Hillary Clinton "1984"
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Maverick,
I'm not sure where this was widely discussed but I could not find any evidence of it after searching for a half hour or so via google. I saw plenty of people saying that it was good enough they wondered if he had one; and plenty of people remarking that his book was better because he didn't have one; but nothing saying he had a ghostwriter for the book.
Further, I've read enough of his book "Dreams from my Father" (which he wrote 10 years ago) to realize that he can write and that the voice and tone are the same guy I read in "The Audacity of Hope" so absent any evidence otherwise I'm not buying the "he had a ghostwriter" story. That's a likely a Clinton-started rumor IMHO.
- Curtis
P.S. This thread sure has started to go down the same old shit hole that seems to be their unavoidable destiny here on ET.
Yeah, I don't think it was widely written about, I was referring to evening cable talk shows. I think Chris Mathews was talking about it every night for a while when it first came out. I'm not saying either way he had a ghost rider, it was just thrown around a lot on the talk show circuit.
Regardless, I'm not saying Obama is a bad writer if he indeed did write it. Unfortunately for him, being a good writer, now matter how good the tone, does not qualify him to be a good President.
These threads usually have a half life of about 2 pages before the vermin discover them and tear them to pieces. LOL.
Just out of curiosity Curtis, what exactly do you like about him and his ideas. And I mean specifically, what issues does he resonate with you on? I'm not trying to be hard on the guy, I just have not heard anything in particular from him that makes him stand out from the other Democrats. Yes, he is a much better public speaker then Hillary or Al Gore or John Edwards for that matter, but can you actually tell what ideas he has that you like particular?
Take Mit Romney for example. Here is a guy that is also a terrific public speaker. He took a 3 billion dollar budget deficit in MA and ran it to a surplus. He saved the 2002 Winter Olympics from financial catastrophe. And he has created a health plan in MA that insures every single resident WITHOUT raising taxes. And he has created more jobs in his state then almost any state in the nation.
These are things he has actually ACCOMPLISHED. Not things he is talking about doing. I guess my question again is, what is it that would lean you towards Obama over say someone like Romney, being that Republican or Democrat does not matter to you.
What do I like about Obama? That's a good question.
What I like about him has more to do with his approach than any specific policy. His approach and way of looking at the world is different than most people, he grew up as a perpetual outsider. He was considered to be black by most people yet he was raised mostly by his white mom. That outsider's view lends itself a certain detachment and ability to analyze without being married to the traditional orthodox position.
Let's look at one area of policy Education. I know a bit about education since many of my aunts and uncles are teachers and one of them teaches in one of the poorest rated districts in the L.A. area.
In the U.S. we have an education system that is broken by most standards, yet we have a traditional fight between the labor unions who don't want performance measurements and those who want to hold teachers and administrators accountable.
From the republicans we get a "No child left behind" policy which is a disaster, everyone is now teaching to tests and obsessing over tests but no more learning is going on.
One uncle talks about how stupid the bureaucracy in education is. He is mandated a curriculum at the state level which tells him to use books that are two years too advanced for his students. He has to bypass the system to get 3rd grade reading books so he can teach the kids and then 4th grade books to catch them up to 5th grade; he can't start assuming they have been receiving a good education when they haven't.
Obama is basically saying to inner city families, look this is a complex problem. The solution is not just money, we've tried that and it doesn't work. The solution is not standardized testing, we've tried that and its not helping.
The solution is a lot of different things coming together:
1) Parents and the community need to take some responsibility. Fathers who don't take responsibility for the support of their own kids harm those kids and the community and this trickles down to the education system. Teenagers having kids is a huge problem for education. From a cultural level it is not okay to glorify irresponsibility.
Obama even makes the point that from a cultural perspective black people have to get off the stupid idea that reading books and studying is "acting white"; acknowledging that a culture which favors sports and attitude over scholastic achievement is part of the problem as well.
2) There needs to be some accountability for teacher and administrator performance. Teachers know who the good teachers are and who are terrible. So Obama is asking them: "How do we come up with a way of measuring performance that works?"
3) In many cases, there needs to be more money, but we shouldn't spend money if it is not being effective. Nevertheless, the huge disparity in spending per student in education may have historical basis but it isn't fair.
So what I like about him is that he appears to understand the problem for what it is. One that can't be solved by a sound-bite. One that will require cooperation rather than mandates. He's willing to say some things that the unions have not traditionally liked: that teachers need to be held accountable for their performance in actionable ways, that seniority should not define privilege.
I believe his message is much more complex to sell. It is not at all a traditional campaign tactic but it is one that actually solves real problems. Bring together the people understand the view points well, and come up with something that takes into account all the perspectives.
Take another example, gay marriage. He does not support gay marriage but he supports the ability for gay people to form a contractual union which gives them the same property and benefit rights as married people have. The solution Obama supports is reasonable. There is enough opposition for gay marriage that I don't think you'd get national concensus on it. I personally do support gay marriage as I believe that the government has no business telling anyone what they can and can't do unless it harms other people.
As far as Romney, he'll never get elected. I also really don't like self-described conservative Republicans as they generally mean socially conservative.
- Curtis
Solution #1 is all that's required. Once that issue is addressed, all other solutions will fall into place. Don't hold your breath.
Would you agree that a president has to be able to work with congress to get anything done?
Would you agree that the current office of the presidency invests too much power in one person/executive branch without proper oversight?
I have no evidence that shows that Obama can assemble a good team to help him run the country (VP, and all the cabinet level posts), that he can work with all members of congress, or that he is going to work to reduce the power of the presidency away from and Imperial President style that we currently have.
All I hear from most of the candidates is how they are going to use the same power Bush has amassed for their agendas...
Would you agree that the current office of the presidency invests too much power in one person/executive branch without proper oversight?
I have no evidence that shows that Obama can assemble a good team to help him run the country (VP, and all the cabinet level posts), that he can work with all members of congress, or that he is going to work to reduce the power of the presidency away from and Imperial President style that we currently have.
All I hear from most of the candidates is how they are going to use the same power Bush has amassed for their agendas...
Obama is running as a Democrat, having done drugs might cause him problems in the Republican primary but he's not in that race. The Democrats don't care if he did drugs 20 years ago when he was in High School and College. I was three years behind him so I know the era and practically everyone I knew smoked pot at least occasionally. Certainly anyone with any sort of spirit or independence at least tried them.
The voters that care are about this sort of thing are in the far right. Obama won't need them to win the primary or the election.
Romney on the other hand is a Mormon. I know quite a bit about the Christian right. Mormonism for them is a sect almost as bad as satan worship. They do not consider Mormons to be Christian. Evangelical Christians are NOT going to support a Mormon for president. It won't happen. That will make it very hard for Romney in the primary.
I personally believe that Guiliani, Romney, or Thompson would all make pretty good presidents. A hell of a lot better than any of the the candidates we've had in the last two elections.
I just don't think they'll be able to amass the kind of support that Obama will.
Hillary, different story. She scares me. She's already proven she can't mobilize around an issue like Healthcare. The fact is that when she was given the responsibility she failed. The Republicans would have done a deal and she could not pull it together. She is not Bill, she is much much worse.
Give it another two or three months and Hillary is toast. Already people are starting to wonder how the hell Obama raised $25 million against Hillary's $26 million without the Clinton contacts and from twice as many donors as Hillary. TWICE as many. That is the most important thing to consider. Twice as many people willing to donate money means twice as many advocates. Twice as many grassroots workers. Twice as many people telling their friends. Twice as many people like me blogging about the guy.
Why? Because we like what we see and read and I've already spent more time investigating him that I normally do on any one candidate by the time of the primary. Why? Because I keep looking for a reason why he won't be electable or wouldn't make a great president and I can't find one. And his books are actually good books.
- Curtis
So you think the Christian white, I mean the Christian right would
elect a black man before electing a white man who happens to
to be a Mormon? Okay...
I doubt if any Christians believe Mormons are anywhere near to
being a satanic sect as you call them.
Heck, even on South Park, they were the only church to be right
and get to go to heaven...
