My very negative review of Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope

[Lord Byron]

Book Review: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama

When reviewing a book such as this in a time of intense political polarization in our country and on the outset of a competitive battle for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, it is crucial that I make clear my impression of Obama prior to reading the book and to also establish my political biases. I received this book as a birthday present. I had been heard speaking optimistically of Barack Obama's potential candidature and I'm known in my circle to be an avid follower of US politics. Why was I optimistic about Obama? He seemed like a man with enough star power that he could generate enough clout to pass a new Democratic agenda for the country. Also, his name (yes, including his middle name "Hussein") and multicultural upbringing could lead this country to a brighter direction in terms of foreign policy. As a break from our recent foray into neoconservative foreign policy ideology, Obama seemed like a man who had a diplomatic appeal, who has a chance of re-establishing a relatively more peaceful world climate partly because he has a broader understanding of other cultures and religions whereas Bush has a reputation for not being very educated on these matters. Additionally, I was surprised to see John Edwards on MSNBC being unable to name the President of South Africa. We need a man in the White House who is more intellectually aware of these matters as the rising powers in the East are exploiting our inability to maintain influence in Latin America, the Middle East, and possibly in Africa as well.

As a final obvious reason for my Obamoptimism: his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was delivered with the panache of a dream-politician, which I'm sure even the most ardent neoconservative can agree.

Reading The Audacity of Hope though made me change my mind sharply on Barack Obama. While I once put him at the top of my list of candidates to support, I now rank him very near the bottom. We're at a turning point in American history. While globalization and market liberalization can be said to have contributed to the booming economy of the 1990s, millions of Americans are now beginning to feel the crushing after-effects as once-prosperous manufacturing communities are being decimated and as an ever-more-expensive university education is not the milestone to success it once was. Americans are struggling more and more in this hypercompetitive environment in which we compete with not just each other, but directly with the rest of the world (including countries who practice unfair trade practices, but that's another story and I'm not going to offer a polemic here).

Meanwhile, the Right in this country (apart from the paleoconservatives, who deserve credit for at least sticking to their principles and not forgetting about the backbone of this country) has chosen to focus its political strategy on culture-war issues. Many prominent cosmopolitan Democrats (disparagingly referred to on the Right as "liberal elites") take up the Republicans' challenge on this culture-war game of guns, God, and gays. After all, no matter who wins this "culture war", the international corporations are still winning. Ever wonder why we're still stuck on these polarizing issues in an age like ours? They're inoffensive issues to the big corporate contributors.

Today, I and millions of fellow Americans are getting tired of it. But Barack Obama's book is ultimately devoid of substance on the issues that matter; and when he addresses these issues, he sugarcoats them with the wishy-washy language that seems more like the words of a political consultant than of a a man with a vision. I will offer a few examples.

In his chapter on values, Obama writes, "I believe our economic policies pay too little attention to the displacement of manufacturing workers and the destruction of manufacturing towns. But I cannot wish away the sometimes competing demands of economic security and competitiveness." Ok, so what does this leave me with? This is such a blatant attempt at sitting on the fence and attempting to please everyone. It reminds me of how Bill Clinton would visit factories for photo-ops and tell the workers that he sympathizes with their plight, but then he'd return to Washington and approve NAFTA. Bill Clinton was a decent President, but today I'm of the opinion that we need a man who vigorously defends a pro-people agenda. Barack Obama seems like more of the same to me.

On his section on politics, Obama writes, "I might agree with a union on the need to enforce labor and environmental standards in our trade laws, but did I believe that NAFTA should be repealed?" I want you to take note of two key words that Obama uses: "might" and "but." These words appear so often in the book that it seems as though Obama would be advised to refer to a thesaurus to cover up his direction-less approach. This is not simply relevant to the trade issue. Obama refuses to take a stand on foreign policy, the environment, education, health care, and of course the ever-divisive "culture war" issues. What is wrong with this man?

If I may read between the lines, I could say that Obama is afraid to scare off potential corporate backers. In one of the few fascinating sections of this book, he describes the struggle to get elected and how a candidate needs to succumb to the will of big-business or face being miserably out-spent. Money does matter. I can sympathize with Obama on this issue; yet I feel that my vote ought to go to a politician who will put the people first. This Republic can be ours if we're willing to take it back. Electability plays a key role in the voter's mind due to media concerns, but candidates are electable only if we the people have the courage to elect them. Democracy is ours for the taking.

Obama appears to align himself with the Clinton-Rubin brand of economic policy which is a softer, milder form of Bush's economic policy. Far from a people's agenda. He even consults Robert Rubin on free trade. I'm sorry but Mr. Rubin is not exactly who I want to be determining whether my yet-to-be-born children will have a chance at life in our America. We can do better.

On cultural issues (i.e. issues that do not rank very highly on my list of importance, for the most part) he says he will "remain open" on abortion. Nice try Barack. Notice how Obama now spends his time cozying up to Rick Warren, the Christian pastor equivalent of a Hallmark greeting card. Again, nice try.

Even his chapter on ethnicity is an embarrassing affair. My biggest problem with this section is his discussion of immigrants. He states, "They want affirmation too." Mr. Obama, I am a first-generation American. I feel American. I don't need affirmation from you. Your father wasn't American. Neither was mine. One thing that I love about America is how despite my noticeable accent, I have always been accepted here (not taking into account jeers and bullying I faced when I was very young, an unrepresentative sample of life here as children are known tobe cruel). How dare Obama suggest that I need his affirmation? Immigrant communities don't want to be singled out but want to be treated just like everyone else. We don't want a special status. We're as American as anyone else and we don't need a politician to point at us to "affirm" us.

In his epilogue, Obama writes that he entered politics because he "thought had something to say about the direction we need to go as a country." What direction is that? Today's direction? Or a new direction? Which direction? I can't find anything of substance that would lead me to pinpoint a proper agenda of any sort in this book.

On the bright side, Obama's epilogue, despite the aforementioned silliness, is well-written and brings back memories of his terrific 2004 Convention address. When he says that most Americans can't locate Indonesia on the map earlier on, I can believe him. It is sad that citizens of the world's wealthiest country can be so culturally ignorant, but this is the fault of our excessively decadent TV atmosphere. The idiocy that is promoted on television is astounding.

The Verdict: Obama seems to be a nice guy. He has Clinton's charm and perhaps even more charisma. But I vote to have my interests represented and defended. I don't like how our elections have become popularity contests. I want us to get serious on politics. Obama lacks vigor. I urge every Obama supporter to read this book.

Side Note: recently I heard about Obama's cocaine use as a young man. I saw that he admitted to this in his earlier book Dreams for My Father. The passage though is magnificently written and reveals a candor that is not present in The Audacity of Hope. Rather than make me dislike Obama, the manner in which he made clear his past drug use made him seem human and honest. If only he could have put as much honesty in this book. Has Obama sold out? I don't know, but I don't want to take the chance by nominating a do-nothing President.

[Lord Byron]

1. No insults or attacks please

[lancdem]

3. Sorry, I like the Clinton-Rubin economic policy

It was very effectic. To call it GOP-lite makes no sense to me.

[Lord Byron]

4. Today we feel the after-effects of that policy

NAFTA sounds good to you? I never called it GOP-lite. I don't need to.

[Warpy]

7. It was ineffective for 80% of us until the last year or so of

the Clinton years, when we finally had nearly full employment and wages started to inch up slightly.

The other seven years had been marked by wage stagnation and an enormous increase in wealth concentration, an increase Reagan only dreamed about.

What parts of the Wall Street Democrats' economic plan as put forth by Rubin positively affected your life?

[paulk]

25. please post a cite for these numbers

I would be interested in something other than your word on this.

[dmallind]

10. Me too

Despite much handwringing about offshoring (which is almost NEVER compared to employment of American workers in the US by foreign companies. Why is it horrible for GM to assemble in Mexico but not horrible for Japanese Honda to assemble and even build in Ohio? Both are offshoring) and the very real loss of manufacturing job, median incomes continue to rise. Not all that rapidly, but at a rate which matches inflation at least. Unlike "average" or mean incomes, median income data are not distorted by golden parachute CEOs - they only count as one person just like that $6 an hour cashier.

Some on the very far left make the same mistake that they accuse the wealthy of, except in reverse. It's just as silly for a wealthy person in Naples FL to look around and say "I don't see any economic woes" as it is for an unemployed textile worker in rural NC to say the opposite "Everyone is suffering". Even with the most skeptical of eyes on data from government sources, unemployment is historically quite low, productivity gains are allowing median incomes to rise as well-paying factory jobs are replaced (yes with different people) by well-paying technical and high end service industry jobs.

