What about the "change we can believe in"?
Pretty sure we've always been at war with Eastasia.
There were actually many who were disappointed by 2012, and I am not aware of anyone (even Obama) who still discussed or believed that the 2012 campaign was about "changing Washington", as was the 2008 campaign. Even his campaign slogan had changed to reflect this. That election was more a repudiation of Romney than some zealous continuing belief in change.
I mean, really, do you think the sort of person who would desire the type of change that Obama promised in 2008, would then vote for Romney?
>there was absolutely nothing to indicate that Obama is not a regular politician that would promise to change everything and change nothing
Seriously? Everything about the man suggested he was different. From his work as a community organizer, to his own experience and background, to his writings, to the fact that he would be the first African-American president, virtually everything about the man was different from a "regular politician".
Not to mention the striking contrast with W.
If ever there was a time in recent political history for Americans to cast off their well-justified cynicism regarding politicians it was with Barack Obama in 2008.
Really? Because I have trouble finding even a hair's breadth of difference between the two. I'm serious about this: if you eliminate rhetoric and presentation from the equation, and examine only the actions of the two men, I find it very difficult to discern any contrast whatsoever.
And, that advertising is the point here. The parent was arguing that people had no reason to believe that he was different at that time (without the benefit of hindsight). But, based on "rhetoric", "presentation", raw intelligence, proposed policy positions, etc., there certainly seemed to be a striking difference between Bush and Obama.
Exactly. The only thing suggested that he's in any way different is his skin color. Take that away, and he'd be the most regular politician, with nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of others that can artfully read calculated words from a teleprompter. I purposefully did not mention that because I think being of unusual skin color for a president is a personal accomplishment, but I agree that many people voted for him because of that, and this is "our guy" thing. It is sad that this is considered to be qualifying for the "leader of the free world", but that's what we have now. However, it in no way, shape or form - unless you subscribe to a racist notion that skin color determines behavior - suggests that his politics would be in any way different than usual. So the mere fact that you bring this as the indication that suggested his politics would be different is deeply symptomatic.
>>>> From his work as a community organizer
His work as community organizer was largely undistinguished[1]. You see it mentioned a lot as "he was great community organizer" but notice how many times you see it actually reported of what he achieved? I don't say he did nothing - he did some things that were helpful to some people, but nothing in those three years that distinguishes him an any way as being "everything different".
[1] http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225564/what-did-obama...
>>> to his own experience and background,
His youth experience is largely unremarkable, except for the fact that while he did drugs with gusto when he was young, he still continues the insane war on drugs, and has absolutely no problem with doing it. Other than that, completely unremarkable mix of youthful dabbling in marxism and other trendy lefty things, mixed with occasional support from despicable creatures like Ayers.
As for his background, he's a mixed-race Hawaiian who was educated in Indonesia and Hawaii and was presenting himself as Kenyan when it was needed to sell books, but reverting to being American when he decided to go into politics. What's remarkably different about it that suggests his politics would be radically different? Again, except for his race (for whatever reason, mixed-race politicians seem to be statistically rare) I don't see much.
>>> Not to mention the striking contrast with W.
He's a liberal while Bush was a conservative. So of course his politics is different from Bush's. But his politics in no way different from any left liberal's. And all his objections to Bush's expansion of the government on the wake of 9/11 turned to be purely partisan gamesmanship, just as for many other liberals.
I meant "is not a personal accomplishment".
This is a naive and remarkably shallow statement. His skin color has certainly contributed a great deal to his experience and experience informs our politics for all of us. Listen to his comments on the Zimmeman verdict. When people (of all races) felt he was "their guy" it is in part because of a certain "underdog" association we assign to minorities in a majority culture. And it is reasonable to expect a certain sensitivity from a person whose culture has experienced its share of struggle.
His work as a community organizer was more an indication of his character and concern for those who were struggling. It wasn't about his performance. It was about his heart. And, remember, in 2008 many people were struggling. They felt he related to them.
You stated that his background/experiene is unremarkable, then went on to list many of the reasons it actually is remarkable. I mean, you literally remarked on it. So, apparently we agree.
>And all his objections to Bush's expansion of the government on the wake of 9/11 turned to be purely partisan gamesmanship
That's hindsight. Your original point was that people had no reason to believe he was different back then.
His comments on Zimmerman affair in general and the verdict in particular were a transparent effort to earn political scores on the tragedy by fomenting the racial animosity and injecting and supporting suspicions of racism in place where there were absolutely no evidence of it. This, however, is not a function of Obama's skin color - as such reprehensible behavior is unfortunately common among politicians of certain sort, of varied skin colors and other physical traits, but united in their persuasion that no good crisis should go to waste and no tragedy should go unharvested to promote a political agenda.
I see absolutely no evidence that Obama had been ever a victim of racial discrimination - even though he famously implied that his own grandmother was a racist as a "typical white person" is, I remember no evidence of him actually being victim of any racial discrimination that informed or influenced his politics.
So I see no evidence that his skin color suggested his politics would be transformatively different - or any different at all.
>>> His work as a community organizer was more an indication of his character and concern for those who were struggling.
It's indication that we wanted to be a politician and needed a launching pad. Since he was late for the great civil rights movement, he had to find something else to get him started, and Chicago CCRC needed someone who was black to lead projects in black communities, so Obama was a perfect match. But as soon as he could move on, he moved on.
>>> It wasn't about his performance. It was about his heart.
No it was not. It was about making himself into a political figure, at which he succeeded. As for his heart, I do not know his private life and how he is when he is among his family - it may be that he is a very warm, open-hearted, charming and overall nicest person around. But one can be sure that when he's on the political stage "heart" has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and any time he talks about any emotional matters - it is a calculated attempt to manipulate audience into agreeing with him. It is what politicians do. It is for what their speechwriters get big bucks paid. He may be one thing or another, but he is certainly not example of open-hearted sincerity. One can see it plainly, but if you can not - look up what people that knew him early but have no reason to cover for him tell about him. He's a politician, and that says it all.
>>>> then went on to list many of the reasons it actually is remarkable. I mean, you literally remarked on it.
Come on. Describing somebody's experience does not make it remarkable - everybody has a biography. Remarkable biography should have achievements that raise one over the others.
>>>> Your original point was that people had no reason to believe he was different back then.
Because to anybody that is not blinded by the "first African American president" thing it was quite clear that he has neither abilities nor qualities nor desire to bring any change beyond saying the words that need to be said to manipulate gullible people into believing him. He was never a transformational leader he was presented to be and absolutely nothing in his career or history pointed to him as a transformational leader. So no wonder he didn't become one.
Every piece of information that I give you to that effect is turned into a rant about how Obama is a racist, opportunist, etc. OK, we get it. You don't like Obama.
Beyond that, you are simply backing into your conclusion that he was no differerent. Sure, if you take every piece of anyone's life and look for a cynical explanation, you can find it. I mean, John Kerry's Purple Hearts were turned into badges of shame. And, you see no evidence that Obama has ever been the victim of racial discrimination when he told you he has. You just see what fits your conclusion. But, you haven't been with him every day of his life. Of course, if he did share more of such details, you would accuse him of "fomenting more racism" and of being an "opportunist".
And that was my point in bringing up his Zimmerman comments. He was sharing some of his experience with all of us, with regard to what it is like to be an African-American man. Of course this is a different set of experiences from any other president we have had. That was relevant to the original point. Again, you missed that point and started ranting about why you thought he made those comments.
You say you don't know Obama's heart, yet you are certain that he became a community organizer for fully political purposes and didn't care about the people in the community. You say that every emotional utterance that comes out of the man's mouth is political. He is a sociopathic robot (although he may be "warm" in his personal life). You offer no evidence to support this and, in fact, state yourself that you cannot know the man's heart. Yet, you are so certain that you're right because you and Fox News say so. You bring no evidence. Just conjecture and conclusions.
Look, I cannot know what's in his head or heart, and I certainly have had my own disappointments with this president. But, it is ridiculous to assert that there wasn't anything different about this man or that it was unreasonable for people to have a hope that he was actually different. Again, even in giving his "biography" you magically hit upon everything that makes the man different, but say it is unremarkable. I didn't choose the items you ticked off. You did. And, in doing so, you outlined the same rationale as the "believers". You just drew a different conclusion AND you're aided by hindsight.
Even his opponents fed into the notion with all of this fear mongering about socialism, "taking their country back", etc. They painted him as this "other" of which we should all be afraid. Of course, it backfired as it helped to sell the idea that maybe this man really would be transformational. Hell, they even tried to trot out those same tired lines about socialism, etc. in 2012 when it was clear that he wasn't the bogeyman they made him out to be.
You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that the atmosphere in 2008 was other than what it was. But, I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those who was scared out of your mind of what a difference this man might actually make.
>>> Yet, you are so certain that you're right because you and Fox News say so.
No, because people who knew him say so, e.g.: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/03/harvard-law-classmate-law-... And it's not the only place, just try to find somebody who was around him when he wasn't yet a big politician and ask them, or read accounts of those who did.
Truth be told, I have reverted to my unhealthy political cynicism post-first term Obama. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge the transformational atmosphere of 2008 that virtually anyone in the country would recognize.
I mentioned the Tea Party and Bush for reasons that I thought I had made clear, but you apparently still miss the point. Has nothing to do with blaming them for him not being transformational, but I don't want to keep repeating myself.
Finally, I hope that you realize how ridiculous it is that you are pointing to some ex-classmate or ex-colleague gossip on The Daily Caller. That is very "Fox News Viewer" of you. This is why Swift-boating works. Just drudge up some old people that knew the target in a past life but don't agree with his politics, and let them spout off what detractors want to hear. Then, canonize that into the truth and its attendant panoply of talking points.
Of course we can dig up plenty of people who say the exact opposite. This is not evidence of anything. What did he do or not do that supports the conclusions you have drawn about him? You are suggesting that people were foolish to believe he was different because there's no evidence that he would be. Yet, you offer no evidence that he would not be. It's just these declarations that he is not who he says because you, Fox News, and (now) some guys/gals he knew years ago say so.
They were so made afraid about the difference he would make that they formed a party to "take their country back". And, they continued to believe in wild conspiracy theories, even in the face of plain facts to the contrary. This wasn't some small fringe, but a fairly broad swath of the opposition, fueled by fear-mongering politicians on the right.
Maybe you should look into that.
He's still trying to undermine both gun ownership and self-defense rights. He is now vocally opposing Stand Your Ground - the principle he himself supported and helped strengthening while in the state senate by sponsoring a law: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-stre...
He is still advocating severely limiting and restricting access to guns. It's not his fault that it is politically impractical right now. He is trying as hard as he can.
>>> raised taxes when he actually lowered them, etc.
He did raise taxes. It took him a while but you can't say he did not - it's just not true. What is true he didn't raise taxes for everybody - but he did raise taxes for some. And he's and his party still are advocating even more tax raises. Again, the fact that it yet didn't happened is not his fault - he did all he could to raise taxes even more, but he is not a dictator, so the Congress did not allow him to go further.
>>> And, they continued to believe in wild conspiracy theories, even in the face of plain facts to the contrary
Now you are equating people who oppose Obama due to disagreement with his politics (a tiny bit less than a half of a country) with a tiny minority that believes in conspiracy theories. Do you really think it will go unnoticed? When you attempt sleight of hand, it should not be this obvious.
Stand Your Ground is a horrible law that's ripe for abuse. That's become more evident since his days in the State Senate. Likewise, there wasn't a "shooting spree of the month" at the time. Things have changed, and I would want someone who can reassess and change his position when conditions require. Still, the main point is that conservatives believed in change as much as progressives. It is just the flip side of the same coin: progressives welcomed the change to gun laws and conservatives were rabidly opposed to it. That's the case with much of this discussion.
Regarding taxes, the point is that many on the right (especially Tea-partiers) believed their taxes were higher even when he had actually lowered them across the board. They literally named themselves after a tax revolt because they were so angry that he was raising taxes when in truth he'd lowered them.
How cartoonish is that? But, that was the extent to which they, also, believed in "change". Even facts couldn't sway them from their doggedly held beliefs that he was a socialist who was taxing them to give money to poor people.
Finally, it is far from a "tiny minority" who believed that he was a socialist, outright communist, muslim (as if that were inherently evil), non-U.S. born, etc.
For instance a 2011 CBS poll showed that 45% of Republicans believed he was born in another country.
These conspiracy theories and right wing attacks to paint him as "other" were clearly successful and they contributed greatly to the sense that this man was, indeed, different. For a progressive who was on the fence about whether he was different, the rabid fear and irrational reaction of the right served as evidence that maybe this man was legitimately about change if he so irked the right.
That you act as if none of this happened is incredible. Funny that you mentioned "sleight of hand".
Radicalization of the right wing basically made republicans unelectable, and on top of that pushed mainstream democrats severely right when they try to grab centrist republican votes. System is not working as intended, politicians are fine, people loose. On other hand in two-party state over time both parties degrade beyond point of distinction fighting for 1% of centrist votes anyway.