Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Hope and Change
Posted by: McQ on Monday, June 30, 2008

Jennifer Rubin, at Contentions, points out that Paul Krugman, like David Brooks, is confused as to whether "Obama is more like Ronald Reagan (an ideological, transformative politician) or Bill Clinton ( a poll-driven pragmatist)."

As I mentioned in the past:
[Obama] hopes to let voters define what "hope" and "change" mean to them and then hang that on his candidacy. They define it, he pretends to agree with it by talking in glittering generalities, he gets elected and then the political bill comes due.
Rubin goes one step better and finds Obama saying precisely that in prologue of "The Audacity of Hope":
Obama has told us there is no there, there. In his book he wrote: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” So perhaps searching for Obama’s “core” is a fool’s errand. He is glib and clever and seized upon a clever formulation (Agent of Change) to attract young and idealistic people longing for meaning. But perhaps that is all there is.
Charles Kesler, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books explains the phenomenon:
Of all the presidential contenders slogans this year, Barack Obama as had been the most interesting. His campaign creed is "Yes, we can." To which any reasonable person would ask: "can what"? The answer, of course, is: "Hope." Bbut again, a reasonable person might ask: "Hope for what?" To which the answer confidently comes back from the Obama campaign: "For change." Indeed, Obama's signs say: "Change We Can Believe In", as opposed, one supposes, to unbelievable changes. But the elementary problem with this — which any student of logic might raise — is that change can be for the better or for the worse.

Democrats in general, I would submit, confuse change with improvement. They fail to weigh the costs and benefits of change, to consider its unintended consequences, or to worry about what we need to conserve and how we might go about doing this faithfully. They ask Americans to embrace change for its own sake, in the faith that history is governed by a law of progress, which guarantees that change is almost always an improvement. The ability to bring about historical change, then becomes the highest mark of a liberal leader. Thus Hillary Clinton quickly joined Obama on the change bandwagon. Her initial claim of experience sounded in retrospect a bit too boring — indeed, almost Republican in its plainess. So "Ready on Day One" morphed into "Ready for Change."
So here we are, as a country, on the verge of electing someone who admits to being "a blank screen". Whose resume is so sparse that most businesses would be wary of hiring him for middle management and who painfully reminds us daily of his lack of experience, his lack of substance and his lack of any real leadership experience.

If we're reduced to Krugman's two choices, I'd have to go with "a poll-driven pragamatist", but in the mold of Jimmy Carter, not Bill Clinton.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

I’d say he’s the dark side of Bill Clinton pretending to be Chauncey Gardiner.
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
But when you have short of confused the best minds in Hollywood ..
So I think he definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can’t wait to see what he stands for. - Susan Sarandon
.. you’ve got to be at least a bit concerned.

By the way, I believe that’s Chance Gardener
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I still feel he’s trying to become a Trojan Horse version of Jimmy Carter. He’s trying to look like a uniter/moderate from his early campaign.
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

Yeah, such a keen political mind... I use her as part of my "If they think something, I shall take the opposite view" panel...
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Neo, it’s been a while since I saw Being There (great movie!), but as I recall, he really is Chance the gardener. When he is coughing and telling them his name, the rich folks hear it as "Chauncey Gardiner", and they call him that the rest of the movie. But since he really is Chance the gardener, I suppose that’s how they listed the character.

Even the fact that there’s confusion about the name fits Obama. What’s his middle name again? Are we allowed to say it yet?
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Obama’s campaign, in many ways, is like the campaign of John Kerry, without the "reporting for duty."

The difference is that at his web site Obama actually does take some (negotiable) stands, but for the "great unwashed" it looks the same, quite amorphic.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Dale or Bruce, Do either of you remember the sequence of events, when during the spring of 07, when Obama stated categorically; he absolutely would not seek the 08 presidency, then in a matter of days (two weeks?) he had a meeting with George Soros. Days later, from Bill Ayers living room, he announces his candidacy, campaign slogan and has a whole boat-load of money? This story was talked about a little among bloggers (deafening silence from the MSM) then dropped, what significance, if any, can be inferred form this influence?

Written By: Steve Manseau
URL: http://
what significance, if any, can be inferred form this influence?
Soros is buying a Presidency in the hopes that he’ll be able to use Obama to purge the evil (Non-lefties) from the landscape - political as well as actual...
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Ronald Reagan?

Ronald Reagan, though he remained something of an enigma, was nonetheless a well-known figure on the American scene for 40+ years before he was elected president.

Aside from being an actor, he was the head of the actors union, SAG. After that he traveled around the country as a spokesman for GE (i.e., he had a job). He was the governor of the largest state for eight years during one of the most turbulent eras in the history of the country and the state. He studied every major issue of the time and took a position on each of them.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was a heavily networked coat and tie radical who wound up trying to be all things to all people.

Obama, however, is whatever you want him to be. The shifts he has made in just the past few weeks suggests a capacity to take on virtually any guise to attain power. "Just get the power, Barack."

"Just get the power, Barack."

The best thing that can be said about Obama is that he’ll recycle the lame "brain trust" of the Party of Defeat, and that alone could bring ruin. But what he might do with that insane Chicago political culture, with its Ayerses, Rezkos, Pflegers, Wrights, and Farrakhans could make the Arkansan mobworks look like the pansy guild.
Written By: Martin McPhillips

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks