The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The politics of hope > Comments

The politics of hope : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 29/2/2008

Obama’s meteoric rise can be traced to two themes - hope and bipartisanship: can a little Obama magic rub off on Australia’s politicians?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
So Obama is like Kennedy, the man who sent troops to Vietnam, invaded Cuba and nearly triggered WW3? Kennedy only had good PR. The American administration has a 100-year history of external aggression and it won't stop with Obama. If Obama gives the USA a properly functioning public health system, ends the trade embargo against Cuba, and talks sensibly to aspirants such as Chavez who are improving literacy and diminishing poverty in the own countries, then he will be a great achiever- for an American president. Otherwise, who cares? the more that it changes, the more it remains the same.
Posted by HenryVIII, Friday, 29 February 2008 9:52:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How cynical Henry, I heard Obama's maiden speech and have been following his career since that day and he is a breath of fresh air.

The man has fought his own parties political dogma to rise above the clinton kind of elistism and the Republican terrorist under the bed to a style that has given the American people some hope for the future.

As for Cuba like the Golan Heights no General in any army would give up such a base of operations that could act as a springboard to offer security to its people.
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 29 February 2008 10:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does Cuba offer security to the USA-a springboard to what? Invading Venuzela and Nicaragua? Should Oz take over PNG and west Irian for our security?If Obama lives up to what you claim is his maiden speech and actually changes the course of American history, and among other things allows countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua freedom to develop in their own way he will indeed be a great man. But. Sorry, I have been around a long time. I would be pleased to be wrong.
Posted by HenryVIII, Friday, 29 February 2008 3:45:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear Henry, the author said,"Obama’s ability to use powerful rhetoric to inspire others has drawn comparisons with John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Abraham Lincoln." Obama is utterly inspiring and simply by being a serious candidate for the U.S. Presidency, he has already changed America. Think in terms of one of your aborigines being considered as the leading candidate to be your next Prime Minister and you will get the significance of a black man being President of the U.S.

I have no quarrel with your statement of America's history of aggression. I wish that it were not true but it is a part of our history. It is a stretch, however, to suggest that Kennedy started the Vietnam War. You are correct in stating that he sent troops to Vietnam but years before he took office, American military "advisors" were in Vietnam and Kennedy increased the the number. Did Kennedy invade Cuba? The answer here is no. He was guilty, however, in supporting and arming some Cuban exiles in the ill-fated "Bay of Pigs" invasion of the country. The plan for the exile invasion was in place when Kennedy took office. Upom receiving poor advice and a lack of his understanding of the Cuban people on the island, he followed through with the plan.

You mentioned that Kennedy almost started WW3. Perhaps that is true but it's entirely possible that his actions actually prevented WW3. You were referring to a period of the "cold war" and at the time, the Russians were starting to build a missile base in Cuba. We could not tolerate missiles a few miles from our shores so to do nothing was not an option. Available options would be to attempt to destroy the bases by bombing or to blockade Cuba. Kennedy chose the latter and the missile sites were disassembled.

You set up some difficult "targets" for Obama to achieve. Obama gives us hope that these things are obtainable. He is one who believes in cooperation and seeing both sides of problems. Simply stated, he is special.
Posted by Joe in the U.S., Friday, 29 February 2008 7:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe in the US. Forgive my cynicism, it is due to seeing too many political boasters in too many countries for too long promising the earth and failing to deliver. Even Hitler had magnificent rhetoric.

Re VN, Cuba etc. The hero of Cuba was the Russian submarine commander who refused an order to fire on American warships, and also Kruschev, who realised he was dealing with a couple of damn fools in the most dangerous and heavily armed nation on earth and backed off, thus wrecking his political career in a nasty and dangerous place in which to wreck one's career. Kennedy introduced US troops to VN; he began the invasion, albeit USA advisers had been active since the Geneva settlement of 1954 in causing trouble and initiating sabotage in VN. He approved the failed invasion of Cuba. At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the US had just placed nuclear missiles, the Jupiter missile, along the Russian boder with Turkey and was regularly flying nuclear-armed SAC B52s up to the USSR's borders before turning them round. You can't blame Kruschev; he was merely doing the same thing to the USA as the USA had been doing to the USSR for some time. I see no side as perfect, just merely human, but it is the USA that promises peace on earth and goodwill to all men and then disappoints, often violently.