Is there a great number of people who have lost their high paying low skilled jobs and are unlikely to replace that income? You bet, and that's a shame. But it's a shame that protectivist trade policies would only make worse, as tarrifs on foreign produced goods would be applied to US products and services in return, and consumers would still shop for the bargains that cheaper foreign labor allows.

Bush is not so macchiavellian that he has distorted historical data to make it appear median incomes are holding up well. They ARE holding up well, and some shifting of who makes what income has winners as well as losers. Is it "people-centetred" to keep the $27 an hour UAW job at GM if all you do is lose the $55K a year global supply chain planner job at GE instead? Surely people don't buy that old "only manual labor produces value" BS these days?

The Rubin-Clinton economic policies gave us the lowest unemployment in over three decades, and the best Fed balance sheet in at least that long too, with plenty of jobs created, almost zero inflation and real income gains that like it or not free trade helps make possible. How long do you have to work to buy a fridge or TV compared to how long your parents had to work for one? Real income growth is the key, even more than nominal income growth.

Protectivist trade policies would stifle American exports because of inevitable (and justified) retaliation and by whatever measure they reduced cheap imports they would reduce the demand that exists at that price point. Relative economic advantage cannot be wished away but can be leveraged to allow improvement in REAL standard of living in both consumer and producer nations.

[brentspeak]

40. I've got news for you: American exports are ALREADY stifled overseas

Virtually all American exports to places like China and India are already assessed punishing tarriffs. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by imposing tarriffs against cheap imports from China and India.

[Lord Byron]

42. Thank you. The Chinese and Indians stand up for their industries. Why don't we? eom

[eridani]

74. How long do we have to work for housing and utilities compared to our parents?

WAY longer. The 90s saw huge increases in incarceration, homelessness and food bank usage as well.

[Selatius]

21. That kind of economic policy is not sustainable.

The gap between the rich and the poor got worse, not better. The economy grew, but most of the gains were concentrated at the top instead of something more favored like gains more spread out everywhere.

[trumad]

12. "No insults or attacks please"?

Now why didn't I think to post something like this when I post something controversial?

[underpants]

15. Welcome to DU Lord Byron

:hi:

Unfortunately you don't get to set the parameters of discussion. No one does except the administrators.

Good luck.

[AspenRose]

32. .

:popcorn:

[SmokingJacket]

80. Hmm... why'd you post it, then?

You have to take your arrows when you post on the internet... I really don't think you can control the type of feedback you get!

[Warpy]

2. No, just a thank you

I've long noticed the platitudes substituting for concrete programs on his website and the fact that his website and the DLC website are starting to look alike.

People want heroes, though, so I hope you've donned your flak jacket.

He looked one hell of a lot better on paper before he got into the Senate.

He's a dynamic speaker, though he doesn't really say much.

[alarimer]

5. It takes more than being a dynamic speaker to be a good

leader. Which is why I have not jumped on the Obama bandwagon and have been a little dismayed at the apparent anointing of Obama by the media. I need more than platitudes and empty promises. I want a candidate that is going to stand up for the fundamentals of the Democratic Party platform. I also do not want one who is making nice with the Christian fundamentalists. I am afraid that choice and gay marriage will be issues once again consigned to the dustbin. These are fundamental privacy and human rights issues. If a candidates is willing to throw any human rights away, then what else are they willing to compromise on. I am taking a wait and see attitude towards Obama. I just don't like the way everyone is treating him as the second coming. It disturbs me in a way I cannot quite articulate.

[Auntie Bush]

36. Agreed! Especially with this line.

"I am taking a wait and see attitude towards Obama. I just don't like the way everyone is treating him as the second coming. It disturbs me in a way I cannot quite articulate." That's why I'm letting you articulate it! lol

[alarimer]

62. well for certain he would be much better than what we have now

But so would almost anyone. I simply have not made up my mind. I would like to hear all the candidates first. I have no idea who else might jump in the ring so it is early to have a favorite or at least it is for me.

[Warpy]

79. So would Nixon

but anybody who lived through his time doesn't want him, either.

[Morgana LaFey]

49. I got my belly full when he had the AUDACITY -- and I do mean

audacity -- to publicly jump on the anti-Dean bandwagon with Clinton and Rahm way back. He'd been in the Senate a year, maybe less. I thought it was extremely poor taste, far too brash, arrogant and VERY wrong-headed. Whatever one thinks of Dean, as head of the DNC he doesn't deserve that bashing in public, and it looked very bad for our side to be treating our own that way.

Yeah, he's a DLCer, and that would be enough for me to be quite cool towards him, but he's also given me separate ammunition.

[Lord Byron]

50. Are you serious? DLC'er?

Tell me more. I've never heard of this, and I've been lurking on this board since September.

[Telly Savalas]

71. He's not a DLCer.

But the idea is that if some people keep saying he is enough times, other people will start to believe it.

Kinda like that whole Saddam-9/11 thing Bush did a few years back.

[Morgana LaFey]

72. Well, what would you call it when he teams up with those

who are confirmed DLCers (Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, etc.) against the DNC Chair? Someone else mentioned that his website is beginning to resemble the DLC's. Some of what I've heard from him has convinced me that he's firmly enough in their camp that I don't want much to do with him (quite aside from his intemperate, copycat attack on Dean). Pro-corporate enough to put him on the wrong side in this day and age when we need a big swing of the pendulum in the other direction.

[Mikey929]

6. True

I have a good friend who recently read his book, eager to like the man. And she came away with the same feeling of emptiness as you. She liked him more BEFORE she read the book. She said he sounds so empty and facile on most of the issues.

It's nice to want to be sweet and nice and encouraging, but politics is about real issues that affect real people. Everyone cares; what matters is what policies do we enact to best accomplish the task. If Obama won't state his policies except in platitudes, then he is hard to support.

[Lord Byron]

9. Exactly. These issues matter to us.

They affect our lives, our livelihood. Meanwhile he's just saying all these very nice and touching things, but it doesn't leave us with an idea of whether he'll support us. I hesitate to use the "t" word (triangulation) but...come on.

I'm still waiting for an Obamaite to prove me wrong.

[Robbien]

8. I volunteered for Obama's campaign and really believed in him

But not any more. For the exact same reasons you cite.

I believe once the man got in office, triangulation became rule of the land. For instance, Obama has been all over the news last night and this morning talking about the Bush Surge. It is hard to find in all the words spewing out of Obama's mouth what his position was. I believe he is against the surge, but don't hold me to that impression.

I really hate triangulation and those who hide behind its use. Doesn't surprise me that his book is full of it.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Obama's right that NAFTA shouldn't be repealed

It should be re-negotiated so that Mexico is forced to have minimum wage laws and allow labor unions. Besides the fact that it's the right thing to do, it will solve the illegal immigration problem.

Trade saves American consumers billions of dollars and every time we outsource a job, we could pay that person's salary whose job was outsourced for the rest of their life for a mere fraction of the money that we will save, if we wanted to.

We outsource a mere 300,000 jobs per year out of a total of 15 million jobs that we lose every year. The problem is that trade effects entire communities and hits them very hard. But writing legislation to benefit of a few communities in exchange for the detriment of the rest of the country is bad policy.

What America should do is every time they sign a trade agreement, tax a fraction of the money that Americans save from their cheaper goods and use it to make extensive adjustments in the communities that have been hit by trade. Give businesses incentives to move into these communities so that there will be new sources of employment.

Also I should add that I'm not a huge fan of Rubin. When Howard Dean proposed re-negotiating NAFTA in the ways I talked about above, Rubin would not entertain the idea.

[Lord Byron]

13. If Mexico has to ensure workers' protection, then the jobs will go to China instead N/T

[Hippo_Tron]

16. China should be forced to ensure workers' protection as well...

Which is something we should have done when we let them join the WTO.

And not all of the jobs will go to China. Read up on comparative advantage.

[Lord Byron]

20. Sir with all due respect,

I'm a senior at one of this country's best business schools. I've studied economics extensively and I don't appreciate your patronizing me on this subject.

[VenusRising]

35. With all due respect, sir,

Who gives a crap about who you are and where you go to school? Most everyone at the DU is well-read and has had innumerable conversations about every issue under the sun. You would be surprised at the intelligence of DUers with no college or degree at all.

Welcome to DU.

[Lord Byron]

37. Telling me to read up on "comparative advantage" isn't nice

It's really insulting.

[TahitiNut]

44. "a senior at one of this country's best business schools"??

Well, slap me on the ass and call me Nelly! :silly:

Isn't it amazing how a few years of school trumps LIFETIMES of experience that follows it? :wow: :wow: :wow:

[Lord Byron]

He was asking me to read up on "comparative advantage"

I agree with what you're saying. I have disagreed with most of the economic policies advocated at my school. I have had many problems with the administration because of it. I agree with you that those with experience, those who struggle, are the first to be able to speak regarding economic policy.

But I was patronized regarding knowledge of economics. That's an academic/intellectual issue. I rebutted it on those terms. I'm not an elitist. Trust me.

[Morgana LaFey]

51. I think you were treated very badly

Sorry for the ignorance that causes that. I'm glad you're here, and I thought your review was superb. Thanks. And, as I said: welcome to DU. Most of us are much nicer, most of the time.

[Blue-Jay]

55. Oooo! A business major!

Color me impressed! How are those 7th grade math classes working out for you?

[Hippo_Tron]

67. I apologize for assuming ignorance

Would you care to refute my point? I simply don't believe it's possible for China to have a comparative advantage in the production of all goods over Mexico.

Also, even if Mexico was forced to have a living wage and unions, a living wage in Mexico is still far lower than a living wage in America.

[Lord Byron]

68. Never said China would have a CA in the production of all goods

I have read that the allure of China makes Mexican employers fearful. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to disprove. I agree with what you say, I just wanted to add a drawback to tightening labor regulation in Mexico.

[eridani]

75. Then why are maquiladoras moving from Mexico to China? n/t

[ikojo]

45. Companies are leaving Mexico for lower wage

China.

Also, if the ability to form unions is negotiated for Mexican workers, shouldn't it also be negotiated for US workers. I know, I know, supposedly workers in the US can form unions but almost all are FIRED for attemtping to do so.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Labor laws need a major overhaul in the United States as well

Or actually not so much of an overhaul as a reinstatement of what they were before Reagan was in office.

[brentspeak]

43. So we save money buying cheap plastic junk manufactured in China

and India? You ever buy anything made in China? Their merchandise has a tendency to break after only a few months use.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. It's not just cheap plastic junk, damn near everything we buy is an import

There's a reason that people can now afford to have more than one TV in their house and it's not a piece of crap that always breaks like in the 1950's. It's because Japan is a lot better at making TV's than we are. If you drive a car that isn't GM or Ford then it's probably an import. Imported cars tend to get better gas mileage, perform better, and look nicer because Europe and Japan are better at making cars.

Look on the bottom of your computer. I almost guarantee you that it wasn't made in America. If it had been it would've been far more expensive and probably not as fast.

America is just not efficient at producing many consumer goods. If we made cheap plastic junk it would be just as bad as Chinese cheap plastic junk, just more expensive.

[brentspeak]

69. Japan doesn't make TV's anymore, and automobiles are not the problem

The example of automobiles is a red herring argument, too, especially because Japan actually employs Americans to build their cars here in the U.S.

Japan used to be better at making TV's -- until it also outsourced most of its manufacturing to China and Indonesia. Now Sony and Toshiba products are half as reliable as they used to be.

As for my computer -- yes, I know all too well the parts weren't made in the USA; I know from all the times I've had hard drives fail, internal components overheat, etc.

You haven't convinced me that American manufacturing in general is inefficient. In reality, our people haven't even had a chance to show how well we could make TVs and micro-chips, etc. But we're constantly told from the neo-liberal side how badly we make things. (Somebody please pick up Thomas Friedman by the belt loops and kindly boot him out to India.)

[hfojvt]

14. I negatively reviewed an excerpt

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/5

Maybe the book is more about encouraging us all to work together on various problems, rather than promoting 'his' solutions, trying to bring various sides together. Maybe he's a uniter, not a divider. But I would like to see if he brings fact-based analysis to taxes, deficits, and the social security issue.

[crispini]

17. Hum. Very interesting.

Well, I haven't read it, so I don't feel like have much to discuss with you, but I think I will go and put it on my list of books to buy and/or read just because of what you say! I, like you, am inclined to like him (as are many others I know) and I would like to get the "skinny." :)

[rebel with a cause]

18. I'm sorry

I haven't been on this site very long either, but I do have more than 18 posts. I can't help but suspect that you are here for one reason and one reason alone. And that is to get DUers to turn against Obamma and/or get them to speak out against him. The man has not even announced his candidacy and yet you and others cannot wait until then to attack him. What is the big rush. You have a year yet to go before the primaries even begin. Why is there this fear of him, this urgency to point out any flaw you might see in him. I would suspect it is because he is the one being used to speak out against the "surge" escalation and there is a need to discredit him in any way you can.

I am not saying he is perfect, there "ain't no such thing", but it seems that is what some of you expect out of him. There is not one politician out there that I think is perfect for the job of president. There is not one of them that would, in my opinion, always do or say the right thing. I have walked away from threads praising certain candidates that I don't want for a presidential candidate, because it is STILL ONE YEAR BEFORE THE PRIMARIES. I also don't want to give any freeper the joy of seeing descent among us over this, or the opportunity to take what they read to use against us later. People be smart this time around. I know the internet is still new, but it is not private enough to say everything you may thing freely when it might hurt your cause and help those you oppose. You can have free speech without allowing your words to come too freely. I learned this in 2004 when everything said on the blogs about Kerry ended up as republican talking points.

[Lord Byron]

19. Why let freepers affect our discussion?

They can think what they want. If DU doesn't want freepers reading, then DU can make it a closed forum so that only members can read.
I'm not registered to trash Obama. I wrote this review so I can start a discussion. The primaries are an important part of the Democratic process and no one is harmed from good healthy debate like what I am conducting here.

Thank you.

[rebel with a cause]

27. Sir, this is all a matter of opiniion -

yours. Since Obama has not yet announced his intentions to run, then I would suggest if your purpose was the primaries your focus should be upon one of those who have announced their candidancy. After/if Obama announces his candidancy, then this discussion/debate/attack might be more appropriate.

Thank you.

And bless your heart, you have a nice day.

[Selatius]

24. He is critiquing his book. Is he not free to do that?

He is making a personal judgment based on what Obama gave him. Obama published this book, so I think writing critiques is fair game, regardless of the person's bias.

[rebel with a cause]

31. Oh, I'm sorry.

Is that what he is doing? Taking "They want affirmation too." out of context and using this as a personal insult is not part of real critique. Obama was not offering his personal affirmation, and that is how the writer addresses it.

Also I suspect that Lord Byron, by his chosen name, is probably an immigrant with a fair skin tone. If I am wrong, then I apologize, but if I am right he would have a much different experience than an immigrant with a darker skin tone. Taking a few phrases that offend one and offering them as a book critique, does not make a book critique.

Keeping it all gentile. Thank you.

[Lord Byron]

34. I'm actually half-Algerian

Thanks for assuming things though.

[rebel with a cause]

46. If you remember,

I stated that I could be wrong. So although I "stated" that I "assumed" that you were fair, I also "assumed" that I could be wrong. I would like for you to exibit the same assumtion. (that you might be wrong) It still stands that your experience as an immigrant is not that of every immigrant and where you feel you do not need affirmation, others might do so.

[Lord Byron]

47. Fair enough

I have to admit, I took it as an opportunity to throw it back in your face. I shouldn't have. I apologize.

[Morgana LaFey]

52. Actually, it's a fine book review

You perhaps would benefit from a general but wide-ranging review of the genre -- they (book reviews) come in all size, shapes, varieties, tones, biases (or lack thereof), etc.

And btw, I understood his comments about Obama's remark very well. Why are you having problems with it?

[noiretextatique]

28. i am neither for or against obama

and this thread did little to change my mind. it's ridiculous to suggest that someone who has legitimate concerns about obama is "out to get him" or out to change your mind or mine about him. one would have to be a complete idiot to allow a thread a DU to influence her opinion to extent you claim this thread does. a complete idiot.

[rebel with a cause]

33. I agree that to be influenced by this one would have to be an idiot.

And I am not suggesting that one would be influenced by it, only that might be his purpose. I do however think that many times people have been influenced to speak out, give their opinion on a candidate which can then be taken and used elsewhere. I saw this happen time and time again in 2004 against Kerry. I'm sorry that I have seemingly offended you, but I do question the legitimacy of his concerns. If that makes me an idiot in your eyes, then so be it, it will not be the first time someone has called me that. Like in 2000, when I warned that bush was dangerous, 2001 when I warned about the coming wars, in 2004 when I forecasted bush "winning" again. I will say no more, but my doubts do still exist.

Thank you.

