(Article) "A History of Hope" -- A response to the Anti-Hopesters

[Armstead]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/20/7184/

Published on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 by The Nation
The History of Hope
by Peter Dreier

America seems to be holding its breath, trying to decide what kind of country we want to be. The current presidential election may provide an answer.

Political campaigns don’t ignite grassroots movements for change, but politicians, by their rhetoric and actions, can encourage or discourage people from joining crusades for social justice. They can give voice and lend credibility to people working for a better society.

In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters have taken to criticizing Barack Obama for his charisma, his inspiring speeches and his campaign’s boisterous rallies. “There’s a big difference between us–speeches versus solutions,” Clinton said February 14 in Ohio. “Talk versus action. You know, some people may think words are change. But you and I know better. Words are cheap.”

The Clintonites say that Obama is peddling “false hopes.” They suggest that the fervor of the crowds at his rallies is somehow “creepy,” as though his followers are like a herd of sheep who would follow Obama off a cliff.

But Obama is clearly touching a nerve in America’s body politic–a pent-up idealism that seeks not utopia but simply a more decent society. Obama can recite his list of policy prescriptions as well as, perhaps even better than, most politicians. But he also views this campaign as an opportunity to praise and promote the organizers and activists on the front lines of grassroots movements and to explain what it will take to bring about change. A onetime organizer himself, Obama knows that, if elected, his ability to reform healthcare, improve labor laws, tackle global warming and restore job security and living wages will depend, in large measure, on whether he can use his bully pulpit to mobilize public opinion and encourage Americans to battle powerful corporate interests and members of Congress who resist change......


...The dictionary defines “encourage” as “give hope to”–and that’s an important role for a public official, including a President. In his 2002 book, A History of Hope: When Americans Have Dared to Dream of a Better Future, New York University historian James Fraser examined the nation’s history from the bottom up. He showed how ordinary people have achieved extraordinary things by mobilizing movements for change. But it is also true that at critical moments, a few Presidents–including Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson–embraced these movements and helped propel them forward.

Obama, who called his recent book The Audacity of Hope, understands this history....


And he clearly understands that as a candidate, and as President, he can give voice to those on the front lines of a grassroots movement trying to unite Americans around a common vision for positive change. “That’s leadership,” he told the enthusiastic crowd in Milwaukee last week.

Then Obama called on the crowd to “keep on marching, and organizing, and knocking on doors, and making phone calls.” Yes, he was asking them to work on his campaign, but he was also encouraging them to see themselves as part of the long chain of change, the history of hope, that has often made the radical ideas of one generation the common sense of future generations....


MORE

[H2O Man]

1. Thank you.

Nominated.

[Maven]

2. ...

"Then Obama called on the crowd to “keep on marching, and organizing, and knocking on doors, and making phone calls.” Yes, he was asking them to work on his campaign, but he was also encouraging them to see themselves as part of the long chain of change, the history of hope, that has often made the radical ideas of one generation the common sense of future generations...."

Yeah, uh, one problem.

What are Obama's radical ideas, other than getting Obama elected?

[Armstead]

7. I think you're missing the point

For how many years and decades have we rolled over and taken outrage after outrage with the excuse "It sucks, but that's the way it is."

In that setting, the notion that perhaps the will of the people can actually be expressed and supported by a politician is a radical notion.

Please read the whole article, if you haven't. It gives some background.

[Maven]

11. That's a dodge.

And I read the whole article. It's basically a starry-eyed love letter to Obama that says a lot without meaning much of anything.

Here's another passage:

"But he also views this campaign as an opportunity to praise and promote the organizers and activists on the front lines of grassroots movements and to explain what it will take to bring about change."

Considering Obama's avoidance of the most politically risky issues, how does this work exactly?

[Armstead]

12. You keep proving the point yourself

"starry eyed love letter"....Simply because it is an article in support of Obama? Do you call similar articles about Clinton "starry eyed love letters?"

The point is that in order for any social movements to catch on and translate into policies and broader public values, it needs to be supported by politicians who are sympathetic to those goals, and can in turn generate public support for them. That is the first step.

Look, Obama is not nearly as distinct a liberal or progressive as I'd perfer. I'd prefer to see Obama use his charisma as more of a Bernie Sanders/Paul Wellstone type of progressive.