Kennedy was not a political innocent. He came from a strongly political and politically experienced and powerful family. His assassination made him a hero. He had good PR.

I hope, sincerely, that whoever the USA electorate throws up as President he or she will be an improvement on the post-Carter years, and indeed an improvement on the pre-Carter years. But the pudding has turned sour too often for me to believe this one will stay fresh. Good luck, and I look forward to being proved wrong by future events.
Posted by HenryVIII, Saturday, 1 March 2008 12:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is enough for us to worry about in Australia with our politician's. Nobody but Americans should care who their President is. The relationship between our two countries will continue as it always has, and so it should.

Much of this 'aggression' people talk about has kept the world safe from lunatics who hate the West. Let's say we keep our nose out of their politics, and be thankful that America is our ally. No other country is worth anything to us when it comes to our defence.
Posted by Mr. Right, Saturday, 1 March 2008 3:38:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do we really know why the US invaded Iraq? We know there were no WMDs. We know the US isn't really concerned about Saddam's human rights record given that they allowed him to stay after Kuwait and have ignored worse contraventions of human rights. So what was the reason? Was it to control the flow of oil or was it in the interests of big business who profit by war? Maybe one day when all the documents are released we will know.

I cannot see how this war is protecting us from lunatics when the war itself has made the West more of a target. Leading defence personnel and even Mick Keelty have made such observations only to be castigated by our former Prime Minister.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 1 March 2008 5:06:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I must agree with Mr Right. Nicaragua was a deadly threat to the West, as a new socialist (dare I say the word?) government was spreading literacy and health care to the poor of Nicaragua, and working on alleviating poverty. That fully justifies the US Contra terror campaign there, which left 80 000 dead. And Granada! My, what a vicious threat that posed-had Grenada been let loose across Europe, who knows where we may be now? The Dominican Republic was also an extremely dangerous place that had to be kept under control. Fancy, a democratic government taking over in 1954! Thank God for the Marines, who went in to restore fascist dictatorship. Where would we be now if they hadn't? Oh, yes-Cuba. Why, we could all have had to be eating cheap socialist sugar by now if the US hadn't placed a world-wide trade embargo across the place in 1957. And there is definite evidence that Vietnam, allied of course to Mossad and OBL, was planning to invade New Zealand back in 1956. Thank God we were able to drop 2.25 million tons of bombs on them, and a lot more on Laos and Cambodia, just to make sure they didn't.

Wow! When one thinks of it, how the West has been saved! Thank you, super-hero.
Posted by HenryVIII, Sunday, 2 March 2008 12:23:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Obama "meteoric rise" is fuelled by the fizzling power of populism, and its "hopes" and "bipartisanship", like all false things, are bound to be dashed. In the dangerous times of our era we don't need the "magic rubb" of populist politicians, like Obama and our own Kevin Rudd, who are trying to seduce the electorate with their flamboyant but vacuous rhetoric, but the imaginary rubb of statesmen of Churchillian mettle, resolution, and sagacity.

http://kotzabasis1.wordpress.com
Posted by Themistocles, Sunday, 2 March 2008 12:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican, as Aussies might say, you are "spot on". I can see no reason for the blind, determined invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration except its hopes of controlling oil in the Middle East. We have gotten off subject here, however. We were "praising" (or otherwise discussing) Barack Obama. In the original article, the author stated, "What is striking about Obama is that he goes out of his way to see the reasonableness in the other side’s positions." We have gotten away from evaluating the importance of this aspect of leading a nation.
Posted by Joe in the U.S., Sunday, 2 March 2008 4:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obama is a fake and a puppet. In some State primaries, up to 30% of his vote is Republican on a "Two-For-One" Deal. They boast about it on Republican sites, vote for Obama in the Dem primary (to get rid of *her*), then vote Repub in November to get rid of *him*. His very, very few deeds have proven him Republican-Lite and funded by powerful multinationals. They may prefer GOP, but they aren't going to lose sleep with 2nd-best if it happens.

Credit where credit is due. The USA wins the Gold Medal hands-down for manufacturing slick propaganda, and Obama is proof of that incredible skill. As for his father's stories, what would he know? His father left the country when he was barely 2 years old! Had no contact with him. He lived in Indonesia with a wealthy oil-baron as a step-father until he was nearly 10, when he was sent back to Hawaii to live with his white grandparents.
Posted by Rain, Sunday, 2 March 2008 4:51:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Holy cow this is a discussion of the blinkered by the blinkered. I've been away sailing for a week yet even I heard the latest poll results in the US. Against either Clinton or Obama the polls indicate MaCain wins hands down.

Disregard the polls or argue against them ... well ok but they were remarkably accurate in Australia recently.
Posted by keith, Sunday, 2 March 2008 5:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Obama represents hope. The rotting carcass of US capitalism is ripe for change.

Unfortunately you can't change a rotting carcass.

Real change would mean challenging the fundamentals on which US society is built. They are a low wage economy (and all that goes with that such as inadequate health and education spending by Government), repression of unions (both overt and covert), and the right to use military power anywhere in th world to cement or further US interests (and ever increasing military spending at the expense of the health and education of working Americans).

Obama, as far as I know, does not appear to be challenging any of these fundamentals.
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 2 March 2008 5:32:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy, you are right, he is not challenging those fundamentals.

Indeed, he is supported by them, more so than Clinton which are bad enough. Do a google on Obama and NAFTA and Canada. Check out the credentials and backgrounds on the names of his top advisors, especially on economic matters - all well known hard core right-wing neo-con free-trade fanatics. Check out his big sponsors. His health plan for example? 100% Corporate welfare. His wife works for one of them. Check out his history of "bipartisan" politics while in Illinois, and how many opponents he bribed or smashed with scandals to get elected unopposed. His war record? He is on public domain newspaper record in 2004 as saying his position was exactly the same as Bush. He voted for every funding bill, just like every other Democrat. He waited 18 mths before making a Senate speech on the war, and then argued against withdrawing too early. He adores Reagan in his books and in earlier magazine interviews. Check it all out, all can be verified.

He is being painted as some small-l liberal, moderate left-winger centrist, the "hope" and "change" candidate, by an exceptionally talented media. Americans will be fooled, or "inspired", as they always are by their own Hollywood propaganda. But nobody even *questions* the man. Its hilariously funny to watch :)
Its straight out of the movie, "Life of Brian", complete with crowds of 14,000 people applauding, cheering and fainting when he sneezes
Posted by Rain, Sunday, 2 March 2008 6:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Joe, I went off on another tangent. :)

I am not sure that the US is ready for an Obama (even if it is only the illusion of an Obama). Are we sure that the US is ready for a Hilary irrregardless that she might fit more the usual political mold.

The politics of hope would include major shifts in traditional Conservative thinking particularly in contesting the entrenched economic establishment and dispelling those notions of 'growth'. To face the challenges ahead - climate change, peak oil, alternative energy investment, issues posed by globalisation,ever increasing inter-cultural and religious tensions and notions of what constitutes a real democracy - is going to take some courage, vision, political fortitude and the ability to sell these ideas to a nervous electorate.

The 'magic' woven during an election, when all is said and done, is the work of PR and spin doctors so it can be difficult to see the substance from the rhetoric. Counting the number of times a politician might use the words hope or bipartisanship is meaningless unless they actually do mean it and can follow it up with action.

The number of times Rudd used the terms working familes and conservative economics already reflects a position that does not invite much hope for any real change. The only hope is that it is early days for the new government here in Oz and there have been a few positive rumblings but we will have to wait and see...
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 2 March 2008 9:48:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican, progress under Obama or any American President will not be easy. Obama, in my opinion, offers hope. Will he accomplish all that he promises? No. Will Hillary accomplish what she is harping about? No way. And McCain - will he deliver what he promises? He would if elected. Why? He promises nothing but more of the same and for that reason, he has the chance of being elected as a snowball surviving in hell.
Posted by Joe in the U.S., Monday, 3 March 2008 11:18:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy