| 0 |
Subject: The Audacity of Hope - Barack Obama
Posted by: Tree
- [513181023] Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 11:40
I am starting this thread, because i am finally sitting down and really diving into this book.
I'm beginning to study it like i haven't studied a book in quite some time, in part, because if i am supporting him, i feel like i really want to know where Barack Obama is coming from.
I'm about 70 pages in, about to begin Chapter Three.
there has been a lot so far in this book that has struck me, both in a way of personal enlightenment, as well as in a way that makes be really believe that Obama is "different" than most (if not all) politicians that i have seen come and go in my lifetime (save for maybe Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura, who definitely have both gone about things "their way".)
i'll be going through and posting some of those passages, although that'll probably begin after this weekend as it's another chock-full-of-pro-wrestling weekend for me.
i am wondering who else here - if anyone - has read the book, might be interested in re-reading it, or, plans to read it again soon.
i also would like to take a moment to address those who will immediately dismiss this book as a bunch of liberal namby pamby nonsense about ideals and feeeeeelings....
yes, Obama does address his beliefs. it would be foolish for him not to. but more so, he discusses politics in general - both past and present, and spends a good deal of time talking about political discourse, and how it's changed over the last several decades.
i believe this book is worth the read - regardless of your political beliefs - because his examination of the discourse is very interesting, and for those of us here who actually like to engage in political discourse, i would think you would want to learn more about it, and see some interesting perspectives on the topic. |
| 1 | biliruben
ID: 4911361723
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 11:54
|
I got a couple chapters in, then it got packed away, as we are selling our house. I'll see if I can locate it.
|
| 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 14352118
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 11:56
|
It is very confessional, IMO. A little more so than his previous book.
I'll dig it out and see if I can go through it again.
|
| 3 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 12:01
|
Read it last year. Just got it back after lending it out and I'd be interested in revisiting.
|
| 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 12:24
|
Read it a year ago, and will join in with the "revisiting". I recall being particularly struck, by how different Obamas approach is when compared to todays "usual" politician. The book, is aptly titled IMHO.
|
| 5 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 13:02
|
Do you stand up and read it like the Catholics do in church when they read from the Gospel?
|
| 6 | Perm Dude
ID: 14352118
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 13:04
|
Do other Christian religions sit when they read the Bible to the congregation?
|
| 7 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 13:04
|
The book isn't for you Boxman. Inclusiveness challenges the core of your persona.
|
| 8 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 13:07
|
Wow, 2 minutes from my post and two liberals go right after it like dogs on a meat bone. Impressive. Most impressive.
The first post was about alleged Catholic persecution and then the punch to the nuts by Mith about excluding me because I don't beeeeelieve in The Great Leader.
Nice combo guys.
|
| 9 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 13:20
|
Yes its very impressive that we are on line and responding to posts.
Just crazy.
|
| 10 | Tree
ID: 513181023
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 14:07
|
Do you stand up and read it like the Catholics do in church when they read from the Gospel?
if i'm waiting in line for something, then yea.
i am glad that the whole point of this thread was totally missed by you.
in this thread, i'm not saying you should believe one word Obama says. but i am suggesting you should read "audacity of hope", because you do seem interested in the political process and political discourse.
if, instead, all you're going to do is mock Obama, the book, liberals, and really, anything else, i'd like to kindly ask you to not interject in this thread if you aren't going to read the book.
this thread is specifically about the book, what it means generally speaking, what it might mean to us as individuals, and what it might mean to us as a nation and a people.
if you aren't going to read it, then honestly, this thread is no place for you. i'd like to respectfully ask you to excuse yourself from this thread if you don't want to be involved positively.
|
| 11 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 14:23
|
Boxman
This is not intended as incendiary.
I don't believe I've seen much (if any) notable commentary from you on Obama's positions and statements. Not since your earlier requests for explanations on his positions and accomplishments (which were provided, btw) anyway.
What I have seen is sarcasm intended to mock anyone who happens to favor Obama for the nothing more than the simple fact that they happen to favor Obama. Well, there's the exception in this thread, where you claim to ambiguously invoke "alleged Catholic persecution" (?) in another shot intended to insult Obama supporters as mindless cult followers.
You might point out that I chided you and other Giuliani supporters and also your support of John McCain but if you go back to the record you'll see that I did so in the context of their actual positions and statements.
You've shown in other threads that you're fully capable of commentary above the level of mostly meaningless sarcasm. Why not offer some on Obama, rather than just repeat the tired (and lets face it, displaced and mostly meaningless) quips like 'great leader' and 'feelings'. Yes, you succeed in getting on peoples' nerves with them (including Baldwin and numerous others on the right, probably) but wouldn't you rather contribute more on the topic than simply making an annoyance of yourself?
I don't intend to insult you here so in the case that you see it that way I'll offer a preemptive apology.
Looking back on many of my recent posts, I don't like the tone I'm resorting to with increased frequency. So lets attempt some more civil discussion, shall we? The way to start that is to refrain from sarcasm and to attempt to not respond to it in kind.
|
| 12 | Tree
ID: 513181023
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 14:47
|
Looking back on many of my recent posts, I don't like the tone I'm resorting to with increased frequency. So lets attempt some more civil discussion, shall we? The way to start that is to refrain from sarcasm and to attempt to not respond to it in kind.
interesting you post that. my initial response to Boxman was going to be something nasty and sarcastic, but then, i would be going down the road i'm trying to avoid.
for me, part of is from reading Obama's book. He discusses this exact thing, and the first chapter is called "Republicans and Democrats".
two passages that immediately come to mind.
the first, as Obama discusses the Illinois Senate Republicans adopting the same rules Gingrich used in the U.S. House.
He goes on to say that when Republicans controlled the Senate, they basically did all they could to prevent the Democrats from getting even the most modest of proposals discussed or passed. THEN, he discusses how when the Dems took control, they did the exact same thing to their Republican counterparts, basically not taking the high road:
Some of the older veterans would wistfully recall the days when Republicans and Democrats met at night for dinner, hashing out a compromise over steaks and cigars. But even open these old bulls, such fond memories rapidly dimmer the first time time the other side's political operatives selected them as targets, flooding their districts with mail accusing them of malfeasance, corruption, incompetence, and moral turpitude.
the other related passage, later in the book, regards and exchage between Obama, and GW Bush.
It's a much longer passage that i don't have time to type out right now, but it begins midway through page 46 and continues until the middle of page 47, at the break.
it picks up a tad later with the line So Democratic audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don't consider George Bush a bad man, and that I assume he and members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for this country.
That line, in itself, is enough to show that Obama thinks very differently than a lot of people on the left, and should at least give pause to those who choose to mock him.
|
| 13 | Baldwin
ID: 473421019
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 20:20
|
Yes, you succeed in getting on peoples' nerves with them (including Baldwin and numerous others on the right, probably) but wouldn't you rather contribute more on the topic than simply making an annoyance of yourself? - PD
What numerous others on the right? You guys have allowed trolls to make this board useless to intellignt debate. What conservative with better chops than Boxman have bothered to stick around? He and Jag are the only ones you haven't managed to drive off.
Don't invoke my name when trying to drive the last two away.
|
| 14 | Perm Dude
ID: 14352118
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 20:33
|
I know you can't tell us liberals apart, but c'mon.
I also realize that you want conservatives around because you'd rather have some conservatives than intelligent debate (the others kind of got sick of politics and moved on--the President you cheered on will do that to the Right). But we're not trying to drive away conservatives. Just bad debate and troll-like posting.
|
| 15 | Baldwin
ID: 473421019
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 21:05
|
Balderdash. You are afraid of debating the facts and are more comfortable citing zeitgeist chapter and verse and booing and sneering the opposition off the field.
|
| 16 | Perm Dude
ID: 14352118
Fri, Apr 11, 2008, 21:11
|
I don't think you are in any position to claim to know why others have left this board. Nor are you in a position to claim facts when you can't even get a citation right in a thread of just 16 posts.
|
| 17 | tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 00:38
|
baldwin - have you read audacity of hope, or are you planning on reading it?
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on obama's words as you read the book.
|
| 18 | Baldwin
ID: 473421019
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 04:18
|
Mail it to me and I'll read it. Otherwise I would just consider it a campaign contribution.
|
| 19 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 06:23
|
I'd send you mine but I want to continue to refer to it. You can't pick it up at your library?
|
| 20 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 09:30
|
Mith, I have legitimate reasons for criticizing The Great Leader and his flock other than the fact that they are simply misguided liberals. You just have blinders on and can't see the forest from the trees. I'll take your post one point at a time and hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.
What I have seen is sarcasm intended to mock anyone who happens to favor Obama for the nothing more than the simple fact that they happen to favor Obama. Well, there's the exception in this thread, where you claim to ambiguously invoke "alleged Catholic persecution" (?) in another shot intended to insult Obama supporters as mindless cult followers.
There is a leftist deification occurring with Obama. One need look no further than the MSMs love affair with him. The Rev. Wright scandal would have been the death kneel of most politicians, but The Great Leader avoided the killing blow. Rev. Wright had said some things that make the Don Imus' and Michael Richards' of the world look like candidates for the Nobel Prize. This is a man beloved by The Great Leader and played a key religious role with his children. Do you really believe that The Great Leader did not his opinions on issues and the words that he has said? I can understand if The Great Leader got blindsided by one sermon, but after that The Great Leader should have seen Wright for the hater that he is and just gone to another church.
This deification goes beyond simply the fact that he is the presumptive nomineee. He talks about "change" and other vague-alities. Yes I know it's been attempted to explain his specific positions on issues. Yet I find nothing but lies and hypocrisy with him.
The Great Leader's followers love him because he's a uniter. What issues will he unite us that both parties are equally represented?
You either socialize medicine or you do not.
You either raise taxes or you do not.
You either pull troops out of Iraq right away like HRC and The Great Leader want, or you do not.
What issues, that matter, is he seeking a middle ground on? A middle ground is not even possible on certain issues. Taxes either go up or they don't. Where's the capacity for compromise regardless of who says they are a uniter?
Yet you guys buy his schtick hook line and sinker. The words that come out of his mouth are fine and dandy. I'm more interested in his actions.
You might point out that I chided you and other Giuliani supporters and also your support of John McCain but if you go back to the record you'll see that I did so in the context of their actual positions and statements.
I don't care if you chide me for my blind support of the Republican nominee. Yes early on I favored Giuliani, but when he dropped out of the race what's the point? I did not deify him like your kind does with The Great Leader.
I did not start on online Oprah's book club about him and then boot out anyone with a different opinion. You and Tree cannot say that. Unless of course you want to condemn Tree for saying that opposing opinions are not welcome. In that vein, Tree has become like the President he hates, where opposing ideas need not apply.
You do not like my criticism of The Great Leader and the mocking of his flock, that's honestly your problem. I see a person in The Great Leader who is like The Great Oz where there is nothing behind the curtain.
I see a man who is bankrolled by the same hedge fund people that everybody criticizes everyone else for taking money from. Yet where are the multitude of stories of The Great Leader taking money from suspect people like George Soros?
He is bought and sold and the rich love him because he can pacify the poor so they can remain blind to just how bad liberalism fvcks them over.
|
| 21 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 09:47
|
Man, what a laugh riot. Seriously--the projection of the Right has reached fever levels. Pretty much anything they have done that has turned out poorly (deification of their Great Leader, poorly managed budgets, being naive about foreign relations, and so on) they have projected onto the Left, accusing "Liberals" of plotting in the future the very things this current Administration is now doing and has been doing for years.
|
| 22 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 09:59
|
That's all you've got? Weak.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 10:05
|
Another projection! Sweet.
Can't help yourself, can you?
|
| 24 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 11:04
|
You either socialize medicine or you do not.
Health care in this country is already socialized to an extent. When you say do not are you suggresting that Medicare/Medicaid; prescription drug benefits for the elderly; WIC; CHIPS; federal and most state employee health insurance all be discarded?
You either raise taxes or you do not.
Which taxes? Federal? State? County? City? Energy? Capital Gains? No one person is responsible for raising taxes or not.
You either pull troops out of Iraq right away like HRC and The Great Leader want, or you do not.
You either continue air strikes in heavily urban areas guaranteed to kill innocent people or not.
Welcome to the black and white(OK just white) world of Boxman.
|
| 25 | tree on the treo
ID: 40842210
Sat, Apr 12, 2008, 12:00
|
Unless of course you want to condemn Tree for saying that opposing opinions are not welcome. In that vein, Tree has become like the President he hates, where opposing ideas need not apply.
absolutely incorrect and a false characterization.
opposing ideas are more than welcome. but we already have a thread about obama and his ideals. feel free to post your opinions and beliefs there, no matter how mean-spirited and condescending they are. if that's your game, that's your business...
but this thread was specifically designed for the book audacity of hope. if you'd like to read and opine about it, you are more than welcome. I definitely relish opinions from all over the political spectrum on this book.
are you interested in dropping 11 bucks at amazon for the book, and contributing your thoughts on it in this thread?
|
| 26 | Tree
ID: 343481615
Wed, Apr 16, 2008, 17:57
|
Baldwin - i was wondering if you had any luck finding the book at your library...
Boxman - what about you? do you have any desire to read the book?
|
| 27 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 06:48
|
Boxman - what about you? do you have any desire to read the book?
I'm a nose hair away from finishing the current book I'm on. Maybe I'll give this one a shot. Know your enemy better than you know yourself. I don't think I've ever read a book by a President before they actually became President.(?)
|
| 28 | Tree
ID: 511251614
Sun, Apr 20, 2008, 10:17
|
it would be cool if you checked it out, and i appreciate the consideration.
as for me, i'm a slow reader. not in the sense that i can't finish a book in a night, but in the sense that i have about 6 zillion things going on, so reading more than a few dozen pages a week is difficult for me.
|
| 29 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 11, 2008, 14:25
|
VERY long story short I have scored a copy of Obama's book. I have the paperback edition and I'm going to quote and discuss something from page 35 that didn't sit right with me. Mostly until this point in the book, Obama talks in an idealistic and nostalgic tone about politics, the role it played in his family and how he saw things mainly as it relates to the American cultural revolution in the 60s and how he saw the Reagan Revolution.
Since I'm typing this and not copy/pasting, I'm just going to put enough there for you to get where I'm coming from.
...the structural advantages the Republicans enjoyed in the Senate, where the votes of two Republican Senators from Wyoming, population 493,782, equaled the voted of two Democratic Senators from California, population 33,871,648
Someone has to tell Obama that we have a House of Representatives where the population advantage that California has is leveraged and then he also needs to be informed of the history and reasoning why we have a bicameral legislature. He better not start whining the rest of the book or this is gonna be a long read.
|
| 30 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, May 11, 2008, 14:48
|
Are you saying his intended context of that excerpt is that he believes it is wrong for Wyoming and California to have equal representation in the Senate?
|
| 31 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:17
|
Here's the complete excerpt:Indeed, by the end of his presidency, Clinton's policies - recognizably progressive if modest in their goals - enjoyed broad public support. Politically, he had wrung out of the Democratic Party some of the excesses that had kept it from winning elections. That he failed, despite a booming economy, to translate popular policies into anything resembling a governing coalition said something about the demographic difficulties Democrats were facing (in particular, the shift in population growth to an increasingly solid Republican South) and the structural advantage the Republicans enjoyed in the Senate, where the votes of two Republican senators from Wyoming, population 493,782, equaled the votes of two Democratic senators from California, population 33,871,648. The characterization in post 29 is quite detatched from the actual context. He doesn't describe WY's Senate representation as in any way problematic. He's not describing any perceived problems with the system, he's simply discussing some of the reasons for why Clinton failed to build a coalition with Congress, despite the his successes of his Presidency.
Republicans do indeed enjoy a structural advantage in being popular in lots of small states rather than in more of the largest ones.
|
| 32 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:19
|
Source
|
| 33 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:22
|
the structural advantage the Republicans enjoyed in the Senate, where the votes of two Republican senators from Wyoming, population 493,782, equaled the votes of two Democratic senators from California, population 33,871,648.
|
| 34 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:25
|
That's not a complaint.
|
| 35 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:27
|
Are you saying his intended context of that excerpt is that he believes it is wrong for Wyoming and California to have equal representation in the Senate?
He cites a "structural advantage" and then also cites the populations of the various states. State populations are irrelevant in the Senate (basically the whole point of that governing body) and it is misleading and uninformed of Obama to use state population as a crutch for a lack of success as far as the Senate is concerned.
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, May 11, 2008, 15:49
|
Boxman you are making some pretty unwarranted assumptions. In the first place, the notion that any Senator would be so uninformed as to how the Congress is structured quite hard to believe.
Second, he's not using it as a crutch. It's just a simple statement of fact. There is no impression of unfairness given and no implication that the Senate system needs in any way to be altered. He's simply saying that the nature of how the Senate is set up is advantageous to Republicans. I don't know of any conservatives who would deny this. Except, perhps, for you.
Third, that reference is actually just a brief acknowledgement of a couple of other (structural) factors for why Clinton failed to build a coalition before he goes into his primary reason, that the GOP undermined any chances at a real coalition, which is what the next 5 paragraphs (at least) are dedicated to.
|
| 37 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sun, May 11, 2008, 17:15
|
Mith, he's whining. Just deal with it. If this is how the Oprah's Book Club Guru Style is going to work, I'll just finish it on my own accord. Good grief. You can't even bear the thought that even the slightest thing is wrong with your Great Leader can you?
|
| 39 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Sun, May 11, 2008, 20:27
|
he's whining. Just deal with it.
Look at it this way, you and I agree, I'm sure, that Obama's skin color and racial/cultural background are probably a net advantage for him, right? Well if you happen to express that opinion does it mean that you are whining? What, exactly, would be the difference? Stop and think about the position you're assuming: do you really think the argument that you can't mention a well documented advantage enjoyed by the opposition without it being whining?
You can't even bear the thought that even the slightest thing is wrong with your Great Leader can you?
So it's back to insults now? I think I've offered up plenty of Obama's flaws.
Baldwin, Myboyjack, Madman - care to weight in? Is the last paragraph of post 49 a fair and contextual reaction to the passage in #31?
|
| 40 | Boldwin
ID: 24421220
Mon, May 12, 2008, 21:27
|
I could get a little more excited about looking intoi the book if someone could point me to any pro-american friendships he maintained during the 20 years he was backslapping Ayers and Wright. Until I get the sense that was the case what good is reading him play the part of 'mr everyman'? Does he provide any evidence whatsoever in the book that that was the case or is it just smoke he's blowing up....?
|
| 41 | J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Mon, May 12, 2008, 21:38
|
based on what i have read on this thread i am not sure that i need to read the book but i may. this book may be a bible to some on the inner workings of barack but i believe that if my master plan is to become president and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what problems i may have then i say all of what people want to hear in a book to preempt the election process. masterful
|
| 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 394501120
Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:18
|
#40: His first job in Chicago was working for the Archdiocese. Are you calling the Archdiocese of Chicago anti-American?
|
| 43 | J-Bar
ID: 53452117
Mon, May 12, 2008, 22:44
|
and then he associated himself with the political machine in south chicago to propel him to the political figure that he is today. oh by the way, doesn't chicago have a political reputation
|
| 44 | Boldwin
ID: 24421220
Mon, May 12, 2008, 23:18
|
PD
Was he actually present when the archdiocese was being pro-american?
|
| 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 420241913
Mon, May 12, 2008, 23:53
|
I guess that whole "help the downtrodden" thingy you skipped in the re-education camp, Baldwin.
|
| 46 | Boldwin
ID: 24421220
Tue, May 13, 2008, 01:09
|
Well maybe he was just doing it because it was good for his political career...kinda like picking 'Trinity United'.
|
| 47 | nerveclinic
ID: 5047110
Tue, May 13, 2008, 01:46
|
Baldwin Well maybe he was just doing it because it was good for his political career.
Doesn't this apply to anything, any politician does?
You can dismiss anything good any politician has ever done with this simple phrase, that's the height of cynicism and as you know I am as cynical as they come.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|