But Obama is closer in that direction than Clinton. The technocratic "above it all" approach has failed us miserably. The Clintons had a great opportunity to use the White House as a bully pulpit, but instead sold a far more corporate conservative approach than Obama.

[Maven]

15. No, you're mistaken.

"The point is that in order for any social movements to catch on and translate into policies and broader public values, it needs to be supported by politicians who are sympathetic to those goals, and can in turn generate public support for them."

What social movements has Obama supported publicly and unequivocally, other than the most politically mainstream?

The fact is, Obama has built political capital by talking about possibilities or potentialities in the abstract. His goal, in fact, has been to muddle or deflect from what he actually believes by soothing the egos of his supporters -- it's all about you, he says -- when actually that's not true at all. His campaign has been all about him, his inspirational qualities, his ability to bring about change. Obama doesn't benefit from throwing support behind a truly transformative movement because it would destroy his illusory self-representation as a "unifier"--as soon as he did so, people would line up on either side of the issue and his "post-partisan" facade would evaporate. Why would he want to do that? His current strategy is working out so well for him.

That's the folly of supporting a candidate who sells merely the idea of change, and the huge crack in your (and the author's) argument.

[Armstead]

18. Let's assume for a moment that he and Hillary have similar goals

The plain fact is that he has been able to reflect and inspire people towards those goals, while Hillary has not succeeded on nearly as broad a basis. If he can do that in the primaries, why do you assume he could not do the same in the General or as President?

In terms of pure political pragmatism, that says a lot right there.

Also, no one is claiming that if Obama wins the Republican Party would suddenly disappear, or suddenly change its stripes.

If you actually read that article, or have actually heard his speeches, Obama is not promising easy or pie in the sky. He is the first to say that achieving anything requires hard work and will raise disappointments along the way.

And Obama is being almost as specific about actual policies as Hillary. He doesn't read a long position paper on every issue in his stump speech, but he does state his goals. And more detailed information is readily available.

[Maven]

22. LOL.

"The plain fact is that he has been able to reflect and inspire people towards those goals."

No it isn't! That's not a plain fact at all--that's the whole point! Being able to distinguish a campaign message from reality.

Success in the primaries isn't evidence of the type which would substantiate your claims. If anything, I already explained to you in my previous post that Obama's success thus far has actually been derived from NOT doing that which you and this author say he does, but rather by making the kinds of nonspecific blanket statements you just made!

[Armstead]

37. LOL back at ya

His platform is no secret. It's a moderate platform with moderate policies and proposals.

he's been better at selling it than Hillary has been.

Sure the GOP is going to bring out their standard textbook of democrats as surrender monkeys, liberals, socialists, etc. They are going to revive the Culture Wars.

They are going to do that against Hillary or Obama whoever gets nominated.

But based on how they have run their campaigns and the results it sure seems at this point that Obama has the ability to deflect this and it will be less effective against Obama than it would against Hillary.

[Maven]

39. Well, now you're making a different point entirely.

And I disagree with you there, also, but it's beyond the scope of our initial discussion and I don't have the time to get into it.

[Recursion]

16. Ending farm subsidies to Monsanto,

Doubling the size of the Peace Corps and Americorps, providing a $4000 refundable credit against tuition in return for 2 years of community service, publishing all non-classified government contracts and their bidding processes publicly, making FICA levies refundable, indexing the minimum wage with CONUSCOLA, starting a Green Jobs Corps, I'd be happy to go on for about three more pages but the simple fact is if you're still so gullible as to believe the "Obama has no platform" lie I doubt there's much that would persuade you...

[Maven]

17. I didn't ask for policy proposals.

And none of the things you mentioned is all that groundbreaking, or unique to Obama's campaign for that matter.

I'm talking about action that matches the premise of the article--that Obama is uniquely qualified to advance social movements because he can galvanize support behind them. So I ask again: what movements, other than the most politically mainstream, has Obama expressed public and unequivocal support for?

BTW, I've read the majority of Obama's platform; pity many of his supporters actually haven't. I suppose they're "gullible" by your standards.

[QC]

21. Well, he's "open to" privatizing public schools.

And he thinks that Social Security is going bankrupt. And he talks about God even more than George Bush.

For me, the greatest mystery about the Obamaphenomenon is how such a thoroughly conventional center-right candidate has managed to convince so many otherwise intelligent people that he is the second coming of Joe Hill. Never let it be said that marketing is not an art.

[Maven]

26. Don't forget expanding NAFTA, funding the war and shirking the gay rights movement.

But I'm glad you brought up his "reconciling faith and politics" routine. Yes, obviously, more religion in politics is an idea whose time has come. :eyes:

[QC]

30. I keep expecting him to go on The 700 Club and speak in tongues with Pat Robertson.

Not even George W. Bush himself is as far up the fundies' asses as Obama is lately.

[Recursion]

25. They're all "mainstream"

Maybe I'm missing your point. The things I mentioned, and about a thousand more, are all programs that would have broad support by a large percentage of the country. That is, they're "mainstream"

[cali]

27. He has a background in advancing social causes.

He was a community organizer and led vote drives. He was a civil rights lawyer. His record in the Illinois State Senate also reflects a focus on social issues. Guess you're not very educated about him despite your hollow boasting.

[Maven]

29. Getting more people to vote is a radical idea?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good cause, but it's not radical. Maybe my standards are higher than yours.

BTW, this is the same "civil rights lawyer" who said that marriage wasn't a civil right, even though the Supreme Court had held that it was over 40 years ago in a decision that legalized his own parents' marriage in several states. Of course, he was talking about gay people at the time. Quite an inspiring leader who will misstate the law simply to avoid taking a strong position on a difficult issue.

[cali]

43. what's all this radical nonsense?

I haven't claimed he's a radical. And vote drives and community organizing are decidedly progressive causes. And alas, we live in a time where no viable Presidential contender will stand up for gay marriage. He's hardly the only one who hasn't. And he has not misstated the law. That's YOUR interpretation of the Loving case. He does go further than Hillary on gay rights and he does advocate for federal benefits for civil unions. That's a step in the right direction.

[Maven]

45. No, cali, actually you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. It's the HOLDING of the case.

It's spelled out in black and white.

From the decision itself:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

I'm sure as a civil rights lawyer Obama is also aware that the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge relied heavily on Loving in their decision legalizing same-sex marriage:

It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a "civil right< >"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men").

...

The equal protection infirmity at work here is strikingly similar to (although, perhaps, more subtle than) the invidious discrimination perpetuated by Virginia's antimiscegenation laws and unveiled in the decision of Loving v. Virginia, supra. In its landmark decision striking down Virginia's ban on marriages between Caucasians and members of any other race on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds, the United States Supreme Court soundly rejected the proposition that the equal application of the ban (i.e., that it applied equally to whites and blacks) made unnecessary the strict scrutiny analysis traditionally required of statutes drawing classifications according to race, see id. at 8-9, and concluded that "restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." Id. at 12. That our marriage laws, unlike antimiscegenation laws, were not enacted purposely to discriminate in no way neutralizes their present discriminatory character...

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003).



Obama misstated the law to avoid taking a strong position on a difficult issue. You want to argue the law with me now?

[cali]

46. No.

That decision has not been applied in any jursisdiction to same sex couples. Do I think it should? Sure, but you are the hopelessly clueless one. Until it has been held to apply to same sex marriage, it doesn't. Unfair? Yep. But that's how it works.

And way to fly into high dudgeon to avoid actually talking about the issues I raised. Oh, and Hillary's position is worse. She goes for the lovely states rights line.

[Maven]

47. I just edited my post to show that you're wrong.

It was applied by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Goodridge (see my previous post for excerpt and citation). The Vermont Supreme Court ALSO relied heavily on Loving when it mandated equal marriage rights for GLBTs.

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967), the United States Supreme Court, striking down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, observed that "he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights." The Court's point was clear; access to a civil marriage license and the multitude of legal benefits, protections, and obligations that flow from it significantly enhance the quality of life in our society.

The Supreme Court's observations in Loving merely acknowledged what many states, including Vermont, had long recognized. One hundred thirty-seven years before Loving, this Court characterized the reciprocal rights and responsibilities flowing from the marriage laws as "the natural rights of human nature."

...

Thus, viewed in the light of history, logic, and experience, we conclude that none of the interests asserted by the State provides a reasonable and just basis for the continued exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits incident to a civil marriage license under Vermont law.

Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194 (1999).

Loving was also relied on by plaintiffs who prevailed in Mark Lewis, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris et al, where the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

One would think a civil rights lawyer on the cusp of social movements would know these things.

And furthermore, the statement itself--that marriage is a civil right--as a general proposition of law, is true. Obama stated that marriage was not a civil right, despite two of the most famous cases of the last 50 years holding that it is.

Again, Obama misstated the law--that is, he LIED.

[bigtree]

3. NO one is against 'hope', 'cept that STRAWMAN Obama uses in his speeches

We do want a candidate who will fight for those 'hopes' and not assume that 'charisma' will cause the opposition to relinquish power.

[billbuckhead]

5. Don't you know David Axelrod trademarked "Hope"

[Maven]

6. And they've "borrowed" a few others

[paperbag_ princess]

35. absolutely

It is immature reasoning to think that there is only "hope" in Obama's leadership and "anti- hope" with nothing in between.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Remember back when we all thought Fundi Preachers were Creepy?

Obama calls His campaign a Hymn/

Candidate fills the air with empty promises

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns - boat, shoe, clock - by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

This kind of sale is hardly new. Organized religion has been offering a similar commodity - salvation - for millennia. Which is why the Obama campaign has the feel of a religious revival with, as writer James Wolcott observed, a "salvational fervor" and "idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria."

"We are the hope of the future," sayeth Obama. We can "remake this world as it should be." Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country - nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080215/OPINION/802150348/1322/NEWS97

[Armstead]

9. And the creepy fundie ministers built a movement that took power

Perhaps there is a message there for those on this side of the fence who want to actually regain power or at least balance the scales.

Look at where the enemy is successful if you want to also be successful.

Geeze, imagine if people on the left side of the spectrum could mobilize millions of people on the grassroots to fight with equal passion and effectiveness.

[rug]

13. And that movement damaged many people with its falsehoods.

[Armstead]

14. You're talking about the basis of the beliefs, not the strategy itself

Would you say tyhe same about the progressive movements of the early and mid 20th Century which improved the conditions of workers and bolstered the middle class?

[rug]

23. PTL strategies come to mind.

And there is zero comparison between Obama's campaign and the socialist and suffragist movements of the last century.

For starters, the Republicans and ruling powers attacked those movements at every turn.

Debs ran his presidential campaign from prison for opposing a war, not funding it.

Thousands of workers were in the streets literally fighting for their rights, not going to stadiums clapping when a figurehead said hope.

While Palmer was raiding homes, people organized to fight back, not reach across the aisle and unite with them.

This campaign has much more in common with the Eisenhower campaign than the progressive movements. He was seen as the preeminent candidate of unity in his time

[Maven]

24. Exactly.

Saying "stand your ground," without more, is simple.

Actually standing your ground, whatever that ground may be, is hard.

[Armstead]

36. You miss the next step

If the political structure had remained unresponsive to those movements, then the goals would not have translated into the policies and values of the mainstream, as they eventually did.

Their goals did become policies from a combination of enlightenened leadership, and the pragmatic realization by some politicians that this unrest had the potential to become much more devestating if it were not addressed.

We live in different times, but there has been building a frustration with the ststus quo, and years of attempts at the grass roots to move away from the neoliberal,conservative oligarchy that has emerged.

Obama is not a staunch progressive populist, but he is more receptive to those movements, and if he is successful politically will incorporate that into his campaign and governance. he wil, also be pressured to at least give more representation to those grass roots movements.

[rug]

38. I disagree, but I will not argue with anyone who has a Bernie avatar.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. They should have listened to Goldwater

The GOP right now is exactly why playing with the Fundies is a bad idea. Splintered and without good candidates. I don't see the GOP history as anything but a warning against such alliances with uncompromising extremists. The GOP does not look successful to me, incumbent at 19% and candidates hated by the various bases.
The divide in our Party has already begun. I hope for the DNC's buget sake these Fundies tithe to the Party, as they have thrown out a bunch of cash to bring them in. And votes. Will the Fundies be voting Democratic down ticket? Don't think so, presonally.

[Marrah_G]

8. So now we are Anti-Hope..... ~eyeroll~

[Armstead]

10. Yes. There are so many criticisms of Obama on that basis

[QC]

31. Anti Puppy and Kitten, too.

And Anti Cute Babies as well.

[Armstead]

34. Please read my post 33 below for a response

[Seabiscuit]

19. "Anti-Hopesters"????? n/t

Does someone out there really believe some political candidate now owns the word "hope"?

[Marrah_G]

20. Yes it is getting more pathetic by the moment in here.

If campaigning for Obama means associating with folks like I am seeing here lately I think I will stay home until election day this time.

[Armstead]

49. No --- But Hillary's campaign has deliberatly forfeited her own claim to it

The reason I cam up with that term is that the Clinton campaign and supporters have done everything possible to misrepresent enthusiastic hopeful support for her opponent as messianic, cultlike and creepy.

I suspect she's envious that she hasn't managed to generate "cultlike" hope herself.

[Dogmudgeon]

28. So now "Obama critics = anti-hopesters"?

Like "Bush critics = against Freedom"?

I dare to dream of a better future -- when promoting hope doesn't involve character assassination and us-vs-them rhetoric.

Obama's going to have a LOT of reconciling to do before November.

--p!

[Maven]

32. Excellent. comparison.

We're going down a dangerous road.

[Armstead]

33. You just have to listen to her and her surrogates and read postes here

I would not be ringing this bell if it were not a clear pattern.

The Clintons and their campaign and supporters made a strategic and stupid decision to attack Obama on his strengths, rather than fighting harder to promote her own strengths. hence we get the "false hopes" and "messianic" and cultist memes.

The unintended consequences of that strategy has been to carry a message that basically says "Your hope is futile. You must trust that I can perhaps accomplish a few things in a hopeless world."

I realize I overstate that, but that is the gist of it.

By going so negative against the very qualities the Democrats need at this point -- to inspire hope -- Hillary has made her own bed.

[Dogmudgeon]

42. Criticism is fine. Demonization is not.

Trivializing our concerns as "cult memes" is a cop out. Team Obama has never drawn the distinctions necessary to separate itself from cults of personality and the ugly history of messianic movements. That conversation is long overdue.

On the other hand, this conversation about cynicism has been one-sided, political, and itself cynical. It is a divisive charge, not a constructive dialog. Most of us Hillary supporters are not anti-hope, anti-future, and we do not hate America for its freedom, either. We strongly object to universal values being appropriated to deliver the White House to one man and to demonize his co-partisan rivals. And many of us are justifiably suspicious of emotionally intense mass movements. We have serious concerns that can't be dismissed with multi-post pile-ons, Mr. Rofl icons, and encouragement to simply trust Obama.

Have you been demonized? Then I apologize for my transgressions and the transgressions of my fellow Hillary supporters. This has been a rough game. I have written a new sig line to help clarify my stand. But there is likewise a prodigious record of cynical attacks issuing from the Obama camp. There has been widespread blindness to our own weaknesses, all. Our transgressions must be addressed, yours and mine alike. Retribution is not desirable, reams of apologies are not necessary, but reconciliation is vital. And not with "kumbaya"s, but with solidarity. This is our chance to put our values to the test. We have failed this test many times before, but THIS time, we do not have the luxury of nursing resentment.

YES ... if you want dialog about these issues, this is the time. If Obama does wrap this up in the next few weeks, we are going to need to rebuild party solidarity -- around something broader than admiration for Barack Obama. And should Hillary prevail, the same reconciliation will be necessary, albeit starting from remedying a different set of transgressions. It may be wise to begin this process today -- and to acknowledge that we have waited much longer than we should have.

--p!

[Armstead]

48. Thank you for a thoughtful response

Believe it or not I do understand your concerns.

I was originally an Edwards supporter. Before that I hoped (oops) that Kucinich's message would at least become more a part of the overall campaign debates.

My support for Obama is mixed with some resrvations. However, on balance I prefer him for a variety of reasons.

One of the reasons is because I do believe that what is absolutely needed at this juncture is hope, enthusiasm, optimism and a lot of fresh air.

Rather than being some young idealist, I'm a middle aged, often disappointed idealist. I've seen too many false-starts, surrenders and sell outs of the nation's liberal/progressive side over the years. I've seen the spread of a more widespread general public frustration and malaise that transcends ideology because people have given up.

So I support Obama with my eyes wide open.

However, despite disappointments, I remain an idealist at heart. And so, when I see a lot of enthusiasm and can-do optimism being injected into the political system, I'm all for it.

That is also why the "cult" claims and its variations offend me. Sure some Obama supporters go overboard. But so what? That's true of some people in any campaign or political or social movement. But for as Democratic campaign to attempt to slap down such enthusiasm is a classic example of what is so damn wrong with our system in recent decades.

Cynical fatalism is exactly why we are in this mess. Politicians from both parties have too seldom really offered people the POSSIBILITY OF HOPE that fundamental reform is possible. And by stifling that, they reinforce the apathay that allows the systemic crap to become even more entrenched.

Hillary could have made her own case strongly without attempting to quash the enthusiasm of Obama supporters on that level. That's what I feel has been a fatal flaw in her campaign.

[Dogmudgeon]

51. And thank you, as well.

I have a very similar story, only I started as an Obama supporter. My support for Clinton is based on her executive skills and her ability to handle the Republican slime machine, but was catalyzed by the concerns I expressed earlier.

Actually, I don't think there has been that much attacking done by either candidate. It's almost entirely surrogate-driven and press-amplified. But certainly, your perspective may be different. My perception of her fatal flaw is that the campaign lacks adaptability -- and she can't see it. Her personal loyalty to Patty Doyle-Solis and Mark Penn has proved to be disastrous. (Patty and Mark may be fine people, but they clearly came up short as organizers.) Hillary has been unable to respond properly to the press' attacks, the campaign is failing to tend to organizational details, and it now resembles a bleeder in the presence of the rest of the school of sharks. She is no longer in effective political conversation with Obama and his supporters, or even her own supporters. If she can't restore her organization's poise and effectiveness by the end of the week, she will be irretrievably lost, if she isn't already.

But that's just Hillary -- whom I admire, and I support, but do not rely on. So, what of my own sense of hope for the future? What of our collective hopes and fears? The other side of my hope -- and OUR hope, I believe -- is the panic that we may be sleepwalking into some undefinable disaster. If you read the Environment/Energy forum, you may get a glimpse of some of my particular anxieties. On one side of us, we have eight years of Bush's monumental misfeasance; on the other side, a menu of disasters that we have been courting for over 30 years. This is a critical election, and the work ahead will not be enjoyable or make any of us look good. Saving the world, so to speak, will be difficult, dirty, exhausting, and require us to swallow more pride than we may have stomach for. And THAT "we" is universal. It's now been 46 years since the Port Huron Statement and 47 since Silent Spring, and we are way behind schedule.

So most of this work, like ending the war, taming the DLC, restoring the environment, establishing justice, and so on, we will have to deal with directly. It's the only way. Whether Hillary wins or Obama, we have to be their motivation. At least we have a chance with them.

But John McCain will pretend to listen carefully, then do what he wants to.

Again, my thanks. Posts like yours give me ... hope. The kind I think we all can agree on.

--p!

[jackson_dem]

41. The Obamite belief that Obama has a monopoly on hope makes no sense

Hope is a reason why people support any other candidate. I guess most Democrats are "anti-hope" in Obamanation because most Democrats were voting against Obama before it was down to just two candidates... :eyes:

[Armstead]

44. I don't say he has a monopoly on hope -- She shot herself in the foot on that

Hillary's campaign chose to attack the concept of hope, and frame hopeful enthusiasm as messianic and cultlike. By choosing to cast that in such a way, they are experiencing the blowback from a misguided negative attack.

One little example, from Hillary:

"We can't have false hopes. We've got to have a person who can walk into that Oval office on day one and start doing the hard work that it takes to deliver change," she said.

Why did she not leave out the 'false hope' stuff and just focus on her claim of experience?

Just one little example but they build up.

In my opinion, the Clinton campaign got more and more frantic as their original inevitability began to erods and started lashing out. One of the targets was the fact that Obama does have gifts as a politician and does inspire hope.

It was a miscalculation, and she and her campaign have no one but themselves to blame.

[Raffi Ella]

50. .

Sounds just like "You're Un Patriotic if you don't support the War" to me.

Just like that in fact.

If you're against Obama you're against HOPE itself.

Such bullshit.


I'm FOR the Qualified Candidate.I'm FOR The Fierce Democrat.I'm FOR The First Woman President who can and WILL enact Progressive Values.

I'm FOR Hillary Clinton because I am a Democrat and believe she will work for the bettering of us all through ACTION and can work with everyone,as she has done for years now,to push a Progressive Agenda forward once elected.Period.