the right will not compormise.

"You can't say, 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Bill Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do."

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I'm sticking by my guy -- John Edwards.

And exactly what experience has Hillary Clinton with being a "worker"? This analysis is an inch deep.

Ramrod @ 10:

Yes.

Hillary's strong suit is children's rights and as far as I am concerned her only accountable experience (former Little Rocker here). Secretary of HEW, but her ego will not allow it, being for the country and all.

As others here have nominated, John will do a fine job restoring the Constitution as Attorney General.

The analysis is incontrovertible, Obama is the leader for '08.

Really? This analysis is the only thing we need to declare Obama the undeniable leader of the country? Maybe we should let speech professors call each election from now on.

My goodness, what a slanted article.

Competence and experience at a task is _bad_? Experience managing is a flaw? Have you seen a single organization that succeeds without competent workers and managers?

The writer says that Hillary's '...no doubt baffled...' - I have a feeling she understands completely how the American people is more interested in Britney's sister's baby's daddy than the critical issues confronting our nation... And Edwards not being able to get anything done unless he's president? Umm, how is that _any_ different that ANY of the other candidates? The writer's asinine 'observation' average is batting 1.000 so far.

Finally as far as 'executive' leaders go... I know of a recent leader that fits the same description the writer attributes to Obama - someone who's gotten us into a war we didn't need (leaving it for the next president btw, haven't heard much on specifics from Obama on what's going to happen next), who's neglected the country's infrastructure, widened the gap between the rich and the rest of us, destroyed the fundamentals of our government, sold the country to the corporations at taxpayer expense and politicized the nation to the point it might not recover... GW Bush 'spoke in declarations', 'inspires' and 'leads'... and where did it get us? We want another president like that?

Sorry, Obama talks a good game, but his voting record is spotty (seems to disappear when the chips are down), his 'bipartisanism' is just another code word for 'more of the same' and the fact that Lieberman is/was one of his mentors shows me that his 'executive leadership style' is way too similar to the current president's...

"I condemn the use of violence as a political tool and appeal to both sides to engage in peaceful dialogue aimed at finding a lasting political solution," Bush said in a statement - welcoming Kufuor's visit to Nairobi and urging both sides to enter the talks in good faith to regain the trust of the Kenyan people.

Dickweed Speak

14All @ 11:

Obama just leaves me cold. I find his "we'll face all this together" act incredibly patronizing and irritating. The man is rich and likely to soon become the most powerful man in the world; we won't be doing anything together other than living in the United States. This position is a job, and I want to know exactly what he plans to do when/if he gets it; and if it's not what I want him to do I won't vote for him, no matter how effing "inspiring" he is. Haven't we had enough catchphrases and symbolic words--remember "compassionate conservatism"? I don't want to hear about "hope" and "change"--I want to know what he's going to do to restore the primacy of the Constitution. I want to know how he plans to make sure every American has health care--and not just "affordable" health care. & etc.

Thanks for summing up my bewilderment with my pro-Obama friends. His spiritual words so lack content, yet people seem to be soothed by them. He's like a preacher without a religion.

Great post.

That Clinton ad sucked. No wonder she's losing.

uncle joe mccarthy @ 27:

god damn you kucinichites....the man is unelectable....why is it that you cant see that

he is marginalized by the media because he allowed himself to be marginalized

he had the opportunity to appear on los angeles radio for months...and then finally sent his wife, and while i love listening to her....she aint running, he is

you think obama is more of the same??? what fucking world do you guys live in

edwards populist message is not reverberating with the media or the voters, cuz he has come to populism late in the game....people now fear the convert...we have lived 8 years with a faux convert

now had edwards been doing what gore was doing for the past 4 years, maybe his message would be clearer....but he wasnt

and the post may be psychobabble....but it is true, and its what got reagan elected

my ticket....obama/webb.....landslide victory

Edwards was speaking loud and clear. The media refused to cover him and it's still refusing to cover him.

"When Obama speaks, he creates a future of an America in which all of us together will take on the troubles we know in our heart are coming and repair the damages which have occurred."

Does Obama think that the rethugs just can't wait to work with him on all those "troubles" and "repairing the damages which have occurred"? If he really believes that, he's naive and hasn't been paying attention. The rethugs are the folks that caused the mess in this country, and they can't wait to rip Senator Obama, or any Dem candidate, to shreds.

I don't want a candidate that throws around words like "bipartisan" and "unite". I want a fighter like Edwards.

Passion works. Fear rouses the masses in the short term and then fades. Hope has staying power.

Bush is Ossama @ 17:

He already acts like a freakin' KING for christ sake.

I am sure he is a great guy and very smart - But he would make a better republican candidate.
I am afraid we need a little more fight...

Zlad! @ 14:

...what I really want to know, and cannot yet tell, is what Obama will do when he discovers that those on the right will not compormise.

I think you guys are making a really good point. Too much bipartisanship with this particular GOP is like getting passed-out drunk at a frat party.

Perhaps, if we also get enough Dems in the House and Senate we will override any republican opposition.

The question remains as to whether Obama can sustain this momentum.Personally I think he may have peaked to early.As for Edwards,I think he's telling the truth.He can't do it with you.None of them can.

In order to take back our country we must have a leader who can take on the corporate fat cats. John Edwards has a proven record for doing that and winning!

Clinton is a Republican.

Obama would make a good candidate for Unity '08.

Edwards is for the working stiff, the little guy. He may be rich, but he got that way fighting the forces that threaten to destroy the middle class.

While Obama makes great speeches that's not enough for me want to hire him. I've listened to plenty of rousing speeches in my lifetime. Basically all they are is entertaining unless goals and plans are developed to actually deliver.

.
.
.
Yup, Smells like 100% certified Bullshit to me.
.
.
.

Max-1 @ 49:

.

#44 Joe,

If taking back you country depends upon reliance of whom the media decides is viable, then gullible MUST be your middle name.

Take back your country by demanding free exchange of information on the air waves, then you'll start to see some truth.

.

Oh yeah, Jo. Just "demand" it and it'll come true.

Unbelievable.

.

#50 Johnny,
It's a start, isn't it?

Got a better idea?
Do you disagree with my POV?
IF SO HOW?
Or is everything just peachy-king for you?

.

Managers aren’t about declarations. Managers are about requests…[The manager candidate] requests you elect him to fix problems, lobbies for a change so he can fix the system.

Hmmm .... 'Declarations' such as, 'Attempts to find a bipartisan middle with neocons is an act of surrender because it rewards the right for their extremism', 'declares' a fairly radical course. If it manages anything, it wants to manages to invoke an insurgency

I thought a statement like, 'The system is rigged in favour of money and power' was not only declarative, but more the kind of a statement a revolutionary would make rather than a manager.

It seems to me that sometimes the the 'results' one gets from employing a measure are more reflective of the instrument of measure, than they are of the thing they are measuring.

Snerd

Ron @ 6:

The reason that Edwards can't get a message out as a leader, is because the media doesn't want to project him as a leader. The MSM is after the big advertising bucks from the bigger fundraisers. I'm sending Edwards$200.00 dollars tomorrow. How about some of doing the same. If you can't send as much as I plan to, send what you can afford.

Good on you, mate. Edwards spoke as a leader and from the heart. [deleted--keep it civil] Obama just talks in generalities and sounds watered down. I am not convinced about Obama and even more hesitant when he takes money from the medical industry for his campagn. I spent a life reading people and Edwards is his own man. Sounds like OBama is starting to emulate him.

Thank God C and L readers have what the MSM counts on many of us to have sacrificed at the altar of American Idol and Entertainment Tonight. When I read the article I was enraged that C and L would post, much less seem to favor, such a blatantly slanted article. Give me a small break, please. Does anyone remember "The Great Communicator"? Any woman who has ever been seduced by a sweet talking con man, any man over the age of 50 who has succembed to the Corvette salesman's pitch- can recognize in Obama certain undisputable gifts. I grant you, the fellow is an inspired and inspirational orator. I think he means well, and I think that in another country (one that, unlike ours, does not horde such a well-fed population of backward, recidivist anti-intellectuals, and one that, unlike ours, is not teetering on the brink of A) anarchy B) obsolescence) he would be the candidate to get behind. Unfortunately, the reality is that Obama's stirring words will not get done the hard work that needs doing. I respect his talents. I just happen to believe that in order to accomplish all the WORK that must be done to right the wrongs perpetrated by the most crooked administration in our nation's history, we need a WORKER (and if the goddamn media would AIR him all would have the opportunity to swoon under the power of his words, too) like John Edwards in the White House.
I call "bullshit," C and L.

Oops. "Succumb." Shoulda proofed before posting. Dammit, I hate that.

Howard Beale is My Muse @ 60:

Oops. "Succumb." Shoulda proofed before posting. Dammit, I hate that.

Relax Howard-ya done good.

.

Yea, bug off Johnny.

Maybe I can't use the quotes... Think about that one.
Maybe I like the spaces... think about that one.

I'm not here complaining about how you express yourself, please grant me that same privledge, unless you feel resrticting expression a right, which in that case, shall we start with you?

.

Johnny@43

You are correct in saying governance is tough, and hope is not an action plan, however hope and optimism represent the foundation of hope, not the end product.
And if you want specifics on what Obama will do, go to his website or use Google.

While there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, cynicism is the death of hope. Personally, I'm tired of professional skeptics and critics poisoning our debate. People like that will never be remembered for anything redemptive.

To Jo's point, since it seems you don't like Obama and have plenty of time to offer your criticism, what would you suggest as an alternative? Feel free to be a problem solver instead of the problem by offering something positive to this discussion.

I like the way Obama makes me feel... until I wonder how he will create the managerial and political machinery to gear his dreams into reality. Then I'm not so sure.

I like Richardson on paper, but he's such a schlub in real life.

John Edwards is an earnest nice guy who knows he has a nice smile, but not much edge or presence.

Sorry to say I think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch and the one I would trust to know what to do on Day 1.

# 59 Johnny2Bad

Maybe the "quote this comment" button is showing up. It's not working for me, either.

Thanks, Nicole. It must have been something in the way the article was introduced. I really don't think so many of us would have become unnecessarily agitated if there weren't some room for (mis)interpretation there. I can't fathom a bunch of progressives getting worked up over a little thang, can you?
I appreciate your stepping in to quell some of the clamor.
Crooks and Liars is still my alpha fix. Whew! Huge sigh of relief at John's house tonight, eh?

.

#69 Johnny

POV = (in the vernacular) Point of View.

But since you really don't care then your first retort was just baseless, no?

No sense in not owning up to a carless and sensless remark from the get go, "Just beacuse you can".

A character tell.

.

jo@70

You are correct that the quote this comment and refresh are not working. Appreciate it if someone could fix it.

Nutz Says:

And exactly what experience has Hillary Clinton with being a “worker”? This analysis is an inch deep.

Bill Clinton was really good on the stump, but he had plans to back up his rhetoric (though ultimately very little results). Based on the criteria most Obama disciples supporters are espousing they really ought to be forming a "Draft Oprah" effort; she could put his warm fuzzies to shame---and make a lousy president as well.

Max and Johnny--
Can you take your separate corners, please? It was old before it even started. I kind of hate to conjure the spirit of Rodney King, but honestly; aren't we all on the same side here?
(of course now that I say that it occurs to me that some of the sour comments that have been flying have a trollish pungency to them).

I must agree with Edwards, "good intentions won't change a thing"

I watch a lot of C-Span, and when I hear Obama talk about bringing Republicans and Democrats together, I picture the total failure of the Senate under Harry Reid, who is downright combative in comparison to Obama's message for "hope".

The only "hope" I have is to have a President with the clear intent to fight.

bmw 528 @ 66:

Johnny@43

You are correct in saying governance is tough, and hope is not an action plan, however hope and optimism represent the foundation of hope, not the end product.
And if you want specifics on what Obama will do, go to his website or use Google.

While there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, cynicism is the death of hope. Personally, I'm tired of professional skeptics and critics poisoning our debate. People like that will never be remembered for anything redemptive.

To Jo's point, since it seems you don't like Obama and have plenty of time to offer your criticism, what would you suggest as an alternative? Feel free to be a problem solver instead of the problem by offering something positive to this discussion.

I don't need to see his website, I know his record...Its his supporters who seem blissfully unaware of them:

Voted with the Republicans on "Tort Reform".
Supports expanding nuclear power
Thinks Iran "Threatens us all"
Conveniently missed (among others) the vote on Kyl-Lieberman.

Oh yeah, I know this guy's politics...I just don't like em. At all.

Biggus Diggus @ 68:

Sorry to say I think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch and the one I would trust to know what to do on Day 1.

Isn't day one the big inaugural party where the big donors get some heavy face time with the candidate they just bought?

Excellent points, gussmith.

this analysis is garbage. obama's speaking "makes it so"? sounds like someone is drinking the blue kool aid...

and with edwards... "what he’s really doing is making a request for you to elect him because he can’t deliver on his vision unless he’s President." um, yeah? is this a profound revelation you just had? none of the candidates can deliver on their vision if they're not elected... it just so happens that edwards is the only candidate who has clearly presented what their vision amounts to, and includes all of us. people can sit on their couches and hope Obama-style all they want... the change edwards describes is a doing-change, not a hoping-change.

I like that the electorate seems to want a bold, fresh direction forward and to leave the past behind. But we really need someone who knows the nuts, bolts, and wonky stuff of how to do it.

Sadly, Chris Dodd is not in the race anymore. He could do it.

I feel like we're buying Pepsi with Obama.

finally I fine people that are intelligent enough not to buy the shit that obama vomits about hope and change. Why can't the young ones that are ga ga over him see that he resembles george bushes crap about being a uniter not a divider and especially the nice guy bullshit. That my friends, sounds like obamas message. the same message that got us into all this trouble. whats sad is that we saw how the fanatics in the rt wing bought right into it. Now we have all these democatics or shall I say independants that have bought into this crap. By the way same independants supported bush, they sure as hell didn't go for gore and kerry.

OBAMA IS A DEMOCRATIC IMPERSONATER.

"Fascinating post by Jesse Wendel"*
(*If you look at a steaming pile of bullshit and think "gee, that's really fascinating")

Coles notes version of "fascinating post" : I want a leader who can talk a good game - following through isn't really that important.

If Hillary self-destructs (she's a long way from being done) and people see through O'Bama's pied piper routine, then the only man standing is Boy Edwards. It's not the worst that could happen, but he's only served one term in the Senate. That's all he can lay claim to for elected positions. I'm worried, actually, about the entire field now. I hope Big Al steps in at the last minute.

kvk @ 97:

Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama’s speaking makes it so. By declaration.

WTF? I want some of what you're smoking.

I think you first need something that allows you to detect sarcasm.

bmw 528 @ 99:

Agree with everything in your list---and I think Edwards is a great candidate, as he reminds me somewhat of the first person I ever worked for politically, RFK. He was excellent in the last debate, however I don't think he has enough national support to pull it off. But we'll see. His voice in this debate certainly adds something positive.

And we do need a Marshall Plan like national energy policy like the Apollo Alliance for example. We could have funded it six times with the money we pissed away in Iraq.

Cool. Let's agree to agree.

We're back to the beauty contest. And misogyny supercedes bigotry-for the moment.

Israel has cut off fuel for Gaza power plants in the middle of winter. Mexican farmers are being driven out of business by the thousands and have only one alternative. Immigrate, illegally if necessary, to the USA. We are in the early stages of a major recession/stagflation.

Until these issues are addressed I'm not supporting anyone but Kucinich. Uncle Joe McCarthy can kiss my ass. Kucinich turned down a RADIO spot? Oh WOW. I'm sure that would have turned everything around. The MSM is controlling this election. The progressive idiots are giving in in droves.

I totally agree with #104 George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are laughing their asses off right now. While we have all supposedly moved on to pick our next "Feel Good" President, they know they got away with the biggest fraud /heist ever pulled on the American people. #104 is completely right. I though we so called Progressives were smarter than this. We all follow the MSM like sheep. And Randy Rhoes, John Elliott, and Ed Schultz can all kiss my ass. They are all as bad as the MSM for covering this mindless fraud of an election 24/7.

Che's Lounge @ 104:

We're back to the beauty contest. And misogyny supercedes bigotry-for the moment.

Israel has cut off fuel for Gaza power plants in the middle of winter. Mexican farmers are being driven out of business by the thousands and have only one alternative. Immigrate, illegally if necessary, to the USA. We are in the early stages of a major recession/stagflation.

Until these issues are addressed I'm not supporting anyone but Kucinich. Uncle Joe McCarthy can kiss my ass. Kucinich turned down a RADIO spot? Oh WOW. I'm sure that would have turned everything around. The MSM is controlling this election. The progressive idiots are giving in in droves.

Yeah, they are....I couldn't believe Thom Hartman (of all people) jumping on today...WTF?

I get the idea of Barack as a corporate CEO in message and in posture.

But I don't get Hillary as "worker". What worker? Doing what? I see her as wanting to be the "manager" because... well, it's her turn? She goes on and on about her experience as a "manager" (failing to note any large accomplishments as such however).

Edwards is definitely a worker. His messages are he'd "work for America", "fight for America", and "take on special interests". That's a working message, not a managerial one. And he HAS had to work his ass off as he is frozen out of the MSM. Look at the number of days he spent in Iowa and N.H.

Edwards IS the hardest working person in the campaign.

It was a nice concept for the post, though. Kinda.

I'm waiting to hear what Mike Malloy has to say about all this so called Obama Fever. He has been on vacation since before the Iowa caucuses and do back tomorrow.I trust and hope that he will have an unbiased, unfiltered view of the recent events. I'm very disappointed in all the hosts on Air America. But I guess they have been corporatized since Mark Green took over so what do you expect.

OMG! Obama may be right...There is hope.

Johnny2Bad @ 114:

OMG! Obama may be right...There is hope.

Nice! Go, John!

I can't help but believe that we are all being had.... again. I disagree strongly with this characterization of Edwards. It only sounds reasonable because so few people ever get to hear what Edwards actually has to say due to the media blackout on his campaign. I can't forget that one of Joe Lieberman's old friends is working for Obama these days. And we all know what kind of a Democrat Holy Joe was. Granted that Obama is a good speaker, and after eight years of incoherence from the White House, we are all hungry for someone who can walk and talk at the same time, and granted that he is full of vision. The fact is talk is cheap... we have no way of knowing how he intends to put his vision into action. It could be like "I'm a uniter, not a divider." His positions on issues are to the right of Hilary and hers are pretty conservative. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is a manufactured candidate, just like Mitt Romney. Only Obama is manufactured to appeal to a Democratic market. He's a person of color, articulate, well educated, sense of humor, "clean cut" Tiger Woods sort of guy. But make no mistake, he is a tool of the corporate interests and will govern to the right of how he is running. We will have another four years of the same old, same old only with a President who speaks English.

Another history lesson...

Economists point to "the Great Compression" where the disparity of wealth was leveled out by FDR's "New Deal" and virtually overnight created the middle class society that most of us have grown up in.

A poster at D-Kos debunked the notion that FDR got the new deal passed by building consensus and posted excerpts from FDR's 1936 acceptance speech:

Excerpt :

And so it was to win freedom from the tyranny of political autocracy that the American Revolution was fought. That victory gave the business of governing into the hands of the average man, who won the right with his neighbors to make and order his own destiny through his own government. Political tyranny was wiped out at Philadelphia on July 4, 1776.

Since that struggle, however, man's inventive genius released new forces in our land which reordered the lives of our people. The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

http://www2.austincc.edu/lpatrick/his2341/fdr36acceptancespeech.htm

Now this is not 1936, but there are huge parallels between this time and those of FDR and it was a real gunfight to get the "New Deal" passed and FDR didn't flinch, or compromise, or negotiate... he called it like he saw it.

One (of many) of the big problems I see with Obama is that he talks about bipartisanship: he thinks he can work WITH the Repubs. But we've seen what working WITH Repubs is like: they'll take the ball and go home unless you play by their rules and let them have their way on everything. Why would we want to vote for a man who is so blind he can't see that?

What a crock of shit!!! Obama is a corporate whore just like HRC. He will sell out with a quickness!! Edwards in fact can't deliver unless he is President, thats the whole Idea dumbass!! Become President and press your agenda...dude wake the fuck up!

This statement lacks any brain activity...."making a request for you to elect him because he can’t deliver on his vision unless he’s President." This applies to all those stupid enough to want the job....thats why they are running for President and presenting their vision at rallys and debates.

This drivel should be ignored!!!!!

Edwards Obama 08

Lot's of Obama hate on this thread, which just shows he's getting more and more popular. Sorry you're having such a hard time with it.

I have been describing this another way.

Edwards' focus has been, "The two Americas" with his exact words in one debate, "What a president SHOULD do," "What the country SHOULD be." His blink rate rises after the statement is complete, as if he's done his homework now and has pleased his client. Ok as long as we remain his client.

Hillary's game is "..when we tried to bring America good heatlh care in the nineties" and "I've been fighting for you.."
We shouldn't NEED reminding if that's true, just the specific thing she achieved. The "effort" is supposed to put her on the acceptable side of the right-wrong scale, such that she deserves credit for herself..But she ignores what others have done fighting the same cause. Not one mention of anyone else but Bill.

Solution:
Hillary would be a patriot and one of the most inspirational leaders since Eleanor Roosevelt if she volunteered to terminate her candidacy and work to achieve, with Obama, a shared vision for the good of the country.

Edwards would do well to continue to present himself as a capable candidate for cabinet post...secretary of the interior is my choice. Not vice president.

It's gonna be interesting. Here are predictions for the final New Hampshire numbers.

I'm Jesse Wendel. I wrote the post at Group News Blog which bluegal was so gracious to link and comment on.

First, my congratulations to bluegal on a really first-rate job of making clear my points, through using the candidates own campaign commercials. Nicely done.

Second, so everyone is crystal clear, there are precisely two people who know whom of the top three candidates I personally plan on voting for come primary day out here in the great State of Washington. While I am in no way suggesting that y'all come over to our site -- C&L is a fine place to hang out *grins* -- if you did, you'd discover that last month, hell, last week, I was being slammed by my own regulars for being a Hillary shill. We've also been hit for selling out to Edwards, and I think at least one person yelled at one of my co-bloggers for selling out to one of the minor candidates. Frankly, it's a refreshing change to be yelled at for selling out to Obama, but I assure you that's as much crap as the other allegations.

Group News Blog takes no position on which candidate should be nominated. And as GNBs' Publisher as well as a writer, neither do I. We will support whoever is nominated with everything we've got. Till then, we're going to give our best reporting and analysis to our readers.

People are reading into this what they want, and that's up to them, but it just ain't in the text. It's in your listening.

Third and finally, I'm going to address the charge of what I wrote being airy-fair California woo-woo "creating your own reality" stuff, as in the crap that for example, Werner Erhard allegedly did with est, or what journalist Ron Suskind reported on in his famous New York Times article when he quoted a Senior White House Adviser:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

What I'm talking about is NOT that.

I'm speaking of Speech Act Theory, a respected academic discipline, which I've studied for a quarter century, under some of the leading thinkers and inventors of the field.

For those who dismiss it blithely, I say this: An enormous amount of what people don't grasp is still true. Some of it even matters.

Here is the simple version of what a Declaration is, in Speech Act Theory.

It is speaking which is so in the moment of speaking by virtue of the authority of the speaker and the acceptance of the community of what is said, the authority of the speaker to make the declaration, the "fit" of what is said into the background of other declarations which already exist in the community of listeners, and the readiness of everyone to maintain the declaration now and forever. That is, a declaration once declared is so, and can not be undone.

Let's have some examples.

A foreperson for a jury says: "Guilty" or "Innocent". In the moment s/he says that, the defendant IS Guilty when a split-second before they were presumed innocent. That moment can never be undone. Even if later they receive a pardon, or on appeal the verdict is overturned, all that follows the initial declaration which is TRUE IN THE MOMENT OF SPEAKING.

An umpire calling balls and strikes. "Ball." "Strike." "Ball." "STRIKE THREE AND YOU'RE OUT OF HERE." Doesn't matter if the pitch was two feet off the plate! And I've seen pitches that were. What matters is not where the ball was. Physical reality has NOTHING to do with the umpire's call. It's the call which determines if the hitter is out, and nothing more. The call is Declarative. It is TRUE IN THE MOMENT OF SPEAKING.

Getting married is the same way. "By the authority invested in me by the State of Washington, I now pronounce you husband and wife." Literally, the Judge IS Pronouncing them. After that moment, they ARE married. If they want to not be married, they have to either get a divorce, or get an annulment. Either way, they must deal with the Declaration which was TRUE IN THE MOMENT OF SPEAKING.

Now let's walk it back to Obama and what I'm claiming about his speaking style. I am NOT saying jack about who I want for President.

I am saying that Obama's fundamental speaking style is Declarative:

Our Moment Is Now - Obama Video
"We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is in peril. The dream that so many generations fought for, feels as if it's slowly slipping away. And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do. America, our moment is now. I don't want to spend the next year, or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be the President of the United States of America."

In the very first sentence, Obama declares that we are in a defining moment in our history. He does the same thing in the second and third sentence, except expands it out to the nation and planet. In the fourth sentence he reaches back to generations past and touches through the last seven years of Bush, including everyone likely to be in the room. His authority to speak for the community of listeners is now absolute. He spends a long sentence taking out his opponents, and then he moves cleanly in to the part which is going to make him President if not stopped. With the whole room in hand -- and remember, this is a television ad; this is going to be playing 20 times a day in battleground states -- Obama DECLARES, that is, SAYS WHAT IS TRUE IN THE MOMENT OF SPEAKING...

"America, our moment is now." He is speaking now to America.

"I don't want to spend the next year, or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s." Instantly, no one else does either. That takes out Hillary right there. Boom.

"I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America." The independents just came over to him in droves.

"I want to be the President of the United States of America." And everyone watching the ad, buys him as the President, completely.

Maybe not the first time. Maybe not the second. Maybe there are some people who just hate his guts and demand to see the facts. But the overwhelming majority of people, probably 60-65%, are going to move to Obama because of this kind of speaking. Declarative speaking works. It is the language of in which genuine change happens.

Anyway... I've got to get back to work. Have a blog to run. But this was just too good not to jump in and shake up a touch.

Nice to meet everyone,

Jesse Wendell

I don't think the criticisms are about analyzing the language of candidates. They're about the attitudes revealed in the conclusions. Let me do some analysis of my own.

The conclusion about Clinton sympathetically suggests that she's one who can accomplish many things but is sorely misunderstood:

Clinton uses the language of a worker, the language of deep experience and competence…She tells us you can trust her judgment, knowledge and understanding, her years and years of being on the job, wisdom and training. She is no doubt genuinely baffled that anyone would choose someone who doesn’t have the competency and vetting she has.

The conclusion about Edwards suggests that he's tentative and weak, and everything is conditional on his being elected.

Managers are about requests…[The manager candidate] requests you elect him to fix problems, lobbies for a change so he can fix the system. Edwards is an old-style Union man so even when his words are canonically declarative, if you listen carefully, what he’s really doing is making a request for you to elect him because he can’t deliver on his vision unless he’s President.

The conclusion about Obama is that he is triumphantly marching into the presidency without anything to propel him there except his speech.

When Obama speaks, he creates a future of an America in which all of us together will take on the troubles we know in our heart are coming and repair the damages which have occurred. Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama’s speaking makes it so. By declaration.

Obama is breaking out now because he speaks the language of a leader.

Now, you may have accurately reflected the conclusions of some Americans who know nothing about the candidates except hearing them speak during campaigns, and maybe this was your intention. If so, it would have been good to make that clear right up front. But your conclusions aren't universal, as you see.

FWIW, I think people are responding to the implications of your conclusions, that Hillary presents herself as someone who is capable and forthright, just misunderstood, that Edwards presents himself as someone who is tentative and all his promises are conditional, that Obama presents himself as someone whose only qualification is charisma.

Maybe others here will understand your conclusions differently, but these are mine.

this is a bit of a shame.. when I see Obama's message. Yes, it's just some words to win points.. But I don't think change begin with the president, or any 'elected' official. But with the people that vote for them. It is good that the politicians are trying to do something, but the average person still know very little about what's actually going on.

He talks the talk.. but I don't think he's any different than the others.. Though Obama might not need to do so much, considering the congress is democratic for the moment.

Johnny2Bad @ 5:

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, that future is more and more real. It happens AS he speaks. Obama’s speaking makes it so. By declaration."

God help us.

I haven't heard such irritatingly blatant, psycho-babble B.S. since this guy made million conning simpletons out their life savings.

Right on. "Werner Erhard" is not even his real name, I guess he changed it to something more authoritarian. I went to an event sponsored by his est group; what a bunch of little Nazis they were. I agree with your assessment. I can't find the "there" there either. But we are such Dumbasses here in Disney Land, aren't we.

There is no there, there. We are doomed.

Is Obama going to "unite us" in concentration camps? He voted for the Patriot Act; that is a vote that disqualifies any of them for me.

The person who will do the most good FOR THE PEOPLE as president is the one the media and corporate powerbrokers pretend does not exist and is an also-ran.

John Edwards.

If we fail to see the obvious push of a two person race between two corporate pawns, then it is once again our own fault. The chance for change is here, but isn't how the punditry make it out.

After all, the pundits don't work for the candidate of change.

RMac @ 140:

The person who will do the most good FOR THE PEOPLE as president is the one the media and corporate powerbrokers pretend does not exist and is an also-ran.

John Edwards.

If we fail to see the obvious push of a two person race between two corporate pawns, then it is once again our own fault. The chance for change is here, but isn't how the punditry make it out.

After all, the pundits don't work for the candidate of change.

you are absolutely right..and how sad. Why people are so stupid not to see through the media. And how can they just trust obama and the media and not recognize edwards, etc still there.
Geez...it is only the FIRST primary and the media already declared Obama the NOMINEE??? wtf? Maybe if the media would shut up until ALL the primaries are over to make their conclusions, then we would have been better of?
People who believe Obama make me sick. He is just another corporate candidate.

Only Edwards represents true change FOR THE PEOPLE and BY THE PEOPLE!

Maybe Obama is winning because he doesn't use that sappy background music! Just changing that is a nice start.

AJ @ 143:

Wow...obviously you don't understand the message. It isn't all that complicated. He believes that his role as president is to be an agent of the people and that unless people are politically involved, politics will always serve the few. It's a simple call for change from the bottom-up. I don't see any cult leader tactics or false promises or any of that. He is right to clarify his vision of politics and not just speak about policy positions all of time. Leaders can bring about changes in the way people think about their role in society and I believe that Obama has a positive vision of our system's potential if people are involved in it on a mass scale.

A.Citizen @ 7:

At one time Jim Jones was 'The Man'. He created the future with his words.

A one time 'community organizer' in San Francisco's poorer districts he made
his 'vision' reality.

Until it killed him.

I think you folks got this one wrong. Leaders galvanize their followers alright but they are also straight with them.

They give the opposition it's due and they don't tell people it's gonna be a cakewalk. They don't dis others who've
walked the road before them. That's demagoguery not leadership.

Obama's 'change' is Bush's 'compassion' no difference. Just, 'More of the Same...'

Thanks, no JonesTown for me.

DUHHHH...the words are just words if you preach one thing and then at the same time accept contributions from lobbyists! Don't you get that? Notyhing is changed until we have public finance system of elections where special interests cannot influence outcome. Obama will say anything now to get elected and his corporate sponsors will make sure of that. Sad that you do not see that

I can't wait till November 08. Your media darling will be history. Don't cry foul dems, this time you took the bait, and did it to yourselves.

kali yuga @ 9:

We're fucked alright. Watch this clip of Obama explaining why it's okay for him to take corporate bribes:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/01/corporate_crook.html

That's some priceless bullshit. Real leadership stuff there . . .

I don't see how any progressive could watch that video and even consider voting for Obama or Clinton over Edwards.

Of course, progressives aren't. It is Independents and crossover Republicans that are putting Obama on top.