[earthlover]

22. iraq is foreign policy

"Obama refuses to take a stand on foreign policy, the environment, education, health care, and of course the ever-divisive "culture war" issues. What is wrong with this man?"

Not having read the book....but Obama has made a stand a long time ago on Iraq. Pardon me, but doesn't that qualify as foreign policy?

Obama has taken an stand on IRaq...so what is the stand of Hillary, Kerry, Edwards or the other IWR supporters? That they were for it before they were against it? That it doesn't matter if people die as long as they protect their political hides and don't take a stand that would perhaps be unpopular?

As to the culture war issues, I think part of Obama's appeal is that he does NOT get tied up into the culture war, but if what he said at the convention is any hint, he would want to transcend it, to unite AMericans. Sometimes you don't unite by taking sides, you don't make peace by joining in a fight.

Obama is not my first choice of the possible candidates. So don't count me as a groupie.

I find your criticism as generalized as you purport Obama to be. Sorry.

[Lord Byron]

38. He took a stand against the invasion of Iraq. Where does he stand now? N/T

[sandnsea]

23. Thank you

I tend to like Obama and I was really impressed with him after Bush's speech. I want someone to get this country past this Limbaugh school yard bully politics and into a more respectful environment. But I don't want that done by conceding traditional Democratic values. I hope that isn't what Obama is saying. We need to show respect, and use our respectfulness as the basis to demand respect in return. Until that happens, compromise is really just concession. I hope Obama sees the difference.

[ShaneGR]

26. I don't like the comparison of Clinton's economic policy to Bush's

Calling it GOP-lite doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First off, the tax rates were completely different. Second off, Clinton's policy of creating economic empowerment zones created real urban growth in cities across america. Third off, he spent LESS than he had. Not more. And he put MORE money into programs like real welfare reform (put people to work) instead of bombs and guns. I mean, I'm no economic guru, but the economy is bigger than just NAFTA. I know I made a hell of a lot more money during the Clinton era.

[Lord Byron]

41. Never called it GOP-lite

Clinton could have followed a more progressive economic agenda.

[Morgana LaFey]

56. There are plenty of people here at DU who would entirely

agree with the Lord Byron's criticism of Clinton's economic policies -- in general. I, for one.

[Zavulon]

29. I read it and walked away mostly unimpressed as well.

I just expected more, that's all, but I'm pretty sure all of my objections have been covered in this thread.

He just doesn't have "the sound," I guess.

[donkeyotay]

30. Oh my, not THE Lord Byron? Is it you?

To quote Dylan, "Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm still open-minded on Obama, but a little skeptical, and I probably won't get around to reading his book. This next president is going to count a ton, though, and I will definitely be looking for the candidate most likely to give the people something more than a little kissin and huggin to go along with the youknow what.

Thanks.

[JNelson6563]

39. Sounds like he worked with Milquetoast MaryBeth

Cahill on this book. ;-)

[Lord Byron]

48. Is she not liked on here?

eom

[LSK]

53. a very good post, I fail to see what the big deal is about Obama

I have seen him speak live twice and have shook his hand. I am not sure what he stands for. I am not sure what he has done in the Senate. I do not see him out in front on any issues and I do not see him as a leader such as Feingold or Kerry or Conyers.

To me he is just another solid Democrat out there, but nothing stands out to me.

[cascadiance]

54. You've nailed my concerns exactly!

I do like Obama's style and his speech before the convention, which is I think perhaps a necessary element for 2008. But in the area of having a substantive view on how we should fix our system to correct the corporate influence, he and the atmosphere around him leave me with a lot of red flags, that you've confirmed with your review of his book, which I've not read just yet!

Ever since seeing various critiques of his voting record over the last couple of years, and in areas like the approval of Alito, Obama doesn't strike me as a leader like Russell Feingold or Dennis Kucinich have been to really speak from the heart on matters that affect all Americans from a grass roots rather than a corporate perspective.

When he's being "pushed" on us by a huge amount of hype right now, that adds to my concern. It's almost like the DLC wants to control completely the field of candidates that have any realistic hope of winning in 2008 with their constant efforts to hype their own (Hillary, Vilsack, Biden, and perhaps now Obama) and marginalize or discourage everyone else from running (Feingold, Gore, etc.)

I'm still hoping for Gore, because I think he can have the charisma that can win and more importantly this time around I think he has the passionate views with substance that America needs.

I'm not writing off Obama just yet. He might turn out like Al Gore did, where I wasn't impressed with his "not Clinton" campaign in 2000 that for a while tried to coddle to the DLC, etc. but who has since turned more to the grass roots and has become a lot more genuine person and someone worthy of our respect. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I think Obama might also be able to make that transition too, but I've seen no evidence to indicate he's done that or will do so any time soon. He feels like a "stealth" candidate from the DLC who's becoming increasingly aware that more and more of the Democratic base are "increasingly aware" of their agenda, and many of the candidates that are better known that are being more "exposed" than Obama is in their greater emphasis on supporting corporate backers than their constituents. I increasingly wonder if Obama is becoming more and more a cornerstone of their strategy for 2008 rather than Hillary had been.

The 2008 election is SO crucial, we cannot afford to have anyone that has a corporate smell to them! For me to support Obama, I want him at some point to come out and take some serious stances in support of public campaign financing and other stances that might otherwise offend his corporate backers. I cannot just accept style over substance, much as his style might be appealing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. The Impression I Have Is That There Is None That Could Rise Above Your Idealism.

After reading your OP, I can't help but think that you have this idealistic perfect candidate in mind that you'd like to see, but let me point out that such a politician does not exist in reality.

I couldn't even begin to think of who would be worthy in your microscope, nor did you mention who might be.

So I'd ask that you indulge me. Who do you actually support then?

[Lord Byron]

59. Not at all!

It's quite the opposite. I just like politicians who take a stand on the issues. I don't like star politics. I don't vote on the basis of looks or popularity or media hype.

I like politicians like Byron Dorgan, Jim Webb, Russ Feingold. You know where they stand. As far as the Presidential election goes, I don't think Kucinich is very charismatic, but I like what he stands for. I look at what he advocates, what his record is, and I'm impressed. Two months ago I would have never considered voting for Kucinich, but after researching the candidates, his agenda makes sense to me and he doesn't talk bullshit.

[mdmc]

58. white house drug o choice

cocaine.

I got that book too.

[bvar22]

60. Thanks for the review, LB

Your impression of his book closely mirrors my opinion of Obama since his speech the Democratic Convention.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Lord Byron]

61. You're welcome bvar, glad to see I'm not alone

Despite some harsh feedback on this thread.

[sendero]

63. I can't even get past the title..

... there is nothing audacious about hope, nor is hope any substitute for action.

Or, as the other book title says "Hope is Not a Strategy"

[Lord Byron]

64. HAHAHAHA I agree! Horribly stupid title

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. He's been hyped beyond his actual current capability

I think the establishment press saw him give a good speech at the Dem convention and thought, "Oh, young, gifted, and black!" And they started hyping this first-term senator as possible presidential material.

When it comes to the primaries, I won't vote for anyone who hasn't thought long and hard about the issues facing this country and come up with some workable solutions for them. I just don't see any indication of that in Obama, although he may mature politically a cycle or two from now.

[eridani]

73. The Clinton comparison is very apt

Obama = Clinton with a good suntan, for better and for worse. Both are far better than any Republican, but well short of what we really need right now.

[Lord Byron]

76. Yes, better than these Republicans. You got that right

But I'm of the opinion that we can better. Or we can wait for Obama to deliver the goods and stop sitting on that fence of his.

[BurtWorm]

77. The title is a clue that there isn't much subtance inside.

To hope is not audacious. It's easy as pie.

[Mandate My Ass]

78. "Obamoptimism"...that's a good one

I also fell hard for him during the '04 convention; he had a fire in his belly. He has been a disappointment ever since and I'm not surprised that his book reads the way you describe it.

Open on abortion? I guess that means he's open to taking reproductive choice, a basic human right, away from 50% of Americans. :eyes:

[Lord Byron]

81. He chills with Rick Warren

The author of "Purpose Driven Life" which to me is religion dumbed down. Pretty embarrassing no?

[Mandate My Ass]

82. Hoo boy. That's for sure

Welcome to DU, btw. Your review was very well written and I'll enjoy reading more of your posts. :hi:

[Lord Byron]

83. Thanks for the welcome Mandate! n/t

[cui bono]

86. Wow. I missed that abortion line when I read the OP. Yikes!

[Lord Byron]

84. kick

[Hoping4Change]

85. Excellent read. Thanks for posting your thoughts on Obama.

Wecome to DU.:hi: